Alaska Air Now Eyes Boeing Field, Too

Status
Not open for further replies.

WNrforlife

Senior
Apr 17, 2003
444
3
www.usaviation.com
Oh boy, now Alaska Airlines says "Me Too"!! This is getting ridiculous - all we want to do is run our own airport at BFI without any other competion, and everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. What a joke!!!

Alaska Air now eyes Boeing Field, too

By JENNIFER LANGSTON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Alaska Air Group on Monday countered Southwest Airlines' proposed move to Boeing Field with a request to build a separate, $150 million terminal, five-story parking garage and fuel farm at the county-owned airport.

Alaska officials made it clear that they still believe opening the door to large-scale passenger service at Boeing Field is a bad idea. But the Seattle-based company intends to seek to match however many flights its competitors are allowed there.

Under the proposal, Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air would begin service with 68 daily flights at Boeing Field, potentially expanding to 100. With Southwest's proposal, that exceeds the 130 additional flights the county believes the airport can handle.

County officials said it's clear that Alaska prefers not to leave Sea-Tac Airport, but they intend to take the offer seriously. It's unclear how the county would accommodate two airlines seeking to build terminals in roughly the same spot.

"We're going to talk to both companies -- we're going to see what's real and what's not," said Kurt Triplett, chief of staff for County Executive Ron Sims. "Until someone requires someone to put a dollar down, the cynic in me says Alaska will keep this game going as long as possible."

Southwest Airlines proposed in June to build its own $130 million terminal, parking garage and rental-car facilities at Boeing Field. It has complained that high costs at Sea-Tac are inhibiting the company's growth and ability to provide low fares.

Alaska Air Group joined the long list of business interests and neighborhood groups condemning the idea, saying it would penalize competitors and jeopardize long-term investments at Sea-Tac. But the company also said it would have to match Southwest's service at the closer-in airport.

While Southwest's proposal entails clearing out of Sea-Tac, the Alaska plan calls for moving only a portion of its service to Boeing Field. Alaska and Horizon currently offer about 280 daily departures out of Sea-Tac.

Last week, American Airlines said it also would consider shifting all of its 21 Sea-Tac flights to Boeing Field if other companies move, but acknowledged that it couldn't afford to build its own facilities.



Alaska officials called their $150 million price tag a "rough estimate" for the eight-gate, 170,000-square-foot terminal, parking garage and fuel-storage facilities it would build on Boeing Field's east side. That would accommodate an initial 4,550 passengers a day.

As King County studies potential noise, traffic and economic impacts from expanded commercial service at Boeing Field, it's important that officials understand the magnitude of the changes, said Joe Sprague, Alaska's vice president for public and government affairs.

Sims' office hopes to finish those preliminary studies, gather public input and make a recommendation to the King County Council by the end of the year.

"We felt it was important ... that they include a full scope of what airline operations would look like at Boeing Field," Sprague said. "Just studying the Southwest proposal alone in a vacuum would give them a very flawed picture."

Verna Griffin, a Tukwila resident who lives under the Boeing Field flight path, said she appreciated the fact that Alaska's proposal was nearly apologetic. It didn't try to convince residents that there wouldn't be significant noise impacts.

"They're not candy-coating anything -- it's like, 'Hello, we fly planes, planes make noise,' " she said. "The proposal's more cut-and-dried, but it still doesn't guarantee that it's not going to turn into a three-ring circus."

Sprague said it is too early to tell how many flights would be new routes versus existing flights shifted from Sea-Tac, where officials have worried that an exodus of passengers to Boeing Field could jeopardize the regional airport's stability.

Northwest Airlines issued a statement last week saying that because of agreements it has with Alaska and Horizon, their departure to Boeing Field could harm Northwest's feeder system. Northwest would also have to consider moving to operate alongside its partners, the company said.

"Clearly, the situation has snowballed beyond one airline asking to operate a few flights out of Boeing Field," said Terri-Ann Betancourt, assistant director of public affairs at Sea-Tac.

King County Councilman Dwight Pelz, a critic who plans to hold a public hearing Oct. 12 on the Boeing Field expansion plans, said that if the county allowed Southwest to move, it would have to accommodate other commercial carriers.

"Either that means that Southwest would not get all the space they want, or at that point we'd be into a wholesale eviction of current users," he said.

Triplett said the county would indeed be in uncharted territory, since it's rare for one airline -- much less two -- to offer to build their own terminals.

That's one of the reasons, along with potential economic advantages and benefits to consumers, that Sims felt Southwest's proposal was worthy of consideration, he said.
 
Does any airline in this country have a brain? What a bunch of followers...what would the industry do without SWA??? I mean they wouldn't have a business plan to follow, wouldn't attempt to have a good route structure, and wouldn't even THINK to go airports!!!! If you build it...they will come......LOL
 
Don't sprain your arm patting yourselves on the back. I doubt even SWA would consider that an IOD.

Oh, and don't think of it as Alaska "copying" SWA. It's called competition. If you fly out of Boeing, so will they. And, they point out that they don't particularly want to, but will if they have to.

I realize that SWA wants exclusive use of Boeing, a la Love Field, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen.
 
Some people give WN WAAAAAAAAY to much credit. You guys didn't invent the wheel. Similar parallels have been going on since the beginning of time. Get over yourselves.
 
WNrforlife said:
- all we want to do is run our own airport at BFI without any other competion,

That is the most ridiculous comment I've read in a long time. ;)


Yeah, we all want our airline to have no competiton. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
 
USAir757 said:
Some people give WN WAAAAAAAAY to much credit. You guys didn't invent the wheel. Similar parallels have been going on since the beginning of time. Get over yourselves.
[post="309181"][/post]​
So how many resumes have you put in???
 

Gotta agree with Laura.

What is a "competion" anyway?? :blink:

(Hey WNrforlife, try this LINK). <_<
[post="309316"][/post]​
[/quote]

SWflyer.

Used your link, and couldn't find "Gotta" in there either, (edited with some time off to think about it).
 
Used your link, and couldn't find "Gotta" in there either, (edited with some time off to think about it).


WNrforlife,

Classy, my five year old has more class than you. Grow-up!

SMFAV8R
 
laura62 said:
WNrforlife said:
- all we want to do is run our own airport at BFI without any other competion,

That is the most ridiculous comment I've read in a long time. ;)
Yeah, we all want our airline to have no competiton. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
[post="309253"][/post]​

If there is only one airline at an airport they can rightfully claim to have the lowest fares available. However, by default, they also have the highest fares! Competition is necessary to achieve favorable comparisons.

The underlying reason for SWA's proposal isn't about eliminating competition with other airlines, it's a situation of economics. It is about reducing costs. It doesn't take a math wizard to figure out that an airline that thrives by its ability to offer low fares must have low costs. If SEATAC would revisit it's assessments I'm sure SWA would be happy to stay there. Right now, however, the outrageous costs make even a $130 million expenditure to move more profitable.

I think Alaska/Horizon's "me too" announcement wasn't wisely phrased. If they had countered with a similar argument of "we'll move to reduce our costs" vs. "we'll move to compete with Southwest" I think SeaTac would wake up and figure out a way to get the cost of doing business there lowered for everyone. By focusing only on the competition aspect, however, ALK is implying they support SeaTac's assessments.
 
corl737 said:
I think SeaTac would wake up and figure out a way to get the cost of doing business there lowered for everyone. By focusing only on the competition aspect, however, ALK is implying they support SeaTac's assessments.
[post="309512"][/post]​

And, maybe Alaska and everyone else sees this for what it is...an attempt by SWA to bully SEATAC into setting their fees at what SWA has decided they want to pay. SeaTac's debts be d*mned.

So, as far as AA and Alaska are concerned, it is about competition. Let's wait and see if SWA is as hot to trot to move to Boeing once King County finds out that they can't restrict access to only SWA, and has to open the airport to everyone.

And, we haven't even addressed the infrastructure issue of the two lane road serving Boeing--according to friends of mine who live in Seattle. Is the county going to pay for the construction of a wider road and for the attendant property condemnations?
 
jimntx said:
And, maybe Alaska and everyone else sees this for what it is...an attempt by SWA to bully SEATAC into setting their fees at what SWA has decided they want to pay.  SeaTac's debts be d*mned.
[post="309559"][/post]​

SWA is in the airline business, not the airport business. Let the Port of Seattle decide if it's worth making adjustments to retain SWA as a customer. They decided to make the capital improvements and pay for them by assessing the airlines. Perhaps revisiting the funding methods might be enough to bring SeaTac in line with the rest of the nation's airports.

It's about time the Port of Seattle's decision making process is recognized as being the trigger instigating the entire BFI expansion proposal.

jimntx said:
So, as far as AA and Alaska are concerned, it is about competition.  Let's wait and see if SWA is as hot to trot to move to Boeing once King County finds out that they can't restrict access to only SWA, and has to open the airport to everyone.
[post="309559"][/post]​
You're right, they can't restrict access. They can, however, require equal participation: if SWA builds their own terminal, any other entrant must pay for their own construction, too. Both AA and Alaska have publically said they'd do this, but the majority of analysts believe neither actually has the financial capability to do so.

I suspect that it's highly unlikely that BFI will see the development. (I also never say "never" when SWA's management is involved.) By pressing forward, howeever, the process of requiring everyone to examine the potential might just turn on the light bulb over the Port's head illuminating the plight affecting all the airlines that serve SEA.

It would be reasonable, I think, to assume SWA would be satisified to continue operating out of SEA if the costs were competitive with other options. I'm also sure the other airlines would like to see lower costs, too. Maybe this time, by stirring the pot, SWA can make the airport more affordable for ALL the carriers.

By the way, look at this website to understand Southwest's reasons and proposal for a new BFI facility:
 
corl737 said:
Both AA and Alaska have publically said they'd do this, but the majority of analysts believe neither actually has the financial capability to do so.

Those "analysts" must not read AA's required financial filings. Otherwise they might have caught the mention of the $3.5 BILLION we have in the bank. :lol:
 
jimntx said:
And, we haven't even addressed the infrastructure issue of the two lane road serving Boeing--according to friends of mine who live in Seattle. Is the county going to pay for the construction of a wider road and for the attendant property condemnations?
[post="309559"][/post]​

Marginal Way (the highway [old US99] that abuts the Boeing Field entrance) had at least four lanes the last time I was up there in 1998, and I seriously doubt if any of those lanes have gone away since then...
Also, Boeing Field is actually closer to an interstate highway (I-5) than either Midway (I-55) or Love (I-35E).
Sorry, your friends are wrong.
 
mga707 said:
Marginal Way (the highway [old US99] that abuts the Boeing Field entrance) had at least four lanes the last time I was up there in 1998, and I seriously doubt if any of those lanes have gone away since then...
Also, Boeing Field is actually closer to an interstate highway (I-5) than either Midway (I-55) or Love (I-35E).
Sorry, your friends are wrong.
[post="309666"][/post]​

Well, but being across the railroad tracks from the freeway is the same as being across Puget Sound. You can see the freeway from Boeing Field, but you can't get there. Or, are the SWA supporters expecting the state of Washington to build an exit and an overpass to Boeing Field? Right, it's so that SWA can bring low fares to the poor people of Seattle. Yeah, that's the ticket. SWA has totally altruistic motives--same as in Dallas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.