WNrforlife
Senior
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2003
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 3
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.
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.
