XR650R
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Posts
- 215
Last edited:
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Southwest to King County Int'l Airport (Outside SEA)
- Thread starter XR650R
- Start date
- Watchers 18
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Victor120
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 86
KCIA service by SWA
Not to be a party pooper, but plug in 'KCIA' into your favorite WX search engine and you will find it doesn't exist. King County International Airport is 'Boeing Field' or KBFI. Perhaps the rest of the article is not false. KBFI would be a neat place to see LUV. If it's true, lets hope the local Seattle execs can get the identifier right on all the correct paper work.
-VIC
Not to be a party pooper, but plug in 'KCIA' into your favorite WX search engine and you will find it doesn't exist. King County International Airport is 'Boeing Field' or KBFI. Perhaps the rest of the article is not false. KBFI would be a neat place to see LUV. If it's true, lets hope the local Seattle execs can get the identifier right on all the correct paper work.
-VIC
XR650R
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Posts
- 215
Here's another one hot off the press
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/228568_southwest15.html?dpfrom=th
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/228568_southwest15.html?dpfrom=th
skid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Posts
- 272
Why would they waste the money on having another set of people at BFI? I mean SEATAC is only 7 miles farther south. You would only save a few minutes driving time from downtown to BFI vs SEATAC.
I have heard that someone up north was seeking airline service into Paine Field. However I have not heard any interest from any carriers yet.
I have heard that someone up north was seeking airline service into Paine Field. However I have not heard any interest from any carriers yet.
A few years ago SWA warned SEATAC that if they raised fees that SWA would reduce flights there. Same thing happened in ELP a while ago. Herb warned ELP that if they raised fees that SWA would reduce their flights there. ELP raised the fees and SWA reduced their flying there. ELP learned Herb meant what he said. SEATAC is learning that too. Sends a strong message to other airport authorities and shows SWA means what it says.
TR4A
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Posts
- 437
skid said:
Fees from the 1990's were $4/pax. By 2009 it will be $23/pax.
Story about PAE:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001972155_paine05m.html
§kyye Candy
Remove before flight...
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Posts
- 196
Don't get on the Seattle media for calling Boeing Field KCIA instead of BFI. For example the identifier for Kansas City International is MCI, but the locals (even the media) call it KCI. If SWA went to Boeing Field they wouldn't be running a split operation. They would completely abandon SeaTac and move everything and everyone to Boeing Field. This isn't a recent development we have been hearing rumors of this for the last year.
Last edited:
Spoke to the station manager at SEA approximately 18 months ago and he relayed the following timeline of what had gone on between SWA & SEA-TAC officials.
SEA-TAC, as many airports, developed their long range plans & projected growth with additional fees into a proposal that was presented to the airlines as a "take it or leave it". This is the case at many airports I'm told. Airlines have had very little leverage to tell airports, "hey, we're not going to pay this, reduce your costs". In this case & not for the first time from SWA's standpoint as has been pointed out in earlier posts, SWA refused to sign the agreement to increasing landing fees ($20+ was the figure I remember from a current level of around $6-8...this increase was projected out)...SWA basically said to SEA-TAC go back & find some savings if you even want us to consider paying this....other airlines got on board with us after seeing this work (I was told) but the SEA-TAC folks obviously haven't made the kind of cuts that SWA wishes to have. There was talk then of moving flights to PDX (several flights were cut out of SEA 6-8 months ago as a warning shot I believe) & flying from Boeing. It has now moved to the next level & if I was SEA-TAC I wouldn't want to call SWA's bluff. If landing fees increase that much it will be difficult for SWA to keep low fares...what is really amazing if that these landing fees are truly going to impact Horizon & Alaska as they fly many more flights than us....the airlines are a captive audience but I'm glad that SWA is taking a stand for low fares.
SEA-TAC, as many airports, developed their long range plans & projected growth with additional fees into a proposal that was presented to the airlines as a "take it or leave it". This is the case at many airports I'm told. Airlines have had very little leverage to tell airports, "hey, we're not going to pay this, reduce your costs". In this case & not for the first time from SWA's standpoint as has been pointed out in earlier posts, SWA refused to sign the agreement to increasing landing fees ($20+ was the figure I remember from a current level of around $6-8...this increase was projected out)...SWA basically said to SEA-TAC go back & find some savings if you even want us to consider paying this....other airlines got on board with us after seeing this work (I was told) but the SEA-TAC folks obviously haven't made the kind of cuts that SWA wishes to have. There was talk then of moving flights to PDX (several flights were cut out of SEA 6-8 months ago as a warning shot I believe) & flying from Boeing. It has now moved to the next level & if I was SEA-TAC I wouldn't want to call SWA's bluff. If landing fees increase that much it will be difficult for SWA to keep low fares...what is really amazing if that these landing fees are truly going to impact Horizon & Alaska as they fly many more flights than us....the airlines are a captive audience but I'm glad that SWA is taking a stand for low fares.
NoJoy
LAMA/400
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Posts
- 529
The re-furbished terminal at BFI might support SWA. Right now only Kennmore and Heli-Jet are in this terminal. Ramp space could be an issue though. BFI would be happy to have SWA, just like they are with UPS. This would give the county a good reason to expand BFI-probably into Georgetown, to accomodate more jet traffic. I am all for it.
Yeah, the rumor has been around for quite a while, but now it is on the offical flight ops web site, so it is official. At least the potential for moving. If fees are $23/pax on average, that hurts SWA more than most as our "Average" fare is only about $100 or less nationwide, so that is huge. Others have higher average fares, and so the percentage taken by the airport is lower, although the dollar amount overall might be the same or higher depending on flight and pax counts. And yes, we would pull out of SEA if we move, otherwise all we would be doing is maintaining our same (or slightly less) overhead to support a much smaller number of flights. That ain't in the SWA model. Now how the heck PHL is in the model baffles me, but that is for another thread.
As for what to call Boeing Field, BFI or CIA, the turnoff sign when driving north out of Kansas City to get to MCI says KCI airport. Confusing to us acronym flying folks but nobody else cares.
As for what to call Boeing Field, BFI or CIA, the turnoff sign when driving north out of Kansas City to get to MCI says KCI airport. Confusing to us acronym flying folks but nobody else cares.
Southwest Airlines weighs relocation to Boeing Field
By Tom Boyer and Christina Siderius
Seattle Times business reporters
Low-fare giant Southwest Airlines, upset about the skyrocketing cost of flying out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, is considering moving its Seattle operations to Boeing Field.
Southwest has been quietly talking with county officials for more than a year about flying out of King County International Airport, as Boeing Field is officially known. The discussions reached the point that it was time to inform the County Council and the public of a possible agreement, County Executive Ron Sims said yesterday.
The nation's biggest domestic carrier, Southwest has made an art of keeping its costs low by avoiding premium-priced airports and flying out of second-tier locations, such as Oakland instead of San Francisco and Chicago's older Midway Airport instead of O'Hare.
But yesterday's announcement is sure to cause controversy because of the potential for more noise at Boeing Field and the loss of revenue for Sea-Tac, which recently spent $4 billion to increase its capacity in part to accommodate the growth of airlines such as Southwest.
"It's a terrible idea," County Councilman Dwight Pelz said. "We've got an airport. It's called Sea-Tac."
Southwest, with about 40 landings a day, has the fourth-largest presence at Sea-Tac, behind Alaska Airlines, Alaska subsidiary Horizon Air, and United Airlines.
But Southwest's ties to Seattle are much greater than its flights here. The low-cost airline is arguably Boeing's most important customer. The airline flies 429 Boeing 737s, which are assembled in Renton and usually delivered to customers at Boeing Field. Southwest spawned the low-cost airline industry and encouraged followers to fly 737s.
"We do want to grow and expand in Seattle, and we are looking for ways to do that," Southwest spokeswoman Marilee McInnis said.
The airline is looking at what a move would cost and what facilities would have to be built at Boeing Field, McInnis said.
Southwest and other airlines have made no secret of their unhappiness with rising fees at Sea-Tac, which is run by the Port of Seattle. To pay for the third runway, new terminal and other improvements, the airlines' cost to use the airport has been projected to rise from about $4 a passenger in the mid-1990s to about $23 each in 2009. That, airlines say, makes Sea-Tac one of the most expensive airports in the country.
Airlines will be responsible for about half of the billion dollars it is costing to build the airport's third runway — more than double what they originally anticipated.
But Bob Edwards, president of the Port Commission, said airlines were part of a decision 10 years ago to expand Sea-Tac rather than open another airport or send traffic to other airports.
Were airlines to pull out now, he said, costs for Sea-Tac's remaining passengers would rise, and the overall air transportation system would be less efficient. For example, if federal security personnel had to deploy more resources to Boeing Field, that could mean more bottlenecks for Sea-Tac passengers, he said.
"I don't see where the public wins" if Southwest moves, Edwards said.
Sims said the county was approached by Southwest as well as other airlines as early as 2003, but that Southwest was the only airline that maintained interest in flying out of Boeing Field.
As an airport operator, the county is required by federal law to accommodate airlines if it can, Sims said. But he said he's also interested in the financial health of Boeing Field, which has 3,000 employees and is supported by fees, rent and federal funds.
Sea-Tac has been Puget Sound's primary commercial airport since 1949. Boeing Field, used mostly for small planes and cargo carriers, hasn't had significant commercial traffic since Horizon Air flew there in the 1970s. As a relief airport to Sea-Tac, Boeing Field is sometimes used during the winter to handle commercial flights.
It handles about 900 takeoffs and landings each day, to which Southwest would add about 80. Sims said a full environmental study would have to be done to assess the need for additional facilities and the question of additional noise.
But bigger planes aren't necessarily noisier. The newest 737s flown by Southwest are required to meet strict federal noise standards, and in many cases may be quieter than older corporate jets flown at Boeing Field, a Boeing spokeswoman said yesterday.
Tom Boyer: 206-464-2923 or [email protected]
By Tom Boyer and Christina Siderius
Seattle Times business reporters
Low-fare giant Southwest Airlines, upset about the skyrocketing cost of flying out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, is considering moving its Seattle operations to Boeing Field.
Southwest has been quietly talking with county officials for more than a year about flying out of King County International Airport, as Boeing Field is officially known. The discussions reached the point that it was time to inform the County Council and the public of a possible agreement, County Executive Ron Sims said yesterday.
The nation's biggest domestic carrier, Southwest has made an art of keeping its costs low by avoiding premium-priced airports and flying out of second-tier locations, such as Oakland instead of San Francisco and Chicago's older Midway Airport instead of O'Hare.
But yesterday's announcement is sure to cause controversy because of the potential for more noise at Boeing Field and the loss of revenue for Sea-Tac, which recently spent $4 billion to increase its capacity in part to accommodate the growth of airlines such as Southwest.
"It's a terrible idea," County Councilman Dwight Pelz said. "We've got an airport. It's called Sea-Tac."
Southwest, with about 40 landings a day, has the fourth-largest presence at Sea-Tac, behind Alaska Airlines, Alaska subsidiary Horizon Air, and United Airlines.
But Southwest's ties to Seattle are much greater than its flights here. The low-cost airline is arguably Boeing's most important customer. The airline flies 429 Boeing 737s, which are assembled in Renton and usually delivered to customers at Boeing Field. Southwest spawned the low-cost airline industry and encouraged followers to fly 737s.
"We do want to grow and expand in Seattle, and we are looking for ways to do that," Southwest spokeswoman Marilee McInnis said.
The airline is looking at what a move would cost and what facilities would have to be built at Boeing Field, McInnis said.
Southwest and other airlines have made no secret of their unhappiness with rising fees at Sea-Tac, which is run by the Port of Seattle. To pay for the third runway, new terminal and other improvements, the airlines' cost to use the airport has been projected to rise from about $4 a passenger in the mid-1990s to about $23 each in 2009. That, airlines say, makes Sea-Tac one of the most expensive airports in the country.
Airlines will be responsible for about half of the billion dollars it is costing to build the airport's third runway — more than double what they originally anticipated.
But Bob Edwards, president of the Port Commission, said airlines were part of a decision 10 years ago to expand Sea-Tac rather than open another airport or send traffic to other airports.
Were airlines to pull out now, he said, costs for Sea-Tac's remaining passengers would rise, and the overall air transportation system would be less efficient. For example, if federal security personnel had to deploy more resources to Boeing Field, that could mean more bottlenecks for Sea-Tac passengers, he said.
"I don't see where the public wins" if Southwest moves, Edwards said.
Sims said the county was approached by Southwest as well as other airlines as early as 2003, but that Southwest was the only airline that maintained interest in flying out of Boeing Field.
As an airport operator, the county is required by federal law to accommodate airlines if it can, Sims said. But he said he's also interested in the financial health of Boeing Field, which has 3,000 employees and is supported by fees, rent and federal funds.
Sea-Tac has been Puget Sound's primary commercial airport since 1949. Boeing Field, used mostly for small planes and cargo carriers, hasn't had significant commercial traffic since Horizon Air flew there in the 1970s. As a relief airport to Sea-Tac, Boeing Field is sometimes used during the winter to handle commercial flights.
It handles about 900 takeoffs and landings each day, to which Southwest would add about 80. Sims said a full environmental study would have to be done to assess the need for additional facilities and the question of additional noise.
But bigger planes aren't necessarily noisier. The newest 737s flown by Southwest are required to meet strict federal noise standards, and in many cases may be quieter than older corporate jets flown at Boeing Field, a Boeing spokeswoman said yesterday.
Tom Boyer: 206-464-2923 or [email protected]
canyonblue
Everyone loves Southwest
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,314
320AV8R
DUMP ALPA
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Posts
- 505
Moving out of SEA-TAC to BFI is about as smart as leaving DTW for YIP.
The GOOD NEWS is there will be more SEA-TAC gates for other airlines.
The BAD NEWS is that:
-- the BFI facilities are not even close to being as nice as SEA-TAC.
--the ramp is cramped, leaving marginal room for expansion
--BFI approaches will be delayed until there's a gap in the SEA-TAC arrivals (S ops)
--there's nowhere near the same parking facilities as SEA-TAC
--the terminal doesn't have anything close to SEA-TAC in amenities (food, shops, etc...)
--don't count on any passengers connecting from International flights
--you still have to drive on I-5 to get there
--some passengers will show up at SEA-TAC instead of BFI
--SW will have to pay a heafty amount to get back into SEA-TAC, with fewer gates, once this experiment fails
The GOOD NEWS is there will be more SEA-TAC gates for other airlines.
The BAD NEWS is that:
-- the BFI facilities are not even close to being as nice as SEA-TAC.
--the ramp is cramped, leaving marginal room for expansion
--BFI approaches will be delayed until there's a gap in the SEA-TAC arrivals (S ops)
--there's nowhere near the same parking facilities as SEA-TAC
--the terminal doesn't have anything close to SEA-TAC in amenities (food, shops, etc...)
--don't count on any passengers connecting from International flights
--you still have to drive on I-5 to get there
--some passengers will show up at SEA-TAC instead of BFI
--SW will have to pay a heafty amount to get back into SEA-TAC, with fewer gates, once this experiment fails
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
-
Connecting Jump Pack to EarthX Battery
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
