I was very pleasantly surprised by this new route. Alaskans have long lamented the loss of nonstop service to Europe and Asia. This will give them a great connection to all of Asia and save a ton of time when compared to backtracking all the way to Seattle to fly to Asia. I hope this new service is commercially successful. It's a great idea.
8 hours on a 737 is Cool???
More like Cruel….
If you have other choices for nonstop routing, maybe it's cruel. I don't quite understand the hangup about widebodies. Yes, there are two aisles but both are often very narrow and there's usually no place to stand except in the already very tight aisles. Yes, direct aisle access lie flats are great but most passengers don't get them anyway!
"Yes, direct aisle access lie flats are great"
And increasingly, those are now in longhaul narrow-bodies as well.
Makes the whining even more nonsensical.
I agree that choosing a nonstop narrowbody is better than a connecting widebody.... in this case AS is actually catering to a high O&D market. Japan to ANC has existed for years but it is actually the efficiency of widebodies that has eliminated the ANC stop.
but the aisle isn't any narrower on narrowbodies.
If there is a widebody option including via a connection, a widebody makes more sense.
In this case, AS is actually playing to the strength of the MAX to fly ANC to Tokyo.
the bigger piece of all of this is the number of single weekly ANC flights they are adding next summer. They are counting on being able to fly their MAXs all day and night in order to generate revenue.
@ImmortalSynn--Yes! You said it more succicctly than I did. When widebodies first came into service, they often had amenities in coach that made a difference--I am talking bar areas on UA 747s and Continental DC-10s, for example. That era ended decades ago. In the back of the bus on today's widebodies, the only difference from a narrowbody is more seats per row!
and it is the narrowbody that loses.
There are more aisle seats on a widebody than on a 6 abreast narrowbody.
Tim
There are also more middle seats, generally, on a wide body
Same number of windows though on equivalent length…
Back in the 80's when USAir and Piedmont began serving SFO from PIT and CLT (separate carriers then) with Boeing 737s and Boeing 727's the sales reps were trying to convince travelers that " A seat is a seat" and both airlines did have a great First Class. And I did a lot of trans-cons on US because of the lower F class. Piedmont too.
I love Alaska Airlines but still can't quite wrap this old head around a 737... 8 hours to Japan. I see the great advantage to Alaska residents, I really do but a 737 !!!
It's a plane. It can make the trip. Or are you one of those Airpus fanboys, and if this had been an A321 flaming garbage bag it would have been fine?
No problem, Max. My karma will run over his dogma.
I’m the biggest 737 hater but the alternative is to back track to SEA for 3 hours (which is most likely on a 737 as well) and then hop on a 10 hr flight. I’d rather fly nonstop and get it over with.
Ah yes, a reminder to "back in the day" when Air France and Japan Airlines flew this route on the 747. A required stop at the time due to Soviet era restrictions.
Even KLM had the Amsterdam - Tokyo routing, with the required stop in Anchorage. I think Swissair flew the 747 too, but not sure of traffic rights.
“Cool” …more like “cold” Hope it works out. Very unique route. Feels like Alaska is trying to pull a United, like Nuuk or Ulaanbaatar (also using 737).
@1990--I don't think AS is trying to pull anything. This is a route that could do something very positive for the state that bears the airline's name and with which it has a special relationship. Geographically, ANC is quite a bit closer to Japan than Seattle is. There is a market in Alaska for travel to/from Japan and other parts of Asia and no competing service. The problem, of course, is that Alaska has a small population. Will this service work financially? Only time will tell but it seems to me to be a reasonable bet. If it doesn't work, it will be gone.
Well said, Steve. I'm rooting for this to work. If I were based in ANC, I'd much prefer a nonstop than to go down to SEA or elsewhere, then backtrack.
Now I can see them converting a few to half passenger/ half cargo, like they used to do. Copper River Salmon in Tokyo would be an expensive treat.
Yeah, Alan! Bring back the 737-400 combis! (Not sure they'd have the range for this, but a fun reminder.) They'd probably just have to refuel at Adak (ADK).
I flew on a World Airways DC-8 (military charter) from Anchorage to Tokyo in 1974, which was actually the middle leg of a flight that originated at Travis AFB and terminated at Clark AB. I was in the Air Force, and was on my way to a year's tour in Thailand. Anchorage and Tokyo were merely refueling stops. That was a pretty cool flight, too.
Any reason for the gratuitous Palin video, on an article that's nothing to do with Russia?
I'm not a fan of hers, but the derision she received for this quote was ridiculous, as what she said was perfectly accurate. You can always see Big Diomede (Russia) from Little Diomede (Alaska). And on a very clear day, you can (just) see the Russian mainland from the Alaskan mainland.
GMAFB! She was in Juneau, and you can’t even see BC from Juneau. In fact, you can’t see across the street there with all the damn rain. In any event, she’s long been in Arizona, where can’t see Nogales due to the Orange Turd’s wall.
Isn't the main function of an airline to provide transportation? With all the focus on "product" (I.e., seat back TV sets, wine, food, lounges, lie-flat seats, etc,) I'm thinking that aspect of airlines is often forgotten.
You’re a great contributor and I love your thoughts here, DG
You always keep us grounded and I appreciate your insights always.
But no. Profitability is driven by product and marketing perception these days. Taking someone from a to b is no longer sufficient given the ability for the major carriers to do the same routing against each other in some manner.
Simple a to b has become commodity driven given minimum safety regulations that, thankfully, are well enforced.
A "cool" route for sure. I'm still not sold on narrow bodies on transocean flights in coach or first.
I think this is clever - it's a feeder flight for onward connections across Asia and even Australia on OneWorld partner JAL
No thank you! If it is an Airbus A321XLR with lie flat business class suites and a premium economy cabin, I will appreciate it. But for a domestic Boeing 737-8 MAX, I don't think it will work. Japanese passengers actually demand a bit more or else it will become a chaser for the F&F traffic for cheapest prices. Plus will they be able to get away with a cold meal in economy? You will need two meals in both cabins and need to be warmed meals too. Asian markets are not the same as the Iceland/European markets.
If Boeing 737-10 has the range, those premium planes will be perfect for this route, but unless Alaska has a plan to install a premium version of 737-8, I don't think it will last more than one season.
I one can potentially save 1-2 days by flying direct rather than commuting than I believe the route will do well. Its 80% more miles to fly via SEA than direct. That's a lot of time, miles, effort, energy and probably money as well. Not to mention, the possibility of missing a flight or a flight going "tech", etc. I've flown TATL on B757's and its fine to be honest.
it’s also a slight, “bargaining chip” in context of the entry into the JV with AA/JL and also offer wealthy AS elites in the AK region to travel to Japan. It may also bring Japanese cruise traffic to Alaska.