Amazon HQ2

[english si]

An airport outside Chicago's flight path is fine for the latter, but there's no use if you can't fly cheaply and directly to HQ1 in Seattle for face-to-face meetings.

Amazon isn't asking for direct flights to Seattle as a requirement and I've explained at length that they don't care about that and why it matters less with HQ2 that won't even share teams with HQ1. But again you go with this 'requirement'. 

As for cheaply, I don't believe that they care that much and those flying Dublin to Seattle to meet their immediate bosses face-to-face can put their layover (no direct flights) where they want and fly whatever airline they want as long as it is a reasonable route that isn't overly expensive. They don't have to do Ryanair to Gatwick then Norwegian Air to SeaTac to keep it low cost!

[vdeane]

I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.

[kalvado]

I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.

Direct flight to Seattle may be one easy thing, ability to fly across US and all over the world may be a more difficult issue.

[PHLBOS]

I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.

Direct flight to Seattle may be one easy thing, ability to fly across US and all over the world may be a more difficult issue.

At present & even before Amazon set up shop in Seattle, the only airline that has a hub at Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA) is Alaska Airlines; which recently acquired Virgin America.

Based on their route map; they don't serve every major city in the US.

That said, should Amazon choose a city that either is not on Alaska Airlines' route map nor a hub airport for any of the three legacy carriers (American, Delta and/or United); I would expect Alaska to add non-stop service to that city in short order.

[kalvado]

I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.

Direct flight to Seattle may be one easy thing, ability to fly across US and all over the world may be a more difficult issue.

At present & even before Amazon set up shop in Seattle, the only airline that has a hub at Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA) is Alaska Airlines; which recently acquired Virgin America.

Based on their route map; they don't serve every major city in the US.

That said, should Amazon choose a city that either is not on Alaska Airlines' route map nor a hub airport for any of the three legacy carriers (American, Delta and/or United); I would expect Alaska to add non-stop service to that city in short order.

Alaska and/or Delta service to Seattle is a no-brainer. I am more thinking about transatlantic service, possibly transpacific - and I believe SEA has both. Many places that applied - e.g. all upstate NY cities - do not have international service beyond Canada.

[kkt]

British Airways operates a nonstop flight Sea-Tac to London Heathrow and back.  I'm not sure how much Amazon really cares about nonstop service as opposed to a layover though.

[english si]

British Airways operates a nonstop flight Sea-Tac to London Heathrow and back.

And Virgin Atlantic (with Delta doing a code share?). However the European HQ for Amazon - with many teams shared with Seattle - is in Dublin, which will have direct flights to Sea-Tac from May - years after the office was built.

I think kalvado is onto something that inter-continental flights are more important. It's easy to add an air route from a couple of thousand miles away if needed, but it's harder to add flights several thousand miles across an ocean.

[kkt]

British Airways operates a nonstop flight Sea-Tac to London Heathrow and back.

And Virgin Atlantic (with Delta doing a code share?). However the European HQ for Amazon - with many teams shared with Seattle - is in Dublin, which will have direct flights to Sea-Tac from May - years after the office was built.

I think kalvado is onto something that inter-continental flights are more important. It's easy to add an air route from a couple of thousand miles away if needed, but it's harder to add flights several thousand miles across an ocean.

Starting this May?  Cool.  Maybe Ireland this summer!

[Bruce]

Delta has been making huge waves in Seattle, trying to eat up Alaska's market share, and it's resulted in a lot of high-frequency service to new markets opening up over the last four years. Sea-Tac itself is near capacity (with some minor expansions coming up), so it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

[PHLBOS]

...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes.  A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.

Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop.  Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.   

[MikeTheActuary]

...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes.  A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.

Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop.  Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.   

Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.

"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops


Direct is a superset of nonstop.

[kkt]

...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes.  A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.

Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop.  Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.   

Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.

"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops


Direct is a superset of nonstop.

Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number.  Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.

[MikeTheActuary]

Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.

"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops


Direct is a superset of nonstop.

Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number.  Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.

I thought that practice had pretty much ended, aside from those situations where maintenance issues, or fleet scheduling complications, or... require an equipment change.

[GaryV]

...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes.  A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.

Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop.  Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.

George Carlin said he never wanted to get on a non-stop flight.  Each flight should have at least one stop, at the end.

[english si]

I thought that practice had pretty much ended, aside from those situations where maintenance issues, or fleet scheduling complications, or... require an equipment change.

Island hoppers? And perhaps some commuter flights.

The Channel Islands here have several flights that serve both Jersey and Guernsey from, say, Birmingham. It goes to one then the other. They also have flights that only serve their island (eg from Heathrow), but for lesser destinations, having the plane go to both fills it up, as well as increasing inter-island traffic.

And (oddly taking me a while to remember - despite having the cricket coverage from Australia on), there's obviously the very long flights. NZ001 is London Heathrow - Los Angeles - Auckland, various airlines do Heathrow - SE Asian hub - Australian/Kiwi destination with one code (but you can buy partial tickets) as it's one plane, refuelling at Hong Kong, Singapore, etc for a couple of hours.

[Avalanchez71]

...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes.  A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.

Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop.  Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.   

Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.

"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops


Direct is a superset of nonstop.

Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number.  Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.

I recall some of these situations but cannot really recall which ones specifically at the moment.

[MikeTheActuary]

I thought that practice had pretty much ended, aside from those situations where maintenance issues, or fleet scheduling complications, or... require an equipment change.

Island hoppers? And perhaps some commuter flights.

The Channel Islands here have several flights that serve both Jersey and Guernsey from, say, Birmingham. It goes to one then the other. They also have flights that only serve their island (eg from Heathrow), but for lesser destinations, having the plane go to both fills it up, as well as increasing inter-island traffic.

And (oddly taking me a while to remember - despite having the cricket coverage from Australia on), there's obviously the very long flights. NZ001 is London Heathrow - Los Angeles - Auckland, various airlines do Heathrow - SE Asian hub - Australian/Kiwi destination with one code (but you can buy partial tickets) as it's one plane, refuelling at Hong Kong, Singapore, etc for a couple of hours.

What you're describing is the normal concept of "direct" flights, along with the sharing/cross-marketing of certain flights within an airline alliance or other relationship.

In the US there also used to be a rather annoying practice where airlines would market a pair of connecting flights under a common flight number, giving it the appearance of a direct flight. 

Two examples:

First, "Flight 111" could be scheduled as a DC-8 between City1 and City2, but a DC-9 between City2 and City3 -- an intentional, pre-ordained change in plane at City 2

Or..for a while it was popular for an airline to market international flights like this:

Flight 100 = JFK-LHR
Flight 1001 = City1 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
Flight 1002 = City2 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
Flight 1003 = City3 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
Flight 1004 = City4 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
...

Giving City1-City# the appearance of having "direct" flights to London, when in fact they only had non-stop flights to JFK, where you made a connection to flight 100 to LHR.

It's been a few years since I saw either practice in the US, which is what I was referring to.

1- or 2-stop direct flights are still relatively common in the States.  While they aren't as desirable as a nonstop flight (unless you're a county-counter or transportation geek), they are still preferable to having to change planes...at least to those of us who have learned the hard way of the "joy" of an unplanned night on the floor of the airport where you missed your connection.

[PHLBOS]

...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.

For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes.  A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.

Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop.  Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.   

Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.

"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops


Direct is a superset of nonstop.

Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number.  Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.

No, I was on a direct flight on Southwest from Nashville (BNA) to Kansas City (MCI) to Portland, OR (PDX) about 8 years ago.  Same flight number, same plane & I did not have to deboard/reboard at MCI.  I've also seen similar on other carriers as well, so such is not just a Southwest thing.  From what I've seen, the situation you described (same flight number but different aircraft) seems to be the exception and not the rule in terms of direct flights.

[briantroutman]

At least Nashville to Kansas City to Portland, OR is a fairly logical routing, even if it does involve a stop en route. I've been on a number of Southwest flights in which the same flight number (same aircraft, same crew) continues to a third destination that's in the opposite direction. I recall a recent flight from Philadelphia to Dallas, and just before deplaning at Dallas, a flight attendant said something like "If you're continuing with us to Buffalo..."

Consider Southwest flight #149, for example. The same flight number goes from Tampa to Chicago to Louisville...then to Orlando. So assumably, you could buy a "direct"  flight from Tampa to Orlando that's 7 hours from gate to gate.

I've sometimes wondered what leads to the decision to terminate a flight number at a specific point. Unless I'm mistaken, I've seen all of the following combinations on Southwest flights:

- flight number continues to a logical third point: same aircraft, same crew
- flight number continues to a logical third point: same aircraft, different crew
- flight number continues to an illogical third point: same aircraft, same crew
- flight number continues to an illogical third point: same aircraft, different crew

[Doctor Whom]

A map of the finalists is here. Three are in a metropolitan area where Jeff Bezos owns the biggest private house and the major local newspaper.

[Avalanchez71]

As predicted Nashville is a finalist.

[jeffandnicole]

Nearly every major city at least several hundred miles away from Seattle is a finalist.

Basically, they weeded out the 218 Anytown, USA proposals that were pipedreams, with towns and counties saying "Yeah, we got the space" without saying how they would be able to get or pay for the necessary utilities and infrastructure to such a large employer.

[cl94]

Nearly every major city at least several hundred miles away from Seattle is a finalist.

Basically, they weeded out the 218 Anytown, USA proposals that were pipedreams, with towns and counties saying "Yeah, we got the space" without saying how they would be able to get or pay for the necessary utilities and infrastructure to such a large employer.

Basically, yes. I laughed hysterically at most of the proposals. I love Albany, but we're not large enough for Amazon (and the Onion even parodied our application, as one of their writers is from here).

[kkt]

That's a lot of finalists.

[AlexandriaVA]

Interesting that all but four are east of the Mississippi.

Some token flyover locations but it's looking like a major east coast city for the selection. Can't imagine there's too much demand among Amazon workforce to not be on the East Coast anyway. The only possible exception I see is Austin.

I wonder if the three locations in the DC area (DC proper, Northern VA, Montgomery County) portend further round of cuts to the list, resulting in the three jurisdictions competing/pooling resources for a super-plan (it's already been speculated that DC is the one due to Bezos' house purchase there and obvious government connections).