mercure1 wrote:

Now time to find out details what Alaska plans for Virgin America really are. Fleet, routes, staff, product, airports etc.

Congrats to AS and Virgin for closing the deal and preserving all of the real estate assets that they'll need to make the merger work. (SFO / LAX gates, DAL gates, JFK / DCA slots etc)

Now the real work can actually begin of putting the two carriers together. It'll be interesting to see if AS keeps up the pace of expansion in places like SAN and SJC while they work on putting the networks together. There are certainly a few holes from SFO and LAX to places where AS is strong regionally but until now has lacked the real estate and/or network strength in LAX & SFO to add in.

OP of this thread by me:
ENILRIA POST#1:
This is the second delay. It seems pretty clear they are negotiating over something rather than simply filling out paperwork and sending over data. I have to think the most likely item is the AA code share.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1385459 ... _ven=YAHOO

COMMAVIA POST#47:
The late-stage discussions included the possibility of Alaska jettisoning part of one or more code-sharing agreements it has with larger U.S. carriers as a concession for winning antitrust approval, one of the people said. Alaska Air and Virgin America had agreed not to close their merger until Oct. 17 so the Justice Department could finish its review.

The sources asked not to be named to protect business relationships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virgi ... SKBN12I02N

EA CO AS POST#216
Ok, once again, with feeling:

- The acquisition of VX is going forward
- The articles cited here are completely wrong
- I cannot go into more detail until formal announcements come out

Thanks for everyone's patience and understanding!
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1345447

So, as I said before, formal announcements are out. You said code share was not the issue because you said the articles were "completely wrong" and they said "jettisoning part of one or more code share agreements" which is exactly what happened. So, what was the real issue you promised to tell us?

enilria wrote:

That goes far beyond hub to hub.

Not really, at least from my reading. The actual document enumerates the restrictions more verbosely, but they essentially boil down to hub-to-hub. There can be no codesharing on Alaska flights into AA hubs, and no codesharing on AA flights into Alaska hubs - beyond that, they're free to continue codesharing as they long have.

FSDan wrote:

How does the codeshare concession affect LAX? It's a little less clear there since it's a sort of hub for both airlines. Do AA and AS currently codeshare on routes like LAX-STS and LAX-LTO?

Yes, I believe they currently codeshare on routes like this.

If so, do these count as "AS routes from an AA hub", or will AA still be able to place their code on these? It would seem a bit odd if AA can codeshare on those since it would take away incentives for them to open these new markets and compete.

They can't codeshare on directly-competing flights (ANC, SEA, PDX, SLC, Washington/Baltimore, BOS, Chicago, South Florida, HNL, Dallas, NYC, Orlando, LAS, SFO, OGG).
AS can't put its code on AA's LAX-PHX, LAX-CLT, or LAX-PHL at all.
Beyond that, it's fair game.

So AA can sell STS-LAX-CLT, but AS can't.
AS can sell ANC-GRU via LAX, but only when the first leg is on their metal. AA can also sell ANC-LAX-GRU that is all AA metal--which means they can't sell it at all in the off season.
AA can't sell LAX-BWI nonstop anymore, unless they start it on their own metal (because the WAS metro area is considered overlapping), but they can still sell LAX-LTO.

tortugamon wrote:

Agreed, and I think it is also important to consider the AA reaction to this development as well. I fully expect them to launch new services to try to capture some of the business they are going to lose from the loss of the AS code share. Its not like they are going to stand still. That's the beauty of the agreement is taking a partner and turning them into competitors: Its not just AS that now needs to go it alone (on these routes) but AA will as well.

Yeah--I'd expect AA to be trying to get more SEA gates/departures in a hurry here, and my understanding is that Sea/Tac is already pretty constrained.

enilria wrote:

Ridiculous.

I think what's ridiculous is your ego on this site and the egos of many other users here. Does it really matter who was right or wrong? How about this thread talks about substance.

airliner371 wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ridiculous.

I think what's ridiculous is your ego on this site and the egos of many other users here. Does it really matter who was right or wrong? How about this thread talks about substance.

Of course it matters. That is like saying, "Does it really matter whether someone is telling the truth or not?"

there is nothing ridiculous about enilria defending the factual and correct statements he made. Its the AS fanboys who stated the holdup had nothing to do with codeshares and that he was wrong...lol. what a joke.Good luck to AS and all empoyees. Sounds like a rough road ahead to get a return on investment on billions of dollars.

Presidents generally don't and should not be very involved with things like this, therein is the way of corruption. Presidents do appoint people who oversee these things, and choose people who will be more or less strict regarding mergers.

Whether code sharing with Delta was a major consideration cited by some on this site. And that the expense of getting out of that code sharing could cost Alaska big money. It was not a consideration.

Code sharing with AA was a big deal, and obviously DOJ has called for restrictions. This does not mean that at any point the negotiations were headed for a failure, as several (?) suggested.

airliner371 wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ridiculous.

I think what's ridiculous is your ego on this site and the egos of many other users here. Does it really matter who was right or wrong? How about this thread talks about substance.

If you read the beginning of this thread, you will see before I had even posted I was being called out for being wrong about this. I think it is perfectly fair to ask what I was wrong about regarding this deal now that he said he could tell us. There are no attacks or foul language or name calling. I'm just ready for the promised real story...

Okay, when can we transition to the "AS and B6 merge in 2020" thread?

11725Flyer wrote:

Okay, when can we transition to the "AS and B6 merge in 2020" thread?

I am assuming is was meant as a joke, but if you are actually serious, I don't see AS and B6 merging. If they do, feel free to rub my nose in my incorrect prediction.

SeaDoo wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

Okay, when can we transition to the "AS and B6 merge in 2020" thread?

I am assuming is was meant as a joke, but if you are actually serious, I don't see AS and B6 merging. If they do, feel free to rub my nose in my incorrect prediction.

Just trying to lighten up the mood a little bit. And heck, you never know!

I'm just really curious to see how the acquisition actually pulls off. If it's a wholescale takeover by the AS brand, fine, but I think it will have to evolve to some extent. AS has a great product for sub-four hour routes across the west, but I think both AS and VX's products in F are very uncompetitive on the LAX/SFO transcons.

Oh, and if the company does end up starting LAX-DEN, as VX promised, but on PMAS metal, I would be very happy.

And whatever you do, please, please, please don't get rid of the fruit and cheese plate!

So what does this mean for N493AS? The one with half of Alaska and Virgins livery.

phxsanslcpdx wrote:

Yeah--I'd expect AA to be trying to get more SEA gates/departures in a hurry here, and my understanding is that Sea/Tac is already pretty constrained.

Precisely. This opens up a hole in their network that I think they will want to fill rather quickly which is going to hurt AS and DL and be even better for consumers. LAX and Dallas should stand to benefit as well. As with every merger some secondary/tertiary cities will bear the brunt of this merger no doubt but overall I see it as a consumer benefit. Hope AAG the best.

11725Flyer wrote:

Okay, when can we transition to the "AS and B6 merge in 2020" thread?

Ha! I have to say that I want that too. It would a full service carrier with true national presence that could compete with the US4 on North American routes. I wonder if we will see a HA/B6 tie up first though because I don't think the B6 mgt team wants to be the one getting acquired by the larger AS/VX because we all know what that means for their j.o.b.s. Its going to take AAG a couple years to digest VX and I just hope it goes smoothly. An F9/NK merger after that and the US3 could have some serious competition (again).

tortugamon

phxsanslcpdx wrote:

Agreed, and I think it is also important to consider the AA reaction to this development as well. I fully expect them to launch new services to try to capture some of the business they are going to lose from the loss of the AS code share.

tortugamon wrote:

Precisely. This opens up a hole in their network that I think they will want to fill rather quickly which is going to hurt AS and DL and be even better for consumers. LAX and Dallas should stand to benefit as well.

I fail to see how this "opens up a hole in [AA's] network" and/or necessitates AA added significant amounts of new capacity into, or requiring much if any additional space in, SEA. All AA is losing is the ability to codeshare on Alaska flights between SEA and AA's own hubs. But net of the traffic that Alaska will recapture on its own flights when it also drops codeshares on these hub-hub routes, thus freeing up some seats on AA's flights, I doubt AA will need much more than a few additional daily flights in and out of SEA - maybe an extra daily to LAX, DFW, perhaps JFK, etc., if that.

Sooner787 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I bet AS will close the DAL operation. Use the jets on other routes. Possibly cancel Airbus orders.

If your scenario plays out, this effects Delta's lawsuit against the city of Dallas for gate space at Love Field.

I'm sure DL would love to get their hands on 2 gates , and WN would be happy to be rid of DL "squatting"
on one of their gates at DAL

DGS ground handles Virgin flights at Love Field. Some Virgin flights do quite well out of Love so it will be interesting to see what happens. If Delta gets those 2 gates they will definitely expand their presence at Love.

commavia wrote:

All AA is losing is the ability to codeshare on Alaska flights between SEA and AA's own hubs.

So, who's right?

phxsanslcpdx wrote:

FSDan wrote:

How does the codeshare concession affect LAX? It's a little less clear there since it's a sort of hub for both airlines. Do AA and AS currently codeshare on routes like LAX-STS and LAX-LTO?

They can't codeshare on directly-competing flights (ANC, SEA, PDX, SLC, Washington/Baltimore, BOS, Chicago, South Florida, HNL, Dallas, NYC, Orlando, LAS, SFO, OGG).
AS can't put its code on AA's LAX-PHX, LAX-CLT, or LAX-PHL at all.
Beyond that, it's fair game.

So AA can sell STS-LAX-CLT, but AS can't.
AS can sell ANC-GRU via LAX, but only when the first leg is on their metal. AA can also sell ANC-LAX-GRU that is all AA metal--which means they can't sell it at all in the off season.
AA can't sell LAX-BWI nonstop anymore, unless they start it on their own metal (because the WAS metro area is considered overlapping), but they can still sell LAX-LTO.

freakyrat wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I bet AS will close the DAL operation. Use the jets on other routes. Possibly cancel Airbus orders.

If your scenario plays out, this effects Delta's lawsuit against the city of Dallas for gate space at Love Field.

I'm sure DL would love to get their hands on 2 gates , and WN would be happy to be rid of DL "squatting"
on one of their gates at DAL

DGS ground handles Virgin flights at Love Field. Some Virgin flights do quite well out of Love so it will be interesting to see what happens. If Delta gets those 2 gates they will definitely expand their presence at Love.

How would DL get the gates? They're not subject to divestiture, so they'll be part of AS until such time that AS decides they no longer want them.

11725Flyer wrote:

So, who's right?

Those two quotes were in the context of two different points.

Again, though, the regulatory restrictions effectively prohibit Alaska from:

* Codesharing with AA on any overlapping routes
* Placing the AS* on any AA-operated flights from/to ANC/SEA/PDX/SFO
* Carrying the AA* code on any Alaska-operated flights from/to CLT/ORD/MDW/DFW/DAL/FLL/JFK/LGA/MIA/PHX/DCA
* Placing the AS* code on any AA-operated flights, or carrying the AA* code on any Alaska-operated flights, between LAX and ANC/SEA/PDX/SFO/CLT/ORD/MDW/DFW/DAL/FLL/JFK/LGA/MIA/PHX/DCA

As said, the way it's worded in the document itself is necessary verbose and complex (for obvious reasons), but what it essentially distills down to in practice - taking into account that 100% of AA's flights into Alaska hubs are from AA hubs, and that the vast majority of Alaska/Virgin's flights into AA hubs are from Alaska/Virgin hubs - is that the two are prohibited from codesharing between each others' hubs. That's basically it. Beyond that, nothing has to change. AA can still place its code on hundreds of Alaska flights beyond SEA/PDX/ANC/SFO to points the western U.S., Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and AA can still place its code on hundreds of AA flights beyond AA's hubs to the eastern U.S.

commavia wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

So, who's right?

Those two quotes were in the context of two different points.

Again, though, the regulatory restrictions effectively prohibit Alaska from:

* Codesharing with AA on any overlapping routes
* Placing the AS* on any AA-operated flights from/to ANC/SEA/PDX/SFO
* Carrying the AA* code on any Alaska-operated flights from/to CLT/ORD/MDW/DFW/DAL/FLL/JFK/LGA/MIA/PHX/DCA
* Placing the AS* code on any AA-operated flights, or carrying the AA* code on any Alaska-operated flights, between LAX and ANC/SEA/PDX/SFO/CLT/ORD/MDW/DFW/DAL/FLL/JFK/LGA/MIA/PHX/DCA

As said, the way it's worded in the document itself is necessary verbose and complex (for obvious reasons), but what it essentially distills down to in practice - taking into account that 100% of AA's flights into Alaska hubs are from AA hubs, and that the vast majority of Alaska/Virgin's flights into AA hubs are from Alaska/Virgin hubs - is that the two are prohibited from codesharing between each others' hubs. That's basically it. Beyond that, nothing has to change. AA can still place its code on hundreds of Alaska flights beyond SEA/PDX/ANC/SFO to points the western U.S., Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and AA can still place its code on hundreds of AA flights beyond AA's hubs to the eastern U.S.

That's my reading of all of this too. It seems fairly straightforward to me.

As far as people who are bringing up DL.... Where is that coming from? The DL agreement with AS will still be in place as far as anyone can tell, I'm not sure why it's coming up at all right now. The DAL gates would require approval to divest, so if AS wants to do that they can begin that process, but there's no real indication that they have any intention of doing that right now, especially in the context of this new relationship with AA. I'm not saying it won't happen, it could, but I don't see any indication one way or the other at this point.

EA CO AS wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

DGS ground handles Virgin flights at Love Field. Some Virgin flights do quite well out of Love so it will be interesting to see what happens. If Delta gets those 2 gates they will definitely expand their presence at Love.

How would DL get the gates? They're not subject to divestiture, so they'll be part of AS until such time that AS decides they no longer want them.

It is true that those gates were not subjected to terms of divestiture. But Alaska is not free to dispose of them at will. They cannot permit them to be used in any way by American. But if they otherwise wish to get rid of them they can do so only with advance written approval of the DOJ. But they might be sold to Delta with DOJ approval.

from today's Proposed Final Judgment

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 6/download

From the Definitions Section: I. “US/AA Divestiture Assets” means all rights and interests held by Defendants in the two gates at Dallas Love Field (“DAL”), eight slots at Washington Reagan National Airport (“DCA”), and 12 slots at New York LaGuardia Airport (“LGA”), acquired by Virgin pursuant to the Final Judgment entered in United States v. US Airways Group, Inc.

From the section titled Prohibited Conduct

B. Defendants shall not directly or indirectly sell, trade, lease, or sub-lease any of the US/AA Divestiture Assets without the prior written consent of the United States. Defendants shall not directly or indirectly transfer any interest in the US/AA Divestiture Assets to American or permit American to use the US/AA Divestiture Assets.

BobPatterson wrote:

It is true that those gates were not subjected to terms of divestiture. But Alaska is not free to dispose of them at will. They cannot permit them to be used in any way by American. But if they otherwise wish to get rid of them they can do so only with advance written approval of the DOJ. But they might be sold to Delta with DOJ approval.

If I am not mistaken it isn't a sure thing that AS gets the gates either as I thought the local authorities don't have a responsibility to transfer them to AS once the merger goes through as there was something in the writing that said they had the right to refuse the transfer. I guess it isn't that big of a deal until they are operating under one certificate. Could be wrong.

tortugamon

dmorbust wrote:

commavia wrote:

enilria wrote:

This is pretty extensive, not a tweak. Not sure what limiting ANC/SEA/SFO from AA code sharing once you go beyond overlapping routes is supposed to accomplish?

It is extensive in terms of volume, but not really network breadth or depth. AA and Alaska will still be fully able to leverage each others' networks for the purposes for which they are obviously most uniquely valuable, which is accessing city pairs that neither can effectively serve independently. Precisely as many of us speculated, what they will now be prohibited from doing, effectively, is codesharing between each other's hubs. But pretty much all of the codesharing behind and beyond each others hubs - so all the AA/AS* to points in the eastern U.S. over DFW/ORD, etc., and all the AS/AA* to points in the western U.S. and Alaska over SEA/PDX, will be unaffected.

The codeshare limitations affect $60 million out of the $190 million in AA codeshare revenue, so yes it is rather significant and I agree with enilria that barring news of anything else, this was clearly what took longest to negotiate between AS and the DOJ. Even if AS projects they can re-capture $40-$45 million of that revenue, that is still a $15-$20 million hit - and I would bet those numbers are optimistic projections by AS.

Looking at the numbers..... $60 million of revenue (never mind the recapture and $15 - $20 million net impact), it's a large piece of the AA codeshare revenue but only 1.2% of overall Alaska revenue, and less than 1% of the soon-to-be combined revenue, which are more important numbers. Codeshare revenue has declined more than that in the last two years anyway. Doesn't seem like as much of a hit from that perspective. And it's 25% of the expected synergies. Alaska still comes out ahead.

toobz wrote:

lol just like Enilria and most people said... codeshares were obviously the holdup. According to the insider that was not the issue

He speculated the Delta codeshare and break up fee was holding things up. Apparently, it was not.

Looking at the court calendar for the US District Court Northern District of California, Judge William Alsup has the following on the court calendar, related to the Alaska Airlines Merger lawsuit (Grace et al v. Alaska Air Group, Inc. et al)-

*Wed Dec 7 - 12:30PM Final Pretrial Conference
*Thur Dec 8 11:00AM Case Management Conference
*Monday Dec 12 7:30AM Bench Trial (no Jury, judge, decides)


The bench trial shows up on the calendar through Dec 21st. IANAL, and so I'm not sure if I'm reading the calendar correctly, but it shows only 30 minutes each day for the bench trial.

In theory, the merger could be set to close by or around Dec 21st, depending on the outcome of this lawsuit.

Judge's website: http://cand.uscourts.gov/wha
Court Calendar: http://12.130.78.145/CEO/cfd.aspx?7137

dmorbust wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I can't say anything further, except that avek00's reply #143 is worth reading...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1345447&start=100

Are you implying AS can get out of the DL codeshare agreement early without paying any penalty? If so why haven't they done it already?

No, just that contracts are complex things and there may be out clauses we don't know about. Being completely transparent, I don't know any more than you do.

Congrats to AS for getting this closed.

This topic also proves that while this forum has some awesome insiders that any unresolved topic should be open for reasonable speculation. That is just part of the conversation here.

When can the "secret" airplane fly...deal close or sooner?

commavia wrote:

I doubt AA will need much more than a few additional daily flights in and out of SEA - maybe an extra daily to LAX, DFW, perhaps JFK, etc., if that.

AA leaned heavy on AS in the West. On LAX-SEA AA could place some seats on a ton of daily frequencies on AS. DFW-SEA sure there are couple there too. They lose half their frequency to PDX from DFW as well. Its not like all of the traffic will just migrate over to AA metal. You're right that it isn't a ton but its still something that AA will have to adjust for and no-longer with the same cozy partner on the other end.

tortugamon

Sooner787 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I bet AS will close the DAL operation. Use the jets on other routes. Possibly cancel Airbus orders.

If your scenario plays out, this effects Delta's lawsuit against the city of Dallas for gate space at Love Field.

I'm sure DL would love to get their hands on 2 gates , and WN would be happy to be rid of DL "squatting"
on one of their gates at DAL

Delta does not have a lawsuits against the city. Delta is a defendant in two lawsuits, one from the City of Dallas and one from Southwest. In the lawsuit by the City of Dallas Delta requested, and received, an injunction preventing any evictions.

Even if AS gives up the gates Delta is unlikely to receive them. The decision to award VX those gates also included language that stated that Delta was not a suitable candidate for those gates (neither was Southwest). If AS gives them up the DoJ will perform the same exercise as the one that awarded VX the gates.

The lawsuits are the warmup acts, the main event is the FAA investigation since the penalties could be over a billion $.

tortugamon wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

Okay, when can we transition to the "AS and B6 merge in 2020" thread?

Ha! I have to say that I want that too. It would a full service carrier with true national presence that could compete with the US4 on North American routes. I wonder if we will see a HA/B6 tie up first though because I don't think the B6 mgt team wants to be the one getting acquired by the larger AS/VX because we all know what that means for their j.o.b.s. Its going to take AAG a couple years to digest VX and I just hope it goes smoothly. An F9/NK merger after that and the US3 could have some serious competition (again).

Very perceptive. Your crystal balls are well tuned.

tortugamon wrote:

AA leaned heavy on AS in the West.

AA did, and generally still can. What AA "leans on" Alaska for most heavily - and most importantly, from a strategic standpoint - is access to markets where AA has minimal or no presence. And none of that changes. Access to small and mid-size markets up and down the west coast, and especially in Washington and Oregon, and in Alaska - all of that is completely unchanged. So now AA just has to get people to SEA/PDX on its own metal to connect to those small and mid-size markets. I don't see why this is necessarily such a big deal, especially since the same thing is going to happen in reverse. Alaska customers connecting over DFW/ORD to get to the eastern U.S. will now have to get to DFW/ORD on Alaska planes, so to some extent there will be Alaska customers formerly flying on AA planes hub-hub that will now have to do that hub-hub segment on Alaska only, and vice versa. It won't net out exactly, but I just don't think it's that huge a challenge for either airline to manage a fairly modest uptick in capacity in a few select places and handle it all once everything sorts out.

tortugamon wrote:

On LAX-SEA AA could place some seats on a ton of daily frequencies on AS.

Indeed, but then, AA now has four daily flights of its own. And as said, I suspect that simply adding one more frequency - plus perhaps upgauging the existing flights from a mix of A319/E175/737 to all-737 - would likely be sufficient for AA to handle the necessary capacity in the market to cater to O&D plus connections at both ends.

tortugamon wrote:

DFW-SEA sure there are couple there too.

Okay, but AA already has nine daily flights DFW-SEA (currently scheduled for peak summer 2017). Alaska has four. Considering the level of capacity both airlines already offer, and given the presumably high level of connectivity at both ends of this route, something tell me that both airlines will be able to fairly easily manage the exchanging of passengers who now must fly on one airline versus another for the hub-hub segment.

tortugamon wrote:

They lose half their frequency to PDX from DFW as well.

See DFW-SEA.

tortugamon wrote:

Its not like all of the traffic will just migrate over to AA metal. You're right that it isn't a ton but its still something that AA will have to adjust for and no-longer with the same cozy partner on the other end.

Again, AA kind of will still have a "cozy partner" on the "other" (SEA/PDX) end of its routes into these Alaska hubs. It just won't be able to put passengers bound for SEA/PDX onto Alaska flights, and will have to get them there on AA instead. Again - I don't see why this is such a huge deal. I still believe that a mix of upgauging and perhaps a few, select and targeted additional frequencies - maybe one each to LAX, DFW, JFK and one or two other AA hubs - would be sufficient.

commavia wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

So, who's right?

Those two quotes were in the context of two different points.

Again, though, the regulatory restrictions effectively prohibit Alaska from:

* Codesharing with AA on any overlapping routes
* Placing the AS* on any AA-operated flights from/to ANC/SEA/PDX/SFO
* Carrying the AA* code on any Alaska-operated flights from/to CLT/ORD/MDW/DFW/DAL/FLL/JFK/LGA/MIA/PHX/DCA
* Placing the AS* code on any AA-operated flights, or carrying the AA* code on any Alaska-operated flights, between LAX and ANC/SEA/PDX/SFO/CLT/ORD/MDW/DFW/DAL/FLL/JFK/LGA/MIA/PHX/DCA

As said, the way it's worded in the document itself is necessary verbose and complex (for obvious reasons), but what it essentially distills down to in practice - taking into account that 100% of AA's flights into Alaska hubs are from AA hubs, and that the vast majority of Alaska/Virgin's flights into AA hubs are from Alaska/Virgin hubs - is that the two are prohibited from codesharing between each others' hubs. That's basically it. Beyond that, nothing has to change. AA can still place its code on hundreds of Alaska flights beyond SEA/PDX/ANC/SFO to points the western U.S., Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and AA can still place its code on hundreds of AA flights beyond AA's hubs to the eastern U.S.

Did you intentionally leave PHL out of the list of AA hubs, or is that part of the restrictions too?

It still seems odd to me that the only restrictions at LAX are that AA/AS can't place their codes on each other's flights to other hubs, while they are still able to codeshare (and therefore avoid competing) in any of the other markets from LAX (so presumably AS could sell LAX-MCI, LAX-CUN, or LAX-ATL and AA could sell LAX-MRY or LAX-MFR).

FSDan wrote:

Did you intentionally leave PHL out of the list of AA hubs, or is that part of the restrictions too?

Error on my part - PHL is, indeed, included in the DOJ's list of "key American airports."

FSDan wrote:

It still seems odd to me that the only restrictions at LAX are that AA/AS can't place their codes on each other's flights to other hubs, while they are still able to codeshare (and therefore avoid competing) in any of the other markets from LAX (so presumably AS could sell LAX-MCI, LAX-CUN, or LAX-ATL and AA could sell LAX-MRY or LAX-MFR).

No. Remember - that cascading list of restrictions placed on Alaska are additive, not complimentary - meaning that if a market trips any one of those stipulations, it applies regardless of whether it trips any others. (Although, again, in practice the list is fairly repetative as many of the markets in question are covered under multiple of those restrictions.) Nonetheless, specifically, Alaska is restricted from codesharing with AA out of LAX not only on hub routes, but also in any market where they overlap. So, for example, SLC is not a hub for either Alaska or AA, but since both airlines fly that route out of LAX, neither can codeshare with the other.

This is just my opinion...I think AS will drop DAL and keep DFW. The only real worth for DAL is LGA. AS probably could do LGA and or additional DCA through a city a bit farther north than DAL...like OMA (remember HP)? Secondly, I think the SFO/LAX - Hawaii routes will disappear also.

Questions, though. At SEA, will VX co-locate with AS? Will they merge the two FF programs together while VX is still around?

wedgetail737 wrote:

This is just my opinion...I think AS will drop DAL and keep DFW.

I think this is exactly right. The AA feed to offline points is far too valuable to abandon even absent overlapping codeshare on SEADFW and PDXDFW.

wedgetail737 wrote:

This is just my opinion...I think AS will drop DAL and keep DFW. The only real worth for DAL is LGA. AS probably could do LGA and or additional DCA through a city a bit farther north than DAL...like OMA (remember HP)?

winginit wrote:

I think this is exactly right. The AA feed to offline points is far too valuable to abandon even absent overlapping codeshare on SEADFW and PDXDFW.

Seems plausible. So assuming for a moment that the above is true, and Alaska does vacate DAL, what becomes of those two gates? Delta gets one for its effectively-exclusive use, ending the ongoing saga with Southwest, and JetBlue gets the other to shift their BOS flights over from DFW? Or JetBlue gets both?

wedgetail737 wrote:

Secondly, I think the SFO/LAX - Hawaii routes will disappear also.

I'm not so sure. Alaska has been an extremely impressive franchise from the western U.S. into Hawaii, and I don't think it's that implausibly that they'd try and extend that into the two largest markets from the western U.S. to Hawaii - which are obviously LAX and SFO.

commavia wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Secondly, I think the SFO/LAX - Hawaii routes will disappear also.

I'm not so sure. Alaska has been an extremely impressive franchise from the western U.S. into Hawaii, and I don't think it's that implausibly that they'd try and extend that into the two largest markets from the western U.S. to Hawaii - which are obviously LAX and SFO.

I think wedgetail737 means that AS will end the VX A320 Hawaii routes. That seems plausible. AS, as you point out, already has excellent Hawaii service, and may want to use the VX facilities at SFO/LAX for other purposes. They didn't buy VX for their Hawaiian network.

As I read it ; DOJ didn't restrict commercial marketing programs like mileage earning to be restricted. So you could still have an agency bundle these flights but not as code shares (e.g. native flight numbers) and still earn miles on either Alaska's program or AA's?

SANFan wrote:

I really think it's time to drop the "You said", "He said", "I said" debate and get on with the many decisions that AAG now faces and the questions that we here on A.net have about the results of the decisions.

What routes will AAG start/end, what stations will be kept or dropped, what features of VX will be retained or dropped, the timetable of integration of Virgin into Alaska, staffing consolidation, etc?

And above all else, when will the "Merger" a/c be towed out of the hanger and start making the network rounds? (I wonder if Virgin has a similar painted Airbus to fly around its routes?)

I think the fun is just starting -- let's move on!

BTW, congrats to AAG!

bb

AGREED!!!

Congrats to AS and VX for getting this important approval! I'm excited to see what's coming down the pipeline in the next few weeks and months! Here's hoping N493AS can finally come out of hiding! Also I've heard rumbles that VX has an Airbus in a mirrored blue to red merger livery... but those are just rumors. Fingers crossed they're accurate and we get a sweet formation flying photo shoot up the west coast!!!

A guy can dream!

From everything I can see the DoJ focused on codesharing, but I see nothing about interlining. Can AA-AS get around these restrictions by routing pax via simple interlining, or are they specifically prevented from listing each other during booking on the website?

NickLAX wrote:

As I read it ; DOJ didn't restrict commercial marketing programs like mileage earning to be restricted. So you could still have an agency bundle these flights but not as code shares (e.g. native flight numbers) and still earn miles on either Alaska's program or AA's?

My read as well. The marketing relationship - including reciprocal frequent flyer benefits - is unaffected. And in this case, that is actually relatively important because there are lots of "split ticket" frequent flyers that are members of AAdvantage and/or Mileage Plan and happily credit their flying on one of the carriers to the account of the other, regardless of whether it's a codeshare or not. And of course, they can because - unlike with other non-oneworld AAdvantage partners - AA creates virtually no disincentive to fly on Alaska (i.e., full EQM on any Alaska flights, specialized ground/air benefits, etc.).

I wonder how long the boarding announcement will become if AS decides to pursue another merger.

This morning I boarded after waiting for the gate agent to run through the usual Military then AS, AA, DL and VX statuses. Just a little humorous to me as the gate agent was getting winded towards the end of the announcement.

alaskan9974 wrote:

then AS, AA, DL and VX statuses. Just a little humorous to me as the gate agent was getting winded towards the end of the announcement.

I suspect that at least two of those four groups of statuses will be gone within the next few years ...

Byrdluvs747 wrote:

From everything I can see the DoJ focused on codesharing, but I see nothing about interlining. Can AA-AS get around these restrictions by routing pax via simple interlining, or are they specifically prevented from listing each other during booking on the website?

Restrictions preventing an interline agreement would be unprecedented, and even pure competitors like AA/UA or QF/NZ for example often have through check in and through baggage ticketing agreements given the obvious pro-consumer nature. In the AA/AS example, they can certainly continue to exchange passengers via interline, but doing so often comes at the expense of through fares thus making it more expensive and less likely that the passenger exchange takes place. Passengers also often earn less frequent flier miles when traveling on a partner via interline as opposed to codeshare, also reducing the likelihood of the passenger exchange.

alaskan9974 wrote:

I wonder how long the boarding announcement will become if AS decides to pursue another merger.

This morning I boarded after waiting for the gate agent to run through the usual Military then AS, AA, DL and VX statuses. Just a little humorous to me as the gate agent was getting winded towards the end of the announcement.

Don't forget Russell Wilson Jersey's

To/from San Diego, if I'm reading this right...

The AS* code must be removed from AA flights serving JFK (AS has their own NYC service to EWR). Customers can still book this on the AA website and earn/use AAdvantage miles.
The AS* code can stay on AA flights serving CLT, DFW, MIA, LAX, PHL, ORD, & PHX
From what I can see, there's no AS* code on any DL nonstops serving SAN.
The AA* code must be removed from AS flights serving EWR (AA has their own NYC service to JFK. Customers can still book these on the AS website and earn/use AAdvantage miles.
The AA* code can stay on AS flights serving SEA, PDX, BWI, BOS, HNL, OGG, KOA, LIH, MCO, SLC, PVR, STS, FAT, SJD, MRY, MMH, BOI, SAC, SJC, & HDN
The AA* code can go onto VX flights serving SFO

Looks to me like, based on the current schedules, this weakens both AA's and AS/VX's market position in SAN, but they each still offer customers nonstop and one-stop offerings very competitive with Southwest and superior to Delta, and UA.

Given this current strong market position, along with the presence of partners JL, WS, and BA, I'm curious whether AA will try to make more of a play for SAN market share.

Since AS basically maintains its current market presence (only losing JFK), do they have any further incentive to tweak a SAN schedule?


To/from San Jose, if I'm reading this right...
The AA* code can stay on all current AS flights (SEA, PDX, SJD, GDL, HNL, OGG, KOA, LIH, BOI, EUG, RNO, SLC)
The AA* code can go on the upcoming AS BUR and EWR flights (thanks to the detailed structure for handling NYC, Bay area, and LA-area airports)
The AS* code can stay on all current AA flights (ORD, DFW, PHX, CLT, LAX)

So no changes at all mandated by the agreement. Both airlines are well-positioned to compete for Silicon Valley traffic, and AS is strengthened by the additional VX offerings up the road at SFO. The incentives for cooperation versus competition remain in place at SJC, and the incentives might actually grow stronger with the added rules of the game: AS will be hesitant to start nonstop service to viable markets in Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix, and LAX not just because they want to avoid upsetting AA, but also because such routes would mean they could no longer codeshare on the AA flights. AA will be hesitant to start JFK flights because it would upset AS and it would mean they could no longer codeshare on EWR.


To/from DAL/DFW, if I'm reading this right...

The *AA code must be removed from existing AS flights (PDX, SEA)
The *AA code can't be put on any of the existing VX routes (LAS, LAX, LGA, SFO, & DCA)
The *AA code can't be put on any potential added flights at DFW or DAL
The *AS code must be removed from existing AA flights to SEA, ANC, PDX, LAS, LAX, LGA, EWR, JFK, SFO, BWI, IAD & DCA
The *AS code can stay on all the other AA flights (too many to list)
New AA flights can carry an *AS code except for OAK (a little gift from the Feds to Southwest?)
Most potential AS flight adds would mean losing one or more additional codeshares. There are a few potential destinations they could add without necessarily triggering further codeshare losses: BWI, IAD, EWR, JFK & any markets outside metro areas currently served by AA from DFW (GEG?).

So AS's incentives are to a) close down DAL ops or b) keep DAL ops focused mainly on NYC & WAS and maybe add PDX and SEA into the current blend. Adding SAN-DAL or SJC-DAL are disincentivized, as they'd need to give up the *AS code on AA's SAN-DFW or SJC-DFW. Adding LGB-DAL, ONT-DAL, SNA-DAL, PSP-DAL, BUR-DAL, or SBD-DAL are disincentivized, as even a single one of these adds would mean giving up the *AS code on AA's SNA-DFW, ONT-DFW, and PSP-DFW.

Lawsuit against the Merger has been settled (Confidential settlement) as of today. Virgin America Deal to close Officially any moment now...

commavia wrote:

Seems plausible. So assuming for a moment that the above is true, and Alaska does vacate DAL, what becomes of those two gates? Delta gets one for its effectively-exclusive use, ending the ongoing saga with Southwest, and JetBlue gets the other to shift their BOS flights over from DFW? Or JetBlue gets both?

The courts will repeat the same process that awarded VX the gates. Delta is unlikely to get either gate because they were found "unsuitable" before the DoJ awarded VX the gates.