SFOtoORD wrote:

VX fliers fly VX for the experience despite the other shortcomings you mention.

ASFlyer wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Your post shows you don't understand. VX fliers fly VX for the experience despite the other shortcomings you mention. Most of the ones I know used to fly UA, but the experience is so worthwhile they take VX. Without that experience they will go back to all the other differentiators of the legacies that you rationalized away.

So what, beyond TV's and on demand food/beverage, makes the VX experience so great that people completely ignore anything else? What happens inside a VX airplane that is so special?

EA CO AS wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

VX fliers fly VX for the experience despite the other shortcomings you mention.

These VX loyalists are part of today's "brand enthusiasts" that love something deeply and passionately. Right up until they don't. And then they move on.

Point being, they're likely far more "brand agnostic" than you think, and when push comes to shove, the main drivers behind a buying decision on airline tickets are price and schedule, in that order. Brand loyalty is further down the line, and the in-depth analysis of brand loyalty among carriers showed that while VX enjoyed a nice overall following with general fliers, their elite members were only slightly more likely to recommend them than general fliers, whereas AS elites were FAR more likely to recommend AS.

And elites are where your money is. Lots of it.

AS wants to win over the VX general fliers and elites, and while they've got their work cut out for them, I don't think VX customers will turn up their collective noses at AS en masse like you seem to imply.

tphuang wrote:

Just compare MCS on VX and AS's premium product.

pitch goes from 38 inch to 35 inch.

tphuang wrote:

There's already been a migration in this group over to B6 for transcon flights and that will probably continue now that VX is a thing of the past.

hatbutton wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Just compare MCS on VX and AS's premium product.

pitch goes from 38 inch to 35 inch.

This statement is misleading and I'll tell you why. MCS is only 2 rows on VX. The bulkhead row and in the exit row. Those rows are 38" pitch and the exit row is that pitch not because VX made it so. Because exit rows on all airlines are. Alaska's exit rows are also 38" pitch.

What your statement is missing is that now 4-5 rows on VX aircraft will go from 32" pitch to 35" matching Alaska. That's actually an upgrade. Not a downgrade. Your 38" pitch in bulkhead and exit row stays, but now there are more seats at 35" pitch to choose from which is a better outcome for VX fliers.

hatbutton wrote:

The secret to AS's brand is not what's on the surface. It's the basics. On time flights, friendly and caring service, authenticity, generous mileage plan that make the majority of people feel rewarded (not just those who can afford first class). You make branding sound like a contact sport. Alaska is a very utilitarian brand. And that works for a heck of a lot of travelers. I respect WN because they never try to be something they're not. AS does the same. You can criticize it if you want. 34 million people and a bunch of JD Powers awards seem to indicate there's more there than what you seem to claim.

Historical performance is not a guarantee of future results. But you don't survive in this industry for over 80 years and manage to do it without ever filing for bankruptcy by accident. According to you Alaska may not understand branding, but if that were true then it would appear 80 years of history proves that brand clearly doesn't matter. I tend to believe there are plenty of fliers, new and repeat ones, who will love Alaska for what they have always done well. Alaska happily will play the underdog role yet again if people are going to give them little chance to succeed in California. It performs better from that position anyways.

tphuang wrote:

hatbutton wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Just compare MCS on VX and AS's premium product.

pitch goes from 38 inch to 35 inch.

This statement is misleading and I'll tell you why. MCS is only 2 rows on VX. The bulkhead row and in the exit row. Those rows are 38" pitch and the exit row is that pitch not because VX made it so. Because exit rows on all airlines are. Alaska's exit rows are also 38" pitch.

What your statement is missing is that now 4-5 rows on VX aircraft will go from 32" pitch to 35" matching Alaska. That's actually an upgrade. Not a downgrade. Your 38" pitch in bulkhead and exit row stays, but now there are more seats at 35" pitch to choose from which is a better outcome for VX fliers.

Have you flown MCS on VX?

You are basically saying it's an upgrade to go from fewer higher quality seats to more lower quality seats. And I don't see anywhere in the press release that the bulkhead row and exit row will be 38 inch. It's only an upgrade if I consider 35 inch seat to be a worthwhile upgrade, which I don't. There is no product differentiation between that and the 5 rows of MCE on AA 737 at 36 inch pitch or DL 737 at 34 inch pitch comfort plus for a frequent flyer.

The point is VX provided a significantly better experience at Y, MCS and F vs legacy airlines, which is no longer the case with these changes. So why would VX fliers continue to pay premium to fly on it? If B6 was any stronger in west coast, you would've already seen a much greater migration of ff

tphuang wrote:

hatbutton wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Just compare MCS on VX and AS's premium product.

pitch goes from 38 inch to 35 inch.

This statement is misleading and I'll tell you why. MCS is only 2 rows on VX. The bulkhead row and in the exit row. Those rows are 38" pitch and the exit row is that pitch not because VX made it so. Because exit rows on all airlines are. Alaska's exit rows are also 38" pitch.

What your statement is missing is that now 4-5 rows on VX aircraft will go from 32" pitch to 35" matching Alaska. That's actually an upgrade. Not a downgrade. Your 38" pitch in bulkhead and exit row stays, but now there are more seats at 35" pitch to choose from which is a better outcome for VX fliers.

Have you flown MCS on VX?

You are basically saying it's an upgrade to go from fewer higher quality seats to more lower quality seats. And I don't see anywhere in the press release that the bulkhead row and exit row will be 38 inch. It's only an upgrade if I consider 35 inch seat to be a worthwhile upgrade, which I don't. There is no product differentiation between that and the 5 rows of MCE on AA 737 at 36 inch pitch or DL 737 at 34 inch pitch comfort plus for a frequent flyer.

The point is VX provided a significantly better experience at Y, MCS and F vs legacy airlines, which is no longer the case with these changes. So why would VX fliers continue to pay premium to fly on it? If B6 was any stronger in west coast, you would've already seen a much greater migration of ff

SFOtoORD wrote:

flashmeister wrote:

VX was going to die anyway.

A.net myth. But keep perpetuating it.

hatbutton wrote:

tphuang wrote:

hatbutton wrote:

This statement is misleading and I'll tell you why. MCS is only 2 rows on VX. The bulkhead row and in the exit row. Those rows are 38" pitch and the exit row is that pitch not because VX made it so. Because exit rows on all airlines are. Alaska's exit rows are also 38" pitch.

What your statement is missing is that now 4-5 rows on VX aircraft will go from 32" pitch to 35" matching Alaska. That's actually an upgrade. Not a downgrade. Your 38" pitch in bulkhead and exit row stays, but now there are more seats at 35" pitch to choose from which is a better outcome for VX fliers.

Have you flown MCS on VX?

You are basically saying it's an upgrade to go from fewer higher quality seats to more lower quality seats. And I don't see anywhere in the press release that the bulkhead row and exit row will be 38 inch. It's only an upgrade if I consider 35 inch seat to be a worthwhile upgrade, which I don't. There is no product differentiation between that and the 5 rows of MCE on AA 737 at 36 inch pitch or DL 737 at 34 inch pitch comfort plus for a frequent flyer.

The point is VX provided a significantly better experience at Y, MCS and F vs legacy airlines, which is no longer the case with these changes. So why would VX fliers continue to pay premium to fly on it? If B6 was any stronger in west coast, you would've already seen a much greater migration of ff

I have flown in MCS and I personally don't think it's that much better. Legroom is all I care about and 35" is fine with me. You are welcome to argue about the experience. I was merely pointing out that you saying it's going from 38" to 35" is not entirely true. Because exit rows will remain 38". They have to because it's a requirement for safety reasons. Not because VX felt they should make them that way for the customers benefit. You can debate the other features of MCS but I was only responding to your seat pitch comment and it is true that there will be more seats in coach with more legroom on VX than there was before, including the exit rows still remaining at 38" pitch.

tphuang wrote:

hatbutton wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Have you flown MCS on VX?

You are basically saying it's an upgrade to go from fewer higher quality seats to more lower quality seats. And I don't see anywhere in the press release that the bulkhead row and exit row will be 38 inch. It's only an upgrade if I consider 35 inch seat to be a worthwhile upgrade, which I don't. There is no product differentiation between that and the 5 rows of MCE on AA 737 at 36 inch pitch or DL 737 at 34 inch pitch comfort plus for a frequent flyer.

The point is VX provided a significantly better experience at Y, MCS and F vs legacy airlines, which is no longer the case with these changes. So why would VX fliers continue to pay premium to fly on it? If B6 was any stronger in west coast, you would've already seen a much greater migration of ff

I have flown in MCS and I personally don't think it's that much better. Legroom is all I care about and 35" is fine with me. You are welcome to argue about the experience. I was merely pointing out that you saying it's going from 38" to 35" is not entirely true. Because exit rows will remain 38". They have to because it's a requirement for safety reasons. Not because VX felt they should make them that way for the customers benefit. You can debate the other features of MCS but I was only responding to your seat pitch comment and it is true that there will be more seats in coach with more legroom on VX than there was before, including the exit rows still remaining at 38" pitch.

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it. And if all they get as a ff to is something that's exactly the same as on legacy airline, then there is no reason for them to pay extra to fly AS. They might as well just fly B6 which has 33 inch seats in Y along with satellite TV and gate to gate wifi. That doesn't mean they won't fly AS if it's the cheapest with the best schedule.

And the type that really needs the premium experience are not going to stick around for AS, since AS experience doesn't cater to that.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I think branding is very much a "state of mind" or "emotional connection" if you will. That can change in a flash. If Microsoft bought Apple, do you think Apple loyalists would be happy? Doubtful. It'd now stop being "Apple" and start being "Microsoft" - that stopped being cool several versions of Windows ago. lol It wouldn't matter that Apple didn't change their product - the coolness factor would sort of whither. Lame example, but just trying to illustrate why I think VX - the brand - is as much about how their customers feel about themselves while flying them as it is about what VX actually offered. To those folks, Alaska is the Microsoft to their Apple.

Or something like that lol I'm tired.

jetmatt777 wrote:

What's funny about that is that Apple is a SFO company and Microsoft is a SEA company, fitting the VX/Apple and AS/Microsoft analogy like a glove.

tphuang wrote:

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it.

commavia wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

What's funny about that is that Apple is a SFO company and Microsoft is a SEA company, fitting the VX/Apple and AS/Microsoft analogy like a glove.

Well, okay ... except, again, for one big difference ... Apple, Microsoft and Alaska are all viable, scalable and competitively profitable (in the context of their respective industries) businesses. Virgin America was not.

hiflyeras wrote:

tphuang wrote:

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it.

Looking online for April 3rd...who is cheapest? VX customers are not 'paying a premium'...they're getting a bargain in FC compared to AA, DL. B6 must be desparate to be undercutting all of them.

VX $1098
AA $2148
DL $1458
B6 $808

hiflyeras wrote:

tphuang wrote:

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it.

Looking online for April 3rd...who is cheapest? VX customers are not 'paying a premium'...they're getting a bargain in FC compared to AA, DL. B6 must be desparate to be undercutting all of them.

VX $1098
AA $2148
DL $1458
B6 $808

tphuang wrote:

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it. And if all they get as a ff to is something that's exactly the same as on legacy airline, then there is no reason for them to pay extra to fly AS. They might as well just fly B6 which has 33 inch seats in Y along with satellite TV and gate to gate wifi. That doesn't mean they won't fly AS if it's the cheapest with the best schedule.

CobaltScar wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

tphuang wrote:

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it.

Looking online for April 3rd...who is cheapest? VX customers are not 'paying a premium'...they're getting a bargain in FC compared to AA, DL. B6 must be desparate to be undercutting all of them.

VX $1098
AA $2148
DL $1458
B6 $808

No, just more of the same: Helping usher VX out of business like they ushered UA out of JFK. Look for prices to rise now that the competition has thinned.

commavia wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

What's funny about that is that Apple is a SFO company and Microsoft is a SEA company, fitting the VX/Apple and AS/Microsoft analogy like a glove.

Well, okay ... except, again, for one big difference ... Apple, Microsoft and Alaska are all viable, scalable and competitively profitable (in the context of their respective industries) businesses. Virgin America was not.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

tphuang wrote:

whereas my point all along was that VX loyalists are the types that pay a real premium to fly it. And if all they get as a ff to is something that's exactly the same as on legacy airline, then there is no reason for them to pay extra to fly AS. They might as well just fly B6 which has 33 inch seats in Y along with satellite TV and gate to gate wifi. That doesn't mean they won't fly AS if it's the cheapest with the best schedule.

I think you just summed up why AS - the boring carrier - is successful and growing while VX - the hipster carrier - couldn't pull that off. And why AS just might be on to something by NOT going to 55", flatbed, private compartment, etc First Class cabins or carrying around IFE equipment. For all the vaunted pleasures at VX and B6 - legitimate as they are - people will often STILL fly the boring carrier if it's cheaper and/or has a better schedule.

Let's let that sink in for a minute.

tphuang wrote:

And one might say VX did pretty well for a young airline in such a cut throat business.

flashmeister wrote:

tphuang wrote:

And one might say VX did pretty well for a young airline in such a cut throat business.

Who might say that? On the rare occasions that VX made money, it was because of low fuel prices, not because of anything they did themselves.

If the Board of Directors thought that they did "pretty well", they'd still be independent and we wouldn't be talking about their acquisition.

tphuang wrote:

And one might say VX did pretty well for a young airline in such a cut throat business.

vhtje wrote:

As I see it, there are three options.

Option 1. Drop Virgin America brand and consolidate under Alaska name
Pros:
- less confusing for flying public
- cheaper as not paying royalties to the Virgin Group for use of the name
- maintains strong Alaska identity and brand goodwill
- lower marketing costs cf maintaining two brands
- able to consolidate fleet/cross-fleet
Cons:
- loss of 'cool and groovy' VX image (although incorporation of some VX amenities into AS would alleviate this)

Option 2: Drop Alaska brand and keep Virgin America brand
Pros:
- less confusing for flying public
- lower marketing costs cf maintaining two brands
- maintains VX 'cool and groovy' identity and brand goodwill
- able to consolidate fleet/cross-fleet
Cons:
- loss of very strong AS image (this is a huge con in my view - bigger than the con for option 1)
- still liable to Virgin Group for rights to use Virgin name

Option 3: Maintain both brands
Pros:
- maintains strong Alaska identity and brand goodwill
- maintains VX 'cool and groovy' identity and brand goodwill
Cons:
- still liable to Virgin Group for rights to use Virgin name
- confusion for the flying public
- makes cross-fleeting difficult and expensive
- expense of running two separate marketing and brand channels

I think, on balance, Option 1 is the winner. Shall we place bets?

IPFreely wrote:

tphuang wrote:

And one might say VX did pretty well for a young airline in such a cut throat business.

Who would say that? Most people wouldn't call losing $523,000,000 doing pretty well.

jeffrey1970 wrote:

I agree. Alaska has been around a lot longer. Like Virgin America, Alaska is well respected. I think sticking with Alaska just makes sense. I wonder if Alaska will try and start any routes along the east coast to places like Florida.

IPFreely wrote:

tphuang wrote:

And one might say VX did pretty well for a young airline in such a cut throat business.

Who would say that? Most people wouldn't call losing $523,000,000 doing pretty well.

grbauc wrote:

Its hard to be a VX loyalist they don't fly to many places. They only work if your flying to cities on there limited route map. A fair amount of VX flyers then will be use to flying other airlines. For the ones that have to have the it factor the VX produced supposedly what airline mimics them the best? DL? AS? UA?

grbauc wrote:

Its hard to be a VX loyalist they don't fly to many places. They only work if your flying to cities on there limited route map. A fair amount of VX flyers then will be use to flying other airlines. For the ones that have to have the it factor the VX produced supposedly what airline mimics them the best? DL? AS? UA?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

tphuang wrote:

And one might say VX did pretty well for a young airline in such a cut throat business.

Who would say that? Most people wouldn't call losing $523,000,000 doing pretty well.

They had a tough business plan that required people to want to pay a premium to choose their product. That takes a long time to cultivate which they probably underestimated a bit. Nonetheless, they still developed a following and provided a respectable service offering. If they wanted to throw that much money into the business, that much better for the consumer.

jeffrey1970 wrote:

I agree. Alaska has been around a lot longer. Like Virgin America, Alaska is well respected. I think sticking with Alaska just makes sense. I wonder if Alaska will try and start any routes along the east coast to places like Florida.

Well I think VX flies NYC-FLL. If they keep that we'll have our answer.

SFOtoORD wrote:

grbauc wrote:

Its hard to be a VX loyalist they don't fly to many places. They only work if your flying to cities on there limited route map. A fair amount of VX flyers then will be use to flying other airlines. For the ones that have to have the it factor the VX produced supposedly what airline mimics them the best? DL? AS? UA?

B6

NameOmitted wrote:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/03/29/alaska-airlines-reveals-timeline-end-virgin-america-elevate-program/

Alaska is apparently looking to use the 737-900 for trans-continental flights with the A320 and A319 North and South.

This link also has an indication as to the seat-plan for the Alaska A319 and A320.

commavia wrote:

Indeed. While by no means the only challenge Virgin America faced, this was arguably the biggest - its model simply did not prove scalable. Virgin America's entire business model and product/service offering was tailor-made for basically 30 metro areas.

NameOmitted wrote:

I would be curious as to what Alaska Air Cargo (and Goldstreak) think of the Airbus aircraft. Will the potential availability of the LD3-45 be of use on flights within Alaska, or is that more of a capital investment than they want to make if they are only going to have the Airbus equipment for the duration of the leases.

Conversely, if they do start to make use of the containers, would that be an indicator of long-term thoughts of a mixed fleet?

IPFreely wrote:

commavia wrote:

Indeed. While by no means the only challenge Virgin America faced, this was arguably the biggest - its model simply did not prove scalable. Virgin America's entire business model and product/service offering was tailor-made for basically 30 metro areas.

While the lack of scalability might be true, a bigger problem was that the VX business model didn't work, period. They were not successful even with service to only 30 (I think actually 24) metro areas.

SFOtoORD wrote:

And you should ask VX's investors how they felt about their investments.

"More to love" ???
Here's the latest memo from ALPA
Your Joint Negotiating Committee - who were scheduled to meet this Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday with management's negotiating team - sent an email to Alaska and Virgin America pilots this evening. If you haven't seen it, here it is:
Your JNC was scheduled to meet with management on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week. We came ready to negotiate, and began Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m. by presenting a counter to the company’s last working document. Shortly after receiving our response, management went into caucus for the remainder of the day.
This morning, your JNC listened to Alaska’s Investor Day webcast. During the webcast, senior management stressed the strength of the company to the investors, and their ability to maintain industry-leading margins. Senior management also repeatedly emphasized the importance of harmonious labor relations in a successful merger. On this subject we agree. This Merger Will Not Fly Without the Pilots Onboard.
Contrary to the Investor Day webcast, management continues to make presentations at the table in an attempt to convince us of their inability to compensate us in line with the current industry. Additionally, management has made clear their belief that planned growth is impossible without the pilots accepting a substandard agreement.
Following the Investor Day webcast, the management negotiating team met with us in a brief session. During this meeting, their team only asked questions, which we have repeatedly answered during the past 60 days. They offered no new information, and chose not to respond to our last proposal.
Today ended with management accepting our idea that we immediately involve Mediator/Arbitrator Joshua Javits. Unfortunately, management also requested 30 days to “prep” for this mediation. It makes no sense to us that management would need a month—or a week for that matter—to prepare for a mediation unless they intend to drive this process toward arbitration.
You will soon hear from the Joint Strategic Planning Committee about what each individual pilot can do to support your Joint Negotiating Committee’s efforts to get you a contract in line with the current industry.
Fraternally,
Captain Paul Stuart, Chairman First Officer James Coffelt, Vice Chair
Captain John Allison Captain Jay Rodgers
Captain Jim Meldrum Captain Phil Haase
Bruce York, ALPA Chief Negotiator and Senior Advisor
Andrew Shostack, ALPA Assistant Director of Representation
David Hannah, ALPA Senior Labor Relations Counsel
Lauren Reed, ALPA Senior Labor Relations Counsel

SFOtoORD wrote:

If you say so. You forgot your favorite $540M metric too. And you should ask VX's investors how they felt about their investments.

IPFreely wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

If you say so. You forgot your favorite $540M metric too. And you should ask VX's investors how they felt about their investments.

VX's business model didn't fail because I say so. Their own results prove their failure. Losing $540,000,000 is not "my metric", it's VX actual long term performance. VX fanboys may not like it but facts are facts.

SFOtoORD wrote:

you should ask VX's investors how they felt about their investments.

CobaltScar wrote:

So, with the VX airbuses relegated to west coast north/south shuttle and increased pax density, the poor FAs who have the second lowest payscale for a major in the USA and the most demanding inflight work (with the RED automatic ordering from seatback) are going to be saving AS some big money for the next year or two. Poor things.