Nothing earth shattering here, Airbus will be around for a while, but ultimately sounds like back to all Boeing.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... yptr=yahoo

Nothing surprising. Keep in mind the script could flip on any given day. AS's loyalty could go out the window just as fast a Tilden.

Yet when I said that a year ago it was heresy...

United will probably be more than happy to take the Airbus off their hands in exchange for some of their max delivery slots.

Time for Delta to pick up more cheap used aircraft!

jbs2886 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Time for Delta to pick up more cheap used aircraft!

I hope you're joking. This line is getting very old. Anytime an airline plans to retire an aircraft everyone says "Delta!"

Not as old as Delta's fleet

I guess AS is looking to fill their business class seats with Seattle based Boeing executives.

enilria wrote:

Yet when I said that a year ago it was heresy...

Though in fairness, it sounds like they're at least holding onto these for a few years, and they're going to get the AS paint and cabins. It's not going to be like the FL 717 fleet which was dumped almost immediately.

flyguy84 wrote:

United will probably be more than happy to take the Airbus off their hands in exchange for some of their max delivery slots.

Not sure if UA would have any interest in these. The engine types are different. I was under the impression that UA is only looking for A319s with IAE engines and that there weren't that many of them out on the market right now. DL might be interested in the VX birds eventually, but it's ultimately up to the lessor to place them wherever they fit best.

jbs2886 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Time for Delta to pick up more cheap used aircraft!

I hope you're joking. This line is getting very old. Anytime an airline plans to retire an aircraft everyone says "Delta!"

But these are planes less than 10 years old. Except for the A321neos, I suspect that DL will want to take the leases on a "lease to own" deal. The A319 fleet would be expanded, and old ex-NW A320s would be retired. 37 of Delta's A320s are 24 years old or older, with the oldest one, N309US (msn 118) being 27 years old.

Other North American carriers who might take on the VX A319/A320 fleet on a sub-lease might be Frontier or Interjet. (For Spirit and JetBlue---wrong engine.)

From the article:

Though Virgin took delivery of a trio of new Airbus A320 aircraft, it also warned that the average age of the Airbus A320 jets in its fleet was 6.3 years, and those aircraft were starting to need more "scheduled and unscheduled maintenance" as they get older.

I have a hard time believing that a fleet that's only averaging 6.3 years is a problem. It sounds more like the VX maintenance operation is the issue.

jbs2886 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Time for Delta to pick up more cheap used aircraft!

I hope you're joking. This line is getting very old. Anytime an airline plans to retire an aircraft everyone says "Delta!"

Maybe because they'd even slap a widget on the Wright Flyer if the Smithsonian could be persuaded to part with it?

When Alaska makes a mistake, the clean up tends to be very quiet.

The A319s don't fit all that well into Alaska's model to start with. But I'm surprised about the A320s. I'd think 53 of those, configured Virgin America-style, would be exactly right for their large-airport West Coast operations.

Assuming Virgin America has been maintaining the frames up to the usual American-carrier standard, some airline is going to get a nice deal on some midlife A320s.

seabosdca wrote:

The A319s don't fit all that well into Alaska's model to start with. But I'm surprised about the A320s. I'd think 53 of those, configured Virgin America-style, would be exactly right for their large-airport West Coast operations.

Assuming Virgin America has been maintaining the frames up to the usual American-carrier standard, some airline is going to get a nice deal on some midlife A320s.

Yeah the A319's I assumed were going to go even if VX didn't merge with someone, but the A320's are a bit of a surprise. the A321's I'm sure will find a new life somewhere. It's a shame really, the A321's are vastly superior to the 737-900.

seabosdca wrote:

The A319s don't fit all that well into Alaska's model to start with. But I'm surprised about the A320s. I'd think 53 of those, configured Virgin America-style, would be exactly right for their large-airport West Coast operations.

Assuming Virgin America has been maintaining the frames up to the usual American-carrier standard, some airline is going to get a nice deal on some midlife A320s.

There's already a timeline in place for retrofitting every single VX Airbus into the new AS configuration and interior, coupled with being painted in the AS livery. The majority of the Airbus fleet will be around for at least the next 4-5 years, so it makes perfect financial sense to get them painted and reconfigured, then use the A320s for primarily north/south routes (think LAXSEA, SANPDX, etc) while the -900ER fleet gets sent on transcon/midcon/HI missions.

The article linked in the start post has this interesting quote from Alaska's CEO:

"My dad was a 32-year Boeing guy," Tilden told a Seattle business audience at a breakfast organized by the Puget Sound Business Journal. "This company could not be more in love with Boeing, or loyal to Boeing."

Is this how AS makes fleet decisions

KarelXWB wrote:

The article linked in the start post has this interesting quote from Alaska's CEO:

"My dad was a 32-year Boeing guy," Tilden told a Seattle business audience at a breakfast organized by the Puget Sound Business Journal. "This company could not be more in love with Boeing, or loyal to Boeing."

Is this how AS makes fleet decisions

My thought exactly. He just said it out loud with a straight face.

I wonder how if Boeing would leverage those emotions and sell them Max's with higher prices since they are so in love, and they say love makes you blind.

Eyad89 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

The article linked in the start post has this interesting quote from Alaska's CEO:

"My dad was a 32-year Boeing guy," Tilden told a Seattle business audience at a breakfast organized by the Puget Sound Business Journal. "This company could not be more in love with Boeing, or loyal to Boeing."

Is this how AS makes fleet decisions

My thought exactly. He just said it out loud with a straight face.

I wonder how if Boeing would leverage those emotions and sell them Max's with higher prices since they are so in love, and they say love makes you blind.

He practically just said that they are going to sole-source future airliner orders. I wonder how his board is going to react to this interview...

intotheair wrote:

enilria wrote:

Yet when I said that a year ago it was heresy...

Though in fairness, it sounds like they're at least holding onto these for a few years, and they're going to get the AS paint and cabins. It's not going to be like the FL 717 fleet which was dumped almost immediately.

We covered this not so long ago:

AS to fly VX A320s through 2024, will take all A321neos

To recap:

- The A320ceo should leave the fleet when the leases expire, starting from 2024.
- The A321neo that are just entering the fleet are on lease for the next 12 years so will not leave anytime soon.
- The A320neo isn't due to arrive until 2020, this order may be axed as there is enough time to get out of the contract.

It will take another decade to swap the entire fleet to Boeing aircraft.

VSMUT wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

The article linked in the start post has this interesting quote from Alaska's CEO:



Is this how AS makes fleet decisions

My thought exactly. He just said it out loud with a straight face.

I wonder how if Boeing would leverage those emotions and sell them Max's with higher prices since they are so in love, and they say love makes you blind.

He practically just said that they are going to sole-source future airliner orders. I wonder how his board is going to react to this interview...

Airlines like Alaska, Ryanair and Southwest that are all Boeing tend to get special treatment. If you ever go to a fleet team meeting for the 737 where there may be 50 airlines, who do you think gets the best seats and whose opinion is most valued? When an airplane is grounded for a complex repair, who is likely to get round the clock service and support? When a critical Airworthiness Directive is coming due and parts are limited, who is going to be assured their requirements will be met? Which airlines have the cell phone number of the CEO who will respond to a text message at any hour of the day? A tight loyal relationship has benefits for both sides.

Manufacturers always are aggressive trying to flip customers from their competitors, but loyalty has an impact as well. Alaska probably has way more leverage and influence with Boeing than Virgin America ever did with Airbus. They probably have more attractive pricing and favorable terms in their contracts than Virgin.

I am sure you can accelerate this process.

intotheair wrote:

enilria wrote:

Yet when I said that a year ago it was heresy...

I never said they would do that. It's virtually impossible to do it immediately.

Hmm, what do you expect him to say at a Seattle business breakfast?

No plane is ever in an airline's fleet "permanently".

Newbiepilot wrote:

Airlines like Alaska, Ryanair and Southwest that are all Boeing tend to get special treatment. If you ever go to a fleet team meeting for the 737 where there may be 50 airlines, who do you think gets the best seats and whose opinion is most valued?

Best seats go to the biggest customers, but the most valued opinions are those who are going to swap to Airbus if they don't get their way.

Newbiepilot wrote:

When an airplane is grounded for a complex repair, who is likely to get round the clock service and support?

The customer that is on the verge of swapping to an Airbus fleet.

Newbiepilot wrote:

When a critical Airworthiness Directive is coming due and parts are limited, who is going to be assured their requirements will be met?

The customer that is on the verge of swapping to an Airbus fleet.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Which airlines have the cell phone number of the CEO who will respond to a text message at any hour of the day?

The biggest customer, but don't confuse that with Boeings willingness to listen. Boeing now knows perfectly well that Alaska is willing to incur big costs in favour of sole sourcing their aircraft, and Boeing is certainly going to take advantage of that. You never get good pricing through sole sourcing.

Newbiepilot wrote:

They probably have more attractive pricing and favorable terms in their contracts than Virgin.

They probably did. I am pretty sure that Boeings official list price to Alaska just took a hike.

VSMUT wrote:

The customer that is on the verge of swapping to an Airbus fleet.
.

Sales campaigns last a year or so, but airplanes are operated for two decades. Relationships matter and trust is important. A CEO like Brad Till is not going to make a comment like that if he feels it will hurt him. He has pretty much the opposite style of Al Bakar. A CEO like him can probably get a sales director fired or demoted with one phone call to Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing, if he feels his loyalty is being taken advantage of.

Open sales campaigns influence decisions and, like in all industries, companies go all out to win a sale. However after the ink has dried, the sales team has gone home, and the airplanes are in service that enthusiasm fades and relationships matter. Brad Till may never admit it publicly, but if he felt his loyalty was being taken advantage, his company certainly would have an Airbus sales team offer a proposal in a heartbeat.

Here is an article about power in the aviation industry.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... e-jet-set/

Alaska probably has a lot more power than an airline of its size typically would because of the relationships and home town connection with Boeing. Virgin America has some very expensive leasing contracts and would be an example of an airline pretty far down the pecking order. Comments like what Brad Till said in this interview is likely how he maintains power.

scbriml wrote:

Hmm, what do you expect him to say at a Seattle business breakfast?

So you're suggesting that:

Alaska Airlines will likely shed the Airbus jets it inherited in its takeover of Virgin America and slowly replace them with Boeing aircraft, Alaska Air Group CEO Brad Tilden said Tuesday.

is misinformation that was put out to play to that crowd and that venue?

Or are you doing the fanboy thing?

IMHO, this is negotiating in public with Boeing, sending a message that they're close but Boeing needs to do a little more to clinch it.

Anyone have any insight as to when the fist Airbus will roll out with AS colors/interiors?

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:
Hmm, what do you expect him to say at a Seattle business breakfast?


So you're suggesting that:

Alaska Airlines will likely shed the Airbus jets it inherited in its takeover of Virgin America and slowly replace them with Boeing aircraft, Alaska Air Group CEO Brad Tilden said Tuesday.

is misinformation that was put out to play to that crowd and that venue?

I didn't say it was misinformation, but "will likely" is subtly different to "will definitely".

It's also naive to think that people don't moderate their words to take account of their audience. What do you think he'd have said at a business breakfast in Toulouse?

How many times do we hear an airline CEO say something like this when announcing a new order - "These new Airbus xxxx provide us with the most modern and most efficient planes in the sky, will be the backbone of our fleet and are fantastic news for our customers. Blah. blah blah..." Six months later when ordering some Boeings, the same CEO says "These new Boeing xxxx provide us with the most modern and most efficient planes in the sky, will be the backbone of our fleet and are fantastic news for our customers. Blah. blah blah..."

Revelation wrote:

Or are you doing the fanboy thing?

Nah.

scbriml wrote:

What do you think he'd have said at a business breakfast in Toulouse?

Interestingly enough, I asked myself the same question. I think the message would be similar, and he'd be happy to try to get Airbus to react to such a message with a nice proposal, but on the other hand, I'm not sure he'd tell everyone how much he loves Boeing!

Revelation wrote:

Or are you doing the fanboy thing?

Nah.

Nicely done. Points to @scbriml.

To me the bottom line is that it won't be efficient for AS to have two very similar fleets of aircraft going forward. They aren't the size of the US3, and they don't benefit from the network effect like those giants do. Personally I think there is some chance that Airbus could swoop in with a killer deal and win their business, but I don't see the incentive for Airbus to do so. Their backlog is huge and profitable, and it doesn't really make sense for them to go extremes to get AS's business.

It would not be strange if AS would not order one additional A320 family aircraft and it is in the interest of a mid sized airline to simplify it´s fleet. But that does not mean that AS will not take the already ordered A320 family frames if that is financial better than cancelling them, especially as AS has not a lot of bargaining power with Airbus while going to an all Boeing fleet.
Flying those and the older frames until the leases expires and order in the future Boeing frames instead, could still take 15 to 20 years. The easiest way would be a deal with a leasing company if AS wants to get rid of the Airbus frames fast, exchanging A32X for 737.

Funny how we don't see this angst when an airline goes full Airbus. Its treated as the "normal" thing to do. I don't believe SWA gets the shaft from Boeing when it comes to deals on 737s.

Six of the VX A320ceos are owned. Those could be sold to anyone whom AS desires right now.

william wrote:

Funny how we don't see this angst when an airline goes full Airbus. Its treated as the "normal" thing to do. I don't believe SWA gets the shaft from Boeing when it comes to deals on 737s.

I would imagine this is why Southwest pushed so hard to be the launch customer for the -300, -500, and -700. They really weren't even that big of an airline back in the early 80's, larger than VX but still pretty small. They wanted to make sure that Boeing knew that they were committed to the 737. It's easier to get a good deal if the dealer knows you'll come back.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Sales campaigns last a year or so, but airplanes are operated for two decades.

An airline the size of Alaska is constantly reviewing fleet plans, and they place new orders every few years. For a customer like Alaska, the sales campaign runs more or less constantly.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Relationships matter and trust is important. A CEO like Brad Till is not going to make a comment like that if he feels it will hurt him. He has pretty much the opposite style of Al Bakar.

Aviation executives have made stupid decisions that cost the company dearly in the past, it wouldn't be the first time. Leahy's open mouthed methods cost Airbus the Japanese market for nearly 20 years. An executive doesn't even need to use Al Baker methods, which is what I would argue that this "Brad Till" just used - only against the interests of the company as you noted.

Newbiepilot wrote:

A CEO like him can probably get a sales director fired or demoted with one phone call to Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing, if he feels his loyalty is being taken advantage of.

Sure, and Boeing is a non-profit organization The Boeing management has to answer to its own board and shareholders. That's where Boeings allegiance lies.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Open sales campaigns influence decisions and, like in all industries, companies go all out to win a sale. However after the ink has dried, the sales team has gone home, and the airplanes are in service that enthusiasm fades and relationships matter.

Except the campaign isn't over. Now Alaska will have to replace some 100 A32Xs, and just told Boeing that they aren't interested in a competitive offer. They will also have to eventually replace some 130 737NGs. The oldest 737-800s are already 12 years old, so you can expect that they will start looking for replacements for those within 2 years. The 737-900As are even older than that.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Brad Till may never admit it publicly, but if he felt his loyalty was being taken advantage, his company certainly would have an Airbus sales team offer a proposal in a heartbeat.

Brad Till just told the world that his loyalty was based on the petty fact that a family once worked there, not common business sense.

You don't win any prizes for being a naive loyal customer in this business. Keeping all options open is central to achieving good pricing. But Alaska can still be a loyal Boeing customer without isolating itself like this, thats what 99% of the worlds airlines do. It is why IAG, Ryanair and Air Asia have all made public announcements saying that they were talking with COMAC about C919. Do you really think Air Asia isn't a highly regarded customer with Airbus anyway? Or Ryanair with Boeing?
In fact, speaking of Ryanair, they already made the mistake of leaning too heavily on Boeing in the past, and have publicly complained that Boeing took advantage of the situation to raise the prices. And why shouldn't Boeing do so?

william wrote:

Funny how we don't see this angst when an airline goes full Airbus. Its treated as the "normal" thing to do. I don't believe SWA gets the shaft from Boeing when it comes to deals on 737s.

My feelings exactly!

flyfresno wrote:

Time for Delta to pick up more cheap used aircraft!

I was thinking more along the lines of Allegiant.

william wrote:

Funny how we don't see this angst when an airline goes full Airbus. Its treated as the "normal" thing to do. I don't believe SWA gets the shaft from Boeing when it comes to deals on 737s.

It's honestly a joke at how some people react to an airline not wanting A320s and especially A321s. Act like it's the end of world.

I thought Alaska had a "best customer" type deal that guranteed it the lowest price? No?

There is a hometown dynamic at work here as well. While Boeing is now headquartered in Chicago, there is still deep loyalty to the company in the Seattle area, residents of which are fierce about supporting local business. The relationship between Boeing and Alaska will be a bit different from the usual airline-supplier relationship as a result. It makes a surprising decision a bit less surprising, and makes it very difficult for Airbus to get a foot in the door for orders. I'm sure Alaska talks to Airbus before every new order, but only to keep Boeing honest on pricing.

Outside of AS, the dynamic is noticeable enough that Delta has tried hard to keep its Seattle domestic mainline service all-Boeing, at the cost of operational flexibility, as it has built up the Seattle station and Seattle market share. (Delta doesn't have a Boeing product that can hang with the A330 on most Seattle international service.)

ikolkyo wrote:

william wrote:

Funny how we don't see this angst when an airline goes full Airbus. Its treated as the "normal" thing to do. I don't believe SWA gets the shaft from Boeing when it comes to deals on 737s.

It's honestly a joke at how some people react to an airline not wanting A320s and especially A321s. Act like it's the end of world.

What is even weirder is that a poster like VSMUT clearly thinks he is smarter than Brad Tilden, who is CEO and a veteran of 25 years for a very successful airline. Brad Tilden is no fool and has done very well at Alaska as their CEO for 5 years. Alaska clearly has a strong Boeing relationship.

Revelation wrote:

Interestingly enough, I asked myself the same question.

It's a good question!

Revelation wrote:

To me the bottom line is that it won't be efficient for AS to have two very similar fleets of aircraft going forward. They aren't the size of the US3, and they don't benefit from the network effect like those giants do.

I generally agree, but AS isn't that small either - their fleet including VX is now 220+ frames. That's a very comparable size to Turkish Airlines who operate a mixed fleet and will have a mixed neo/MAX fleet in future.

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interestingly enough, I asked myself the same question.

It's a good question!

Revelation wrote:

To me the bottom line is that it won't be efficient for AS to have two very similar fleets of aircraft going forward. They aren't the size of the US3, and they don't benefit from the network effect like those giants do.

I generally agree, but AS isn't that small either - their fleet including VX is now 220+ frames. That's a very comparable size to Turkish Airlines who operate a mixed fleet and will have a mixed neo/MAX fleet in future.

Sure but VX has a fleet of 65 Airbus aircraft and a lot of them are on lease, Alaska has 153 737s in its fleet and I don't even think they have leased aircraft, if they do it's a small amount. TK has a fleet of over 110+ 737 NG and about 100 A320s, comparable fleet size and that is where the difference lies.

enilria wrote:

Yet when I said that a year ago it was heresy...

But don't you think it will/would be a more bitter wrench at AS than any of the four majors? Proudly Boeing and all that. Alaska is changing fast, however, and absorbing VX. Isn't absorbing NW what got DL into Airbus? They saw the numbers, operated the planes. What is AS going to do about VX's Airbuses?

ikolkyo wrote:

Alaska has 153 737s in its fleet and I don't even think they have leased aircraft, if they do it's a small amount.

Alaska owns all of its recent 737-900ER deliveries, but a substantial portion of the 737-800 fleet is leased. I don't think this decision is being driven by leased vs. owned.

Perhaps Mr. Tilden felt free to say that because they have new orders are already on the books but not announced?