Wow, a lot of you folks are taking way, way too much away from these comments by Mr. Tilden...

It was a BUSINESS BREAKFAST, people--not a shareholders meeting. Some brown-nosing is to be expected, especially between two businesses that have a direct, successful relationship with one another. Tilden's antidote about his dad being a Boeing employee was exactly that--an antidote to share at a chummy gathering of area business leaders.

gunsontheroof wrote:

Wow, a lot of you folks are taking way, way too much away from these comments by Mr. Tilden...

It was a BUSINESS BREAKFAST, people--not a shareholders meeting. Some brown-nosing is to be expected, especially between two businesses that have a direct, successful relationship with one another. Tilden's antidote about his dad being a Boeing employee was exactly that--an antidote to share at a chummy gathering of area business leaders.

Exactly. I said that above, but people are making mountains out of mole hills. MANY of these other business leaders are connected with Boeing and 737s somehow, so they all have a vested interest in Boeing 737 orders.

VSMUT wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

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.

There is a clear difference between being smart enough to run a successful airline and being able to notice a bad decision. The latter part is pretty common, even though you seem to lack the ability. Tell me, have you ever tried bargaining for the price of product at a market, or haggling with a taxi-driver to get a better price? Judging from your opinions, you are the stupid Mzungo who is likely to be ripped off. As someone else mentioned, you are blinded by your loyalty to Boeing to the extent that your entire world is a black and white "loyal or not" circus. Thats not how it works, reality has a million tones of grey where an airline can be both loyal and push for competitive pricing at the same time.

Do you not think Alaska doesn't push Boeing for the best price. You really think Alaska doesn't know what SWA pays for its 737s? Or United? In your opinion Boeing thinks AS is a pushover because of a few comments from a CEO?

What about the many airlines that are solely Airbus operators? Does Airbus take advantage of them price wise on new orders? Talk about simplistic black and white thinking.

rotating14 wrote:

Between the article you linked and this article, something seems off. What strikes me as odd is the quote from the FlightGlobal article, specifically

The Airbus airplanes will be with us for a long time,” he says. “We will be an Airbus customerfor the foreseeable future.”

The first article dates from February, the second from March. Perhaps AS concluded in March that terminating the A321neo lease contract was not a viable option anymore.

rotating14 wrote:

Between the article you linked and this article, something seems off. What strikes me as odd is the quote from the FlightGlobal article, specifically

The Airbus airplanes will be with us for a long time,” he says. “We will be an Airbus customerfor the foreseeable future.”

White man speak with forked tongue!

In reality, the two statements are not contradictory inasmuch as the A321neos will be in the fleet until at least 2030. So even if all the leased A320s are returned and the A320neo order is cancelled, they'll still have the A321neo "for the forseeable future".

jbs2886 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

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.

Exactly, and this was script to Seattle business leaders. Of course Alaska is going to tell other businesses that probably do business with Boeing that they want Boeing.

That being said, I do believe the Airbus jets will go...eventually.

It stands to reason, Alaska is wanting to get and stay all Boeing to reduce inventory, training and Engineering costs. Airbus makes a fine airplane, However, Having a mixed fleet is NOT inexpensive.
If you can have one Manufacturer meet all your needs?? It could save you 20-30% in handling and shipping costs Especially if you're Puget Sound Centric like Alaska is.
Were I running Alaska? I would do it as well. Southwest has been all Boeing and they haven't suffered at ALL. Jet Blue has been all Airbus and they have done so as well. United, Delta, and American all have mixed fleets with Boeing and Airbus, and you can believe this, Airbus and Boeing are paying close ATTENTION. to whatever their concerns are, Especially since Boeing wants to sell the B797 to replace the B757 and B767 and Airbus wants to sell the A321NEO to replace the B757.

Newbiepilot wrote:

... clearly thinks he is smarter than Brad Tilden, who is CEO and a veteran of 25 years for a very successful airline.

There isn't all that much causation or even correlation between "long time CEO" and "brilliant mind, good decisions".
So many CEOs job squatters around that appear excel at staying on top but much nothing else.
OK, it is even worse in politics. I give you that.

strfyr51 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

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.

Exactly, and this was script to Seattle business leaders. Of course Alaska is going to tell other businesses that probably do business with Boeing that they want Boeing.

That being said, I do believe the Airbus jets will go...eventually.

It stands to reason, Alaska is wanting to get and stay all Boeing to reduce inventory, training and Engineering costs. Airbus makes a fine airplane, However, Having a mixed fleet is NOT inexpensive.
If you can have one Manufacturer meet all your needs?? It could save you 20-30% in handling and shipping costs Especially if you're Puget Sound Centric like Alaska is.
Were I running Alaska? I would do it as well. Southwest has been all Boeing and they haven't suffered at ALL. Jet Blue has been all Airbus and they have done so as well. United, Delta, and American all have mixed fleets with Boeing and Airbus, and you can believe this, Airbus and Boeing are paying close ATTENTION. to whatever their concerns are, Especially since Boeing wants to sell the B797 to replace the B757 and B767 and Airbus wants to sell the A321NEO to replace the B757.

Southwest Airlines is not the only airline in the U.S. that only operates Boeing 737 aircraft as Sun Country Airlines currently only operates Boeing 737-700 and Boeing 737-800 aircraft. There are at least 2 other airlines in North America (Aeromexico and WestJet) that operate Boeing planes but do not operate Airbus planes, even though Aeromexico also has Embraer regional jets and even though WestJet also has Bombardier Q400 turboprop planes.

Under Tilden the airline has flourished. It has developed new hubs/focus cities in SJC and SAN organically and purchased hubs at SFO and LAX. The airline has performed phenomenally and today's route map (aside from Alaska and the PNW) looks completely different than it did ~5-6 years ago. They have defended their home turf at SEA well and have remained the city's favorite, despite countless billboards about the on time machine and lie flat seats. All of this to say, management at AAG knows what they're doing. They've seen WN perform with just the 737. They've also seen an airline like B6 struggle operationally and a good chunk of that is due to the E190 sub fleet.
Yes they're a large airline and the A32X is a fantastic airplane. But what does it give AS besides a few more PAX on A321NEO that AS needs (TATL range is out of the picture), that the 737 doesn't? Different cargo procedures to complicate ground handling? A new engine that must be serviced? Different cockpits? Different cabins? Different galleys? Different loading heights? All of these trivial things add up to a mixed fleet not making very much sense for AS.

It would be idiotic to announce that you're going to buy from vendor X in a competitive situation. I don't know if this guy is an idiot or if there's more to the story, like wanting for some reason to pressure Airbus or be nice to Boeing.

For sure, 319s will need to go in today's route structure. And for sure, having a single type as opposed to multiple is useful for an airline. But, given their location I don't think they can afford to not look at NEOs and 321s and LRs as an option. In the future.

AirlineCritic wrote:

It would be idiotic to announce that you're going to buy from vendor X in a competitive situation. I don't know if this guy is an idiot or if there's more to the story, like wanting for some reason to pressure Airbus or be nice to Boeing.

For sure, 319s will need to go in today's route structure. And for sure, having a single type as opposed to multiple is useful for an airline. But, given their location I don't think they can afford to not look at NEOs and 321s and LRs as an option. In the future.

As explained in a number of posts, you have to look at the context of the speech. You are reading too much into it, much less alleging the CEO is an idiot.

Part of Alaskan's successful business model has been single type operations on mainline (since the MDs were phased out), I doubt they're in a rush to move on from the Airbus fleet but I have a feeling that eventually it'll be back to an all Boeing fleet.

Alaska does already fly Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 planes nonstop between its home base in Seattle and Ft. Lauderdale, and FLL is farther from SEA than Hawaii is from SEA. Alaska also does already fly 737-800 and 737-900 planes on nonstop flights between Seattle and Hawaii, and Delta even flies a 737-900ER nonstop between SEA and HNL.

All 50 states are within the range of Boeing 737 NG planes and Boeing 737 MAX planes, and Alaska will be able to do nonstop service from California to Hawaii, the Northeastern U.S., and Florida on Boeing 737 MAX planes.

jplatts wrote:

Alaska does already fly Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 planes nonstop between its home base in Seattle and Ft. Lauderdale, and FLL is farther from SEA than Hawaii is from SEA. Alaska also does already fly 737-800 and 737-900 planes on nonstop flights between Seattle and Hawaii, and Delta even flies a 737-900ER nonstop between SEA and HNL.

All 50 states are within the range of Boeing 737 NG planes and Boeing 737 MAX planes, and Alaska will be able to do nonstop service from California to Hawaii, the Northeastern U.S., and Florida on Boeing 737 MAX planes.

OK?

jbs2886 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Alaska does already fly Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 planes nonstop between its home base in Seattle and Ft. Lauderdale, and FLL is farther from SEA than Hawaii is from SEA. Alaska also does already fly 737-800 and 737-900 planes on nonstop flights between Seattle and Hawaii, and Delta even flies a 737-900ER nonstop between SEA and HNL.

All 50 states are within the range of Boeing 737 NG planes and Boeing 737 MAX planes, and Alaska will be able to do nonstop service from California to Hawaii, the Northeastern U.S., and Florida on Boeing 737 MAX planes.

OK?

If you read into his post he's saying AS doesn't need the range capabilities of the LR since the 737 already handles all of it's, AS, needs.

AAlaxfan wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Alaska does already fly Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 planes nonstop between its home base in Seattle and Ft. Lauderdale, and FLL is farther from SEA than Hawaii is from SEA. Alaska also does already fly 737-800 and 737-900 planes on nonstop flights between Seattle and Hawaii, and Delta even flies a 737-900ER nonstop between SEA and HNL.

All 50 states are within the range of Boeing 737 NG planes and Boeing 737 MAX planes, and Alaska will be able to do nonstop service from California to Hawaii, the Northeastern U.S., and Florida on Boeing 737 MAX planes.

OK?

If you read into his post he's saying AS doesn't need the range capabilities of the LR since the 737 already handles all of it's, AS, needs.

Which incorrectly assumes that the needs of AS today match their needs 5-10 years from now. Growth is projected to be around 8% annually, including both long and short haul markets, so AS will need added capacity and range at some point.

EA CO AS wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

OK?

If you read into his post he's saying AS doesn't need the range capabilities of the LR since the 737 already handles all of it's, AS, needs.

Which incorrectly assumes that the needs of AS today match their needs 5-10 years from now. Growth is projected to be around 8% annually, including both long and short haul markets, so AS will need added capacity and range at some point.

Of course in 10 years we will (hopefully) have the MOM

Bummer. I was really hoping Alaska would diversify the fleet a bit. I personally prefer the Airbus 319/20/21 over the 737. Who knows, maybe Alaska will change it's mind a year or two down the line. Fingers crossed!

jbs2886 wrote:

Of course in 10 years we will (hopefully) have the MOM

So you think he is deliberately letting go of a bird in his hand for a bird that will (hopefully) be in the bush in 10 years?

F9Animal wrote:

Bummer. I was really hoping Alaska would diversify the fleet a bit. I personally prefer the Airbus 319/20/21 over the 737. Who knows, maybe Alaska will change it's mind a year or two down the line. Fingers crossed!

Even if they just kept the A321neo, I'd be happy. Something different to play around with.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Bummer. I was really hoping Alaska would diversify the fleet a bit. I personally prefer the Airbus 319/20/21 over the 737. Who knows, maybe Alaska will change it's mind a year or two down the line. Fingers crossed!

Even if they just kept the A321neo, I'd be happy. Something different to play around with.

Word is that the A321NEO has been getting rave reviews from crews and customers alike, so you never know.

EA CO AS wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Bummer. I was really hoping Alaska would diversify the fleet a bit. I personally prefer the Airbus 319/20/21 over the 737. Who knows, maybe Alaska will change it's mind a year or two down the line. Fingers crossed!

Even if they just kept the A321neo, I'd be happy. Something different to play around with.

Word is that the A321NEO has been getting rave reviews from crews and customers alike, so you never know.

That begs the question, though: If they like the A321neo so much, why not the A320s? Is it the upgraded amenities or the aircraft itself that is different?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Even if they just kept the A321neo, I'd be happy. Something different to play around with.

Word is that the A321NEO has been getting rave reviews from crews and customers alike, so you never know.

That begs the question, though: If they like the A321neo so much, why not the A320s? Is it the upgraded amenities or the aircraft itself that is different?

Maybe the attraction is the size and ability of the plane? I agree, it would be awesome to have AS keep the 321 at least. I also think it would be really cool to see AS use them like B6, and enhance the cabin like mint. So many possibilities. It's exciting to see AS grow and continued success.

EA CO AS wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Bummer. I was really hoping Alaska would diversify the fleet a bit. I personally prefer the Airbus 319/20/21 over the 737. Who knows, maybe Alaska will change it's mind a year or two down the line. Fingers crossed!

Even if they just kept the A321neo, I'd be happy. Something different to play around with.

Word is that the A321NEO has been getting rave reviews from crews and customers alike, so you never know.

Other than new IFE screens and an extra lavatory, how is the A321neo different from the rest of the virgin fleet from a customer perspective ?

Does Virgin America have that aweful SpaceFlex configuration in the back of the A321? The one where most Americans can't fit in the lavatory?

Would it not be wise to use the 321 NEOs as a separate sub fleet? Perhaps for an enhanced transcon product? Considering their presence now in the larger West Coast markets, it could be a ready-made solution for their future fleet while also keeping them competitive with the Big Three in the premium space.

Also, if you keep them to a couple of hubs, you lessen costs.

PA727 wrote:

Would it not be wise to use the 321 NEOs as a separate sub fleet? Perhaps for an enhanced transcon product? Considering their presence now in the larger West Coast markets, it could be a ready-made solution for their future fleet while also keeping them competitive with the Big Three in the premium space.

Also, if you keep them to a couple of hubs, you lessen costs.

I think a lot of us have suggested or hoped for that but it doesn't seem to be the direction they're heading right now. FWIW, there are a lot of great products being put into the transcon marketplace (i.e. Mint) and it's probably going to become a bit of a bloodbath in some markets. They might prefer to keep their First as more of a value option rather than a true large revenue generator.

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!"

People keep trotting out this tired "Delta always buys used planes" trope. Delta saw a unique opportunity with the 717 and MD-90 acquisitions that, for various reasons, doesn't apply to every fleet type. That doesn't mean that they will buy every used aircraft that comes on the market.

Seeing as how Delta has a greater number of new-build aircraft on order than the entire fleets of many of the world's airlines, this trope is getting old. Sometimes reading A.net is like listening to the greatest hits album from a band that wasn't very good.

VSMUT wrote:

[
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're putting a lot of faith into some informal comments at a breakfast.

PA727 wrote:

Would it not be wise to use the 321 NEOs as a separate sub fleet? Perhaps for an enhanced transcon product? Considering their presence now in the larger West Coast markets, it could be a ready-made solution for their future fleet while also keeping them competitive with the Big Three in the premium space.

Probably not. Many of us have been speculating since the merger announcement about whether or not the combined "new Alaska" would have sufficient scale to justify two separate and distinct fleet types serving essentially identical network roles. That is economically justifiable for a carrier the scale of AA, Delta or United - but Alaska? Quite possibly not. Case in point: AA, for instance, operates nearly double the 737s as Alaska's entire fleet, and almost 6x the number of A320 family aircraft as Virgin America's entire fleet. In Alaska's case, it seems logical to standardize on a single fleet type, and enjoy all the cost efficiency and operational flexibility benefits that entails.

With respect to the transcons, specifically, there, too, there has been speculation - seemingly confirmed, at least thus far - that Alaska may well simply choose not to compete meaningfully for high-end premium share against AA, Delta, JetBlue and United. The premium transcon market is already quite crowded, and pricing - particularly against JetBlue - is tough. Alaska seems to have concluded - again, logically - that the incremental additional revenue it would be able to generate won't overcome the significant direct and indirect costs of dedicating a fleet of aircraft solely for these markets. And here, too, scale almost certainly plays a role. It is much easier to justify such an expensive subfleet of airplanes when you have hundreds and hundreds of jets.

PA727 wrote:

Also, if you keep them to a couple of hubs, you lessen costs.

True, though you don't lessen the costs as simply eliminating a fleet type altogether.

KGRB wrote:

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!"

People keep trotting out this tired "Delta always buys used planes" trope. Delta saw a unique opportunity with the 717 and MD-90 acquisitions that, for various reasons, doesn't apply to every fleet type. That doesn't mean that they will buy every used aircraft that comes on the market.

Seeing as how Delta has a greater number of new-build aircraft on order than the entire fleets of many of the world's airlines, this trope is getting old. Sometimes reading A.net is like listening to the greatest hits album from a band that wasn't very good.

Don't forget that used 777 that they made a big stink about getting for well under $10M...

Also, it's not like it's a *bad* thing that they pick up used aircraft when they see a good deal.

If they find that they can economically FILL their A321s, they may well keep them longer than they now expect to, as even 737-10s would not provide quite the same capacity

Super80Fan wrote:

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.

And you know THAT HOW?? Do you have operational data to support that? I'd doubt that you can support that assumption..

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If they find that they can economically FILL their A321s, they may well keep them longer than they now expect to, as even 737-10s would not provide quite the same capacity

-10 would match the A321 in a 2 class config, at most it would be 2 seats short.

strfyr51 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

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.

And you know THAT HOW?? Do you have operational data to support that? I'd doubt that you can support that assumption..

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

Super80Fan wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

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.

And you know THAT HOW?? Do you have operational data to support that? I'd doubt that you can support that assumption..

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

The point of this particular thread is Alaska Airlines. They have concluded that the 738/739 are fine for their network. The A320 is superfluous. The A321 is likely as well given that the MAX 10 is on the table, but perhaps they'll surprise us on that one.

ElroyJetson wrote:

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

Got news for you. Boeing employees ride all over the world on Delta Airbus aircraft. The old story, the cheapest fair from A to B gets the business regardless of airframe.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

And you know THAT HOW?? Do you have operational data to support that? I'd doubt that you can support that assumption..

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

The point of this particular thread is Alaska Airlines. They have concluded that the 738/739 are fine for their network. The A320 is superfluous. The A321 is likely as well given that the MAX 10 is on the table, but perhaps they'll surprise us on that one.

The A319 and 737-700 are hardly in the same class. Both great aircraft but not really comparable.

BravoOne wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

The point of this particular thread is Alaska Airlines. They have concluded that the 738/739 are fine for their network. The A320 is superfluous. The A321 is likely as well given that the MAX 10 is on the table, but perhaps they'll surprise us on that one.

The A319 and 737-700 are hardly in the same class. Both great aircraft but not really comparable.

How so?

Sorry look it up yourself as I don't have time to get into some AB vs Boeing pissing contest.

My point is I think AS is making a mistake sticking to solely Boeing.

BravoOne wrote:

Sorry look it up yourself as I don't have time to get into some AB vs Boeing pissing contest.

And yet you found time to post this. Is it perhaps because you prefer one over the other? Have you looked it up?

Super80Fan wrote:

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

Umm, the A319 is superior to the 737-700 is a fact? If you think things are so black and white that one can be superior to the other in terms of passengers, range, and performance, then the facts aren't lying, but you might be since that is an opinion. Those planes are very comparable and it depends on the operating conditions and configuration as well as what factors are being compared to determine which is superior for an individual airline. Black and white declarations like that are virtually impossible to justify.

BravoOne wrote:

Sorry look it up yourself as I don't have time to get into some AB vs Boeing pissing contest.

Fact free claims like that hurt the integrity of this forum.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

Umm, the A319 is superior to the 737-700 is a fact? If you think things are so black and white that one can be superior to the other in terms of passengers, range, and performance, then the facts aren't lying, but you might be. Those planes are very comparable and it depends on the operating conditions and configuration as well as what factors are being compared to determine which is superior for an individual airline. Black and white declarations like that are virtually impossible to justify.

BravoOne wrote:

Sorry look it up yourself as I don't have time to get into some AB vs Boeing pissing contest.

Fact free claims like that hurt the integrity of this forum.

I'd say the 737-900ER part is fairly accurate. It only becomes competitive when you tip the balance in its favour significantly. Like if you're an all-737 airline.

Super80Fan wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

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.

And you know THAT HOW?? Do you have operational data to support that? I'd doubt that you can support that assumption..

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

Yes, the facts ARE out there. The 737-700 is vastly superior to the A319, to those carriers that chose it. The 737-800 is vastly superior to the A320, to those carriers that chose it. And finally, the 737-900 is immeasurable superior in terms of passengers, range, performance, cargo capacity, profitability blah blah blah over the A321 to those carriers that chose it. Those facts don't lie.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

And you know THAT HOW?? Do you have operational data to support that? I'd doubt that you can support that assumption..

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

Yes, the facts ARE out there. The 737-700 is vastly superior to the A319, to those carriers that chose it. The 737-800 is vastly superior to the A320, to those carriers that chose it. And finally, the 737-900 is immeasurable superior in terms of passengers, range, performance, cargo capacity, profitability blah blah blah over the A321 to those carriers that chose it. Those facts don't lie.

The only airlines that can entirely evaluate all the 737-700/800/900 vs A319/20/21 family members are Alaska, Delta and Turkish. Delta has ordered both the 737-900ER and A321 in recent years. Turkish has both the MAX and NEO on order. As for Alaska, it looks like their CEO is a bit partisan but voiced his opinion, which is why we have this thread.

Newbiepilot wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The facts are out there. The A319 is superior to the 737-700, the 737-800/A320 are a tossup and the A321 is vastly superior to the 737-900 in terms of passengers, range, performance, and number sold. Facts don't lie.

Yes, the facts ARE out there. The 737-700 is vastly superior to the A319, to those carriers that chose it. The 737-800 is vastly superior to the A320, to those carriers that chose it. And finally, the 737-900 is immeasurable superior in terms of passengers, range, performance, cargo capacity, profitability blah blah blah over the A321 to those carriers that chose it. Those facts don't lie.

The only airlines that can entirely evaluate all the 737-700/800/900 vs A319/20/21 family members are Alaska, Delta and Turkish. Delta has ordered both the 737-900ER and A321 in recent years. Turkish has both the MAX and NEO on order. As for Alaska, it looks like their CEO is a bit partisan but voiced his opinion, which is why we have this thread.

And to be fair, the fat lady hasn't truly sang yet at Alaska. They have years to go before the A32X family is gone - plenty of time for him/them to fall in love with a new product/manufacturer. Plenty of airlines have started out planning on the 737 but ended up at some point with A320s. It can happen. I'm not expecting it - Alaska is a logical all-737 candidate - but it could happen.

I do wonder if we had Toulouse Airlines, an all-320 carrier, and it acquired a smaller rival with 737s, if we'd be having the same pushback if the CEO of Toulouse Airlines waxed poetic at a Toulouse community meeting about the importance of Airbus to the Toulouse community and how committed Toulouse Airlines is to supporting it's hometown? I don't say that as a diversionary tactic, but rather just wondering why it would even be a big deal? To me, it would make sense.

Super80Fan wrote:

My point is I think AS is making a mistake sticking to solely Boeing.

What about SWA?

william wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

My point is I think AS is making a mistake sticking to solely Boeing.

What about SWA?

Southwest is a totally different airline with a different product. Southwest also doesn't have the nonsense of a regional product.

commavia wrote:

PA727 wrote:

Would it not be wise to use the 321 NEOs as a separate sub fleet? Perhaps for an enhanced transcon product? Considering their presence now in the larger West Coast markets, it could be a ready-made solution for their future fleet while also keeping them competitive with the Big Three in the premium space.

Probably not. Many of us have been speculating since the merger announcement about whether or not the combined "new Alaska" would have sufficient scale to justify two separate and distinct fleet types serving essentially identical network roles. That is economically justifiable for a carrier the scale of AA, Delta or United - but Alaska? Quite possibly not. Case in point: AA, for instance, operates nearly double the 737s as Alaska's entire fleet, and almost 6x the number of A320 family aircraft as Virgin America's entire fleet. In Alaska's case, it seems logical to standardize on a single fleet type, and enjoy all the cost efficiency and operational flexibility benefits that entails.

With respect to the transcons, specifically, there, too, there has been speculation - seemingly confirmed, at least thus far - that Alaska may well simply choose not to compete meaningfully for high-end premium share against AA, Delta, JetBlue and United. The premium transcon market is already quite crowded, and pricing - particularly against JetBlue - is tough. Alaska seems to have concluded - again, logically - that the incremental additional revenue it would be able to generate won't overcome the significant direct and indirect costs of dedicating a fleet of aircraft solely for these markets. And here, too, scale almost certainly plays a role. It is much easier to justify such an expensive subfleet of airplanes when you have hundreds and hundreds of jets.

PA727 wrote:

Also, if you keep them to a couple of hubs, you lessen costs.

True, though you don't lessen the costs as simply eliminating a fleet type altogether.

Good point on the sizes of the fleets, I should have taken that into account, along w/the bloodbath that's currently the transcon market. Trying to think through the most cost-effective possibilities for a 321 NEO fleet if AS were to take them up, which I believe is currently still on track.