Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TransWorldOne wrote:I still can't fathom why Alaska thought there was money to be made on a long route like LAX-HAV. As others have indicated, I'm surprised that it lasted this long.
LAXintl wrote:Ending daily LAX-Havana effective January 22nd.
Alaska Airlines will discontinue flying to Havana, Cuba. Aircraft and crew will be re-deployed to markets with higher demand
https://newsroom.alaskaair.com/2017-11- ... avana-Cuba
=
No shock. Surprised it lasted a full year.
Regardless of the politics it was an odd route for AS. And to think they wanted to operate it double daily !
AWACSooner wrote:Cuba will take probably a decade before it becomes anywhere NEAR the destination from the US that other Caribbean destinations have become. .
Americans can still fly to Cuba under new rules put out by the Trump administration's new rules. But once they land on the island, they'll need to avoid more than 80 hotels and dozens of other companies that the U.S. says are tied to Cuba's military, intelligence or security services.
The State Department issued a Cuba Restricted List on Wednesday, placing dozens of hotels off-limits to American visitors
hiflyeras wrote:AS is also dropping VX flights to CUN from SFO and LAX. I read yesterday that CUN hotels are hurting with low occupancy rates. US travelers are starting to avoid Mexico and it's a shame but until they can assure traveler's safety people will opt for the Caribbean and Hawaii instead. I'm guessing AS will redeploy these aircraft to Hawaii.
jumbojet wrote:This is slightly off topic a little bit but when Saint Maarten rebounds to its full potential, I think AS would do great on a non-stop from LAX-SXM. It would be the only non-stop from the west coast to SXM. Not sure if the range is there on any of the planes in AS's fleet but it could work, at least on a seasonal basis.
AWACSooner wrote:jumbojet wrote:This is slightly off topic a little bit but when Saint Maarten rebounds to its full potential, I think AS would do great on a non-stop from LAX-SXM. It would be the only non-stop from the west coast to SXM. Not sure if the range is there on any of the planes in AS's fleet but it could work, at least on a seasonal basis.
Why? Hawaii is just as far a flight and PVR, SJD, and MZT are all beach destinations that are less than a 2-hour flight fro LAX
EA CO AS wrote:My understanding is that it ultimately was a strategic decision made on the hopes that the opening of the Cuba market under the Obama administration would stimulate additional growth in tourism down the line. It seemed logical at the time, as it appeared there was a high probability the policies of the previous administration would continue under what was assumed to be an incoming Clinton administration.
Obviously, that changed, and so did the projections for future growth and maturity of the market.
commavia wrote:With respect, that's a convenient excuse - and one hardly being used solely by Alaska - but it's ultimately unconvincing.
hiflyeras wrote:Not mentioned is AS is also dropping VX flights to CUN from SFO and LAX. I read yesterday that CUN hotels are hurting with low occupancy rates. US travelers are starting to avoid Mexico and it's a shame but until they can assure traveler's safety people will opt for the Caribbean and Hawaii instead. I'm guessing AS will redeploy these aircraft to Hawaii.
jumbojet wrote:This is slightly off topic a little bit but when Saint Maarten rebounds to its full potential, I think AS would do great on a non-stop from LAX-SXM. It would be the only non-stop from the west coast to SXM. Not sure if the range is there on any of the planes in AS's fleet but it could work, at least on a seasonal basis.
berari wrote:How strong is the Alaska brand outside of the NW? I know they are growing in LAX, but even then, would they have better a image with a different brand? They had an opportunity to be branded Virgin with the merger which has better recognition, but for some reason I always feel like their brand pigeonholes them to the NW corner of the country.
jumbojet wrote:
Why? Because if they could make money on it, then why not? SXM is no small potatoes. While it might not be as grand a destination as Hawaii, SXM is also used as a spring board to other nearby, desirable Islands.
AWACSooner wrote:jumbojet wrote:
There's no one else on that route and could be a gold mine
commavia wrote:EA CO AS wrote:My understanding is that it ultimately was a strategic decision made on the hopes that the opening of the Cuba market under the Obama administration would stimulate additional growth in tourism down the line. It seemed logical at the time, as it appeared there was a high probability the policies of the previous administration would continue under what was assumed to be an incoming Clinton administration.
Obviously, that changed, and so did the projections for future growth and maturity of the market.
With respect, that's a convenient excuse - and one hardly being used solely by Alaska - but it's ultimately unconvincing. The reality is that tourism remained officially illegal for U.S. citizens, and that was never going to change because the next president was a Democrat or Republican. That requires action by the legislative branch, and cannot be changed by executive order. In any event, LAX-HAV never made logical sense - "at the time," or subsequently.
N757ST wrote:SXM to LAX would not just be range limited, but runway limited as well.
jumbojet wrote:AWACSooner wrote:jumbojet wrote:
There's no one else on that route and could be a gold mine
It very well could be. AA should try it. They have a few planes that could make it.
AS on LAX-SXM would only work with the A319. Nothing else really has the range. Maybe the 737-700 but the range on the AS 737, according to the AS website, is 2,985 NM. LAX to SEA is 3090 NM.
RWA380 wrote:With respect, what EA CO AS stated, was similar to something an emerald tower AS employee had indicated to me a week ago, the political climate is a factor in the decision to adjust certain International routes.
We were not speaking of this route in particular, but he was adamant that it has been a factor & it's not a partisan issue. Any president has the ability to influence travel trends from creating new laws, to going to war, events certainly change where we travel.
I don't think his comments were improper, as any company whose profits depend on the flying public, AS must consider many things, for example if it's getting, or going to get, harder to get into & or back into the USA for their passengers, than when they took on the route, that could easily be the difference between a marginable flight & a money loser. Or the logistics of overnighting crew members, AS is the only US carrier I know that does this. I had heard that junior crews were flying the route, because the senior FA's do not like flying the route, that is from a PDX based flight attendant that I've been friends with since high school, take that for what it's worth.
jumbojet wrote:AWACSooner wrote:jumbojet wrote:
There's no one else on that route and could be a gold mine
It very well could be. AA should try it. They have a few planes that could make it.
AS on LAX-SXM would only work with the A319. Nothing else really has the range. Maybe the 737-700 but the range on the AS 737, according to the AS website, is 2,985 NM. LAX to SEA is 3090 NM.
787fan8 wrote:From the moment that Alaska Airlines applied for it, I knew that route was destined to lose money.
tphuang wrote:And at the same time, many trained professionals at AA thought they could only make money as a weekly service out of LAX.
CobaltScar wrote:Well trained professionals at the other airlines that bum rushed the HAV slots made the same mistake with the same result as Alaska. Out of all the routes, we all expected Alaska to be the first to fold it up. LAX to HAV with a crew over-night? Yeah one of those well trained professionals at Alaska has a lot of egg on their face for holding up this cancellation 10 months over due.
SANFan wrote:I've got a list of routes from SAN that those axed long-hauls to the Caribbean (Cuba) and eastern Mexico can be used for! Just let me know, AAG, if you need any help deciding what to do with those soon-to-be-available a/c!
bb
hiflyeras wrote:New Trump administration restrictions on travelers to Cuba were the death-knell of AS's service to HAV. I wouldn't be surprised to see others reduce or cancel service as well. Costa Rica has done really well for them...maybe there are opportunities to other Central America markets.
Not mentioned is AS is also dropping VX flights to CUN from SFO and LAX. I read yesterday that CUN hotels are hurting with low occupancy rates. US travelers are starting to avoid Mexico and it's a shame but until they can assure traveler's safety people will opt for the Caribbean and Hawaii instead. I'm guessing AS will redeploy these aircraft to Hawaii.
hiflyeras wrote:Not mentioned is AS is also dropping VX flights to CUN from SFO and LAX. I read yesterday that CUN hotels are hurting with low occupancy rates. US travelers are starting to avoid Mexico and it's a shame but until they can assure traveler's safety people will opt for the Caribbean and Hawaii instead. I'm guessing AS will redeploy these aircraft to Hawaii.
commavia wrote:Please allow me to clarify. I'm not questioning that the aforementioned "excuse" is, in fact, being stated. (And frankly, apologies, as I didn't even mean to use the word "excuse" with quite the pejorative connotation with which it is often meant.) I'm also not questioning that operating in Cuba is challenging with lots logistical and economic issues with which to contend. And I'm not suggesting that Alaska or anyone else made any statements that were "improper," nor that politics were involved. And for that matter, I don't even question that the re-imposition by the current administration of some of the more formalized travel restrictions that had been relaxed under the prior administration likely has, in fact, further curbed U.S. leisure travel demand to Cuba.
Have said all that, I'll restate that the point I was trying to make was that, in the end, none of that stuff would have made a difference to the ultimate outcome in this case. None of it. Alaska flying a daily 737 LAX-HAV would not have made sense regardless of who was elected a year ago, regardless of whether formalized travel restrictions were or were not reimposed, regardless of crew scheduling challenges, and on and on. The route simply did not make economic sense - didn't then, still doesn't now. That's not a hit on Alaska as an airline or a criticism of the company for trying. I was respectfully disagreeing with the prior comment that LAX-HAV "seemed logical at the time" when, frankly, it didn't - to many, many people, myself included.
n7371f wrote:Terrific comedy for AS to even bring up the POTUS. Red meat for the ultra-liberal Western Washington but such a pathetic attempted excuse. The amount of money lost is into the millions. There's a reason no other airline proposed LAX-Cuba.
EA CO AS wrote:tphuang wrote:And at the same time, many trained professionals at AA thought they could only make money as a weekly service out of LAX.
...with a west coast network a fraction of the size that AS has.
commavia wrote:EA CO AS wrote:My understanding is that it ultimately was a strategic decision made on the hopes that the opening of the Cuba market under the Obama administration would stimulate additional growth in tourism down the line. It seemed logical at the time, as it appeared there was a high probability the policies of the previous administration would continue under what was assumed to be an incoming Clinton administration.
Obviously, that changed, and so did the projections for future growth and maturity of the market.
With respect, that's a convenient excuse - and one hardly being used solely by Alaska - but it's ultimately unconvincing. The reality is that tourism remained officially illegal for U.S. citizens, and that was never going to change because the next president was a Democrat or Republican. That requires action by the legislative branch, and cannot be changed by executive order. In any event, LAX-HAV never made logical sense - "at the time," or subsequently.