Flying Blue miles can't be earned on alaska flights starting 30-4-18, Not surprising after Alaska cut ties with Delta/Aeromexico.

Alaska moving away from SkyTeam and more and more towards OneWorld.

In dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/alaska-airlines-snijdt-banden-met-air-france-klm-door

It's interesting to see the movement in the industry right now with code shares, alliances and joint ventures. Big changes in the works globally.

It really does make you think... really what is the value of an airline alliance? Seems like we are going back full circle?

globalflyer wrote:

It really does make you think... really what is the value of an airline alliance? Seems like we are going back full circle?

AS was never a part of the Skyteam Alliance, so I fail to see the relevance.

globalflyer wrote:

It really does make you think... really what is the value of an airline alliance? Seems like we are going back full circle?

I am not sure I understand what you said as it relates to Alaska. Alaska never was a part of SkyTeam. They have had relationships with airlines in SkyTeam and airlines in One World. Star affiliated airlines have the least ties to Alaska of the three major alliances.

So people using AS miles to get to Europe will be forced to use BA and pay the ridiculous UK arrival/departure tax? AS needs to get some 787's...

psa1011 wrote:

So people using AS miles to get to Europe will be forced to use BA and pay the ridiculous UK arrival/departure tax? AS needs to get some 787's...

You still have Condor, Icelandair and maybe Aer Lingus in the not-too-distant future. I'm sure there will be others.

cumulushumilis wrote:

It's interesting to see the movement in the industry right now with code shares, alliances and joint ventures. Big changes in the works globally.

I wouldn't consider AS's movement to be a "big change"; it is a niche carrier with little impact on the airline world as a whole.

Now if CX does actually move to Star... that would be a big change...

I think this makes AS miles less valuable, since one will only have Oneworld options to Europe. This means having to take AA domestically first, or transferring at LHR with the hefty tax. AS is otherwise doing pretty well at expanding its network through partners.

As someone who lives in the Bay Area, I would now be more inclined to earn miles with UA/Star to have better options when it comes to Europe.

Too bad, it was always nice to have the option to earn Alaska miles on intra-Europe flights on AF/KL since jump-starting onto Mileage Plan from VX/Elevate. At least the British partnership should still be there for future trips.

Who's next? Korean with the DL/KE JV? Not like Alaska would've retained Virgin Australia partnership from Elevate, with Qantas being an existing MP partner and the DL/VA JV, although they did continue the one Elevate had with Singapore on MP. If Korean happens my wishful thinking hopes that Asiana could replace them.

AS joining OW would be interesting

Before the Virgin America deal, I thought it was certain that Alaska would start cozying up to UA and other Star airlines as Delta became their primary competition.

Then they went and got themselves a San Francisco hub.

I think at this point there is not much return for Alaska in staying alliance-independent. The only airlines that have any incentive to play ball with them are OneWorld airlines (and the independent Emirates).

not true, BA flies SFO, SJC to LHR OAK to LGW, IB OAK-BCN, LAN Peru Returning QF, JL, CX from SFO all ways to earn on AS!

[i]AS has been a code-share partner with AA for years. And, I can use miles from either on each airline.
AS service is far above many others and AA's schedules TATL are far superior and UA or DL. Beside
the fact that UA & DL in-flight service is lacking, too say the least. DL is working on it, but UA has a major
problem with TATL services.
IMHO, AS will become a "true" member of OW, sooner than later. Also, believe that if AS had not bought
Virgin, AA would have purchased AS in a mega-deal. Core equipment(737)connection and a complimentary
route map compatibility. Also, AS is the largest carrier of psgrs from the mainland to Hawai'i.
Aloha

alfa164 wrote:

cumulushumilis wrote:

It's interesting to see the movement in the industry right now with code shares, alliances and joint ventures. Big changes in the works globally.

I wouldn't consider AS's movement to be a "big change"; it is a niche carrier with little impact on the airline world as a whole.

Now if CX does actually move to Star... that would be a big change...

A combined fleet of 301 aircraft and 40,000,000 flown last year makes AS a little more than a niche player. That's more than say Air Canada. AS just doesn't have the golbal presence of other airlines,

But not thrilled with these moves AS. Icelandiaire is good to Europe, but Condor is not really what I want to fly.
Bring in some Star Alliance partners perhaps.
Don't forget, AS is weakening the perks with AA starting 1/1/18.

psa1011 wrote:

AS needs to get some 787's...

Out of curiosity, how many would an airline need to own to create a reasonably maintainable and sustainable fleet?

I guarantee that KE will be the next airline to be cut off by AS. AS just doesn't want anything to do with SkyTeam at this point because of DL and their partners. IMHO this is very sad to see because there are some very good airlines in that alliance. But perhaps AS will be making some possible strongholds with some Star Alliance carriers in the future. The possibility of AS joining Oneworld, we'll just have to see...

flybynight wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

cumulushumilis wrote:

It's interesting to see the movement in the industry right now with code shares, alliances and joint ventures. Big changes in the works globally.

I wouldn't consider AS's movement to be a "big change"; it is a niche carrier with little impact on the airline world as a whole.

Now if CX does actually move to Star... that would be a big change...

A combined fleet of 301 aircraft and 40,000,000 flown last year makes AS a little more than a niche player. That's more than say Air Canada. AS just doesn't have the golbal presence of other airlines,

But not thrilled with these moves AS. Icelandiaire is good to Europe, but Condor is not really what I want to fly.
Bring in some Star Alliance partners perhaps.
Don't forget, AS is weakening the perks with AA starting 1/1/18.

But they are much more concentrated geographically than Air Canada. If you live in SEA/PDX/LAX they are dominant. SFO less so but yes. I think they will fill in the domestic O/D. After that, they become niche. I would think AS would pursue partnerships with any carrier that flies into SEA PDX SFO LAX. I think you are right, need to get some more Star Alliance carriers.

psa1011 wrote:

So people using AS miles to get to Europe will be forced to use BA and pay the ridiculous UK arrival/departure tax? AS needs to get some 787's...

Or AA , or AY, or DE, or FI.

There is no arrival/departure tax if you are only transiting LHR.

glfblz59 wrote:

[i]AS has been a code-share partner with AA for years. And, I can use miles from either on each airline.
AS service is far above many others and AA's schedules TATL are far superior and UA or DL. Beside
the fact that UA & DL in-flight service is lacking, too say the least. DL is working on it, but UA has a major
problem with TATL services.
IMHO, AS will become a "true" member of OW, sooner than later. Also, believe that if AS had not bought
Virgin, AA would have purchased AS in a mega-deal. Core equipment(737)connection and a complimentary
route map compatibility. Also, AS is the largest carrier of psgrs from the mainland to Hawai'i.
Aloha

Sorry not going to happen. Aa has severely cut off parternship with as also. Not going to invite as to oneworld now that it views as as a competitor.

As made it's choice to be one of the big boys when it acquired vx and now delta and aa have made a conscious decision to compete against them. Korean air partnership will go soon.

airzona11 wrote:

flybynight wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

I wouldn't consider AS's movement to be a "big change"; it is a niche carrier with little impact on the airline world as a whole.
Now if CX does actually move to Star... that would be a big change...

A combined fleet of 301 aircraft and 40,000,000 flown last year makes AS a little more than a niche player. That's more than say Air Canada. AS just doesn't have the golbal presence of other airlines,
But not thrilled with these moves AS. Icelandiaire is good to Europe, but Condor is not really what I want to fly.
Bring in some Star Alliance partners perhaps.
Don't forget, AS is weakening the perks with AA starting 1/1/18.

But they are much more concentrated geographically than Air Canada. If you live in SEA/PDX/LAX they are dominant. SFO less so but yes. I think they will fill in the domestic O/D. After that, they become niche. I would think AS would pursue partnerships with any carrier that flies into SEA PDX SFO LAX. I think you are right, need to get some more Star Alliance carriers.

While it is true that AS would be considered dominant at SEA and PDX - although the collapse of much of Horizon's schedule, coupled with the steady growth of Southwest at Portland somewhat mitigate that - their are barely on the radar at LAX... not even in the top five.

Only their acquisition of VX has marked their growth at both LAX and SEA, and that acquisition raises questions about whether AA (leading OW) and UA (Star founding member) would really want them in either alliance. Of course, alliances seem to be more interested in growth these days than in complementary additions, so AS might still have a chance.

iAmAlaska49 wrote:

But perhaps AS will be making some possible strongholds with some Star Alliance carriers in the future.

Not likely unless AS decides to scale down the legacy VX operation at SFO. United won't want to invite a SFO competitor in.

tphuang wrote:

Sorry not going to happen. Aa has severely cut off parternship with as also. Not going to invite as to oneworld now that it views as as a competitor.

Disagree. AS is in far less direct competition with AA than with either of the other two legacy majors (or WN for that matter). AS in OneWorld, or with closer AA connections, could be very helpful to AA against DL and UA.

Aliqiout wrote:

psa1011 wrote:

So people using AS miles to get to Europe will be forced to use BA and pay the ridiculous UK arrival/departure tax? AS needs to get some 787's...

Or AA , or AY, or DE, or FI.

There is no arrival/departure tax if you are only transiting LHR.

No GB APD for transit under 24 hours is true, as long as your inbound and outbound segments are on the same ticket. The huge GB APD and other taxes apply regardless of which airline flies you out of the UK, which would include AS if they did fly there on their own.

The bigger issue with award travel on BA, is that they charge their whopping fuel surcharge even on the "free" award tickets when they are the operating carrier. They make their FQTV partners collect it as well, so if redeeming AS (as well as AA and any other BA partner) miles for travel on BA, the surcharge applies. That runs the cost of the "free" round-trip J-class award ticket up to nearly US$1,000 if it's BA on the longhaul. AA doesn't charge the fuel surcharge for award travel, which can be why those seats are harder to get. BA Avios mileage burners can fly AA for "free" but not on BA itself. I believe AY, DE and FI are the same as AA.

Maybe AS will look at partnering with IB as a replacement to AFKL to fill the gap? IB applies their fuel surcharge to award tickets as well, but it's not as heinous as BA's.

airzona11 wrote:

If you live in SEA/PDX/LAX they are dominant. SFO less so but yes.

I'm confused by this statement. Who is 'dominant' in SEA/PDX/LAX. Alaska?

seabosdca wrote:

iAmAlaska49 wrote:

But perhaps AS will be making some possible strongholds with some Star Alliance carriers in the future.

Not likely unless AS decides to scale down the legacy VX operation at SFO. United won't want to invite a SFO competitor in.

tphuang wrote:

Sorry not going to happen. Aa has severely cut off parternship with as also. Not going to invite as to oneworld now that it views as as a competitor.

Disagree. AS is in far less direct competition with AA than with either of the other two legacy majors (or WN for that matter). AS in OneWorld, or with closer AA connections, could be very helpful to AA against DL and UA.

I think your argument - that UA wouldn't want a competitor, especially on its lucrative transcontinental flights from SFO - would apply equally to AA, who are fighting to stay number one in LAX and preserve their dominance on the airport's trans-continental routes. Neither UA nor AA are going to welcome AS with open arms.

glfblz59 wrote:

Also, AS is the largest carrier of psgrs from the mainland to Hawai'i.
Aloha

That must be a shock to UA....

FlyRow wrote:

Flying Blue miles can't be earned on alaska flights starting 30-4-18, Not surprising after Alaska cut ties with Delta/Aeromexico.

Alaska moving away from SkyTeam and more and more towards OneWorld.

In dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/alaska-airlines-snijdt-banden-met-air-france-klm-door

Do you think they will join OneWorld, or just strengthen their ties with American?

seabosdca wrote:

iAmAlaska49 wrote:

But perhaps AS will be making some possible strongholds with some Star Alliance carriers in the future.

Not likely unless AS decides to scale down the legacy VX operation at SFO. United won't want to invite a SFO competitor in.

tphuang wrote:

Sorry not going to happen. Aa has severely cut off parternship with as also. Not going to invite as to oneworld now that it views as as a competitor.

Disagree. AS is in far less direct competition with AA than with either of the other two legacy majors (or WN for that matter). AS in OneWorld, or with closer AA connections, could be very helpful to AA against DL and UA.

Did you completely miss out on AA initiating the severely downgrading their partnership? Yes, AA doesn't compete against AS in as many places, but it still views AS as a competitor. There is no more AA connection.

Do you think they will join OneWorld, or just strengthen their ties with American?

Again, they can't join OW or strengthen their ties with AA, when AA initiated severely downgrading their partnership to almost completely uselessness.

The cuts in AS partnership with AA and DL have cause numerous AS ff to shift back to legacy carriers. Not the end of the world. WN and B6 both do it without partnership with legacies. I don't see why AS needs to be in an alliance.

downdata wrote:

AS joining OW would be interesting

Will not be at all surprised to see that happen in 2018 if they can repair the AA relationship

Concerns about AS competing against anyone on trans-con from California seem a bit at odds with what they actually appear to be doing with their gates. AS seems much more interested in connecting CA with "flyover" territory than they do with maintaining the competition that lead to VX being a merger target.

AS taking over VX seems to be putting less pressure on AA or UA than VX alone did.

alfa164 wrote:

While it is true that AS would be considered dominant at SEA and PDX - although the collapse of much of Horizon's schedule, coupled with the steady growth of Southwest at Portland somewhat mitigate that - their are barely on the radar at LAX... not even in the top five.

Pardon my ignorance, but which airlines are in the top five at LAX then? And by what measure? I thought they were AA, UA, DL, WN, AS (not necessarily in that order).

TrojanSC wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

While it is true that AS would be considered dominant at SEA and PDX - although the collapse of much of Horizon's schedule, coupled with the steady growth of Southwest at Portland somewhat mitigate that - their are barely on the radar at LAX... not even in the top five.

Pardon my ignorance, but which airlines are in the top five at LAX then? And by what measure? I thought they were AA, UA, DL, WN, AS (not necessarily in that order).

They are, and remain those, in almost exactly that order (DL is #2 now, just ahead of UA), and this is by overall market share at LAX.

seabosdca wrote:

AS is in far less direct competition with AA than with either of the other two legacy majors (or WN for that matter).

Well, okay, but being "in far less direct competition" with AA as compared to with Delta or United doesn't mean they don't now directly overlap and compete significantly with AA. Counting coterminal/metro airports, Alaska now directly competes with AA on the vast majority of its routes out of LAX, for instance, including the premium transcons. Given that, and coupled with the the regulatory restrictions placed on the carriers by the DOJ that forced them to reduce their cooperation further, it isn't hard to see why the two found their former relationship structure economically and strategically untenable.

seabosdca wrote:

AS in OneWorld, or with closer AA connections, could be very helpful to AA against DL and UA.

hiflyeras wrote:

Will not be at all surprised to see that happen in 2018 if they can repair the AA relationship

As Alaska gets steadily cut out of any partnerships it has with SkyTeam and/or Delta-aligned airlines, I could see an argument for why, hypothetically, joining oneworld could be helpful in some ways. But as others have said, I don't see it happening - both because it's ultimately probably not worthwhile for Alaska net of the costs, and because I can't imagine how AA would accept it. My sense is that the issue isn't really about "repairing" the AA relationship, but dealing with the reality of what that relationship now entails given the significantly heightened level of competitive overlap between the two, and the regulatory restrictions placed upon them.

Ultimately, I think this pretty much sums it up:

tphuang wrote:

As made it's choice to be one of the big boys when it acquired vx and now delta and aa have made a conscious decision to compete against them.

Alaska made the strategic decision that bulking up and diversify its network presence and coverage up and down the west coast, and in particular in California, was the most strategically imperative option. Given the competitive onslaught that continues from Delta in SEA, it isn't hard to see why Alaska management drew that conclusion. And in time, it may well end up being proven to be the right decision. But like with just about any decision in business, there is fallout - and the AA relationship was part of it in this case. As already said by others - it's hardly the end of the world for Alaska (or AA, for that matter), and I suspect that the evolving nature of their competitive relationship will ultimately have a relatively small impact on both companies going forward.

EA CO AS wrote:

TrojanSC wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

While it is true that AS would be considered dominant at SEA and PDX - although the collapse of much of Horizon's schedule, coupled with the steady growth of Southwest at Portland somewhat mitigate that - their are barely on the radar at LAX... not even in the top five.

Pardon my ignorance, but which airlines are in the top five at LAX then? And by what measure? I thought they were AA, UA, DL, WN, AS (not necessarily in that order).

They are, and remain those, in almost exactly that order (DL is #2 now, just ahead of UA), and this is by overall market share at LAX.

UA was #1 for so long, I am struck how they have fallen from that perch. Though they state will rise again at LAX.

commavia wrote:

Alaska made the strategic decision that bulking up and diversify its network presence and coverage up and down the west coast, and in particular in California, was the most strategically imperative option.

AS is definitely facing challenges, to be sure:

o A growing DL in SEA
o A resurgent UA in SFO
o A strong and growing AA in LAX
o WN believing they're in for the fight of their lives all over CA
o HA getting the right-sized equipment (A321NEO) to fight for Hawaii traffic

AS is focused on growing as they successfully integrate VX; SOC occurs on 1/11/18, with PSS cutover on 4/25/18. At that point, the Virgin brand - for all intents and purposes - is retired, and AS is officially one airline. Getting these critical achievements in the rearview so they can turn 100% of their focus to growth and competition is a key initiative for 2018 and beyond.

Regarding alliances, AS has always remained neutral and this has served them well. Having said that, the formula has changed; four carriers (DL, AM, KL, AF) have dropped from the AS portfolio, all SkyTeam members, while AS has added six others, two of which are oneworld (JL, AY), one is Star (SQ), and three others are not members of any alliance (HU, DE, FI) so joining an alliance like oneworld could make sense.

william wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

TrojanSC wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but which airlines are in the top five at LAX then? And by what measure? I thought they were AA, UA, DL, WN, AS (not necessarily in that order).

They are, and remain those, in almost exactly that order (DL is #2 now, just ahead of UA), and this is by overall market share at LAX.

UA was #1 for so long, I am struck how they have fallen from that perch. Though they state will rise again at LAX.

DL and UA routinely trade places for #2 overall, but I think it's only a matter of time before UA throws more metal at LAX to make that #2 spot permanent. The difference between those spots are just a few percentage points, though; last I saw, AA was #1 with 22% of the market, and the #2 spot was at around 19%. Those numbers may have changed however.

I think DL and Ravn Alaska are going to wind up linking up. That would be a huge blow in AK.

32andBelow wrote:

I think DL and Ravn Alaska are going to wind up linking up. That would be a huge blow in AK.

Highly doubtful on this one because I think DL would have to have a way bigger presence in Alaska for that to work. The main reason why AS partners with 7H is to have better travel and connections to places that AS can't fly into at all.I believe the same goes with KS too.

EA CO AS wrote:

commavia wrote:

Alaska made the strategic decision that bulking up and diversify its network presence and coverage up and down the west coast, and in particular in California, was the most strategically imperative option.

AS is definitely facing challenges, to be sure:

o A growing DL in SEA
o A resurgent UA in SFO
o A strong and growing AA in LAX
o WN believing they're in for the fight of their lives all over CA
o HA getting the right-sized equipment (A321NEO) to fight for Hawaii traffic

AS is focused on growing as they successfully integrate VX; SOC occurs on 1/11/18, with PSS cutover on 4/25/18. At that point, the Virgin brand - for all intents and purposes - is retired, and AS is officially one airline. Getting these critical achievements in the rearview so they can turn 100% of their focus to growth and competition is a key initiative for 2018 and beyond.

Regarding alliances, AS has always remained neutral and this has served them well. Having said that, the formula has changed; four carriers (DL, AM, KL, AF) have dropped from the AS portfolio, all SkyTeam members, while AS has added six others, two of which are oneworld (JL, AY), one is Star (SQ), and three others are not members of any alliance (HU, DE, FI) so joining an alliance like oneworld could make sense.

Getting through those steps and making it as seamless an experience as possible for customers, understanding that converting aircraft and programs will take time. But right now, it's very inconsistent. That always has been one of the great things about AS...the passenger experience is very consistent. As for growth, hopefully more frequencies on some of the new routes because all of the once-per-day out and back from SEA or PDX doesn't offer choices for business travel timing.

iAmAlaska49 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I think DL and Ravn Alaska are going to wind up linking up. That would be a huge blow in AK.

Highly doubtful on this one because I think DL would have to have a way bigger presence in Alaska for that to work. The main reason why AS partners with 7H is to have better travel and connections to places that AS can't fly into at all.I believe the same goes with KS too.

No the landscape has changed. AS dropped 7H codeshare. 7H already flies a lot of major cities AS flies. 7H just launched a war with KS adding Bristol bay flights to AKN and dlg. DL already has several sea flights in peak season and flights to points east which AS can’t touch. A DL 7H link up could finally be a legit competitor to AS in ANC. Also the action by 7H is going to put KS out of business with their bankruptcy situation IMO. Unless AS decides to prop KS up.

32andBelow wrote:

DL already has several sea flights in peak season and flights to points east which AS can’t touch.

Don't be so sure. Change orders to the new hanger and ANC indicate that AS may be basing some A321 aircraft up here. They will be able to do anything DL does with a 757.

EA CO AS wrote:

william wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

They are, and remain those, in almost exactly that order (DL is #2 now, just ahead of UA), and this is by overall market share at LAX.

UA was #1 for so long, I am struck how they have fallen from that perch. Though they state will rise again at LAX.

DL and UA routinely trade places for #2 overall, but I think it's only a matter of time before UA throws more metal at LAX to make that #2 spot permanent. The difference between those spots are just a few percentage points, though; last I saw, AA was #1 with 22% of the market, and the #2 spot was at around 19%. Those numbers may have changed however.

Through October, LAWA says:

AA: 18.79%
DL: 16.69%
UA: 14.07%

alfa164 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

william wrote:

UA was #1 for so long, I am struck how they have fallen from that perch. Though they state will rise again at LAX.

DL and UA routinely trade places for #2 overall, but I think it's only a matter of time before UA throws more metal at LAX to make that #2 spot permanent. The difference between those spots are just a few percentage points, though; last I saw, AA was #1 with 22% of the market, and the #2 spot was at around 19%. Those numbers may have changed however.

Through October, LAWA says:

AA: 18.79%
DL: 16.69%
UA: 14.07%

s
I need to clarify, when I state UA was dominant I am speaking of history. Back in the 80s and 90s when UA was the dominant carrier at LAX and SEA too. Too me its odd seeing a carrier that dominated for so long now relegated to #3 at LAX.

EA CO AS wrote:

AS is definitely facing challenges, to be sure:

o A growing DL in SEA
o A resurgent UA in SFO
o A strong and growing AA in LAX
o WN believing they're in for the fight of their lives all over CA
o HA getting the right-sized equipment (A321NEO) to fight for Hawaii traffic

Yep - pretty much covers it.

EA CO AS wrote:

AS is focused on growing as they successfully integrate VX; SOC occurs on 1/11/18, with PSS cutover on 4/25/18. At that point, the Virgin brand - for all intents and purposes - is retired, and AS is officially one airline. Getting these critical achievements in the rearview so they can turn 100% of their focus to growth and competition is a key initiative for 2018 and beyond.

Absolutely - no question about it. Alaska's merger is no different than the last five mergers that have proceeded it. Everything takes a bit of a hit during the peak of the integration process while resources and attention are focused on the combination instead of everything else. Sometimes, in spite of that, the integration is rather smooth (Delta-Northwest, AA-USAirways) and sometimes it ... isn't (America West-USAirways, United-Continental). I fully agree that Alaska's operational performance, it's brand consistency and its competitiveness will all improve once it gets the most intense aspects of the merger behind it. It better - because Alaska is facing major competitive challenges on multiple fronts, as outlined above.

EA CO AS wrote:

Regarding alliances, AS has always remained neutral and this has served them well. Having said that, the formula has changed; four carriers (DL, AM, KL, AF) have dropped from the AS portfolio, all SkyTeam members, while AS has added six others, two of which are oneworld (JL, AY), one is Star (SQ), and three others are not members of any alliance (HU, DE, FI) so joining an alliance like oneworld could make sense.

I remain skeptical of the net value of oneworld membership to Alaska, and the realistic prospect of it even being possible given the level of overlap, and level of regulatory restrictions, with AA. Personally, I think Alaska's best move is to just keep doing what it's been doing - opportunistically providing feed to any and all longhaul carriers that can and will work with it. That's no small thing - there are lots of foreign airlines flying into the principal gateway cities of the west coast - all now major Alaska hubs - that are not aligned with one of the three big network carriers, and thus struggle for domestic U.S. distribution. Alaska is, and can continue to be, the natural go-to for all of them - just as JetBlue is on the east coast.

cschleic wrote:

Getting through those steps and making it as seamless an experience as possible for customers, understanding that converting aircraft and programs will take time. But right now, it's very inconsistent. That always has been one of the great things about AS...the passenger experience is very consistent.

I agree. Unlike its recent acquisition, Alaska has never been particularly flashy with its branding or product, but what it has been is extremely consistent and successful at delivering on its brand promise and value proposition. That has obviously taken a hit with all of the integration and other challenges of late, as Alaska's own management has clearly acknowledged. I'm sure it will improve.

cschleic wrote:

As for growth, hopefully more frequencies on some of the new routes because all of the once-per-day out and back from SEA or PDX doesn't offer choices for business travel timing.

I don't disagree that single daily frequencies on routes out of SEA/PDX is arguably less ideal for business travelers, but it also must be said that on many of the routes where Alaska has only a single daily flight, they're often the only nonstop operator, and/or any other nonstop competitors have similarly limited frequencies. There almost certainly will be opportunities in the coming years - allowing for Horizon to stabilize and SEA to increase gate capacity - to improve frequency and schedule presence in plenty of markets. But for the moment, the fact that Alaska offers only a single daily flight on, say, SEA-BNA or PDX-BOS, etc., up against zero or only one daily flight from a rival, doesn't seem like all that big of an issue.

william wrote:

I need to clarify, when I state UA was dominant I am speaking of history. Back in the 80s and 90s when UA was the dominant carrier at LAX and SEA too. Too me its odd seeing a carrier that dominated for so long now relegated to #3 at LAX.

With respect, I think that's more perception than reality. At no time in recent history was United ever "dominant" at LAX. It was, indeed, long the airport's largest single airline brand, but even at its absolute zenith of its LAX presence in the recent past - probably in the late 1990s or early 2000s - I don't believe it's overall market share never got out of the mid-20s. Certainly by the turn of the century, United faced intense and rapidly intensifying competition from AA and then on, off, and then very much on again by Delta, too - not to mention Southwest.

iAmAlaska49 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I think DL and Ravn Alaska are going to wind up linking up. That would be a huge blow in AK.

Highly doubtful on this one because I think DL would have to have a way bigger presence in Alaska for that to work. The main reason why AS partners with 7H is to have better travel and connections to places that AS can't fly into at all.I believe the same goes with KS too.

AS can get a 737 into any of the hub destinations that KS or 7H fly to, except DUT. It wasn’t too long ago (back in the 732 days) that AS flew year-round to AKN and DLG.

7H adding ANC-FAI/BET/AKN/DLG/OTZ over the years is less about competition, IMO, and more about preventing a takeover from AS. It makes it a lot harder for AS to buy out a competitor that has direct overlap on so many routes within the state (they also overlap ANC-ADQ and ANC-CDV, although 7H just made CDV seasonal).

If 7H did link up with DL, I think you’d see AS retaliate in ENA in pretty short order (basically as soon as they could get TSA there). That ENA-ANC shuttle is 7H’s bread and butter route.

As an AS Gold, I find the recent changes frustrating.
I get it, they are growing, so DL and AA aren't interested in a partnership since they are essentially competitors (especially DL).
But a lot of us that fly for business out of the Pacific NW counted on connecting on DL or AA flights and receive credit towards our Alaska Gold/MVP/75k status.

We aren't always flying to cities that AS connects to directly. For example, I used to fly to Jacksonville connecting with DL through ATL. It is not like I can fly to AS' East Coast hub to transfer onto another flight.
What this does for some of us at least, is reconsider AS as our primary carrier. DL is suddenly becoming a very viable option. Much better connections on a national bases.

The changes are also annoying. DL, AA, AF and KLM all gone. Suddenly Europe looks less likely. BA tends to be pricy. Icelandair is fine, but the network in Europe isn't that strong. Finnair the same, plus having to go all the way to Helsinki makes it less attractive. Condor - no thanks!

I do not like these changes at all, and I think my attitude is most likely multiplied by many other AS frequent fliers.

If AS truly wants to play with the legacy carriers, it needs to damn well think about becoming one, or they will struggle for those travelers needing reliable connections beyond the West Coast.

Be careful AS...you could loose a lot regular customers soon.


Maybe time to look at bigger planes (stop this ludicrous love affair with the 737!!) and a hub east of the Mississippi.

flybynight wrote:

As an AS Gold, I find the recent changes frustrating.
I get it, they are growing, so DL and AA aren't interested in a partnership since they are essentially competitors (especially DL).
But a lot of us that fly for business out of the Pacific NW counted on connecting on DL or AA flights and receive credit towards our Alaska Gold/MVP/75k status.

We aren't always flying to cities that AS connects to directly. For example, I used to fly to Jacksonville connecting with DL through ATL. It is not like I can fly to AS' East Coast hub to transfer onto another flight.
What this does for some of us at least, is reconsider AS as our primary carrier. DL is suddenly becoming a very viable option. Much better connections on a national bases.

The changes are also annoying. DL, AA, AF and KLM all gone. Suddenly Europe looks less likely. BA tends to be pricy. Icelandair is fine, but the network in Europe isn't that strong. Finnair the same, plus having to go all the way to Helsinki makes it less attractive. Condor - no thanks!

I do not like these changes at all, and I think my attitude is most likely multiplied by many other AS frequent fliers.

If AS truly wants to play with the legacy carriers, it needs to damn well think about becoming one, or they will struggle for those travelers needing reliable connections beyond the West Coast.

Be careful AS...you could loose a lot regular customers soon.


Maybe time to look at bigger planes (stop this ludicrous love affair with the 737!!) and a hub east of the Mississippi.

The changes are disappointing - I'm AS Gold as well and I go to Paris about 5 times a year for work. However, the good with AS Mileage Plan clearly outweighs the bad. It is clearly the best FF program in the US and AS is consistently adding more partners. I was looking forward to accruing miles on AF when they start SEA service next March, but I guess now that won't be an option. I tend to fly FI quite a bit since the connection time is minimal and I'm able to make up lost time by flying into ORY instead of CDG. I'd love to see AY start service into SEA...

It was my understanding that the AA/AS agreements were starting to fall apart too.

dia77 wrote:

flybynight wrote:

As an AS Gold, I find the recent changes frustrating.
I get it, they are growing, so DL and AA aren't interested in a partnership since they are essentially competitors (especially DL).
But a lot of us that fly for business out of the Pacific NW counted on connecting on DL or AA flights and receive credit towards our Alaska Gold/MVP/75k status.

We aren't always flying to cities that AS connects to directly. For example, I used to fly to Jacksonville connecting with DL through ATL. It is not like I can fly to AS' East Coast hub to transfer onto another flight.
What this does for some of us at least, is reconsider AS as our primary carrier. DL is suddenly becoming a very viable option. Much better connections on a national bases.

The changes are also annoying. DL, AA, AF and KLM all gone. Suddenly Europe looks less likely. BA tends to be pricy. Icelandair is fine, but the network in Europe isn't that strong. Finnair the same, plus having to go all the way to Helsinki makes it less attractive. Condor - no thanks!

I do not like these changes at all, and I think my attitude is most likely multiplied by many other AS frequent fliers.

If AS truly wants to play with the legacy carriers, it needs to damn well think about becoming one, or they will struggle for those travelers needing reliable connections beyond the West Coast.

Be careful AS...you could loose a lot regular customers soon.


Maybe time to look at bigger planes (stop this ludicrous love affair with the 737!!) and a hub east of the Mississippi.

The changes are disappointing - I'm AS Gold as well and I go to Paris about 5 times a year for work. However, the good with AS Mileage Plan clearly outweighs the bad. It is clearly the best FF program in the US and AS is consistently adding more partners. I was looking forward to accruing miles on AF when they start SEA service next March, but I guess now that won't be an option. I tend to fly FI quite a bit since the connection time is minimal and I'm able to make up lost time by flying into ORY instead of CDG. I'd love to see AY start service into SEA...

I'd like to see SK back again as well. Another potential partner to AS with better connections through Europe than FI.
AS mileage program is great for rewards trip to, say, Hawaii. I took all 5 of us for a grand total of $70 last year. That's a nice savings in plane tickets!! So I too applaud AS for having a good prgram, but this shuffeling of partners is not welcomed.
Which begs the age-old question, will a legacy carrier try to buy AS (again)

flybynight wrote:

As an AS Gold, I find the recent changes frustrating.
I get it, they are growing, so DL and AA aren't interested in a partnership since they are essentially competitors (especially DL).
But a lot of us that fly for business out of the Pacific NW counted on connecting on DL or AA flights and receive credit towards our Alaska Gold/MVP/75k status.

We aren't always flying to cities that AS connects to directly. For example, I used to fly to Jacksonville connecting with DL through ATL. It is not like I can fly to AS' East Coast hub to transfer onto another flight.
What this does for some of us at least, is reconsider AS as our primary carrier. DL is suddenly becoming a very viable option. Much better connections on a national bases.

The changes are also annoying. DL, AA, AF and KLM all gone. Suddenly Europe looks less likely. BA tends to be pricy. Icelandair is fine, but the network in Europe isn't that strong. Finnair the same, plus having to go all the way to Helsinki makes it less attractive. Condor - no thanks!

I do not like these changes at all, and I think my attitude is most likely multiplied by many other AS frequent fliers.

If AS truly wants to play with the legacy carriers, it needs to damn well think about becoming one, or they will struggle for those travelers needing reliable connections beyond the West Coast.

Be careful AS...you could loose a lot regular customers soon.


Maybe time to look at bigger planes (stop this ludicrous love affair with the 737!!) and a hub east of the Mississippi.

I agree. AS needs some 787's. It's pretty ridiculous that someone living in Seattle or Portland would need to get to SFO or YVR in order to use/earn AS miles on a JAL flight to TYO. AS could use Dreamliners to keep ahead of DL and keep customers loyal. NRT, LHR, etc.

psa1011 wrote:

I agree. AS needs some 787's. It's pretty ridiculous that someone living in Seattle or Portland would need to get to SFO or YVR in order to use/earn AS miles on a JAL flight to TYO. AS could use Dreamliners to keep ahead of DL and keep customers loyal. NRT, LHR, etc.

With respect, they would be seriously nuts to do that. They have a functioning business model that works, and that model does not include long-haul flying.

If Boeing were to re-launch the PAX 767, Alaska might be able to make use of them for smaller, lighter routes, but... heavy long-range aircraft going across an ocean?