The Corp Comm line.

All the comments from BT and BM about owning California and becoming California's airline sound a little shaky when you start cutting routes from your No 1 CA operation.

And, yes, eliminating a competitor that was stressing west coast yields was part of the buy.

Comments about SEA and DL are mostly correct. However you don't mention yields and AS facing pressure on intra-NW routes with DL running a better, all-jet product up against the Q. That's why we're seeing AS deploy the E75 to fly against DL E75's.

EA CO AS wrote:

neomax wrote:

What AS is essentially doing is dehubbing SFO. Yes I know it sounds stupid, but this is Alaska we're talking about, not JetBlue. They bought VX to get rid of them, I don't know why anyone's surprised.

Step 1. Get rid of the Virgin brand
Step 2. Paint VX planes with the AS livery
Step 3. Drawdown SFO and build up SEA

AS needs ammo to fight DL at SEA and VX's SFO a/c are going to SEA to do this. You can't fight a two front battle, so AS has to pick one and it picked SEA. VX while popular is not a recipe for success despite what many would believe, as UA is eating the lucrative premium traffic and leaves AS/VX with the scraps. VX is not making money at SFO and AS knows those planes will make a ton more money at SEA, so SFO is not immune from dehubbing regardless of its prestige. SFO is way too close to SEA to be a practical hub. Every other airport that was dehubbed was within the approximate distance between SFO and SEA so it would not be a shocking thing to see. Death by a thousand cuts.

To quote Luke Skywalker, "Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."

AS bought VX to gain mass to grow in CA while also keeping B6 out; this was never about buying VX merely to get rid of them. AS hasn't lost a single percentage point of market share to DL in SEA; DL's growth has all come at the expense of other carriers, most notably, WN, so there's no "ammo" needed to fight DL.

SFO is and will continue to be a hub for AS, but right now it's a matter of paring back and/or cutting unprofitable routes to redeploy assets where they can make money, and SFO growth will resume. It's also not "too close to SEA" especially when you consider AS needs SFO and LAX to provide utility to the 39M Californians they want to become the go-to airline for.

Apparently AS is restarting SFO-FLL 11/16/18, and it is on sale as far out as May 2019. I'm having a hard time keeping track of AS and their service to Florida.

psa1011 wrote:

Apparently AS is restarting SFO-FLL 11/16/18, and it is on sale as far out as May 2019. I'm having a hard time keeping track of AS and their service to Florida.

It was always just a seasonal cut. Was always available for sale 11/16 onwards.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

babastud wrote:

The post about AS moving everything to SEA is ridiculous!! Yes SEA is a growing city and has boomed of late mostly to DL, but give me a break.... AS has a big big stake in California and the whole west coast. They didin't buy VX to move everything to SEA, they did it to not have Jet B in the West Coast market, and have the gates at SFO, LAX etc... which are very limited and will be for some time. There are more reasons for the purchase also, but I won't go into that now

None of these flight cuts except maybe Cancun and Mexico surprise me. They are relatively new adds in new markets, some will work others won't. Cancun has been around for decades and seemed strong, so this is odd? But all in all AS is just adjusting, everyone can take a deep breath.

I would think Cancun would be a fairly easy add later on, as it's a leisure route vs a business route. The others, at mostly one flight a day, are largely irrelevant anyhow, which is probably why they didn't work out anyhow.

Remember this is the second time AS has cut SFO-CUN so it must not work well. pmAS flew the route for a year or two and cut it. They also tried MZT and ZIH from SFO and cut those at the same time.

I’ve listed on other threads the routes that pmAS has tried and dropped from SFO: CUN, MZT, ZIH, YVR, TUS, SAN, LAX, ANC.

Only dropped routes from OAK that I can think of are SNA, SUN.

Dropped routes from SJC are PVR, GEG, EUG, SLC. AS has added far more routes from SJC though.

It would appear that AS has never done well at SFO.

Bring back Virgin, all AS does is cut SFO

bfitzflyer wrote:

Bring back Virgin, all AS does is cut SFO

And unfortunately all VX did was lose money, thus why they put themselves up for sale in the end

BoeingGuy wrote:

Only dropped routes from OAK that I can think of are SNA, SUN.

Also BOI I believe

bfitzflyer wrote:

Bring back Virgin, all AS does is cut SFO

Right...you know, except for adding or re-starting MCO, KOA, SNA, MSY, PHL, RDU, BNA, MCI all since the merger... and they've dropped some Mexican flying, DEN, and seasonally reduced FLL. MSP was tried with an E175 after the merger announcement and was not a VX cut. At the time of the merger, both airlines only served 32 destinations from all three of the bay area airports combined and today serve ~31 just from SFO. The revisionist take that VX was somehow a juggernaut at SFO or didn't have massive network gaps before the merger with no perspective of the adds since December 2016 is pretty remarkable.

WkndWanderer wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Bring back Virgin, all AS does is cut SFO

Right...you know, except for adding or re-starting MCO, KOA, SNA, MSY, PHL, RDU, BNA, MCI all since the merger... and they've dropped some Mexican flying, DEN, and seasonally reduced FLL. MSP was tried with an E175 after the merger announcement and was not a VX cut. At the time of the merger, both airlines only served 32 destinations from all three of the bay area airports combined and today serve ~31 just from SFO. The revisionist take that VX was somehow a juggernaut at SFO or didn't have massive network gaps before the merger with no perspective of the adds since December 2016 is pretty remarkable.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I should know, I grew up flying Wien and Western.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Bring back Virgin, all AS does is cut SFO

Right...you know, except for adding or re-starting MCO, KOA, SNA, MSY, PHL, RDU, BNA, MCI all since the merger... and they've dropped some Mexican flying, DEN, and seasonally reduced FLL. MSP was tried with an E175 after the merger announcement and was not a VX cut. At the time of the merger, both airlines only served 32 destinations from all three of the bay area airports combined and today serve ~31 just from SFO. The revisionist take that VX was somehow a juggernaut at SFO or didn't have massive network gaps before the merger with no perspective of the adds since December 2016 is pretty remarkable.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I should know, I grew up flying Wien and Western.

I'm still not over what US did to PSA. It's been 30 years. I equally miss Air California too. Thankfully, AS hasn't suffered the same fate.

BoeingGuy wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

babastud wrote:

The post about AS moving everything to SEA is ridiculous!! Yes SEA is a growing city and has boomed of late mostly to DL, but give me a break.... AS has a big big stake in California and the whole west coast. They didin't buy VX to move everything to SEA, they did it to not have Jet B in the West Coast market, and have the gates at SFO, LAX etc... which are very limited and will be for some time. There are more reasons for the purchase also, but I won't go into that now

None of these flight cuts except maybe Cancun and Mexico surprise me. They are relatively new adds in new markets, some will work others won't. Cancun has been around for decades and seemed strong, so this is odd? But all in all AS is just adjusting, everyone can take a deep breath.

I would think Cancun would be a fairly easy add later on, as it's a leisure route vs a business route. The others, at mostly one flight a day, are largely irrelevant anyhow, which is probably why they didn't work out anyhow.

Remember this is the second time AS has cut SFO-CUN so it must not work well. pmAS flew the route for a year or two and cut it. They also tried MZT and ZIH from SFO and cut those at the same time.

I’ve listed on other threads the routes that pmAS has tried and dropped from SFO: CUN, MZT, ZIH, YVR, TUS, SAN, LAX, ANC.

Only dropped routes from OAK that I can think of are SNA, SUN.

Dropped routes from SJC are PVR, GEG, EUG, SLC. AS has added far more routes from SJC though.

It would appear that AS has never done well at SFO.

If you go back further, AS has cut LAX (Sat only), BUR, ONT and BOI from OAK...in addition to what you mentioned.

Ya, I was thinking OAKBUR was a route they had before but couldn't remember. Definitely back in the 727 days or that era. OAK-ONT? What were they thinking? Lol

BoeingGuy wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

Right...you know, except for adding or re-starting MCO, KOA, SNA, MSY, PHL, RDU, BNA, MCI all since the merger... and they've dropped some Mexican flying, DEN, and seasonally reduced FLL. MSP was tried with an E175 after the merger announcement and was not a VX cut. At the time of the merger, both airlines only served 32 destinations from all three of the bay area airports combined and today serve ~31 just from SFO. The revisionist take that VX was somehow a juggernaut at SFO or didn't have massive network gaps before the merger with no perspective of the adds since December 2016 is pretty remarkable.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I should know, I grew up flying Wien and Western.

I'm still not over what US did to PSA. It's been 30 years. I equally miss Air California too. Thankfully, AS hasn't suffered the same fate.

Ya, it's really a shame that these regionals ended up decimated in short order. When you think about all the carriers that have disappeared into what is American Airlines, it's amazing.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Bring back Virgin, all AS does is cut SFO

Right...you know, except for adding or re-starting MCO, KOA, SNA, MSY, PHL, RDU, BNA, MCI all since the merger... and they've dropped some Mexican flying, DEN, and seasonally reduced FLL. MSP was tried with an E175 after the merger announcement and was not a VX cut. At the time of the merger, both airlines only served 32 destinations from all three of the bay area airports combined and today serve ~31 just from SFO. The revisionist take that VX was somehow a juggernaut at SFO or didn't have massive network gaps before the merger with no perspective of the adds since December 2016 is pretty remarkable.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I should know, I grew up flying Wien and Western.

I was just a little bit too young to take advantage of WA and Wien. However, I remember both at OAK and befriended workers there, especially Frontier, Western, Jet America, Alaska, Wien and Sunworld. I was quite the Airport bum as a kid. But I did get to fly the likes of PSA, Air Cal, Reno Air (obviously later), Sunworld and Seahawk 1. Great memories!

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Ya, I was thinking OAKBUR was a route they had before but couldn't remember. Definitely back in the 727 days or that era. OAK-ONT? What were they thinking? Lol

The previous time they tried to be CA's airline was when they bought/incorporated Jet America birds and created the "California Dreamin'" campaign. The Jet America birds did most of the intra-CA routes and flew in basic Jet America colors for a long time. A few of the heritage MD-80's sported the Roy Orbison sunglasses.

We certainly have lost a lot of diversity in the skies over the years, but yes, glad we still have AS. I don't expect it to last forever.

Random sidenote memories: Wien passing out hot towels on SEA-ANC three hour flights. Western being chronically late in ANC with their DC-10s. Loved the NW DC-10s - my favorite ride of all time (more "absence makes the heart grow fonder" stuff - lucky we didn't die). And AS had decent coach food back in the day. Oh well.....

BoeingGuy wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

Right...you know, except for adding or re-starting MCO, KOA, SNA, MSY, PHL, RDU, BNA, MCI all since the merger... and they've dropped some Mexican flying, DEN, and seasonally reduced FLL. MSP was tried with an E175 after the merger announcement and was not a VX cut. At the time of the merger, both airlines only served 32 destinations from all three of the bay area airports combined and today serve ~31 just from SFO. The revisionist take that VX was somehow a juggernaut at SFO or didn't have massive network gaps before the merger with no perspective of the adds since December 2016 is pretty remarkable.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I should know, I grew up flying Wien and Western.

I'm still not over what US did to PSA. It's been 30 years. I equally miss Air California too. Thankfully, AS hasn't suffered the same fate.

I used to fly Air Cal from SNA to SMF every week...that was a long time ago!

MAH4546 wrote:

psa1011 wrote:

Apparently AS is restarting SFO-FLL 11/16/18, and it is on sale as far out as May 2019. I'm having a hard time keeping track of AS and their service to Florida.

It was always just a seasonal cut. Was always available for sale 11/16 onwards.

It seems more than just winter seasonal if it's on sale November-May. I can't see beyond May though.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Dropped routes from SJC are PVR, GEG, EUG, SLC. AS has added far more routes from SJC though.

I forgot PSP and MMH.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Ya, I was thinking OAKBUR was a route they had before but couldn't remember. Definitely back in the 727 days or that era. OAK-ONT? What were they thinking? Lol

Well it’s not exactly a small market. It’s just entirely ceded to WN, who flies it 7-8x daily.

AS really wants to become CA's airline, but they have yet to really push the intra-CA flying. There are also a lot of limitations at SFO, SNA, LAX, SAN that may make a big expansion pretty difficult.

They have added a handful of routes up against WN, but not a lot of movement on frequencies or upgauges yet.

BoeingGuy wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

babastud wrote:

The post about AS moving everything to SEA is ridiculous!! Yes SEA is a growing city and has boomed of late mostly to DL, but give me a break.... AS has a big big stake in California and the whole west coast. They didin't buy VX to move everything to SEA, they did it to not have Jet B in the West Coast market, and have the gates at SFO, LAX etc... which are very limited and will be for some time. There are more reasons for the purchase also, but I won't go into that now

None of these flight cuts except maybe Cancun and Mexico surprise me. They are relatively new adds in new markets, some will work others won't. Cancun has been around for decades and seemed strong, so this is odd? But all in all AS is just adjusting, everyone can take a deep breath.

I would think Cancun would be a fairly easy add later on, as it's a leisure route vs a business route. The others, at mostly one flight a day, are largely irrelevant anyhow, which is probably why they didn't work out anyhow.

Remember this is the second time AS has cut SFO-CUN so it must not work well. pmAS flew the route for a year or two and cut it. They also tried MZT and ZIH from SFO and cut those at the same time.

I’ve listed on other threads the routes that pmAS has tried and dropped from SFO: CUN, MZT, ZIH, YVR, TUS, SAN, LAX, ANC.

Only dropped routes from OAK that I can think of are SNA, SUN.

Dropped routes from SJC are PVR, GEG, EUG, SLC. AS has added far more routes from SJC though.

It would appear that AS has never done well at SFO.

AS flew SJC-GEG?

ericm2031 wrote:

AS really wants to become CA's airline, but they have yet to really push the intra-CA flying. There are also a lot of limitations at SFO, SNA, LAX, SAN that may make a big expansion pretty difficult.

They have added a handful of routes up against WN, but not a lot of movement on frequencies or upgauges yet.

I believe another poster posted information in recent thread regarding their poor yields on intra-CA routes. AS is flying smaller regional jets with higher CASM against WN’s higher capacity aircraft, with fewer frequencies (and less desirable schedule for business travelers). I don’t believe they’re making much $ if at all on most of their intra-CA routes. SFO-LAX/SAN might be a different story, though I don’t know the figures. I personally think this might be one reason why we haven’t seen AS expand their route network within CA in recent months, in addition to digesting the VX acquisition.

ericm2031 wrote:

AS really wants to become CA's airline, but they have yet to really push the intra-CA flying. There are also a lot of limitations at SFO, SNA, LAX, SAN that may make a big expansion pretty difficult.

They have added a handful of routes up against WN, but not a lot of movement on frequencies or upgauges yet.

It's interesting looking at their y/y Q3 seats:
SFO: -4%
LAX: -4%
But
SAN: +12%
SJC: +22%
SNA: +14%

It is really sad this merger was approved. Serivce on Alaska is much worse and less sophisticated. VX was great for SFO. I avoid flying Alaska out of the Bay Area and choose Delta instead. I would not mind if Alaska keeps cutting SFO as it is not Virgin America anyway.

wedgetail737 wrote:

If it's true that AA will move from T2 to T1 when T1 construction is complete, then there could a little surge of AS flights at SFO as they gain a few more gates in T2.

It was written into the T2 agreement that AA would move to T1 when development was complete. AA never wanted to move out of T3 in the first place and to placate them the costs for the move and the Admirals club were paid for by the airport.

Once T1 is redeveloped AA is obligated to leave.

Pi7472000 wrote:

It is really sad this merger was approved. Serivce on Alaska is much worse and less sophisticated. VX was great for SFO. I avoid flying Alaska out of the Bay Area and choose Delta instead. I would not mind if Alaska keeps cutting SFO as it is not Virgin America anyway.

When I see comments like this or the often angry VX die hards still posting on Alaska's social media I really question how often these folks actually fly. I saw a person claim VX offered Emirates level service and that the "ugly Eskimo" should be replaced with Richard Branson.

The most unique thing about VX was the on demand food, which I also liked even if the crew often seems annoyed about serving it outside of the initial service. Outside of that and some mood lighting, to say service on Alaska is "much worse" is disingenuous. IFE is nice, but when the seats with the tablet clips are available I really won't care. I flirted with status on Delta this year and I'm back at Alaska. I like Delta. However, I can use the dependable Alaska app to check in, tag my bag at home, quickly drop it at a usually short bag queue. Reducing my airport time is more important to me than IFE or being able to order on it.

I prefer operational sophistication, customer service, and a strong FF program over brand imagery. And the latter seems to be what VX lovers are upset about. They're hurt that IGing their Alaska Airlines experience simply isn't as cool as Virgin America.

AirFiero wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I would think Cancun would be a fairly easy add later on, as it's a leisure route vs a business route. The others, at mostly one flight a day, are largely irrelevant anyhow, which is probably why they didn't work out anyhow.

Remember this is the second time AS has cut SFO-CUN so it must not work well. pmAS flew the route for a year or two and cut it. They also tried MZT and ZIH from SFO and cut those at the same time.

I’ve listed on other threads the routes that pmAS has tried and dropped from SFO: CUN, MZT, ZIH, YVR, TUS, SAN, LAX, ANC.

Only dropped routes from OAK that I can think of are SNA, SUN.

Dropped routes from SJC are PVR, GEG, EUG, SLC. AS has added far more routes from SJC though.

It would appear that AS has never done well at SFO.

AS flew SJC-GEG?

Yes with a Q400 about 4-5 years ago. I read it had decent loads so not sure why it was discontinued.

BoeingGuy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Remember this is the second time AS has cut SFO-CUN so it must not work well. pmAS flew the route for a year or two and cut it. They also tried MZT and ZIH from SFO and cut those at the same time.

I’ve listed on other threads the routes that pmAS has tried and dropped from SFO: CUN, MZT, ZIH, YVR, TUS, SAN, LAX, ANC.

Only dropped routes from OAK that I can think of are SNA, SUN.

Dropped routes from SJC are PVR, GEG, EUG, SLC. AS has added far more routes from SJC though.

It would appear that AS has never done well at SFO.

AS flew SJC-GEG?

Yes with a Q400 about 4-5 years ago. I read it had decent loads so not sure why it was discontinued.

Wow, I guess I forgot about that. Didn’t WN recently start the route? I had thought it was a first.

Pi7472000 wrote:

It is really sad this merger was approved. Serivce on Alaska is much worse and less sophisticated. VX was great for SFO. I avoid flying Alaska out of the Bay Area and choose Delta instead. I would not mind if Alaska keeps cutting SFO as it is not Virgin America anyway.

Hard to swallow pill: According to JD Power and several other rankings, AS is the superior customer experience to Delta.

Please define much worse, maybe our friends who work at AS can address your concerns?

QXAS wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

It is really sad this merger was approved. Serivce on Alaska is much worse and less sophisticated. VX was great for SFO. I avoid flying Alaska out of the Bay Area and choose Delta instead. I would not mind if Alaska keeps cutting SFO as it is not Virgin America anyway.

Hard to swallow pill: According to JD Power and several other rankings, AS is the superior customer experience to Delta.

Please define much worse, maybe our friends who work at AS can address your concerns?

That's fine. Losing one irate passenger on AS will mean one less hassle for other passengers on the plane. DL can have him...maybe he'll think otherwise when DL disses him too. VX is history...deal with it!

QXAS wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

It is really sad this merger was approved. Serivce on Alaska is much worse and less sophisticated. VX was great for SFO. I avoid flying Alaska out of the Bay Area and choose Delta instead. I would not mind if Alaska keeps cutting SFO as it is not Virgin America anyway.

Hard to swallow pill: According to JD Power and several other rankings, AS is the superior customer experience to Delta.

Please define much worse, maybe our friends who work at AS can address your concerns?

The reality is that both Alaska and Delta have been well regarded and well rated in the industry. Virgin America was a brand experience that resonated with a lot of people. Nobody likes losing their brand, as it brings on the four stages of loss. I have a family member who went through a divorce over a decade ago and still isn't able to move on from the pain. I have another family member who couldn't move on fast enough. haha Everyone is different when it comes to losing something, and for some of the VX fans there is what I would say is an irrational level of vitriol towards Alaska when it was Virgin America themselves that offered the company for sale. Why people aren't pissed at the VX shareholders rather than Alaska is beyond me, but so it goes.

FWIW, I respect folks who would choose DL or B6 or whomever best fit their needs over AS. I just don't respect the people who feel the need to keep bitching at Alaska because they "destroyed" Virgin America. Newsflash: Virgin America destroyed themselves.

Bottom line, wasn't VX losing a lot of money? Wouldn't it have been a matter of time before they folded, if they were not bought out?

AirFiero wrote:

Bottom line, wasn't VX losing a lot of money? Wouldn't it have been a matter of time before they folded, if they were not bought out?

That’s quite an exaggeration. They lost quite a bit of money, but were profitable at time of acquisition.

AirFiero wrote:

Bottom line, wasn't VX losing a lot of money? Wouldn't it have been a matter of time before they folded, if they were not bought out?

They had just turned it around and was making a healthy profit. Long run, the markets they were making money on were going to get crushed by JetBlue. The smartest thing they did was then cashing out on all their assets. The vx shareholders made out like bandits.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

QXAS wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

It is really sad this merger was approved. Serivce on Alaska is much worse and less sophisticated. VX was great for SFO. I avoid flying Alaska out of the Bay Area and choose Delta instead. I would not mind if Alaska keeps cutting SFO as it is not Virgin America anyway.

Hard to swallow pill: According to JD Power and several other rankings, AS is the superior customer experience to Delta.

Please define much worse, maybe our friends who work at AS can address your concerns?

The reality is that both Alaska and Delta have been well regarded and well rated in the industry. Virgin America was a brand experience that resonated with a lot of people. Nobody likes losing their brand, as it brings on the four stages of loss. I have a family member who went through a divorce over a decade ago and still isn't able to move on from the pain. I have another family member who couldn't move on fast enough. haha Everyone is different when it comes to losing something, and for some of the VX fans there is what I would say is an irrational level of vitriol towards Alaska when it was Virgin America themselves that offered the company for sale. Why people aren't pissed at the VX shareholders rather than Alaska is beyond me, but so it goes.

FWIW, I respect folks who would choose DL or B6 or whomever best fit their needs over AS. I just don't respect the people who feel the need to keep bitching at Alaska because they "destroyed" Virgin America. Newsflash: Virgin America destroyed themselves.

I second that. The airline industry doesn't care about public perception. VX didn't care about how the fans felt about the acquisition. People just have to face it...VX is no more. And if you don't like it, there are other airlines. Have fun starting from ground zero in your FF desires.

wedgetail737 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

QXAS wrote:

Hard to swallow pill: According to JD Power and several other rankings, AS is the superior customer experience to Delta.

Please define much worse, maybe our friends who work at AS can address your concerns?

The reality is that both Alaska and Delta have been well regarded and well rated in the industry. Virgin America was a brand experience that resonated with a lot of people. Nobody likes losing their brand, as it brings on the four stages of loss. I have a family member who went through a divorce over a decade ago and still isn't able to move on from the pain. I have another family member who couldn't move on fast enough. haha Everyone is different when it comes to losing something, and for some of the VX fans there is what I would say is an irrational level of vitriol towards Alaska when it was Virgin America themselves that offered the company for sale. Why people aren't pissed at the VX shareholders rather than Alaska is beyond me, but so it goes.

FWIW, I respect folks who would choose DL or B6 or whomever best fit their needs over AS. I just don't respect the people who feel the need to keep bitching at Alaska because they "destroyed" Virgin America. Newsflash: Virgin America destroyed themselves.

I second that. The airline industry doesn't care about public perception. VX didn't care about how the fans felt about the acquisition. People just have to face it...VX is no more. And if you don't like it, there are other airlines. Have fun starting from ground zero in your FF desires.

Well it always seemed logical (to me) that DL, B6, UA, and WN would each get a certain bounce from VX disappearing. They each offer the SFO FF something of value that people might have found at VX. There was zero chance of AS retaining even the majority of VX flyers imo. However, I'm sure a large chunk will find AS perfectly acceptable or even better, depending on what they like. And the game will go on.

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Bottom line, wasn't VX losing a lot of money? Wouldn't it have been a matter of time before they folded, if they were not bought out?

That’s quite an exaggeration. They lost quite a bit of money, but were profitable at time of acquisition.

An airline that size with two BILLION in debt? At what point would their debt not be an exaggeration?

They may not have been profitable with the increase in oil of today. It was only when oil was down and the economy was up that they were making money.

AirFiero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Bottom line, wasn't VX losing a lot of money? Wouldn't it have been a matter of time before they folded, if they were not bought out?

That’s quite an exaggeration. They lost quite a bit of money, but were profitable at time of acquisition.

An airline that size with two BILLION in debt? At what point would their debt not be an exaggeration?

Debt is not the same as losing money. All airlines have debt.

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

That’s quite an exaggeration. They lost quite a bit of money, but were profitable at time of acquisition.

An airline that size with two BILLION in debt? At what point would their debt not be an exaggeration?

Debt is not the same as losing money. All airlines have debt.

Debt means you had been losing money. Had they reached consistent profitability?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The reality is that both Alaska and Delta have been well regarded and well rated in the industry. Virgin America was a brand experience that resonated with a lot of people. Nobody likes losing their brand, as it brings on the four stages of loss. I have a family member who went through a divorce over a decade ago and still isn't able to move on from the pain. I have another family member who couldn't move on fast enough. haha Everyone is different when it comes to losing something, and for some of the VX fans there is what I would say is an irrational level of vitriol towards Alaska when it was Virgin America themselves that offered the company for sale. Why people aren't pissed at the VX shareholders rather than Alaska is beyond me, but so it goes.

FWIW, I respect folks who would choose DL or B6 or whomever best fit their needs over AS. I just don't respect the people who feel the need to keep bitching at Alaska because they "destroyed" Virgin America. Newsflash: Virgin America destroyed themselves.

I second that. The airline industry doesn't care about public perception. VX didn't care about how the fans felt about the acquisition. People just have to face it...VX is no more. And if you don't like it, there are other airlines. Have fun starting from ground zero in your FF desires.

Well it always seemed logical (to me) that DL, B6, UA, and WN would each get a certain bounce from VX disappearing. They each offer the SFO FF something of value that people might have found at VX. There was zero chance of AS retaining even the majority of VX flyers imo. However, I'm sure a large chunk will find AS perfectly acceptable or even better, depending on what they like. And the game will go on.

VX was building a pretty good east-west route system out of SFO. They had a pretty good model that I thought AS would expand upon. But AS being a SEA Centric airline probably will use the VX acquisition to build their East- West operation out of SEA to better compete with Delta's Build up there and try and defend their "home turf" . I can understand that as only time will tell if they're right in not keeping the SFO hub of VX.

strfyr51 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I second that. The airline industry doesn't care about public perception. VX didn't care about how the fans felt about the acquisition. People just have to face it...VX is no more. And if you don't like it, there are other airlines. Have fun starting from ground zero in your FF desires.

Well it always seemed logical (to me) that DL, B6, UA, and WN would each get a certain bounce from VX disappearing. They each offer the SFO FF something of value that people might have found at VX. There was zero chance of AS retaining even the majority of VX flyers imo. However, I'm sure a large chunk will find AS perfectly acceptable or even better, depending on what they like. And the game will go on.

VX was building a pretty good east-west route system out of SFO. They had a pretty good model that I thought AS would expand upon. But AS being a SEA Centric airline probably will use the VX acquisition to build their East- West operation out of SEA to better compete with Delta's Build up there and try and defend their "home turf" . I can understand that as only time will tell if they're right in not keeping the SFO hub of VX.

They may have a fairly good East-West set of flights, but in many ways, connections were bad...or there were no connections in one direction. AS really can't expand too much in SEA as their gate space is really become scarce...until the N-concourse expansion is complete. AS will continue to make adjustments where they think it makes fiscal sense and there will be a LOT of cancellations and reinstatements. There will be many changes to SFO, but I don't think it will be de-hubbed in the near future. When the economy and the airline industry decides to go the opposite direction, then I think we'll see some many, many changes that will upset the flying public...not just for VX-lovers.

AirFiero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

An airline that size with two BILLION in debt? At what point would their debt not be an exaggeration?

Debt is not the same as losing money. All airlines have debt.

Debt means you had been losing money. Had they reached consistent profitability?

No. It does not mean that. Do you think airlines buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new jets with cash from operations? Because they don’t.

VX was profitable for at least the last 4 years as a standalone company.

Btw - AS took on significant debt to buy VX and clearly neither one was losing money at that time.

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Debt is not the same as losing money. All airlines have debt.

Debt means you had been losing money. Had they reached consistent profitability?

No. It does not mean that. Do you think airlines buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new jets with cash from operations? Because they don’t.

VX was profitable for at least the last 4 years as a standalone company.

Btw - AS took on significant debt to buy VX and clearly neither one was losing money at that time.

Except that VX didn’t buy any jets, they leased them. So where did the money go?

And yes, I am concerned for AS over the debt they racked up buying an airline with so few hard assets.

AirFiero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Debt means you had been losing money. Had they reached consistent profitability?

No. It does not mean that. Do you think airlines buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new jets with cash from operations? Because they don’t.

VX was profitable for at least the last 4 years as a standalone company.

Btw - AS took on significant debt to buy VX and clearly neither one was losing money at that time.

Except that VX didn’t buy any jets, they leased them. So where did the money go?

And yes, I am concerned for AS over the debt they racked up buying an airline with so few hard assets.

The leases were included as part of the $1.4B debt that AS assumed.

strfyr51 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I second that. The airline industry doesn't care about public perception. VX didn't care about how the fans felt about the acquisition. People just have to face it...VX is no more. And if you don't like it, there are other airlines. Have fun starting from ground zero in your FF desires.

Well it always seemed logical (to me) that DL, B6, UA, and WN would each get a certain bounce from VX disappearing. They each offer the SFO FF something of value that people might have found at VX. There was zero chance of AS retaining even the majority of VX flyers imo. However, I'm sure a large chunk will find AS perfectly acceptable or even better, depending on what they like. And the game will go on.

VX was building a pretty good east-west route system out of SFO. They had a pretty good model that I thought AS would expand upon. But AS being a SEA Centric airline probably will use the VX acquisition to build their East- West operation out of SEA to better compete with Delta's Build up there and try and defend their "home turf" . I can understand that as only time will tell if they're right in not keeping the SFO hub of VX.

Uh, you DO realize the SFO hub is actually larger now than it was pre-acquisition, right? SFO isn’t going anywhere; AS didn’t get VX to use to fight DL in SEA, but rather so they wouldn’t be as heavily reliant on SEA.

SFOtoORD wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

No. It does not mean that. Do you think airlines buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new jets with cash from operations? Because they don’t.

VX was profitable for at least the last 4 years as a standalone company.

Btw - AS took on significant debt to buy VX and clearly neither one was losing money at that time.

Except that VX didn’t buy any jets, they leased them. So where did the money go?

And yes, I am concerned for AS over the debt they racked up buying an airline with so few hard assets.

The leases were included as part of the $1.4B debt that AS assumed.

I thought I read here that VX had over 2 billion (2.3?) in debt.

Alaska had very low debt levels prior to the merger, and their debt levels for the size of carrier they are now are quite manageable. There is more risk now than there was three years ago, but also more potential for higher reward.

AirFiero wrote:

I am concerned for AS over the debt they racked up buying an airline with so few hard assets.

Don't be; they still maintain an investment-grade balance sheet, and have been aggressively "re-de-leveraging" themselves over the past 18 months; long term debt-to-capitalization ratio was 27% prior to the acquisition, 59% after, but has already come down to 51% and should be in the low to mid 40% range by 2020.