I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%. Anyone care to expand on that? Did AS pull a WN/FL, i.e. hostile takeover in disguise to eliminate competition? Re-marketing the former VX A320 fleet as it is relatively young should not be much of a problem. Are a majority of the former VX Airbii owned or leased?

You bet it was a hostile takeover.

Different fleets, overlapping networks, and completely different brands. The only reason they bought VX was so that B6 didn't get 'em.

AS has been cutting transcon flying due to a pilot shortage.

Does your headline mean:
A) they are moving Airbus to shorthaul and Boeings will fly long?
B) they are cutting former VX transcon routes completely?
C) you have no idea which?

A means almost nothing. We know they intend to get more Boeings. B is a big deal.

Unclear as to which, Enilria. However it seems to me that as AS has a pilot shortage, they have a large pool of A320 airmen to pull from.
As for the metal, I expect the A319s are the first ones out the door.

We’ve known for a long time that as integration proceeded PM-AS metal would take over the transcon flying besides the A321NEOs. Now we have seen in the much appreciated weekly updates from Enilria that several AS trans-cons are in fact being drawn back and or ended outright. It will be interesting to see how widespread that becomes. I see it as an issue that could reveal a much larger problem. And the route reductions are indicating that the VX network wasn’t making money. It’s primarily the VX routes being reduced. Hopefully the pilot shortage is the issue, and not the network.

AFAIK, this is likely part of the fleet utilization/cross fleeting strategy. The 737-900ERs are going to be used on the transcon flights, whereas the A320 fleet is going to be used more on the north and south west coast flights.

From https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2017/04/02/virgin-alaskas-new-weapon-in-us-premium-transcon-battle/

The Virgin jets will also be focussed on the West Coast, with Alaska Airlines’ vice president of capacity planning John Kirby presenting a slide suggesting routes between the LA, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland markets. Meanwhile, the larger 178-seater 737-900ERs will focus on transcons between the west coast markets of San Francisco and Los Angeles and the east coast markets of New York and Washington, DC.

So its not that AS is leaving the route, its just that they'll operating legacy-VX routes with legacy-AS equipment.

USAirKid wrote:

AFAIK, this is likely part of the fleet utilization/cross fleeting strategy. The 737-900ERs are going to be used on the transcon flights, whereas the A320 fleet is going to be used more on the north and south west coast flights.

From https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2017/04/02/virgin-alaskas-new-weapon-in-us-premium-transcon-battle/

The Virgin jets will also be focussed on the West Coast, with Alaska Airlines’ vice president of capacity planning John Kirby presenting a slide suggesting routes between the LA, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland markets. Meanwhile, the larger 178-seater 737-900ERs will focus on transcons between the west coast markets of San Francisco and Los Angeles and the east coast markets of New York and Washington, DC.

So its not that AS is leaving the route, its just that they'll operating legacy-VX routes with legacy-AS equipment.

That change will definitely win the newbies over!

QXAS wrote:

We’ve known for a long time that as integration proceeded PM-AS metal would take over the transcon flying besides the A321NEOs. Now we have seen in the much appreciated weekly updates from Enilria that several AS trans-cons are in fact being drawn back and or ended outright. It will be interesting to see how widespread that becomes. I see it as an issue that could reveal a much larger problem. And the route reductions are indicating that the VX network wasn’t making money. It’s primarily the VX routes being reduced. Hopefully the pilot shortage is the issue, and not the network.

Thanks for the kind comments!

It's also possible the VX planes are low cycle and they want to balance them with the rest of the fleet. I would say the Boeing transcon product is less comfortable. The Airbus cabin is a little bit wider.

Regardless, if they were going to gut VX transcon wouldn't DAL be gone immediately?

neomax wrote:

You bet it was a hostile takeover.

Different fleets, overlapping networks, and completely different brands. The only reason they bought VX was so that B6 didn't get 'em.

It was *not* a hostile takeover.

VX shareholders happily sold to the highest bidder. That bidder was AS. A hostile takeover is a specific term that suggests the transaction happened against VX shareholders' will, which it did not. Some shares were nonvoting, but the majority of VX shareholders overwhelmingly approved the sale. It was VX shareholders who put the company up for sale.

Whether it was the "right" takeover for fleet, network, or brand purposes is up for interpretation.

This has been public knowledge for a year. The A320s are better served as north/south aircraft flying what have been legacy AS routes like SEALAX, SEALAS, SEASAN, etc. The legacy VX transcons like LAXJFK, SFOJFK, and so on will go to larger B737-900ER aircraft that can offer a capacity boost and better fuel economy. The A321NEOs are going to Hawaii once the LEAP problems are all sorted out; for now, they're doing transcons.

Goodyear wrote:

I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%.

What you just said is different than your thread title.

The thread title is accurate, as in, the Airbus fleet will stay on the West Coast for the most part, doing north/south runs. The B737-900ERs will take over the transcon flying, for the most part, since they're larger and more fuel efficient.

The statement you made at the top is inaccurate; transcon flying is not being pared back, and in fact, the equipment change actually results in more capacity.

intotheair wrote:

neomax wrote:

You bet it was a hostile takeover.

Different fleets, overlapping networks, and completely different brands. The only reason they bought VX was so that B6 didn't get 'em.

It was *not* a hostile takeover.

VX shareholders happily sold to the highest bidder. That bidder was AS. A hostile takeover is a specific term that suggests the transaction happened against VX shareholders' will, which it did not. Some shares were nonvoting, but the majority of VX shareholders overwhelmingly approved the sale. It was VX shareholders who put the company up for sale.

Whether it was the "right" takeover for fleet, network, or brand purposes is up for interpretation.

I'm not seeing the alternative here. You're telling me that AS is going to just swap AS and VX equipment just because they feel like it? Why? The A320's are as capable as the 737's on transcons so there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

EA CO AS wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%.

What you just said is different than your thread title.

The thread title is accurate, as in, the Airbus fleet will stay on the West Coast for the most part, doing north/south runs. The B737-900ERs will take over the transcon flying, for the most part, since they're larger and more fuel efficient.

The statement you made at the top is inaccurate; transcon flying is not being pared back, and in fact, the equipment change actually results in more capacity.

AS is also going to be taking delivery of 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 9 planes, and the 737 MAX planes are more fuel efficient than the 737-800, 737-900ER, and A320 are.

neomax wrote:

I'm not seeing the alternative here. You're telling me that AS is going to just swap AS and VX equipment just because they feel like it? Why? The A320's are as capable as the 737's on transcons so there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

EA CO AS already explained this for you: 739ERs will be used transcon. These have more seats and better CASM than the 320s.

MIflyer12 wrote:

neomax wrote:

I'm not seeing the alternative here. You're telling me that AS is going to just swap AS and VX equipment just because they feel like it? Why? The A320's are as capable as the 737's on transcons so there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

EA CO AS already explained this for you: 739ERs will be used transcon. These have more seats and better CASM than the 320s.

Then why not sell off the A320's altogether and maintain a unified fleet type for maximum efficiency, aka WN and the 717's?

neomax wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

neomax wrote:

I'm not seeing the alternative here. You're telling me that AS is going to just swap AS and VX equipment just because they feel like it? Why? The A320's are as capable as the 737's on transcons so there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

EA CO AS already explained this for you: 739ERs will be used transcon. These have more seats and better CASM than the 320s.

Then why not sell off the A320's altogether and maintain a unified fleet type for maximum efficiency, aka WN and the 717's?

Because AS doesn’t want to completely gut VX’s network ( it’s not like they have enough extra 737s lying around to cover the A320s) and the A320s are leased so AS would have to pay early cancellation fees. The A320’s future when their leases are up are still TBD.

AS bought VX to expand along the west coast and shut B6 out. WN bought FL to take out a competitor and pick up some more 737s. They had less interest in FL’s network than AS does in VX’s.

Isn't this what UA did post UA/CO merger. Not many transcons flown on 319/320s from SFO.

EA CO AS wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%.

What you just said is different than your thread title.

The thread title is accurate, as in, the Airbus fleet will stay on the West Coast for the most part, doing north/south runs. The B737-900ERs will take over the transcon flying, for the most part, since they're larger and more fuel efficient.

The statement you made at the top is inaccurate; transcon flying is not being pared back, and in fact, the equipment change actually results in more capacity.

To be fair, while they are adding seats on some transcons they are also dropping a few mid/trans-con flights.

usairways85 wrote:

Isn't this what UA did post UA/CO merger. Not many transcons flown on 319/320s from SFO.

UA heavily uses the 737-900ER on transcon routes. Most transcons from EWR (expect the premium 757 routes to LAX and SFO) are 737-900ER. I believe both UA and DL have decided to favor using 737-900ERs and 737-800s on transcon routes over A320s. It looks like Alaska is joining this trend. I don’t know what is causing the trend.

Newbiepilot wrote:

usairways85 wrote:

Isn't this what UA did post UA/CO merger. Not many transcons flown on 319/320s from SFO.

UA heavily uses the 737-900ER on transcon routes. Most transcons from EWR (expect the premium 757 routes to LAX and SFO) are 737-900ER. I believe both UA and DL have decided to favor using 737-900ERs and 737-800s on transcon routes over A320s. It looks like Alaska is joining this trend. I don’t know what is causing the trend.

A320 really struggles on westbound flight in winter time. A321 and 737s don’t have the same issue.

I would also imagine that the A321-NEO's will be used on some of the shorter, high-capacity routes like SEA-LAX, SEA-SFO, LAX-SFO or even SEA-ANC since they are the largest airplane in the fleet.

Of course, or does not hurt that the routes that generate the most cycles will be on leased aircraft, tending to prolong the life and retain the value of company owned metal.

B6 is pushing them out of the transcon game. I think AS is happily going along with it since both airlines know that their long term futures are tied.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/ ... d-its.aspx

Just curious which North-South routes the VX A320's are likely to be deployed. Imagine bulk of them make it to SEA.

CobaltScar wrote:

B6 is pushing them out of the transcon game.

That’s like saying Tesla is pushing Toyota out of the car business. Tesla offers a compelling product, but it’s not aimed at everyone. The same can be said of Mint, and AS made a conscious decision over a year ago to let their competitors beat each other up for the premium transcon market while AS happily pursued a larger, and therefore, more lucrative market segment on those same routes. Don’t forget, B6 is using Mint to try and lure corporate customers away from AA,DL,and UA on these transcon routes while AS isn’t as interested in that. And while AS won’t be offering lie-flats on these routes, the soft product will be better on these routes than the shorter ones, in 41” pitch recliners that are offered network-wide, which is a better experience than everyone else’s non-premium domestic F offerings.

Time will tell if AS made the right decision.

EA CO AS wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

B6 is pushing them out of the transcon game.

That’s like saying Tesla is pushing Toyota out of the car business. Tesla offers a compelling product, but it’s not aimed at everyone. The same can be said of Mint, and AS made a conscious decision over a year ago to let their competitors beat each other up for the premium transcon market while AS happily pursued a larger, and therefore, more lucrative market segment on those same routes. Don’t forget, B6 is using Mint to try and lure corporate customers away from AA,DL,and UA on these transcon routes while AS isn’t as interested in that. And while AS won’t be offering lie-flats on these routes, the soft product will be better on these routes than the shorter ones, in 41” pitch recliners that are offered network-wide, which is a better experience than everyone else’s non-premium domestic F offerings.

Time will tell if AS made the right decision.

And these airlines are focused on opposite coasts. Outside of two LAX transcon routes to BUF and MCO, B6 has no transcon presence outside of BOS/JFK/FLL.

EA CO AS wrote:

while AS happily pursued a larger, and therefore, more lucrative market segment on those same routes. Time will tell if AS made the right decision.

MINT can be as affordable as $499, so I would say it is also aimed at this larger more lucrative market segment you are talking about. And can AS remain profitable on transcons competing with the similar priced MINT, and the far more comfortable B6 economy cabin with its free wifi, free movies on the seat back, and all that?

usairways85 wrote:

Outside of two LAX transcon routes to BUF and MCO, B6 has no transcon presence outside of BOS/JFK/FLL.

Not enough planes, but as they come online I except both FLL and MCO to connect to all the major west coast cities. Especially with AS in retreat and nothing in its plans to rectify its inferior front and back cabin experience vis-à-vis B6.

going back to my old the writing is on the wall phrase, every new development just keeps pointing to that eventually B6/AS tie up. Why should AS waste resources on the transcon and east coast (they already canceled JFK-FLL) if they will gain it all in one fell swoop with a merger? Better to dedicate everything they have to solidifying the west coast and keeping Hawaii viable.

Watch and see how B6 will do the same out west, continue to stagnate at LGB and draw it down. Concentrate on the east, transcons and long range flying across the Atlantic and also into S. America. Its kind of exciting when you think about it, I can already see the argument they will make to the DoJ: Sirs, to remain competitive with the Big Four, our airlines must join together to become the Big Fifth.................

MIflyer12 wrote:

neomax wrote:

I'm not seeing the alternative here. You're telling me that AS is going to just swap AS and VX equipment just because they feel like it? Why? The A320's are as capable as the 737's on transcons so there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

EA CO AS already explained this for you: 739ERs will be used transcon. These have more seats and better CASM than the 320s.

Absolutely correct! EA CO' has been explaining this, and most everything else about the new Alaska since last year so there is NO NEWS HERE whatsoever.

This constant rehashing of all this "shocking and horrible" Alaska Airlines post-take over news is really getting old. At least a new thread or 2 every week is completely unnecessary!

bb

In all the threads about the performance of the A320 and 737 it is noted that the lower weight of the 737 is only an advantage on shorter flights, the better efficiency of the A320 negates that effect on longer flights, so based on what is being done by AS and DL to some extent, is it a given that all US transcons require the higher number of seats on the 737 versus the efficiency of the A320?

Id love to see if AS has numbers on 737 vs A320 on the same route.

As I said earlier, Alaska is concentrated on more West Coast and intra California flying.

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Alaska is concentrated on more West Coast and intra California flying.

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Newbiepilot wrote:

usairways85 wrote:

Isn't this what UA did post UA/CO merger. Not many transcons flown on 319/320s from SFO.

UA heavily uses the 737-900ER on transcon routes. Most transcons from EWR (expect the premium 757 routes to LAX and SFO) are 737-900ER. I believe both UA and DL have decided to favor using 737-900ERs and 737-800s on transcon routes over A320s. It looks like Alaska is joining this trend. I don’t know what is causing the trend.

Incorrect. United utilizes a mix of 700/800/900er. None more than the other. There are also a decent amount of transcons operated by airbus.

par13del wrote:

In all the threads about the performance of the A320 and 737 it is noted that the lower weight of the 737 is only an advantage on shorter flights, the better efficiency of the A320 negates that effect on longer flights, so based on what is being done by AS and DL to some extent, is it a given that all US transcons require the higher number of seats on the 737 versus the efficiency of the A320?

Keep in mind, the comparison is AS 737-900 aircraft vs. the A320. Most of the A32 vs. 737 threads tend to focus on the 737-800.

CobaltScar wrote:

B6 is pushing them out of the transcon game. I think AS is happily going along with it since both airlines know that their long term futures are tied.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/ ... d-its.aspx

Reverting FLL-SFO to seasonal, and seasonally reducing FLL-LAX to 1x daily for approximately 10 weeks is "pushing them out"?

CobaltScar wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

while AS happily pursued a larger, and therefore, more lucrative market segment on those same routes. Time will tell if AS made the right decision.

MINT can be as affordable as $499, so I would say it is also aimed at this larger more lucrative market segment you are talking about. And can AS remain profitable on transcons competing with the similar priced MINT, and the far more comfortable B6 economy cabin with its free wifi, free movies on the seat back, and all that?

usairways85 wrote:

Outside of two LAX transcon routes to BUF and MCO, B6 has no transcon presence outside of BOS/JFK/FLL.

Not enough planes, but as they come online I except both FLL and MCO to connect to all the major west coast cities. Especially with AS in retreat and nothing in its plans to rectify its inferior front and back cabin experience vis-à-vis B6.

going back to my old the writing is on the wall phrase, every new development just keeps pointing to that eventually B6/AS tie up. Why should AS waste resources on the transcon and east coast (they already canceled JFK-FLL) if they will gain it all in one fell swoop with a merger? Better to dedicate everything they have to solidifying the west coast and keeping Hawaii viable.

Watch and see how B6 will do the same out west, continue to stagnate at LGB and draw it down. Concentrate on the east, transcons and long range flying across the Atlantic and also into S. America. Its kind of exciting when you think about it, I can already see the argument they will make to the DoJ: Sirs, to remain competitive with the Big Four, our airlines must join together to become the Big Fifth.................

I think you have it backwards. If AS is charging the same price for first that B6 is for Mint, B6 is the looser.

Super80Fan wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Alaska is concentrated on more West Coast and intra California flying.

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Except that AS and WN are going to be the two that ultimately end up merging. I’m not sure where that will leave B6, but I’m sure they’ll be fine on their own.

SWADawg wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Alaska is concentrated on more West Coast and intra California flying.

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Except that AS and WN are going to be the two that ultimately end up merging. I’m not sure where that will leave B6, but I’m sure they’ll be fine on their own.

AS is not buying WN, and I don't think WN wants the sort of complextiy involved with AS opperations within Alaska to their system.

Aliqiout wrote:

I think you have it backwards. If AS is charging the same price for first that B6 is for Mint, B6 is the looser.

I think you fundamentally have no idea how efficient mint is as a platform. Not having free upgrades, cheap upgrades for elites and lounge access amongst other things really level the costs. Outside of maybe BOS-SEA which is just starting off, every other route is raking money in. Thanks to mint, every ex-BOS transcon markets are a bloodbath.

Super80Fan wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Alaska is concentrated on more West Coast and intra California flying.

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Can we stop this AS/B6 merger stuff until something concrete comes up? Both airlines are doing fine. We need more competition in this country. Although I personally would love to see AS/B6 have some kind of code sharing/miles earning partnership.

Goodyear wrote:

Unclear as to which, Enilria. However it seems to me that as AS has a pilot shortage, they have a large pool of A320 airmen to pull from.
As for the metal, I expect the A319s are the first ones out the door.

I expect the A319s to be returned as fast as economical. That said, the resale values are poor. That is why G4, AA, and others are buying used A319s for low utilization duty (<7 hours per day). The era of the A319 being economical for high utilization duty is over. As the type's resale value is just above scrap for 14 to 17 year old examples, there isn't much more discounting possible to stimulate new operators. So I fully expect leasing companies not to budge on return terms as flying fir AS minimizes their financial hit. Further NEO, MAX, and C-series deliveries Doon the A319 secondary market. Seriously, airlines bid against scrappers and the scrappers win a fair fraction of the auctions. As more are scrapped, there will be a slight value decline, but I expect over the next 3 years A320 CEO (as well as 737NG) resale values to plummet and thus shifting opportunistic buyers to the A320CEO from the A319.

I'd love to know the lease terms. AS should want to rationalize the fleet early.

Lightsaber

Goodyear wrote:

I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%. Anyone care to expand on that? Did AS pull a WN/FL, i.e. hostile takeover in disguise to eliminate competition? Re-marketing the former VX A320 fleet as it is relatively young should not be much of a problem. Are a majority of the former VX Airbii owned or leased?

It would be interesting to look at Alaska/Virgin America merger related documents. I wonder if the merger satisfies legal requirements, after they drastically pull down VX flying and raise yields? What would be the legal ramification? Jail time?

neomax wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

neomax wrote:

I'm not seeing the alternative here. You're telling me that AS is going to just swap AS and VX equipment just because they feel like it? Why? The A320's are as capable as the 737's on transcons so there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

EA CO AS already explained this for you: 739ERs will be used transcon. These have more seats and better CASM than the 320s.

Then why not sell off the A320's altogether and maintain a unified fleet type for maximum efficiency, aka WN and the 717's?

They very well could in the coming years, but that's a more expensive and time consuming solution. They can use 737's and A321's on transcons and Hawaii, and redeploy the A320's up and down the coast and realize the benefits from that much sooner. DL and UA also similarly use the A320 heavily on mid-con and north-south coastal flights, it's not surprising AS wants to make the most of a mixed fleet while that's what they have in their toolbox.

Flighty wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%. Anyone care to expand on that? Did AS pull a WN/FL, i.e. hostile takeover in disguise to eliminate competition? Re-marketing the former VX A320 fleet as it is relatively young should not be much of a problem. Are a majority of the former VX Airbii owned or leased?

It would be interesting to look at Alaska/Virgin America merger related documents. I wonder if the merger satisfies legal requirements, after they drastically pull down VX flying and raise yields? What would be the legal ramification? Jail time?

What legal requirements do you think the DOJ demanded before lifting its suit to block the merger?

To address the transaction’s likely competitive harm, the proposed settlement requires Alaska to significantly reduce the scope of the codeshare agreement. Specifically, in order to reduce Alaska’s overall dependence on the codeshare and limit Alaska’s incentives to cooperate with American, the proposed settlement prohibits Alaska and American from codesharing on routes where Virgin and American compete today and on routes where Alaska would otherwise be likely to launch new service in competition with American following the merger.


To preserve the competitive benefits brought about by the divestures to Virgin as part of the American-US Airways settlement, the proposed settlement requires Alaska to obtain the department’s approval before selling or leasing any of the gates or slots that were divested to Virgin and expressly prohibits Alaska from transferring any interest in the assets to American.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- ... -agreement

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with the department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register.

A stir-the-pot emoji without evidence and reasoned argument isn't an argument in the courts or for educated adults.

Goodyear wrote:

I am hearing rumors (well-sourced) that AS intends to drastically reduce the former VX transcon flying by more than 50%. Anyone care to expand on that? Did AS pull a WN/FL, i.e. hostile takeover in disguise to eliminate competition? Re-marketing the former VX A320 fleet as it is relatively young should not be much of a problem. Are a majority of the former VX Airbii owned or leased?

Reducing Airbus flying? Transcon flying? This sorta feels like a story rushed to press before asking the pertinent questions.

AS already discussed swapping A32Xs and 737s, but somehow it’s morphed into AS retreating, B6 pushing them out, merger predictions, product critiques, etc. Predictable but nauseating.

This is not a "press", it's a discussion forum.

tphuang wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

I think you have it backwards. If AS is charging the same price for first that B6 is for Mint, B6 is the looser.

I think you fundamentally have no idea how efficient mint is as a platform. Not having free upgrades, cheap upgrades for elites and lounge access amongst other things really level the costs. Outside of maybe BOS-SEA which is just starting off, every other route is raking money in. Thanks to mint, every ex-BOS transcon markets are a bloodbath.

Super80Fan wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Alaska is concentrated on more West Coast and intra California flying.

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Can we stop this AS/B6 merger stuff until something concrete comes up? Both airlines are doing fine. We need more competition in this country. Although I personally would love to see AS/B6 have some kind of code sharing/miles earning partnership.

It's simple math if both airlines are getting the same fare.

Aliqiout wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

I think you have it backwards. If AS is charging the same price for first that B6 is for Mint, B6 is the looser.

I think you fundamentally have no idea how efficient mint is as a platform. Not having free upgrades, cheap upgrades for elites and lounge access amongst other things really level the costs. Outside of maybe BOS-SEA which is just starting off, every other route is raking money in. Thanks to mint, every ex-BOS transcon markets are a bloodbath.

Super80Fan wrote:

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Can we stop this AS/B6 merger stuff until something concrete comes up? Both airlines are doing fine. We need more competition in this country. Although I personally would love to see AS/B6 have some kind of code sharing/miles earning partnership.

It's simple math if both airlines are getting the same fare.

B6 has publicly said a321t have 6% higher casm than a320 they are replacing. they have managed to keep it at that level due to a variety of measures. With 159 seat cabin of 143 y and 16 j. Let’s assume that they can get avg fare of 100 for the 150 seat a320 and 100 for 143 y seat in a321t. Shouldn’t be too difficult here since roughly same number of cheap seats to sell. I am actually being conservative since there is 7 fewer y seats to sell. Now the average fare across the board would have to be 6% higher to break even. Let’s be a little more conservative here and say 10% since a320s are adding 12 more seats. 110 x 159 = 17490 - 100 x 143 = 3190. Since they don’t give away free seats, they would only need to sell mint seat at twice the average price of y seats to break even. 3190 / 16 is a little under 200. In reality, they have found y seat fares have gone up due to slightly fewer cheap seats to sell and better schedule so math works out even better. You can see how mint fares can maintain at their levels.

Now a legacy carrier like aa or dl would be using a much more inefficient layout for their premium transcon fleets, have special sub fleet, offer free y meal, offer lounge access, have free upgrades, better ground service, have extra flight attendant and such, it’s no wonder they can’t make this work outside of jfk to lax and sfo.

Goodyear wrote:

This is not a "press", it's a discussion forum.

I didn’t say it was the press, but that’s besides the point. Bottom line is it’s partial information that is then spun into various yarns because it’s, well, partial information. Not that I’m against such info - it’s one of the great things about this forum. It just seems a bit incomplete.

Aliqiout wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

I think you have it backwards. If AS is charging the same price for first that B6 is for Mint, B6 is the looser.

I think you fundamentally have no idea how efficient mint is as a platform. Not having free upgrades, cheap upgrades for elites and lounge access amongst other things really level the costs. Outside of maybe BOS-SEA which is just starting off, every other route is raking money in. Thanks to mint, every ex-BOS transcon markets are a bloodbath.

Super80Fan wrote:

Not a good long term strategy. WN is already king of intra California flying and more and more airlines are adding additional west coast flying on top of their already large national network.

This is just AS preparing for their future tie-up with B6.

Can we stop this AS/B6 merger stuff until something concrete comes up? Both airlines are doing fine. We need more competition in this country. Although I personally would love to see AS/B6 have some kind of code sharing/miles earning partnership.

It's simple math if both airlines are getting the same fare.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. You're leaving out two key factors:

(1) Cost
(2) (Paid) load factor

You're also assuming both airlines are getting the same fare (not sure where this assumption is coming from....sometimes one is more expensive than the other).

tphuang wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think you fundamentally have no idea how efficient mint is as a platform. Not having free upgrades, cheap upgrades for elites and lounge access amongst other things really level the costs. Outside of maybe BOS-SEA which is just starting off, every other route is raking money in. Thanks to mint, every ex-BOS transcon markets are a bloodbath.



Can we stop this AS/B6 merger stuff until something concrete comes up? Both airlines are doing fine. We need more competition in this country. Although I personally would love to see AS/B6 have some kind of code sharing/miles earning partnership.

It's simple math if both airlines are getting the same fare.

B6 has publicly said a321t have 6% higher casm than a320 they are replacing. they have managed to keep it at that level due to a variety of measures. With 159 seat cabin of 143 y and 16 j. Let’s assume that they can get avg fare of 100 for the 150 seat a320 and 100 for 143 y seat in a321t. Shouldn’t be too difficult here since roughly same number of cheap seats to sell. I am actually being conservative since there is 7 fewer y seats to sell. Now the average fare across the board would have to be 6% higher to break even. Let’s be a little more conservative here and say 10% since a320s are adding 12 more seats. 110 x 159 = 17490 - 100 x 143 = 3190. Since they don’t give away free seats, they would only need to sell mint seat at twice the average price of y seats to break even. 3190 / 16 is a little under 200. In reality, they have found y seat fares have gone up due to slightly fewer cheap seats to sell and better schedule so math works out even better. You can see how mint fares can maintain at their levels.

Now a legacy carrier like aa or dl would be using a much more inefficient layout for their premium transcon fleets, have special sub fleet, offer free y meal, offer lounge access, have free upgrades, better ground service, have extra flight attendant and such, it’s no wonder they can’t make this work outside of jfk to lax and sfo.

I wonder if B6 will eventually feel "pressured" into adding a lounge for Mint travelers, and perhaps certain Mosaic members. So far their calculus has shown that it's just not worth it.

However, with the growing popularity of branded lounges (Centurion, Priority Pass affiliated lounges, etc), many travelers already have access to lounges through other means. Perhaps B6 will eventually partner with a third party to offer complimentary access for Mint travelers instead of operating its own space.