snowzilla wrote:

tphuang wrote:

A couple of interesting things here.
1) no reduction in other services from what I can see and the times don't appear to be really off peak hours, so either JFK slots are really easy to obtain or they got it from someone.

They are reducing LAX/SFO-JFK by one each so they can free up an Airbus to do these new flights.

Where are you seeing this? I still see 5 a day to SFO and 6 a day to LAX.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I would have thought DL's market-share at SEA would be higher

DL 2016 market share was higher at 20.6%.

Alaska wouldn't add 3rd daily JFK, if numbers weren't right. Lowest cost operator. Growing list of international partners. Great news.

Doubt AA, B6, DL will reduce frequency, but expect American to unveil a new JFK tcon product.

You really think AA will redesign their product which has the nice AA first class and lie flat business product on the A32T?

Good news, I expect AS to add more routes from their Focus cities in SJC and San in order to better compete with WN in the future.

SANFan wrote:

All my yacking for the last week or 2 about JFK and a new nonstop transcon.... What a shock; call me baffled and disappointed with Alaska. But that's just me.

Plus, both of these new flights are prime (west coast) timing -- early morning w/c departures and evening returns, using valuable JFK slots I assume. No red-eye nonsense.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

bb

I wouldn't be completely shocked to see AS launch SAN-LAX with a couple 175's

GSPSPOT wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

JFK-SEA is a B6 Mint route plus a DL Delta One Route. The core premium passengers have options to choose with these two good products vs. AS which is the standard product for this route.

If onboard food & bev are elevated from standard F fare on AS and the price is right, I know that I would be only too happy to give them a try.

I think the reason AS isn't fast to install the new interior is because they are possibly still considering developing their own premium product on their 737 transcon fleet...thats my conspiracy theory.

allegiantflyer wrote:

I think the reason AS isn't fast to install the new interior is because they are possibly still considering developing their own premium product on their 737 transcon fleet...thats my conspiracy theory.

I think that ship has sailed for now. AS seems to be happy being who they are which is somewhere in between higher end transcon carrier and Southwest. They’ve done well with that in the PNW and seem to want to bring that formula to a broader set of Wet Coast cities.

In the big picture AS doesn't have that many planes. They still have their biggest routes as SEA/ANC and SEA/LAX. They would want to lose that many seats over their fleet and reduce capacity on these extremely busy routes.

tphuang wrote:

snowzilla wrote:

tphuang wrote:

A couple of interesting things here.
1) no reduction in other services from what I can see and the times don't appear to be really off peak hours, so either JFK slots are really easy to obtain or they got it from someone.

They are reducing LAX/SFO-JFK by one each so they can free up an Airbus to do these new flights.

Where are you seeing this? I still see 5 a day to SFO and 6 a day to LAX.

It's in the summer schedule; AS is moving one of the JFKSFO flights to JFKSJC, and one of the JFKLAX flights to JFKSEA. With these changes, AS still remains at 5 daily roundtrips between JFK and the Bay Area.

Fares are cheaper SFO - JFK than SJC - JFK. As time goes by, SJC will be preferred over SFO. Think congestion.

iyerhari wrote:

JFK-SEA is a B6 Mint route plus a DL Delta One Route. The core premium passengers have options to choose with these two good products vs. AS which is the standard product for this route.

B6 BOS-SJC LF: 81.30% (it's pretty good and they have been flying solo on this route. Knock knock DL )
B6 JFK-SJC LF: 84.56% (this is not a Mint route). AS sees an opportunity here and comparatively a standard B6 product to poach and chase.

Delta uses a mix of 757s as far as I know. Some have lie flat business and others are standard domestic first class.

commavia wrote:

I highly doubt AA will be "pushed out" of the JFK-SEA market in "a year." But then, of course, I do recognize that doom and gloom regarding AA in NYC is pretty much de rigueur here on A.net these days.

Maybe it's because AA is irrelevant in SEA? I can't imagine why anyone living in the PNW would fly AA. Ever.

dc10lover wrote:

Fares are cheaper SFO - JFK than SJC - JFK. As time goes by, SJC will be preferred over SFO. Think congestion.

No one goes to SFO anymore, it’s too crowded? A lot of time has gone by in aviation history and SFO is approximately 5x as preferred as SJC. SJC might make some marginal gains but history says they’re likely to be given back next recession.

ucdtim17 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Fares are cheaper SFO - JFK than SJC - JFK. As time goes by, SJC will be preferred over SFO. Think congestion.

No one goes to SFO anymore, it’s too crowded? A lot of time has gone by in aviation history and SFO is approximately 5x as preferred as SJC. SJC might make some marginal gains but history says they’re likely to be given back next recession.

Wonderful. Let's concentrate all air service at ONE regional airport, and make everyone drive a hundred miles to get there. Yay, freaking SFO.

Everyone goes there because it has most of the flights, so the fares are lower, so everyone goes there, because the fares are lower, so all the flights are there, so...

AirFiero wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

Fares are cheaper SFO - JFK than SJC - JFK. As time goes by, SJC will be preferred over SFO. Think congestion.

No one goes to SFO anymore, it’s too crowded? A lot of time has gone by in aviation history and SFO is approximately 5x as preferred as SJC. SJC might make some marginal gains but history says they’re likely to be given back next recession.

Wonderful. Let's concentrate all air service at ONE regional airport, and make everyone drive a hundred miles to get there. Yay, freaking SFO.

Everyone goes there because it has most of the flights, so the fares are lower, so everyone goes there, because the fares are lower, so all the flights are there, so...

I’m not lobbying for that, I’m commenting on reality as it exists. OAK is more convenient to the largest population, SJC is more convenient for many large tech companies but SFO is still over twice as big as both combined. It’s not rational but that’s the way it is.

[quote="iyerhari"]SJC airline market share:
WN: 48.40%
AS: 11.39%
AA: 8.96%

JFK airline market share:
DL: 26.81%
B6: 23.01%
AA: 11.69%

AS does not even show up in JFK top 20 airline reports.[/quote

BS. Absolute BS. When is that data from?

There is no way a domestic airline with 15 flights a day doesnt show up in the top 10, let along 20 airlines at JFK.

DL
B6
AA
Then likely BA.

Then AS is right there. They may be in the mix with AF, LH or EK in terms of pax flown but they are likely south of 5 and north of 10 at JFK.

jfklganyc wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

SJC airline market share:
WN: 48.40%
AS: 11.39%
AA: 8.96%

JFK airline market share:
DL: 26.81%
B6: 23.01%
AA: 11.69%

AS does not even show up in JFK top 20 airline reports.[/quote

BS. Absolute BS. When is that data from?

There is no way a domestic airline with 15 flights a day doesnt show up in the top 10, let along 20 airlines at JFK.

DL
B6
AA
Then likely BA.

Then AS is right there. They may be in the mix with AF, LH or EK in terms of pax flown but they are likely south of 5 and north of 10 at JFK.

https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-tra ... C_2017.pdf
Please see Page 2 for the twelve months. I did not manufacture the standings and percent- got it from reported data.

iyerhari wrote:

Please see Page 2 for the twelve months. I did not manufacture the standings and percent- got it from reported data.

The problem is that while it's factual that the word "Alaska" does not appear on that listing of the top 20 carriers at JFK, the words "Virgin America" do, and since Virgin America is now part of Alaska Air Group and will soon cease to exist as a standalone entity, it isn't particularly informative to exclude those numbers from the calculation. Thus, when considering Virgin America and Alaska cumulatively, Alaska not only makes JFK's top 20, but easily makes its top 10.

commavia wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

Please see Page 2 for the twelve months. I did not manufacture the standings and percent- got it from reported data.

The problem is that while it's factual that the word "Alaska" does not appear on that listing of the top 20 carriers at JFK, the words "Virgin America" do, and since Virgin America is now part of Alaska Air Group and will soon cease to exist as a standalone entity, it isn't particularly informative to exclude those numbers from the calculation. Thus, when considering Virgin America and Alaska cumulatively, Alaska not only makes JFK's top 20, but easily makes its top 10.

Point taken - you are correct and I stand corrected when reporting the Dec-2017 numbers. If you look at Jan-2018 numbers for JFK,

https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-tra ... N_2018.pdf

I still see Virgin America in there although they have gone down in one month - it does not say much for the first month of the year but the report has not yet merged Virgin and AS so hopefully over the course of next few months when they are reported as AS, we will see a difference in the position.

NameOmitted wrote:

I'm looking forward to seeing what sorts of synergies happen with BA, if any. Since there are west cost non-stop flights to LHR, I suspect it will be minimal, but still...

BA will prioritize flights with AA when available. When not, AA still profits from a BA issued ticket LHR-JFK-SEA-LHR. A win win for all parties.

From Alaska's stand-point, there is only a limited upside by moving to T7. Other than BA, nothing significant traffic to Europe from that terminal. I suppose, you take whatever is available on the table.

They did it for 6 open gates most of the day and space for a lounge.

Im sure BA was hungry for a domestic thru the day tenant for a largely empty terminal for most of the day.

vadodara wrote:

From Alaska's stand-point, there is only a limited upside by moving to T7. Other than BA, nothing significant traffic to Europe from that terminal

BA is Alaska's largest Transatlantic partner. Iceland Air T7. Finnair T8. Emirates / Singapore T4.

WingsOfLove wrote:

[BA is Alaska's largest Transatlantic partner. Iceland Air T7. Finnair T8. Emirates / Singapore T4.

Precisely, Finnair T8 and EK/SQ are on T4, not T7.

ucdtim17 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

No one goes to SFO anymore, it’s too crowded? A lot of time has gone by in aviation history and SFO is approximately 5x as preferred as SJC. SJC might make some marginal gains but history says they’re likely to be given back next recession.

Wonderful. Let's concentrate all air service at ONE regional airport, and make everyone drive a hundred miles to get there. Yay, freaking SFO.

Everyone goes there because it has most of the flights, so the fares are lower, so everyone goes there, because the fares are lower, so all the flights are there, so...

I’m not lobbying for that, I’m commenting on reality as it exists. OAK is more convenient to the largest population, SJC is more convenient for many large tech companies but SFO is still over twice as big as both combined. It’s not rational but that’s the way it is.

Then apologies for taking the frustration out on you.

What does AS plan to do with their slots at LGA? I believe only half are being used now. Any info?

Interesting to see. Before the acquisition of VX I had thought that EWR was going to be Alaska's point of entry to NYC. Further proof I was wrong.
Are there any more destinations rumored to go to JFK? SAN would be my guess-BUT-it has 5ish dailies (2 on DL, 1 on AA, and 2 on B6) and doesn't really offer convenient or new connection opportunities. O/D only.

twaconnie wrote:

What does AS plan to do with their slots at LGA? I believe only half are being used now. Any info?

Delta'd probably want to buy them.

tphuang wrote:

A couple of interesting things here.
1) no reduction in other services from what I can see and the times don't appear to be really off peak hours, so either JFK slots are really easy to obtain or they got it from someone.
2) strong move on JFK-SEA. The 3rd daily appears to be only for summer, but they have at least comparable schedule to B6 and better one than AA. My guess is AA is going to get pushed out in a year.
3) I have no idea how JFK-SJC is going to work. EWR-SJC is one of their worst TCON routes. B6 was probably loosing money on JFK-SJC when they were the only one on it and now there are 3 airlines. This is going to be a huge money loosing route for everyone.
4) If they really could get slot for SJC, why didn't they first add JFK-SAN? That's a much higher yielding route historically.

Where to you gat that American might be pushed out of SEA? By ANYBODY much less Alaska?? American Delta and United have the gump to go where they please and NOT get scared!

ahj2000 wrote:

Interesting to see. Before the acquisition of VX I had thought that EWR was going to be Alaska's point of entry to NYC. Further proof I was wrong.
Are there any more destinations rumored to go to JFK?

SAN would be my guess - BUT - it has 5ish dailies (2 on DL, 1 on AA, and 2 on B6) and doesn't really offer convenient or new connection opportunities. O/D only.

I expect you're right -- mostly O&D for AS between SAN and JFK. (Probably pretty much the same situation as from PDX and SJC.) Depending on the time sked used for the transcon nonstops, there might be a few connecting pax over SAN from the western AS network heading for NYC.

As AS continues building its freq flyer base of business travelers in the San Diego area, NYC has to be a growing destination. The SAN-EWR flight has done ok but I feel certain that both routes would succeed. BTW, during the peak summer months, SAN-JFK currently sees about 8 daily nonstop, plus about 5 nonstops to EWR. The last O&D pax counts (from DOT Table 1a/6) -- 2Q17 -- for SAN-NYC were 1,264 PDEW. (JFK alone was 679 PDEW and EWR was 505.) These figures don't include connecting pax of course.

I truly expect to see AS flying between SAN and JFK at some point, and I think SAN-EWR would continue as well.

bb

twaconnie wrote:

What does AS plan to do with their slots at LGA? I believe only half are being used now. Any info?

Since they downsized to E170's, they are 4X to DAL.

NameOmitted wrote:

How about JFK-MCO? Does BA fly to Orlando direct? I imagine Florida looks appealing to those in the UK this time of year.

BA flies direct to MCO from LGW not LHR

This is exactly where we all will get to see what a horrible idea it was to make the merged carrier into #BLAHAirlines. They are not competitive, and will under-cut competition to where these routes are likely failures. New Yorker's know their airlines, and the service. They loved VX. I give it 6 months before it's too much for the shareholders to take, but hey Karma is a bia

gsg013 wrote:

You really think AA will redesign their product which has the nice AA first class and lie flat business product on the A32T?

no, but supposedly 757 service (with lie flat J) will come to SEA, DEN, SAN, and PHX

this has been hinted at for ages and still hasn't arrived, though...

NWADTWE16 wrote:

This is exactly where we all will get to see what a horrible idea it was to make the merged carrier into #BLAHAirlines. They are not competitive, and will under-cut competition to where these routes are likely failures. New Yorker's know their airlines, and the service. They loved VX. I give it 6 months before it's too much for the shareholders to take, but hey Karma is a bia

New Yorkers love B6, they’re ambivalent at best about everyone else. VX barely registered in their radar (I’m from NY and have many friends and family still there) and had they loved VX as you say, they’d still be a stand-alone carrier.

As far as NY is concerned, AS will welcome NYers with open arms, but they’re focused on taking West Coasters who love them to NY, not the other way around. And as long as the fares are competitive, AS will do just fine.

We will agree to disagree then. 100% true New Yorkers love B6, no doubt there. VX was very much embraced in NYC, and that included EWR when they opened those routes to the west-coast. I don't know how they did at LGA, and I don't really believe they had a long enough run to say either way, but I find your opinion that NYC made or in your case broke VX, there was many other routes and their hubs, but they were turning profitable and ok ironically Wall street broke them, so only in that way did New Yorkers determine VX fate.
Alaska will fill some planes but I can tell many of you didn't frequently fly VX, otherwise you'd see the irony here. They became BLAH Airlines, exactly what VX was against in every safety video, advertising piece etc.

wedgetail737 wrote:

NWADTWE16 wrote:

We will agree to disagree then. 100% true New Yorkers love B6, no doubt there. VX was very much embraced in NYC, and that included EWR when they opened those routes to the west-coast. I don't know how they did at LGA, and I don't really believe they had a long enough run to say either way, but I find your opinion that NYC made or in your case broke VX, there was many other routes and their hubs, but they were turning profitable and ok ironically Wall street broke them, so only in that way did New Yorkers determine VX fate.
Alaska will fill some planes but I can tell many of you didn't frequently fly VX, otherwise you'd see the irony here. They became BLAH Airlines, exactly what VX was against in every safety video, advertising piece etc.

100% of New Yorkers? Really? If that's the case, then UA, AA, DL, etc. would have some pretty poor loads. It sounds you're a bit biased with B6, which there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure there is a percentage of New Yorkers that doesn't like B6. Sounds like a matter of opinion...and you're entitled to that.

If AS/VX took your thoughts to heart, I don't think you would find AS persuing further opportunities at JFK. Time will tell, though.

He said 100% true as in it is totally true that New Yorkers love b6. Not 100% of New Yorkers do.

I flew VX LGA-DAL a few times loved the service but the issue was as a DL medallion it just made more sense to suck it up and fly LGA-DFW even if DFW is less convenient to uptown dallas and you had the take the 3+ hour flight on the ER-175.

EA CO AS wrote:

As far as NY is concerned, AS will welcome NYers with open arms, but they’re focused on taking West Coasters who love them to NY, not the other way around. And as long as the fares are competitive, AS will do just fine.

I think this is much closer to the truth here. As much as I hope New Yorkers see the charms of AS, I think AS is much more interested in West Coast originating passengers headed to New York.

Also, if New Yorkers knew their airlines, they'd know about Alaska, so I don't think they do as well as they think they do, which is definitely a problem for Alaska. I've had friends, relatives, and colleagues flying Alaska from New York for over 10 years and are still confused that they're flying Alaska to Seattle at all let alone connecting to Los Angeles or San Francisco. However, the latter examples suggest that, like most consumers, the average New Yorker is brand agnostic and chooses their airline based on price.

Do I wish AS would invest in a better transcon product, both in the front and back cabins? Yes.
Do I think AS will do just fine in New York without them? Also yes.