whpbur wrote:

Does anyone know how the 3X daily AS SJC-BUR e175 route is performing? Meeting expectations? Will AS keep it status quo?

According to this weeks OAG thread, they are adding one more flight next year. Tphuang said it isn’t doing well passenger load wise. Go figure.

jetpixx wrote:

I know all of us here on A.net know AS is much more than an Alaskan or West Coast network, but the name 'Alaska' doesn't do them any favors. I think AS should totally rebrand itself.

Yes, people can do research...and WN seems to do all right despite not being limited to 'just' the Southwest...but it takes years, and some of the routes they're trying, unless marketed to the gills, just won't do well because many casual travelers won't think to even check AS for a JFK-SFO routing. They're not trained to do so.

People are trained to get on Orbitz and search the cheapest fare. The airline could be "Tasmanian Sea Lines," and people will fly it from SEA to JFK of the price is right.

questions wrote:

Which airline is moving into T1, AA or AS?

AA. It has been said many times over the years that AA was moving into B and VX (now AS) would get all of T2 to themselves.

whpbur wrote:

Does anyone know how the 3X daily AS SJC-BUR e175 route is performing? Meeting expectations? Will AS keep it status quo?

They are upping it to 4x daily, so it mustn't be doing too bad.

AirFiero wrote:

Probably not good enough numbers to sustain year round non stops

I don't know. They have slowly increased the amount of time that the flight runs every year. It's going all the way to November this year. Also, it has been upped to an A321 from an A320 last summer, and an A319 the year before that.

KLMatSJC wrote:

questions wrote:

Which airline is moving into T1, AA or AS?

AA. It has been said many times over the years that AA was moving into B and VX (now AS) would get all of T2 to themselves.

whpbur wrote:

Does anyone know how the 3X daily AS SJC-BUR e175 route is performing? Meeting expectations? Will AS keep it status quo?

They are upping it to 4x daily, so it mustn't be doing too bad.

AirFiero wrote:

Probably not good enough numbers to sustain year round non stops

I don't know. They have slowly increased the amount of time that the flight runs every year. It's going all the way to November this year. Also, it has been upped to an A321 from an A320 last summer, and an A319 the year before that.

I’ve noticed that too. I wonder how the PDEW numbers factor in, then?

hiflyeras wrote:

Timeline:

July 2019: 9 gates open in Boarding Area B; new Consolidated Security Checkpoint opens; T1 Center partially opens
March 2020: 9 more gates open in Boarding Area B (18 gates total), entire south check-in lobby
Q2 2021: International Connector open, 7 additional gates (25 gates total), swing gates open
Q4 2022: All gates open; Boarding Area B and T1 fully operational

Which airline is moving into T1, AA or AS?

If AA, wouldn’t AS takeover AA’s Admiral club in T2?

It's rumored that once AA moves, SFOs' administration is keen to convert the Admiral Club space into retail due to its location. In that vein, AS would build a club at a location further into the terminal.

jetpixx wrote:

I know all of us here on A.net know AS is much more than an Alaskan or West Coast network, but the name 'Alaska' doesn't do them any favors. I think AS should totally rebrand itself.

Yes, people can do research...and WN seems to do all right despite not being limited to 'just' the Southwest...but it takes years, and some of the routes they're trying, unless marketed to the gills, just won't do well because many casual travelers won't think to even check AS for a JFK-SFO routing. They're not trained to do so.

People don't need to do research, the websites do it for them. What percentage of travelers only go to the airline's website? As NameOmitted mentioned, people can go to Orbitz, or any number of other aggregators/GDS fronts and find the cheapest flight, or the flight that'll work for their times, people would fly "Tasmanian Sea Lines" if the price is right. We've seen that borne out with ValuJet, Airtran, Spirit, and Allegiant.

You mentioned WN, which is perhaps where you go the idea of training travelers to check AS for a JFK-SFO routing? Since they don't use the aggregators/GDS for sales to individuals they've had to train the casual traveler to go to their site. Sure AS would like people to go to AlaskaAir.com and buy a ticket directly, but I'm sure they're just fine with people buying through any of the distribution routes.

jetpixx wrote:

I have never flown AS, but would love to give them a shot on RDU-SEA. They sound like a great airline. But I think for a lot of East Coast people, they only associate them with AS...don't know they took over VX, have a rather extensive network, etc. Anyway, just looking at it from the casual traveler...we know the difference between an E175 and 739. We know they fly from the Northeast to California, and you don't have to go anywhere near Alaska to use them. I just think a rebrand would do so much for them.

Alaska is Seattle's home airline and is the biggest hub. They literally have half of the airport's departures level, and they have almost half of the market share by passengers. (48.5%, Delta the nearest competitor is 22.2%, Southwest, United, and American all follow with around 6%.) You're kindof saying, "Well, I might fly JetBlue to JFK, but they're an airline I've never heard of before."

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

questions wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Oh boy, here comes all the merger conspiracy theories.

zackary747 wrote:

questions wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Oh boy, here comes all the merger conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy theories.

AS is in the middle of the pack and is likely to be squeezed at both sides.
Their primary hub is geographically disadvantaged.

This is not a swipe against their historic success. It’s just a significant challenge. If I had to chose between AS or Macy’s, I’d certainly chose AS!

questions wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

I believe once B6 becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, they’ll keep both brands and just do full-network codesharing.

questions wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

questions wrote:

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Oh boy, here comes all the merger conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy theories.

AS is in the middle of the pack and is likely to be squeezed at both sides.
Their primary hub is geographically disadvantaged.

This is not a swipe against their historic success. It’s just a significant challenge. If I had to chose between AS or Macy’s, I’d certainly chose AS!

Virgin America did their last flight in April 2018. 4-5 months ago. I am not saying it won't happen, I am just saying it is way to early to entertain the idea of a merger. Yes, Alaska is going through a rough phase but what airline doesn't when they merge?!?

Alaska has more west coast connectivity than they ever had. Alaska does not need an east coast hub or focus city to be successful (at least not yet, it's to early to tell). The need for an airline to have a big presence on both coasts in my opinion is a partial fallacy that isn't the case for all airlines. Honestly, the only airline really hurting AS right now is UA. Yes, WN/DL gave them some competition but WN/DL isn't giving a death blow to their profits. Give AS 1-2 years to restructure themselves (which needs to happen during every merger) and depending on what happens then we can entertain the idea of another merger or not. As long as those Airbuses are Virgin paint on them it is to early to tell if another merger is needed for AS to be successful. This forum has a tendency to rush to conclusions. All those routes that AS added out of SFO was a mistake last year. Most of them (with a select few) are not performing well. It's obvious why VX had limited destinations on their network. UA wasn't giving them breathing room. But the reality is DL (Seattle hub) is not a threat to AS and WN isn't really a threat to AS either. Give AS 2 years to be successful. If they're still having these issues then a merger will be a huge possibility but it is simply to early to entertain that idea and come to conclusions. There are plenty of west coast opportunities outside of SFO that AS can restructure and give a shot. I personally think SAN has growth potential for AS. SJC/OAK/PDX have limited growth potential, and well SEA is SEA their fortress.

If Alaska was able to make their limited west coast operations (SEA,PDX,ANC,SAN,SJC) work pre-merger I am 75 percent confident that when they restructure their network and focus on markets where competition is a little more friendly (There is no friendly competition on most routes in SFO, UA won't allow it.) I think their growing pains (from the merger) will cease to exist. Overall it is just simply to early to decide the fate of AS. Let them attempt to get through the merger (2 years) and if nothing changes then I will agree with you about the merger.

There have been updates on some other airports that AS serves so I thought I'd update SAN's status in this thread.

SDIA, an AS focus city, which I believe is the 6th largest AS station (after their 5 hubs -- SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, & ANC) is seeing changes due to be finished in early 2019. AS will be totally relocated to Terminal 2E, using about half of that terminal (the east side) with AA living in the other half (the west side.) AS has many months to accomplish the remodel so they should have pretty nice digs when they officially move next year.

Although details are still somewhat sketchy, there should be more gates available than AS presently has at SAN – 7 gates are fully dedicated to AS right now with an 8th gate shared with WN – and whether a Board Room is part of the remodeling of T2E is not known by me. (I would certainly love to see it and there seems to be plenty of space for one in the former FIS space.) If anyone in the know can provide any insight into this question, please do so!

On the current (8/26) sked, AS op’s ~46.5 daily departures from SDIA, with ~17 RONs! AAG currently has nonstop service to 29 cities from SAN (that includes GEG, starting soon.) I predict that number will be at least 31 quite soon…

As with many of their other key airports, real estate has become a very important factor and a precious commodity for AS. Overnight parking at SAN is probably more of a concern to AS than gate space at this point; they obviously fill all 8 of their gates but still have to find room for 9 more planes that spend every night at Lindbergh Field!

I can only assume that AAG is doing gangbusters at SAN and I expect growth to continue here. When there is growth at the carrier, usually at least some of it involves SAN. (I predict we will top 50 daily departures by the end of 2018 or in early 2019.) I think AAG and SDIA have a very good relationship and a lot of appreciation for each other.

Finally, I hope (and expect) SAN will see AS service to OAK, JFK, RDU and ORF sooner rather than later. These, I feel, are highest on The List for new SAN destinations.

bb

jetpixx wrote:

I know all of us here on A.net know AS is much more than an Alaskan or West Coast network, but the name 'Alaska' doesn't do them any favors. I think AS should totally rebrand itself.

Yes, people can do research...and WN seems to do all right despite not being limited to 'just' the Southwest...but it takes years, and some of the routes they're trying, unless marketed to the gills, just won't do well because many casual travelers won't think to even check AS for a JFK-SFO routing. They're not trained to do so.

Prior to launching the latest rebranded livery in 2016 AS spent a huge amount of time and effort looking into removing “Chester” from the tail of the plane and potentially changing the name. They were met with a huge amount of resistance to the change from the survey groups. The people that know and fly Alaska, truly seem to love Alaska! It’s up to marketing to get the word out to people and change the way they think about AS.

JayWings wrote:

jetpixx wrote:

I know all of us here on A.net know AS is much more than an Alaskan or West Coast network, but the name 'Alaska' doesn't do them any favors. I think AS should totally rebrand itself.

Yes, people can do research...and WN seems to do all right despite not being limited to 'just' the Southwest...but it takes years, and some of the routes they're trying, unless marketed to the gills, just won't do well because many casual travelers won't think to even check AS for a JFK-SFO routing. They're not trained to do so.

Prior to launching the latest rebranded livery in 2016 AS spent a huge amount of time and effort looking into removing “Chester” from the tail of the plane and potentially changing the name. They were met with a huge amount of resistance to the change from the survey groups. The people that know and fly Alaska, truly seem to love Alaska! It’s up to marketing to get the word out to people and change the way they think about AS.

When AS launched IND they did little to no advertising whatsoever (Excluding what the IAA did to help market the flight). The SEA flight is performing extremely well but the SFO flight never really caught on. Granted I don't think marketing can fix their SFO problems (United is just doing what they do best. Adding extra frequency to dump the yields and LF) but the overall marketing for potential future growth (advertising, etc.) needs to improve.

AirFiero wrote:

whpbur wrote:

Does anyone know how the 3X daily AS SJC-BUR e175 route is performing? Meeting expectations? Will AS keep it status quo?

According to this weeks OAG thread, they are adding one more flight next year. Tphuang said it isn’t doing well passenger load wise. Go figure.

Not doing great from the numbers i saw, but 3 a day also isn't competitive so maybe bumping up to 4 a day will help. It looks like AS is very determined at SJC to grow. A lot of cuts at SFO. Basically no cuts at SJC. They outlasted UA on EWR-SJC which both carriers lost money on.

SANFan wrote:

Finally, I hope (and expect) SAN will see AS service to OAK, JFK, RDU and ORF sooner rather than later. These, I feel, are highest on The List for new SAN destinations.

If AS starts service out of ORF, AS would likely add nonstop service to SEA out of ORF. ORF is also one of the top destinations traveled to out of SEA that isn't currently served nonstop from SEA. I would be expecting AS to be serving more than just SAN nonstop from ORF if AS starts service out of ORF.

FA9295 wrote:

bigfoot0503 wrote:

BenflysDTW wrote:

PDX-RDU also seems like a good candidate, DL stated earlier that they weren’t interested in that route and instead said that they would put more frequencies on SLC/SEA.

You're off a bit on this one....

Joe Esposito, Delta's senior vice president for network planning attended a July 2018 meeting with 250 community/business leaders in in the RDU area. When asked by the attendees if Delta would add a RDU-PDX non-stop flight.

-Esposito... "Delta has been beefing up its western network in recent years and described Portland as an important destination. But he said the airline will likely first add additional daily nonstop flights to its hub in Salt Lake City and to Seattle, which offers connections to several cities in Asia".

That statement to me clearly does not suggest that Delta isn't interested in a RDU-PDX non-stop flight.

Source:
http://www.aviationpros.com/news/124226 ... row-at-rdu

I would say that they are interested in RDU-PDX, but I don't see them starting it anytime soon. Maybe within 2-3 years (unless if AS starts it earlier).

I agree, but DL will first out there money somewhere else. Maybe in 5 years, other routes will likely come to RDU first, PDX is a long and thin route.

questions wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Yes, if Alaska decides to buy JetBlue then B6’s entire fleet will have the Eskimo and Alaska name painted on it too.

zackary747 wrote:

If Alaska was able to make their limited west coast operations (SEA,PDX,ANC,SAN,SJC) work pre-merger I am 75 percent confident that when they restructure their network and focus on markets where competition is a little more friendly (There is no friendly competition on most routes in SFO, UA won't allow it.) I think their growing pains (from the merger) will cease to exist. Overall it is just simply to early to decide the fate of AS. Let them attempt to get through the merger (2 years) and if nothing changes then I will agree with you about the merger.

The dynamics are not in place like they used to be, and their current set-up isn't built for the type of long-term profitability that their airline industry peers will have.

SEA: No longer the fortress hub it once was
SAN/SJC: Very competitive WN stations
PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential
LAX/SFO: Obviously highly competitive markets

Midwestindy wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

If Alaska was able to make their limited west coast operations (SEA,PDX,ANC,SAN,SJC) work pre-merger I am 75 percent confident that when they restructure their network and focus on markets where competition is a little more friendly (There is no friendly competition on most routes in SFO, UA won't allow it.) I think their growing pains (from the merger) will cease to exist. Overall it is just simply to early to decide the fate of AS. Let them attempt to get through the merger (2 years) and if nothing changes then I will agree with you about the merger.

The dynamics are not in place like they used to, and their current set-up isn't built for the long-term profitability that their airline industry peers will have.

SEA: No longer the fortress hub it once was
SAN/SJC: Very competitive WN stations
PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential
LAX/SFO: Obviously highly competitive markets

And that is where the restructure comes into play. (Everything you said above I know about already and I am pretty sure I addressed that). If it doesn't work, then it simply doesn't work. I am not saying the merger won't happen, I am just saying it is way to early to entertain the idea. That is all I am trying to say. Nothing more, nothing less. Let the Virgin America paint disappear first before saying another merger is guaranteed. Time will tell, and let time play its role.

That's all I have to say. I will be changing topics back to what the post was about, and this topic can be discussed in 2 years time.

BoeingGuy wrote:

questions wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Yes, if Alaska decides to buy JetBlue then B6’s entire fleet will have the Eskimo and Alaska name painted on it too.

I have a feeling DL will attempt to buy AS at some point in the future.

ADrum23 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

questions wrote:

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Yes, if Alaska decides to buy JetBlue then B6’s entire fleet will have the Eskimo and Alaska name painted on it too.

I have a feeling DL will attempt to buy AS at some point in the future.

Highly unlikely. The US3 are done with US acquisitions as it is highly unlikely the DOT/DOJ will allow more consolidation at that level.

Midwestindy wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

If Alaska was able to make their limited west coast operations (SEA,PDX,ANC,SAN,SJC) work pre-merger I am 75 percent confident that when they restructure their network and focus on markets where competition is a little more friendly (There is no friendly competition on most routes in SFO, UA won't allow it.) I think their growing pains (from the merger) will cease to exist. Overall it is just simply to early to decide the fate of AS. Let them attempt to get through the merger (2 years) and if nothing changes then I will agree with you about the merger.

The dynamics are not in place like they used to be, and their current set-up isn't built for the type of long-term profitability that their airline industry peers will have.

SEA: No longer the fortress hub it once was
SAN/SJC: Very competitive WN stations
PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential
LAX/SFO: Obviously highly competitive markets

Agreed 100%. Since merger, they've lost partnership with AA/DL/DL JV partners and have got the full attention of WN. SFO has turned out to be more difficult than they expected. They have lost the initial momentum in attracting new SFO ff who are tired of UA and looking for a new carrier. Now, they are going back to UA since AS cut schedule in places like ORD/BOS/JFK/DEN/MSP. They are the preferred carrier in SEA, but DL presence on so many routes have made it less profitable. And a big hit will be when WN enters HI, since that's been a huge part of their profit.

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

If Alaska was able to make their limited west coast operations (SEA,PDX,ANC,SAN,SJC) work pre-merger I am 75 percent confident that when they restructure their network and focus on markets where competition is a little more friendly (There is no friendly competition on most routes in SFO, UA won't allow it.) I think their growing pains (from the merger) will cease to exist. Overall it is just simply to early to decide the fate of AS. Let them attempt to get through the merger (2 years) and if nothing changes then I will agree with you about the merger.

The dynamics are not in place like they used to be, and their current set-up isn't built for the type of long-term profitability that their airline industry peers will have.

SEA: No longer the fortress hub it once was
SAN/SJC: Very competitive WN stations
PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential
LAX/SFO: Obviously highly competitive markets

Agreed 100%. Since merger, they've lost partnership with AA/DL/DL JV partners and have got the full attention of WN. SFO has turned out to be more difficult than they expected. They have lost the initial momentum in attracting new SFO ff who are tired of UA and looking for a new carrier. Now, they are going back to UA since AS cut schedule in places like ORD/BOS/JFK/DEN/MSP. They are the preferred carrier in SEA, but DL presence on so many routes have made it less profitable. And a big hit will be when WN enters HI, since that's been a huge part of their profit.

Yeah, SFO has been one big disappointment for AS. I didn't expect it to be as bad as it turned out there. I guess I underestimated UAs power at SFO.

zackary747 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

The dynamics are not in place like they used to be, and their current set-up isn't built for the type of long-term profitability that their airline industry peers will have.

SEA: No longer the fortress hub it once was
SAN/SJC: Very competitive WN stations
PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential
LAX/SFO: Obviously highly competitive markets

Agreed 100%. Since merger, they've lost partnership with AA/DL/DL JV partners and have got the full attention of WN. SFO has turned out to be more difficult than they expected. They have lost the initial momentum in attracting new SFO ff who are tired of UA and looking for a new carrier. Now, they are going back to UA since AS cut schedule in places like ORD/BOS/JFK/DEN/MSP. They are the preferred carrier in SEA, but DL presence on so many routes have made it less profitable. And a big hit will be when WN enters HI, since that's been a huge part of their profit.

Yeah, SFO has been one big disappointment for AS. I didn't expect it to be as bad as it turned out there. I guess I underestimated UAs power at SFO.

I wonder if AS vs WN at SJC is an advantage, being a “full service carrier” vs an LCC? Contrast that with AS vs UA at SFO, two full service carriers. Might that be AS’s advantage at SJC, people who want F class, reserved seating, food and beverage service, etc?

tphuang wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

whpbur wrote:

Does anyone know how the 3X daily AS SJC-BUR e175 route is performing? Meeting expectations? Will AS keep it status quo?

According to this weeks OAG thread, they are adding one more flight next year. Tphuang said it isn’t doing well passenger load wise. Go figure.

Not doing great from the numbers i saw, but 3 a day also isn't competitive so maybe bumping up to 4 a day will help. It looks like AS is very determined at SJC to grow. A lot of cuts at SFO. Basically no cuts at SJC. They outlasted UA on EWR-SJC which both carriers lost money on.

Either AS is doing better than it appears, or they are damned committed to making SJC work.

zackary747 wrote:

Yeah, SFO has been one big disappointment for AS. I didn't expect it to be as bad as it turned out there. I guess I underestimated UAs power at SFO.

I think it's more that the new UA leadership is done with ceding market share. The result would have been much different a year or two earlier.

Had VX not sold out, they would be having a more difficult time in SFO now against a more aggressive UA. Branson's objections aside, VX cashed out at a great time.

I read through the thread, I don't think anyone mentioned this but could they take around 10- E175's and base them into LAS? Fly them only to non-southwest markets on a 1x-3x daily basis. You would compete with Allegiant on a few routes but most of those are only 2x per week and don't cater to the business traveler. Examples might be Santa Barbra, Eugene, Medford, Fresno, Monterey, Redmond, other Montana and Washington cities seasonally.

Just trying to think outside the box where there is limited competition so don't kill me if you think it is a bad idea.

Midwestindy wrote:

PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential

Limited growth potential at PDX? A substantial list for the No. 18 CSA and an airport pushing 20 million passengers a year.


Target cities without nonstops to Portland:

Nashville
Miami/Fort Lauderdale
Cincinnati
Tampa
San Antonio

Less likely:

New Orleans
Indianapolis
Raleigh
Pittsburgh

Cities without year-round nonstops to Portland:

Washington IAD
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Toronto
Cleveland
Omaha
Milwaukee

whpbur wrote:

Does anyone know how the 3X daily AS SJC-BUR e175 route is performing? Meeting expectations? Will AS keep it status quo?

I saw the recent OAG post the other day showing an add from 3x to 4x on BUR-SEA. I don’t think the route is super successful yet, but in order to beef up intra-Cali service against WN they need to hang in there take some hits and continue to grow the market and add more until the general public realizes they have more than 1 option, WN. I also saw some weeks back a release on some of the top load factor percentages and seen SEA-BUR was one of the highest performing routes in the system. I was at BUR last week and noticed most SEA flights are now upgauged to 739 and PDX to 738. Pretty awesome after years of seeing nothing but 73G, 734, and the occasional 738.

jbs2886 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Yes, if Alaska decides to buy JetBlue then B6’s entire fleet will have the Eskimo and Alaska name painted on it too.

I have a feeling DL will attempt to buy AS at some point in the future.

Highly unlikely. The US3 are done with US acquisitions as it is highly unlikely the DOT/DOJ will allow more consolidation at that level.

I would’ve agreed with this a few years ago, but with the recent merger mania in America (see Disney/Fox), who knows? I don’t see the DOJ blocking it; DL would have to divest some of their own or AS assets to make it work, but it can be done.

If DL ever wants to build out Seattle into a replica of UA at SFO (with 300-350 flights), they’ll need to acquire AS.

Alaska bought an airline that struggled with profitability that had their largest hub in a much larger airline’s largest West Coast hub. I don’t understand the expectations here. VX would have continued to struggle as well. AS is simply cutting what didn’t work and seeing that new routes will also be tough. They obviously aren’t going anywhere at SFO. I assume they’ll continue to make adjustments, let the new Alaska mature, and go from there.

I also don’t get the intra-CA expectations. AS can’t and won’t go 10x on every route. Additionally, they only got SFO-SAN/LAX from VX. Everything else they had or have started themselves. It seems so often that people on here assert that VX was the larger airline with the bigger network in this merger.

joeljack wrote:

I read through the thread, I don't think anyone mentioned this but could they take around 10- E175's and base them into LAS? Fly them only to non-southwest markets on a 1x-3x daily basis. You would compete with Allegiant on a few routes but most of those are only 2x per week and don't cater to the business traveler. Examples might be Santa Barbra, Eugene, Medford, Fresno, Monterey, Redmond, other Montana and Washington cities seasonally.

Just trying to think outside the box where there is limited competition so don't kill me if you think it is a bad idea.

Which is how I know that AS is not going to do it. For better or worse, AS is very methodical and incremental in their approach. Every step this management team makes is very predictable and seems very small. Sometimes the steps seem frustratingly small. It isn't until you look backwards at where you were 5, 10, or 20 years ago that you realize the progress that you have made. 5 years ago AS didn't fly to JFK, 10 years ago AS just started flying to Hawaii, 20 years ago AS didn't fly east of the Rockies.

Whatever is announced in the coming weeks will be very incremental I guarantee you that. 10 E-175's based in LAS, no way. Maybe 10 E-175's worth of flying announced in SJC or SAN. I think SAN-ORF is the most radical yet plausible thing I have seen on this thread...but only plausible if it is coincident with a SEA-ORF announcement.

EA CO AS wrote:

questions wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Alaska has recently rebranded, and is still repainting the 737s to the new livery. There are several 737s with the older livery flying around. Knowing Alaska, I'm sure they've looked at and studied renaming the airline, but they've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. They can still advertise and get their name out, which is the same thing they'd have to do if they renamed, but on a much much larger scale. This isn't like USAir to US Airways where the two names are similar. What name could they go for? AK Airlines? There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice to rename but still call back to the old name.

jetBlue.

Within five years.

I believe once B6 becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, they’ll keep both brands and just do full-network codesharing.

What air group? The B6 Pilots contract won't allow for all that horizon/skywest regional flying that props up Alaska mainline.

I personally don't care if they keep the Alaska name and that Orc on their tails or not, but I have a feeling the investors won't stand for trading in the marketing cache of the jetBlue brand for blind (regional) loyalties to it.

I WANT this merger to happen. Both airlines would be so much stronger for it, and both main work groups would be better off. Alaska Pilots would gain the far superior new jetBlue contract/scope and jetBlue FAs would gain the far superior workrules in the Alaska FA contract.

Lets also not forget the country would gain a viable 5th large airline to give real competition to the other four. So much win to be had. I am convinced its happening and all we are seeing now is both management teams positioning their airlines to make it happen. Hence Alaska giving up the ghost on their east coast long haul, and jetBlue putting LGB into the grave it belongs.

jbpdx wrote:

Limited growth potential at PDX? A substantial list for the No. 18 CSA and an airport pushing 20 million passengers a year.


Target cities without nonstops to Portland:

Miami/Fort Lauderdale
Tampa

jetBlue should jump on both these routes quick. Especially the FLL/PDX

jbpdx wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential

Limited growth potential at PDX? A substantial list for the No. 18 CSA and an airport pushing 20 million passengers a year.


Target cities without nonstops to Portland:

Nashville
Miami/Fort Lauderdale
Cincinnati
Tampa
San Antonio

Less likely:

New Orleans
Indianapolis
Raleigh
Pittsburgh

Cities without year-round nonstops to Portland:

Washington IAD
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Toronto
Cleveland
Omaha
Milwaukee

For a hub, that is pretty limited, as most of those routes would be served 1x daily

jbpdx wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

PDX/ANC: Safe markets, but limited growth potential

Limited growth potential at PDX? A substantial list for the No. 18 CSA and an airport pushing 20 million passengers a year.


Target cities without nonstops to Portland:

Nashville
Miami/Fort Lauderdale
Cincinnati
Tampa
San Antonio

Less likely:

New Orleans
Indianapolis
Raleigh
Pittsburgh

Cities without year-round nonstops to Portland:

Washington IAD
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Toronto
Cleveland
Omaha
Milwaukee

I agree that PDX has a lot of potential, but I think the list is off. CVG, RDU, SAT, and PIT have nowhere near the O&D to fill a mainline plane. BNA and IND could probably do it during the summer, but drop off significantly over the winter (60-70 PDEW). TPA maybe, but it's a long flight.

I may be biased, but I think MSY makes the most sense based on the numbers as it never averages below 90 PDEW even in the slowest months. Same for TPA and MIA/FLL. BNA and maybe IND would have the numbers for summer seasonal but not in winter when averages are around 60-70 PDEW.

BoeingGuy wrote:

BA wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Besides my wishlist (realistic or not) of SEA-MRY and the return of STS-LAS and SEA-COS. Some additional routes and returning routes/cities would include BTM, SEA-BOI.

SEA-BOI was not cut. It's still operating.

Yes, Butte was cut close to 10 years ago. He may mean SEA-BOI on AS metal. It has been flown mainline in the past.

I’m surprised that AS flies SEA-SBP but not SEA-MRY.

I'd love to see MRY-SEA as well. The argument is that MRY is just an hour or so from SJC, where frequency abounds and fares are more competitive. SBP has a good catchment area from Paso Robles south to Santa Maria.

Passedv1 wrote:

Which is how I know that AS is not going to do it. For better or worse, AS is very methodical and incremental in their approach. Every step this management team makes is very predictable and seems very small. Sometimes the steps seem frustratingly small.

That has indeed generally been their approach but that has not been their approach to SFO since the merger - Throw anything and everything on the board and see what sticks.

jplatts wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Finally, I hope (and expect) SAN will see AS service to OAK, JFK, RDU and ORF sooner rather than later. These, I feel, are highest on The List for new SAN destinations.

If AS starts service out of ORF, AS would likely add nonstop service to SEA out of ORF. ORF is also one of the top destinations traveled to out of SEA that isn't currently served nonstop from SEA. I would be expecting AS to be serving more than just SAN nonstop from ORF if AS starts service out of ORF.

AS won't start SAN-ORF until after late 2019, DL has the gov contract on that route until at least Sep 2019.

CobaltScar wrote:

What air group? The B6 Pilots contract won't allow for all that horizon/skywest regional flying that props up Alaska mainline.

There will not be a merger with AS that does not retain the AS regional flying. A contract for pilots at the merged airlines would involve fences for existing and ordered aircraft, and inevitably scope to cover the current amount of regional flying. All of which will be accompanied by raises and bonuses for pilots so that they will accept the contract. The real food fight for pilots would be (as it always is) integration of the seniority list.

(* Except I will concede that in the extremely enormously hugely unlikely event of WN buying AS, then yes WN would dump all of the regional flying.)

CobaltScar wrote:

Lets also not forget the country would gain a viable 5th large airline to give real competition to the other four. So much win to be had. I am convinced its happening and all we are seeing now is both management teams positioning their airlines to make it happen. Hence Alaska giving up the ghost on their east coast long haul, and jetBlue putting LGB into the grave it belongs.

If we can't get decent competition out of 4 large airlines, I am dubious that a 5th large airline will magically bring competition. Especially when the prospective 5th large airline has raised baggage fees beyond anything the other large airlines charge and is following the other airlines' lead in packing in additional seats. B6 increasingly focuses on Wall Street and not its customers. Wall Street hates competition (see capacity discipline).

I don't think either management team is positioning for a merger. AS will be digesting their VX acquisition for years to come. And both airlines are under heavy pressure from competitors. AS is under pressure from UA at SFO and from DL at SEA. B6 is under pressure from DL both in Boston and NYC. As you note LGB is an unprofitable operation that B6 is no longer willing/able to fund.

The only chance I see for an AS/B6 merger is for a merger of necessity during a severe economic downturn.

RIght now AS might be wishing that they had left VX to B6. The VX investors sold at the right time and got a great price. If VX were operating today against today's UA that no longer meekly surrenders market share, VX's financials would be significantly worse. And they were never that great to begin with.

questions wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

questions wrote:

jetBlue.

Within five years.

Oh boy, here comes all the merger conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy theories.

AS is in the middle of the pack and is likely to be squeezed at both sides.
Their primary hub is geographically disadvantaged.

This is not a swipe against their historic success. It’s just a significant challenge. If I had to chose between AS or Macy’s, I’d certainly chose AS!

/
Squeezed at both sides? You realize Jetblue had the worst 2018 of any major US airline right?

I could see CMH-SEA being operated by DL, AS, NK, or F9. Time will tell who actually pulls the trigger and does it first.

What I've been curious about since AS/VX was announced was if AS would try both CMH-SEA AND SFO. IND-SFO being pulled might not bode well for those chances, though.

VX was an unprofitable carrier that survived only due to UA's inability to get their act together for the decade of VX's existence. AS overpaid for a second hub but had no choice due to DL's inroads in SEA...they had to diversify and this was their best opportunity.

Through the buyout, AS has become a major or leading presence in every major west coast city. They are the dominant carrier in SEA and PDX...second place in SFO and SJC and maybe SAN. People are always dumping on AS but they're in an excellent position...the majority of newly added routes post-acquisition out of SFO continue while money losers are rightly cut. There's continued expansion opportunities out of LAX, SFO, SJC and SAN to points east and west.

More Hawaii flying is coming this winter and maybe even new Hawaii routes to get a jump on WN. How's their ETOPS certification coming? They seem to now be aiming at Spring 2019
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/sou ... r-said-yet

B6 has their struggles. Mint seems to be a success but where would they have been today if trying to digest VX while fighting off DL in two hubs?

AS will be just fine...while not pulling in the huge profits of a few years ago they're doing things right. Their biggest challenge right now is getting the ex-VX people to buy in and be happy they're working for a financially successful airline with a future ahead of it.

Come on people, please note the title and subjects of this thread.

I'm glad it took as long as it did for this thread to turn into a merger-buyout one -- as every single AS-based thread eventually does -- but please, lets keep it centered on AS's upcoming new routes and overall network growth. There's lots left to talk about on that subject.

It would be real nice to leave other carriers, such as B6 and DL, out of this discussion all together.

bb

Word is there will be an air service announcement at 9:30am tomorrow morning at CMH and the airport is terming it "significant".

Have we found our first contestant?

DeltaRules wrote:

Word is there will be an air service announcement at 9:30am tomorrow morning at CMH and the airport is terming it "significant".

Have we found our first contestant?

Would 1X daily SEA-CMH be considered significant?

wedgetail737 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Word is there will be an air service announcement at 9:30am tomorrow morning at CMH and the airport is terming it "significant".

Have we found our first contestant?

Would 1X daily SEA-CMH be considered significant?

SEA has been at the top of their list for a while, along with SFO, SAN, and SLC, the latter of which they're getting back next year.

Passedv1 wrote:

joeljack wrote:

I read through the thread, I don't think anyone mentioned this but could they take around 10- E175's and base them into LAS? Fly them only to non-southwest markets on a 1x-3x daily basis. You would compete with Allegiant on a few routes but most of those are only 2x per week and don't cater to the business traveler. Examples might be Santa Barbra, Eugene, Medford, Fresno, Monterey, Redmond, other Montana and Washington cities seasonally.

Just trying to think outside the box where there is limited competition so don't kill me if you think it is a bad idea.

Which is how I know that AS is not going to do it. For better or worse, AS is very methodical and incremental in their approach. Every step this management team makes is very predictable and seems very small. Sometimes the steps seem frustratingly small. It isn't until you look backwards at where you were 5, 10, or 20 years ago that you realize the progress that you have made. 5 years ago AS didn't fly to JFK, 10 years ago AS just started flying to Hawaii, 20 years ago AS didn't fly east of the Rockies.

Whatever is announced in the coming weeks will be very incremental I guarantee you that. 10 E-175's based in LAS, no way. Maybe 10 E-175's worth of flying announced in SJC or SAN. I think SAN-ORF is the most radical yet plausible thing I have seen on this thread...but only plausible if it is coincident with a SEA-ORF announcement.

There are definitely people in a lot of Allegiant cities (like Fresno, Eugene, and others) that would LOVE another option to LAS, especially from an airline that operates more on-time flights. However, based on the fact that AY is still doing well in most of the markets it serves, even with the number of issues it has, I'm not sure how much more those people would be willing to pay for the (likely) more reliable option of Alaska rather than just rolling the dice (pun intended) on taking AY to LAS for cheap. Yeah, one E-175 flight on Friday evenings FAT/EUG/MRT/etc to LAS and one E-175 flight on Sunday evenings from LAS would likely do well, but how do they route those a/c to make that happen and still make economic sense? Much beyond Fr and Su, without onward connections (the only one I could see right now would be JFK), they would probably not be able to compete with the $39ish fares.

Varsity1 wrote:

questions wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

Oh boy, here comes all the merger conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy theories.

AS is in the middle of the pack and is likely to be squeezed at both sides.
Their primary hub is geographically disadvantaged.

This is not a swipe against their historic success. It’s just a significant challenge. If I had to chose between AS or Macy’s, I’d certainly chose AS!

/
Squeezed at both sides? You realize Jetblue had the worst 2018 of any major US airline right?

You missed the point.

AA, DL, UA, WN <=> AS <=> B6, NK, G4, F9

US3 + Southwest <=> Alaska (full svc reg player) <=> jetBlue, Spirit, Allegiant, Frontier (LCC, ULCC, Discount)

Strategically, their “where to play, how to win” choices will likely be squeezed from both sides.