Some of the highlights from Alaska's chief commercial officer Andrew Harrison:

Los Angeles will gain a new security checkpoint and lounge
Portland a renovated and expanded regional concourse
San Francisco more gates
Seattle Tacoma an expanded satellite in the coming years

For LAX

Alaska has preferential use of 10 of the 14 gates in terminal 6 at Los Angeles International airport as a result of the 2016 merger. The carrier and operator Los Angeles World Airports are in the midst of finalising a long-term agreement for those gates - and potentially more - as well as build a new consolidated security checkpoint

For SFO

Alaska hopes to take over all 14 gates in terminal 2 once American consolidates its operations in the under-construction terminal 1 in 2020, says Harrison. This would be a boost from the 10 gates it has currently in terminal 2 and the international terminal.

I find this very interesting because after the merger, Alaska significantly reduced seats at both LAX and SFO from -4.8% and -9.6% respectively where SEA and PDX have both grown 8.8% and 7.6% respectively. This is in sharp contrast to their CCO's statement that "The plans for both Los Angeles and San Francisco would enable the carrier to continue to grow at the airports" as they have not been growing at these airports. They would need at 40% expansion at SFO to move from 10 to 14 gates plus similar-ish numbers at LAX if they wish to expand that greatly.


Do you think AS is going to show more love to ex-VX stations in the coming year or continue focusing on their legacy markets?


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-454096/

Interesting developments. It looks like concourse A at PDX may not be demolished after all. (or concourses A and B will just be combined into one main regional concourse).

Growing at SFO will be challenging due to ongoing competition from United. If they're planning on more gates at SFO, then I guess there is the potential for more routes from there.

As for LAX, well... it's LAX. Every airline and their pet dog wants to have a major hub there, so there's competition at all ends, but luckily the O&D demand out of LAX is very strong...

The Seattle expanded satellite terminal has been an ongoing project for quite some time now, and IIRC, they are just starting to open up some new gates there, which will be very beneficial for them in keeping up their home-turf war against DL on transcon routes and WN on more local routes, such as WN's bay area hubs like OAK/SMF/SJC, as well as SAN, PHX, and DEN.

SonaSounds wrote:

For SFO

Alaska hopes to take over all 14 gates in terminal 2 once American consolidates its operations in the under-construction terminal 1 in 2020, says Harrison. This would be a boost from the 10 gates it has currently in terminal 2 and the international terminal.

I find this very interesting because after the merger, Alaska significantly reduced seats at both LAX and SFO from -4.8% and -9.6% respectively where SEA and PDX have both grown 8.8% and 7.6% respectively. This is in sharp contrast to their CCO's statement that "The plans for both Los Angeles and San Francisco would enable the carrier to continue to grow at the airports" as they have not been growing at these airports. They would need at 40% expansion at SFO to move from 10 to 14 gates plus similar-ish numbers at LAX if they wish to expand that greatly.


Do you think AS is going to show more love to ex-VX stations in the coming year or continue focusing on their legacy markets?


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-454096/

They have shown no sign of wanting to expand in SFO. Confusing...

Getting facilities at LAX and SFO doesn't actually mean using facilities (and certainly not at the same utilization as existing gates). Sometimes the game is just keeping facilities away from competitors.

enilria wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

For SFO

Alaska hopes to take over all 14 gates in terminal 2 once American consolidates its operations in the under-construction terminal 1 in 2020, says Harrison. This would be a boost from the 10 gates it has currently in terminal 2 and the international terminal.

I find this very interesting because after the merger, Alaska significantly reduced seats at both LAX and SFO from -4.8% and -9.6% respectively where SEA and PDX have both grown 8.8% and 7.6% respectively. This is in sharp contrast to their CCO's statement that "The plans for both Los Angeles and San Francisco would enable the carrier to continue to grow at the airports" as they have not been growing at these airports. They would need at 40% expansion at SFO to move from 10 to 14 gates plus similar-ish numbers at LAX if they wish to expand that greatly.


Do you think AS is going to show more love to ex-VX stations in the coming year or continue focusing on their legacy markets?


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-454096/

They have shown no sign of wanting to expand in SFO. Confusing...

Having two of Alaska's large stations in very close proximity to each other (SFO and SJC) doesn't make it easy for expansion, not to mention ongoing competition from United at SFO. Granted, San Francisco and San Jose are two very different markets from each other, which both attract different customers.

enilria wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

For SFO

Alaska hopes to take over all 14 gates in terminal 2 once American consolidates its operations in the under-construction terminal 1 in 2020, says Harrison. This would be a boost from the 10 gates it has currently in terminal 2 and the international terminal.

I find this very interesting because after the merger, Alaska significantly reduced seats at both LAX and SFO from -4.8% and -9.6% respectively where SEA and PDX have both grown 8.8% and 7.6% respectively. This is in sharp contrast to their CCO's statement that "The plans for both Los Angeles and San Francisco would enable the carrier to continue to grow at the airports" as they have not been growing at these airports. They would need at 40% expansion at SFO to move from 10 to 14 gates plus similar-ish numbers at LAX if they wish to expand that greatly.


Do you think AS is going to show more love to ex-VX stations in the coming year or continue focusing on their legacy markets?


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-454096/

They have shown no sign of wanting to expand in SFO. Confusing...

It could be that they lack (or perceive so) the facilities to grow at SFO. Their statement about having four more gates coming online in the future seem to indicate the desire to grow at SFO, but can they compete against UA’s fortress hub?

FA9295 wrote:

enilria wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

For SFO


I find this very interesting because after the merger, Alaska significantly reduced seats at both LAX and SFO from -4.8% and -9.6% respectively where SEA and PDX have both grown 8.8% and 7.6% respectively. This is in sharp contrast to their CCO's statement that "The plans for both Los Angeles and San Francisco would enable the carrier to continue to grow at the airports" as they have not been growing at these airports. They would need at 40% expansion at SFO to move from 10 to 14 gates plus similar-ish numbers at LAX if they wish to expand that greatly.


Do you think AS is going to show more love to ex-VX stations in the coming year or continue focusing on their legacy markets?


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-454096/

They have shown no sign of wanting to expand in SFO. Confusing...

Having two of Alaska's large stations in very close proximity to each other (SFO and SJC) doesn't make it easy for expansion, not to mention ongoing competition from United at SFO. Granted, San Francisco and San Jose are two very different markets from each other, which both attract different customers.

With UA at SFO being their real competition, CAN they compete there? Might AS decide to use SJC as their gateway to the Bay Area?

AirFiero wrote:

enilria wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

For SFO


I find this very interesting because after the merger, Alaska significantly reduced seats at both LAX and SFO from -4.8% and -9.6% respectively where SEA and PDX have both grown 8.8% and 7.6% respectively. This is in sharp contrast to their CCO's statement that "The plans for both Los Angeles and San Francisco would enable the carrier to continue to grow at the airports" as they have not been growing at these airports. They would need at 40% expansion at SFO to move from 10 to 14 gates plus similar-ish numbers at LAX if they wish to expand that greatly.


Do you think AS is going to show more love to ex-VX stations in the coming year or continue focusing on their legacy markets?


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-454096/

They have shown no sign of wanting to expand in SFO. Confusing...

It could be that they lack (or perceive so) the facilities to grow at SFO. Their statement about having four more gates coming online in the future seem to indicate the desire to grow at SFO, but can they compete against UA’s fortress hub?

They've definitely been shrinking, so it's not so much a lack of expansion. You would have to argue they couldn't operate their old level of ops and had to shrink. Maybe. I think they are running about 8x per gate now.

enilria wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

enilria wrote:

They have shown no sign of wanting to expand in SFO. Confusing...

It could be that they lack (or perceive so) the facilities to grow at SFO. Their statement about having four more gates coming online in the future seem to indicate the desire to grow at SFO, but can they compete against UA’s fortress hub?

They've definitely been shrinking, so it's not so much a lack of expansion. You would have to argue they couldn't operate their old level of ops and had to shrink. Maybe. I think they are running about 8x per gate now.

Makes you wonder what their plans are for SFO with 4 more gates. Maybe organic growth, i.e., just long term natural growth?

You had a financially conservative airline take over a lackluster financially performing airline and subsequently reduce seats. Now that things have stabilized perhaps they can refocus on building up LAX and SFO.

I’ve experience quite a few modest delays upon arrival because of no available gate at LAX for Alaska. Even without expansion more gates at operationally challenged LAX and delay prone SFO are a good thing.

I never, ever understood the rationale behind ill-fated additions like SFO-ABQ and SFO-IND. I have to think that linking SFO with markets where the AS brand is actually known (i.e. ANC, BOI, EUG) would be far more successful. LAX is tough any way you look at it, but I do think SMF travelers would appreciate the connectivity that this hub offers. Perhaps OAK-LAX is worth a try. If enough regional feed develops, then maybe popular destinations like KOA, LIH and MSY could be added from LAX...

LAXBUR wrote:

You had a financially conservative airline take over a lackluster financially performing airline and subsequently reduce seats. Now that things have stabilized perhaps they can refocus on building up LAX and SFO.

I’ve experience quite a few modest delays upon arrival because of no available gate at LAX for Alaska. Even without expansion more gates at operationally challenged LAX and delay prone SFO are a good thing.

I've had the gate delay at LAX for many airlines. It's a huge problem at that airport. Yet another reason I choose BUR whenever possible.

I was actually more interesting in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

Noise wrote:

I was actually more interesting in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

SAN will be more or less status quo until they can find more gate space at decent times.

Chemist wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

You had a financially conservative airline take over a lackluster financially performing airline and subsequently reduce seats. Now that things have stabilized perhaps they can refocus on building up LAX and SFO.

I’ve experience quite a few modest delays upon arrival because of no available gate at LAX for Alaska. Even without expansion more gates at operationally challenged LAX and delay prone SFO are a good thing.

I've had the gate delay at LAX for many airlines. It's a huge problem at that airport. Yet another reason I choose BUR whenever possible.

You're right in that it isn't just an AS problem but in my experience, the AS problem is compounded by the way their operations are setup. With the shared QX/AS setup on the West side of T6; you have gates that can't be used until the Q is gone or vice versa.

Noise wrote:

I was actually more interested in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

I was kind of surprised that neither focus airports were mentioned in the article in regards to future growth...I'm glad to see that PDX was mentioned.........

FA9295 wrote:

The Seattle expanded satellite terminal has been an ongoing project for quite some time now, and IIRC, they are just starting to open up some new gates there, which will be very beneficial for them in keeping up their home-turf war against DL on transcon routes and WN on more local routes, such as WN's bay area hubs like OAK/SMF/SJC, as well as SAN, PHX, and DEN.

The new gates won't be of any benefit until the entire project is complete in 2021.

The existing 1970's era portion of the North Satellite with its 12 gates will close next year to go through a major rebuild.

So the gate situation is only going to get worse next year.

Noise wrote:

I was actually more interesting in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

KLMatSJC wrote:

Noise wrote:

I was actually more interesting in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

Interesting..I wonder why they were not mentioned...

lhpdx wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

Noise wrote:

I was actually more interesting in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

Interesting..I wonder why they were not mentioned...

How many will go to AS?

Also, isn't SAN getting a terminal expansion as well?

Noise wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

Interesting..I wonder why they were not mentioned...

How many will go to AS?

There's a reason I didn't say a number

[threeid][/threeid]

Noise wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

Interesting..I wonder why they were not mentioned...

How many will go to AS?

Also, isn't SAN getting a terminal expansion as well?

SJC I believe is a even split between WN and AS. 3 additional each.
Flyguy

I suspect UA may also pursue gates in T2. I’m not sure how SFO will make that decision, but UAs gate utilization is quite high. I know SFO has a T2-T3 secure connector project on the docket with no date.

http://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/Desig ... -07-16.pdf

The LAX problem probable is not made any better by it being a split ground operation. Last time I went through it looked like menzies gets the VX stuff and QX gets the AS stuff. I suspect that will all get unified at some point under McGee air services. Also AS can't really expand their lounge until they get the space where the maple leaf lounge is. Things will also get better if the rumored transition to all E175 at LAX happens.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Getting facilities at LAX and SFO doesn't actually mean using facilities (and certainly not at the same utilization as existing gates). Sometimes the game is just keeping facilities away from competitors.

That's not how it works. SFO airport reallocates gates based (essentially) on who is utilizing their existing gates the most. If you don't use your gates enough they are taken away, so there is no real possibility of gate squatting.

wnflyguy wrote:

SJC I believe is a even split between WN and AS. 3 additional each.
Flyguy

That has not yet been confirmed.

I don't see how they get more gates at LAX when they've cut so many routes in the past year. There is going to be more transcon cuts next year. I just don't see how BOS-LAX stick around if they continue performing so poorly on it.

How about ANC?

Noise wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

Interesting..I wonder why they were not mentioned...

How many will go to AS?

Also, isn't SAN getting a terminal expansion as well?

The SAN terminal 1 replacement is years off. It hasn't yet completed the EIR process. In the meantime, AS is moving terminals from T1W to T2E in 2019. Not sure what that does for them in terms of gate availability at useful times.

I have a couple of comments about AS at SAN.

I'm quite disappointed that nothing at all was mentioned during the presentation about AS's move and (I hope) growth potential at SAN. AAG will be completely relocated to T2E in the first quarter of 2019. Right now they are running split ops out of T1W and T2E and it must be horrible for connecting pax.

All I can assume by the lack of comment about their ops and real estate at SDIA is that AS is not going to be making any significant improvement to their overall situation here. Many of us were hoping AAG might even be adding a Board Room lounge since there is lots of potential space in their new terminal (the location of the former FIS facilities.)

There has never been any confirmation of exactly which gates AS will be using -- or perhaps I should say how many gates they will have access to -- when the dust settles and they are completely relocated in T2E. Perhaps AS plans no major growth any longer at SAN, perhaps they do. Since they aren't saying anything, and don't feel it's even worth mentioning as part of their discussing their major west coast airport improvements, I can't really be very optimistic about the near-to-mid-term future.

I understand how those from SJC feel -- apparently neither of AS's two focus cities rated even a passing mention at the 3Q Investor's Presentation...

Nicely done Alaska Air Group..

bb

A new LAX lounge would be great...they desperately need a larger one. And, while the Cathay lounge is wonderful, they need their own at SFO...the split terminal thing is bad.

Link to the full investor presentation:

http://investor.alaskaair.com/investors

SANFan wrote:

I have a couple of comments about AS at SAN.

I'm quite disappointed that nothing at all was mentioned during the presentation about AS's move and (I hope) growth potential at SAN. AAG will be completely relocated to T2E in the first quarter of 2019. Right now they are running split ops out of T1W and T2E and it must be horrible for connecting pax.

All I can assume by the lack of comment about their ops and real estate at SDIA is that AS is not going to be making any significant improvement to their overall situation here. Many of us were hoping AAG might even be adding a Board Room lounge since there is lots of potential space in their new terminal (the location of the former FIS facilities.)

There has never been any confirmation of exactly which gates AS will be using -- or perhaps I should say how many gates they will have access to -- when the dust settles and they are completely relocated in T2E. Perhaps AS plans no major growth any longer at SAN, perhaps they do. Since they aren't saying anything, and don't feel it's even worth mentioning as part of their discussing their major west coast airport improvements, I can't really be very optimistic about the near-to-mid-term future.

I understand how those from SJC feel -- apparently neither of AS's two focus cities rated even a passing mention at the 3Q Investor's Presentation...

Nicely done Alaska Air Group..

bb

I mean, to be fair, SAN and SJC are both called "focus cities" for a reason, not hubs.

But yes, I do think they should have been mentioned at least a little bit...

KLMatSJC wrote:

Noise wrote:

I was actually more interesting in hearing what their plans were for SJC and SAN.

SJC is getting 6 more gates in June. A number of them will go to AS.

With those gates coming online next year, I was hoping for a mention from AS that would give us a hint they would be taking those gates with expansion plans already in mind. Maybe there aren’t any set plans yet?

KLMatSJC wrote:

Noise wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

Interesting..I wonder why they were not mentioned...

How many will go to AS?

There's a reason I didn't say a number

You can’t tell us why or you can’t tell us why you can’t tell us why?

SurfandSnow wrote:

I never, ever understood the rationale behind ill-fated additions like SFO-ABQ and SFO-IND. I have to think that linking SFO with markets where the AS brand is actually known (i.e. ANC, BOI, EUG) would be far more successful. LAX is tough any way you look at it, but I do think SMF travelers would appreciate the connectivity that this hub offers. Perhaps OAK-LAX is worth a try. If enough regional feed develops, then maybe popular destinations like KOA, LIH and MSY could be added from LAX...

OAK is getting less love from AS as they are reducing the size of the equipment from 737's to E-175's on the SEA-OAK flights (at least some) after the 1st of the year.

SANFan wrote:

I have a couple of comments about AS at SAN.

I'm quite disappointed that nothing at all was mentioned during the presentation about AS's move and (I hope) growth potential at SAN. AAG will be completely relocated to T2E in the first quarter of 2019. Right now they are running split ops out of T1W and T2E and it must be horrible for connecting pax.

All I can assume by the lack of comment about their ops and real estate at SDIA is that AS is not going to be making any significant improvement to their overall situation here. Many of us were hoping AAG might even be adding a Board Room lounge since there is lots of potential space in their new terminal (the location of the former FIS facilities.)

There has never been any confirmation of exactly which gates AS will be using -- or perhaps I should say how many gates they will have access to -- when the dust settles and they are completely relocated in T2E. Perhaps AS plans no major growth any longer at SAN, perhaps they do. Since they aren't saying anything, and don't feel it's even worth mentioning as part of their discussing their major west coast airport improvements, I can't really be very optimistic about the near-to-mid-term future.

I understand how those from SJC feel -- apparently neither of AS's two focus cities rated even a passing mention at the 3Q Investor's Presentation...

Nicely done Alaska Air Group..

bb

Good things are coming to SAN I believe...keep the faith, SAN!!

wedgetail737 wrote:

OAK is getting less love from AS as they are reducing the size of the equipment from 737's to E-175's on the SEA-OAK flights (at least some) after the 1st of the year.

2nd week of March it goes back to all 737s.

AS expansion will come where they can make money. Doesn't feel like that is either SFO or LAX for them. So it will be SEA/PDX and maybe some secondary CA airports. They bought Virgin Ameirca to get rid of a competitor not to truly grow their network. Feels that way so far, maybe this will change, but currently I don't see it.

SurfandSnow wrote:

I never, ever understood the rationale behind ill-fated additions like SFO-ABQ and SFO-IND. I have to think that linking SFO with markets where the AS brand is actually known (i.e. ANC, BOI, EUG) would be far more successful. LAX is tough any way you look at it, but I do think SMF travelers would appreciate the connectivity that this hub offers. Perhaps OAK-LAX is worth a try. If enough regional feed develops, then maybe popular destinations like KOA, LIH and MSY could be added from LAX...

I believe the SMF-LAX route is code-shared with AA, but you're right the true connectivity isn't there unless they put their own equipment on the route. The route is pretty competitive with all 4 majors on it, however.

Chemist wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

You had a financially conservative airline take over a lackluster financially performing airline and subsequently reduce seats. Now that things have stabilized perhaps they can refocus on building up LAX and SFO.

I’ve experience quite a few modest delays upon arrival because of no available gate at LAX for Alaska. Even without expansion more gates at operationally challenged LAX and delay prone SFO are a good thing.

I've had the gate delay at LAX for many airlines. It's a huge problem at that airport. Yet another reason I choose BUR whenever possible.

Well there are gate delays and alley delays. Not always the same thing. Nonetheless, extra gates help.

smflyer wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

I never, ever understood the rationale behind ill-fated additions like SFO-ABQ and SFO-IND. I have to think that linking SFO with markets where the AS brand is actually known (i.e. ANC, BOI, EUG) would be far more successful. LAX is tough any way you look at it, but I do think SMF travelers would appreciate the connectivity that this hub offers. Perhaps OAK-LAX is worth a try. If enough regional feed develops, then maybe popular destinations like KOA, LIH and MSY could be added from LAX...

I believe the SMF-LAX route is code-shared with AA, but you're right the true connectivity isn't there unless they put their own equipment on the route. The route is pretty competitive with all 4 majors on it, however.

AA does codeshare on LAX-SMF and LAX-MSY. It would be nice for AS to be on both of these routes. BOI/ANC-SFO would seem like a nice connect the dots routes but in the case of Boise there’s actually a lot of service to California and the Bay Area, so I’m not sure how effective SFO would be unless they capture O&D. United does this route 4-5 times a day, WN to OAK 2x daily, and WN and AS to SJC and SMF each once daily.

BA wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

OAK is getting less love from AS as they are reducing the size of the equipment from 737's to E-175's on the SEA-OAK flights (at least some) after the 1st of the year.

2nd week of March it goes back to all 737s.

Ok...good! It didn't look very good for OAK as service was dwindling.

KLMatSJC wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

SJC I believe is a even split between WN and AS. 3 additional each.
Flyguy

That has not yet been confirmed.

Last I've heard WN requested 5 gates and AS requested 6.
Flyguy

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS expansion will come where they can make money. Doesn't feel like that is either SFO or LAX for them. So it will be SEA/PDX and maybe some secondary CA airports. They bought Virgin Ameirca to get rid of a competitor not to truly grow their network. Feels that way so far, maybe this will change, but currently I don't see it.

I don’t think they paid multiple billions for VX just to get rid of VX. If by “get rid of a competitor” you mean lock out B6 from those gates and aircraft, then yes, I agree. However, it also provided them with valuable real estate to hopefully grow into. That isn’t going to happen overnight.

SurfandSnow wrote:

I never, ever understood the rationale behind ill-fated additions like SFO-ABQ and SFO-IND. I have to think that linking SFO with markets where the AS brand is actually known (i.e. ANC, BOI, EUG) would be far more successful. LAX is tough any way you look at it, but I do think SMF travelers would appreciate the connectivity that this hub offers. Perhaps OAK-LAX is worth a try. If enough regional feed develops, then maybe popular destinations like KOA, LIH and MSY could be added from LAX...

I also feel like AS needs to connect more of it's hubs and focus cities to its already popular cities, this would cut down on so many flights between LAX and SEA, for example, and that would free up gate space at both congested airports by funneling its connections through other cities or eliminating the connection all together. They've even allowed UA to enter a lot of these PNW markets from LAX.

Folks,

See archived posts regarding AAG buying Virgin America to remove a disruptive West Coast competitor. That was No 1, 1A, 1B, No 2, 2B, 2C...

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS expansion will come where they can make money. Doesn't feel like that is either SFO or LAX for them. So it will be SEA/PDX and maybe some secondary CA airports. They bought Virgin Ameirca to get rid of a competitor not to truly grow their network. Feels that way so far, maybe this will change, but currently I don't see it.

Just retired after 36 years with AS. At all the meetings I attended in the GO, I don’t remember anyone once saying that we were trying to rid ourselves of a competitor. What meeting were you at where that was mentioned? I must’ve missed it. Oh wait....lol...I bet you’re just an A.net guy with an opinion. If you’ve got some amazing info that I or my co-workers missed I’d love to chat, or better yet, DM me. Hate dudes who give their resume, but during my 36 years I was CSS in Toronto, Vladivostok, Mexico City as well as the PNNW, Bay Area and LAX, and worked extensively in the GO. Yet, your comment is news to me. Feel free to post a direct quote from an officer that specifically states the purchase was to oust a competitor. Standing by. Cheers.

Tack wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS expansion will come where they can make money. Doesn't feel like that is either SFO or LAX for them. So it will be SEA/PDX and maybe some secondary CA airports. They bought Virgin Ameirca to get rid of a competitor not to truly grow their network. Feels that way so far, maybe this will change, but currently I don't see it.

Just retired after 36 years with AS. At all the meetings I attended in the CO, I don’t remember anyone once saying that we were trying to rid ourselves of a competitor. What meeting were you at where that was mentioned? I must’ve missed it. Oh wait....lol...I bet you’re just a wanna be A.net guy who has no clue what you’re talking about. If you’ve got some amazing info that I or my co-workers missed I’d love to chat, or better yet, DM me. Hate dudes who give their resume, but during my 36 years I was CSS in Toronto, Vladivostok, Mexico City as well as the PNNW, Bay Area and LAX, and worked extensively in the CO. Yet, your take is news to me. Feel free to post a direct quote from an officer that specifically states the purchase was to oust a competitor. Standing by. Cheers.

Actually, ever since talks of this merger first began, I've seen LOTS of comments on here stating that they were just trying to get rid of a competitor. I'm not necessarily saying that's true, but from an outsider's viewpoint, it makes sense why people would think that.

FA9295 wrote:

Tack wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS expansion will come where they can make money. Doesn't feel like that is either SFO or LAX for them. So it will be SEA/PDX and maybe some secondary CA airports. They bought Virgin Ameirca to get rid of a competitor not to truly grow their network. Feels that way so far, maybe this will change, but currently I don't see it.

Just retired after 36 years with AS. At all the meetings I attended in the CO, I don’t remember anyone once saying that we were trying to rid ourselves of a competitor. What meeting were you at where that was mentioned? I must’ve missed it. Oh wait....lol...I bet you’re just a wanna be A.net guy who has no clue what you’re talking about. If you’ve got some amazing info that I or my co-workers missed I’d love to chat, or better yet, DM me. Hate dudes who give their resume, but during my 36 years I was CSS in Toronto, Vladivostok, Mexico City as well as the PNNW, Bay Area and LAX, and worked extensively in the CO. Yet, your take is news to me. Feel free to post a direct quote from an officer that specifically states the purchase was to oust a competitor. Standing by. Cheers.

Actually, ever since talks of this merger first began, I've seen LOTS of comments on here stating that they were just trying to get rid of a competitor. I'm not necessarily saying that's true, but from an outsider's viewpoint, it makes sense why people would think that.

You nailed it with the ‘outsiders viewpoint’. Posting stuff on A.net is fun. Reading it, is fun. We all love rumors and Jets and flying and everything aviation. But that don’t make opinions fact. Cheers.

SANFan wrote:

I have a couple of comments about AS at SAN.

I'm quite disappointed that nothing at all was mentioned during the presentation about AS's move and (I hope) growth potential at SAN. AAG will be completely relocated to T2E in the first quarter of 2019. Right now they are running split ops out of T1W and T2E and it must be horrible for connecting pax.

All I can assume by the lack of comment about their ops and real estate at SDIA is that AS is not going to be making any significant improvement to their overall situation here. Many of us were hoping AAG might even be adding a Board Room lounge since there is lots of potential space in their new terminal (the location of the former FIS facilities.)

There has never been any confirmation of exactly which gates AS will be using -- or perhaps I should say how many gates they will have access to -- when the dust settles and they are completely relocated in T2E. Perhaps AS plans no major growth any longer at SAN, perhaps they do. Since they aren't saying anything, and don't feel it's even worth mentioning as part of their discussing their major west coast airport improvements, I can't really be very optimistic about the near-to-mid-term future.

I understand how those from SJC feel -- apparently neither of AS's two focus cities rated even a passing mention at the 3Q Investor's Presentation...

Nicely done Alaska Air Group..

bb

To be honest these announcements really aren’t anything new. The first new N gates in SEA are opening next month, while construction continues. PDX has been adjusting plans to the new regional facility and gate relocation for AAG for months. SFO and LAX have been in flux while AS adjusts routes from former VX markets.
IMHO the fact that you didn’t hear anything about SJC and SAN is good news! When has AS telegraphed their network adds months or years in advance? Never in my experience! SJC has new gates coming this summer and SAN has an entire terminal shift just around the corner. My guess is that AS doesn’t want to tip their hand to future adds in any market.

I mean they’re flying a lot of routes they weren’t before the merger. But those facts seem to be inconvenient to the narrative that this was simply a hit and run merger. Sure, there have been reductions but folks on here seem to act like every VX route not shared with Alaska has been cut. On top of that outside of management there haven’t been any workforce reductions I’m aware of. I get this is a discussion board, but a lot of baseless speculation on here way too often.