Dick Ginkowski

Remember when NW tried to bury YX?

BearX220

What I see is AS opening long, thin, 1x/day or otherwise low-frequency routes between SEA and nearly every major market in CONUS, plus a smattering of weirdo, opportunistic routes like DCA-LAX.

The airline's mission for the foreseeable future will be to transport people from all over to the west coast and beyond to Alaska and Hawaii. As such there is no way they need an east coast or mid-con hub.

What would be the point of setting up shop at MEM, MKE, STL, etc.? So AS can fly people from BOS to DFW? Talk about already-saturated markets... and AS has succeeded for years by aiming where others aren't shooting.

The real expansion imperative is to increase east-west frequencies in deserving markets, and perhaps expand the AS footprint at other west coast stations that offer opportunity: OAK, SAN, maybe PDX (not SFO). There is no business case for becoming a national carrier with a hub east of the Mississippi.

CMK10

Yep, their MKE focus city. Aka Throw DC-9s at the problem!

rwinn

Although I doubt that we'll see a huge expansion of MKE flying, I believe SkyWest has a bunch of E175 options that could be used for Alaska flying:

• The first seven E175s assigned to Alaska are part of SkyWest's existing order for 100 jets (40 firm plus 60 'reconfirmable'): http://www.embraer.com/en-US/Imprens...atos-E175.aspx
• 40 of SkyWest's E175s are allocated to United Express flying: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/ai...ds-first-e175/

It is possible that further specifics could have been announced somewhere else, but the way I'm reading it is that SkyWest has options for up to 53 more E175s. I wouldn't be surprised to see an expanded capacity purchase agreement with some of these assigned to Alaska.

WestSideBilly

More people live east of the Mississippi than west of it, so getting better access to those people is the point. AS has relied on DL and AA to access that population; DL is all but dead and what happens after AA/US merger is done and AA decides they aren't really benefiting from the AS partnership? UA would demand a massively imbalanced deal to give AS access to the UA/*A feed and AS would be stuck between a rock (a lousy deal) and a hard place (minimal east coast access).

BearX220

Weak as AA is west of Chicago and north of Los Angeles, I think that scenario is most far-fetched.

WestSideBilly

It's not likely, but it's possible. AS might be perfectly content to remain #6.

AA losing access to Seattle, Portland, and Alaska is disproportionate to AS losing good access to the 200+ million people who live east of of the Mississippi. It's much easier to have another east coast hub and shuttle 739s between it and SEA/ANC than it is to connect SEA to every medium/large city east of the Rockies.

ANC

It could possibly be a cash cow opportunity for them to set up shop somewhere close enough like maybe IAH SAT or AUS to central america, the carribean, bahamas, and west indies. Or invest in larger a/c and get rid of this all 737 and Q400 idea although Im sure it does save in costs of maintenance workers and flight crews. Otherwise you have to fly soley on a partner to get down there since its international or use an award. Maybe thats the problem though, too many non revs on mile awards

BearX220

But then AS is no better from a network-convenience standpoint than AA, UA, or DL. The AS niche is nonstop service to SEA and sometimes PDX, connections to Northwest small markets via QX, and one-stop service to Alaska and Hawaii. That's the value prop, not becoming a weaker, less robust version of the national cartel carriers.

Dick Ginkowski

I suspect a lot will depend on the future of partner relationships. Also, if DL is trying to kick their shins at SEA, they may need to do something.

WestSideBilly

For SEA based travelers, obviously.

For anyone else, and for AS, that's a limitation. There's only so many people who need to fly to SEA (or Alaska), and there's tons of ways to get to Hawaii. So, like I said, it can stick to being #6 and catering to Alaska and SEA/PDX, or it can examine growth options, the latter of which would include another hub.

Dick Ginkowski

DL is committed to adding more service at SEA and I suspect that will leave AS no choice but to expand its markets. They have a loyal customer base and provide onboard service that is generally better than any other domestic product. Time will tell where that leads. Being #6 is not a curse by any means. It could be a blessing.

As for SEA and PDX, I think it will mean that AS will need to convince its loyal local passengers that it is a better carrier with better options than DL.

ANC

to create another hub just isnt all that easy. AS is out of a/c right now hence probably part of the reason they are leasing(err I mean contracted with Skywest although its basically a leased plane and a rent a flight crew) AS will be the ones that pay for the paint jobs and receive monthly maintenance bills etc. But back to the discussion. The only logical way for AS to expand without going too over the line or extending too much risk would have to be to buy another smaller airline thats doing ok and has a decent hub. I cant think of any airline that has both of those. SY is always the most likely and logical choice that comes to mind. They already operate 737s and AS could increase the a/c number by about 20. The problem is, who knows the financial shape these days of SY, theyre always a stones throw from filing. The other thing is that their main hub sucks and is also another DL hub. I guess if AS really wanted to play games against DL theyd buy SY and keep the hub at MSP. I think they should buy SY and move it to some airport in Texas. Other than SY I cant think of who they could buy out. I guess they could buy G4 and buyback all their old dilapidated mad dogs

dave1013

Who could they buy at MDT?

ANC

wellllll