WebTraveler

I think its BOTH airlines. The acquisition of Virgin America makes AA a direct competitor on several routes from LAX, but also nationwide. The two airlines no longer complement each other.

Regulators determined they needed to scale back the code shares. I understand that.

But in the end the long time customer loses. That's just the truth. Virgin America has a limited route network.

jsguyrus

Aside from the QX staffing problem, I think most of what you are seeing is a change from Alaska being the cute little west coast airline with some transcons, to a major national player. I don't know if it's possible, or even desired, for them to keep the same kind of folksy coziness they used to have with their customers.

WebTraveler

The point is that with Alaska we were always covered nationwide (and worldwide) whether that was with Alaska or with Northwest/Delta or American - we could go anywhere. This kept brandy loyalty to Alaska. Furthermore, this is the whole point cited as the primary driver in all of the Mileage Plan awards that have been earned through the years.

Since we lost/losing the nationwide link, why fly Alaska on the west coast? Why choose Alaska to SF? To San Jose? to Los Angeles, etc. We have lots of other options. To each California airport we have at least one other non-stop option to us, that includes United, Southwest, Delta, and American.

The point is that all of this ties into Alaska's existence and branding and brings Alaska customers.

This has been the strategy. That seemingly is out the window going forward. For example, I fly probably 15-20 RTs to SFO/San Jose a year. Why should I do these on Alaska? Maybe it's time to fly these on Southwest or United and build some status for the east coast flights I have? For what its worth I'd rather have a better chair on a long haul flight than I do for a flight to SFO. So I have become marginalized to Alaska it seems.

Pin that with the service problems on the Horizon flights, and wow. Here we are.

DG206

Looks like they cut QX service to my MSO by 25%. Eliminated the 3:30 flight, so now I have the option of getting to Seattle really early and hope my hotel has a room ready or really late in the evening.

Don't understand this strategy: Beef up QX operations when you know you don't have the capacity to support it? They added a fourth MSO flight maybe less than a year ago? Made MSO-PDX year round instead of seasonal

ucdtim17

QX and AS have been adding routes right and left all year. They certainly had/should have had an inkling QX was going to be stretched too thin this summer and could have dialed back the expansion. AS/OO may not have the planes to cover the ever-expanding schedule but they would have had a better shot at covering a reduced/delayed-expansion schedule.

sfozrhfco

Moral of the story is that you need to choose the carrier that makes sense for you and not worry about blind loyalty. Delta/American/United/and Southwest have all absorbed other carriers and changed their FF programs. AS is late to the party but they are going through changes now too. Whether or not their purchase and strategy works out remains to be seen but PDX for sure is a going to be a lower priority for them as they have much more competition in California and far less loyalty there.

Many people stick with a carrier even if it no longer makes sense to do. It is good that you have realized early on that you need to look out for your own interests as only you can decide what is best for you.

lalala

Our SEA-BZN flights for this am were cancelled as was the pm flight they threw us on. We're driving to Jackson to see the eclipse from there, so flying into bzn on Monday pm wasn't going to work.

They managed to book us via MSP on DL (we're in the middle of an award trip ex-KEF). This was all done via twitter somewhere over Nunavut.

I can probably see the eclipse again in my lifetime but my heart bleeds for anyone trying to get to sick family.

This QX/outer station stuff needs to be fixed asap.

jsguyrus

As mentioned many time it wont be fixed ASAP, 6-12 months to get enough pilots hired and trained.

lazytom

That's still ASAP. It simply isn't possible to fix quicker :-)

ucdtim17

As discussed upthread, it's possible to fix sooner if they allocated new pilots and planes to existing routes (alongside some AS/OO planes), but they've made the business decision that expansion is more important than reducing cancellations on existing routes.

PDXPremier

The only possible silver lining in all of this is that the # of VDBs could increase since the theory is that there could (should) be more overbooking of QX flights.

ucdtim17

Fares on SFO-MEX, a four and a half hour flight, are $178 for tomorrow. Hard to believe they're making much money flying half empty 737s that distance on those fares but #mostwestcoast

jrl767

just got emails announcing changes for Thur 7 Sep and Thur 5 Oct on the 730pm PDX-->SEA (QX Q400-->OO CRJ; departure time slipped to 8pm) ... it looks like the latest Q400 departure is at 635, so they've cut from 304 evening seats to 200

ucdtim17

Dropped to $124 for a walk up fare today. Practically free.

sfozrhfco

That is probably the worst example of expansion that could be cut. This is a use it or lose it slot. If they don't fly it the slot could go to another carrier. Could they delay all of the other new service--sure--but if they want to fly to MEX with decent slot times at any time in the next few years, they will have to keep flying even if they have to give all the seats away for free to fill the plane.