Originally Posted by
BearX220
AS is moving from a climate where hometown boosters, and the secondary markets it opens like CHS and OMA, are thrilled that it simply exists... to a climate where it's going to appear dowdy and backwards compared to the competition. And it has no hometown boosters in San Francisco, where the attitude ranges from indifference to hostility for taking VX away. The company's never been in this situation before.
This sums it up nicely.
So going back to the thread title, the Alaska name may be a liability in these new, competitive markets where people are indifferent to hostile towards them.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
I very much agree. As much cachet as the Virgin brand may still have in the San Francisco market, it would not be enough for AS simply to adopt the VX F product -- unchanged since 2007, it's now last-in-class in transcons, except for AS F. And for Alaska to offer its current F product on SFO/LAX-JFK would be ridiculous.
It's worth noting that there's a difference between transcon and premium transcon. Many transcon markets (FLL/MIA, PHL, CLT, IAD/BWI, ATL, etc.) do not have a premium level service, and something like the VX F product is perfectly adequate, if not among the better offerings. JFK (and maybe BOS) are the premium markets at the moment, and that's where VX F is uncompetitive.
I think we can agree that the AS F product is simply inadequate and uncompetitive in all transcon markets.