Originally Posted by
BearX220
Southwest was not a "nationwide carrier" 20 years ago; they had no east coast presence at all, and when they started by opening secondary stations like MHT, people thought it was bizarre. WN got over it and grew into a national carrier without having to mess with the brand.
Originally Posted by
Baze
I think this statement says it pretty well. Keep the name they've had for ~80 years. If their product develops for the markets they do and will or may serve, the name will become well known. But keep their roots. To me, Virgin has no roots in America, they are a spawn of British roots and had such a small market in the USA that I think outside where they go now, not many people known them either, there is no recognition outside their route structure as some from San Francisco or Los Angeles may want to think that would make that the be all and end of of names Alaska should adopt. Keep your proud heritage and roots, keep the Alaska name.
"Southwest" is far more nebulous and non-specific than an airline named after a very specific state separated by Canada while sporting an old man eskimo on it's tail. Same argument for those who cite
"Delta" and referencing the "but but but.. Mississippi Delta!" as if that would spring to mind in most humans first rather than the globally known greek alphabet letter.
AS doesn't have to adopt the Virgin brand, but their brand identity today will not do the merged airline any justice. Nobody cares about AS outside of the PNW and they really should take this opportunity to rebrand.