Originally Posted by
channa
Can you please point me in the direction of the Alaska discount for having less airport infrastructure? I certainly haven't seen it.
Bottom line is AS is operating at a competitive hub. If AS botches this up, it will cost them far more than a couple of gates would have.
That said, as has been pointed out above, it doesn't even appear to be an issue of lack of infrastructure. It appears to be AS's mismanagement of assets they already have. If planes are sitting there empty waiting to be towed, and they're not towed in time for the next plane to pull in, it's AS not utilizing their limited resources correctly, not them needing more resources to cater to their inefficient ground handling.
Alaska's cost structure and fares are based on a certain level of asset utilization, including airport gates. If asset utilization were to decline, fares would need to rise. If asset utilization were to decline to a below-industry-average level, fares would no longer be competitive.
Yes, SFO is a competitive hub. Alaska has been clear that their targeting a specific type of customer, which are not high-need corporate travelers. If you're not happy with how Alaska operates, you're welcome to fly United.