No statement from Alaska, but the way the Blogs are talking about it wouldn't make sense if it was by-segment like BA/QR. E.g.:
https://viewfromthewing.com/alaska-a...t-sweet-spots/
" Take it literally, in terms of partner non-stop routes. Connecting flights often mean longer journeys that push trips into more expensive distance bands, in some cases leading to more expensive awards.
The
best value from distance-based charts often comes from maxing out distance, for instance flying West Coast – Tokyo to stay within a distance band and avoid going over… and sometimes by booking two awards to get the pricing two shorter distance bands rather than the combined higher-distance one (though this comes with risks if checking bags, misconnecting, etc.)"
"connecting flights push trips into more expensive bands" makes perfect sense in an AC/AP-style system, and makes zero sense in a BA/QR-setting.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credi...in-march-2024/
"
These changes put Alaska’s program in line with others like Air Canada Aeroplan, which also uses a distance-based chart to price awards."
The best evidence from AS itself comes from AS's chart itself:
Hawaii:
all distances 15,000 40,000 Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean:
all distances 10,000 30,000
"all distances" would make no sense if it was based on per-segment, as a 6-segment itinerary would have vastly different per-segment pricing than a non-stop. It being based on total distance makes perfect sense, however - e.g. it doesn't matter how you get to Hawaii or Mexico, all flights will cost the same.
The statement that a connecting-flight might cost more than a non-stop also makes sense, if the connecting flight pushes the total distance into a new distance band it will cost more.