Originally Posted by WebTraveler

Sounds like you are the one taking this so personal. To me, convenient air service is a time saver and a real life issue. Let's have some compassion for what the customer goes through once in awhile rather than what the employee goes through.

And to answer your question, I do believe Alaska's management team is "missing the ball." In fact, I think Alaska's senior management is inconsistent and bloated with unproductive overhead. I will conceed the point that the airline can probably make more money in Seattle than in Portland. No doubt in my mind that is the case. But I think a well run operation in Portland can do okay.

I don't think you (or any Alaska employee) realize(s) that for the frequent traveler Alaska has not provided the same level of service that it does to Seattle passengers. Maybe Alaska can't make money doing that and maybe thats just the way it is. I am not satisfied with the level of service we have and I am going to speak out on it - that is my choice as a consumer and user of of Alaska's products and services.

But the fact is that other airlines are adding flights to other destinations in Portland. Some may be subsidized, but so what? That's the name of the game. Seattle and the state of Washington subsidize Boeing and other companies to keep them. Oregon has some crafty laws that benefit the big Intel operation out on the west side of town. Nike is crying foul that it might be annexed to Beaverton and have to pay city property taxes of a $1M more a year - now the legislature is considering a deal to make it so Beaverton cannot annex the property. Incentives and backroom deals are what governments do to attract companies. Its not necessarily bad - its real and they all do it to some extent.

You also talk that it is bad for a company to have "low costs." Remember, Southwest's cost of labor is not so low in comparion, they are just an incredibly efficient operation. Yes, Jet Blue doesn't have some of the higher maintenance costs or higher labor costs based on seniority issues....so is this bad? They also have a more modern retirement program - one that is based less on defined benefits and more on portability and one's own investment choices.....and remember, as legacy carriers fail so does the pension plan....

The airline industry is like the steel, coal, and manufacturing industries. The refusal of American workers and companies to be more efficient, more modern, and change with the times has resulted in the relative extinction of these companies in America.....yet, how can Toyota, Honda, and so forth come over here, build a plant, and have lower costs than they had in Japan? Its because they are innovative, efficient, and bring management styles that can change with the times. Until and unless the legacy airline carriers and their employees adopt an attitude like this, the legacy carriers will continue to fall.

Rather than change and be innovative, legacy airline employees like yourself sit back and bash the new upstarts that bring innovation and change to the industry. Change is a way of life and every industry goes through it and some competitors lose along the way because they refuse to modernize.....