If they would get off their cheap potos and replace the pillows, it would go a long way toward this, which is exactly what I used to do with the pillows. We all survived SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, and every other disease you can blame the pillows and blankets on, except for cheap disease. The seats aren't a changing. But the pillows can. I have survived many flights on other airlines since AS got rid of the pillows and haven't died from the germs.

I bring my own pillow now. You can get one that's the right size at Bed Bath & Beyond. They're not expensive. In about 20 flights I've only left mine behind once so far.

By the way, another factoid - Alaska's pillows had less bulk (for lumbar) than United's did. Of course they are both gone now - Alaska for the excuse of cheap disease, United because CO management took over and CO had gotten rid of them, another form of cheap disease...

yeah I stand corrected on the same day changes its been a while since I was a DL gold. But still change fees definately werent waived

A number of them. The main complaint seems to be seat comfort.

I'm reminded today of the need for this. Recently I flew SEA-BOS-SEA on AS. Despite making my reservations weeks in advance, on the outbound, I was in a non-exit row window seat, which, as noted at the beginning of this thread, was unpleasant. On the way back, while I was 21st on the upgrade list when I arrived at the airport, at least I had an exit row.

This week I'm flying SEA-EWR-SEA on CO metal. I made my reservations just a week before my flight, but I've been upgraded to F on both segments.

In trying to explain this to myself, I thought to myself, "load factors", but that's not it. According to this page, AS' load factor for August was 88.3 percent, while UA's was 86.6 percent -- that just doesn't seem to be enough of a difference.

So what's going on? Is it that I'm not a 75K? Do 75Ks consistently get upgraded on transcons? I don't think that's it, because it looks like transcon F on AS fills to near capacity at least a week before departure. Is it that AS has a higher percentage of elites than other airlines (I've heard claims to the contrary)? Is it that AS is increasing their profit margin by pricing F to sell rather than to upgrade? Is it that AS simply has fewer F seats than others?

I'd suspect 3x daily service on CO vs 2x daily service on AS.

I'd be interested in knowing the percentage market share that AS has in SEA (and its feeder airports into SEA) versus the percentage market share that CO has in EWR (and its feeder airports into EWR).

Without evidence, I'd be willing to bet that AS has higher market share in the collective airports that feed through SEA than CO does that feed through EWR.

Higher market share, less flights. Fuller F.

I think you have a winner here. In some markets, just 16 or 32 premium seats a day, with no connection opportunities, either. (Flying another major, you can connect in a hub.)

Transcons are the big suck for MVPs. Half the flight is at least MVP if not MVPG. Since I know there's no chance I'm going to end up in front, I tend to just fly DL. I find JFK to be a better airport and I find the flight to be more comfortable. I should hit 75k (mostly from partner miles) next month. I'm hoping that will help.

http://crankyflier.com/2011/08/11/al...ls-more-seats/

Since I suspect an AS executive's not likely to lie in a conference call with analysts, yes, they have reduced prices below that of competitors.

More evidence of the same:

Results from expedia.com, SEA-EWR, 11/7-11/14

AS: $1500
CO: $2200

And a lot of people will pay for the convenience of not having to connect at ORD or ATL...

Yeah, true for paid F and high yield Y customers, but the "cattle elites" often get stuck having to through a hub to save a couple hundred or be in line with company travel policies. That helps CO elites for upgrades since not all elites flying SEA-EWR are on the nonstop, while on AS all of them are on one of the two flights :p

I don't think the AS non-stop pricing is usually that far out of line with connections. Besides, most companies allow you take a non-stop or more convenient flight if its within $X of the lowest priced ticket.

My experience is that on transcons from SEA, AS coach prices are often out of line with competitors - both higher and lower. I think it's because AS has very little capacity - 1 flight to BOS, 2 each to EWR and DCA - so when inventory gets tight, AS may be much higher. And unless there is a sale, they often don't match 1-stop fares. So AS price does vary from B6, DL, UA, AA etc.

I tend to fly UA/CO. Upgrade success is much higher. I don't think 75K will help much on EWR & DCA flights. Often those flights are full without free upgrades.

Depending on season & day of week, CO has up to 5 non-stops, some in 757-300 (24F). Plus some of their 737-800's and all their 737-900 have 20 F. And there are all kinds of connecting itineraries via ORD, DEN, IAD, SFO even LAX & IAD & CLE.

AS dominates elite flyers in SEA while CO has to split the greater NY market with DL & AA.

I don't think 75K's get upgraded much, either, on these transcons.

I think there are two factors:

(1) AS prices F to sell. AS is often priced $200 cheaper each way than the cheapest confirmable F fares on the competitors - and those are sometimes limited to competitor elites and/or capacity controlled. So AS sell out F.

(2) The $99 AS companion certificates which book into full F. So for round trip cheap F fare + $99 2 people can travel, and 2 seats removed from inventory.

These two factors add up to the fact that elites just aren't going to get upgrades on the transcons. That must be fully understood by and OK with AS management.

AS management is probably very OK with over 10% return on invested capital to their shareholders, and part of that is SELLING F inventory, not giving it away.

Could AS be in position where they have to shell out for their version of E+? Maybe they'll monkey see, monkey do. But then again, WN's survived for a long long time, making money all the while with FTers mocking them for not having F, and AS is perfectly fine selling F instead of being generous with the upgrades... so maybe they'll be fine with a more densely packed Y cabin than competitors that brings in cash.

Be interesting to see where it goes.

Hey, I said that it was understood and OK with management - it just means that elites shouldn't expect too much. Alaska doesn't view F as a perk for elites, it views it as something to be monetized.

The other thing I came to realize, as I thought about it, is that Alaska seems focused on SW as its main competitor. I think that's the reason we still have no change fees for MVPGs - because SW has that. No IFE or in-seat power - SW doesn't. Alaska has a (weak) first class product because they've determined that it keeps elites happy (and a goal to strive for for all mileage plan participants) and they can sell it profitably on some flights. So they don't invest much in it, don't give it a lot recline or seat pitch or food quality, and sell it fairly cheaply.

Depending on the route, AS has a lot of competitors. Legacies and HA to Hawaii. SW throughout California, Vegas, PHX, RNO, DEN, ORD/MDW etc. VX. Legacies & B6 transcon.

As for the topic of this threat, Y+, it comes down to whether they can get a revenue premium for the seats that offsets a loss in seats, and whether there is value to AS of keeping elites happy over a longer time period vs. maximizing any one individual flight.

CO definitely did a detailed analysis, and I know it wasn't a slam dunk, but they determined that the combination of incremental revenue for upsells and elite loyalty said it made sense to do Y+ fleet-wide. They may not have modeled having Delta do the same, so that could skew the result. I do know that it is one thing that has kept me loyal to UA - knowing that even in the event of IRROPs or SDC, I was pretty much certain to have a Y+ seat, even if I got no upgrade. Maybe AS is making the bet that the SEA & Alaska FF base is secure, and everyone else books on price. The conclusion remains - as an elite paying a Y fare, AS is not very attractive for transcons, and it appears that in their view of profit maximizing, they don't need to be any more attractive.

It's probably going to be more the revenue premium, less the "make the elites happy", I think- and there has to be significant revenue premium.

Also keep in mind that if any Y+ product can not only be an upsell from Y... it can also be a downsell from F. "Oh, I don't need to pay $300 extra for a meal I'd pay $10-15 in a diner for and some drinks, when I can get the legroom for much less." Given that AS has priced their F to sell, that's a bit of a problem.

Agreed... though I think it's possible AS might have to "go there" if everyone else has gone there.