Xero

It is hard for AS to compete with UA on this route. UA offers many connections from SFO and LAX, while AS does not.

jackal

QX is a feeder airline to AS. They may not have been hitting 10%, but they were certainly greater than 0%. However, the loss of service in some of these towns may have (is having?) a negative effect on the larger AAG: while QX may not have been insanely profitable, those customers were profitable to AS. By denying them access to the AS route network, they are no longer traveling on AS.

The shareholders hold stock in ALK, not AS or QX. Thus, the decisions should be made on what is best for the overall corporation.

Perhaps the beancounters did their math and have figured the net gains of redeploying QX elsewhere overrule the net losses of losing current AAG customers--I don't know. If not, to hold QX to a strict 10% ROIC when that may not be the best for AAG is short-sighted. And regardless, you still come up against the issues brought up by Eastbay1K in his excellent post here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16023333-post82.html

johnp012001

AS controls where QX flies. It would be ridiculous to think that the beancounters didn't consider the impact to AS connections and customers, that's their JOB. Bottom line is they determined the resources could make more money elsewhere. Some routes can make sense at $50 oil, but not $100!

formeraa

+1 ^

I'm sure that RASMGuy could weigh in here, but most airlines take into account network effects when doing route planning -- particularly routes that have been served for a long time.

Apparently, emotions are running very high when AS is accused of being "too unstable". But this is not unlike the Portland flyers who have been very vocal here about route cuts. Gone are the days when airlines can profitably fly planes 40% full and make money.

Eastbay1K

That is very true. But if oil goes back to $50, or whatever the benchmark would be for a specific route, the previous customer may be gone forever.

sxf24

You have to recognize that the number of potential customers in the cities where AAG has suspended service is very small.

FreequentFlier

^ Considering that AS has consistently been among the top US carriers in terms of profitability the last few years, it's hard to argue that the folks in network planning don't know what they're doing. AS isn't some fly by night operation.

jwright

So money-losing routes should continue to be flown in the hope that the price of oil comes down sometime in the future? That does not strike me as a particularly sound business plan.

Eastbay1K

In fact, you may have not noticed this footnote of mine, above:

*This isn't meant necessarily as a dig against an airline that may not want to lose $, but it is a fact of life these days and for whatever the reason, these people are eff'd.

My point from the last post was that if you try and re-propose to the bride after leaving her standing there, she may have already found a better (or if not better, more dependable) someone else.

jackal

They do now, but did they before QX was a CPA carrier of AS? That's a fairly recent development and may affect things.

IIRC, QX had its own route planning people (RASMguy was a QX analyst, IIRC) independent of AS.

eponymous_coward

What exactly can you connect to on AS from LAX? SEA/PDX/various points north of LAX (which means a ton of backtracking, and is less efficient than SFO), DCA and Mexico. Oh, and AA and Delta, with an interline/terminal change, also less efficient than SFO.

This is admittedly a bit of an exaggeration, but if QX was trying to connect people from BIL through ANC instead of through the primary connecting hub for AS (SEA), it also might not work so well. Honestly, LAX s***s for connections. It's built better for O/D.

If anything, the drawdown at LAX (which is pretty obvious now, I would expect SJC to be the next victim) is QX changing to providing AS CPA, rather than trying to make routes work on O/D (which is how RDD/ACV-LAX and RNO-LAX were going to live and die). The question then becomes where QX flies to to add feed to PDX/SEA... or, if someone else will buy QX capacity (which I think is a strong possibility- the Q400 becomes very attractive in a $100/bbl oil environment).

meballard

It does for out of security/bus terminal switches (which is any AS-DL/AA connection currently).

Once AS moves into Terminal 6, and especially if they re-open the tunnel from T5 to T4, LAX is going to improve dramatically for connections. At that point, it will in many ways be better than connecting than at SFO to partner flights, as SFO requires out of security transfers to DL or AA now (and if to AA, a full terminal switch, not just exiting and re-entering security).

As far as I know, AS still had some level of involvement with route decisions for QX, as some of the flights were part or all CPA, this just changed it to all CPA. This will take profitability pressures off of QX itself, as AS can manage the profitability taking into account the connections from QX to AS or partner airlines.

Xero

One thing I do like is that AS did accommodate passengers on other airlines. They could have easily just given refunds and force passengers to pay hundreds in more expensive airfare. They did the right thing there.

sxf24

The problem with your argument is that the LAX and SJC routes were operated under the CPA. The 'at-risk' QX routes were the legacy PNW stuff.

yaychemistry

I've got a question about the rules for rebooking in this situation. A friend of mine was scheduled to fly out of ACV on QX. She was contacted by AS but is still awaiting rebooking, but her schedule is pretty tight.

She's afraid that the UA flights out of ACV that fit her schedule are going to fill up before they get to her. Instead I found QX flights out of MFR that fit her schedule much better.

Instead of waiting for them to make an offer, can she just call to reschedule to take the different QX itinerary and will the booking agent have the authority to waive the change fee?