bpe

Back when this was first loaded into the schedule (OAK Service Cutback?) another plausible explanation that was brought up is aircraft availability:

As for me, I used to take the 4pm SEA-OAK fairly often, but now the fares are usually ~$50 higher than the other nonstops. Since the 10pm flight gets in too late to reliably catch the last BART train, I have booked SEA-PDX-OAK at 3pm for my next trip. It takes a little longer, but it saves $30, gets a few more miles, and also priority security in SEA.

bofc

Quite a few responses are along the lines of: "must be a good business decision or they wouldn't do it". Huh? The corporate landscape is littered with companies that made bad business decisions. AS is in the process of making a strategy change with unknown results - dropping core west coast service in favor of new extremely limited scheduled service to eastern destinations. Does that mean it's automatically a good idea because that's their business decision? We'll see. My bet is that AS thinks they will convert their OAK passengers to SFO. But that may not work - and you don't need to manage an airline to have an informed opinion. Maybe you just need to be one of the impacted passengers. Bad idea Alaska.

dayone

Its own network and route planners or comments on FT...I wonder which AS should value more?

eponymous_coward

More like "Random people on an internet message board probably don't have access to things like projections from revenue management on routes and revenue, and people who fly out of (insert name of city here) are going to default to hating any decision that doesn't make their city the special-est snowflake of unique awesomeness and wonder they think it should be".

Could it be wrong? Sure. But AS has run a pretty good airline for a few decades now.

But cheer up, maybe they can restore SEA-OAK service with Q400s and you can have TWO things to complain about.*

*but I think at some point they'll put OO E75s on their West Coast routes once they get some critical mass in numbers, it might be a good way to add frequencies if they are short some planes. But I could be wrong too.

bofc

"As has run a pretty good airline for a few decades now".....allow me to finish the thought....by not expanding with low frequency service to distance locations from hubs at the expense of a strong regional base. But whatever they do MUST be correct right?

And if their route planners are so smart why did they fly out of Oakland (or any location they are driving passengers to WN) in the first place? The point is they are making a guess here. And IMO they are guessing wrong. Time wil tell.

eponymous_coward

AS started expanding to the East Coast in what, the 1990's?

I suppose you think that was a mistake when they could be flying 12x SEA-OAK and 8x PDX-OAK with 738s and 739s?

Let's face it, if they wanted to be WN in the AK/WA/OR/CA/MX area they could do it, but to run WN-style frequencies Hawaii's right out. So are transcons. Their fleet's maybe 20% of the size of WN's? Perhaps AS should try OAK-SNA and SFO-LAX? Maybe some SJC-LAX action? Those are bound to be great successes for an airline for a strong regional base.

You mean like how using Q400s you hate over the last decade or so on PDX-Bay Area has ruined their business to the point of bankruptcy?

But anyways, I'm sure that if WN was to start targeting QX's BOI and GEG Pacific Northwest routes with their planes, they'd obviously walk all over AS with their lousy Q400s, because people love jets and hate propellers like you do. It's a good thing WN has never tried flying GEG-SEA with jets!

Anyways, I imagine if losing SEA-OAK frequency turns into a fiasco, it will get fixed. Keep those cards and letters coming in!

dayone

IMHO, time has told. You are wrong.

bofc

Based on the expanded schedule and full flights where WN uses 737s vs AS Q400s (after AS dropped 737 service) Southwest clearly HAS won (OAK to PDX, SMF to PDX). SNA - OAK on WN is packed (another route the "can do no wrong" AS schedulers dropped). And the next WN win will be SEA - OAK if AS continues on this path. Time will tell.

Tide_from_PAE

WN also uses OAK, along with SJC and SMF, as a connecting point to Southern California, which requires more seats. It's similar to asking why AS doesn't offer lots of flights to DFW or ATL; not as many AS passengers are connecting in those cities.

ctporter

I fly over 75k a year (but not more than 110k) and the route I fly most often is SEA OAK SEA due to projects up in Richmond. I miss the 737s, and now take the Sky West flights. I am not sure that I can make a SFO to Richmond CA and back work even though I would prefer SFO as an airport (other than the weather delays) over OAK. I am thinking that going north would not work out well for me either, and I don't think DL has better options. It has been years since I flew on WN, not sure I want to get into that game!

bpe

OAK-SEA is 5-7x daily on WN and has been for a while, so AS never was trying to 'win' over WN in terms of number of flights or seats.

WN and AS have different strategies and needs for OAK (or any other airport) in terms of connections, fares, different markets, alternate airports, etc... so I wouldn't even try to say either is 'winning' as both airlines probably fulfill their own needs quite well here.

ANC

they are pulling the 739 from that route to reallocate it to MDT

could be the largest plane to have service there since NW flew DC 10s out of there to DTW Ahh were those the days, short hops on massive jets

eponymous_coward

Did they drop that around when AS dropped SEA-GEG after WN entered that market and AS clearly couldn't handle that competition against WN either? I can't recall.

I mean, it's obvious that AS will always choose the wrong thing, whether it's flying Q400s or not doing 15x daily SEA-OAK. It's a miracle they're not in Chapter 11 again.

Perish the thought...

IStream

Yields aren't and shouldn't always be the only consideration in asset allocation. Market share and preserving customer loyalty, especially in a core market like AS's west coast operations, is also an important consideration.

I commute on this route on a weekly basis and spend ~$12K/year. I see at least a half dozen other regular commuters on this route who happen to share my M-W schedule, not to mention those who fly this route routinely on other days. If that revenue goes away, so does our status on AS. Once that's gone, there's no more incentive to fly on AS's partners on international routes, which leads to more lost revenue. Once I commit to Southwest, I'm much less likely to come back to AS even if they undo all these changes.

This is a sticky change that AS is making, I just hope they realize it.