ou81two

I just saw the CEO say that they're going to do that. If any part of what Virgin is dong is profitable, I doubt they're going to abandon it. I'm sure they'll learn their lessons from Virgin. They're planning to keep the 320's, so there's a good chance they'll keep a premium product from California to DC/NYC.

chrisremo

As an AA elite based in SFO who ended up flying Alaska every week for almost a year, this feels like the best possible outcome for me. A strong AA partner who I have always greatly enjoyed flying will gain an SFO hub. Plus finally I'll have an SFO-SAN nonstop I can credit to AA.

I could even see myself switching programs from AA to AS depending on how this all goes.

SJC ORD LDR

I still remember WN stating that they would keep the 717s when they bought AirTran, but they changed their mind and they are now sitting with DL.

eponymous_coward

My worry would be they manage to have negative synergy; losing good things from both airlines. Seen this happen elsewhere and the AS/VX products are so very different...

LoggerOne

In Canada WestJet started as a discount airline. They grew and now have fares at same level as Air Canada. So much for Lower fares for Canadians. I see this happening with Alaska very soon. There comes a time in an airline's growth where discounted airfares don't sit well with the increasing number of shareholders. The increase of fares and decline in service soon follows.

Madone59

Will the forthcoming new AS domestic F product look like VX in anyway? Those VX TCON seats are far superior to AS's.

dayone

Very unlikely to be an issue. Some believe that Hawaii-mainland in underserved. Also, any airline is free to add service.

WrightHI

And VX adds all of four routes to AS's current HI coverage, two of which haven't even started yet, and none of which AS currently flies. They're adding competition for HA, UA, AA, and DL, not subtracting any.

channa

Right. Obviously AS wants to keep all partners -- the more feed the better. But realistically, there is going to be some contention. VS and BA comes to mind -- they're not going to be happy partnering with an airline that partners with the other.

As for SQ, I believe SQ puts its code on VX flights because of the service -- they wanted a partner with strong service to put their code on for USA connections, despite UA being in Star Alliance and available for SFO and LAX connections. As I mentioned upthread, there is nothing materially different between UA and AS service, and in some aspects the AS product may be inferior to UA. So if AS downgrades the VX product to AS standards, someone like SQ may not go out on a limb to maintain an out-of-alliance relationship like they had been doing for someone like AS, when the primary benefit of the relationship (superior product/service) is eliminated and can be easily replaced by an alliance partner.


Me too. My fear is that this has hints of the UA/CO merger, where the arrogant CO came in with a big head, bloated by their IAH customers who told them they do a good job, when practically speaking, the product and service had some serious weaknesses. It's very much the same lack of criticality that SEA customers often have for things Seattle.

Ultimately, UA/CO destroyed the things that kept customers loyal to UA, the airline was no longer TX-based, so they lost the allure from the people who love things Texas, and they killed the revenue premiums both carriers brought to the table.

AS is much more nimble than they were, this is on a smaller scale, and it's remaining SEA-based so the Seattleites will remain loyal, but the potential to let a somewhat misguided ego define the combined carrier does have similar potential to the UA/CO debacle when dealing with the California marketplace.

makfan

Someone asked about AS shareholders getting a vote, but with an all cash deal, nope.

robsaw

I've never viewed AS as a particularly discount carrier, so I don't see how this acquisition changes their fare model.

WestJet changed the competitive landscape in Canada, particularly after the demise of CAI, and has had the effect of lowering fares on routes where they compete head-to-head with AC. The idea of WestJet as a low-fare carrier, other than for the handful of initial operating years, was more of a deliberate marketing perception using LCC language than a consumer reality.

Having a stronger competitor on more routes could be beneficial to the consumer; I think this deal actually makes the overall air travel market more competitive.

makfan

I was having similar thoughts about that. I have lifetime PLT and usually hit EXP. Surely I could switch enough AA flying over to make whatever AS top tier comes out of all this as I wouldn't have to go out of my way now.

eponymous_coward

I especially see this in the transcon product. VX is looking pretty out of date compared to lie-flats to NYC. It is hard for me to see lie-flats working out of SEA transcon, though (DL doesn't even try to guarantee that). So how do you square that circle? I guess this is why I'm not an airline CEO, because I'm not sure you can.

My millennial friends in Seattle who like VX are all disappointed, BTW, because they think VX will be degraded to AS standards instead of the other way around. So maybe we're a little less provincial than you think.

channa

That's interesting you brought up millenials. That is a customer segment that is really popular with VX, and perhaps a lot of their growth is from that base. I'm on the higher end of the age spectrum when I board a VX flight. Not so much on a UA or AS flight.

eponymous_coward

Oh, trust me, I notice. My daughter flew AS in F with me down to SFO, VX Y back. Asked her which she liked better. VX, slam dunk. And I rather like them too; their route network out of SEA is impossible for me to use (and too pricey compared to AS), though.