Originally Posted by airplanegod
(Post 26618248)
Delta's plan: Build up a hub at SEA while maintaining hubs across the US (and Europe/Asia) and producing a truly global airline.
Alaska's plan: Ignore the US East Coast (Except for a couple flights here and there to SEA, PDX, SAN) and a hostile takeover of a competitor airline and destroy it's fleet, routes, and service just so they can wipe out a competitor while still complaining about "the big bully Delta" I think we can see a clear winner in terms of morals and business strategies. |
Originally Posted by airplanegod
(Post 26618248)
I think we can see a clear winner in terms of morals and business strategies. As for DL domestic service, I've just taken my very occasional trip (SFO/ATL). It was on a domestic config 763, which was just horrid. I would fly an AS 734 any day over that DL plane (where the F seats aren't even 1" wider than the Y seats, and the overhead bins are of the original delivery type, and there is one lav for a cabin of 30). (1) Meals - a wash. A lunch and a breakfast. AS and DL probably about the same on this route length (as long as AS puts its snack basket out). (2) IFE - DL wins by an Alaskan mile. (3) PDB - DL wins by an Alaskan and Hawaiian mile. On every one of my DL flights over the past few years (albeit not a large sample size), full bar open, happily served, and occasionally, a second offered. (This is the same as the VX experience). (4) Pillow and blanket at the seat - DL obviously wins this one. The simple fact is that AS can up its game on 3 and 4 immediately as a fairly low cost item. 2, well, AS just needs to make the full array of movies complimentary. Now that the players aren't loaded with as much as the "use your own device" scheme, they expect me to pay for certain content. Any DL/AA/VX plane with personal screens, the premium cabin doesn't pay. That is also easily remedied. And the new AS F seat looks to be a better product than any DL seat that isn't of the int'l variety (incl. premium transcon). Ironically, the FA on my last segment thanked me for my DL loyalty - apparently my 75K status showed as something DL high on his manifest. That started a conversation, and he didn't seem to have any issues with this Eskimo flyer, nor the company, generally. |
I think DL does a good job onboard, not taking into account their seating on different aircraft. You're right, Eastbay, Alaska could easily implement two of those three changes and be much more competitive. I hope they'll move in that direction.
|
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
(Post 26618539)
I think DL does a good job onboard, not taking into account their seating on different aircraft. You're right, Eastbay, Alaska could easily implement two of those three changes and be much more competitive. I hope they'll move in that direction.
Bright side it seems that DL when they bought into Virgin Atlantic adopted some of their service idea's for the better. So let's hope AS management does something. AS can not play the "local hometown boy" anymore, they are playing in the major's now! By the by the JAL deal was a great move countering DL to Japan !!!!! Now that's smooth |
"Delta, you have to date us before you ask us to go steady" -Seattle
|
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
(Post 26620534)
"Delta, you have to date us before you ask us to go steady" -Seattle
|
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
(Post 26618338)
What? How were you able to see so far into the future? Virgin shareholders have yet to even vote on whether they are willing to accept Alaska's offer (though, as generous as the offer is, nobody expects they will vote not to accept it). Somehow, you have turned that into a "hostile takeover", despite that Virgin management chose Alaska as their suitor and solicited Alaska's offer. You've already closed the book on what Alaska plans to do with the Virgin fleet, routes and service. Never mind that Alaska management has said nothing that reflects what you're saying. In fact, they've indicated just the opposite. The Alaska senior management have clearly indicated their desire to continue and expand the Virgin route structure. They've been very clear on their intention to study closely the Virgin fleet and service and to incorporate that which makes sense. This chapter has only begun for Alaska but you've already determined what's going to happen and accepted that as fact. Oh, and yeah, Delta hasn't "maintained their hubs" as they've refined their business model. I give you NRT, CVG and MEM (and all the people in those places that were displaced) as prime examples. So far, Delta isn't winning any moral race if that was what you were implying.
|
Originally Posted by airplanegod
(Post 26618248)
Alaska's plan: Ignore the US East Coast (Except for a couple flights here and there to SEA, PDX, SAN)
But now with a firm footing on the West Coast, I wouldn't rule out AS starting a Midwest or East Coast hub at some point down the road. |
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 26620809)
But now with a firm footing on the West Coast, I wouldn't rule out AS starting a Midwest or East Coast hub at some point down the road.
I suppose AS could try something in PIT or some second-tier city similar to what they did in SJC/SAN (more focus city than hub), but I think it has to be way down the road past the merger. |
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 26620847)
They'll have a focus city at DAL where SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX/DCA/LGA as a group of destinations wouldn't seem terribly silly. They could even keep a flight or two at DFW for feeding to AA.
I suppose AS could try something in PIT or some second-tier city similar to what they did in SJC/SAN (more focus city than hub), but I think it has to be way down the road past the merger. But whatever it's down the road, AS does not move too quick |
Originally Posted by QXflyer
(Post 26618268)
Sounds like someones a little bitter.
Just so were all on the same page, ASVX was in no way a hostile takeover. Lots of people at VX (especially the inve$tors) were VERY happy with the AS takeover. Additionally, I think you'll find that you didnt quite describe Alaska's strategy accurately. As of now (as far as we know), AAGs plans do not include: ignoring the east coast, destroying Virgin's fleet, destroying their routes, or destroying their service--in fact, the opposite has been said by Tilden and Werner. But hey, don't let me stop your little little bout of loathing. Additionally, Alaska does no complaining about "the big bully Delta." AS can stand of themselves, and that shows in the 'battle for Seattle,' where they capture more of Seattle's domestic growth than DL, or in their 9 JD Power awards which Delta has been unable to capture. While DL has good business strategies, they are not comparable to Alaska; it is far to early to call DL a "winner" in Seattle.
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
(Post 26618338)
What? How were you able to see so far into the future? Virgin shareholders have yet to even vote on whether they are willing to accept Alaska's offer (though, as generous as the offer is, nobody expects they will vote not to accept it). Somehow, you have turned that into a "hostile takeover", despite that Virgin management chose Alaska as their suitor and solicited Alaska's offer. You've already closed the book on what Alaska plans to do with the Virgin fleet, routes and service. Never mind that Alaska management has said nothing that reflects what you're saying. In fact, they've indicated just the opposite. The Alaska senior management have clearly indicated their desire to continue and expand the Virgin route structure. They've been very clear on their intention to study closely the Virgin fleet and service and to incorporate that which makes sense. This chapter has only begun for Alaska but you've already determined what's going to happen and accepted that as fact. Oh, and yeah, Delta hasn't "maintained their hubs" as they've refined their business model. I give you NRT, CVG and MEM (and all the people in those places that were displaced) as prime examples. So far, Delta isn't winning any moral race if that was what you were implying.
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 26620684)
The poster you are replying to is on record as saying AS should have been shut down and senior executives thrown in jail over AS 261. I'm looking for a word, given the inaccuracy of the post you've replied to (it's not remotely a "hostile takeover") and a pretty obvious dislike of the company discussed in this forum... maybe it rhymes with "gator"?
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 26620809)
It's really a matter of opportunity for them. If VX were BOS or WAS based, I think they would still have been an acquisition target. Problem is, there was no small, nice, East Coast airline to buy.
But now with a firm footing on the West Coast, I wouldn't rule out AS starting a Midwest or East Coast hub at some point down the road. |
Originally Posted by airplanegod
(Post 26621299)
That was the former AS and management, not the current one. If you can provide a source that indicates AS will keep most of VX's planes, routes, service, while adding those same amenities to their 737 fleet, I will redact my "hostile takeover" statement. |
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K
(Post 26621386)
Can you please explain what buying a company with the rosy agreement of both parties and gutting everything one buys has any relation whatsoever to the definition of a "hostile takeover?"
|
Originally Posted by airplanegod
(Post 26621839)
I don't go by the textbook definition, in my opinion, it's when they destroy a brand/culture.
|
Originally Posted by QXflyer
(Post 26622456)
Ok, well your definition is wrong. Hate to break it to you.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:24 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.