beckoa

Glad to see the AAG expanding KOA further. ^

Wonder if we might see ITO in the future if KOA does well.

PV_Premier

I for one would welcome some intrusion on UA's stranglehold on ITO from the mainland. ITO is much more convenient to Vocanoes National Park than KOA, though a bit sparse on lodging options.

Still even with one more carrier flying Mainland-ITO, I don't ever see it becoming at all affordable to fly to ITO except via HNL on HA, which even then never goes below $500rt. UA is always over $700 it seems like.

eponymous_coward

Yes, we all get get that elite status matters, but my mom (as an example) flies a few times a year for leisure, so nowhere near enough for status, but she flies enough that she's not the "lookie at that thar flying machine!" Maw Kettle FTers love to sneer at and be snobbish about. She also likes to check two pieces of luggage. She's also not particularly needy of first class seats on her travel (it's mostly 2-3 hour flights).

I'm not going to tell her "oh, you should pay $100 extra for checked bags and fly Alaska or American, even though Southwest is perfectly capable of flying you to where you want to go". (She's also not interested in upending her finances to get different credit cards for free checked bags.)

Southwest didn't get to where they are because they're terrible. The sneering on FT about it is largely because much of this crowd is obsessed with sipping Krug and nibbling on caviar at 35,000 feet, and is oblivious that this hobby isn't something most of America gives two rips about. Most of America is happy with plane tickets to someplace a thousand-ish miles away still in the USA, some checked luggage, and customer policies that are pretty decent (no fees to change flights, for instance), and couldn't care less if they can use the miles they get to fly to the Maldives. Southwest does a very nice job of ticking those boxes.

Baze

Sorry if you felt I was being snobbish or sneering at her. I was just pointing out that there are ways to get those same SW benefits on AS. Nothing more and nothing less. If she wants to fly Southwest more power to her. But this is an AS forum, not a Southwest forum. So, maybe some newbies on here want to see if they can get those Southwest benefits on AS. Sheesh, people are so sensitive and read more into statements than are there.

eponymous_coward

To loop this back in, it's unlikely AS will run WN off of SJC-AUS, regardless of F upgrades or what someone thinks about their "Walmart" model, because if you live in AUS, WN is FAR more useful to you than AS will ever be, and for that reason you will be more likely to select WN:

AS destinations (+ VX): SEA, PDX, SJC, SFO

WN destinations: ATL, BAL, BOS, CUN, MDW, DAL, DEN, ELP, FLL, HRL, HOU, MCI, LAS, LAX, LBB, MEM, BNA, EWR, MSY, OAK, MCO, PHX, STL, SAN, SJC, SJD, SEA, TPA, DCA, PDX, ABQ, PNS, ECP

Even adding in AA, AS doesn't match up: CLT, ORD, DFW, LAX, JFK, MIA, PHL, PHX

milypan

Keep in mind the original statement (not by you) that prompted this discussion was:

IOW, the set of people who would ever choose WN over AS (when WN is not cheaper) is literally the empty set. That is a pretty incredible statement that doesn't really require any reading into. Even if we take it "seriously but not literally," it's still pretty incredible.

AS Flyer

With all respect, this logic doesn't really hold water. WN may carry more local AUS people but if someone is simply going from AUS to SJC, they may not give a rip that WN also flies to all those other places - they're only going to SJC. If they go to Expedia or Travelocity (or any other travel site) I don't think they're going to see Southwest there. Some may go directly to the WN site, others may not. Also, by your logic Alaska had no chance at success on PDX-ORD/DFW/ATL/EWR/BOS or any other city where another airlines is dominant. I don't think AS has any designs on running WN off of this route, I think they are just chasing a piece of the pie that, currently, WN pretty much enjoys to themselves.

eponymous_coward

Sure. Which could work.

Or they could drop SJC-AUS. Again. Like they did SJC-LAX. Twice.

SJC ORD LDR

I knew that SJC - LAX was cancelled by AS a few years ago. But, when was the first time that happened?

I think using an E175 will help AS with these routes. The 737 was too much once WN took the market share by scheduling their flights at the same time as AS and the Q400 wasn't competitive with the jets flown by all the competitors. I took it twice and I didn't mind the Q400, but I also liked getting DL miles and segments. That won't happen anymore.

AS Flyer

Could happen. I doubt it's gonna happen, but it could. SJC-LAX, by the way - different times, different situations. First time Alaska flew SJC-LAX, lackluster schedule and no feed on either end. Second time, limited feed and Q400 service competing against Southwest's 737's that operated like 8 times a day. Alaska has a nice product this time and a reasonable schedule that, with demand, could get better by way of adding flights or upgauging flights to 737. In any case, I think Alaska is in it to win it this time where California is concerned. I don't think anyone has illusions of running Southwest out of town but there's plenty of that pie to go around.

eponymous_coward

I tend to agree, but WN is in the CA market to stay, "Walmart" and all.

channa

VX flew it once as well and dropped it, so technically they failed at this route three times in the company's history.

AS Flyer

I think WN is just fine. Nothing particularly "Walmart" about them in my experiences. I've always been treated well on my flights with them.

eponymous_coward

You aren't the one who brought that up. We are in violent agreement.

PotomacApproach

This is the SFO route map VX was supposed to build if they didn't run into so many $ challenges early, had a smaller plane than the A320, and didn't have the unfocused dart board strategy. Always liked VX service, but this is a good example of AS providing missing business sense to that operation.