Originally Posted by bdhaliwa
(Post 28992968)
Then you should absolutely stick to AS along with your fellow fliers in ANC/PDX, AS has had this corner of the country to itself. Not so anywhere else AS will go next.
I'm actually a little short of requalifying for MVP but an AA transcon over Christmas should get me there. I status challenged to DL earlier in the year and am considering just flying DL again as I don't see a ton of value in having MVP status in 2018. |
Originally Posted by kevincrumbs
(Post 28994937)
This, combined with the QX debacle (co-workers are now forced into DL PDX-SLC-RNO as the morning PDX-RNO n/s has vanished), means that AS is a non-starter for 2018.
|
Originally Posted by kevincrumbs
(Post 28994937)
I feel like I sound like a broken record but as a PDX flier, even I can't stick to AS...
|
Originally Posted by mikexner
(Post 28992861)
Agree
look at any market than WN and AS have gone head to head WN has lost. They used to battle on the SEA GEG route, and eventually, WN pulled out completely. I think the Hawaii adventure will be short lived. The lesson I'd draw from that anecdote is that it's very hard to go into someone else's backyard and compete effectively. You know, like AS is trying to do in CA (though in this case it's like three or four other people's backyards, simultaneously). |
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28994509)
If that is your defense of AS, that is a very weak one because despite the challenges faced by VX, AS paid twice as much for VX's stock than it was worth before the announced buy out--which would be insane by your analysis...LOL
Again Virgin started in August 2007 just months before the financial crisis and with not a single route where they were the dominant player. 2008 was not exactly a stellar year for any US airline. The fact that they survived was because of their brand cache which is now being killed off. Had they started off with the AS product, VX would have been dead in 2008. The issue with VX moving forward was its "one-size fits all" business model. They had an F product that was excessive for a 1 hr flight, but no longer competitive on a 5 hr transcon. Given that AS paid so much for VX, I think they should be doing more to retain the VX flying experience and retain high yield customers on routes where it makes sense financially. What I would have done is to pull VX fleet off of the intra-CA routes (it makes no sense to have 55" F seats on a 1 hr flight) and replace those with higher frequency service on QX/OO E175s. Gradually prune back the A320 fleet as leases expire, and renovate the remaining A320s with lie-flat seats in F. Then assign those remaining VX aircraft to high yield transcon markets. The higher density 737s should instead be used for the West Coast trunk routes and leisure-oriented long haul destinations. The new AS 41" pitch F seats are great for 2-3 hour flights but not competitive with the major carriers in premium markets. And then use the E175s for shuttle routes and low density point-to-point service as AS is currently doing. As an airline expands, its all about having the right product for the right market. |
Originally Posted by sltlyamusd
(Post 28995362)
... F product that was excessive for a 1 hr flight, but no longer competitive on a 5 hr transcon.
... intra-CA routes (it makes no sense to have 55" F seats on a 1 hr flight) and replace those with higher frequency service on QX/OO E175s. Gradually prune back the A320 fleet as leases expire, and renovate the remaining A320s with lie-flat seats in F. Then assign those remaining VX aircraft to high yield transcon markets.
Originally Posted by sltlyamusd
(Post 28995362)
The higher density 737s should instead be used for the West Coast trunk routes and leisure-oriented long haul destinations. The new AS 41" pitch F seats are great for 2-3 hour flights but not competitive with the major carriers in premium markets. ...
|
[QUOTE=sltlyamusd;28995362
The issue with VX moving forward was its "one-size fits all" business model. [/QUOTE] Well, being honest, AS is not following any of your suggestions and instead of having a better product than competitors in most markets, they will have a totally forgettable product in all markets. AS F is fine if you pay a low fare and get a free upgrade but in reality, it is usually a very poor value if you have to pay for it. Even from PDX to SFO, it was not a product I would ever pay full price to fly. Using an award in coach and getting upgraded to first, it was not a bad value. Even $25 over coach--not so much. I would never pay to fly it cross country. Whoo hoo..now you can order your $1.50 bowl of granola and yogurt in advance:) All of VX's routes compete will every major airline. Lacking a fan base or a product to get excited about, AS is pushing blackberries when the rest of the world has moved beyond just getting e-mails from a smart phone. |
Alaska has already came out and made it clear that they plan on being the "in between" airline.
they want to be the guy between the ULCC/LCCs and the mainline carriers. And, not coming out as an Alaska fanboy, but they seem to be headed that way. They are making an F product, for a 737, that is nicer than "the other guys" and an acceptable service matrix in the premium cabin. Virgin's product slipped in the past few years while everyone else caught up. VX was losing marketshare as the others got better. It also lacked a strong corporate sales force. People seem to forget that Seattle is home to some VERY large companies, and companies with significant operations in LA & SF. Companies that have corporate contracts with Alaska. Those contracts hold a lot of value to the "new" AS as now AS will have more leverage. I'm glad that the VX acquisition is forcing Alaska to upgrade its product. But I understand, as someone who has been flying VX almost monthly on long hauls, the little things on VX that have made it worthwhile. I wish Alaska would hold on to a few more of those items. |
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28995596)
Well, being honest, AS is not following any of your suggestions and instead of having a better product than competitors in most markets, they will have a totally forgettable product in all markets. AS F is fine if you pay a low fare and get a free upgrade but in reality, it is usually a very poor value if you have to pay for it. Even from PDX to SFO, it was not a product I would ever pay full price to fly. Using an award in coach and getting upgraded to first, it was not a bad value. Even $25 over coach--not so much. I would never pay to fly it cross country. Whoo hoo..now you can order your $1.50 bowl of granola and yogurt in advance:)
All of VX's routes compete will every major airline. Lacking a fan base or a product to get excited about, AS is pushing blackberries when the rest of the world has moved beyond just getting e-mails from a smart phone. The assumption that AS is making based on their market research is that there is a middle space for a “F but not quite as good as transcon F” product. This product doesn’t actually exist yet given that AS and VX haven’t unified their offerings yet. Right now, AS enjoys the downside of losing the VX cachet, QX operational issues, and integration hiccups, plus pricing/marketing pressure. Plus their assumption may not hold true in the California transcon market. I hope they aren’t fooling themselves into avoiding the expenditure and complications of a subfleet/refreshed VX-style longhaul product by cherry picked market research, because if they did, reality is likely to be painful. But let’s not fool ourselves in thinking VX was selling all those F seats for short trips. My anecdata are that upgrades were easy pickings for the short routes... |
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 28995810)
The assumption that AS is making based on their market research Let's be honest. It was a whole lot easier to just give everybody the AS product rather than use even the slightest bit of creativity to make themselves competitive in California. Market research by asking 10 random people at SFO could have given them more information about the competitive environment than they seem to have a grasp on--even two years after making contact with VX about a sale. |
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28995984)
It is pretty obvious that the only "market research" AS's management did was to consult other people in the AS management team and ask if it would be easier to keep the same configuration for the entire mainline fleet or to have a different configuration on some.
Let's be honest. It was a whole lot easier to just give everybody the AS product rather than use even the slightest bit of creativity to make themselves competitive in California. Market research by asking 10 random people at SFO could have given them more information about the competitive environment than they seem to have a grasp on--even two years after making contact with VX about a sale. |
They should've phased out the Alaska Airlines name and focused on a refresh of the Virgin America product to bring it up to 2017. They paid a ton of money for an extremely valuable brand and differentiated product and they're squandering both (or worse, actively alienating the customer base as the revenue numbers seem to indicate.)
Outside of the PNW, Alaska Airlines doesn't mean anything to anyone, and the Virgin America audience is a lot savvier than the phony "chicken and waffles was weird too" marketing. They're going to notice the crappy DigEPlayers and awful device streaming app, the inedible food up front, the uncomfortable seats, and the lack of any sort of imagination in the food/drink/service offerings. If they're going to fly just another airline, might as well be Delta or Southwest. As the industry moves more to a-la carte purchases and revenue models, Alaska's also missing an opportunity to capitalize by removing the onboard ordering system. |
Originally Posted by formeraa
(Post 28996155)
he key defining principle is that everyone wants the lowest fare possible.
If all the product options are equal then of course there is also no reason to pay anything more. This is the dilemma AS faces. They have never offered anything to the industry that is game changing. They are not distruptors. They strive to be slightly better than average which works fine in a non/low-competitive region like the PNW. Does not work well in a hyper competitive market. |
Originally Posted by kevincrumbs
(Post 28994937)
I feel like I sound like a broken record but as a PDX flier, even I can't stick to AS since the lack of a true AA partnership means that I can't get to a lot mid-sized cities that I need to go to for work, such as PIT & TUL. Even for places that AS serves, such as IND & MKE, other airlines have more advantageous schedules. This, combined with the QX debacle (co-workers are now forced into DL PDX-SLC-RNO as the morning PDX-RNO n/s has vanished), means that AS is a non-starter for 2018.
I'm actually a little short of requalifying for MVP but an AA transcon over Christmas should get me there. I status challenged to DL earlier in the year and am considering just flying DL again as I don't see a ton of value in having MVP status in 2018. He also said IND-SAN is being "lightly discussed" but most likely will "not be really considered until the Alaska/Virgin America" merger is all complete." So it looks like not all hope is lost :D |
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28995984)
It is pretty obvious that the only "market research" AS's management did was to consult other people in the AS management team and ask if it would be easier to keep the same configuration for the entire mainline fleet or to have a different configuration on some.
Let's be honest. It was a whole lot easier to just give everybody the AS product rather than use even the slightest bit of creativity to make themselves competitive in California. Market research by asking 10 random people at SFO could have given them more information about the competitive environment than they seem to have a grasp on--even two years after making contact with VX about a sale. That being said, marketing research can be wrong for any number of reasons. Pretty sure New Coke had some market research done for it...
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28996385)
They realized that improving the product in all classes would lead to increased profits
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:37 am. |
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.