channa

So there's no reason Applebee's couldn't get in if they wanted to. They just are a mediocre product that doesn't appeal to the market.

That's AS's problem. They can buy any gate space and fly any flight they want. If they want to earn business, they have to offer some sort of value.

ucdtim17

Well the reasons I listed explain why they don’t. If they wanted to make the effort in the right location I’m sure they could be successful. There are plenty of higher and lower end chains that have many successful locations throughout the city.

On anti-chain regulations http://m.sfgate.com/politics/article...in-5870444.php

channa

Right. Chains can make it work if they offer something of value that the market wants.

The SF anti-chain regulations have a cap, and once they hit that cap, there's a process. Sure, it's not the easiest place to do business, but it can be done. If they have only 1 (in a tourist area), that's because Applebees is not trying. They're not trying because they're ordinary, and they offer little the market values.

That's exactly what AS's problem is. They're ordinary and offer little of value to the SFO market. AS is the Applebees of the skies. You can take your family, they will be fed, the staff will smile at the kids. But that's not what the SF market wants.

The competition is offering flat beds in some markets with name-branded bedding, signature cocktails, nice lounges, even food in Y in some markets. All while AS can't be bothered to give you a drink before we push back, or even a blanket in First.

Then if you say OK, they just want to be a blah airline, that's fine, but then where's the good fares, or frequent schedule? They don't have that either. This is not some BFE market in Texas that is grateful for every morsel of service an airline provides. There are options. Many of them. So people look at other things to make choices.

I'm a 75K and I live in SFO. I like the perks, and I make it work. But I don't refer people to them because I don't understand the value. If I don't understand it, I can't communicate it. That's a problem.

MJMLBBtoCPH

That's exactly my point. It's just my perspective. You don't have to agree. I recognize that most Americans these days (unfortunately) are flocking to Walmart Spirit Airlines, and I suppose there are those 1 percent of Americans who can't quite afford private jets and so instead they fly around on Mint and Delta flatbeds every day. I get it. But I just simply came at this issue from the perspective of a middle class flyer, who pays for my own tickets with my hard-earned money, and flies back and forth almost every week between Texas and Oregon. I'm looking for value and for a pleasant experience given how often I have to do this. I can't afford to fly around on flatbeds or even so-called "low price" Mint beds. At any rate, Jet Blue is a joke in both Texas and at PDX in terms of routes offered. And, given that VX could barely make money in one of the biggest boom markets for flying, well, I'm not sure that's a testament to their "superior" product. Alaska (unlike the big 3) awards me for my loyalty, so I get upgraded (quite frequently - way more than I ever was as a platinum on AA), and that's a nice perk. But even sitting in coach is not too bad since the people at Alaska are friendly. It makes life pleasant.

Perhaps there are only rich and poor people left in America, and they are all going to fly Delta flatbeds or Spirit and United Basic economy, and thus perhaps Alaska Airlines brand of service is doomed. But I didn't get that from reading the market analysis of Alaska's recent share-price fall. Motley Fool said the price just simply dropped down to what the industry baseline is.

I don't see the practicality in flatbeds on a four-hour transcon flight (at least not for sleeping purposes), and how long are you spending in an airport lounge that you need unlimited alcohol? Colored lighting in the cabin and little theater ropes that hang across the first class cabin? Not practical. Virgin doesn't even have flatbeds, so I'm not sure what that has to do with Alaska's takeover of them. But everyone has their own preferences, and that's fine. After Alaska fixes Virgin, I think Virgin in time will also become decent. I am sure there is some rude Alaska flight attendant somewhere out there, though I haven't encountered that person yet in the 30 or so flights I've been on. If Alaska becomes more like Delta or Spirit, then I will probably leave for some other airline.

sfozrhfco

Sorry MJM but your perspective is completely irrelevant to a discussion about AS taking over the VX route network. As has been said many times, AS has been and is doing fine with the network it had before.

The point that you are completely missing is that AS acquired VX and now has a completely different market to serve. Not from middle of nowhere Texas but from the most highly competitive markets on the West Coast. Just showing up does not win the game. You need a new game plan when you are going up against the best products in the market.

UAPremierExec

I, for one, am highly interested in how AS/VX will be integrated as we see the VX network get "right sized" based on the access to larger (and smaller) airframes. I hope that AS values the potential of turning SF into a "true" hub, instead of a large spoke that connects PDX & SEA to the VX systems, because really, that's all it did in terms of it being a 'hub'. Hawai'i ops are still fairly new to VX compared to the rest of the network, and of course we know that those flights aren't always high-yielding.

I think Wall Street is going to be a bit harder on Brad's team in after the next round of quarterly updates and conference call. They are going to want to see more integration happen and more cost synergies. And lets hope the stock price is above $60/share.

beckoa

AS has a different plan- they are ignoring the top end of the market- instead focusing on the middle of the market; offering a product that isn't lie flat, but beats the main cabin (wider seat and more pitch). Heck, AS is about done with its 739 conversions, and seat pitch will be 41"-42" in F. Its its own niche.

I am starting to see SFO as a legal connection point in some fare rules ex-ANC. This seemed to start in late September.

MJMLBBtoCPH

beckoa states very succinctly and clearly what I was suggesting in my longer posts. I also happen to agree with that strategy if that is what Alaska is rolling out as the merger progresses. They have to know who their competition is in California since acquiring Virgin, and though some die-hard Virgin customers may not like it, I think Alaska's main competition is Southwest (not higher-end transcon traffic), and Alaska potentially can offer a very competitive product/service to WN customers by focusing on what made them successful in Seattle, while also pulling from some of the coach traffic that might otherwise go to UA or AA. What has hurt Alaska the most, IMO, is not the merger, but the QX pilot shortage and disruptions. Someone dropped the ball over at Horizon, and that is not excusable.

tphuang

They have brand loyalty in Seattle which they don't have in California. WN has schedule and network advantage that no other airlines can really compete with. And now that AS has announced their desire to challenge WN, WN will fight to keep its position. All those companion pass for Cali residence, increased frequencies in Cali are done for a reason. AS management was complaining about $99 walk up prices. Those are definitely continuing for a long time and will get very unprofitable for a lot of people.

not in terms of prices. AS still price its F seats at close to what mint does. So you are paying same amount for a significantly worse product.

It's funny that you mentioned this. In New York, AS brand is non-existent and this applies to all of East Coast where AS has now taken over from VX. So they are never going to win point of sale in East coast aside from being the lowest priced. We will see in those transcon markets in the next few quarters.

Adelphos

Incidentally, after earning and using Alaska miles for years, I am taking my first flight on their metal, round trip from LGA to DAL. I believe this was formerly a Virgin route. Right now I am crediting to Alaska but I may switch to American (though I am flying in paid F, and close to 10,000 Alaska RDM for the trip is nice).

Alaska is building a lounge at JFK, so they are attempting to have a presence in NYC. Will be interesting to see how it develops

channa

Southwest has 2 free bags and no change fee, on top of their much better schedule out of the Bay Area. AS charges change fees, charges for bags, but does allow advanced seating.

Southwest's strong point is short hauls. Assigned seating is less important on short fights. Southwest has very few transcon flights where amenities are more important due to longer duration.

As for QX issues, they're pretty much a non issue in the Bay Area. They hardly fly here.

As has been said before, their moves seem to indicate that they're misunderstanding the market. I'm not a big VX flyer. But if you live in the market and understand it, their value is clear. AS's is not. United's is. Southwest's is. That's the AS problem.

chrisl137

This is what I see, too.

I fly Y for work (everybody gets paid Y, only upgrades get you F), and Y for personal except very infrequently when there's a cheap UP fare. I won't fly WN for longer flights than a couple hours - certainly not a transcon, and preferably not for more than about an hour. Travel for work has a UA bias, but I started moving away from them last year when I knew I'd be flying to PDX a lot for personal travel, and BOS for work where UA has limited non-stops. We have a UA corporate bias, but generally schedule trumps everything else, and nobody has ever asked me to take a connection instead of a non-stop. AS is more comfortable than WN and seems to have more non-stops BUR-PDX, I can get something resembling actual food on board, and there's something to upgrade to other than saving $30 to get an early boarding card. For me in LA traveling up and down the Pacific coast, AS is definitely competitive as long as they can keep to their schedule. And they even beat WN on baggage costs if I want to bring a bicycle.

Lie-flats seems like a nice thing for red-eyes, but since I avoid doing that unless there's a couch and a lot of cookies at the other end, it's not a factor in my flying. If work would pay for a lie-flat, I'd take a red-eye, otherwise I just sit in E+ and try to get some work done. And I agree with the comment on lounges - I've never quite understood them except for when there's IRROPS. I fly non-stops as much as possible, so I don't have a need to sit in one in a hub somewhere, and I've never had any trouble timing airport arrivals (even in LAX, IAD, and BOS) so I get to the gate a few minutes before boarding starts.

MJMLBBtoCPH

You may be right. Time will tell.

I'm not familiar with the AS and VX current schedules in the Bay area (and I know there have been complaints on this thread), but the schedule is potentially a manageable fix. As for change fees, AS does allow leisure non-elites a no-fees cancellation outside of 60 days, which while not as generous as WN, is pretty generous in terms of the industry. And if you're a frequent flyer elite on Alaska, there are no change fees, and then you also get all the perks that Southwest does not have. When you walk off the Southwest plane at Love Field, in the jetway there are these cute signs that compare WN and Transfarency to other airline fees, etc. Interestingly enough, when you get to their rewards loyalty program, they list how great their program is relative to all the other airlines - EXCEPT on this poster, AS is missing from the list, haha. What do you get for staying loyal to WN? A-List? Woohoo, I guess.

Perhaps Southwest can artificially keep prices low and drive out Alaska on Cali routes (I admit I am not familiar with current prices on California routes except the ones going to PDX - and the AS prices to PDX look pretty darn good to me), but in Texas, Southwest is just as often the most expensive airline as it is the cheapest in terms of options. The days of $25 Monday Night Football flights from Austin to Houston are gone, and that model will come to Cali too after this competition settles down. I'm not completely confidant AS can ride this out and win over a larger share of the Cali market with their PNW model they've used for years. You may be right that they have to change drastically. But, I think their best strategy is to stick to what they know works, as I think it's a quality that enough American flyers in general would value, irrespective of geography. I agree with people on the thread that they acquired VX in a rush to check B6, and so they've had to come up with a strategy on the run. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Now, if AS would only utilize those gates at Love Field more..... I know this is outside the topic of this thread, but I often sit in the Virgin gate areas waiting for my Southwest flights, because that is the only quiet and vacant place to sit in what is a crowded/cramped airport. AS could probably squeeze a bit more traffic out of those gates.

channa

Companion Pass. That's the trade off. Upgrades or free fights for a named companion for a year if you have that kind of volume.

​​​​​

MJMLBBtoCPH

If you are retired or have a companion who has lots of free time and who will fly, then yes. But, I can barely get my spouse to use the Alaska card's yearly $99 companion ticket to go somewhere, haha, much less use any of the tons of miles I've accumulated on Alaska. I suspect those companion passes don't get utilized as much as people think they will use them, which is why Southwest is able to feasibly offer the passes.