Originally Posted by Baze
(Post 28980044)
This merger is part of the reason for me switching from UA to AS Oct 2016. Being SFO based AS by itself was a no brainer for not using. Adding VX made it viable. I gave UA almost 5 years before pulling the plug. I am willing to give AS the same consideration to work out their kinks and be viable.
As an SFO-based passenger the most concerning part of the call was the repeated assurances that very few new routes will be added next year. The AS+VX route network out of SFO still isn't that great – they have no service to the 5th largest MSA (Houston), no service to two of the 10 largest MSAs (Atlanta), and no service to 7 of the 20 largest MSAs. I was hoping they'd address the biggest holes in their ex-SF Bay Area network in short order, but it doesn't sound like they have any plans to do that. In the case of IAH I can understand that they don't want to go head-to-head with the 8 trillion frequencies that UA offers on that route, but then at least do something slightly asymmetric like a well-timed SJC-IAH flight. Throw us a bone here. There are still a lot of CO lovers that complain about UA on the UA forum. 7 years from starting and 5 years since the merger UA and CO flyers are still blaming the other airline for all the problems. |
Originally Posted by milypan
(Post 28980853)
As an SFO-based passenger the most concerning part of the call was the repeated assurances that very few new routes will be added next year. |
Originally Posted by milypan
(Post 28980853)
To be clear, it was CO management that took over UA. They kept the higher-profile UA brand name, but Smisek was from CO.
One thing that made it easier to leave UA is that I am a Million Miler so, at least for now, I will always have at least Gold status. And for a lot of the repliers to my pst, it is obvious you didn't live the the horror of the UA/CO merger that still isn't complete. I can only hope AS crosses the finish line better than UA/CO that hasn't been able to do. And doing my research I honestly feel the DL and AA alliances would have gone away anyways regardless of the merger. edit to add, that is Million Miler on UA. |
On the east coast, Alaska's reputation has started out on the wrong foot. Virgin America flyers are already worried Alaska's going to destroy an airline they love, and Alaska's first impression of what's to come has been the disastrous JFK terminal move. I think it's a good example of Alaska not understanding VX's customer base- no way in hell the style conscious and techy VX fliers are going to tolerate a cramped terminal with no Starbucks, PreCheck, or Shake Shack (hell, Delta was very quick about this with their LAX move.)
While they're bungling their east coast service, JetBlue is launching Mint in a few months to Seattle, so there goes Alaska's transcon business. |
Originally Posted by bkojote
(Post 28981268)
While they're bungling their east coast service, JetBlue is launching Mint in a few months to Seattle, so there goes Alaska's transcon business.
JFK is actually a weaker market in some respects than EWR as far as SEA goes (note: AS flies 3x SEA-EWR, 1x SEA-JFK, and the JFK is a redeye, which screams "this is a crappy market but we might as well get some plane utilization out of it"). Note that AA also only flies 1x JFK-SEA, and DL had DeltaOne flop in the SEA-JFK market, with a hub on BOTH ends. I think B6 Mint will do fine but it's not going to nuke AS's transcons. Hell, B6 doesn't even fly FLL-SEA. It's JFK-SFO/LAX they need to be worried about... but that's everyone. But AS is definitely the weakest one in that market.
Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 28979291)
I've said since the deal was announced that AS is due for a big dose of welcome-to-the-NFL-kid, and here it comes. The airline has always had a sweetheart relationship with hometown boosters in Alaska and the PNW. It's never had to compete with the big guys, or in a market (SFO) that is somewhere between indifferent and hostile to AS.
|
Originally Posted by bkojote
(Post 28981268)
On the east coast, Alaska's reputation has started out on the wrong foot. Virgin America flyers are already worried Alaska's going to destroy an airline they love, and Alaska's first impression of what's to come has been the disastrous JFK terminal move. I think it's a good example of Alaska not understanding VX's customer base- no way in hell the style conscious and techy VX fliers are going to tolerate a cramped terminal with no Starbucks, PreCheck, or Shake Shack (hell, Delta was very quick about this with their LAX move.)
While they're bungling their east coast service, JetBlue is launching Mint in a few months to Seattle, so there goes Alaska's transcon business. |
1x daily flight is Alaska's transcon business to JFK, so this isn't some bulletproof operation. They're stronger out of EWR, but their situation there isn't what I'd call great.
But once the Mint effect hits in with other carriers dropping prices (the only other flat bed nonstop from JFK-SEA goes for $3k round trip on Delta currently) , I don't see Alaska charging the prices they do now.
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 28981324)
Jet Blue's going to destroy AS's transcon business in SEA with 1x daily from JFK? Riiiiiiiiight. Sure thing.
|
Originally Posted by bkojote
(Post 28981369)
1x daily flight is Alaska's transcon business, so this isn't some bulletproof operation.
Originally Posted by bkojote
(Post 28981369)
They're stronger out of EWR, but their situation there isn't what I'd call great.
SEA is not a hugely transcon market the way LAX/SFO are. Check out SEA's top 10 domestic destinations. Now LAX. Now SFO. Notice the lack of NYC in SEA's top 10. This is why AS is in the big leagues now. Transcon matters if you want to be a player in LAX/SFO. SEA not so much. |
Mint won't be on all of the transcons, but it's likely to be on most of the high yielding transcon. AS will be fine in SEA, but the yield will be lower once the mint enter. It's the markets out of LAX/SFO/SAN that are in trouble.
Originally Posted by milypan
(Post 28980853)
I own some ALK shares, but it's a tiny percentage of my portfolio, so I'm not too concerned about the financial implications.
As an SFO-based passenger the most concerning part of the call was the repeated assurances that very few new routes will be added next year. The AS+VX route network out of SFO still isn't that great – they have no service to the 5th largest MSA (Houston), no service to two of the 10 largest MSAs (Atlanta), and no service to 7 of the 20 largest MSAs. I was hoping they'd address the biggest holes in their ex-SF Bay Area network in short order, but it doesn't sound like they have any plans to do that. In the case of IAH I can understand that they don't want to go head-to-head with the 8 trillion frequencies that UA offers on that route, but then at least do something slightly asymmetric like a well-timed SJC-IAH flight. Throw us a bone here. To be clear, it was CO management that took over UA. They kept the higher-profile UA brand name, but Smisek was from CO. |
There are all sorts of WHAT IFs and other speculative theories. I deal with the reality, the whole Virgin America purchase has been a disaster for me...cancelled flights, terminated destinations (they say temporarily, we'll see), codeshares and mileage accrual/benefits with AA, and so forth.
Right now I have been pushed off to Southwest and United for many flights, and I am starting to take those flights to other places Alaska flies as well. I am the exact passenger of why Wall Street has concerns.
Originally Posted by jsguyrus
(Post 28980694)
Have you given any thought to what Alaska would have done had Jet blue bought Virgin? It seems to me that if B6 got a large west coast foot hold then Alaska would have been slowly crushed. AS overpaid for VX not because they wanted to but I think because they didn't have a lot of choice. I don't think that Alaska staying that cute little northwest airline with lots of partners was sustainable going forward. Had they kept that model they would have been bought out in the foreseeable future.
|
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
(Post 28981659)
Right now I have been pushed off to Southwest and United for many flights, and I am starting to take those flights to other places Alaska flies as well. I am the exact passenger of why Wall Street has concerns.
Transcons all went to Jetblue--15 Mint flights. Even took UA and WN a few times which I never would have even considered before. Now if JetBlue or an international carrier can't get me to where I am going, I just pick the carrier that offers the best value--and that has only been AS once--to use up the 10,000 Mileageplan free points for a trip back from PDX. Knowing that next year the VX product is going completely away, it really makes no difference for a intra-West trip taking WN/UA/DL/AA/AS. |
Originally Posted by BenA
(Post 28980496)
The really gnarly problem from my perspective is the lack of integration early on in the merger. As an AS elite, I refuse to book VX flights right now because I get minimal (until recently, no) benefits onboard. That's keeping their customer base much more segregated than it should be, and is preventing them from realizing most network efficiencies from the transaction yet.
It sucks, but it's not as bad at it seems.
Originally Posted by milypan
(Post 28980853)
As an SFO-based passenger the most concerning part of the call was the repeated assurances that very few new routes will be added next year. The AS+VX route network out of SFO still isn't that great – they have no service to the 5th largest MSA (Houston), no service to two of the 10 largest MSAs (Atlanta), and no service to 7 of the 20 largest MSAs. I was hoping they'd address the biggest holes in their ex-SF Bay Area network in short order, but it doesn't sound like they have any plans to do that. In the case of IAH I can understand that they don't want to go head-to-head with the 8 trillion frequencies that UA offers on that route, but then at least do something slightly asymmetric like a well-timed SJC-IAH flight. Throw us a bone here.
|
Originally Posted by mikexner
(Post 28978471)
In my personal opinion....Alaska has probably the best revenue management team there is.
|
Originally Posted by Adelphos
(Post 28977640)
....Virgin is far behind all competitors in the premium cabin and more expensive than competitors in economy.
|
Originally Posted by Nevsky
(Post 28981976)
Its hard product has fallen way behind everyone else.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:48 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.