Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 28983496)
I think AAG management would disagree that they are not relevant to people on the West Coast. While the network in California may not have the breadth and depth of Southwest or United, it is pretty good, including almost all top markets served from SFO, LAX, SAN, and SJC. The post-merger Y product lacks inseat IFE, but is otherwise competitive.
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28983737)
...having people be happy that there is any service at all is totally different than dealing with long haul service where every other carrier has a built in advantage over you.
|
Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 28983956)
... and plunging into SFO/LAX-JFK/BOS with the lamest product offering among five or six entrants.
I mean seriously, that is like buying a house through craigslist you have never seen from somebody that claims the deed and the keys are in the Philippines and just as soon as you wire the money, both will be Fedexed to you. I am still in shock from that call. |
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28984189)
..and even worse complaining that you are not gaining any traction with pricing AND being in denial that premium passengers are going elsewhere...AND admitting both on a conference call with your investors AND telling them at the same time that they haven't even taken a look at the VX network yet.
I mean seriously, that is like buying a house through craigslist you have never seen from somebody that claims the deed and the keys are in the Philippines and just as soon as you wire the money, both will be Fedexed to you. I am still in shock from that call. |
Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 28983956)
AS/QX is certainly relevant to people who live their lives flying up and down the west coast corridor. It's when those people have to go somewhere else, and/or spend more than two hours on the plane, that AS runs into trouble. Between the loss of the AA and DL alliances and a last-in-class transcon proposition, the total relevance case is weak and getting weaker. If you fly SEA-LAX once a month, plus SEA-YYZ or SEA-JFK five or six times a year, you're chasing middling status, but only if you stick with one airline. Why fly AS at all in that case, especially as the transcon offer is overpriced and underprovisioned?
|
What Alaska should have done is not take away the Virgin branding, but fortify and expand it as part of a stronger, combined airline. Keep the Alaska brand as well from the PNW. Offer a combined loyalty program. Hotel companies have dozens of brands per comapny, why couldn't an airline have two?
|
Originally Posted by ucdtim17
(Post 28984304)
Turns out they're just winging it (pun intended) and don't really have a clear strategy going forward beyond integrating the airlines and then figuring out what to do. Shocking indeed.
|
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28983348)
QX has barely impacted California as few people here have any need to fly them.
|
Originally Posted by Buster
(Post 28984360)
Not true for me. QX issues have forced AS changes to my route of BUR-PDX, so now we're down to 2 flights a day, at really inconvenient times. I, like others on this thread, have started moving my flights to Southwest for greater reliability and better scheduling.
|
Originally Posted by notquiteaff
(Post 28984319)
Are you talking about someone buying F, or the 120-150 people behind the curtain?
|
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
(Post 28984376)
..but that is the whole point. Their idea of relevance is to offer a flight a day out of SFO to a few random destinations and now they are relevant to those travelling from there. At the same time, they are cancelling flights that ARE already relevant to people who built up loyalty to AS. Now they have a bunch of empty low yielding flights to ABQ/BNA, etc and pissed off their formerly loyal passengers. Great job killing two birds with one stone. Unfortunately both are killing off yield and not building up loyalty.
Might also be worth noting that today Hawaii is a major market for Alaska, which must generate decent revenue for them. With WN coming in next year, that market may also come under pressure. They definitely need to protect that turf. They're a decent airline ... truly hoping they prevail. |
And needless to say, the QX issues have certainly impacted SMF/OAK-PDX fliers (I am finishing a month of flying WN PDX-OAK). These should be (and have in the past been) core routes for AS but are afterthoughts now, and the large majority of the traffic on either route now flies WN. Gotta chase that key SFO-ABQ market I guess.
|
Originally Posted by wrkngonit
(Post 28984495)
They're a decent airline ... truly hoping they prevail. |
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 28981727)
IAH is not a Top 10 market from SFO. Aside from CO, nobody flies there nonstop. And much of CO's traffic is fabricated (connections through Houston, not to/from Houston). Go to IAH Terminal A. All domestic carriers aside from UA make up 75% of that terminal. UA runs out of the rest of A, B, C, and E. While IAH has a lot of population, it's simply not that big of a air destination.
You made me go look up market sizes in the latest BTS data (Q2 2017). Phoenix is the #9 market from the SF Bay Area, Houston is the #14 market, and Atlanta is the #15 market. AS/VX have not announced plans to serve any of those markets, so they're missing one-fifth of the top-15 alone. After the AA announcement people were complaining that they couldn't get to Podunk, WV on an AS partner anymore, but that dramatically understates the problem down in CA. You can't even get to Houston, Phoenix, or Atlanta from here (in any reasonable amount of time). I'd be willing to grant them a pass on this if their AA partnership hadn't fallen completely apart or if their SEA hub were not entirely useless for connecting to anywhere besides ANC. But in light of those realities, it makes it very difficult for any serious traveler in CA to use them near exclusively. At this point I have no idea what their SFO/LAX expansion strategy is. They don't want to provide a reasonable network for business travelers, they don't want to compete on price for budget travelers, they don't want to provide a competitive product for people willing to pay for premium cabins...who is going to fly them? I like MileagePlan, and the simple fact that they're not UA, but that's barely enough to keep me, and it's certainly not enough for the other 99% of potential customers. What a mess... |
Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 28983496)
I think AAG management would disagree that they are not relevant to people on the West Coast. While the network in California may not have the breadth and depth of Southwest or United, it is pretty good, including almost all top markets served from SFO, LAX, SAN, and SJC.
|
Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 28984459)
Immaterial. Whether you are an F buyer or K buyer, if you're motivated to consolidate spend with one carrier and you have missions outside the west coast corridor, it's harder to stick with AS without the DL and AA alliances. Harder still if you are in SFO or LAX and wand a comfortable transcon and/or good frequencies at a competitive price.
On another unrelated note, the snippets that quote from the earnings call are somewhat surprising to me. I would expect a more well-thought-out description of problems. The questions that will be asked on these calls aren't exactly surprising. Do they not prepare for that? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:13 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.