Erasmus

Argh! SAN/MEX played a crucial role in my Christmas holiday flights... looks like back to AA I go.

sfozrhfco

ktenorman

SFO-MSP doesn't seem shocking given they are up against 5x daily on DL, an easy choice for a business traveler who is schedule sensitive.

SFO-FLL leaves a big hole for SFO-based business and leisure travelers, so I would hope that despite the low yields they would give it a shot seasonally again. I always have wondered whether MIA would work better with the AA and LAN (hopefully TAM soon too) partnership and the lack of non-stop Chile/Brazil/Argentina flights from SFO. I would fly SFO-MIA-GRU if I could on AS and AA/LATAM.

WebTraveler

So what exactly is the Alaska strategy now?

Is it/was it:

1. To purchase Virgin America and grow the SFO and LAX hubs? After all, just months ago the plan was to have 30 new markets from SFO by end of 2018. Eliminating routes won't get them there, and MSP was one of the midwest routes they coveted with the smaller airplanes that they could service well. To be a true hub sometimes you need to run the operations with low margins on some routes to retain the network for travelers, which it turn builds a bigger clientele.
2. To eliminate a competitor on some routes and keep Jet Blue out? Few routes had competition and I do see the reality of keeping Jet Blue off the west coast north south routes. This maybe was a by-product of the merger
3. Alaska already eliminated the Virgin America brand. It could have kept it and let it grow organically over time and retain as a niche player. But this is not what was chosen.

Remember, in the late 1980s, Alaska purchased Jet America, which had flights all over the country from Southern California. Within two years of purchase, Alaska shut it down and moved the staff and airplanes to its north south network.

Surely the lack of pilots hurts this strategy, but was this missed in the purchase deal? That to expand to what it needs to be competitive outside of the northwest. Pilot need has been well known in the industry for several years.

At the same time Southwest has been aggressive in its west coast strategy, and the loss of a domestic frequent flyer partnership has pushed traffic off to other airlines. The lack of a decent Chicago schedule and east coast schedule has pushed me to United. And with that I have scheduled a few United SFO trips now, that Alaska used to get. I took Southwest to Kansas City when Alaska pulled those flights from PDX. But on an upcoming Las Vegas trip I went ahead and booked PDX-LAS this time too.

So its puzzling to me.

fly18725

The strategy, announced in 2017, was 30 new markets - network wide - by 2018. Alaska ended up adding 44 markets in 2017.

The reality is that most markets will be successful, but some will not. When there are a limited number of airplanes and very limited capacity in SFO, it makes sense to cut losses early and move on to another opportunity.

Chugach

milypan

eponymous_coward

As I recall, MIA has super high landing fees that FLL does not. AS used to serve MIA, switched to FLL for pretty much that reason. There's reasons why LCCs like NK, WN, AS, VX, B6 all hang out at FLL and not so much at MIA.

Also, "we're starting up a bunch of competing service on one of your major routes (SFO-MIA), can you please help us?" might not be as effective a way to get a good partnership as you think. AA's could just tank yields to try and drive AS off the routes as opposed to doing anything helpful. I mean, really, don't you think AA would rather fly those passengers to a LATAM or AA connection in MIA on their own planes instead of giving AS money to do it on theirs?

jacobguo

Glad LAX-PHL survived.

WebTraveler

The PDX-ORD redeye is basically the spring break and holiday overflow flight. It's not regular and really not much of an option. Alaska may be flying 5 RTS from SEA-ORD, but that's not helping me one bit. Alaska can choose to bail on PDX-ORD, its fine with me. When we received mileage plan credit on AA it was no big deal. Now its a big deal.

You're right Alaska can't be everything to everyone. But other than Seattle residents it is morphing into nothing for no one.

tusphotog

I just hope we look back at Alaska in a year or two and see a vastly improved carrier with flights to all the top 15 MSAs from their California hubs. And hopefully more than one PDX-PHX flight.

sfozrhfco

Seems doubtful. With the increased labor costs this year, it is safe to assume that the whole VX goes from being slightly profitable to money losing. The question remains as to whether they will continue to bleed money by running a lot of marginal routes as the weakest competitor or will they try for something completely different--perhaps serving smaller markets where the competition is not as fierce.

fly18725

Yeah, all that growth from Portland, San Jose, and San Diego was for Seattle residents.

WebTraveler

If you have not paid attention the growth from Portland has significantly been cut. Portland has borne the impact of the Horizon problems. Those 'new' flights we had to Kansas City, St. Louis, Omaha, and so forth been pulled from the schedule due to Horizon's issues. Some reappeared for Feb travel, but then were pulled until later. Our Oakland and Sacramento schedule is on/off again. So it's hit or miss. You can hit the Boston, New York, LAX or the San Diego flights, those are consistent. The rest, not so.

WebTraveler

My belief is that they'll retreat and serve the north-south routes and a few long haul routes where they can be competitive and offer a decent flight selection.

The retreat from SFO-MSP speaks volumes about their plans.