milypan

milypan

fly18725

Why is it relevant how many top destinations from SFO B6 flies to from BOS?

The networks and their developments are not comparable. B6 enetered BOS with no legacy hub and huge gaps in network coverage. It built a business-focused network with little head to head competition. JFK would be a better comparison to SFO, save the part where B6 got a lot more infrastructure (slots and gates) to start.

tphuang

While there is no one singular legacy that dominated BOS, all the legacies dominated the major O&D market out of BOS and B6 started with nothing in 2004. AA/US dominated a lot of the major corporate markets in NorthEast while UA/DL covered the rest. DL had their own terminal and dominated BOS-Florida. B6 went from nothing to pushing DL down to distinctly second place in Florida and entered into every major corporate market out of BOS and now co-exist in all those major legacy hubs. They took huge losses early on to build this up. They did this in less than 10 years. BOS is one of the most competitive markets in the country now that DL has made a huge push. Much more competitive than SEA/PDX. Can you think of another market where there are consistently $400 flatbed on transcon flights? It doesn't exist. As I said before, B6 at BOS is great blueprint for how AS could build up in SFO. But instead of entering one market at a time with good schedule and sticking through the losses. They entered a bunch of markets with 1 daily frequency and got crushed and is already cutting back.

As for JFK, remember that JFK is still not gate constrained and was not slot restricted outside of prime hours for a long time. Before B6 came along, JFK was a domestic wasteland. Anyone (hello Southwest) could've came to do the same, but nobody bothered with it. And they still only have 18 slots at LGA to this day, which really prevents them from getting more corporate contracts. So it's not like B6 was dealt with this great hand where they suddenly had all the LGA slots (like Delta). AA used to dominate the JFK to Carribean market and now B6 has almost completely kicked them out. DL still makes almost no money these days out of JFK despite having huge slot advantage at both JFK/LGA along with all their international partners. NYC is a huge fragmented and tough market that's only comparable to LAX in competitiveness.

WebTraveler

B6 is more more developed out of PDX and SAN than Alaska? Not a chance.

fly18725

I don't want to argue about the details of B6's in BOS, but needless to say the circumstances are completely different than what VX faced when it launched at SFO or what AS faces today.

What's your point?

Mine was that people should stop comparing B6 to AS/VX because the markets and circumstances are completely different.

sfozrhfco

The circumstances may be different but the issues both carriers face are very similar. In order to be relevant in NYC/BOS/FLL, B6 grew their network to places that people from those cities want to fly and differentiated their product to build a loyal following. AS wants to be the carrier of choice from SFO but does not have the network, is gate constrained, and does not have a product that is substantially different than any of its competitors. Selling themselves as the carrier with the most of anything from SFO just sets expectations that they are bigger than they actually are which then leads to disappointment. As WN learned a long time ago, make small promises and over delivery is a better way to gain loyalty and trust. It remains to be seen if AS's strategy is really doing anything other than to solidify their reputation as having an unmemorable product and reasonably good service, to just a few places that people actually want to go.

CalanMan

For an unrelated reason in an unrelated thread, @NoLaGent just brought this article to my attention:
I hadn't realised VX has only been flying to DEN since spring 2016. There's an awful lot of gnashing of teeth around this route going away. Seems there's a fair bit of amnesia (from myself included!) about how small a player VX really was.

Totally crazy! ...to not serve a market that VX didn't serve for 9 years, approximately 80% of their time operating.

As has been pointed out upthread, Alaska's current business model will never produce a route network that rivals one of the big 3. Their job at the moment is to properly integrate AS/VX, so they don't wind up with the kind of mess that UA/CO still has on their hands, and to get back to profitability as quickly as possible. Doubling down on a route that's a hub-hub link for a major competitor, that VX didn't make money on, and only flew for two years isn't the right way to do that.

CalanMan

This seems right to me. I hope that AS re-increasing frequency LAX-MEX as they cut MEX from other airports, might be a sign of moving in that direction, even if I really would have preferred for myself to keep SFO-MEX. LAX is AS's Latin American gateway, and they should keep building it as such, though I'm sad that Mexico City weekends will become less convenient for me.

milypan

Because it's a comparison that is biased towards AS, and I already posted the ex-SFO destinations back on p. 8. If you'd like to assemble the ex-BOS destinations to make the comparison look even worse for AS, please feel free to do so.

JFK is an even bigger base for B6 than BOS, so that comparison would make the AS network look even worse (and, IMO, would not be fair).

Sorry, a sensible comparison of networks is a bit complicated, and I wasn't very careful with my language. Of course B6 does not have a better network than AS out of AS's own hubs and focus cities!

To understand the comparison, rank the hubs and focus cities for AS and B6.

AS looks something like:

1. SEA
2. SFO
3. PDX
4. LAX
5. ANC
6. SAN or SJC

B6 looks something like:

1. JFK
2. BOS
3. FLL
4. MCO
5. LGB
6. SJU

If you compare networks at equivalent positions (e.g. SEA vs JFK, SFO vs BOS, etc.), my point was that the only position at which AS is pretty clearly superior is with their SEA hub. In particular, when comparing AS ex-SFO with B6 ex-BOS, clearly the latter has a much better network. But in making the list I realized that I forgot about ANC — AS must have a good network ex-ANC, if only because SEA actually makes sense as a connecting point ex-ANC. I'm also on the fence regarding FLL vs PDX.

B6 ex-FLL is actually a pretty good comparison for AS ex-SFO (or even ex-LAX). B6 has almost 60 destinations ex-FLL, but they're missing some big ones, and there aren't a lot of great options for connections. It could be hard to make the case for B6 over AA out of FLL/MIA for anyone who needs a good network. The bottom line is that in spite of its $2.6b purchase, AS still only has one hub with a decent network (SEA), while B6 has two (JFK and BOS). Both airlines would also be reasonable choices in areas that have no real competition though (e.g. ANC and PDX for AS, and SJU for B6).

milypan

In isolation I don't think many disagree. But applying that logic to every single route has led to a situation in which AS only serves 17 of the top 25 destinations ex-SF Bay Area (and only 13 of 21 if you exclude service to its own hubs and focus cities, which it gets without even establishing SFO/SJC as a hub/focus city), and even those cities with service are often only served once daily at poor times.

Forget producing a route network that "rivals one of the big 3" out of one of their own hubs (i.e. UA) – we knew that would never happen. Problem is it's getting hard to argue that AS even has a network that's competitive with any airline at all out of the Bay Area until you get down to B6 and NK. AA is the closest.

tusphotog

This has been mentioned upthread many times. Look at the whole portfolio of SFO flights. They have a very limited presence or don't touch most major markets east of Las Vegas from SFO. Cutting Denver is just one more thing that makes Alaska less appealing to many (though not all) customers.

By the way, has anyone noticed the "different works" website doesn't work anymore?

fly18725

I think you're drawing unsupported conclusions that, a) B6 was successful because of a differentiated product, and b) AS is selling itself as the carrier with the most of something from SFO.

While B6's product certainly helped it stand out, it really survived and flourished by having low prices supported by very low costs. It's business model is now evolving as costs increase. AS understands that costs are the biggest determination in sustainability, which is why they've made many decisions that are unpopular with FT.

AS is selling itself on being different. It has acknowledged it needs to be relevant in SFO, which is why it has expanded the network (look at the Investor Day presentation for specific numbers). Yes, AS is ignoring or alienating people that travel to DEN or MSP, but that's part of being different: you can't compete for business travelers that are best served by legacy network carriers.

Why is there a comparison at all? AS is not B6 and the west coast is not the east coast. Yes, AS and B6 have roughly similar strategies with a focus on different coasts, but it is tough (and silly) to try and make comparisons beyond that because the geographies, economies, and population densities are so different.

ashill

Well, a quibble: PDX (6689k AS+QX passengers, so neglecting VX) is, I think, a significantly larger station for AS/VX than SFO (neither AS nor VX alone are even in the top 5 [!], so each has less than DL's 3480k. Even if you charitably assume that AS [including QX] and VX each have 3479k, SFO is not appreciably bigger than PDX for AS+VX).

SFO is ASVX's third-largest station, and FLL is B6's third-largest station. So if B6 ex-FLL is comparable to ASVX ex-SFO, that's fair!

And of course AS absolutely dominates Alaska (the state); that's the only place where either AS or B6 are (or ever will be) truly dominant.

ashill

Yeah. B6 certainly isn't a replacement for a full network legacy carrier either, and VX sure as hell wasn't. The question is whether AS (or B6) can carve out a useful niche. ASVX can be all things to a good number of Alaska-, SEA- or PDX-based mainly-domestic fliers, and they can be all things to a fairly small number of mainly-domestic Bay Area-based fliers. (Because the Bay Area is a big and wealthy place -- like NYC -- being all things to even a small fraction of Bay Area fliers is not nothing, and really not bad for the fourth-biggest domestic airline at SFO and I would guess the fifth-biggest in the Bay Area.) But I think what FlyerTalkers really miss is that you don't have to be all things to anybody. Most travellers (including business travellers) are not FlyerTalkers: they fly multiple airlines. The fact that AS can't get them to DEN doesn't mean they won't fly AS to ORD or SEA or HNL or wherever AS does fly. And the fact that AS doesn't fly to PHX in May doesn't mean they won't fly AS to PHX in March. And even people who can't/don't fly AS all the time may still like them and pay a (small) premium to fly them when they're an option -- I certainly do. The challenge is can AS's brand (good service, fair fees, doing small things well) translate to the Bay Area and replace VX's brand (glitzy service, fancy mood lighting, and whatever else VX fans like), and whether AS can maintain the good and reliable service part of their brand (since they're certainly having some struggles with that now, though I don't think irreparable struggles).

BOS hasn't consistently had flatbeds at all until B6 brought them in very recently. And the fact that transcontinental flatbeds are $400 doesn't speak well for their profitability.

BOS is one of the most competitive markets in the country precisely because it didn't have a dominant legacy that had turf to defend. It's big enough so it will always (like SFO) have robust service on all the network carriers and still have room for more. And of course each of the networks carriers has their strengths out of BOS. But there was no one carrier that had the strength or the muscle in BOS to a) care that B6 was building up enough to mount a strong response or b) have the scale to mount a strong response.