PV_Premier

ashill

Data helps, but a model can't tell you everything. It's certainly not possible on routes like HAV -- historical data can't possibly predict route success when flying the route wasn't even legal beforehand. (It is true that pretty much every prognosticator, including AA in their analysis in their application arguing that LAX-HAV could support 1x weekly not 7x weekly flights, thought LAX-HAV was unlikely to work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth a try.) And pretty difficult on routes like MEX where there was a significant change in the competitive environment due to a dramatic loosening of regulations on the market. And it's also difficult on new nonstop markets; you really don't know how much demand the nonstop will stimulate until you try. But you can sometimes have a pretty good idea even before the route starts based on advanced bookings, if I understand correctly.

sfozrhfco

Manoa Chris

I suspect the reasons to get into Havana were more about securing constrained slots, of unknown but perhaps substantial future value, rather than an immediate payoff.

There is one other important modeling challenge – competitive response. Whether it's head-to-head on a nonstop, or indirect pricing pressure from connecting flights, increasing capacity concentration undoubtedly makes it much more difficult to know how the competition will respond.

sfozrhfco

Seattlenerd

Check your flights if you're traveling between SEA and Medford (MFR).

I got notice on Thursday that my outbound on a SEA-MFR RT in less than two weeks had been cancelled due to "runway construction in Seattle."

A quick check of SEA-MFR schedules in October shows that Alaska appears to have, on average, reduced the number of nonstops between SEA and MFR from four per day to two per day. On very short notice.

Was the Alaska Airlines customer service rep very nice? Yes. Did she give us discount vouchers for upcoming flights? Yes.

But since this was a same-day trip to do a backstage tour and see an afternoon play at Oregon Shakespeare Festival, we're now out the tickets for both the play and the tour, and the incredible OSF experience. With the airline's current schedule, there's no way to make a same-day trip work.

Alaska has some serious work to do to fix its scheduling.

Chugach

ashill

There's holding an asset for long term payoff, and there's just being obstinate.

They probably knew (or at least suspected) that there would be a short term loss on HAV, but I doubt that they had a good idea how much of a loss. I have no access to their internals, but based on every other airline's pullbacks from HAV, it's reasonable to believe that the losses to HAV exceeded the threshold AS was willing to tolerate. And really, on HAV, I think that they (and everyone else) wanted to have a toehold in case it exceeded their projections because if they didn't and it did, they probably wouldn't be able to get slots later on. And given the current administration's changes to Cuba policy, it's hard to see a long term future in which LAX-HAV traffic picks up, unless you're asking AS to hang onto those slots to operate one of the longer flights in their system (thus expensive to operate both in fuel and in tying up a 737 for an entire day) for a decade or more in the hope that the market will develop. So taking a gamble and then cutting losses pretty quickly on HAV specifically is absolutely impossible to criticize AS for (both the gamble and the cutting losses parts) unless you're just out to criticize AS no matter what.

LGA and DCA: VX didn't have much better to do than try to make flights there work. They never made sense, especially as post-merger AS even more than VX touts itself as a west coast airline. Those assets may have been valuable to the airlines with any intra-east coast network, but they weren't valuable to AS. I would argue that giving up an asset that looks valuable to others but is very much outside your market is quite a sensible, even courageous, business decision by AS.

What makes you say DAL is on life support? Last I knew, they were fully utilizing their gates there with flights to the places that make sense for AS (their five west coast hubs and focus cities plus SJC). On the Monday after the LGA and DCA service ends, I count 1x SAN, 3x LAX, 3x SFO, 2x SJC, 2x PDX, and 2x SEA. Maybe you could squeeze a bit more frequency in, and I suppose you could argue for 737s instead of E175s, but hardly seems like life support.

MEX: Yes, it's reasonable to argue there that AS could have held on to the slots there as a strategic asset.

sfozrhfco

tusphotog

Have you looked at MFR-PDX-SEA? Or worse case, fly out of EUG (if there's a later flight). It's only a two hour drive. Not ideal, of course, but it might save your trip.

Thanks for the heads up about SEA. I've just changed four flights that I had through SEA in October on AS. I'm now flying nonstops on WN/AA as opposed to a one stop AS itinerary through SEA. I flew through a few weeks ago, right after the construction started and we were <10 minutes late. Guess that was an exception.

Wonder why they're cancelling flights for this, as opposed to just increasing the block time?

rustykettel

Seattlenerd

Appreciate the suggestion. Just to be clear, we were heading from SEA to MFR in the morning, then back from MFR to SEA in the evening. Not the other way around.

No way to the save the same-day-return trip and arrive in time for a 10am backstage tour and a 1:30pm play. We had been scheduled to arrive in MFR around 8:45am. The rescheduled flight AS offered me got me to MFR right around the time the afternoon play in nearby Ashland started, around 1:15pm, and there was no longer any earlier nonstop.

Frustrating. And we didn't want to pay for a hotel and arrive the night before. The CSR offered after hearing what our plans were (kindly, without my asking) and tried to get approval for a hotel in MFR the night before, but was told by her supervisor that since we were arriving the same day as the original scheduled flight, AS would not pay for a hotel.

I'm now wary of counting on any Horizon flight from SEA sticking to its schedule for the next few months.

tphuang

AS is toast at DAL. They are loosing money on all these routes. They can't shrink their flying much further without giving up those 2 gates.

steve64

I'd like to know your source. As a frequent AS flyer into DAL, it seems to me that they're filling the planes .... but of course it's the yield that counts and I'm not privy to that info. I'd hate to see AS fail at DAL.

"Shrink their flying much further ... " ???
Hasn't AS flying at DAL increased since the merger ? I'm just going from my memory, so IMHO...
3 markets dropped, yet 4 added since it was VX only. I'd guess about the same number of flights or maybe a couple more. Capacity would be down as Airbus flights are replaced by E175s. To me, it all seems to be tweaking the station as they realign it from being a VX "mini hub" to being simply a spoke in the AS "west coast" route system ... DAL has nonstop flights to each and every AS west coast hub/focus city.

And those 2 gates are kept busy, at least in the afternoons when I'm typically leaving. It seems to me that there could be an operational benefit if the flying were reduced a bit to avoid some of the gate holds. They clearly aren't in danger of having to give up those gates due to lack of use. Unlike the DL gate which always seems to be empty.

tphuang

They are at around 13 daily flights out of 2 gates while WN runs at more than 10 flights per gate and DL is trying to get access to more gate space. If they reduce gate usage too much, both WN/DL could just say AS is not using their gate and force AS to share.

As for my data source, I use BTS fare data + LF numbers. They already cut LGA/DCA flights because those were just bleeding money. I can assure you all the remaining ones aren't doing much better.