ashill

Well, SFO-PHL (like LAX-PHL) is a new post-merger route. (Maybe a resumption of older VX service; either way, VX did not serve PHL as of the merger.)

nova08

Anyway, UA blinked first. Upping SFO-PHL to 3x daily and now back down to 11-14 weekly. And AA put their stamp on the route with 332 service.

milypan

CDKing

VX had a lot of unprofitable routes that the kept, its no surprise AS wants to dump some and start others

jhurwitz

Alaska's PAE flights will be operated by QX using E175s.

ashill

I wonder if the AA connecting codeshare feed on the PHL end provides enough of a bump to make it viable, even after the gutting of the partnership eliminated any PHL-based AS loyalists (which I was until last year)? And/or the very slightly reduced costs because AS has a (very small) station at PHL anyway? Those are the only clear things that the merger changed.

WebTraveler

And so are the flights from SFO to MSP that is being terminated.

WebTraveler

Well, they said that in the late 1980s with Jet America too....and then in less than two years dropped all their routes and focused almost entirely on north/south flights up and down California from Seattle and Portland. The Jet America southern California operation was the precursor to the LAX hub and pilot base.

Clearly they were in over their head about expanding the SFO operation of Virgin America. Just last fall they planned in 2018 30 new markets, mostly from SFO. With the pull back of MSP, which was to be operated with the regional planes, it makes that strategy murky. MSP is one top SFO destinations. (SFO-MSP represents two airline's hubs.) So what do they do - focus on cities that are not a hub for someone else? They did that with New Orleans, and then right after they did, United put a plane on that route for the first time in decades. So United is not going quietly. Either Alaska needs to position itself for the long haul, or they need to re-group.

Frankly, they purchased a competitor in Virgin America, and that was a good thing. But that does not mean that they have to keep the operation intact going forward. If you look at the operation as a smart move in delaying the arrival of Jet Blue to a significant west coast operation, it was a good thing.

Realistically, Seattle is largely built out and has future capacity issues. Portland's growing and can accomodate more, and Alaska needs to build this out. Then focus on San Diego, San Jose, and Sacramento, and Alaska can do well. If Alaska repositioned itself to San Jose then its once a day non-stop to a non-hub station (for anyone) makes more sense. Going it against United at SFO is not going to be a winner in the short term, or even the long term.

sfozrhfco

I don't think this makes any sense nor is it realistic. Why would B6 want AS in T5? Perhaps if AS just decided to pull out of BOS/JFK all together and contract the flights out to B6, this could be of some benefit to B6. Otherwise, why would B6 spend all the money on new/improved terminals to help a competitor? The fact remains AS brings very little to B6's FF base. Making it easier for AS fans to fly B6 also defeats the whole stated purpose of keeping B6 out of the West. At this point, B6 could simply watch each unprofitable AS route drop off and take advantage of any gates that come available in SFO/LAX to just add their own service.

ashill

All that, and dumbbell shaped networks just don’t lead to much in terms of good connecting flows or other efficiencies. They don’t work well for a single airline (eg pre-merger US, not to mention B6 itself when they tried to make LGB a major hub), and when you add the inefficiency of a partnership instead of a single airline, I don’t see it.

eponymous_coward

Right, because WN at SAN/SJC/SMF is WAY easier than UA at SFO.

(Go look at how many multiple frequencies WN serves from those markets and you'll see it's not at all clear that this is true. Plus WN is going to do Hawaii at some point, HA is going to add those markets with their new A321s, and you can see that those markets are not anything close to locks.)

You can't compete in CA by doing a complete fold in one of the largest markets there any more than you can compete in Oregon by pulling back in PDX and adding service in MFR/EUG/RDM. Even WN serves SFO pretty strongly (and they have in effect TWO hubs within 35 miles). They serve four top destinations out of SFO, as well as MDW, DAL, and between those two, PHX and DEN, they have one stop service to nearly everywhere in the WN network without doing illogical backtracking (which would NOT be true of AS if they fold SFO into hub-only service). Oh yeah, and WN has the usual metric ton of intra-CA service that AS has no shot of pulling off anytime soon (and where AS's F product is IMO next to useless; WN demonstrates you simply don't need one on an hour flight if you can offer 4/5/6/7 daily frequencies and a non-punitive Y product.)

Sure. AS could also write a billion dollar check to B6 for no reason at all. That would surely benefit B6. Or convert all AS planes to beer cans and send AS executives to B6 HQ with chocolate and flowers. That would be nice for B6.

Of what benefit is conceding 100% of important CA markets to a competitor when your acquisition isn't even complete yet? Doesn't AS have to get some benefit out of a deal? Or are they just going to do it because they love B6 more than their own business?

sfozrhfco

That is precisely the point. There are not many mutual benefits to be had for either airline in cooperating on routes such as SFO/LAX/SEA/SAN/LAS-JFK/BOS/FLL. AS is coming from a place a weakness in nearly every former VX market with HA/B6/DL/UA/WN all taking hits at them, so it would be pretty pointless for B6 to help prop up AS in California when they are likely to benefit more by having them flounder.

eponymous_coward

Indeed. That being said, they haven't done anything to redo the network yet; it DOES make sense to have 739s take over for A320s if you're going to need more Y seats on each plane to make this work.

sfozrhfco

Can't wait to hear from AS as to what the plans are.

WebTraveler

They're getting killed in SFO and it will continue. The strategy they had is failing. I do maintain that Alaska and Southwest can competitively compete with each other. I have taken four SW flights already this year (because Alaska hosed me), while its a decent product over all, but in the end I HATE the seat game. I do, it's awful, awful. It may work for some people, it does not work for me. I tried it, and unless I have to take them because they're the only option., I decided I am just not doing it.