wolfpacktrojan

Quintious

Yeah, and Southwest didn't try to party with the big boys when they were like that. Hell, they still don't. They're a tourist airline. You talk about a couple of individual routes, I'm talking about a network. And you keep referring to them, even though they have hubs in LA, Vegas, Denver, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, etc....like...they have a mesh. AS doesn't. But way to compare an apple to a donkey cart?

Disagree all you want. I'm not wrong. AS is the only supposedly "major" domestic carrier out there that puts all its eggs in one time zone. Simple fact. It worked when they were a glorified feeder for DL and had a murderer's row of international partners, but that's all dried up and the AA partnership is completely useless.

PotomacApproach

With ABQ gone, and ELP and PAE starting, SAN will have more destinations than SFO, with transcons to BOS, NYC (EWR) and DC (BWI). Mostly O&D routes with less competition from the big 3, this seems more their style than the low market share routes they still have at SFO.

I know transcons out of alt airports around SF and LA can be much harder to sell, especially the premium cabins, but wouldn't surprise me if another departure went down to SJC, where theres no competition from lie flat F services, and also wouldn't be surprised to see something like EWR-BUR.

wolfpacktrojan

AS Flyer

SAN-ABQ is still on the schedule, unless you know otherwise. Are you confusing SNA-ABQ? Unless you're referring to SFO-ABQ, for which there has been a change of heart and, apparently, will stay on the schedule too.

ashill

OK, I'll bite (against my better judgement).

UA serves SYD and MEL. But can I get from Sydney to Melbourne? Not without going to Los Angeles first. BA serves CDG and AMS. But can I get from Paris to Amsterdam? Not without going through Heathrow, which no one in their right mind would do for that trip. (BA could legally serve CDG-AMS if they wanted to, at least until Brexit. But it would be just as stupid as AS serving PIT-ORD. And hell, even if AS established a hub in, say, STL, would they capture much of the PIT-CHI traffic, given that AA, UA, and WN all serve it nonstop? Not unless they pushed their airfares way down. And I imagine that DL doesn't have much of the PIT-CHI market either. Does that make DL a carrier with an awful network that is likely to fail?)

Every airline has an edge of their network in which they serve outstations from their core region. For AS, that core region is the west coast of the US. They provide pretty good service from their core regions to the major cities within range of a 737, just like UA provides pretty good service from their core region (the continental US) to most of the major cities within range of a 787. But that doesn't mean that any airline can get you between the outstations at the edge of their network.

There are lots of crazy ideas floated on FlyerTalk, but AS establishing a hub in Detroit, Minneapolis, or Denver is pretty remarkable. St. Louis perhaps slightly less crazy, but only slightly.

WN is a tourist airline? What is this, 2010? The fact that FlyerTalkers who want a first class suite to the Seychelles don't like Southwest doesn't make them a tourist airline.

Remember why DL started their SEA hub in the first place? Because (at least as far as one can tell without any inside information), they asked AS to expand their focus as a feeder for DL. That didn't make sense for AS, so AS chose not to. (Remember the big dud of a joint AS-DL press conference when DL was ramping up their SEA international hub but hadn't yet done any domestic expansion to speak of?)

No one argues that AS is a "major" carrier on the level of the four major carriers. That doesn't make AS unprofitable. The west coast is a pretty big basket. It is certainly true that the US aviation market has changed dramatically. AS may even fail in the next several years. (I don't think it's likely, but there certainly are risks they face.) But I don't think building a hub in the central US -- you're saying it doesn't matter where so you don't care about local traffic at all -- is a way to make their failure less likely; quite the contrary.

Can you name one established airline which built a hub from nothing completely outside their core market, anything like what you're suggesting AS should do, since (say) deregulation? Sure, DL built a hub in SEA, but they had a long-established long haul focus city and already had a substantial west coast presence. All three of the network carriers with national footprints got there by acquisition, not developing new hubs far from their cores. And WN built their comprehensive network much more organically than what you're suggesting; they certainly didn't just establish a hub 1500 miles from their core market.

3Cforme

Have a look at a JetBlue route map and hubs in BOS, JFK and FLL - and nowhere else.

eponymous_coward

sfozrhfco

Except that B6 did not buy another airline with a largely East Coast presence to expand. They are also actively looking for more space at SFO/LAX and will be expanding as soon as both airports give them more gates. They will likely also be starting service to Europe and already have the Caribbean very well covered as well as Northern Latin America and will soon have aircraft capable of flyer deeper into Latin America. With 13 more A321s coming this year and more next year, they will be able to expand their foot print. The A220s coming next year will also allow them to expand their presence more economically throughout the country. They also have an investment in JetSuiteX which has ramped up their expansion on the West Coast and will continue to expand to other regions. AS on the other hand has pretty much tied themselves up on the West Coast and won't really be growing much at all this year and continues to slowly cut back on transcons from SFO/LAX given their weak yields.

Both airlines have to find ways to grow to compete with the US4 which are much bigger carriers. We will see how things play out as the year progresses.

ashill

Sure. But building a mid-continent connecting hub from scratch without regard to local demand, as another poster has suggested, is very unlikely to be the mechanism either uses for growth. B6, of course, is and always has been less reliant on connections than AS (in particular, B6's international feeder business is much smaller than AS's), though they are similar in that both do far more point to point flying (as a fraction of their network) than the three network carriers, something that is possible because they are both less reliant on connections than the network carriers.

sfozrhfco

Connecting hubs are not going to make either money. The point is with a A220 you don't need a connecting hub. You can fly point-to-point from/to places people want to go anywhere in the lower 48. Long-thin routes are currently not possible with a smaller regional jet and the demand is not there to profitably fly an A320/B737. For shorter routes JetSuiteX will be growing to 100 planes meaning they could very well fly Dallas to Denver or Pittsburgh to Chicago to fill in the gaps. There are many ways to be more relevant and B6 has a number of longer term plans to expand their relevance both within and outside of the US. AS is pretty much tied themselves up with the VX acquisition which makes them a sitting duck until that integration is complete. All the other airlines will be expanding and pressuring their yields while AS basically stagnates in 2019. It will be interesting to see what AS sees as their next steps for 2020 and beyond.

jinglish

...have they announced any plans to start breaking into larger markets? Because it's a big jump from flying routes like OAK-BUR to going head-to-head against WN, AA, and UA on DFW-DEN.

PotomacApproach

fly18725

So far, the financial results of the different strategies have been clearly in favor of AS.

Aliquot

When comparing B6 and AS dont forget that AS has been around 68 years longer than B6. Slow and steady growth has served AS well.

Of course past performance doesnt guarantee future results.