Often1

Before we get to decorating the new cabin, consider than 60 seconds of research on the corporate website reveals that there is only one officer appointed by the Board and three more appointed by that person, but with Board approval. People like that don't engage in idle chit-chat about corporate strategy and purchasing decisions if they value their jobs and their freedom.

Beyond that, it's going to take a great deal for AS to break into the premium market as a non-premium carrier. Doesn't mean it can't be done, just that it's a leap.

eponymous_coward

It's a legitimate scoop if it turns out to be more than speculation.

You're welcome to take @gleff and his source as seriously or as unseriously as you like. There's a reason this post is titled "Speculation". There's a source. Might pan out (there have been times where @JonNYC has broken AA stories from sources). Might not.

diver858

No different than WN dangling the Hawaii carrot for years - little more than a hail Mary pass, in an effort to keep LVX LAX, NYC, SFO loyalists from jumping ship.

Oakshadow

MX or other issues leading to last-minute equipment swaps are common. If there is a limited "premium" sub-fleet, it seems that there would be risk of F pax paying premium prices expecting the lie-flats only to discover at boarding they'll have a standard domestic F cabin. I wouldn't be a happy camper if that happened to me. VX didn't have this problem as all of their better-than-standard-domestic F seats were all the same in the entire fleet.

Seat 2A

I appreciate the post. If Alaska truly intends to compete against the established players on the premium transcon routes, (and why wouldn't it?) given the standard currently set on those flights it stands to reason that unless Alaska intends to market its mediocre First Class at exceptionally reduced rates, it's going to have to up its game considerably. I look forward to seeing how this all plays out.

jinglish

​​​​​​Well, that's also a problem for the big three and B6 with their premium transcon birds, and they seem to manage. They just have to maintain a certain level of subfleet slack, although that could be pricy for AS if they only have a small fleet. B6 has 11 Mint A321s, and their current Mint network is possibly more expensive than whatever AS will shoot for; the smaller the fleet, the less likely it is that an aircraft will be just sitting around if another breaks down.Or maybe I'm wrong.

sfozrhfco

That was a couple years back when Mint was just in its infancy. B6 will have 34 Mint planes by the end of next month according to the last earnings report and it will continue to grow.

eponymous_coward

I think they'd almost have to take more A321s than what they intended a year ago. Apparently there are up to 30 they have options on (plus the 10 firm they are trying to backtrack on).

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/...n-america.html

That could make for a pretty reasonably sized transcon subfleet.

dayone

Count me among the skeptics. AS conducted an extensive analysis and review of F seats after acquiring VX. This included focus groups and interviews. The choice of the new F seats was rigorous and deliberate. It seems counterintuitive that a new product would be added less than a year later.

For a sub-fleet to make operational and economic sense, it has to be at least a certain size. I don't know what the number is, maybe 12-16? What plane will be used? A321? MAX 9? Both these planes are being delivered now or will be soon. Since seat choice requires significant lead time, changing to a new product would presumably require replacing already-new seats.

Too much added cost and complexity for this rumor to make sense to me. Time will tell.

jinglish

AS is taking delivery of plenty of new 737s and A321s with the current AS and VX F seats despite the fact that they'll be replacing those seats in the next couple of years, so I don't think that would be a huge concern. If anything, they'd get more life out of the destined-for-the-dumpster VX seats with the increased lead time.

eponymous_coward

Didn't the last analyst call have AS execs admitting that RASM on ex-Virgin routes is diving off of a cliff? I wonder if their analysis assumed that wasn't going to happen. I suspect VX RASM was never too hot anyways (otherwise it wouldn't have taken years to make profits and the owners wouldn't have cashed out for 2.6 very large), but I can see how "we're removing all traces of the airline you liked and delivering cheaper for us but less nice things to you" isn't necessarily a way to get a revenue premium, especially in two markets (SFO and LAX) where a premium transcon product in certain markets is table stakes (unless you're WN, and frankly AS can't scale up in CA to be competitive with WN in their bread and butter, high frequency, short/midhaul network anytime soon).

I'd rather airlines admit mistakes than Smisek their way down the wrong path for years (that is, if this IS what's happening... it's unclear to me how much AS has rolled out their "we give you suckier F than the other guys but it's cheaper" model, and, like I said, it's all speculation until we hear from AS execs this is real). Time will indeed tell and this all may be blowing smoke. But I could SEE how this could happen.

If they have options on up to 30 A321s plus 10 firm, there's your subfleet right there. The CASM should be better than the current A320 VX fleet. I would imagine they could configure the fleet to be attractive to someone else if they decided "naaah" and returned the planes to the lessor.

dayone

That would require a long-term commitment to Airbus, which AS seems very hesitant to make.

beckoa

Speculation:

AS develops a subfleet of lie flat aircraft thru acquisition.

They merge with B6.

Fin.

tphuang

A couple of things. It's not clear that AS would even commit to A321 at this point considering that it does like the single fleet strategy. For AS current strategy, MAX 10 and 900ER are more than sufficient. It doesn't really need the additional range of A321.

VX in their conference calls talked at length about how much their RASM suffered as a result of mint entering all of their most profitable routes. It's not a secret this was happening.

AS management made the call that they continue with the traditional FC seat. Even in the recent Q4 call, they have refused to even mention mint as a problem. And from all indication have continued their belief that the lower CASM 900ER would be all that's necessary. What could possibly have happened in the past couple of months that would change their mind? BOS-SAN/SEA getting mint competition? I find that hard to believe given all the noise in other directions.

SFOPeter

If they wanted to go in this direction they could subfleet the existing A320s with VX F for all transcons and use the AS 737s for <5 hrs. Would just need to add an Airbus base in PDX and SEA. VX has a better F product than AS F, and a better Y product than AS Y. They would lose Y seats on a few routes but at least there would be a consistent premium product for transcon.

I speculate that there is some kind of calculus that B6 figured out with the A321s and number of flight attendants that made cheap Mint work for B6 and devastated the big3 with a price war. Perhaps AS is starting to figure that out.

I am actually fine with the existing AS plan, but not at the ridiculous prices they are selling F for.