fly18725

There’s an important distinction here: asking Alaska to improve its notification and communication of diversions, and providing more online self service options to people that don’t want to divert, is reasonable and realistic. It would be absurd for someone to oppose advocating for these changes.

Expecting Alaska to change how it operates and eliminate diversions when there are ATC restrictions at SFO is not reasonable or realistic. If this is a requirement for someone’s patronage, they should take their businesss - and posts - elsewhere after sharing their dissatisfaction directly with Alaska.

spin88

This was the mantra back in 2013 regarding United - their "savvy" management knew what they were doing, and silly fliers ought to shut up or go to another airline. Well than did not work out very well for United - which has been a consistent profit, revenue, and service laggard - due in large part to loosing high value traffic.

Alaska has entered a new phase where it needs to attract and retain customers outside of its core markets, not to mention needing to compete for passengers ex PDX/SEA who now have DL as an option. Alaska has to change if it wants to prosper. It can't be the funky airline that used to put prayers on the first class meal trays, it needs to attract customers with a very different set of expectations.

Rather than following Jeff Smisik and ignoring customer feedback, Alaska should take a careful look at the issues created by planned diversions, not assume that since they did them in the past, they can just do more of them as SFO is over-impacted.

WebTraveler

So, go ahead and kick your feet and scream many more times then.

tusphotog

Thanks for this valuable, insightful, and wonderfully helpful comment.

channa

This is going to bite them eventually. SFO is not the PNW where customers are just happy to give their money to the local business.

The VX customer is already disappointed with AS for ruining VX. Pull this on some of them, and they'll be over at UA in no time.

WebTraveler

LOL, VX was a loser operation throughout it's entire existence. It did eek out a three profitable years, but lost money over its entire existence. One of the reasons it actually did make money in 2014/2015/2016 is it had such large NOLs it didn't have to make any provision for taxes. It operated a few core routes, which now are very competitive, and a bunch of loser routes. If the VX customer wants United he would have been with United in the first place. LOL.

WebTraveler

So tell me, after a 150 or so comments in this thread, what has been left unsaid? Not a single thing, which is what I said in the first place and then some have to start the whole whining mess all over again. Wow.

fly18725

Eastbay1K

♫ Memories fade but the scars still linger ...♫ - plenty of Bay Area people still have a bitter taste of UA, and remain in the "anyone but UA" crowd. I still hear it. (Given my 1 UA segment in the past 5-ish years, a long LAX/SFO segment, I am not in the UA Never crowd )

channa

Even more reason to be cognizant of the issue. AS is the underdog in SFO and can't compete on network. Service is pretty much all they have. When they do a planned diversion like this, that's even worse.

True, though the VX crowd trends to be younger. We won't be hearing too many VX customers with memories of the Summer from Hell in 2000. Maybe some more recent stuff though.

fly18725

spin88

You are right, Alaska paid twice the stock value - a total of $2.6 Billion because VX was a "loser operation" The Alaska management is the nicest bunch of folks and just wanted to help out the poor suffering VX shareholders. I for one thank them (for the new BWM wagon I got with the appreciation).

VX build a very valuable customer base in an airport/region (SFO) that everyone wanted into, and another airport (LAX) with very valuable traffic. AS paid through the nose to acquire VX's market share, I don't think they think its wise to just toss that away.

And if you lived in the Bay Area, you would know how hated United is, particuarly post-2012 arround here. VX did well because it offered a much better option to UA. If Alaska does not offer markedly better service ex-SFO than does UA, well then the VX flyers might as well just go with the bigger carrier.

A little more nuanced than you portray it is perhaps more accurate. AA and DL both offer shuttle type service, DL SEA-SFO, and LAX-SFO, and AA LAX-SFO, Neither "cancel" flights (nor does UA, except rarely on SFO-LAX) nor do they divert, they simply take a delay, and once hops on the earlier flight if you can.

Flow control does not get rid of slots, nor does it require any flights be cancelled. United does not commonly cancel UX flights, although it will at times do so to use the slot for a widebody landing, or when the UX flight is going to be so delayed that its in effect useless. hUnited is not cancelling UX flights so that SEA-SFO flights run on time...

Nor might I add does - at least in my experience - Alaska diverting really help. On the day that sparked my post, everyone was backed up by two hours to SFO, and my eventual flight to SFO was as well, its just that my scheduled flight was sent to OAK, leaving OT.

chiangku

Thankfully my only destination-swapped flights were on E75's when I had very small carry-on luggage with me only. The luggage collection dance if I was connecting would have probably annoyed me to death.

Eastbay1K

I'm not quite sure what departures and arrivals board you're looking at over @ UA @sfo on a "weather day" but the one that I see has plenty of not only delays, but cancellations.

tom911

Something has to give when SFO goes from accepting 60 flights an hour to 30 flights an hour during particularly bad weather. If you go to a single runway and have to cut arrivals 50%, every carrier is going to be impacted.
https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/m...s-primer_0.pdf

This is from the airport's web site in 2010. Has any of it changed since then?