Originally Posted by NoLaGent

The beauty of the internet is that I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not, but it's seriously the funniest thing I've read on Flyertalk today.

I'm also thrilled that this thread continues to thrive. Really interesting stuff about CSPR and NextGen, of which I wasn't familiar.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by fly18725

It is possible to disrupt fewer passengers by under-utilizing gates on an on-going basis, providing more operating flexibility during flow control. Of course, there will still be delays. You'll also pay more for your ticket, since it costs $$$ to have committed infrastructure.

Originally Posted by channa

Can you please point me in the direction of the Alaska discount for having less airport infrastructure? I certainly haven't seen it.

Bottom line is AS is operating at a competitive hub. If AS botches this up, it will cost them far more than a couple of gates would have.

That said, as has been pointed out above, it doesn't even appear to be an issue of lack of infrastructure. It appears to be AS's mismanagement of assets they already have. If planes are sitting there empty waiting to be towed, and they're not towed in time for the next plane to pull in, it's AS not utilizing their limited resources correctly, not them needing more resources to cater to their inefficient ground handling.

Originally Posted by fly18725

Alaska has been clear that their targeting a specific type of customer, which are not high-need corporate travelers.

Originally Posted by fly18725

Alaska's cost structure and fares are based on a certain level of asset utilization, including airport gates. If asset utilization were to decline, fares would need to rise. If asset utilization were to decline to a below-industry-average level, fares would no longer be competitive.

Originally Posted by fly18725

Yes, SFO is a competitive hub. Alaska has been clear that their targeting a specific type of customer, which are not high-need corporate travelers. If you're not happy with how Alaska operates, you're welcome to fly United.

Originally Posted by channa

We've already established they have the assets, but they're mismanaging them by leaving empty planes parked there. Seems they have more of a ground operations challenge than an asset management challenge. Either way, it's part of an airline's job to manage these things well. If not, that'll erode profits. Last I checked, they don't have much control of fares -- competition, not cost, dictates much of that. If it gets below a certain point, the route gets cut.

Originally Posted by sltlyamusd

I wonder how many remote stand or Int'l Gates they have access to at SFO? On two recent flights, we were left sitting on the tarmac twice for about 25 minutes after landing at SFO in late evening hours because of "no gate available" in T2. In both cases, it wasn't because of pending departures, but because they hadn't yet managed to tow an aircraft that had arrived earlier in the evening over to remote parking for the night so we could pull into the gate and deplane. I would have much rather they just parked us at the Int'l gates and let us deplane there instead of leaving us sitting on the plane.

Originally Posted by channa

We've already established they have the assets, but they're mismanaging them by leaving empty planes parked there. Seems they have more of a ground operations challenge than an asset management challenge. Either way, it's part of an airline's job to manage these things well. If not, that'll erode profits. Last I checked, they don't have much control of fares -- competition, not cost, dictates much of that. If it gets below a certain point, the route gets cut..

Originally Posted by WebTraveler

This happens to all airlines. This is not just an Alaska issue. I fly into Chicago or Dallas frequently and am backed up. I fly through Houston and am backed up. It happens.

Originally Posted by fly18725

Either you’re saying a handful of operational failures is causing diversions or you’re looking for any negative perspective to build a case against Alaska. Regardless, it doesn’t seem like your business can reasonably be won/retained by Alaska (or United). I wish you the best of luck in finding an airline that meets your expectations.

Originally Posted by sfozrhfco

This thread is about SFO/The Bay Area. This does not happen to all airlines at SFO--only AS. How does being backed up at ORD/DFW have any relevance to the fact that AS leaves an aircraft RON at a gate at SFO that needed to be towed to be remote parked? It is great to be a fan boy/girl for an airline but citing completely irrelevant airports and saying if you don't like it fly somebody else is not a great attitude for anybody wanting a business to succeed. As has been noted several times, people have actually gone out of their way to fly AS and AS is making it very difficult to choose them a 2nd time. This thread is to make others aware of what is happening and perhaps make AS management wake up to the fact that SFO is no longer just a destination airport for people travelling from PDX/SEA so it is time to come up with a plan to operate their new hub efficiently.

Originally Posted by channa

It's one thing if a plane is leaving and you wait 10 minutes. That happens to everybody. It's another if they're letting parked planes sit at gates and not towing them away. That's mismanagement of resources and what they're doing frequently enough at SFO to be noticeable.

Originally Posted by PV_Premier

today on twitter...click to expand...
so it's not just the west coast flights anymore...

https://twitter.com/AlaskaAir/status...88708240515073

i do feel like this is starting to happen often enough that AS should disclose the risk at the time of booking, or with a notice on their website.

Originally Posted by sltlyamusd

My bigger questions is: what recourse do you have if AS axes your flight due to "Air Traffic Control?" As in, it is completely canceled, or rescheduled to another airport. Has anyone had luck getting rebooked on another airline? I mostly fly SJC/OAK to begin with, so haven't experienced IRROPs from SFO yet.