Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Alaska Airlines | Mileage Plan
Reload this Page >

[Speculation] Fall 2018 New AS Route Announcement

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

[Speculation] Fall 2018 New AS Route Announcement

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 5, 2018, 5:42 pm
  #76  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: SEA
Programs: AS MVPG
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by wolfpacktrojan
I think AS’s best shot at developing a hub outside of the west coast is to first make a focus city out of wherever Amazon puts HQ2 and build on that.
Since HQ2 is likely to be DC area (Bezos has a house there and major data centers nearby) I guess the real question is whether AS wants to go head-to-head with UA at IAD or WN at BWI. Or since they’ve got a decent presence at JFK, why not build that out a bit more, and connect some of their destinations on the east coast (e.g. JFK-FLL).
zebes is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 6:05 pm
  #77  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by zebes
I guess the real question is whether AS wants to go head-to-head with UA at IAD or WN at BWI. Or since they’ve got a decent presence at JFK, why not build that out a bit more, and connect some of their destinations on the east coast (e.g. JFK-FLL).
No, no, and no. Not even carriers with a strong East Coast presence are adding much to IAD or BWI to compete with the entrenched carriers there. Within perimeter, most carriers/passengers prefer DCA and AS just sold of their DCA in perimeter slots. IAD is just not that high yield. UA does OK because of the relatively strong international flights. AS is not going to start flights to Europe from Dulles and couldn't find a use for the in perimeter slots they already had from DCA. Offering a token presence at IAD/BWI would be a suicide mission for a carrier based on the West Coast. They are not going to get any slots to operate JFK-FLL at the frequency they would need to compete with the incumbent carriers. They can barely support FLL to their west coast hubs at this point. Why would they bother with low yielding routes like JFK-FLL against incumbent carriers? They would add absolutely nothing except a warm glow gained by setting their money on fire.
jinglish likes this.
sfozrhfco is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 6:38 pm
  #78  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
Originally Posted by zebes
Or since they’ve got a decent presence at JFK, why not build that out a bit more, and connect some of their destinations on the east coast (e.g. JFK-FLL).
JFK-FLL was cut a year and a half ago, pre-merger but post-acquisition.
rustykettel is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 7:19 pm
  #79  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: SEA
Programs: AS MVPG
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
No, no, and no. Not even carriers with a strong East Coast presence are adding much to IAD or BWI to compete with the entrenched carriers there.
That's ultimately the point I was trying to make (poorly, it seems!). The argument that AS should build out a focus city / hub to Amazon HQ2 location, then it entails choosing from these terrible options. And a midwest focus city ain't happening any time soon, so I think as others mentioned up-thread, the best option is to add frequency to successful routes.
zebes is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 7:35 pm
  #80  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by wolfpacktrojan


AS serves STL from SAN as well! I do find it unlikely that they would ever develop a hub there though.

Not sure if AS will be granted more gates than its current situation at SAN once the move to T2 is complete in January, but I’d selfishly love to see SAN get more routes. It would be easier and make more sense for AS to build at SAN than KCI or STL.

I think AS’s best shot at developing a hub outside of the west coast is to first make a focus city out of wherever Amazon puts HQ2 and build on that.
You're right, follow Amazon. As for STL, OK, I am wrong there. After a big hoopla they pulled the flights PDX-STL. PDX-STL can fill seats, but needs some connecting traffic to make it work. And not enough connecting through PDX to make it work.

Agree on SAN, get as many gates as you can.

I personally would be shocked if Alaska still exists in 5 years. I think dumping all domestic partners was the kiss of death. Brad Tilden is just an incompetent leader...cutting off his nose to spit his face....he is leading Alaska into the ground with his nickel and dime cuts.
WebTraveler is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 7:38 pm
  #81  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by tusphotog


Does it seem like they’re pulling routes faster than before?
Yes. Brad Tilden is getting anxious. He's nickel and diming too....my prediction, in 5 years Alaska will not exist.
WebTraveler is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 7:39 pm
  #82  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco


There is preceisely zero chance of that happening in the near term. They would lose less money if they withdrew their available cash reserves and set it on fire rather than opening a hub at MCI or STL.
MCI is never going to be a hub until the new terminal is built. The whole multiple security checkpoints screws that concept.
WebTraveler is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 8:41 pm
  #83  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
MCI is never going to be a hub until the new terminal is built. The whole multiple security checkpoints screws that concept.
I would think that an earthquake sinking the entire West Coast into the ocean or climate change pushing the ocean to the Rockies has a higher probability of happening. The security check point issue is the least of their issues in setting up a hub at MCI.
tusphotog, jinglish and be_rettSEA like this.
sfozrhfco is offline  
Old Sep 5, 2018, 10:46 pm
  #84  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
Originally Posted by sfozrhfco
I would think that an earthquake sinking the entire West Coast into the ocean or climate change pushing the ocean to the Rockies has a higher probability of happening.
AS can set up their new hub at Otisburg...
rustykettel is offline  
Old Sep 6, 2018, 6:49 am
  #85  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
Yes. I get that. But if they're reducing flights then does that not reduce the flown ASM's as well? If they're planning on 2% growth based on today's ASM's, but then reduce the ASM flown, doesn't that mean more than 2% increase based on today's ASM? So, while the words change, the concept is the same, right? I'm not talking about daily departures as well - I'm guessing that probably will remain fairly similar to what we see today, with a shift in where those planes go. As someone else mentioned, the A320's won't be contributing greatly to the increase in ASM's through 2019, though there will be a few new Boeings coming on property.
right, 2% growth based on today's ASM. With upgauging, the # of flights is likely to stay about the same. Some of the new flights will be at PAE, which means there will be cuts elsewhere. SFO will see more for sure. I think SEA will get more flights to fight off DL. SJC looks to grow modestly. My guess is LAX will see a couple of more cuts.
tphuang is offline  
Old Sep 6, 2018, 7:35 am
  #86  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
I personally would be shocked if Alaska still exists in 5 years. I think dumping all domestic partners was the kiss of death. Brad Tilden is just an incompetent leader...cutting off his nose to spit his face....he is leading Alaska into the ground with his nickel and dime cuts.
On that you have to ask if Alaska would have been better off today with AA and DL continuing as partners but B6 owning Virgin America. The Dept of Justice in its capacity approving airline mergers had a lot to say about that.
3Cforme is offline  
Old Sep 6, 2018, 8:07 am
  #87  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
On that you have to ask if Alaska would have been better off today with AA and DL continuing as partners but B6 owning Virgin America.
Or B6 taking VX, and still losing DL as a partner & AA's reciprocal elite benefits and domestic mileage earning. That AS would be even worse off.
rustykettel is offline  
Old Sep 7, 2018, 6:32 am
  #88  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: Hilton Platinum, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
On that you have to ask if Alaska would have been better off today with AA and DL continuing as partners but B6 owning Virgin America. The Dept of Justice in its capacity approving airline mergers had a lot to say about that.
Not sure what you are after here, but I think, in in retrospect, that Alaska would be better off with American as a partner over purchasing Virgin America. I think Alaska was not prepared to maintain the course in SFO and some of the other Virgin outposts. Or maybe it was a dying model to begin with. Or maybe just let Virgin be its own airline and cater to its niche. The whole thing has been a disaster and shows fully that Alaska really is a one city airline with a few exceptions. For Alaska to survive and thrive it needs to find routes that work outside of Seattle.
jjmadison and be_rettSEA like this.
WebTraveler is offline  
Old Sep 7, 2018, 9:54 am
  #89  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Programs: Coffee Shop Buy 10 Get 1 Free
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
Not sure what you are after here, but I think, in in retrospect, that Alaska would be better off with American as a partner over purchasing Virgin America.
I had to pretty much stop flying AS since the VX takeover for this exact reason. Addition of VX does absolutely nothing for me in my situation
DG206 is offline  
Old Sep 7, 2018, 10:39 am
  #90  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
Not sure what you are after here, but I think, in in retrospect, that Alaska would be better off with American as a partner over purchasing Virgin America.
With AA moving AAdvantage to revenue based, I think it is presumptuous to think that the AA-AS partnership could have continued status quo.
rustykettel and pbelmore like this.
fly18725 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.