sfozrhfco

There is no doubt that the partnership would have continued. Maybe not exactly the same earn/burn rates but those can change anytime regardless of whether a program is mileage/point/revenue based. They would not have had to give up most of the code sharing they had and could have grown the relationship. Anyway, no need to cry over spilled milk at this point as there is no going back.

quemalo

Make it YTZ instead and I'd be all over that.

AS Flyer

So, I'm just curious how anyone here thinks that it's in Alaska's best interests to just stay small and rely on the feed of another airline. We saw how that played out with Delta and it's ridiculous to think that Alaska should leave itself vulnerable to a similar situation with another airline. Why would American behave any differently than Delta? They, like the other big 3 airlines, want to be everything to everyone and as soon as it's in their better interests to provide their own feed on the west coast then they would have done that. Why would they continue to share that revenue with Alaska for any substantial period of time if they could keep more of it for themselves? Businesses need to grow - especially airlines - or they'll die. It's the nature of the business. The days of small regional airlines are over. Are there any even left? Alaska made a hard, but wise business decision to grow on their own and not rely on a competitor for a substantial chunk of their money. This industry is evolving and what worked 10 years ago is not going to work today in this climate. And, as sfozrhfco stated, no use crying over spilled milk - it is what it is. Alaska is going through some growing pains as they move towards being a self reliant carrier but they'll come out of this in a much better position without having to rely on a competing airline. In the meantime, if what they have doesn't work for you any longer because they can't be all things to everyone than you're just proving this point.

PABE

Do you want to fly a Q400 for 2000 miles? Because that is the only aircraft in the AS/QX fleet that could handle the runway length

quemalo

I thought an E175 could handle it, but I guess not

milypan

I would love me some CS300 (sorry, A220), but it's not gonna happen.

jinglish

​​​​​
Why is everyone forgetting that AS had already adjusted AA earning rates after AAdvantage went revenue-based? I got a grand total of 1000 EQMs for AA PHL-ORD-PDX in fall 2016.

flyingstudent

AC's SFO-YYZ monopoly could need some competition.

I would suggest a day time SEA-YYZ and returning YYZ-SFO. They can have Hawaii/Alaska/PNW feed thru SEA. The return can connect to last bank of flights to LAX/SAN/SEA, etc.

I would then suggest a red eye SFO-YYZ and return YYZ-SEA early morning to connect to Hawaii and the rest of west coast.

sfozrhfco

WebTraveler

I don't think anyone is necessarily advocating staying small. .But Alaska is mostly a one city airline, and while it picked up planes, pilots, customers, and a going concern operation, it is pulling back from those pre-acquisition routes Virgin America had. If Alaska wants to grow, then it needs to find some routes that work outside of Seattle; it has not yet figured out how to do that. Dropping popular, but competitive routes does nothing to shore up customer relations. We want a network of routes that we can fly to get places we fly to.

Connecting in Seattle was never something I particularly cared for. It's an out of the way hub unless you are in Vancouver or Alaska. I might as well change in Salt Lake or Dallas and still accrue Alaska miles was my theory, it was a heck of a lot more efficient. But I used the heck out of Alaska flights down the coast and sometimes to Las Vegas. So it was a great relationship.

Now it's piecemeal and I am simply not going to connect via Seattle to get to Denver. Zero chance that is happening.

So the issue is not about Alaska being small, it is about it growing and growing in places other then Seattle.

milypan

MJMLBBtoCPH

Actually, it's a 1.5, .5, .25, 1 city airline. The extra .5 is for Portland, the other extra .5 is for San Fran, and the extra .25 is for San Diego (and the additional 1 is if you count Anchorage...).... But, I'm not too impressed with the LAX connections.

I live in Salem. And, while I can't get a lot of places from Portland in one stop, Alaska gives the best coverage from this city. They own Portland more than the other airlines. In short, Alaska is not a one-city airline if you live in Oregon, Alaska, San Diego, or (to a lesser extent) San Francisco. I moved to Salem a few years ago, and as a former AA Platinum, I chose Alaska because it made the most sense for me.

bmvaughn

Just fewer ongoing connection options

AS Flyer

I have posted this before - and I'm pretty sure you must have seen it. But here goes again. The cities that VX flew to pre-acquisition from SFO that were cancelled are DEN, CUN and FLL (which, arguably is still flown seasonally). Service has been reduced in some markets that VX was operating. The cities that AS added to the SFO portfolio that are still being flown are MCI, BWI, RDU, BNA, MSY, PHL, KOA. SO - 3 pre-merger cities gone (really 2 gone - 1 seasonal), 7 added for a net addition of 4 more markets than were served pre-merger. It's anyone's guess which of these markets will be successful long term, but SFO sees flights to more cities on AS than they did when VX was operating independently. Additionally, while service has been reduced in some markets that couldn't support the number of flights being operated under VX, LAX has seen a decrease in service to some markets - but added a couple new ones. I think CUN is the only market that actually lost service that VX operated.

You often post about PDX not getting any AS love. That's not true either. They have a robust regional hub there for regional connections on QX and OO. AS has added service over the years to many new cities - some which are operated seasonally. PDX is bigger now for AS than it ever has been.

AS has created robust focus cites in SAN and SJC. Looking back at the Alaska of even 10 years ago, they have diversified quite a bit - just not off the west coast. If what you're asserting is that they need to have a connecting hub somewhere mid country to accommodate more east-west traffic, they aren't going to do that. I know you say that connecting in SEA is inconvenient from PDX, and to some cities you are probably correct. Taking out of the equation the current mess SEA experiences due to construction and growth, and only looking at it logistically, how is connecting via SEA any less convenient than the very successful hubs at ATL, MSP, DFW, IAH, CLT, IAD, PHX, JFK that are operated by other airlines? Is flying PDX-ATL-SDF convenient? How about PDX-MSP-FAR, PDX-DFW-AMA? The examples go on and on and on. Delta routinely routes people via ATL for really awful connections and that hub is the largest in the world. I mean, yeah, SEA isn't the best connecting point for many connections, but if the price is right a lot of people don't care. You do. That's certainly you're prerogative, but SEA is not any worse for a number of connections than some of the most successful hubs in the country.

sfozrhfco

@ASflyer Your argument only makes sense when completely ignoring the competitive landscape. Yes, AS still flies from LAX to ORD but with one flight a day when competitors have dozens makes AS largely irrelevant. For the vast majority of people going between those two cities, it would make little difference if AS pulled out all together. When you already have a weak network, cutting frequency as well just compounds the problem. For myself, I fly every month from an AS hub and not once did AS offer something better schedule/product/price wise than any other competitor. They could go away and I would not even notice.

Comparing SEA to DFW/ATL and other major hubs is simply ridiculous. SEA is a useful connecting point for flights within the PNW and from Alaska/Western Canada. If your origin/destination is not in those areas, SEA is a terrible connecting point. It is too far out of the way and going East especially, nearly every competitor is going to have a myriad of options to get to one's destination. Even from SFO, many AS destinations require an overnight in SEA to catch the one flight a day AS operates. Comparing this to a hub operating 1000s of flights to all corners of the globe is just lol funny.

The point people are making is that AS was boxed into a corner before and they still are now. Outside of Alaska and the PNW, they are still a weak competitor that has not increased their relevance to the vast majority of travelers even on the West Coast outside of their traditional areas of strength. They simply do not have the pricing and network power to be competitive and to set the agenda. While most carriers did not even notice AS before, they are getting bombarded from all sides now and adding one flight a day to a few destinations did not change that. Whether this just brought forward the problems they foresaw being stuck in SEA is anybody's guess but they are in for a rough ride.