AS Flyer

I wasn't talking about the competitive landscape - I was talking about the myth that Alaska has nothing outside of Seattle. It's not true. It may not suit your needs - but it's not true. Alaska has, and will continue to tweak the network they acquired. Virgin's network wasn't all that much better on many routes - they offered 2, sometimes 3 flights a day between LAX and ORD. AA and UA offered probably 30 between them. VIrgin was acquired because the Board of Directors of the company no longer wanted to sink money into a company that was not providing returns so they shopped them out. Is it Alaska's fault that their back was against the wall and they needed to acquire this company to ensure their existence? It was a strategic business move - and I have no doubt that they will invest in the network where it makes sense. Perhaps it won't make sense for you but, in time I think Alaska will have a thriving network in a city that Virgin struggled to make any money at all in for the entirety of their existence.

It's not at all "lol funny" unless you just ignored what I posted completely and are just looking to point out that Alaska isn't Delta - which misses the point entirely. My point is not that Seattle is in a corner of the U.S., making it an awkward connecting point. My point is that the largest hubs in the U.S. thrive on traffic that takes people far out of the direct route to their destination. ATL is the largest hub in the U.S. and there are multiple other connection opportunities to many destinations but people choose Delta through ATL often for various reasons. I was responding to web traveler though, not you - and web traveler said it didn't make any sense to back track to take a 30 minute flight north to make a connection. tens of thousands of people do it every day on Delta, United and American. To that, many travelers now have more options through PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX or SAN now, depending on the origin/destination.

Alaska is a more diversified company now than they ever have been before - they have slowly grown a successful company that didn't rely on gimmicks and rock bottom price leader fares to get people in seats. I get the idea that bugs you. Sorry - Virgin is gone. AS didn't kill them - their BOD did.

eponymous_coward

AS seems to get the same hate as WN gets: they offer a somewhat different product than the US3, and for that (and in effect giving the coup de grace to VX, which everyone loved while ignoring that they completely blew their initial projections for how big they'd get and when they'd make a profit) people trash them for not being a US3 (or VX). All the while AS keeps churning out profits just like WN does, and avoids bankruptcy, or being taken over in a merger when it was obvious the business model wasn't going to go forward fast enough, something the US 3 and VX couldn't do.

Are they doomed because they basically have kissed off the high-spend transcon F market and they're just going to concentrate on inching up their market share in CA (something that VX was basically resigning themselves to doing, along with dealing with the fallout of really weird route dartboard decisions like gate capped/slot capped DAL/DCA/LGA markets or YYZ)? I dunno. It seems to be an important market for California... but you're dealing with US3 companies that have corporate contracts and B6/AA/DL/UA all with a market in NYC that probably can support premium demand from BOTH sides of the country. VX never had that; their route development out of JFK was always a couple of random one-offs like FLL, PSP or LAS. I guess we'll find out. The merger operationally hasn't been a UA/CO-style disaster for sure, so at least they got that right.

But I love how the ex-VX peanut gallery likes to trash AS but seems pretty silent about things like YYZ or DAL-AUS. VX management wasn't exactly full of route development geniuses before they waved their white flag and cashed out. They abandoned markets all the time. They had to abandon PDX, for goodness sake.

WebTraveler

There's really no PDX hub anymore, despite what you write. What PDX has is some point to point destinations. The old says of Horizon being an operator out of PDX throughout Oregon and the PNW has long went away. There used to be multiple flights a day from pretty much all the cities in Oregon on older, smaller 36 (?) seat planes. Now the smallest plane is a 70 seater. For example, you'd see multiple flights a day to Klamath Falls, Pendleton, etc. Now frequencies are down, and there's little left. There's no hub really. It's all point to point. Maybe that's reality, but if Alaska can't send connecting traffic through Portland, there's no hub.

Further, for a brief time Alaska operated flights from PDX-STL, but that's gone. PDX-Omaha is gone. PDX-Denver is gone. We have the same CA locations we always had - save Long Beach. Unless PDX is run like a hub we won't get those flights. Several months ago, for example, PDX-Bellingham was pulled. Every time I flew PDX-STL, for example, there were always a cadre of passengers connecting to/from Bellingham.

For me to take Alaska to Denver is ridiculous. I won't do it through Seattle; colossal waste of time. When Delta was a partner it worked much better to go PDX-SLC-DEN and it worked, and I accrued Alaska miles. I was ok with it. When I went to New Orleans I could get there through Dallas easily, and get Alaska miles. Today....not going to waste my time through Seattle....when the trip comes up I guess it will be United through Denver or Houston, at least I am going the right direction.

I have earned more United miles and Southwest miles this year than ever before, and much less on Alaska. Alaska had me as a customer 98% of the time (100% on routes Alaska flew directly). This year when going to SFO I have been on United five times so I can build something with United. United gets me to Denver. Southwest gets me to STL and Kansas City, although Alaska still flies it for now, at least. If I am a few miles short I am opting out of Alaska these days so I can build something on a longer haul airline. Alaska and its partners just cannot get me to where I need to go anymore...it is just that simple.

I still predict in five years Alaska will not be around. Alaska MUST build some loyalty and routes for places that do not involve Seattle. It is just that simple. San Diego is good, but it needs more. SFO is never going to be the great hub Alaska wants it to be. Alaska would be better off concentrating itself in San Jose and differentiating its product. Sure it has Southwest there, but there is quite a bit of loyalty to Alaska.

Further, Brad Tilden is just not the guy to lead an airline. He's just not qualified to do this.

rustykettel

I don't disagree that PDX seems like less of a hub from my corner of the AS world, but you really should take a look at the actual flight distances via SEA vs DFW/SLC/DEN. Depending on the destination, connecting through SEA can be close or even shorter than those hubs, as illogical as it might seem going the "wrong" direction.

Chugach

notquiteaff

Chugach

formeraa

Sounds like poor decision making by the Pentleton City Council. The smaller turboprop economics have gone the way of the dodo bird. You always should support the option which provides more connectivity which would have been QX.

Chugach

notquiteaff

Wow, sounds like a gold mine :/

Thanks for the link to the press release. Love it!

AS Flyer

Alaska, like JetBlue and Southwest, can not be all things to everyone. You've been on here for years complaining that AS turns a blind eye to PDX. Meanwhile, AS offers nonstop flights to the following cities: SEA, GEG, EUG, MFR, RDM, BOI, SUN, BIL, BZN, FCA, MSO, YVR, SMF, SFO, SJC, OAK, FAT, SBA, STS, SAN, LAX, ONT, SNA, BUR, PSP, PHX, TUS, RNO, LAS, SLC, ABQ, DAL, DFW, AUS, MCI, MSP, ORD, MKE, ATL, MCO, PHL, BWI, BOS, EWR, JFK, DCA, PVR, SJD, KOA, LIH, HNL, OGG, ANC.

Some of those cities see only seasonal service - most are year round. That's an awful lot of service to a city that you say isn't a "hub". All in larger planes - as opposed to the days you were lamenting about, when Horizon flew 19 and 32 seat planes to cities they would pick up a few passengers in. Additionally, please point to a time in Alaska's history when they ever offered service to this many cities. Alaska (with their Horizon and Skywest operations) is the largest carrier at PDX. It's unfortunate that they don't work for you but they've shown an awful lot of love to PDX over the years - with more to come. Finally, yes, they are offering a number of once daily flights to cities across the country to appeal to the O&D traveler. Is this a bad thing? Trying to offer flights that appeal to the PDX traveler? I would think you would appreciate that.

PDXPremier

Good point...I actually prefer PDX-SEA-DEN to PDX-SLC-DEN since I get more EQMs connecting at a west coast hub like SEA or SFO or LAX compared to places like SLC that are "on the path"....basically a connection that gets you nearly the same EQMs as a non-stop.

PDXPremier

I remember flying the Q200 from PDX-PSC-PDT back in the day....last June, for the fun of it, I flew to PDT and back on the single-engine Boutique Air flights...great trip but I'm sure it's not a significant money-maker judging by the fact that there was only one other passenger besides my son and I on the flight back to PDX. In all honestly, I think the only way for some of these smaller communities to work for airlines like QX is to operate as tag-on flights. I still remember when QX operated jet service from EUG to LAX but the flight stopped in MFR along the way to pick up additional passengers. I know they also use to operate some 1-stop flights from SEA to cities in Montana but for some reason they seem to be eliminating these multi-stop flights.

Chugach

WebTraveler

What you miss is that I used to be able to get to ANYWHERE in the United States and much of the world via Alaska Airlines or a an airline where I could earn miles and status for the Alaska Mileage Plan. I did not need another frequent flyer account. I had it all.

Now I need to fly three airlines to just get to my destinations. It is that simple. Now my flying is all over the place. I am not ever going to say that is a good thing. It's not. Maybe the past was too good to last forever. But darn, this whole Virgin America business, from MY standpoint has been a disaster. Loyalty is worth something - I was loyal to Alaska and Alaska was loyal to me. Alaska blinked, not me.

Because of the Virgin America fiasco (and yes, to me it is a fiasco) I fly Alaska less on the core routes. Why take them to LAX, SFO, LAS, SAN, PHX? I can take someone else now, and I have because I figure I am needing to build my business with United & Southwest to get some perk out of it.

Alaska used to get a TON of Delta and American customers as well, simply by offering the miles.....those have largely dried up now, and Alaska probably carries less passengers in Portland and other small operations because of it.

So I am not going to stand up and jump for joy. The whole offering is less for me. I get it, I have to go elsewhere now 50% or so of the time. I am just not happy with it. And there's no more loyalty from Alaska towards me, how can I give Alaska loyalty?