OAK/PDX Reduced to 2X/Day (November 2018)

Old Oct 31, 18, 10:14 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by WebTraveler View Post
Last winter it was 2 a day, but there was an early AM and a later PM flight. Southwest owns the route, it's just that simple.
As noted above, that was with 737s because of the QX pilot shortage. This appears to be a voluntary decision to reduce the meager presence on the route even more.
ucdtim17 is offline  
Old Oct 31, 18, 10:36 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
Probably mostly about getting the most bang for their dollar. OAK was not an airport that they gained footprint in the merger, WN has close to 75% of the market share at the airport, and AS battling at other California airport like SAN, my guess is that the numbers for OAK just did not pencil out. That and the fact a lot of people who use OAK head straight to swa.com for their ticket.
SNAnghbr is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 12:45 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 34,972
Originally Posted by SNAnghbr View Post
That and the fact a lot of people who use OAK head straight to swa.com for their ticket.
This. There's simply no way to get in with much of the East Bay crowd. They're not interested in SFO, and they're accustomed to booking at the WN website and don't shop around.
channa is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 7:31 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,953
Originally Posted by channa View Post
This. There's simply no way to get in with much of the East Bay crowd. They're not interested in SFO, and they're accustomed to booking at the WN website and don't shop around.
Hence the timing of the seasonally-reduced schedule shows a focus on Portland point of sale, rather than OAK-based passengers.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 10:11 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: Alaska Airlines MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by SNAnghbr View Post
Probably mostly about getting the most bang for their dollar. OAK was not an airport that they gained footprint in the merger, WN has close to 75% of the market share at the airport, and AS battling at other California airport like SAN, my guess is that the numbers for OAK just did not pencil out. That and the fact a lot of people who use OAK head straight to swa.com for their ticket.
BS, they just don't want to fight for the business. I fly into Oakland weekly on AS. That'll be changing with the degradation of their mileage plan and drastic cuts in service.
IStream is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 10:52 am
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; AS 75K; Marriott Ambassador; Hilton Diamond (Aspire); Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 43,002
Originally Posted by channa View Post
This. There's simply no way to get in with much of the East Bay crowd. They're not interested in SFO, and they're accustomed to booking at the WN website and don't shop around.
Which is just crazy, because WN fares are often quite high. Pax are regularly paying >$500 RT to fly to SoCal or the NW on WN. It stopped being a low cost carrier years ago but the myth persists.

I don't know if a concerted effort could break this pattern. I haven't seen much if any local marketing by AS (nor DL before it bailed on the LAX route).
channa likes this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 10:56 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: Alaska Airlines MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 475
There's nothing inherently obstinate about East Bay flyers. Give them competitive fares, frequent service at convenient times, and a decent on-board experience coupled with some, you know, Marketing so they know you exist and they will come. I once got some very valuable business advice: "If you ignore your potential customers, they'll ignore you." It was true then and it's true for AS in OAK.
kevincrumbs likes this.
IStream is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:10 am
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 30,839
Originally Posted by Kacee View Post
Which is just crazy, because WN fares are often quite high. Pax are regularly paying >$500 RT to fly to SoCal or the NW on WN. It stopped being a low cost carrier years ago but the myth persists.

I don't know if a concerted effort could break this pattern. I haven't seen much if any local marketing by AS (nor DL before it bailed on the LAX route).
No marketing to speak of. I used the OAK/LAX (DL) a few times. That route was part of my incentive to get some DL status. I used the OAK/SNA (AS) several years back - and fares were often cheaper than WN. It is what it is. Given the ATC and ground ops clusters that SEA/SFO/LAX have become, I welcome any opportunity to have an alternate departure or connection point, and AS just isn't going to provide that to me in the near term.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:14 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AS MVPG 75K
Posts: 966
Originally Posted by IStream View Post
There's nothing inherently obstinate about East Bay flyers. Give them competitive fares, frequent service at convenient times, and a decent on-board experience coupled with some, you know, Marketing so they know you exist and they will come. I once got some very valuable business advice: "If you ignore your potential customers, they'll ignore you." It was true then and it's true for AS in OAK.
Where is that not true?
milypan is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:16 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 30,839
Originally Posted by milypan View Post


Where is that not true?
In a North Korean market.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:27 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by Kacee View Post
Which is just crazy, because WN fares are often quite high. Pax are regularly paying >$500 RT to fly to SoCal or the NW on WN. It stopped being a low cost carrier years ago but the myth persists.

I don't know if a concerted effort could break this pattern. I haven't seen much if any local marketing by AS (nor DL before it bailed on the LAX route).
There is certainly marketing out there. There's the giant Durant billboard facing both terminals at OAK, and similar advertising ("Bring it in, Oakland") throughout BART, even at SFO. Most Ford bike share stations in Oakland are Alaska-branded. AC Transit bus shelters have AS-to-Hawaii advertising now. I doubt there's an airline with more physical advertising out there now. It's just odd to do so much in the east bay, including Oakland-specific advertising, but then not try to leverage with any actual service.
ucdtim17 is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:30 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: Alaska Airlines MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by milypan View Post


Where is that not true?
In the East Bay, according to some.
IStream is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:33 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: Alaska Airlines MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by ucdtim17 View Post
There is certainly marketing out there. There's the giant Durant billboard facing both terminals at OAK, and similar advertising ("Bring it in, Oakland") throughout BART, even at SFO. Most Ford bike share stations in Oakland are Alaska-branded. AC Transit bus shelters have AS-to-Hawaii advertising now. I doubt there's an airline with more physical advertising out there now. It's just odd to do so much in the east bay, including Oakland-specific advertising, but then not try to leverage with any actual service.
Yes, you do have to actually deliver an attractive product along with your marketing or you're wasting your money. At best, you'll get them to look at your website and when they see a pathetic offering, they'll bail and you won't get a second look for a long time. Play the game properly or go home.
IStream is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:41 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by IStream View Post
Yes, you do have to actually deliver an attractive product along with your marketing or you're wasting your money. At best, you'll get them to look at your website and when they see a pathetic offering, they'll bail and you won't get a second look for a long time. Play the game properly or go home.
Yes. If you're going to force everyone to to go SFO, a large portion will just use WN at OAK, and then if you're going to SFO, you have a much larger network with UA and many more options overall to consider. And the combine that with the bit-by-bit deconstruction of almost all your unique, consumer-friendly offerings, you're not giving anyone a particular reason to choose you.
IStream likes this.
ucdtim17 is offline  
Old Nov 1, 18, 11:49 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by IStream View Post
BS, they just don't want to fight for the business. I fly into Oakland weekly on AS. That'll be changing with the degradation of their mileage plan and drastic cuts in service.

I absolutely agree will you. They don't want to fight for it because they can get a higher return on their limited resources at another airport where WN is not quite as dominant, ie less than 70% market share. Very similar to what happened in Spokane. At one point AS withdrew all mainline from Spokane and only serving the city with Horizon flights. Once they worked through the challenges in the other parts of the system mainline service returned. Something very similar may happen at OAK or they just may decide to withdraw from the airport completely. It depends on where they can make the best return on their investment.
SNAnghbr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: