FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Alaska Airlines | Mileage Plan (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan-442/)
-   -   OAK/PDX Reduced to 2X/Day (November 2018) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/1938035-oak-pdx-reduced-2x-day-november-2018-a.html)

NoLaGent Nov 1, 18 11:55 am

Maybe they're waiting to see how Hawaii tweaks OAK's #s once WN starts service? Between WN's dominance and HA's far superior service to the Islands, I'd be surprised if further cuts aren't forthcoming.

ucdtim17 Nov 1, 18 12:04 pm


Originally Posted by NoLaGent (Post 30381510)
Maybe they're waiting to see how Hawaii tweaks OAK's #s once WN starts service? Between WN's dominance and HA's far superior service to the Islands, I'd be surprised if further cuts aren't forthcoming.

AS certainly looks like the odd man out in OAK-to-Hawaii. I doubt there is room for all three carriers to succeed. I would still be surprised if they cut and don't replace it with anything, letting the AS presence further wither down to minimal SEA/PDX service, but it wouldn't be a total shock given their lack on interest in OAK to date.

ucdtim17 Nov 1, 18 12:18 pm


Originally Posted by SNAnghbr (Post 30381484)
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.

This is true, but they're also provoking a similar response from WN at SJC to what they would get at OAK. WN was smaller but has quickly ramped up (see PDX going from 4x to 8x daily). Maybe there's room for 100+ flight WN operation and a 50 flight AS operation, but that would be a new thing for SJC.

SNAnghbr Nov 1, 18 12:34 pm


Originally Posted by ucdtim17 (Post 30381623)
This is true, but they're also provoking a similar response from WN at SJC to what they would get at OAK. WN was smaller but has quickly ramped up (see PDX going from 4x to 8x daily). Maybe there's room for 100+ flight WN operation and a 50 flight AS operation, but that would be a new thing for SJC.

True but WN only has about a 50% market share so they might have a lite more wiggle room in the SJC market. Also SJC is getting 4 more gate plus a ground load option down by gate 30 so there might be a little more gate space at SJC as well in the future.

channa Nov 1, 18 1:03 pm


Originally Posted by milypan (Post 30381368)


Where is that not true?

It's true everywhere, but WN's absence from most GDS systems plus conditioned behavior over the years have East Bay flyers just checking the WN website and calling it a day as opposed to comparison shopping. Just makes it more difficult for someone else to get in.

I have personally seen business travelers do stuff like pay more to fly OAK-ONT and rent a car vs. going to SFO and flying SFO-PSP where they really needed to go, then come back and complain about the SoCal traffic. :D

milypan Nov 1, 18 1:20 pm


Originally Posted by IStream (Post 30381423)
In the East Bay, according to some.

Sure. So it's possible to be competitive anywhere, but at OAK they face additional headwinds due to WN's dominant market share and dilution/crowd out of service across SFO and SJC (which are both AS hubs or focus cities). Given limited resources, why not invest in places with milder headwinds?

ucdtim17 Nov 1, 18 1:59 pm


Originally Posted by milypan (Post 30381884)
Sure. So it's possible to be competitive anywhere, but at OAK they face additional headwinds due to WN's dominant market share and dilution/crowd out of service across SFO and SJC (which are both AS hubs or focus cities). Given limited resources, why not invest in places with milder headwinds?

They're also passing up an opportunity at retaliatory expansion. WN is (much) larger (except at SFO) and aggressively growing at AS hubs/focus cities in California, but AS doesn't return the favor at WN's second largest station in the state. Limited resources, pick your battles, etc ... leads to a nice uncontested win for WN, allowing them to allocate more resources to the aforementioned battles.

Eastbay1K Nov 1, 18 3:41 pm


Originally Posted by SNAnghbr (Post 30381703)
True but WN only has about a 50% market share so they might have a lite more wiggle room in the SJC market. Also SJC is getting 4 more gate plus a ground load option down by gate 30 so there might be a little more gate space at SJC as well in the future.

Well, WN has wiggled its way well into OAK T1, and AS has squirmed out to the end of the terminal.

I wonder how much of this is (1) OAK routes have been losing money, vs (2) The resources could be put into more profitable ops today. If (2), it seems a bit shortsighted, if AS wants to be the place we look first for the entire Bay Area.

milypan Nov 1, 18 3:54 pm


Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30382427)
I wonder how much of this is (1) OAK routes have been losing money, vs (2) The resources could be put into more profitable ops today. If (2), it seems a bit shortsighted, if AS wants to be the place we look first for the entire Bay Area.

I think there's a general consensus that they have no goal to be "the place we look first" for anywhere in the Bay Area.

ucdtim17 Nov 1, 18 4:24 pm


Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30382427)
Well, WN has wiggled its way well into OAK T1, and AS has squirmed out to the end of the terminal.

I wonder how much of this is (1) OAK routes have been losing money, vs (2) The resources could be put into more profitable ops today. If (2), it seems a bit shortsighted, if AS wants to be the place we look first for the entire Bay Area.

To the extent it's #1 , they have whatever the opposite of a network effect is working against them. If you offer poor (Q400) service in small portions (2-3x daily), don't be surprised if you don't make much money.

Kacee Nov 1, 18 6:57 pm


Originally Posted by channa (Post 30381827)
It's true everywhere, but WN's absence from most GDS systems plus conditioned behavior over the years have East Bay flyers just checking the WN website and calling it a day as opposed to comparison shopping. Just makes it more difficult for someone else to get in.

This is definitely true, I know quite a few of these people.

They'll only look beyond southwest.com if it's a route WN doesn't conveniently serve. Which is why WN adding Hawaii doesn't bode well for AS's Hawaii service.

worldwidedreamer Nov 1, 18 7:09 pm


Originally Posted by ucdtim17 (Post 30381463)
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 it boggles the mind that AS can't find a realistic way to serve Alaska Lounge members at SFO, OAK or SJC. It even formerly had an SFO club before the airport became a hub.
In the Bay Area:
•For infrequent travelers Alaska means bag and change fees vs WN.
•For frequent travelers it means change fees, a limited schedule, and no lounge vs UA or WN.
Either way not hitting the mark.

bofc Nov 3, 18 1:36 am

IF the results are poor for AS out of OAK i chalk it up to a self fulfilling prophecy. Example: For years the PDX - OAK route was one of the longest Q400 routes in the system (competing with WN using 737s). Now with better equipment they cut service to twice a day. The reality is that East Bay residents or travelers specifically DON'T want to fly to/from SFO. And the Southwest "experience" leaves a lot to be desired, especially for business travelers. It's been many years since AS actually went all out to serve Oakland (other than on their Hawaii flights). I've found the saturation of flights on multiple airlines from SFO to the Northwest often makes fares from SFO much lower than out of Oakland. So I doubt there is a profit margin issue since the few OAK flights are generally full. Surrendering to WN is bad sign for Alaska's long-term success. "Most West Coast" should be changed to "Most West Coast - unless another airline wants to compete with us in which case we run away".

channa Nov 3, 18 5:21 am

There are 2.7 million people who live in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It's tough to imagine they couldn't make more work with a concerted effort to counter WN's marketing.

eponymous_coward Nov 3, 18 10:56 am


Originally Posted by channa (Post 30387816)
There are 2.7 million people who live in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It's tough to imagine they couldn't make more work with a concerted effort to counter WN's marketing.

You mean like how UA, DL and BA have worked for those customers by abandoning routes or the station completely?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:44 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.