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)

Eastbay1K Oct 29, 18 8:28 pm

OAK/PDX Reduced to 2X/Day (November 2018)
 
:eek: That is a shocker. I had no idea how much the OAK station is being decimated. And the 2x/day in the fall are afternoon/evening - you can't even get to PDX in the AM. Looks like the West Coast Most stock ticker is spelled LUV. :(

ucdtim17 Oct 29, 18 10:53 pm

Last winter it went to 2x daily, but that was with 737s because of the pilot shortage, and they at least kept the more useful early and late flights, instead of mid day and evening. Hopefully it'll go back to 3x daily as scheduled in March. I hold out a tiny bit of hope that at some point they'll finally attempt to compete at OAK, to offer anything else, but they appear pretty firmly committed to being an SFO/SJC-only airline (despite the inexplicable Oakland-specific advertising).

eponymous_coward Oct 29, 18 10:54 pm

SEA-LAS is twice a day on WN some days. SEA-PHX isn’t all that either on WN, 3x some days. I’d say the fiefdoms are being carved up.

ucdtim17 Oct 29, 18 11:00 pm

Meanwhile, WN is going to 7x daily on the route

worldwidedreamer Oct 30, 18 12:25 am

Both airlines serve their customers. As AS grows at SFO there is less need for people from
OAK to connect in PDX.

Eastbay1K Oct 30, 18 12:39 am


Originally Posted by worldwidedreamer (Post 30371543)
Both airlines serve their customers. As AS grows at SFO there is less need for people from
OAK to connect in PDX.

Um no. That doesn't make sense. We don't want to go to SFO. There is also apparently plenty of OD if WN is at 7 a day.

Kacee Oct 30, 18 12:40 am


Originally Posted by worldwidedreamer (Post 30371543)
Both airlines serve their customers. As AS grows at SFO there is less need for people from OAK to connect in PDX.

Not exactly. The problem is that WN offers so much frequency ex-OAK, it's really difficult for anyone to compete with them. They've already chased DL off of OAK-LAX.

milypan Oct 30, 18 1:36 am


Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30370990)
:eek: That is a shocker. I had no idea how much the OAK station is being decimated. And the 2x/day in the fall are afternoon/evening - you can't even get to PDX in the AM. Looks like the West Coast Most stock ticker is spelled LUV. :(

Still beats the UA frequencies for OAK-LAX or OAK-DEN...

tphuang Oct 30, 18 7:31 am


Originally Posted by eponymous_coward (Post 30371368)
SEA-LAS is twice a day on WN some days. SEA-PHX isnít all that either on WN, 3x some days. Iíd say the fiefdoms are being carved up.

+this

this intra-west coast war is going to come to close at some point. Both sides are going to shrink on their loosing battles.

formeraa Oct 30, 18 11:08 am

All airlines are being very careful with excess capacity. If the bookings don't support a flight at a particular time, then that flight is removed from the schedule. I guess OAK-PDX is one of those markets for AS (but perhaps not for WN). The OP can write an email to AS,.if they would like to complain.

Eastbay1K Oct 30, 18 11:34 am


Originally Posted by formeraa (Post 30373167)
All airlines are being very careful with excess capacity. If the bookings don't support a flight at a particular time, then that flight is removed from the schedule. I guess OAK-PDX is one of those markets for AS (but perhaps not for WN). The OP can write an email to AS,.if they would like to complain.

"They" is he, and complaining doesn't do anything. I was just really surprised that the route is a sad shadow of its former self, and it is another example of how many Bay Area folks are not able to patronize the "West Coast Most" airline very conveniently anymore, notwithstanding advertising to the contrary.

ucdtim17 Oct 30, 18 11:41 am

For people who want an alternative to WN as AS continues to ignore OAK, JetSuiteX is continuing to grow, now flying to BUR, SNA, LAS and RNO.

channa Oct 30, 18 11:51 am


Originally Posted by ucdtim17 (Post 30373281)
For people who want an alternative to WN as AS continues to ignore OAK, JetSuiteX is continuing to grow, now flying to BUR, SNA, LAS and RNO.

JetSuiteX also serves CCR for those who live out that way. There's free parking at CCR too.


AS has also dropped the evening SEA-OAK's as well. Starting around March 10, the last SEA-OAK leaves at 3:35 PM. There used to be a 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm or so.

Eastbay1K Oct 30, 18 11:52 am


Originally Posted by ucdtim17 (Post 30373281)
For people who want an alternative to WN as AS continues to ignore OAK, JetSuiteX is continuing to grow, now flying to BUR, SNA, LAS and RNO.

Yes. Took it once. Other than the hassle of getting the B6 points to post, loved it.

WebTraveler Oct 30, 18 7:30 pm


Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30370990)
:eek: That is a shocker. I had no idea how much the OAK station is being decimated. And the 2x/day in the fall are afternoon/evening - you can't even get to PDX in the AM. Looks like the West Coast Most stock ticker is spelled LUV. :(

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.

ucdtim17 Oct 31, 18 10:14 am


Originally Posted by WebTraveler (Post 30375014)
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.

SNAnghbr Oct 31, 18 10:36 pm

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.

channa Nov 1, 18 12:45 am


Originally Posted by SNAnghbr (Post 30379464)
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.

fly18725 Nov 1, 18 7:31 am


Originally Posted by channa (Post 30379705)
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.

IStream Nov 1, 18 10:11 am


Originally Posted by SNAnghbr (Post 30379464)
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.

Kacee Nov 1, 18 10:52 am


Originally Posted by channa (Post 30379705)
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).

IStream Nov 1, 18 10:56 am

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.

Eastbay1K Nov 1, 18 11:10 am


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 30381268)
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.

milypan Nov 1, 18 11:14 am


Originally Posted by IStream (Post 30381288)
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?

Eastbay1K Nov 1, 18 11:16 am


Originally Posted by milypan (Post 30381368)


Where is that not true?

In a North Korean market.

ucdtim17 Nov 1, 18 11:27 am


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 30381268)
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.

IStream Nov 1, 18 11:30 am


Originally Posted by milypan (Post 30381368)


Where is that not true?

In the East Bay, according to some.

IStream Nov 1, 18 11:33 am


Originally Posted by ucdtim17 (Post 30381410)
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.

ucdtim17 Nov 1, 18 11:41 am


Originally Posted by IStream (Post 30381435)
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.

SNAnghbr Nov 1, 18 11:49 am


Originally Posted by IStream (Post 30381083)
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.

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:54 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.