Major Midcon/Transcon Schedule Reduction (Winter 2020)
Aug 30, 2019, 7:48 am
#61
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SW WA
Posts: 3,884
Not much really in the way of LAX cuts here (other than the massively underperforming BUR-SJC - which shouldn't have survived this long) ... but Alaska has to figure out what it wants to be in California.
I'm a Los Angeles based flyer - and nearly all of my annual travel is personal. I'm born and raised in SEA, so I make ~6 annual R/Ts back to the PNW to visit friends and family. Because this makes up the bulk of my repetitive trips - I have stayed loyal to AS for the sake of the BUR-SEA flights, which are well timed, and often price competitive, and due my work location in far north LA county, much easier to get to on a Friday after work than the slog to LAX.
But post VX merger, we've seen little growth East/West out of LAX. And the AS yield management department prices their connecting flights as A+B=C rather than the price the origin / destination pair, so this means that connecting through SFO to go east can be outrageously expensive compared to the competition.
At this point, given the competitive environment, AS has to be a network carrier. They can't go back to being a niche, west coast carrier with some minimal point to point service to other destinations. The competition is going to eat them alive.
I'm just not sure how I can justify keeping my flying with AS for 2020. I'll most likely requal as MVP for next year. What I value of status is not the redemptions ... but the status perks - priority boarding, the *rare* upgrade, free exit row. But I may have to take a hard look at moving my flying to Delta next year as I have a couple of domestic trips that AS won't work for, at all, next year and DL would, easily.
I know I'm not the only one thinking this way, yet my BUR-SEA flights are constantly packed with elites (MVP Golds, etc), so the network is working for someone.
I'm a Los Angeles based flyer - and nearly all of my annual travel is personal. I'm born and raised in SEA, so I make ~6 annual R/Ts back to the PNW to visit friends and family. Because this makes up the bulk of my repetitive trips - I have stayed loyal to AS for the sake of the BUR-SEA flights, which are well timed, and often price competitive, and due my work location in far north LA county, much easier to get to on a Friday after work than the slog to LAX.
But post VX merger, we've seen little growth East/West out of LAX. And the AS yield management department prices their connecting flights as A+B=C rather than the price the origin / destination pair, so this means that connecting through SFO to go east can be outrageously expensive compared to the competition.
At this point, given the competitive environment, AS has to be a network carrier. They can't go back to being a niche, west coast carrier with some minimal point to point service to other destinations. The competition is going to eat them alive.
I'm just not sure how I can justify keeping my flying with AS for 2020. I'll most likely requal as MVP for next year. What I value of status is not the redemptions ... but the status perks - priority boarding, the *rare* upgrade, free exit row. But I may have to take a hard look at moving my flying to Delta next year as I have a couple of domestic trips that AS won't work for, at all, next year and DL would, easily.
I know I'm not the only one thinking this way, yet my BUR-SEA flights are constantly packed with elites (MVP Golds, etc), so the network is working for someone.
We've decided to shift away from chasing status entirely. We'll buy premium class if we want it (we've had a number of flights this year where as 2 Golds we didn't even clear into premium), and book based on price & convenience instead of loyalty to AS. We've turned ourselves into pretzels over the years trying to get on AS flights from LAX/BUR that were less convenient than AA or DL flights, and we've concluded there's really no point to it.
Aug 30, 2019, 7:55 am
#62
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,844
Which in the LA basin makes total sense. When you have a wide variety of choice, why not select the best option for each trip? Different carriers have different strengths and weaknesses so it is most logical to pick the one that best serves your needs for each trip.
Aug 30, 2019, 9:29 am
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,599
Except sometimes keeping some sort of status somewhere makes sense. Of course, status only means something if you're patronizing the airline in which you've got status. It is still good to know that I've got free changes, and if I can't go somewhere, I don't have to worry about losing my dough. I'd probably go through at least a couple hundred $ of award change fees per year. I'll probably do what it takes to keep MVPG this year, but 75K is most probably out of the question.
Aug 30, 2019, 9:30 am
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,067
Even this is the case, it doesn’t fix the problem with AS not being able to fill planes on premium routes. If Alaska was hitting 40% on the SFO-PHL route, a fleet of new MAX planes would not have stopped this route from being cut. Same with SFO-RDU. As a former investor, I think it’s clear this is not a problem with fleet capacity. It’s a product failure.
So this could arguably be a fleet issue. It's not something the MAX can address, but maybe some A220's could do the trick if AS didn't have this fixation for Boeing planes.
Aug 30, 2019, 9:48 am
#65
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,844
Aug 30, 2019, 9:53 am
#66
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
As long as they only have business in a handful of other cities in their own time zone. Otherwise:
Originally Posted by jjmadison
The last round of cuts already pushed me to fly American and United more than I have in years. Now I'm even more concerned that staying loyal to AS was a mistake.
Top destinations from SAN: SFO, DEN, SEA, PHX, SJC, LAS. SMF, DFW, ORD, OAK.
This shows that traffic is predominantly N-S. Yes, there will some travelers pushed to other carriers with the cancellation of ABQ or MCI, but more people would be better served by strengthening schedules in the largest markets. There are some conspicuous holes, particularly with DEN and AA's hubs. These will need to be filled if there is going to be increased O&D relevance.
Although mid-cons from SEA and PDX are some of the highest yielding routes in AS' network, they found that the strategy does not immediately translate to markets with lower share. You need to be highly relevant and beneficial to the majority of traffic (N-S, key business centers) before expanding into the smaller midcon markets.
The recent changes are also about increasing relevance in BOI, GEG, and RDM - historically strong AS markets that have been somewhat ignored.
Aug 30, 2019, 10:01 am
#67
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,844
It is not just about putting a check mark to say you fly there. You have to have a relevant product and schedule. One flight a day to ORD/BOS is just not going to be attractive to people on either end. AS management touted the acquisition as a way to broaden their relevance from California when in actuality they are just retreating back to where they were flying before and are less relevant than even VX was in BOS/ORD/DEN--and arguably even EWR/JFK where they are by far the weakest in terms of both schedule and product.
Aug 30, 2019, 10:12 am
#68
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
It is not just about putting a check mark to say you fly there. You have to have a relevant product and schedule. One flight a day to ORD/BOS is just not going to be attractive to people on either end. AS management touted the acquisition as a way to broaden their relevance from California when in actuality they are just retreating back to where they were flying before and are less relevant than even VX was in BOS/ORD/DEN--and arguably even EWR/JFK where they are by far the weakest in terms of both schedule and product.
There's also a fallacy that AS is a network carrier and needs to have a leading mid-con/trans-con schedule. AS is clear that it is positioning itself as a hybrid/value airline and that means it is not going to compete with UA on SFO-BOS frequency or with AA/UA on schedules into ORD. AS (and B6) have proven that there is space in the market for someone between AA/DL/UA and NK/F9.
Aug 30, 2019, 10:53 am
#69
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,844
I think a key point of my entire post was that it's not about putting a check mark to say you fly there... You start with the biggest markets and build up share with increased relevance before moving on to smaller, once-daily "check mark" destinations, e.g. it is infinitely more valuable to fly SFO/SJC-SAN/SNA 6-7x daily, rather than a 1x daily flight to MCI, etc.
There's also a fallacy that AS is a network carrier and needs to have a leading mid-con/trans-con schedule. AS is clear that it is positioning itself as a hybrid/value airline and that means it is not going to compete with UA on SFO-BOS frequency or with AA/UA on schedules into ORD. AS (and B6) have proven that there is space in the market for someone between AA/DL/UA and NK/F9.
There's also a fallacy that AS is a network carrier and needs to have a leading mid-con/trans-con schedule. AS is clear that it is positioning itself as a hybrid/value airline and that means it is not going to compete with UA on SFO-BOS frequency or with AA/UA on schedules into ORD. AS (and B6) have proven that there is space in the market for someone between AA/DL/UA and NK/F9.
Aug 30, 2019, 11:11 am
#70
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Programs: AS MVPG75k
Posts: 330
That would be relevant if that is what AS were actually doing. AS has cut service from SFO/LAX to BOS/JFK/IAD/ORD and from SFO-DEN from the levels that even VX had--so if you are talking about the biggest markets, they have just shrunk their presence rather than even attempted to be more relevant/compete. So sure they can offer plenty of frequency with $39 fares from SFO-LAX but most people don't care one way or the other about the product on a 50 minute flight. AS is clearly creating a network that is relevant to people in SEA but is not at all invested in even the top 10 places people in SFO want to go and that commitment gets even weaker with each passing month.
For a while now, it's felt like AS was intentionally trying to kill the BWI route, scheduling the departure within 10 min of the IAD departure. Why not spread out departures so you actually have a range of departure time options? I'm sure there's some reason, but I don't get it. *end rant*
Last edited by jjmadison; Aug 30, 2019 at 11:46 am
Aug 30, 2019, 11:18 am
#71
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BWI
Programs: AS MVP 75K, UA 1MM
Posts: 786
I have been flying these routes a lot. When going west, I've am usually flying BWI-SAN-SFO or BWI-SFO, depending on the time I need to be in SF. The delays at LAX often result in misconnections, and the timing through SEA is generally terrible.
I see a return to United flying in my future. :-(
Aug 30, 2019, 11:33 am
#72
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
That would be relevant if that is what AS were actually doing. AS has cut service from SFO/LAX to BOS/JFK/IAD/ORD and from SFO-DEN from the levels that even VX had--so if you are talking about the biggest markets, they have just shrunk their presence rather than even attempted to be more relevant/compete. So sure they can offer plenty of frequency with $39 fares from SFO-LAX but most people don't care one way or the other about the product on a 50 minute flight. AS is clearly creating a network that is relevant to people in SEA but is not at all invested in even the top 10 places people in SFO want to go and that commitment gets even weaker with each passing month.
While there is one less flight to JFK from SFO/LAX than pre-merger, there is more capacity to EWR. Plus, SJC has a JFK and EWR flight. Similarly, the frequency reduction to IAD is offset by additional (albeit seasonal) flights to BWI. Yes, it would be nice if AS had a better schedule to BOS, ORD and DEN. However, at the end of the day, they need to work with limited gates in ORD (with few near-term prospects for feasible expansion), a tough yield environment and limited gates in BOS, and a blood bath in DEN. Unlike other mid-con destinations, it's not competitive to start DEN with 1, 2 or even 3 flights. Is it worth running a competitive schedule and loosing millions to make FlyerTalkers happy?
Aug 30, 2019, 11:39 am
#73
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
You're doing slightly better than me. I'm at 97% on 32 flights, only missing out on OAK-LIH back in March. Will finish this weekend at the 66K mark so slowly making progress to requalifying. Not sure I'll fly 75K in 2020, though, and might end up just making Gold at 40K and use my AA/UA lifetime status for other domestic flights, though bringing in 2,000 miles on AA/UA transcons will hurt compared to 11,000 miles at Alaska. Still frustrated that AS only has one flight a day to a couple east coast destinations and that I'm stuck with a late afternoon/early evening flight home when I'd prefer to fly in the morning, but the trade-off has been the accrued miles. Won't do red-eyes at all which also eliminates some cities entirely.
Aug 30, 2019, 11:44 am
#74
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SFO, mostly
Posts: 2,203
You are right -- when the AA reciprocity deal died, it took AS off most peoples' radar screens outside the west coast. The customer in the Midwest or East who flew 70% AA, 30% AS and compiled AS miles now flies 100% AA, or something else, and 0% AS. The problem goes deeper than feeding AS flights; the change reduces the chance that most people not in SEA/SFO/PDX/LAX/Alaska who have FF programs in mind will even consider AS. And if those people are not FF-driven, but purely price or schedule shoppers? Beyond its narrow Pacific catchment AS is never the schedule leader and rarely the price leader.
But I think there is no chance of restoring a robust partnership with a legacy; the last, best, and most obvious move is a reciprocal codeshare/FF deal with JetBlue, but that still won't get anyone from Baton Rouge to Ketchikan.
But I think there is no chance of restoring a robust partnership with a legacy; the last, best, and most obvious move is a reciprocal codeshare/FF deal with JetBlue, but that still won't get anyone from Baton Rouge to Ketchikan.
Aug 30, 2019, 11:47 am
#75
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Programs: AS MVPG75k
Posts: 330
There are a heck of a lot more people that fly SFO-LAX than to any of the other destinations. AS (or AA or DL) could cut lower-yielding capacity on that route, but it would make them less relevant to the business travelers that fly on other routes.
While there is one less flight to JFK from SFO/LAX than pre-merger, there is more capacity to EWR. Plus, SJC has a JFK and EWR flight. Similarly, the frequency reduction to IAD is offset by additional (albeit seasonal) flights to BWI. Yes, it would be nice if AS had a better schedule to BOS, ORD and DEN. However, at the end of the day, they need to work with limited gates in ORD (with few near-term prospects for feasible expansion), a tough yield environment and limited gates in BOS, and a blood bath in DEN. Unlike other mid-con destinations, it's not competitive to start DEN with 1, 2 or even 3 flights. Is it worth running a competitive schedule and loosing millions to make FlyerTalkers happy?
While there is one less flight to JFK from SFO/LAX than pre-merger, there is more capacity to EWR. Plus, SJC has a JFK and EWR flight. Similarly, the frequency reduction to IAD is offset by additional (albeit seasonal) flights to BWI. Yes, it would be nice if AS had a better schedule to BOS, ORD and DEN. However, at the end of the day, they need to work with limited gates in ORD (with few near-term prospects for feasible expansion), a tough yield environment and limited gates in BOS, and a blood bath in DEN. Unlike other mid-con destinations, it's not competitive to start DEN with 1, 2 or even 3 flights. Is it worth running a competitive schedule and loosing millions to make FlyerTalkers happy?