dayone

Alaska Airlines Finally Cancels Its 30 Airbus A320neo Aircraft Order - Simple Flying

navydevildoc

I don't think this really surprises anyone, does it? They are really only using the neos for DCA, correct?

The MAX gets them the same range and passenger load, and lets them slowly return to an all Boeing fleet, finally shedding the overhead of maintaining Airbus maintenance, training, and flight crews.

imaflyertalkuserwow

Not surprising and an obviously smart business move, but still disappointed. I prefer the A320 to the 738 and the A321 to the 739. Of course I don’t fly AS because of their fleet, so neither aircraft will change my purchasing decision.

Eurynom0s

I'm not trying to start another "Alaska ruined Virgin" ****fest here but at this point what exactly did Alaska get by buying Virgin? At this point it seems like buying Virgin was just burning cash to get rid of a west coast competitor. Whereas it's very clear what JetBlue would have gotten out of Virgin, something resembling a national network and a bunch of planes that were the same as the ones they already flew.

eponymous_coward

They fly to JFK as well. Anyplace where it makes sense for AS to throw it’s biggest capacity plane into the mix.

And AS would have had a larger B6 entrenched in CA blocking their ability to expand in those markets, plus DL in their own backyard. Seems pretty obvious that AS wouldn’t want any hope of future expansion blocked off. You could see B6 doing things like SJC-LAX, expanding at SAN and SJC in a world where they win VX- they went pretty aggressively into EWR.

Eastbay1K

I was more surprised by the return of glassware and warm nuts this month.

AS Flyer

The MAX holds less people than the 321 NEO and can't go as far as the 321 NEO. It's also less roomy inside - which makes the 321 feel like a better experience for passengers. Alaska has used the 321 NEO to a number of cities over the years. Presently, it seems as though they're flying to DCA, JFK, SFO and LAX. They've been used to PVR, MCO, FLL, BOS, GEG, SAN and other cities over the years.

You kind of answered your own question here. JetBlue would have gained a stronger foothold along the west coast and foundation to create a much stronger network along the west coast. If they had done that it would have pushed Alaska to become the 6th largest airline and made it much harder to continue their west coast expansion. Alaska didn't "ruin" Virgin. Virgin was going away one way or another. Given JetBlue's operational difficulties over the last year or so everyone would have been complaining about them at this point also. Different complaints, still complaints. I also wonder if JetBlue would have survived the merger - in ordinary times, no problems. Covid came along and changed everything. JetBlue didn't have the resources as readily available to buy JetBlue so not only would they have been contending with the enormous losses brought on by the pandemic, they would have also been struggling to pay back the massive amounts of money they would have had to borrow to buy Virgin. My own opinion - when it was clear that Alaska wasn't going to back away and let them have it, they just played a game of chicken to drive up the price of Virgin to make it more difficult for Alaska.

isaacchambers

The 320neo order was a convenient hedge over the max crisis....nothing more. Its waning (some would say resolved) so the orders are no longer needed.....If the maxes were still grounded today....im sure the 320s in storage would all have come back.....and a firm look at keeping the neos....

Eurynom0s

If the conclusion is that yes, Alaska's only real goal was trying to get rid of west coast competition, then the natural follow-on is that it's very frustrating that the feds approved a purely anticompetitive acquisition. Alaska argued that this acquisition would make them more competitive with UA/DL/AA to get the acquisition approved. Instead they've just removed a player that was exerting price pressure on them and their partnership with AA, which had to be severed as part of the acquisition, is already back bigger than ever with first the west coast partnership thing and then the oneworld membership. JetBlue getting VX would have reduced the overall number of players in the airline space but would have at least maintained the amount of competition on the routes where Alaska and VX overlapped (which was, what...90% of the routes?).

chrisl137

If covid hadn't happened, AS very well might have maintained and expanded competition. Covid threw everybody in the blender, though, and they're all trying to figure out where air travel is going from here and how to start making money again.

AS Flyer

*AS and VX overlapped on a small handful of routes, not even close to 90%. More like 10-15% if that - SFO-PSP/PVR/SJD/SEA and LAX-PDX/SEA. That's it really.

*AS wasn't required to "sever their relationship with AA". They had to eliminate some of the codeshares that overlapped - that's it. The West Coast partnership happened years later, right about the NEA between JetBlue and American happened. So, while you may think that the AS/AA West Coast Partnership eliminates competition, the same would have to be said for the JetBlue/AA NorthEast Alliance. AA and B6 are codesharing on the extremely lucrative NYC-LAX/SFO routes, eliminating a competitor. AS and AA are not codesharing on those routes.

*This acquisition wasn't to eliminate a competitor (I'm assuming you mean VX). VX really wasn't much of a competitor to AS. They were more of a competitor to JetBlue if anything, competing for the premium LAX/SFO-JFK/BOS/FLL/IAD traffic, along with the LAX/LGB-SEA/PDX/LAS/SFO/AUS/MCO traffic

*VX's board was looking for a buyer so VX was going away. Whether they became JetBlue or Alaska, there was going to be no more Virgin America regardless.

*My personal opinion is that AS bought VX to keep JetBlue from exploding on the west coast overnight. VX's board of directors said they would entertain offers to purchase them. JetBlue had come sniffing around. Alaska couldn't allow JetBlue to set up camp on the west coast with a sizeable airport presence gained in the merger and a number of Airbus airplanes with which to expand. Doing so would have meant that AS would be nothing more than a small pacific NW airline as JetBlue became exponentially larger along the west coast.

*Covid threw a huge wrench in the mix. Nobody will ever know if JetBlue could have survived the merger with Covid right on the heels of it. Nobody knows what would have happened at LAX or SFO for JetBlue if they had been the acquiring airline - if they would have dramatically scaled back flights just like every other airline. SFO is not what it was before Covid. They're struggling mightily to get back to pre-Covid traffic but aren't even close. The business just isn't there like it was before the pandemic. JetBlue wouldn't have made that any different.

jiburi

I was hoping AS would convert these orders to a A321neo. Seem that leverage from this A320neo order is gone.

Jiburi

Eastbay1K

I don't seriously think that (1) there was any real leverage from the prior agreement, and (2) Airbus would still be like flies on dog poopoodoodookaka should AS ever express real interest in its product at some future point.

eponymous_coward

My guess is that AS really doesn’t need a 36 plane A321neo subfleet, especially given that there’s likely a longer line for A321neos than 737MAXes and 737MAXes are priced to sell. The fleet economics favor the MAX given that a lot of AS flight operations aren’t at the ragged edge of their range.

The A321neo would probably be the plane you want if you wanted a premium transcon subfleet (at the risk of yet ANOTHER stale bunfight that has been endlessly litigated on AS FT)- better capacity than a MAX9 (so you can cram in Y pax). AS does not want one of those. Thus…

imaflyertalkuserwow

The flyertalkers were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of B6 lie flats danced in their heads