cethen

It appears so. National seems to be hinting at suspending ops. Never flown them, but this kind of memo is still kinda sad.

http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/m...hp?memo_id=783

jwright

National isn't that new; they've been flying since May 1999.

------------------
Jon Wright
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

avmba

I'm guessing he's refering to the SEA-LAS service, which National only recently started.

verhalen

National has won a few more days / weeks to seek financing.

Not to offend any National employees / pax personally, but the fact is that there are too many airlines chasing the same low-fare business to/from LAS, and it would be better for the overall market if one or more of the players were to leave. This is a genuine case of overcapacity; even the low fare guys can't fill all their seats in the LAS market.

cethen

I'm guessing he's refering to the SEA-LAS service, which National only recently started.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was referring to. Introduction of National's non-stop 757 LAS-SEA route began on May 23 2002, and came with pretty good buzz in the Seattle area.

I don’t know how many seats National is filling on this run, but I noticed that many of AS's fares quickly came down to match their new competitor. And not long after that came AS's "buy one get one free" deal to LAS and RNO.

So if National doesn’t make it, I’ll kind of miss them. The way I see it, I’ve saved a hundred or so bucks and got a couple free R/T tickets thanks to them – without even boarding one of their planes.


[This message has been edited by cethen (edited 08-21-2002).]

BearX220

Flyers like you, I'm afraid, are why they won't make it.

If you don't support the new entrants who drive down prices through competition, the new entrants die and prices snap back up because there's no more competition. Travelers who stick to the dominant carrier, enjoying the temporary fruits of its predatory pricing policies intended solely to destroy competitors (and AS's SEA-LAS future-travel-cert offer was clearly designed to destroy National, in that city pair at least) have no right to gripe at the oligopoly and got-you-over-a-barrel pricing that inevitably results.

I don't know why people fail to see that.

duxfan

Well said BearX220! You can't have it both ways!

AS Flyer

I'm all for competition and I cheer on the little guys all the time. I was excited to see National expanding and their entrance in Seattle was great. That being said, with Southwest, Shuttle by united, Alaska and America West - this market was never over priced. National did bring the fares down some but let's face it - 178.00 - 198.00 round trip to LAS was not a bad deal - ever. It may be nice to pay 148.00 round trip but at prices like that it's no wonder National is in the precarious situation they are in.

verhalen

Frankly I think people ought to be discerning about what they're doing when they give business to a low-fare entrant. You have to realize that by doing so, you are hurting that other full-service carrier that you rely upon to get you to everywhere that the low-fare guy doesn't take you. Sure, if that low fare guy wasn't there, then your cost to certain destinations would be higher than it is with them there, but that higher cost is helping ensure that your full-service carrier will always be there to take you to all the other destinations that you need to go to.

For this reason, I don't see low-fare carriers as universally a good thing for the consumer. The consumer's loyalty to a full service carrier accomplishes more than earning him/her frequent flier miles; it also helps ensure continued service to places that the low-fare guys will never be able to offer service to.

BearX220

Or it helps fund a network that many consumers will never actually need. If all I'll ever need is SEA-SFO roundtrips, why should I pay a premium to a "full-network" carrier so it can also serve five other continents? I'm subsidizing seamless connections worldwide for a tiny minority of the airline's customers.

That's the flaw in United Airlines' thinking, to name just one "full-network" carrier on the verge of collapse. Their emphasis is on preserving their global network at all costs. They keep saying their far-flung network is among their greatest strategic assets. That's as insulated a view/policy as their practice of filling the F cabin with their own employees while paying customers are refused upgrades. Most actual customers don't NEED the network. And people are voting with their feet right now -- abandoning absurdly overpriced old-line network carriers in favor of good, less expensive service from others.

And finally, just to circle the discussion back around to Alaska Airlines -- by your reasoning Alaska should have been snuffed out of the market a long time ago, because West Coast flyers should have opted to pay more to fly UA to maintain the big ol' network that one day can take them to New Delhi if they want to go. AS however is doing pretty well, all things considered.

toadman

USA Today had an article in the August 21 edition stating that the hub and spoke system of the larger airlines was extremely in-efficient. Combined with high labor cost and low fares for routes that very few people fly adds up to big losses. The low fare carriers aren't interested in the Podunk Town, U.S.A. cities and rightly so. Why invest in route networks with no ROI.

Larger carries like UA, CO, DL etc. have finally come to the conclusion that a big network is not such a great thing afterall.

AS has a great way to service the smaller cities via Horizon and save cost in the process.

verhalen

I think you're slightly contradicting yourself here, because Alaska is in fact a hub and spoke carrier that, combined with Horizon, provides network service to many, many locales in the Northwest and Alaska that no one else does; and many of these locales would be set way back economically if there was no air service. My main point was that, if as a consumer you value the fact that your network carrier provides this economically essential service, then you ought to take that into consideration in your travel decisions.

But on the other hand, if you feel that a carrier is asking you to subsidize a bloated and collapsing operation through high fares, then by all means, don't support them.

I think Alaska clearly fits the description of the network carrier that provides essential, widespread service, rather than the description of the bloated, collapsing carrier. If choosing between Alaska and National, the value that I perceive in Alaska's network operations would motivate me to pay a little more to fly on Alaska... and I wouldn't really care whether National eventually left the market due to the lack of support.

QuietLion

National has the best first-class meal service of any domestic carrier. They are hardly a no-frills airline. Give them a try!

aisleorwindow

I've never flown National, but one thing they do have is easily the cheapest first-class fares to/from Las Vegas. Not that I ever buy first class tickets, but this must be valuable to someone.

Mehdron

Is National short-lived? Maybe America West thinks so or at least is hoping to help them go out of business. They've announced today that they are adding 3 RT flights SEA-LAS.
Here's the press release.

So even if National does go out of business, at least there will still be some pressure on Alaska to keep their fares down on this route (other than WN).