EIPremier

Hmmm...I've noticed this as well.

Seat 2A

How true. In some cases, you can even buy a nice hotel room. (I just bought a DEN-TPA r/t ticket for $140.00)

On a positive meal note, I flew AS First Class between Chicago and Seattle yesterday and was served a wonderful breakfast reminiscent of the days when AS was known and revered for it's food service. The fruit plate would have scored high marks even in International First Class and the vegie/cheese omelet came with a big portion of non-greasy hash browns and two sausage links. Oh yeah, there was even a nice breakfast pastry - and not the slimy apple one either. Kudos to AS and the ORD caterers.

gaugeguy

I agree... I flew SEA-ORD-SEA last saturday and was also impressed with the meal service. On the way to chicago, the omlette with a large fruit plate was served or a choice of french toast. On the way home, Mahi-Mahi or a baked Chicken dish was served. Very tasty.... also cheese cake for desert. It was nice to see that good meals are still served on the transcons.

mywifeisincoach

Alaska offers the best domestic service period! Regardless of what you get or dont get, Alaska rocks!

OMAguy

AS Flyer is right about this...domestic flights just arent what they used to be anywhere. KLM between AMS and GVA -- 1.5hr flight -- and in Y you get your choice of either coffee, tea, or water, and a package sandwich. No soda, no juice -- three choices. It is nice to get something, just not as glamorous as some may lead you to believe. Now I dont travel J within Europe and I know that the service is stepped up a bit there (just like F in the US), but Y isnt that great. And dont get me started on seat pitch.

QF is undergoing major changes (as is the industry in Australia) -- the old days of QF service is going to the wayside because of the competition with the new LCC Virgin Blue (they charge for everything -- even a cup of coffee). Australian Airlines and Ansett Australia have been casualities in Australia -- leaving Virgin Blue and Qantas as the main two airlines.

Of course there is still some "international service" on some domestic segments, but we must remember that the primary routes of these international airlines are international flights. There are few carriers that have such large domestic structures as US airlines.

AS still has great service compared to all of its counterparts domestically in the US. I know this has been talked over and over, and the golden days of AS may be gone, but i am afraid the golden days of all US carriers are gone. We believe in a laizze-faire society and our airlines are now reflecting that.

With all of that said, I think the OP will be presently surprised with his flight on AS.

Snowdevil

Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that the payments AS received weren't loans, but reimbursement from the U.S. government - the biggest of which was due to the government-imposed grounding of all aircraft for several days following 9/11, effectively telling AS they were prohibited from attempting to earn money during that time.

keithguy

What about foreign airlines? Did they receive reimbursements due to the government-imposed grounding of all aircraft for several days following 9/11, effectively telling them they were prohibited from attempting to earn money during that time?

Snowdevil

They didn't need it - for the most part, foreign air carriers are subsidized by the state already.

Besides, I think you'd agree it's not an apples to apples comparison - foreign flag carriers were only deprived of service to/from the U.S. during that time, whereas U.S. flag carriers were effectively deprived of ALL of their operations.

channa

Of course you had to pick KLM. Since when were they known for service?

Contrast KLM to BA, however, who provides a sandwich along with your choice of beverage (including alcohol) in coach on European flights of a similar length. I guess that brings up an interesting point -- there are service choices in many foreign markets, but the choices are becoming fewer in the U.S.

And before someone says it, fares in Europe are also cheap. LHR-FRA on BA start at GBP 44+ RT (aboout $84+ RT). Short-hauls are even cheaper. LHR-CDG is GBP 25+ RT (about $47+).



Regarding Qantas, while international is the most lucrative for them, they still have a very serious domestic network. SYD-MEL is the busiest route in the world -- busier than our SFO-LAX or DCA-LGA. Part of the reason is not just the number of flights, but also the capacity. Many of these flights are on a 767 (only occasionally on a 737, with some even on an A330 or a 747). Qantas flies 34 flights a day, each way, in an average of a 767 with approximately 240 seats each in this market. That's nothing to laugh at. That's 16,000 seats between two cities in any given day, one airline.

Assuming these SYD-MEL frequencies are blocked at 90 minutes and require a 45-minute turn time, that makes 2:15 per one-way. Keeping in mind these flights only operate during the day and evening (no redeyes), that means it would take approximately nine 767's for this route alone.

If Alaska were to replicate such capacity on such a route with its current equipment, it would need 2,160 (9 x 240) dedicated seats. Since AS's average aircraft size is smaller at approximately 140 seats, AS would have to allocate 15 aircraft just to this route. That's about 15% of AS's total mainline fleet.

And we haven't even mentioned SYD-BNE (18 frequencies each way) or MEL-BNE (14 frequencies each way)...

While those in the U.S. may think of QF as an international carrier, they are by no means a small carrier domestically down under.

Quokka

Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that AS is (by far) the largest recipient of government EAS subsidies ever. Care to guess how much in EAS subsidies AS has sucked out of US taxpayers over the life of the program?

AS also benefits from the government "bypass mail" subsidy program.

Any whinges about the high cost of flying certain routes, or that in 2003 $71.4 million in government handouts were supposedly "reimbursements", not "subsidies" doesn't detract from the simple fact that ALK has had its hands deep down the pants of US taxpayers for quite some time.

Snowdevil

Ah yes, the tired but well-rehearsed "...but you guys get EAS subsidies!" argument.

Of course without EAS....no major airline would serve those markets in the first place!

Why do people suffer from the misconception that AS is taking money home in armored cars serving places like DUT, ADK, etc? If that were so, wouldn't you see other airlines starting service, too?

rjque

I'm not sure what the dispute is here. It seems universally accepted that US domestic carriers offer a much lower service standard than most international carriers. Whether Alaska (or those other carriers) are subsidised has nothing to do with it, nor does the cost of a ticket. Alaska doesn't need to offer meals on SNA-OAK because the competition doesn't and Alaska's customers don't expect a meal on a segment of that length in the US. Heck, given that the only competition is WN, I'm surprised this route hasn't gone QX.

keithguy

So then does that imply that money paid out to US carriers is some form of equalization (i.e. also a state subsidy).

I do agree, but I also think that it is never an "apples to apples" comparison when it comes to state subsidies/loans to carriers. As indicated, the situations are different from country to country. Most carriers get some form of state aid. The amount does vary, but so do circumstances.

But the point is, the varying amount of state aid shouldn't be used as a justification on the lack of meals on certain flights. There's no relationship between the two.

AS Flyer

No, the justification for the lack of meals is that the fares are at an all time low. You can buy a coast to coast ticket for $198 round trip. Sure, you could have done the same thing in 1985 but with inflation $198 gets you a lot less then it did in 1985 - and it's no different in the airline business. You get what you pay for. Meals are not what people pay for - they pay for transportation and, frankly, I think that people underpay for a service that allows you to travel from one side of the country, safely, in about 1/10th of what it would take you to drive. Air travel has become a commodity that nearly anyone can afford now and the luxuries are gone - but so are the sky high air fares.

I might also add that Alaska offers food, either buy on board or complimentary, on flights that are of a duration that one might normall have a meal or snack at home. If one can't go for more then 2 or 3 hours without a meal or snack then they should pack them to bring themselves.

rjque

This is absolutely wrong. Competition and consumer demand dictates the service on the airlines, not the price of the ticket. There is no reason for an airline to provide a meal on a short flight if they get no benefit from it. If WN offered a full meal on SNA-OAK and people were choosing WN over AS because of it, AS would have to offer a meal regardless of how much they made on a ticket. Conversely, AS wouldn't offer a meal on this route even if it could get $1000 per ticket if customers didn't expect it. A good business looks for ways to minimize costs without losing customers regardless of profitability.