First time on Alaska Air
Feb 10, 2005, 4:04 pm
#31
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
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.
I eat dinner around 7:30pm, but none of the 7/8pm SEA-SAN or YVR-LAX flights have food (not even in First class). SEA-SAN is over 2.5 hours while YVR-LAX is just under 3 hours.
Feb 10, 2005, 6:12 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: East Ester, Alaska
Programs: Alaska Million Miler, United Million Miler, Wyndham Rewards Diamond, Choice Hotels Diamond
Posts: 12,148
As a collector of First Class menus and one who flew my 1000th flight by 1982, I well remember the days of hot, generally filling meals (even in Coach) on sectors as short as PDX-SFO. I miss them more than most. These days however, I'll gladly pack or buy a $7.00 airport meal while I enjoy those sub-$200.00 transcons and, as an MVP Gold, double mileage and complimentary upgrades - unheard of back in the fancy inflight service days of yesteryear.
I can't address EAS subsidies or things of that nature (because I really know very little about them) but as one who's flown over 3300 flights on 115 different airlines, I think Alaska offers, by today's US domestic standards, a pretty decent service.
I can't address EAS subsidies or things of that nature (because I really know very little about them) but as one who's flown over 3300 flights on 115 different airlines, I think Alaska offers, by today's US domestic standards, a pretty decent service.
Feb 10, 2005, 6:25 pm
#33
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 702
Originally Posted by keithguy
So then does that imply that money paid out to US carriers is some form of equalization (i.e. also a state subsidy).
Not so with the aid U.S. carriers received post-9/11.
But I think we're both beating a dead horse by now.
Feb 10, 2005, 6:41 pm
#34
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NYC
Programs: UA1K - SPG Plat
Posts: 921
Originally Posted by channa
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.
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.
QF has great frequency between MEL and SYD, but also look at the fares. they are quite high between those two cities for a flight of such short duration in US standards. i think we would see much different service and frequency with US airlines if fares were set like australian fares. air travel in australia is not cheap, and thus it doesnt take a full plane to make money.
also, remember QF only serves approx 10 major cities in australia. most everything else is on their commuter airline and/or is international. australia is as large as the US and only nine major cities to serve. air travel in australia is very different from the US.
that being said, QF is a tremendous airline. but as a frequent traveler on QF it is sad to say it has been changing too.
Feb 10, 2005, 6:53 pm
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
Originally Posted by OMAguy
QF has great frequency between MEL and SYD, but also look at the fares. they are quite high between those two cities for a flight of such short duration in US standards. i think we would see much different service and frequency with US airlines if fares were set like australian fares. air travel in australia is not cheap, and thus it doesnt take a full plane to make money.
That's quite comparable, and possibly cheaper, than most U.S. short-haul sale fares.
Feb 10, 2005, 7:00 pm
#36
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NYC
Programs: UA1K - SPG Plat
Posts: 921
Originally Posted by channa
SYD-MEL starts at A$59+ one way on QF. That's about US $45+ (even less before the USD tanked). QF have even been known to do promos to bring that down a bit.
That's quite comparable, and possibly cheaper, than most U.S. short-haul sale fares.
That's quite comparable, and possibly cheaper, than most U.S. short-haul sale fares.
i stand corrected...sort of. i havent bought a SYD-MEL ticket in years, and it does appear some departures are much cheaper than they have been in the past (that darn competition with Virgin Blue). although i did notice at the QF website that the lowest fare on many of the flights started at 83+ or even 113+ (naturally on the prime time flights of the day). the 59+ was on the early morning or late evening flights (not redeyes, but time sensitive nonetheless)
again, QF is a great airline. i recommend everyone fly it when head to and within australia.
Feb 10, 2005, 9:38 pm
#37
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,957
Originally Posted by 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.
This logic might apply in a normal business but I think we all know that airlines don't do anything normal. Look at the LAX-YVR market - AC and Harmony Airways both fly it and offer meals - we don't. SEA-ORD, UA and AA both sell meals - we offer free meals. SEA-DEN, and on this one I may be wrong, but I think that UA offers a hot meal in F - we don't.
Feb 10, 2005, 10:26 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 11,572
Originally Posted by AS Flyer
This logic might apply in a normal business but I think we all know that airlines don't do anything normal. Look at the LAX-YVR market - AC and Harmony Airways both fly it and offer meals - we don't. SEA-ORD, UA and AA both sell meals - we offer free meals. SEA-DEN, and on this one I may be wrong, but I think that UA offers a hot meal in F - we don't.
This doesn't change my initial point. The reduction in service is not random, it's a response to the changing expecations of consumers. AS can't take away services if customers continue to demand them. I suppose AS could save some fuel and add a few seats by removing all lavs on board. Like meals, they are not necessary to the "getting from point A to point B" ultimate goal of air travel. But take those away and AS would go out of business. Even if ticket prices hit $1, I don't think you'll ever see an airline get rid of their lavs. Unless, of course, the incredible PR machine over at WN somehow manages to convince their customers that they pay less for an airline with no lavs. Perhaps I should quit typing before they get any ideas . . .
Feb 11, 2005, 7:25 pm
#39
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Seattle, Wa
Programs: AS 75K & BR Member- HHonors Diamond - Hertz PC - Marriott Titanium - IHG Ambassador
Posts: 2,379
He's Dead.......No Wait, He's Not........Keep beating that Horse........I said keep beating that Horse... 
Give it a rest, Sheesh
By the way does 589 from PSP to SEA ever leave and arrive ontime?
Ive been on it twice lately, and im sick of getting home to SEA 30 to 40 mins late.
(Nice subject change huh?)
Give it a rest, Sheesh
By the way does 589 from PSP to SEA ever leave and arrive ontime?
Ive been on it twice lately, and im sick of getting home to SEA 30 to 40 mins late.
(Nice subject change huh?)