You obviously have no real relevant experience on HA or VX.

On VX there are complimentary items available through RED, in addition to the paid items.

Yes, I do think so. Pan American and TWA in the 1950's and earlier aren't relevant any more.

It's not just sad, it's a tragedy.

In America, mediocrity or worse always wins. It's amazing Apple is an American concern.

What VX offers is truely one of the most unique domestic products in the world, complete innovation what they have done and created. They are different in everything they do, and that's why I love this mob and have cheered and supported them along the journey.

Sadly I can see Alaska taking nothing with them but employees/slots/Panasonic IFE units...

Occasional VX flyer, living near SFO and all.

What complimentary food items are there in RED if you're in plain old Main Cabin?

Can you share how you think this is the case?

From how I see it an AS-VX tie up does little for AS in terms of a competitive advantage in any market. The acquisition of VX does not add any markets to the AS route map that are not already served. There be some new city pairs but that's it. In LAX I still do not see AS as anything other than a west coast and leisure airline even with the new AX routes.

To actually compete with AA, DL and UA at LAX they would need a much better O&D route network with the appropriate frequencies out of LAX. Plus, if they revert to AS branding and in-flight experiences they are sunk on NYC-LAX and NYC-SFO routes as the other carriers are offering a far superior product, particularly in F.

I agree with the B6 / VX merger makes sense more than the AL / VX merger. However, will the Feds approve of any merger with VX??

I've gone from the light rail to boarding in 12 minutes at SEA. Nexus and a low D gate helps. ;)

In terms of AA/DL/UA's non-hub routes, they're probably OK, not great, but OK (and consider that AS will have a regional carrier in OO, so in theory they could expand to markets that wouldn't work for VX). Since AS isn't going to start up hubs in EWR, JFK, ATL, MIA, MSP, ORD, DEN, PHX, DFW, DTW, PHL, I think expecting them to match frequencies with the legacies everywhere is a bit unrealistic. They are never going to match up 1-1 with the legacies without midcon/East Coast hubs where the traffic comes from BOTH sides.

11% market share at LAX isn't too shabby. The problem becomes managing the relationship with AA in such a way that you don't end up fighting a four front war with AA (LAX), UA (SFO), DL (SEA) and WN (DAL, SJC, SAN)...

Sadly, no matter how you spin it, the "VX experience" was a perennial money-loser and disappointment to investors until two lucky exterior events occurred: the oil price collapse and United's post-merger meltdown, which drove a lot of SFO customers to VX. Had those things not happened the plug might have been pulled by now anyway. The way things have turned out, however, VX is making a little short-term money and has good market value, so of course investors want to monetize before the next recession / oil shock / competitive threat.

I have ridden VX SEA-SFO on $69 fares, or for free using a smidgen of Elevate points, and looked around at the 40% full cabin, and thought: this is great but it can't last.

Not on that route anyway. I think there's every chance AS will leverage VX products, if not VX brand cachet (which counts for nothing outside SFO and maybe LAX anyway), on plum transcon routes to compete with Mint, etc. The "VX experience" may not make financial sense on short west coast corridor hops, but the AS experience would be weak and non-competitive on JFK-SFO. AS has an opportunity here for innovative product planning -- and do premium offerings on premium routes. But you're sure not going to see VX first class on SEA-OMA or SEA-MCI.

Weird that you would opt to bolt from the best, highest-amenity inflight products in the domestic US to one of the barest and most minimal.

My point was two fold (1) that this tie up makes AS too big to be gobbled up by someone else. That is very important to AS management, (2) it expands the network in areas that are from a business stand point very important.

Would it work better if the fleets were compatible. Yes....

But as far as the markets they serve, I actually think that AS is a better fit for VX than is B6. VX's valuable traffic is a combination high tech/creative business travel. Ask your seatmate on VX and they are likely to be in internet/software/hardware/medical technology/online advertising/medicine. VX has a big slice of that traffic ex-SFO, and some ex-LAX. Short of road warriors that need to get to Akron, Houston, and Beijing on a single airline, ore have a corporate deal/status with UA, most folks under 40 in the bay area are opting for VX over UA. They also serve markets that people ex-SFO want/need to go such as Austin.

AS is similar for flyers ex-SEA/PDX. AS can sell lots of tickets to FF/HVFers ex-SEA and PDX, but it is not getting the same from passengers originating ex-SFO/SAN, and to a great extent ex-LAX. This merger will allow them to sell high value tickets at BOTH ENDS of a lot of flights, and that is very valuable.

OTOH, B6 is basically a BOS/NYC based airline with little cred in the high tech set. Don't forget, B6 does not even have first class!!! (other than the MINT). A lot of their capacity is NYC/BOS-FL leisure travel. Check out a B6 flight to SFO (before Mint) it was nearly all leisure traffic. Same BOS-SFO. Who flies B6 and VX/UA are very different sets.

A combo of VX+AS will make them the dominant carrier ex-SEA/PDX, the other player ex-SFO (although much smaller than UA in total seats, once you remove the International and flights to UA hubs, VX+AS will likely have about the same reach as UA does), and with a competitive presence ex-LAX and SAN. I think that will allow them to attract more high value traffic, and attract higher RASM passengers on the inter west coast, and west coast to tech center/finance center routes. That is additive to what AS has now (particularly ex-SFO where AS is weak).

OTOH, While the fleets are comparable, I see little customer overlap between B6 and VX. For example, adding B6s traffic to VX does nothing to strengthen VX's share at SFO, nor does it fill in holes in VX's network (little service to SEA/PDX, secondary tech centers like BOI, SLC). I don't see anyone ex-LAX/SFO being more willing to fly VX because they are now part of B6. Likewise, other than perhaps the few new routes to Hawaii, I see nothing in a B6/VX hook up that would cause people buying higher value tickets in NYC or BOS to be more willing to make B6 their main carrier.


I am not discounting the possibility of culture shock in a AS+VX merger, and it will cause real issues if not addressed carefully, but as far as the markets they serve, I actually think AS+VX makes more sense than B6+VX.

Alaska has been paranoid about VX from the beginning, and tried to stop them with several legal actions. It worked, and VX had to lease out the first Airbus planes they received to people like Skybus. CEO Richard Branson had hired an American from Delta (Fred Reynolds) to run VX. He was let go, to satisfy allegations that because he was close to Branson, the airline was really controlled by a foreigner, which is not permitted. The delay was costly. Since starting up, VX has been a thorn in Alaska's side. They have provided an innovative product at lower prices on the West Coast.

This acquisition is all about shutting VX down, thus eliminating a competitor, and raising fares in the West Coast corridor. It's reminiscent of the NW/DL acquisition of Midwest, and the elimination of the MKE hub. I'm sure AS is also thinking about VX cousin Virgin Atlantic, 49% owned by Delta. Alaska is battling DL's expansion at SEA, and this acquisition will interfere with any plans by Delta to use VX for feed. As for the 57 A319/320's at VX, these are late models, and the secondary market for them is strong. Airbus and Boeing order books are full for years, with the new engine option versions just introduced. My guess is the Iranians would take them, now that they have a green light to purchase Western products. People have been wondering where they would find the number of planes they need to update fleets that have an average age of more than 35 years. Given Alaska's strong relationship with Boeing, they'd probably take them in trade, something they did a few years ago with Singapore.

Not to worry. It's just your garden variety "screw the customer" play. Take a quality competitor, who's impacting you with lower fares, and vaporize them. Then raise prices. It doesn't hurt that VX is controlled by Wall Street equity groups, who have only one goal, and that is, to get out. Despite winning awards, VX was a money loser for years. Alaska will rationalize overpaying for the asset by being able to use higher fares to more than cover it.

Fasten your money belts, and get ready to hear how this will "enhance" your traveling experience.:D

I agree.

VX has had a 2 tickets for the price of 1 voucher giveaway at Giants games (it's August 21st this season). If they need to be resorting to that to sell tickets even in this economy, they are having trouble. I used that promotion one year and flew to LAS.

AS is a very well run company. They will be able to quickly figure out what works and what doesn't and once the merger is finished, I would expect some route cuts out of both SFO and LAX.

Deals are not done until the ink dries and regulators approve. I agree with many here that the last thing passengers need is one less competitive option. B6 would have an easier job passing DOJ, AS can probably justify paying more. If I were negotiating for VX, I'd do a deal with AS including a large break-up fee if the regulators don't approve.

The best thing for America would be for a foreign airline to take a large equity stake in VX; my bet would be on Hainan Airlines. Would not be surprised if both LatAm and Etihad passed on the deal. Although best for passengers, would be a surprise if regulators approved. The real spoiler would be if the acquirer was part of a JV alliance like Air Canada, Lufthansa or ANA. If I was CEO of a Star partner, I'd be embarrassed to connect passengers to UA domestic.

Many of AS's Q-400s are leased and will be moving out of the fleet. E175s will be replacing them. Several threads on the AS forum address this.

I've flown two segments on both HA and VX and found nothing too special about either one. Granted the HA segments were both island hops, but compared to my memory of Aloha Airlines, HA just seemed worse than Aloha. There was no beverage choice and the 717's felt really packed with seats.

VX felt like anyone else just with mood lighting and black and white seats.

AS + VX may not be the end of the discussion.

I wonder whether a 3-way merger (with B6 also) would get past DOJ review...because if it did, it would be the best possible outcome.

You create an airline with hub-like presences in BOS, JFK, MCO and FLL, along with SEA, SFO & LA metro (LAX/LGB). You have strong presences in LAS, WAS and a very limited number of midcon cities, plus lots of leisure destinations (Carrib & Mexico).

Those corporate markets - BOS, NYC, WAS, SEA, SFO & LA - are great for generating business travel.

The VX A320s can deploy as a mint-lite product on 2nd tier transcon routes, while they accelerate the conversion of more A321s to full Mint-y.

The added bulk on transcon would allow AS to make a full break from DL without the same vulnerability to an attack at SEA, which now becomes a smaller part of the whole product. AS would probably have to drop the AA partnership also, due to the competition at JFK.

The LAX makeover becomes a piece of cake once DL goes to T2/T3, with VX and B6 joining AS at T6 as 11% of the combined LAX traffic...and they could probably still lay claim to a T5 gate or two as spillover.