For Alaska to continue to grow I keep wondering if a stronger East Coast presence is needed. Can that even happen today. But then again why not. Delta certainly came into Seattle and setup a hub.

Maybe Boston would be a good choice since it isn't a strong hub city.

This might be more than AS can bite off, but it is an interesting idea.

Hmmm interesting idea but with the recent Virgin acquisition, and the strategy to grow California business, seems they're focused on that for now.

DL's Seattle hub stemmed from their shifting the Tokyo hub to the U.S. mainland. AS doesn't have that kind of route structure.

What's with all the hub threads lately? There's no actual movement to create a new hub anywhere. Are people tired of TATL threads now that WW invaded the Midwest?

Why not IAD? AS could join the long list of hub/focus city failures over the last decade: B6/F9/DH.

If AS does go for a hub on the east coast it won't be BOS, there aren't enough gates available.

I think AS has their hands full already with hubs in SEA, PDX, LAX, SFO, ANC, focus cities in SAN and SJC.

flybynight wrote:

Maybe Boston would be a good choice since it isn't a strong hub city.

Boston is a HUGE hub city for JetBlue and Delta also considers Boston a hub.
Alaska wouldn't stand a chance there.

aaflyer777 wrote:

If AS does go for a hub on the east coast it won't be BOS, there aren't enough gates available.

A hub in BOS wouldn’t make much sense unless they plan on using it as a springboard for TATL flights. A focus city maybe, although the success of such a venture would not be likely if B6 and DL have anything to say about it. Maybe somewhere in the mid-Atlantic is more likely. Removing available gates from the equation, maybe BDL, BWI(yes I am aware of WNs hub), IAD(as others have already mentioned),or PIT(somewhat east coast) could work as a focus city/hub. Otherwise, I think the middle of the country is better suited for a AS focus city/hub.

The only major airport with good demographics and available gate space right now on east coast is iad. But it seems like as is busy with west coast at the moment.

Nothing ideal not already taken by someone else. They would have to buy or be bought by JetBlue.

Nothing ideal, but yes, AS has a HUGE gap in their route network, all on the East Coast.

I don't think we'll ever see another HUB for AS, but I think we'll see a few focus cities with westbound traffic i.e. ABQ

Super80Fan wrote:

Nothing ideal, but yes, AS has a HUGE gap in their route network, all on the East Coast.

It isn’t a gap. AS has proclaimed themselves to be a west coast airline. They serve east coast cities for their west coast customers, not vice versa. Saying there’s a huge gap in their network on the east coast is like saying Europe is a huge gap in WN’s network.

An airline doesn't need to fly everywhere from everywhere.

They have a long time to build up California to get close to competitive with UA and WN. There aren't enough planes to also build up an eastern hub. In an alternate universe if they didn't care about California, they could try an eastern/midwestern build up but that's not the world we live in.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Nothing ideal not already taken by someone else. They would have to buy or be bought by JetBlue.

JetBlue has said they have no plans for a new west coast hub anytime soon and they are sticking to trans-cons to serve the west. To me the writing is on the wall that alaska/jetblue is a match made in heaven down the road. No need to compete hard vs each other when they will bring their respective coasts as dowry to their future marriage.

Alaska will continue to build its west coast presence, Jetblue will finish what they started in the east, along with trans Atlantic. Then there WILL be a merge and a newly born big player on the scene to make 5 big U.S. airlines. (and by then perhaps spirit/frontier/allegiant will merge for a final big 6).

Super80Fan wrote:

Nothing ideal, but yes, AS has a HUGE gap in their route network, all on the East Coast.

With the primary market point of sale being the left coast I don't think they care.

Plowing capital into turnkey hubs to chase market share is a 20+ year old model that dosent work. If anyone were to try it the punishment from Wall Street would be severe. Granted, this aviation version of Fantasy Football is entertaining but management knows were aren't living in 1987.

The name of the game in 21st century is leverage your strengths to compensate for structural weakness. Only way this would change is some economic catastrophe leading to the implosion of a large carrier: highly unlikely at this point.

How about a 3 way merger.... Alaska, Hawaiian, Jetblue.

You'd end up with an airline that covers the Pacific and all of North America, with 500+ airplanes of the 737, 190, A320, and A330 families.

And you could call it Virgin JetHalaskan

I don't think the question is whether they need an east coast hub; it's whether they want to be an airline with broad national coverage (or at least broad coastal coverage) or whether they want to primarily be a west coast airline that serves destinations on the east coast from west coast cities.

flybynight wrote:

For Alaska to continue to grow I keep wondering if a stronger East Coast presence is needed. Can that even happen today. But then again why not. Delta certainly came into Seattle and setup a hub.

Maybe Boston would be a good choice since it isn't a strong hub city.

This might be more than AS can bite off, but it is an interesting idea.

I don't think organically it is really possible. The sad reality is that we are all basically waiting till B6 and AS merge and then they become a national player. Sadly I don't want fewer airlines so I'm not rooting for that outcome, but it will happen eventually. Hopefully only after more airlines have joined the industry.

RDU/MKE/MCI/PIT are probably the best options for a hub that won't face dramatic retaliation. OTOH, the most recent hubs to sprout ([email protected], [email protected], [email protected]) have been in other carriers' existing hubs, which would change things. In that case ATL or DTW or MSP would be logical given the AS beef with DL. I don't think it would make as much sense to attack an AA or UA hub.

lavalampluva wrote:

An airline doesn't need to fly everywhere from everywhere.

Some common sense - Airlines need to make profits not cover the map with dots. Does AS need another hub to make money? Doubtful, they should work on what they have.

I would agree that AS wouldn't likely get enough gates at a large O&D airport along the east coast in one swoop. Perhaps they could get a couple of gates and start as a focus city and plan to grow. Still, the east coast is a very tough and competitive market. I don't think AA/DL/UA/WN would allow much more than flights to AS hubs without making it very expensive for AS. Maybe a better strategy is to take a hard look at abandoned hubs and grow a super-focus city or mini-hub. PIT, CLE and CVG all have plenty of space but lack the mega O&D that most hubs have. But if the goal was more humble, such as become the hometown favorite and a connecting opportunity, it might work. Each of these cities really backed their hometown hubbing airlines too.

Super80Fan wrote:

Nothing ideal, but yes, AS has a HUGE gap in their route network, all on the East Coast.

As discussed in the lack of a SE hub for United, there is no viable airport, and no real need. Not every airline needs a hub in every geographical quadrant of the country. AS has done just fine as is and with the VX merger they'll have more transcon services. Unless of course someone wants to make a sub-thread on AS suing WN and stealing all the gates at DAL> These threads are just speculation fro armchair avgeeks.

smi0006 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

An airline doesn't need to fly everywhere from everywhere.

Some common sense - Airlines need to make profits not cover the map with dots. Does AS need another hub to make money? Doubtful, they should work on what they have.

AS themselves have talked about how they are facing immense competition on all fronts. DL-SEA, UA-SFO, AA/DL/UA-LAX, WN-Cali, it might make sense to try and expand some outside of the ultra-competitive bubble they are in now.

Italianflyer wrote:

Plowing capital into turnkey hubs to chase market share is a 20+ year old model that dosent work. If anyone were to try it the punishment from Wall Street would be severe. Granted, this aviation version of Fantasy Football is entertaining but management knows were aren't living in 1987.

This doesn't stop countless carriers from running hubs. Why is this dated model okay for the legacy carriers but not okay for Alaska? If Alaska stated they wanted to open up a hub east of the Mississippi, they would have countless communities throwing money at them to choose their city. You don't think Memphis and Cincinnati wouldn't be offering up huge incentives to bring a hub back? While hubs may be a 20+ year old model, corporate handouts are the new model.

FLL, connecting with the summer cruise industry, and connecting with a regional partner flying code-share into the Caribbean.

After they've worked out California.

Indy wrote:

Italianflyer wrote:

Plowing capital into turnkey hubs to chase market share is a 20+ year old model that dosent work. If anyone were to try it the punishment from Wall Street would be severe. Granted, this aviation version of Fantasy Football is entertaining but management knows were aren't living in 1987.

This doesn't stop countless carriers from running hubs. Why is this dated model okay for the legacy carriers but not okay for Alaska? If Alaska stated they wanted to open up a hub east of the Mississippi, they would have countless communities throwing money at them to choose their city. You don't think Memphis and Cincinnati wouldn't be offering up huge incentives to bring a hub back? While hubs may be a 20+ year old model, corporate handouts are the new model.

It's not that HAVING hubs is an outdated business model. It's BUILDING hubs in secondary cities that's the outdated/failed business model.

Adding a hub in BOS would be a terrible idea. Unless they wanted to use it as the EU gateway. They are already limited only having North and West hubs on the west coast. IF they added a hub it would need to be geographically located like DEN, ATL, DFW, ORD, etc. The only location I can think of is maybe MEM, and they would be fruitless, too small of an O/D market.

We're much more likely to see AS attempt to grow their California ops in to a stable, profitable operation that can hold its own against competitors. I think we're likely to see a lot more interconnection between their five main CA hubs (LAX, SFO, SAN, SJC, SNA) and connections from those to other California locales as they attempt to become a major player in the state. Maybe they'll try growing OAK or SMF. One thing Delta has done that Alaska might is to connect more of their spoke markets to every possible hub. That gives you a "mini-hub" status before you even do your first non-hub flight out of a place, and a way to get name recognition and brand loyalty in to a market before hubbing it. They could always do 5 hub cities and toss in a LAS or PVR as a first shot. Still I think it's more likely they buy in to a new hub (or are bought) than they develop their own east of the Rockies.

Why not a mid continent hub and a shit ton of E75s up and down the coast?

KISP would be a good hub after they expand and add the planned 6-8 gated terminal (added to T-B)

Flights to make it a hub:
SEA-ISP
ISP-SAN
ISP-SFO
ISP-LAX

Many Flights operated with a Dash or an Embraer to Small East Coast cities (ALB,ROC,PIT,BOS,CHS,DCA,etc)

32andBelow wrote:

Why not a mid continent hub and a shit ton of E75s up and down the coast?

Up and down which coast? Passengers traveling up and down the west or east coast would connect in...Denver? AA already tried a north-south hub in SJC long ago. Considering they were competing against already existing point-to-point non-stops in a lot of markets, the result was predictable.

I don’t think AS will ever have a east coast hub, but hey it’s fun to be an armchair CEO.

RDU is great geographically. It has a strong, growing O&D market. It has gate space coming online in the near future. It also has a potential untapped regional market perfect for Q400s. Feed RDU with PDX, SJC, and SAN flights (all highest on RDU unserved list). Q400/E175 service to places like MYR, RIC, JAX, SAV, ORF, etc.

I don't think AS needs a traditional connecting hub on the east coast. That said, I think a focus city would make sense from an operational perspective. Most of the AS routes to the east coast today turn around and immediately head back west. This results in less than optimal flight times in some cases. For example, if AS starts a red-eye flight from west to east, the flight has to turn right back around at 8am and head west, or sit parked on the east coast all day. A focus city would enable better utilization of the long haul aircraft and potentially improve the flight schedules. Question is whether there are any such markets that could be more profitable than today's flights.

I wouldn't go with a hub, a focus city would be more likely.
IAD, RDU, PIT are possibilities.

MSP would be the AS mid continent hub, if that were on their radar, I can assure you it is not. AS is putting their efforts into training & conversion, integration of VX.

And if it were an East Coast hub, they may very well choose an airport that they already have a decent presence in, like JFK, it is a reason they picked up VX, was the access to JFK. They did cancel the one seasonal JFK-FLL flight on VX when they bought them up. I know it's not easy to get in there to create something substantial, but AS has things another carrier bigger at JFK may wish to trade for.

As most of us already know, an acquisition is a long & tedious process, there are literally thousands of unique issues that they will overcome before EVER looking to expand into unfamiliar territory.

The next round of route announcements will come, but not until the pilot issue with QX is on the rebound, which I've heard they are training at a fever pitch & hope to be fully functional (at their reduced schedule) by the early part of 2018.

QX will eventually be flying 30 175's, with half as many Q-400's, they had better get things running correctly (more money) or their base clients will jump ship to DL.

I fly PDX-RDM a couple times of year in the winter only, it's less expensive to fly DL via SEA, than to go non-stop on AS, by $30-40 p.p. I will always pay more to fly non-stop at 30 minutes on a Q-400, than to fly the cheaper option. On two CR7's, but I think it's obvious some will trade their time for a smaller fare.

Balloonchaser wrote:

KISP would be a good hub after they expand and add the planned 6-8 gated terminal (added to T-B)

Flights to make it a hub:
SEA-ISP
ISP-SAN
ISP-SFO
ISP-LAX

Many Flights operated with a Dash or an Embraer to Small East Coast cities (ALB,ROC,PIT,BOS,CHS,DCA,etc)

ISP will never be a hub. It's the same issue that SWF and HPN, and to some extent BDL, have, poor geography. I can go to JFK, EWR, or LGA and get multiple flights on multiple airlines anywhere I want. None of the metro NYC airports will see a hub, with the exception of airlines like Norwegian who are trying to avoid the NYC costs.

It may be cheaper to hub in ISP, but the failure is going to be even more spectacular than if they went to JFK

DiscoverCSG wrote:

It's not that HAVING hubs is an outdated business model. It's BUILDING hubs in secondary cities that's the outdated/failed business model.

I think hubs in general are dated. The push seems to be towards point-to-point flying. You might need some hubs otherwise really small cities will have little to no service. Imagine MLB without hubs. But I don't think hubs as they are today are sustainable. Not even for legacy carriers.

I think a focus city would be good AS, I agree.
If not Boston, I agree maybe a little further west, like Cincinnati Pittsburg perhaps.
In fairness I didn't say it had to be Boston, it was just a suggested city, for all your armchair QB's who like to pounce.

And maybe AS will just focus on the west coast for now. Another possibility (maybe too wild) is to build up Honolulu and build into Asia from there. Not sure if MAX's can reach Japan.

Despite having just one gate at BWI, they offer year-round service to SEA, LAX, and SAN and seasonal service to PDX. VS also recently began SFO-BWI, giving the new combined airline 5 routes from BWI (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is at least tied for the most of any east coast airport). They seem to like it at BWI and every AS flight I've flown on was packed, so it seems it would be a logical choice. Concourse D at BWI is not terribly congested, and is connected to the relatively empty Concourse E, so expansion is almost a no-brainer.

The last airline to try a "true" hub/spoke where Alaska might have a fighting chance would be MCI. Vanguard, in its last days, shifted from a lot of point-to-point, and from what execs said, MCI was doing really well. They just had a lot of baggage with the changes and it wasn't enough for them to survive.

MCI could do some good East-West flying and connect some points using Alaska's distribution; the core markets SEA/SFO/LAX/SAN/PHX/SJC/PDX flow into MCI then branch out to ORD/MSP/DTW/DCA/LGA/BOS/FLL/MCO. Could then throw in secondary markets like SLC/BOI/TUS/PSP on the west and add ATL/BWI/JFK/ATL to the east. Just gotta make this a banked effort with 2-3 flights a day in each. Focus on markets already served by AS/VX,

usxguy wrote:

The last airline to try a "true" hub/spoke where Alaska might have a fighting chance would be MCI. Vanguard, in its last days, shifted from a lot of point-to-point, and from what execs said, MCI was doing really well. They just had a lot of baggage with the changes and it wasn't enough for them to survive.

MCI could do some good East-West flying and connect some points using Alaska's distribution; the core markets SEA/SFO/LAX/SAN/PHX/SJC/PDX flow into MCI then branch out to ORD/MSP/DTW/DCA/LGA/BOS/FLL/MCO. Could then throw in secondary markets like SLC/BOI/TUS/PSP on the west and add ATL/BWI/JFK/ATL to the east. Just gotta make this a banked effort with 2-3 flights a day in each. Focus on markets already served by AS/VX,

A look at Vanguard's route map in 2001.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VYIEnAKIpxw/ ... 2B2001.jpg

Nobody considering Honolulu? I see it as more likely that Alaska set up an interisland operation in Hawaii, than for them to just set up an east coast hub out of thin air. Alaska seems to like building up focus cities over time, and I see that as the smartest way to expand. I could see them slowly adding focus cities in the west as the most likely option.

The next logical move for AS would be international flights out of SEA/PDX/LAX, both TATL and TPAC. I mean, why not? They already have an extensive domestic network at those hubs and they wind up putting countless passengers on other airlines to 'finish the job'. AS could probably get a fantastic deal from Boeing for a bunch of B788's. That would be the perfect plane for them to fly TPAC from the west coast. I think that's more likely than AS starting an east coast hub.

With JetBlue supposedly starting TATL service from the east coast soon, and if AS should ever start TPAC from the west coast, a merger between the two would truly create a powerhouse of an airline.

I see Alaska doing well just by building and fine-tuning the West Coast, with expansion within the region and in more markets to and from the West Coast. There is no slack within the East Coast or even Midwest regional traffic that needs a new AS hub to fill. While they may be blank spaces in AS's system map, other carriers have the space well saturated, if not over served. BOS/NYC/WAS-Florida hardly needs AS to jump in as well.

And in reverse, I don't see that jetBlue needs to fill up it's map with the West Coast. AS and B6 can co-exist just fine without becoming one, as each is doing what they do best.

Password wrote:

Nobody considering Honolulu? I see it as more likely that Alaska set up an interisland operation in Hawaii, than for them to just set up an east coast hub out of thin air. Alaska seems to like building up focus cities over time, and I see that as the smartest way to expand. I could see them slowly adding focus cities in the west as the most likely option.

I mentioned Hawaii as well. It could also be a springboard for some international flights. The question being - can the new MAX's reach, say, Japan, from HNL?

jumbojet wrote:

The next logical move for AS would be international flights out of SEA/PDX/LAX, both TATL and TPAC. I mean, why not? They already have an extensive domestic network at those hubs and they wind up putting countless passengers on other airlines to 'finish the job'. AS could probably get a fantastic deal from Boeing for a bunch of B788's. That would be the perfect plane for them to fly TPAC from the west coast. I think that's more likely than AS starting an east coast hub.

With JetBlue supposedly starting TATL service from the east coast soon, and if AS should ever start TPAC from the west coast, a merger between the two would truly create a powerhouse of an airline.

I've discussed this at times as well. 788's could be great for direct flights to Central America, England and the Far East. All destinations that would serve well from Seattle at least.

Does any think that AS and JetBlue can code share flights and have a strong FF partnership. This will counter the big 4 airlines. Currently they are rivals but don't have much of an overlap, perhaps this relationship could be ideal. Would DOJ allow this.

Alaska can focus all the resources on West Coast and make it a fortress. It does not have enough resources to compete with US3 nationwide. With only West Coast to worry about, it can fight effectively against US3 in its home turf. West Coast itself as a market is large enough for Alaska to be rich. And it can continue to build robust relationship with all international carriers to feed its multiple hubs.

usxguy wrote:

The last airline to try a "true" hub/spoke where Alaska might have a fighting chance would be MCI. Vanguard, in its last days, shifted from a lot of point-to-point, and from what execs said, MCI was doing really well. They just had a lot of baggage with the changes and it wasn't enough for them to survive.

MCI could do some good East-West flying and connect some points using Alaska's distribution; the core markets SEA/SFO/LAX/SAN/PHX/SJC/PDX flow into MCI then branch out to ORD/MSP/DTW/DCA/LGA/BOS/FLL/MCO. Could then throw in secondary markets like SLC/BOI/TUS/PSP on the west and add ATL/BWI/JFK/ATL to the east. Just gotta make this a banked effort with 2-3 flights a day in each. Focus on markets already served by AS/VX,

It's an interesting idea, I just don't like your city pairs. IAD/BWI-MCI with up to six flights a day? Even with a connection hub that's way to much capacity on top of existing service. Plus most of the markets you want to serve through MCI already have non-stop flights on AS to SEA at a minimum. I think the Midwest markets you ignored like IND/MKE/CVG/CLE/PIT would make more sense than oversaturating NYC, WAS and Florida.

raylee67 wrote:

Alaska can focus all the resources on West Coast and make it a fortress.

They are already doing that

raylee67 wrote:

It does not have enough resources to compete with US3 nationwide. With only West Coast to worry about, it can fight effectively against US3 in its home turf.

By virtue of securing the west, AS will have to expand out east

raylee67 wrote:

West Coast itself as a market is large enough for Alaska to be rich.

That is a pretty bold statement unless you can predict the future, always best not to put all your eggs in one basket....