After merger, all we've seen in these two airports is cutting, with no adding.

-What is the prediction for AS's presence in SFO&LAX in future?
-There is rumor that AS will eventually merge with B6. If that happens, it makes sense that AS will consolidate SEA hub.

Alaska is opportunistic looking for O/D in california without too much competition. Virgin America had the opposite business model where they competed on high volume highly competitive routes. Virgin tried to win market share by having a better product. That wasnt a particularly profitable market sector so i think we are seeing Alaskas model taking over. There is no point losing money on competitive transcon routes to BOS, EWR, IAD, JFK, FLL, etc from LAX and SFO.

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

LondonXtreme wrote:

After merger, all we've seen in these two airports is cutting, with no adding.

That is demonstrably false.

AS did have a focus city at LAX prior to the VX-AS merger, and AS still has nonstop service out of LAX to destinations other than its hubs or former VX destinations.

I could see AS possibly dehubbing LAX, but with LAX remaining a focus city for AS (similar to DL's CVG focus city/former hub).

Pi7472000 wrote:

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

That has happened too many times in the US aviation sector. Do you think anyone who was a Northwest fanperson likes having to look at Delta's current operations at Narita/Haneda or Amsterdam/Charles de Gaulle? Northwest would have done it differently, and maybe better. Or why was Northwest trapped into Air France? AS bought VX to eliminate a competitor, just like WN did with FL. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pi7472000 wrote:

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

Except that it wasn't profitable and that's not a long term sustainable strategy. I liked Virgin, too, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.

From all the posts on a.net, clearly there's considerable demand for another airline with a similar model. Considering all the venture money in the Bay Area, surely somebody will step in and do a start up. Takers? Any? Ummm, right.

Pi7472000 wrote:

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

They had great service, but they were loosing money. So it's better that they got bought out and some employees kept their jobs.

cschleic wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

Except that it wasn't profitable and that's not a long term sustainable strategy. I liked Virgin, too, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.

From all the posts on a.net, clearly there's considerable demand for another airline with a similar model. Considering all the venture money in the Bay Area, surely somebody will step in and do a start up. Takers? Any? Ummm, right.

You got it! Air travel should be enjoyable.

LAX is just too huge of a market for AS to completely "de-hub". All sizable US carriers operates some form of a large focus city or hub in LA, and for AS to bail on that market would be bad, even from a PR perspective.

SFO will likely reduce, simple because the market isn't as big and UA has a large, efficient, and growing operation that's unbeatable. But AS at SFO will probably consist of a relatively extensive operation to its hubs plus some select markets, somewhat like its SAN operation.

I don’t think you’ll see them go anywhere at SFO. Maybe not a ton of growth, but if they gave up the gate space I’m pretty sure someone would take it immediately. Particularly B6 or UA.

As for LAX it is hard being the 5th place player. That could shrink over time.

Slots and gates are tight both at SFO/LAX/EWR/JFK etc. Might as well deploy your assets where they make more money.

If Virgin were profitable with their business model, they would hardly have sold themselves to the highest bidder.

iadadd wrote:

LAX is just too huge of a market for AS to completely "de-hub". All sizable US carriers operates some form of a large focus city or hub in LA, and for AS to bail on that market would be bad, even from a PR perspective.

SFO will likely reduce, simple because the market isn't as big and UA has a large, efficient, and growing operation that's unbeatable. But AS at SFO will probably consist of a relatively extensive operation to its hubs plus some select markets, somewhat like its SAN operation.

SFO is the probably the wealthiest business market in the US and AS can't make that work. I see AS ending up right where they started with SEA. They bought VX
to eliminate a competitor and have succeeded in that which may make them more profitable, but they continue to alienate VX customer base at SFO and LAX, so yes likely to dehub and go after airports where they think they can compete, secondary airports like SAN and SJC.

From a personal standpoint, I'd love to see AAG downgrade LAX to a focus city and continue to concentrate growth on their 2 other focus cities, SAN and SJC. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if this were exactly what's happening. As to SFO, I think it will remain a hub but probably not a major growth point for the airline for now.

In fact, I recently posted on another thread some of these facts: AAG has not added a single route in 2018 to SFO or LAX. OTOH, SFO has lost 5 routes this year while LA has lost 6! So far, for 2019, SFO has seen 1 route cut.

Meanwhile, in 2018, both SAN and SJC have seen 2 new routes added; SAN lost 2 routes - both to stations to be closed permanently -- and SJC, 1. (For comparison to the major AS hubs, in 2018, SEA started 2 new routes and lost 1 and PDX lost 3 routes and gained none.)

This is by no means totally conclusive but it may reveal a trend at AAG network planning.

AS can grow SAN & SJC with fear of major competition from only WN rather that the competition they face at both SFO and LA. Of course the overall markets at SAN & SJC are much smaller than SFO and LA but so is the amount of competition. Pick your battles!

bb

I think the core problem is alot of VX flyers are sad their airline is gone. They have and are moving to WN as their main carrier. The vx product and experience is pretty different than AS.

They won't dehub either, rightsize or shift to more proftible routes. Yes.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Alaska is opportunistic looking for O/D in california without too much competition. Virgin America had the opposite business model where they competed on high volume highly competitive routes. Virgin tried to win market share by having a better product. That wasnt a particularly profitable market sector so i think we are seeing Alaskas model taking over. There is no point losing money on competitive transcon routes to BOS, EWR, IAD, JFK, FLL, etc from LAX and SFO.

IMO, AS is not in a great position. Other than actual flying to Alaska, they are in extremely competitive markets. West coast/California flying is being dominated by WN. B6 is dominating transcon. Hawaii flying is OK but if the economy turns down look out. DL is encroaching on SEA.

And of course they destroyed the only thing that was helping VX, the "cool" image.

I really don't see why B6 would want to merge with them. They can't compete on transcons, and west coast flying is already quite competitive. B6 has much bigger priorities in TATL, South America and adding more service to their existing hubs.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think the core problem is alot of VX flyers are sad their airline is gone. They have and are moving to WN as their main carrier. The vx product and experience is pretty different than AS.

They won't dehub either, rightsize or shift to more proftible routes. Yes.

I’ve seen a mix. Lots of business travelers going back to UA for route frequency. Some also to WN and even a little DL. Also noticed more people flying SJC given no more VX.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think the core problem is alot of VX flyers are sad their airline is gone. They have and are moving to WN as their main carrier. The vx product and experience is pretty different than AS.

I did fly on VX once between DFW and LAX 6 years ago, and I really liked the VX experience. I do miss VX being around, and I would probably fly to LAX on WN, AA, or DL the next time that I fly to LAX.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think the core problem is alot of VX flyers are sad their airline is gone. They have and are moving to WN as their main carrier. The vx product and experience is pretty different than AS.

They won't dehub either, rightsize or shift to more proftible routes. Yes.

Everyone is sad their favorite is gone..You still hear people say they miss Braniff, Air Florida, AirCal, PSA, Reno Air et al..... Being ones favorite and sustainability are different things. The public voting in of Senators and Congressional reps rarely consider the consequences of consolidation in a multitude of companies and how it will effect them in the long run. Consumers have let this happen to a great extent with airlines, banking, health services--a whole multitude of things without any checks or balances in their voting habits.

MKIAZ wrote:

I really don't see why B6 would want to merge with them. They can't compete on transcons, and west coast flying is already quite competitive. B6 has much bigger priorities in TATL, South America and adding more service to their existing hubs.

B6 made a strategic mistake by not being more aggressive in pursuing VX. They needed the West Coast ops to balance out JFK/BOS which have been under attack for some time. I think a B6 West Coast presence would have created growth opportunities and not contractions like we are seeing with AS.

Will Alaska debub SFO&LAX?

No.

bfitzflyer wrote:

SFO is the probably the wealthiest business market in the US and AS can't make that work.

Huh?

Please explain the logic behind your conclusion, since AS actually has expanded destinations and departures from SFO since the acquisition...

PDX will likely be the first hub to go and just keep a handful of key O&Ds.

LondonXtreme wrote:

-There is rumor that AS will eventually merge with B6. If that happens, it makes sense that AS will consolidate SEA hub.

where does this rumor come from? Anet? News article?

LondonXtreme wrote:

There is rumor that AS will eventually merge with B6. If that happens, it makes sense that AS will consolidate SEA hub.

That’s a merger that:

1. Will never happen
2. Would never be approved by the DOJ
3. Would have no chance at successfully merging cultures.

Why is everyone on A.net obsessed with consolidation? Do you seriously want us in 30 years to have just one carrier named “Airline”?

FlightLevel360 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

Except that it wasn't profitable and that's not a long term sustainable strategy. I liked Virgin, too, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.

From all the posts on a.net, clearly there's considerable demand for another airline with a similar model. Considering all the venture money in the Bay Area, surely somebody will step in and do a start up. Takers? Any? Ummm, right.

You got it! Air travel should be enjoyable.

It should, but being enjoyable doesn’t equal profit. Look at how successful ULCCs have become, and they’re about as enjoyable as root canals. People aren’t willing to pay for enjoyable air travel. VX was an experiment that was never destined to live longer than it did. If SRB was really wanting to make a significant impact in the domestic US market, he should have participated in a buyout of an existing carrier and rebranded. As it is, Virgin Atlantic is now basically a Delta subsidiary, so despite his massive whining about VX, it really is all about the money with him too.

afcjets wrote:

PDX will likely be the first hub to go and just keep a handful of key O&Ds.

I don’t think so. They are by far the dominant player in PDX with an operation larger than any cities in California. It’s likely they get good yields being the dominant player. Their brand recognition in the PNW is better than anywhere else.

DarthLobster wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Except that it wasn't profitable and that's not a long term sustainable strategy. I liked Virgin, too, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.

From all the posts on a.net, clearly there's considerable demand for another airline with a similar model. Considering all the venture money in the Bay Area, surely somebody will step in and do a start up. Takers? Any? Ummm, right.

You got it! Air travel should be enjoyable.

It should, but being enjoyable doesn’t equal profit. Look at how successful ULCCs have become, and they’re about as enjoyable as root canals. People aren’t willing to pay for enjoyable air travel. VX was an experiment that was never destined to live longer than it did. If SRB was really wanting to make a significant impact in the domestic US market, he should have participated in a buyout of an existing carrier and rebranded. As it is, Virgin Atlantic is now basically a Delta subsidiary, so despite his massive whining about VX, it really is all about the money with him too.

Consumer attitudes really need to change if there is to be a revolution in how we travel.

AS would have to be really dumb to shrink and give up gates that it paid so much for. However, I also don't see them expanding further at SFO after UA hurt them on so many new routes they tried to add.

EA CO AS wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

SFO is the probably the wealthiest business market in the US and AS can't make that work.

Huh?

Please explain the logic behind your conclusion, since AS actually has expanded destinations and departures from SFO since the acquisition...

Expanded and since contracted. AS paid to eliminate the competitor and is doing well since in their niche of Seattle and secondary airports. Let me repeat nothing wrong with that as this is a business and they are in it to make money.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

You got it! Air travel should be enjoyable.

It should, but being enjoyable doesn’t equal profit. Look at how successful ULCCs have become, and they’re about as enjoyable as root canals. People aren’t willing to pay for enjoyable air travel. VX was an experiment that was never destined to live longer than it did. If SRB was really wanting to make a significant impact in the domestic US market, he should have participated in a buyout of an existing carrier and rebranded. As it is, Virgin Atlantic is now basically a Delta subsidiary, so despite his massive whining about VX, it really is all about the money with him too.

Consumer attitudes really need to change if there is to be a revolution in how we travel.

Right. And we've seen a revolution recently...the customer only cares about price, despite complaining about the result of that behavior. It'll take another revolution for that to change but don't count on it. Consumer behavior is totally irrational...passengers think nothing of spending a bunch of $ on a taxi to the airport or TV service that they don't watch, but spend endless hours saving $3 on a plane ticket. Bizarre but so be it.

vadodara wrote:

Slots and gates are tight both at SFO/LAX/EWR/JFK etc. Might as well deploy your assets where they make more money.

If Virgin were profitable with their business model, they would hardly have sold themselves to the highest bidder.

U.S. airports don't have slot constraints. Gate constraints, yes.

MKIAZ wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Alaska is opportunistic looking for O/D in california without too much competition. Virgin America had the opposite business model where they competed on high volume highly competitive routes. Virgin tried to win market share by having a better product. That wasnt a particularly profitable market sector so i think we are seeing Alaskas model taking over. There is no point losing money on competitive transcon routes to BOS, EWR, IAD, JFK, FLL, etc from LAX and SFO.

IMO, AS is not in a great position. Other than actual flying to Alaska, they are in extremely competitive markets. West coast/California flying is being dominated by WN. B6 is dominating transcon. Hawaii flying is OK but if the economy turns down look out. DL is encroaching on SEA.

And of course they destroyed the only thing that was helping VX, the "cool" image.

I really don't see why B6 would want to merge with them. They can't compete on transcons, and west coast flying is already quite competitive. B6 has much bigger priorities in TATL, South America and adding more service to their existing hubs.

The part of your post about AS being in extremely competitive markets has a lot of truth to it. I don't know about B6 dominating transcon considering AA, DL and UA also participate, but AS's historic concentrations up / down the west coast, other than some former monopolies on service to secondary airports such as BUR, ONT, etc., Mexico, and the more recently added Hawaii routes, are competitive and carry thinner margins. Now with more transcon, they're in a different kind of competitive market. So they need to find other markets, besides carrying people from the Northwest to cross-country cities. Hence expanding SAN, filling in with what some people might call "fly over" cities, lesser served routes, etc.

In terms of de-hubbing LAX, AS had a large presence there long before Virgin ever existed. Seems a bit of an overstatement.

AS is right-sizing operations and is looking for conservative, sustainable growth moving forward. They evaluate markets based on performance and keep the ones that perform and eliminate ones that don’t meet the measure. That’s called running a solid business. They acquired VX for a lot of reasons, but one of them was for the physical space in SFO and LAX. I don’t see them giving up or dismantling the operation at either place after paying so much for it.

cschleic wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

As a SFO based traveler I loved Virgin America! I flew them everywhere they flew. I am really disappointed with Alaska and their service. I hope they dehub SFO and allow United and Delta to expand as their service is better. It is too bad they were allowed to take over VX and increase fares, cut service and ruin a great airline and its service.

Except that it wasn't profitable and that's not a long term sustainable strategy. I liked Virgin, too, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.

From all the posts on a.net, clearly there's considerable demand for another airline with a similar model. Considering all the venture money in the Bay Area, surely somebody will step in and do a start up. Takers? Any? Ummm, right.

Exactly. Something had to change because it wasn’t a sustainable model

cschleic wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

It should, but being enjoyable doesn’t equal profit. Look at how successful ULCCs have become, and they’re about as enjoyable as root canals. People aren’t willing to pay for enjoyable air travel. VX was an experiment that was never destined to live longer than it did. If SRB was really wanting to make a significant impact in the domestic US market, he should have participated in a buyout of an existing carrier and rebranded. As it is, Virgin Atlantic is now basically a Delta subsidiary, so despite his massive whining about VX, it really is all about the money with him too.

Consumer attitudes really need to change if there is to be a revolution in how we travel.

Right. And we've seen a revolution recently...the customer only cares about price, despite complaining about the result of that behavior. It'll take another revolution for that to change but don't count on it. Consumer behavior is totally irrational...passengers think nothing of spending a bunch of $ on a taxi to the airport or TV service that they don't watch, but spend endless hours saving $3 on a plane ticket. Bizarre but so be it.

vadodara wrote:

Slots and gates are tight both at SFO/LAX/EWR/JFK etc. Might as well deploy your assets where they make more money.

If Virgin were profitable with their business model, they would hardly have sold themselves to the highest bidder.

U.S. airports don't have slot constraints. Gate constraints, yes.

MKIAZ wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Alaska is opportunistic looking for O/D in california without too much competition. Virgin America had the opposite business model where they competed on high volume highly competitive routes. Virgin tried to win market share by having a better product. That wasnt a particularly profitable market sector so i think we are seeing Alaskas model taking over. There is no point losing money on competitive transcon routes to BOS, EWR, IAD, JFK, FLL, etc from LAX and SFO.

IMO, AS is not in a great position. Other than actual flying to Alaska, they are in extremely competitive markets. West coast/California flying is being dominated by WN. B6 is dominating transcon. Hawaii flying is OK but if the economy turns down look out. DL is encroaching on SEA.

And of course they destroyed the only thing that was helping VX, the "cool" image.

I really don't see why B6 would want to merge with them. They can't compete on transcons, and west coast flying is already quite competitive. B6 has much bigger priorities in TATL, South America and adding more service to their existing hubs.

The part of your post about AS being in extremely competitive markets has a lot of truth to it. I don't know about B6 dominating transcon considering AA, DL and UA also participate, but AS's historic concentrations up / down the west coast, other than some former monopolies on service to secondary airports such as BUR, ONT, etc., Mexico, and the more recently added Hawaii routes, are competitive and carry thinner margins. Now with more transcon, they're in a different kind of competitive market. So they need to find other markets, besides carrying people from the Northwest to cross-country cities. Hence expanding SAN, filling in with what some people might call "fly over" cities, lesser served routes, etc.

In terms of de-hubbing LAX, AS had a large presence there long before Virgin ever existed. Seems a bit of an overstatement.

Ummm JFK, DCA, and LGA are slot constrained

cschleic wrote:

Right. And we've seen a revolution recently...the customer only cares about price, despite complaining about the result of that behavior. It'll take another revolution for that to change but don't count on it. Consumer behavior is totally irrational...passengers think nothing of spending a bunch of $ on a taxi to the airport or TV service that they don't watch, but spend endless hours saving $3 on a plane ticket. Bizarre but so be it.

The "revolution" is the shift in consumer attitude towards a willingness to pay slightly more to experience more comfort. There has to be other people than me who follow this mindset.

bfitzflyer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

SFO is the probably the wealthiest business market in the US and AS can't make that work.

Huh?

Please explain the logic behind your conclusion, since AS actually has expanded destinations and departures from SFO since the acquisition...

Expanded and since contracted.

Incorrect. Net destinations and departures from SFO are still up since the acquisition.

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS paid to eliminate the competitor

Again, incorrect. AS paid to acquire them so B6 could not.

gwrudolph wrote:

cschleic wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

Consumer attitudes really need to change if there is to be a revolution in how we travel.

Right. And we've seen a revolution recently...the customer only cares about price, despite complaining about the result of that behavior. It'll take another revolution for that to change but don't count on it. Consumer behavior is totally irrational...passengers think nothing of spending a bunch of $ on a taxi to the airport or TV service that they don't watch, but spend endless hours saving $3 on a plane ticket. Bizarre but so be it.

vadodara wrote:

Slots and gates are tight both at SFO/LAX/EWR/JFK etc. Might as well deploy your assets where they make more money.

If Virgin were profitable with their business model, they would hardly have sold themselves to the highest bidder.

U.S. airports don't have slot constraints. Gate constraints, yes.

MKIAZ wrote:

IMO, AS is not in a great position. Other than actual flying to Alaska, they are in extremely competitive markets. West coast/California flying is being dominated by WN. B6 is dominating transcon. Hawaii flying is OK but if the economy turns down look out. DL is encroaching on SEA.

And of course they destroyed the only thing that was helping VX, the "cool" image.

I really don't see why B6 would want to merge with them. They can't compete on transcons, and west coast flying is already quite competitive. B6 has much bigger priorities in TATL, South America and adding more service to their existing hubs.

The part of your post about AS being in extremely competitive markets has a lot of truth to it. I don't know about B6 dominating transcon considering AA, DL and UA also participate, but AS's historic concentrations up / down the west coast, other than some former monopolies on service to secondary airports such as BUR, ONT, etc., Mexico, and the more recently added Hawaii routes, are competitive and carry thinner margins. Now with more transcon, they're in a different kind of competitive market. So they need to find other markets, besides carrying people from the Northwest to cross-country cities. Hence expanding SAN, filling in with what some people might call "fly over" cities, lesser served routes, etc.

In terms of de-hubbing LAX, AS had a large presence there long before Virgin ever existed. Seems a bit of an overstatement.

Ummm JFK, DCA, and LGA are slot constrained

I stand corrected. Was thinking more in terms of LAX and frequent comments about slots vs. gates on a.net.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Right. And we've seen a revolution recently...the customer only cares about price, despite complaining about the result of that behavior. It'll take another revolution for that to change but don't count on it. Consumer behavior is totally irrational...passengers think nothing of spending a bunch of $ on a taxi to the airport or TV service that they don't watch, but spend endless hours saving $3 on a plane ticket. Bizarre but so be it.

The "revolution" is the shift in consumer attitude towards a willingness to pay slightly more to experience more comfort. There has to be other people than me who follow this mindset.

Spot-on; the ULCC model has shown that while many consumers are willing to accept less for the lowest price, there are many others who are willing to pay slightly more for the guest experience level they choose, including amenities like early boarding to extra legroom. Customers are able to choose what they want instead of getting all-inclusive pricing for things they may not value.

tphuang wrote:

AS would have to be really dumb to shrink and give up gates that it paid so much for. However, I also don't see them expanding further at SFO after UA hurt them on so many new routes they tried to add.

This may be the key point for AS at SFO - the UA fortress hub. AS is basically a full service carrier going up against another full service carrier in UA. At SJC, their main competition is WN, a discount/LCC without premiums. There doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for AS at SFO. All other airlines have a strong presence there. After WN, AS main “competitor” at SJC is AA, which is a partner. The other competition has a hodgepodge of service. I don’t think it is too far fetched to think that AS might “slide down 101” and retrench at SJC, which can draw from a portion of SFOs market.

As for SAN, it is a market unto itself. Sure, there is likely a little bleed over to LA area airports from the north end, but not like SFO-SJC-OAK. Like SJC, AS main competition in SAN is WN. I don’t know of anyone else who has a hub or focus city in SAN.

AirFiero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS would have to be really dumb to shrink and give up gates that it paid so much for. However, I also don't see them expanding further at SFO after UA hurt them on so many new routes they tried to add.

This may be the key point for AS at SFO - the UA fortress hub. AS is basically a full service carrier going up against another full service carrier in UA. At SJC, their main competition is WN, a discount/LCC without premiums. There doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for AS at SFO. All other airlines have a strong presence there. After WN, AS main “competitor” at SJC is AA, which is a partner. The other competition has a hodgepodge of service. I don’t think it is too far fetched to think that AS might “slide down 101” and retrench at SJC, which can draw from a portion of SFOs market.
.

The goal is to serve the ENTIRE Bay Area well, something no one carrier does, presently. A full-fledged hub at SFO, complemented by a focus city at SJC and a decent operation at OAK, means AS is able to pull from the entire MSA and also use SJC/OAK for overflow/diversions as-needed when WX/ATC impacts SFO.

Seriously a moderator has not fixed the type in the title yet!

Every few months, same topic. AS would be fools to keep the status quo of VX at LAX/SFO, it wasn’t working as is.

EA CO AS wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS would have to be really dumb to shrink and give up gates that it paid so much for. However, I also don't see them expanding further at SFO after UA hurt them on so many new routes they tried to add.

This may be the key point for AS at SFO - the UA fortress hub. AS is basically a full service carrier going up against another full service carrier in UA. At SJC, their main competition is WN, a discount/LCC without premiums. There doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for AS at SFO. All other airlines have a strong presence there. After WN, AS main “competitor” at SJC is AA, which is a partner. The other competition has a hodgepodge of service. I don’t think it is too far fetched to think that AS might “slide down 101” and retrench at SJC, which can draw from a portion of SFOs market.
.

The goal is to serve the ENTIRE Bay Area well, something no one carrier does, presently. A full-fledged hub at SFO, complemented by a focus city at SJC and a decent operation at OAK, means AS is able to pull from the entire MSA and also use SJC/OAK for overflow/diversions as-needed when WX/ATC impacts SFO.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply set up a hub at SJC instead of trying to go at it against everyone else in SFO? Sure, I can see them serving all three airports, but why deal with all of that at SFO including air traffic delays and so on?

EA CO AS wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS would have to be really dumb to shrink and give up gates that it paid so much for. However, I also don't see them expanding further at SFO after UA hurt them on so many new routes they tried to add.

This may be the key point for AS at SFO - the UA fortress hub. AS is basically a full service carrier going up against another full service carrier in UA. At SJC, their main competition is WN, a discount/LCC without premiums. There doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for AS at SFO. All other airlines have a strong presence there. After WN, AS main “competitor” at SJC is AA, which is a partner. The other competition has a hodgepodge of service. I don’t think it is too far fetched to think that AS might “slide down 101” and retrench at SJC, which can draw from a portion of SFOs market.
.

The goal is to serve the ENTIRE Bay Area well, something no one carrier does, presently. A full-fledged hub at SFO, complemented by a focus city at SJC and a decent operation at OAK, means AS is able to pull from the entire MSA and also use SJC/OAK for overflow/diversions as-needed when WX/ATC impacts SFO.

Southwest has flown all 3 airports for a long time. Did you not notice that they are one carrier?

MIflyer12 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

The goal is to serve the ENTIRE Bay Area well, something no one carrier does, presently. A full-fledged hub at SFO, complemented by a focus city at SJC and a decent operation at OAK, means AS is able to pull from the entire MSA and also use SJC/OAK for overflow/diversions as-needed when WX/ATC impacts SFO.

If that is the plan it's going to fail. AS doesn't have the resources for multiple hundreds of flights out of the Bay Area the way Delta has ~500 flights a day from NYC. If SFO survives as a runt hub AS ops at OAK and SJC will be competing with it. Hub Airline Economics 101: Don't compete with your own hub. UA doesn't have flights from OAK, MDW, HOU, nor JFK. AA isn't at DAL or MDW. AS won't have the frequencies to many destinations from any single airport; it won't have a decent destination set from SFO.

You're right, They should just pull out of SFO now.

MIflyer12 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

The goal is to serve the ENTIRE Bay Area well, something no one carrier does, presently. A full-fledged hub at SFO, complemented by a focus city at SJC and a decent operation at OAK, means AS is able to pull from the entire MSA and also use SJC/OAK for overflow/diversions as-needed when WX/ATC impacts SFO.

If that is the plan it's going to fail. AS doesn't have the resources for multiple hundreds of flights out of the Bay Area the way Delta has ~500 flights a day from NYC. If SFO survives as a runt hub AS ops at OAK and SJC will be competing with it. Hub Airline Economics 101: Don't compete with your own hub. UA doesn't have flights from OAK, MDW, HOU, nor JFK. AA isn't at DAL or MDW. AS won't have the frequencies to many destinations from any single airport; it won't have a decent destination set from SFO.

Nothing I read indicated that EA CO AS said all three airports would be hubs, each market has it's own strengths & real estate at SFO has been a consistent issue since the inception of service by AS to the airport, which is why service has been kept to a minimum vs say SJC where they could grow more freely.

Keep in mind when comparing airlines, try to use comparable carriers in your thought, you should replace B6 with DL, because comparing DL & AS is absurd. One is a huge International carrier serving Multiple continents all over the globe & the other doesn't even operate wide-bodies.

One could argue that AS is favored at PAE & have half the lift out of Everett already locked in, even though they also control 50% of the lift at SEA. Does that make them smart, by knowing their demographics well enough to make the decision to take on 50% lift from both Seattle airports, which after nearly two years of research they are discovering how to cater to the needs of each airport.

WN is only at OAK, because they couldn't get space at SFO, but they didn't want to pay for the fees at SFO, for many, many years. Then they changed their mind, due to high demand & offered limited SFO flights from the LA area & Vegas.

AS got the opportunity to become number 2 domestic carrier at the largest bay area airport & they took it, paid a pretty penny for it, all the while increasing their footprint at LAX. AS paid way too much money for them to abandon plans to take hold at each major CA airport as much as they can, the fight is theirs to lose up against WN.

Keep in mind AS has driven WN out of tons of markets, and WN hasn't even kept PDX-SFO going (one of the top five destinations from PDX) because AS is preferred & offers more capacity. I don't expect AS is going to supersede WN in the LA-Bay market, but even number 2 or 3 is still a fair amount of lift & market share.

Those were deliberate, well thought out maneuvers on the part of AAG to have a direction to take AAG. Nothing has indicated that any airport has suffered from the merger. SFO departures have increased since the merger, although half a dozen or so markets have been closed, all of the fat cutting that comes with an acquisition is underway. The A-320's are flying shorter routes, Hawaii is all 738 or 739's & the transcons are almost all Boeing 737-8/9. The Q-400's at OAK are E-175's now, the SJC hub has had several adds for a more well rounded portfolio & has seen some real love places WN won't go, like JFK. .

EA CO AS wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Huh?

Please explain the logic behind your conclusion, since AS actually has expanded destinations and departures from SFO since the acquisition...

Expanded and since contracted.

Incorrect. Net destinations and departures from SFO are still up since the acquisition.

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS paid to eliminate the competitor

Again, incorrect. AS paid to acquire them so B6 could not.

Point 1 is not incorrect,, they have been contracting since initial expansion at SFO.
Point 2 you basically agree with me, they paid to get rid of a current competitor and potential future competitor.

bfitzflyer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Expanded and since contracted.

Incorrect. Net destinations and departures from SFO are still up since the acquisition.

bfitzflyer wrote:

AS paid to eliminate the competitor

Again, incorrect. AS paid to acquire them so B6 could not.

Point 1 is not incorrect,, they have been contracting since initial expansion at SFO.
Point 2 you basically agree with me, they paid to get rid of a current competitor and potential future competitor.

Curious if you know # of flights and # of cities served on merger day with those numbers today? That’d solve #1 one way or the other.

#2 was a misunderstanding. The implication was that AS bought VX to get rid of VX. It’s clear that they bid what they bid to lock B6 out.

EA CO AS wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

AS would have to be really dumb to shrink and give up gates that it paid so much for. However, I also don't see them expanding further at SFO after UA hurt them on so many new routes they tried to add.

This may be the key point for AS at SFO - the UA fortress hub. AS is basically a full service carrier going up against another full service carrier in UA. At SJC, their main competition is WN, a discount/LCC without premiums. There doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for AS at SFO. All other airlines have a strong presence there. After WN, AS main “competitor” at SJC is AA, which is a partner. The other competition has a hodgepodge of service. I don’t think it is too far fetched to think that AS might “slide down 101” and retrench at SJC, which can draw from a portion of SFOs market.
.

The goal is to serve the ENTIRE Bay Area well, something no one carrier does, presently. A full-fledged hub at SFO, complemented by a focus city at SJC and a decent operation at OAK, means AS is able to pull from the entire MSA and also use SJC/OAK for overflow/diversions as-needed when WX/ATC impacts SFO.

They're still barely above zero at OAK. WN is larger and more balanced. WN is ~130 flights a day at OAK, ~100 at SJC and ~50 at SFO. AS is at 130 combined for all 3 airports.