I know AS has been very frustrated by the operational difficulties of it's large SFO base and has even gone as far as diverting and bussing passengers, just to keep the operation moving. But at the same time, they have said they are looking forward to taking over all of T2 once the new T1 gates are back online. So I don't think the hub is going away, especially with all the VX transcon routes...which I do think they should get a dedicated fleet for to better compete with what UA/AA/DL/B6 are putting on the transcons.

"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?"

There are simply not enough available gates at SJC for AS to go beyond their current schedule, even with operations spilt between terminals A and B. There are 10 to 12 tow movements every night/morning just to accommodate the RONs. WN is slowly pushing AS further south out terminal B. Southwest would love to have all of Terminal B if they could! There is still no guarantee that AS will get the any of the expansion gates at the end of B when they open in Spring (Summer?) of 2019. I'm thinking hard stands at South Cargo and bus ops to the aircraft might be the only way to grow further.

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.

AS also has a sizable presence at SJC and OAK which are more preferable for many people than making the trek to SFO

believeinflight wrote:

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.

AS also has a sizable presence at SJC and OAK which are more preferable for many people than making the trek to SFO

As noted above, not really at OAK (<10 flights, compared to ~130 for WN)

cschleic wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

cschleic wrote:

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

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.

Actually EWR as well. AS only got slots after the forced divesture of AA-US Air (I think). One thing Virgin brought for them were plenty of slots at EWR/JFK.

DCA and LGA as well but due to the perimeter rule, AS cant effectively use them for the key W Coast airports.

gwrudolph 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.

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

We each have our own opinions, but in my opinion, AS has better service than VX. AS serves complimentary snacks, while VX does not.

vadodara wrote:

cschleic wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

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.

Actually EWR as well. AS only got slots after the forced divesture of AA-US Air (I think). One thing Virgin brought for them were plenty of slots at EWR/JFK.

DCA and LGA as well but due to the perimeter rule, AS cant effectively use them for the key W Coast airports.

EWR is no longer slot restricted. It was removed a year or two ago.

DCA and LGA are both perimeter and slot restricted. So, there are restrictions on both how many flights and to where

LAX as someone else mentioned is not capped by slots but rather max gates allowed in an arrangement that LAWA entered into with local communities, I believe

RWA380 wrote:

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.....

Great post...thanks RWA.

AS has no desire to greatly expand OAK...they know that WN 'owns' it and it'd be a waste of money and resources to add much there.

They have a beautiful T2 in SFO that they'll soon control. They don't need to offer the same number of flights as UA to stay relevant in SFO, in fact that'd be impossible. Their goal in CA is to be a strong number 2 in SFO, SJC and SAN and be relevant out of LAX. The sheer number of people living in those cities and in California make this totally doable and sustainable.

Being number 5 at LAX means you're still carrying millions of passengers. 84 million people passed through LAX in 2017...and AS/VX combined in 2017 carried over 7 million customers. There's plenty of business for everyone. B6 blew it by focusing on LGB and that's why they were in the game for VX...they're pigeon-holed and needed a way out. LAX and buying VX was their only option. ONT has been tried...people just won't drive that far east and there's no public transportation to reach it. That said, I can see gradual growth for AS out of ONT as they've been flying there for over 30 years.

It's true that AS strongly competes with WN and has driven them out of many Pacific Northwest markets that they've tried to add. We might see their new service out of PAE as the next example...WN's proposed schedule using mainline jets 3x daily to OAK and 2x daily to LAS will likely be too much capacity in a region that has proven over and over that passengers prefer AS over WN. We'll see...

Tomassjc wrote:

"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?"

There are simply not enough available gates at SJC for AS to go beyond their current schedule, even with operations spilt between terminals A and B. There are 10 to 12 tow movements every night/morning just to accommodate the RONs. WN is slowly pushing AS further south out terminal B. Southwest would love to have all of Terminal B if they could! There is still no guarantee that AS will get the any of the expansion gates at the end of B when they open in Spring (Summer?) of 2019. I'm thinking hard stands at South Cargo and bus ops to the aircraft might be the only way to grow further.

If AS doesn’t get the expansion gates, who does? WN, I would assume? Does WN have big expansion plans to fill the 5+1 that is being added? What do we figure, about 14 flights a day per a gate to have a dedicated gate? That would be 84 flights. I have to think AS will get a piece of that action. Not 80 flights, but maybe half that potential? Do any other airlines have serious expansion plans for SJC? Maybe DL, but certainly not more than a few more flights.

I don’t have reasonable expectations that anyone will hub at SJC, more like hope. What we do know is that AS has called SJC a focus city and has backed that up with a very respectable number of added fights an destinations. I think the only route they’ve cut is EUG. Up the road at SFO, they seem to e cutting back. WN has been adding at SJC like crazy. WN obviously is going to war with AS at SJC. AS has plenty of opportunity for expansion of destinations at SJC (assuming sufficient gate space). How much more could or would WN add? To where? What are your thoughts along these lines?

Thanx mods for the correction.

bb.

Ziyulu wrote:

gwrudolph 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.

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

We each have our own opinions, but in my opinion, AS has better service than VX. AS serves complimentary snacks, while VX does not.

Everyone does have their own opinions, but the anti-AS stuff seems to be highly exaggerated. AS consistently ranks high for customer service. Better than the airlines these folks claim to be running to in SFO/LAX.

I did a round trip this weekend and former-VX crews are definitely different from my AS experiences. Outbound had a confused flight attendant regarding drink orders on the first flight plus sticky cups, no napkins given with service, and no snacks in Premium. Most of us had used the seat back system, so I’m not sure why this was so confusing. On the return the FA gave the exit row notice to the wrong rows, then yelled at a sleeping passenger not in the exit row for not listening to him. It was incredibly awkward. He didn’t apologize for his mistake, then kept an attitude when he had to do it again. Then he had to do it a third time as boarding hadn’t completed. And before anyone says anything, all Airbus crews are still VX crews.

I’m used to AS FAs talking and being friendly, I’ve found former-VX FAs pretty robotic. Although, the pilot intro is nice. I appreciate the expanded route system, most of my Alaska miles this year have been on VX planes. But otherwise I’m as skeptical as VX flyers, but on the flip side - I feel like AS customer service may suffer from this merger.

LAXBUR wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

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

We each have our own opinions, but in my opinion, AS has better service than VX. AS serves complimentary snacks, while VX does not.

Everyone does have their own opinions, but the anti-AS stuff seems to be highly exaggerated. AS consistently ranks high for customer service. Better than the airlines these folks claim to be running to in SFO/LAX.

I did a round trip this weekend and former-VX crews are definitely different from my AS experiences. Outbound had a confused flight attendant regarding drink orders on the first flight plus sticky cups, no napkins given with service, and no snacks in Premium. Most of us had used the seat back system, so I’m not sure why this was so confusing. On the return the FA gave the exit row notice to the wrong rows, then yelled at a sleeping passenger not in the exit row for not listening to him. It was incredibly awkward. He didn’t apologize for his mistake, then kept an attitude when he had to do it again. Then he had to do it a third time as boarding hadn’t completed. And before anyone says anything, all Airbus crews are still VX crews.

I’m used to AS FAs talking and being friendly, I’ve found former-VX FAs pretty robotic. Although, the pilot intro is nice. I appreciate the expanded route system, most of my Alaska miles this year have been on VX planes. But otherwise I’m as skeptical as VX flyers, but on the flip side - I feel like AS customer service may suffer from this merger.

My flights on Airbus with ex-VX crews have been less than stellar. God knows how they won any awards as they've been always underwhelming and sometimes downright lazy.. AS has their work cut out for them...they need to whip them into shape pronto.

hiflyeras wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

We each have our own opinions, but in my opinion, AS has better service than VX. AS serves complimentary snacks, while VX does not.

Everyone does have their own opinions, but the anti-AS stuff seems to be highly exaggerated. AS consistently ranks high for customer service. Better than the airlines these folks claim to be running to in SFO/LAX.

I did a round trip this weekend and former-VX crews are definitely different from my AS experiences. Outbound had a confused flight attendant regarding drink orders on the first flight plus sticky cups, no napkins given with service, and no snacks in Premium. Most of us had used the seat back system, so I’m not sure why this was so confusing. On the return the FA gave the exit row notice to the wrong rows, then yelled at a sleeping passenger not in the exit row for not listening to him. It was incredibly awkward. He didn’t apologize for his mistake, then kept an attitude when he had to do it again. Then he had to do it a third time as boarding hadn’t completed. And before anyone says anything, all Airbus crews are still VX crews.

I’m used to AS FAs talking and being friendly, I’ve found former-VX FAs pretty robotic. Although, the pilot intro is nice. I appreciate the expanded route system, most of my Alaska miles this year have been on VX planes. But otherwise I’m as skeptical as VX flyers, but on the flip side - I feel like AS customer service may suffer from this merger.

My flights on Airbus with ex-VX crews have been less than stellar. God knows how they won any awards as they've been always underwhelming and sometimes downright lazy.. AS has their work cut out for them...they need to whip them into shape pronto.

Of course.

Airline Weekly has a year on year comparison of seats at AS top hubs in Q4.

SEA - 3,482,261 +7%
PDX - 1,275,147 +5%
SFO - 1.062.515 (-13%)
LAX - 1,006,448 (- 9%)
ANC - 534,408 +4%

Story says AS California dreams being dashed by competition from UA & WN.

=

LAXintl wrote:

Airline Weekly has a year on year comparison of seats at AS top hubs in Q4.

SEA - 3,482,261 +7%
PDX - 1,275,147 +5%
SFO - 1.062.515 (-13%)
LAX - 1,006,448 (- 9%)
ANC - 534,408 +4%

Story says AS California dreams being dashed by competition from UA & WN.

=

...but they aren’t cutting back at SFO, LOL (not directed at you, LAXintl)

Pity we don’t have the SJC numbers for comparison.

AirFiero wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Airline Weekly has a year on year comparison of seats at AS top hubs in Q4.

SEA - 3,482,261 +7%
PDX - 1,275,147 +5%
SFO - 1.062.515 (-13%)
LAX - 1,006,448 (- 9%)
ANC - 534,408 +4%

Story says AS California dreams being dashed by competition from UA & WN.

=

...but they aren’t cutting back at SFO, LOL (not directed at you, LAXintl)

Pity we don’t have the SJC numbers for comparison.

You might be conflating two different assertions: Are they down yoy and are they down since the merger? I’ve heard the latter discussed more, but clearly a number of routes added since the merger have been pulled.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Airline Weekly has a year on year comparison of seats at AS top hubs in Q4.

SEA - 3,482,261 +7%
PDX - 1,275,147 +5%
SFO - 1.062.515 (-13%)
LAX - 1,006,448 (- 9%)
ANC - 534,408 +4%

Story says AS California dreams being dashed by competition from UA & WN.

=

...but they aren’t cutting back at SFO, LOL (not directed at you, LAXintl)

Pity we don’t have the SJC numbers for comparison.

You might be conflating two different assertions: Are they down yoy and are they down since the merger? I’ve heard the latter discussed more, but clearly a number of routes added since the merger have been pulled.

And now a possible downward trend is seats.

AirFiero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

...but they aren’t cutting back at SFO, LOL (not directed at you, LAXintl)

Pity we don’t have the SJC numbers for comparison.

You might be conflating two different assertions: Are they down yoy and are they down since the merger? I’ve heard the latter discussed more, but clearly a number of routes added since the merger have been pulled.

And now a possible downward trend is seats.

Of course. That was the topic of the thread. I was just replying to your cutback comment. I wasn’t stating anything about their possible success or failure in SFO - that’s up to AS to figure out.

Is this really surprising though? They absorbed a weaker airline and the weaker airline had hubs in SFO and LAX. On top of that, those airports are where the most overlap was. And I haven’t seen the article but I’m not sure how LAX and SFO seat numbers mean California flying is a failure. It may be, but I don’t believe intra-California has seen many cuts compared to LAX/SFO to a few non-West Coast cities.

LAXBUR wrote:

Is this really surprising though? They absorbed a weaker airline and the weaker airline had hubs in SFO and LAX. On top of that, those airports are where the most overlap was. And I haven’t seen the article but I’m not sure how LAX and SFO seat numbers mean California flying is a failure. It may be, but I don’t believe intra-California has seen many cuts compared to LAX/SFO to a few non-West Coast cities.

1. They have added then cut a number of routes at SFO. That supports the notion that AS is struggling to gain traction there.

2. YOY comps being down tells part of the story but not the whole story. If they are still above merger day 1 then it’s a bit different than if they are down since merger day 1.

3. VX had the A319 as their smallest bird, while AS has droves of E175’s entering their fleet. That may affect overall seat counts as well.

4. There’s been plenty of commentary on their poor yields in SFO.

Put it all together and you have an incomplete picture of a work in progress. This article gives a part of that picture though.

Also the merger isn’t even two years old.

The expectations on here are confusing, some referred to Virgin as a “poison pill” then also expect rapid expansion. You don’t take in a poison then go for a jog. lol

I have no inside info and don’t claim to be an expert, but I suspect the majority of cuts are done in California save any economic crash. They’re not de-hubbing. Especially since LAX was a small hub for Alaska prior to VX and they have some important real estate at SFO. I would guess they will focus on supporting intra-California which in time may allow for adding more non-California routes.

There's been some very small positive updates. LAX-SJC will go from 4x E175 to 3x Airbus + 1 E175 next year and SNA-SFO will be up to six times daily.

phatfarmlines wrote:

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.

They didn't stand to gain very much in purchasing Virgin. Yes, same AC types, but they were already competing in several markets, but you can't buy out competition on NYC-FL and NYC-LAX/SFO. Someone else will always pop up in their place likely that Delta would have just added additional frequencies. If B6 wants to fly more west coast routes from SFO and LAX they have the aircraft to do it. They wouldn't need Virgin.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

You might be conflating two different assertions: Are they down yoy and are they down since the merger? I’ve heard the latter discussed more, but clearly a number of routes added since the merger have been pulled.

And now a possible downward trend is seats.

Of course. That was the topic of the thread. I was just replying to your cutback comment. I wasn’t stating anything about their possible success or failure in SFO - that’s up to AS to figure out.

Yup, understood.

spinkid wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

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.

They didn't stand to gain very much in purchasing Virgin. Yes, same AC types, but they were already competing in several markets, but you can't buy out competition on NYC-FL and NYC-LAX/SFO. Someone else will always pop up in their place likely that Delta would have just added additional frequencies. If B6 wants to fly more west coast routes from SFO and LAX they have the aircraft to do it. They wouldn't need Virgin.

B6 needs the real estate, and of course, like AS, they also would have eliminated a competitor. Unlike AS, B6 had more synergy from a product standpoint so they likely would/could have retained more of VX's customer base. Overall, there was just more to a VX+B6 merger than a VX+AS merger as far as synergies. The problem now is that LGB isn't performing and LAX and SFO lack sufficient room (currently) to accommodate the kind of expansion they might desire/need to build on. The only reason people talk about B6+AS is because B6 probably will need AS to get what it didn't gain in it's attempted purchase of VX, namely a competitive west coast presence to build a national network on.

DarthLobster wrote:

People aren’t willing to pay for enjoyable air travel.

This is the most honest statement I’ve ever read on A.Net.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The only reason people talk about B6+AS is because B6 probably will need AS to get what it didn't gain in it's attempted purchase of VX, namely a competitive west coast presence to build a national network on.

And this as well. They really do need each other in many ways if they want to survive in the long-term. Add a small fleet of the proposed MOM 797 or A330's for TATL and TPAC and they're definitely in the game. B6 has a market cap of $5.6billion whereas AS is worth $8.1billion. Crazy things can happen but AS would likely be the acquiring party...but not for at least a couple more years after VX is fully digested. Right now they're causing a little heart-burn but they'll be whipped into shape.

hiflyeras wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The only reason people talk about B6+AS is because B6 probably will need AS to get what it didn't gain in it's attempted purchase of VX, namely a competitive west coast presence to build a national network on.

And this as well. They really do need each other in many ways if they want to survive in the long-term. Add a small fleet of the proposed MOM 797 or A330's for TATL and TPAC and they're definitely in the game. B6 has a market cap of $5.6billion whereas AS is worth $8.1billion. Crazy things can happen but AS would likely be the acquiring party...but not for at least a couple more years after VX is fully digested. Right now they're causing a little heart-burn but they'll be whipped into shape.

Perhaps just a straight merger? Bring in Hawaiian, align the products but keep the brands, and move forward from there. But that’s for another thread.

Would an AS-HA merger pass antitrust? It would have 100% share in a number of city pairs that don't end in HNL SFO or LAX

crescent wrote:

Would an AS-HA merger pass antitrust? It would have 100% share in a number of city pairs that don't end in HNL SFO or LAX

By the time any deal would come to fruition, I imagine WN will be making it's presence known, perhaps even in some of those cities. Either way, it's a good question, but I just doubt it'd face much of an uphill battle.

crescent wrote:

Would an AS-HA merger pass antitrust? It would have 100% share in a number of city pairs that don't end in HNL SFO or LAX

Aside from the obvious mainland to Hawaii, and the strong understanding of freight that comes from island life, they are both very different from each other, and there is no really clear path forward as to which should be dominant in a merger.

crescent wrote:

Would an AS-HA merger pass antitrust? It would have 100% share in a number of city pairs that don't end in HNL SFO or LAX

I would thing it would pass antitrust. All those routes that would be just the surviving carrier could be started by any other carrier as gate/slots not an issue for the affected routes.

Culturally, I don’t see it happening. But to answer your question, yes

And a good question too. You did you research

BobbyPSP wrote:

crescent wrote:

Would an AS-HA merger pass antitrust? It would have 100% share in a number of city pairs that don't end in HNL SFO or LAX

I would thing it would pass antitrust. All those routes that would be just the surviving carrier could be started by any other carrier as gate/slots not an issue for the affected routes.

Culturally, I don’t see it happening. But to answer your question, yes

And a good question too. You did you research

Adding HA to AAG would boost LAX and SFO as hubs a bit, provide synergies between their respective A321neo fleets, offer a widebody alternative to AAG if they choose to test the waters more abroad, all while allowing each carrier to maintain their own unique identities. You could even transfer the A321neos from AS to HA and let them usurp all non-SEA flights to the islands. I'm sure there's plenty of pro's and con's to such an idea. I'm certainly not advocating for it but I'm also not saying it's impossible. They might be different cultures corporately but from a marketing perspective they would seem to mesh nicely. This would also boost the combined carrier's offering against the new entrant WN.

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.

Agreed on both points 100%.

The term "hub", to me at least, implies a market that is a mix of O&D and transferring passengers. SFO fits that bill perfectly, but LAX has always been more about O&D than connecting - so instead of saying "de-hubbing", I think "right-sizing-for-the-market" is more appropriate. Yes, there are transfers at LAX, but the data has always shown LAX to be at the top of the list for numbers of people beginning and ending their trips there - and that's how Alaska is going to have to compete: finding their niche.