PacificWest wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

I just flew a brand new (it's second flight ever with pax) Alaska 737-9 on Friday -- Transcon.

To my shock, this brand new plane with the new interior and seats DID NOT have tablet holders.

Ironically, in their magazine they tout the tablet holders in their retrofitted Airbus fleet (which I've flown).

It blows my mind that that they're taking deliveries of brand new aircraft without tablet holders....

That was the last 737-900ER that AS had on order, and it does NOT come from Boeing with the new upgraded interior mods; those are done at GSO and none of the 737-800, -900, or -900ER fleet have them yet.

Ahhh ok. Good to know... so AS does have plans to upgrade their 737 fleet though, right?

I flew an A320 with the new interior about a month ago to SNA, and the tablet/phone holders were great. Even though I'm a huge fan of seatback PTV's -- I was surprised how nice it was having my wireless headphones paired with my iPad mini. If AS can get a decent in-flight map (instead of that gogo crap), I'll officially quit my whining

iadadd wrote:

I wish AS would've at least kept A321 fleet in VX style, and maybe introduce a more premium flat bed First Class. This could have been a great competitive product on Transcon between SFO/LAX-JFK/DCA/BOS.

I recently flew a "More to Love" A321 from DCA-LAX and it was bittersweet knowing that that beautiful new A321 with a great seats and IFE was about to get "Alaskifyed" into a horrible dull grey seat with an annoying tablet holder.

seabosdca wrote:

Let's get real about lie-flats.

There are only two domestic markets in the US that can comfortably support them: NYC-LAX and NYC-SFO. Other transcon markets (including anywhere from WAS, BOS, SEA, or SAN) are marginal with lie-flats and much better suited to a traditional domestic F product.

And AS is not going to be one of the loyalty players on either NYC-LAX or NYC-SFO in the foreseeable future. The California-based HVCs are traveling on AA out of LAX or UA out of SFO. The NYC-based ones are flying on AA, DL, or maybe now occasionally on B6. One of the biggest conceptual mistakes people make is thinking that VX had gotten a significant piece of that market. It had not.

So the idea that AS should equip a subfleet of 10 planes with lie-flats that would in all likelihood pull in no more revenue than their existing F product, while using vastly more space, is mind-boggling.

PacificWest wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

Let's get real about lie-flats.

There are only two domestic markets in the US that can comfortably support them: NYC-LAX and NYC-SFO. Other transcon markets (including anywhere from WAS, BOS, SEA, or SAN) are marginal with lie-flats and much better suited to a traditional domestic F product.

And AS is not going to be one of the loyalty players on either NYC-LAX or NYC-SFO in the foreseeable future. The California-based HVCs are traveling on AA out of LAX or UA out of SFO. The NYC-based ones are flying on AA, DL, or maybe now occasionally on B6. One of the biggest conceptual mistakes people make is thinking that VX had gotten a significant piece of that market. It had not.

So the idea that AS should equip a subfleet of 10 planes with lie-flats that would in all likelihood pull in no more revenue than their existing F product, while using vastly more space, is mind-boggling.

I'm gonna have to disagree: JetBlue Mint started with just the (2) routes you mentioned -- JFK-LAX & JFK-SFO -- and now offers it on (22) routes, with plans to add more.

I'm a PNW native and I love Alaska's employees, customer service, and loyalty program; but that stuff doesn't win over NEW travelers, it's just good for retaining their existing customer base.

To me, when you combine Alaska's limited network with it's mediocre hard product, it just creates a situation where they have a lower/limited ceiling for growth.

For example...
Alaska'a market share in Seattle (which is a pretty lucrative market) has basically flat-lined / nudged slightly down over the past few years. Delta's has been increasing steadily -- but Delta's not stealing away Alaska's existing customer base, they're just winning a huge chunk of the net-new pax in that market.

~ SEA pax grew from 39MM in 2016 -to- 43MM in 2018 (an increase of 4M)
~ Of that 4M increase, Delta and Alaska basically split it 50/50.

Delta is getting 50% of net-new travelers in Alaska's backyard. That's not good.

PacificWest wrote:

Alaska'a market share in Seattle (which is a pretty lucrative market) has basically flat-lined / nudged slightly down over the past few years.

seabosdca wrote:

One of the biggest conceptual mistakes people make is thinking that VX had gotten a significant piece of that market. It had not.

EA CO AS wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

One of the biggest conceptual mistakes people make is thinking that VX had gotten a significant piece of that market. It had not.

True. VX was a dead airline flying; it just didn't know it. They'd burned through $550M of investors' money while only getting $307M in an IPO, and barely managed to eke out an operating profit during extremely low fuel costs and before the arms race of lie-flats hit in full force.

AS is smart to fly under the radar with their flexible, consistent fleet, offering 41" pitch in F that is better than any U.S. domestic carrier's standard F product. The only reason transcons are a bloodbath right now is that B6 is desperate to buy market share by throwing Mint at everything, where they can't compete with the HVC and corporate contracts that AA, UA, and DL command. That's going to shake itself out in the coming 18-24 months and yields will return to normal since B6 just can't hang in that firefight with the Big 3.

There's a solid argument to be made that with their current strategy, B6 is the next dead airline flying that just doesn't know it yet.

Chugach wrote:

doug_or wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

VX has flown to ANC seasonally before. ANC is a totally normal airport

Exactly. Anyone can fly into Anchorage. It is an international airport on the coast with long runways aligned for different wind conditions and multiple ILS approaches. The RNP capability that Alaska has on its 737s allow them to fly more complicated curved approaches around mountainous terrain into the smaller airports in SE Alaska that may not have conventional approaches for all runways. Even in good weather I don't think the bus pilots would be allowed to go [to the smaller airports] since AS only qualifies some of its pilots for the SE and Arctic regions.

DL also developed its own RNP for JNU, and last fall sent a 738 to SIT and KTN, presumably to certify their own approaches for those towns as well (even though they will remain E175 for the time being).

I’m not positive, but from what I’ve heard DL currently only certified the 738 for the RNP approaches into JNU. If that eventually extends to the A220 or even E175, I could see them extending their JNU season again. Time will tell.

Passedv1 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

doug_or wrote:

Exactly. Anyone can fly into Anchorage. It is an international airport on the coast with long runways aligned for different wind conditions and multiple ILS approaches. The RNP capability that Alaska has on its 737s allow them to fly more complicated curved approaches around mountainous terrain into the smaller airports in SE Alaska that may not have conventional approaches for all runways. Even in good weather I don't think the bus pilots would be allowed to go [to the smaller airports] since AS only qualifies some of its pilots for the SE and Arctic regions.

DL also developed its own RNP for JNU, and last fall sent a 738 to SIT and KTN, presumably to certify their own approaches for those towns as well (even though they will remain E175 for the time being).

I’m not positive, but from what I’ve heard DL currently only certified the 738 for the RNP approaches into JNU. If that eventually extends to the A220 or even E175, I could see them extending their JNU season again. Time will tell.

It's for use as an alternate. If you don't have an RNP approach available into a SE Alaska airport you could go weeks where you have to have enough fuel to go all the way to SEA or ANC for an alternate.

VX has had Airbusses (Airbi - ?) flying SEA-ANC before. Which is fine in the summer when the weather is usually pretty good. But in the winter, if you have no RNP capabilities, you don't have any good options once you are passed Ketchikan in case you need to divert.

N757ST wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

One of the biggest conceptual mistakes people make is thinking that VX had gotten a significant piece of that market. It had not.

True. VX was a dead airline flying; it just didn't know it. They'd burned through $550M of investors' money while only getting $307M in an IPO, and barely managed to eke out an operating profit during extremely low fuel costs and before the arms race of lie-flats hit in full force.

AS is smart to fly under the radar with their flexible, consistent fleet, offering 41" pitch in F that is better than any U.S. domestic carrier's standard F product. The only reason transcons are a bloodbath right now is that B6 is desperate to buy market share by throwing Mint at everything, where they can't compete with the HVC and corporate contracts that AA, UA, and DL command. That's going to shake itself out in the coming 18-24 months and yields will return to normal since B6 just can't hang in that firefight with the Big 3.

There's a solid argument to be made that with their current strategy, B6 is the next dead airline flying that just doesn't know it yet.

B6 achieves a RASM premium to the big 3 in almost every Mint market it competes in vs the big 3, and has a slew of corporate contracts especially out of Boston. They’ve also had one unprofitable quarter in about 9 years, and that was due to the E90 write off. I hardly see them as a dead airline flying.

seabosdca wrote:

Let's get real about lie-flats.

EA CO AS wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

Alaska'a market share in Seattle (which is a pretty lucrative market) has basically flat-lined / nudged slightly down over the past few years.

Wrong, AS has increased a bit, and all of DL's growth in SEA has come solely at the expense of two airlines; WN and UA. Check the T-100 data and see for yourself.

PacificWest wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

Alaska'a market share in Seattle (which is a pretty lucrative market) has basically flat-lined / nudged slightly down over the past few years.

Wrong, AS has increased a bit, and all of DL's growth in SEA has come solely at the expense of two airlines; WN and UA. Check the T-100 data and see for yourself.

I literally pulled the numbers from the BTS.

In the rest of my previous post I said that Delta wasn't stealing the AS customer base -- but it appears to have "owned" 50% of the net-new pax growth (4MM) in SEA over the past couple years.

All I'm saying is that, while AS has (imo) the best FA's and best customer service in the industry, I think their management is squandering the advantages they do have.

If you move to the West Coast and aren't familiar with Alaska -- what compels you to book with them over Delta, United, or Southwest? AS Customer Service and Loyalty Program is only appreciated after you fly with them a few times. But if you just moved to SFO or SEA from the East Coast, what compels you to book AS for the first time? This is why Alaska is making money in SEA and PDX where they have theeir massive existing customer base, but appears to be taking it up the rear in in California.

PacificWest wrote:

All I'm saying is that, while AS has (imo) the best FA's and best customer service in the industry, I think their management is squandering the advantages they do have.

If you move to the West Coast and aren't familiar with Alaska -- what compels you to book with them over Delta, United, or Southwest? AS Customer Service and Loyalty Program is only appreciated after you fly with them a few times. But if you just moved to SFO or SEA from the East Coast, what compels you to book AS for the first time? This is why Alaska is making money in SEA and PDX where they have theeir massive existing customer base, but appears to be taking it up the rear in in California.

seabosdca wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

All I'm saying is that, while AS has (imo) the best FA's and best customer service in the industry, I think their management is squandering the advantages they do have.

If you move to the West Coast and aren't familiar with Alaska -- what compels you to book with them over Delta, United, or Southwest? AS Customer Service and Loyalty Program is only appreciated after you fly with them a few times. But if you just moved to SFO or SEA from the East Coast, what compels you to book AS for the first time? This is why Alaska is making money in SEA and PDX where they have theeir massive existing customer base, but appears to be taking it up the rear in in California.

Your question is reasonable, but lie-flats are not an answer to it. They are aimed at a tiny portion of the customer base, especially when priced in comparison to the space they use (which B6 is not doing, obscured for now by the upgauge from A320 to A321 in many Mint markets). Second, they aren't even useful on most of the network.

The answer to your question is easy in SEA or PDX. If you move to those places from the East Coast, you'll quickly be sucked in by the comprehensiveness of the network. It's trickier in California, but the answer is going to lie in continued network development more than an exotic F product. AS and DL have largely kicked WN out of the Pacific Northwest airports except as spokes for loyalists. Trying to crack WN markets in California will be a lot harder but it's really the only way forward.

N757ST wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

DL also developed its own RNP for JNU, and last fall sent a 738 to SIT and KTN, presumably to certify their own approaches for those towns as well (even though they will remain E175 for the time being).

I’m not positive, but from what I’ve heard DL currently only certified the 738 for the RNP approaches into JNU. If that eventually extends to the A220 or even E175, I could see them extending their JNU season again. Time will tell.

It's for use as an alternate. If you don't have an RNP approach available into a SE Alaska airport you could go weeks where you have to have enough fuel to go all the way to SEA or ANC for an alternate.

VX has had Airbusses (Airbi - ?) flying SEA-ANC before. Which is fine in the summer when the weather is usually pretty good. But in the winter, if you have no RNP capabilities, you don't have any good options once you are passed Ketchikan in case you need to divert.

Anyone know why don’t they have RNP capability? The A320 series is RNP capable.

Passedv1 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

It's for use as an alternate. If you don't have an RNP approach available into a SE Alaska airport you could go weeks where you have to have enough fuel to go all the way to SEA or ANC for an alternate.

VX has had Airbusses (Airbi - ?) flying SEA-ANC before. Which is fine in the summer when the weather is usually pretty good. But in the winter, if you have no RNP capabilities, you don't have any good options once you are passed Ketchikan in case you need to divert.

Anyone know why don’t they have RNP capability? The A320 series is RNP capable.

There are different levels of RNP capability. Your standard .3 RNP (99.9% certainty of position within about 2000') is what almost everybody has. That allows you pretty standard non precision minimums in SE Alska. Alaska 737's conduct approaches down to .1 RNP (99.9% certainty of position within 600 ft) in SE Alaska which basically gets them at or close to Cat I ILS minimums at any airport in SE Alaska.

When I said VX didn't have RNP capability, I was speaking of these lower minimums.

32andBelow wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

Anyone know why don’t they have RNP capability? The A320 series is RNP capable.

There are different levels of RNP capability. Your standard .3 RNP (99.9% certainty of position within about 2000') is what almost everybody has. That allows you pretty standard non precision minimums in SE Alska. Alaska 737's conduct approaches down to .1 RNP (99.9% certainty of position within 600 ft) in SE Alaska which basically gets them at or close to Cat I ILS minimums at any airport in SE Alaska.

When I said VX didn't have RNP capability, I was speaking of these lower minimums.

Which aren’t necessary for PANC since there is a cat III ILS

LAXBUR wrote:

iadadd wrote:

I wish AS would've at least kept A321 fleet in VX style, and maybe introduce a more premium flat bed First Class. This could have been a great competitive product on Transcon between SFO/LAX-JFK/DCA/BOS.

I recently flew a "More to Love" A321 from DCA-LAX and it was bittersweet knowing that that beautiful new A321 with a great seats and IFE was about to get "Alaskifyed" into a horrible dull grey seat with an annoying tablet holder.

What was so much greater about VX coach seats outside of seatback IFE? How is a tablet holder "annoying"? Does it taunt you? How is a dark grey seat so inferior to a black one? Do you regularly fly in lie flat seats? Is everyone on airliners.net an executive or wealthy person that can pay for transcon Business? Doubt it. I think Delta only gives an opportunity for comp upgrades to elites on Transcon. Alaska has doubled VX First from 8 to 16 on the A321 which will give more upgrade opportunities to Mileage Plan members. But let's complain about something we can't even afford. lol

Everyone has their own opinions about stuff but a lot of the VX/AS stuff is still laughable to me because it isn't logical. Many haven't flown AS or VX or have very little experience with either. Yet, they demand a hard product that they'd likely never have access to anyways.

Plus, VX First product wasn't even competitive. Yet you're complaining about Alaska not upgrading the VX First even though it was so amazing? Also, only American offers a lie flat First seat on transcon. The rest offer a lie flat business product lie flat.

hiflyeras wrote:

I think it's ridiculous that people expect a lie-flat seat on a carrier with an average flight time of probably 2:30. Yes, it might be nice on a transcon or Hawaii-West Coast redeye but they're not going to spend the $100mil or whatever it would take to install lie-flat on 200+ airframes for probably less than 5% of their schedule.

PacificWest wrote:

I'm gonna have to disagree: JetBlue Mint started with just the (2) routes you mentioned -- JFK-LAX & JFK-SFO -- and now offers it on (22) routes, with plans to add more.

MIflyer12 wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

I'm gonna have to disagree: JetBlue Mint started with just the (2) routes you mentioned -- JFK-LAX & JFK-SFO -- and now offers it on (22) routes, with plans to add more.

The Mint routes count is a poor metric. Some of them may be seasonal, less-than-daily, or low frequency. Look at the flights per week count and it's still heavily skewed to JFK-LAX/SFO.

It's too early to argue that Mint is successfully deployed. B6 had declining year-over-year RASM 1Q19. That's not an argument that Mint even kept avg fares up, let alone covered additional costs per passenger or sq inch of floor space, or is earning B6's threshhold Return on Invested Capital from Mint. Maybe they'll turn it around and find a combo of routes and frequencies that makes them a mint (pun intended).

It's not clear that Alaska or B6 is big enough to find aircraft subfleets optimal. Delta has eight aircraft types (and some different seating configs within those eight) with lie-flat seats and yet doesn't fly them in any number domestically from SEA. If people want to argue that every route SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX/SAN to BOS/JFK/EWR/PHL/BWI/IAD/CHS/MCO/TPA/FLL deserves (as in being profit-optimizing) an Alaska aircraft with lie-flat seats I wish them luck. Flight distance doesn't do it - willingness to pay by decent numbers of people gets it done.

N757ST wrote:

B6 achieves a RASM premium to the big 3 in almost every Mint market it competes in vs the big 3

MIflyer12 wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

I'm gonna have to disagree: JetBlue Mint started with just the (2) routes you mentioned -- JFK-LAX & JFK-SFO -- and now offers it on (22) routes, with plans to add more.

The Mint routes count is a poor metric. Some of them may be seasonal, less-than-daily, or low frequency. Look at the flights per week count and it's still heavily skewed to JFK-LAX/SFO.

It's too early to argue that Mint is successfully deployed. B6 had declining year-over-year RASM 1Q19. That's not an argument that Mint even kept avg fares up, let alone covered additional costs per passenger or sq inch of floor space, or is earning B6's threshhold Return on Invested Capital from Mint. Maybe they'll turn it around and find a combo of routes and frequencies that makes them a mint (pun intended).

It's not clear that Alaska or B6 is big enough to find aircraft subfleets optimal. Delta has eight aircraft types (and some different seating configs within those eight) with lie-flat seats and yet doesn't fly them in any number domestically from SEA. If people want to argue that every route SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX/SAN to BOS/JFK/EWR/PHL/BWI/IAD/CHS/MCO/TPA/FLL deserves (as in being profit-optimizing) an Alaska aircraft with lie-flat seats I wish them luck. Flight distance doesn't do it - willingness to pay by decent numbers of people gets it done.

Rdh3e wrote:

N757ST wrote:

B6 achieves a RASM premium to the big 3 in almost every Mint market it competes in vs the big 3

B6 is #4 in PRASM on NYC-SFO, also #4 on NYC-LAX. They are also behind UA in BOS-SFO, which leads me to say you should really preface your claim with "in markets where the big three aren't flying a lie-flat". And then of course they are getting a premium - they are flying a much less dense aircraft so they better be getting a premium, the question is whether the revenue premium is bigger than the cost premium...

tphuang wrote:

. Remember, A321 mint only has 6% higher CASM than 150 seat A320.

Aliqiout wrote:

The issue isn't whether the VX planes can fly to ANC. They obviously can. The issue is that ANC is an intra Alaska hub, and it would be very inconvenient to send a plane there that can only reliably return to SEA.