JayWings wrote:

Can confirm SAN is absolutely a FA base for AS.

Thanks for that Jay'.

bb

SANFan wrote:

717atOGG wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

A lot of routes are ending or being seasonally suspended, though.

LAX loses one route, PHL.

SAN loses OMA, MCI, DAL, ELP and others.

SFO sees a lot of seasonal suspensions on East Coast flying.

To elaborate, it looks like SFO-PHL/BWI/RDU/BNA are going seasonal, and SFO-MCI/SAN-MSP might have been cut, based on a cursory search of Google Flights.

Concerning SAN, I might refer you both to post #9 above.

tphuang wrote:

It seems to me that AS is retreating against WN in both SAN/SFO, especially on non-west coast stuff, and going back to more of PNW strategy. This should be a more profitable strategy for them, although I would imagine it's going to really hurt their network and ff base in California.

I agree. I posted elsewhere that when the dust settles next year, AS will fly no further east from SAN than Steamboat Springs, CO, except for 4 or 5 routes, mainly transcons. That says a lot about AS's route strategy going forward -- fly mainly the far west.

But yes, if AS still desires to keep building a core of business travelers in the SAN area, cutting a bunch of good-sized business-oriented destinations in the Midwest and east sure doesn't help.

Also, BWI-SAN is very bothersome to me; technically, the route is now suspended from Oct thru May -- that folks, is an 8 month "seasonal" suspension; and that assumes the flight will actually return next May. It is also AS's only service from SAN to the DC area, an important destination that I suspect should be considered a year-round business market from SAN. Very troubling AS.

bb

I believe what AS is doing makes sense for Baltimore. With no service to DCA the business market gravitates to IAD. The VFR market is BWI centric, especially given the strong community of interest between San Diego and the Naval Academy/Annapolis.

SANFan wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

lhpdx wrote:

I was truly hoping that AS would grow SAN into a hub, unfortunately, the experiment failed......

I was hoping the same for SJC. It looks like AS is emphasizing more point to point over hubs.

Personally, I think we need to keep a close eye on AS in SJC.

With both WN and DL growing to some degree at Mineta, I wonder if AS might back off some of the routes they fly there, as they just did in SAN and SFO? It seems that WN chased AS off several routes so might the same thing also occur in SJC? After all, SJC-DAL and SJC-BUR are being dropped already by AS -- is that it?

Perhaps, as a few hints have suggested, this strategy change by AAG is quite limited in scope, and/or even just temporary. (That would be wonderful news for me!) And it's very possible that everything AS flies to and from SJC is performing great and the network there is just the way AAG wants it.

Remember, SJC and SAN are the 2 AS focus cities with roughly the same number of daily flights. I certainly hope they don't cull several routes from SJC but I will sure be watching what happens next.

bb

Yes, I'm a bit concerned with the direction AS will go and the ramifications for my home airport. I can see your concerns, as well. I was rather alarmed at them dropping DAL and now BUR is troubling, although tphuang pointed out the low LF on the route. I guess I can't blame AS for cutting potential losses.

Also (as echoed buy RWA380), DL's announcement of a build up at SJC is yet another wild card. I have to say, when I first read about that, it nearly knocked me out of my chair. With all the existing competition at SJC, I'm wondering how and why DL decided to jump in. WN has done a crazy amount of build up at SJC, a virtual fortress. AS has been taking them on. Now comes DL. My take on it is that WN is probably seen as less than a top choice for business travelers, and those wanting premium service. For my money, I put up the extra cash and often fly First/Business if for no other reason than my wife has mobility issues that make F/J much more comfortable and convenient. Plus it is deluxe and bitchen. Plus I don't fly WN because I also like to reserve seats. Anyway, I think DL is going for the premium flyers. I don't know how many flights DL has out of SFO, but maybe they see an opportunity for premium passengers in Silicon Valley, and maybe they think they can siphon off some people from SFO who live/work closer to SJC?

It will be interesting to watch what moves AS makes at SJC and SAN. In this week's OAG thread, I noticed that (ignoring the DAL cut), AS cut 3 flights from SJC - all to BUR, but added 3 flights - 1 to PDX and 2 to SAN. So here, no net loss. And unless they are planning more moves, this schedule looks to be all the way to the beginning of next summer. Time will tell.

I wish you well down there in SUN Diego.

SANFan wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

I guess what I am saying is, while SAN hasn't a crew base...

I do believe SAN is still an f/a base is it not B? It became one on 4-1-2013 with between 150-200 flt attendants; if that has ended, I'm not aware of it. I do not believe there are any cockpit crews based here however and maybe that's what you were referring to. (I have a copy of the PR but can't copy any of it into this post. Sorry.) You may want to verify the current situation with your many sources at the carrier.

There is also an OO crew base in SAN to support that aspect of AAG's ops here.

I was gobsmacked when I first heard on Tuesday, I believe it was, about all the lost routes at SAN -- much more than any other city, it turned out. As more information and some slightly optimistic remarks have emerged, and I've thought about it all and talked with others, I've calmed down a lot and quite accepting of the whole situation. For what it's worth, I have no doubt that things in general will not be altered in any major way at SDIA, that we will remain a focus city, and growth will continue. AS has more gates now than they did 7 months ago and I'm sure they still have a growing freq flyer base in town.

The fact that at the same time AS axed 6 or 7 routes -- all just single flights -- from the SAN route map, they added enough new flights (on existing routes) to keep our total departures the same, is important. Also, at the same time was the announcement of a new route in January (RDM) and the promise of another new route being announced soon. Whether it's a shortie to say SBA or SBP, or a new transcon such as JFK, PHL or FLL, I'll still be excited at the news of more growth from our airport's second biggest carrier (in terms of pax, market share, and # of departures!)

It's hard to remain real upset under those circumstances! I'm actually pretty fine with it all now! In fact, I think 2020 will be a good -- maybe great? -- year for AS in SAN!

bb.

Absolutely, SAN has a small F/A base for AS. My bad completely, anything I mentioned regarding that should be disregarded, it was not correct. But expect more streamlining of some operations over the next few years. Keep in mind, cuts like BWI are seasonal cuts & return in April sometime.

AirFiero wrote:

Yes, I'm a bit concerned with the direction AS will go and the ramifications for my home airport. I can see your concerns, as well. I was rather alarmed at them dropping DAL and now BUR is troubling, although tphuang pointed out the low LF on the route. I guess I can't blame AS for cutting potential losses.

Also (as echoed buy RWA380), DL's announcement of a build up at SJC is yet another wild card. I have to say, when I first read about that, it nearly knocked me out of my chair. With all the existing competition at SJC, I'm wondering how and why DL decided to jump in. WN has done a crazy amount of build up at SJC, a virtual fortress. AS has been taking them on. Now comes DL. My take on it is that WN is probably seen as less than a top choice for business travelers, and those wanting premium service. For my money, I put up the extra cash and often fly First/Business if for no other reason than my wife has mobility issues that make F/J much more comfortable and convenient. Plus it is deluxe and bitchen. Plus I don't fly WN because I also like to reserve seats. Anyway, I think DL is going for the premium flyers. I don't know how many flights DL has out of SFO, but maybe they see an opportunity for premium passengers in Silicon Valley, and maybe they think they can siphon off some people from SFO who live/work closer to SJC?

It will be interesting to watch what moves AS makes at SJC and SAN. In this week's OAG thread, I noticed that (ignoring the DAL cut), AS cut 3 flights from SJC - all to BUR, but added 3 flights - 1 to PDX and 2 to SAN. So here, no net loss. And unless they are planning more moves, this schedule looks to be all the way to the beginning of next summer. Time will tell.

I wish you well down there in SUN Diego.

Thanks, Air'. Yes, as I've tried to make clear, we have essentially the same situation in SAN as of now: the lost flights (all thru cut routes) have all been pretty much replaced with new flights in other existing markets. So we too are at the same level of overall service (read: # of departures) as we were before. We will have daily-dbl service to BOS with no single-daily flight to MCI, for example. It's all about where the money is!

Over on the OAG thread, people are piping up with doom-and-gloom re: SAN and it just ain't so! Deep down inside I really don't think AS would abandon either of their focus cities after all the hard work they've put into them -- they both happen to be in California and the state and its population aren't going anywhere! And the company has recently expanded their real estate in both cities, and there is the promise of new routes to be announced soon!

SAN-BWI, or lack thereof, does continue to bother me. But until I learn all the factors involved in AS's decision regarding that route, and their future plans, I'll calm down about it; that's a true wait-and-see for me.

bb

I think given the recent cuts, it seems like as favors sjc over San. Sjc lost no flight and gained 1 destinations. San lost numerous destinations and lost a lot of mainline flying and huge reduction in asm. You can't equate adding rj flying up and down the west coast with all the midcon and Transcon they cut..

tphuang wrote:

I think given the recent cuts, it seems like as favors sjc over San. Sjc lost no flight and gained 1 destinations. San lost numerous destinations and lost a lot of mainline flying and huge reduction in asm. You can't equate adding rj flying up and down the west coast with all the midcon and Transcon they cut..

Sorry? What destination did SJC gain? And how did SJC-BUR being axed not represent a "lost flight"?

OTOH, SAN gained a new route - RDM -- and a second mainline transcon (to BOS) beginning in May. As part of the 6 lost routes, SAN lost 1 mainline route -- MSP -- while BWI was downgraded to seasonal. In fact, I believe as part of the additional service to SJC -- 2 new flights -- Boeing and/or Airbus equipment was used. (I and others have tried to recap these recent changes in this and other threads many times.)

You're entitled to your opinion about AS favoring SJC over SAN but you might want to try this post again... and see if you stick to that opinion.

bb

SANFan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think given the recent cuts, it seems like as favors sjc over San. Sjc lost no flight and gained 1 destinations. San lost numerous destinations and lost a lot of mainline flying and huge reduction in asm. You can't equate adding rj flying up and down the west coast with all the midcon and Transcon they cut..

Sorry? What destination did SJC gain? And how did SJC-BUR being axed not represent a "lost flight"?

OTOH, SAN gained a new route - RDM -- and a second mainline transcon (to BOS) beginning in May. As part of the 6 lost routes, SAN lost 1 mainline route -- MSP -- while BWI was downgraded to seasonal. In fact, I believe as part of the additional service to SJC -- 2 new flights -- Boeing and/or Airbus equipment was used. (I and others have tried to recap these recent changes in this and other threads many times.)

You're entitled to your opinion about AS favoring SJC over SAN but you might want to try this post again... and see if you stick to that opinion.

bb

Aside from DAL, which both airports lost, the places lost at SAN were never served at SJC. SAN was ahead on all of those. Now they are kinda sorta even.

I agree with the Posters above in respect of the comments about these new routes being the obvious ones that should have been done when the merger first went through. BOI and GEG are rather obvious choices for more AS flights and capacity and, especially on the BOI side, were being built out before the merger. So to connect them into LAX / SFO and to increase SAN from BOI makes eminent sense. Realistically that's where AS should be looking to grow as increased BOI and GEG services to their California focus cities frees up seats in SEA for local O&D which in turn allows them to be more price aggressive against DL if necessary without increasing their capacity.

I'd expect more of these sorts of announcements going forward with more focused growth on North / South PNW - California routes.

I also hate to say it but the other obvious missing routes out of GEG and BOI are to LAS. There's no reason that WN should have that to themselves and there's also no reason why DL should have SLC all to itself once AS has room at SLC to grow that a bit.

I think it's funny how a lot of people here want AS to fly here and there. And they are up in arms when AS doesn't listen to them. AS, along others, will evaluate and re-evaluate routes all the time. You think cuts look bad now? Wait until the inevitable back side the economy cycle makes itself known. BIG cuts could happen.

At some point, AS will need to add routes to the likes of DEN and PHX, dominant hubs of several airlines.

It may be better placed by starting services from PNW stations where it has some level of dominance.

SANFan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think given the recent cuts, it seems like as favors sjc over San. Sjc lost no flight and gained 1 destinations. San lost numerous destinations and lost a lot of mainline flying and huge reduction in asm. You can't equate adding rj flying up and down the west coast with all the midcon and Transcon they cut..

Sorry? What destination did SJC gain? And how did SJC-BUR being axed not represent a "lost flight"?

OTOH, SAN gained a new route - RDM -- and a second mainline transcon (to BOS) beginning in May. As part of the 6 lost routes, SAN lost 1 mainline route -- MSP -- while BWI was downgraded to seasonal. In fact, I believe as part of the additional service to SJC -- 2 new flights -- Boeing and/or Airbus equipment was used. (I and others have tried to recap these recent changes in this and other threads many times.)

You're entitled to your opinion about AS favoring SJC over SAN but you might want to try this post again... and see if you stick to that opinion.

bb

i think it's pretty obvious SAN is one of the 2 big losers here. Aside from a route that SJC obviously could not support, there were no other cuts despite having quite a few other under performing routes. And there are plenty of obvious routes they could've cut out of SJC. That shows me AS views as SJC as important part of their North California strategy.

Aside from RDM, the rest of the adds out of SAN for AS are slight frequency increases that airlines wouldn't normally make an announcement for. All the cuts come in Nov to Jan and the adds for the most part don't start until March to May. And given the general uncertainty in those market, those could very well be seasonal increases also or get trimmed back quickly once the numbers are not there. And most people wouldn't notice outside of these boards.

BWI has become a highly seasonal station for AS. Next winter AS will operate only 2 daily round trips at BWI: SEA (1) and LAX (1).

Next summer AS will operate 6 daily round trips at BWI: SEA (2), PDX (1), SFO (1), LAX (1), and SAN (1).

tphuang wrote:

SANFan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think given the recent cuts, it seems like as favors sjc over San. Sjc lost no flight and gained 1 destinations. San lost numerous destinations and lost a lot of mainline flying and huge reduction in asm. You can't equate adding rj flying up and down the west coast with all the midcon and Transcon they cut..

Sorry? What destination did SJC gain? And how did SJC-BUR being axed not represent a "lost flight"?

OTOH, SAN gained a new route - RDM -- and a second mainline transcon (to BOS) beginning in May. As part of the 6 lost routes, SAN lost 1 mainline route -- MSP -- while BWI was downgraded to seasonal. In fact, I believe as part of the additional service to SJC -- 2 new flights -- Boeing and/or Airbus equipment was used. (I and others have tried to recap these recent changes in this and other threads many times.)

You're entitled to your opinion about AS favoring SJC over SAN but you might want to try this post again... and see if you stick to that opinion.

bb

i think it's pretty obvious SAN is one of the 2 big losers here. Aside from a route that SJC obviously could not support, there were no other cuts despite having quite a few other under performing routes. And there are plenty of obvious routes they could've cut out of SJC. That shows me AS views as SJC as important part of their North California strategy.

Aside from RDM, the rest of the adds out of SAN for AS are slight frequency increases that airlines wouldn't normally make an announcement for. All the cuts come in Nov to Jan and the adds for the most part don't start until March to May. And given the general uncertainty in those market, those could very well be seasonal increases also or get trimmed back quickly once the numbers are not there. And most people wouldn't notice outside of these boards.

Which routes at SJC do you think should be cut?

AirFiero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Sorry? What destination did SJC gain? And how did SJC-BUR being axed not represent a "lost flight"?

OTOH, SAN gained a new route - RDM -- and a second mainline transcon (to BOS) beginning in May. As part of the 6 lost routes, SAN lost 1 mainline route -- MSP -- while BWI was downgraded to seasonal. In fact, I believe as part of the additional service to SJC -- 2 new flights -- Boeing and/or Airbus equipment was used. (I and others have tried to recap these recent changes in this and other threads many times.)

You're entitled to your opinion about AS favoring SJC over SAN but you might want to try this post again... and see if you stick to that opinion.

bb

i think it's pretty obvious SAN is one of the 2 big losers here. Aside from a route that SJC obviously could not support, there were no other cuts despite having quite a few other under performing routes. And there are plenty of obvious routes they could've cut out of SJC. That shows me AS views as SJC as important part of their North California strategy.

Aside from RDM, the rest of the adds out of SAN for AS are slight frequency increases that airlines wouldn't normally make an announcement for. All the cuts come in Nov to Jan and the adds for the most part don't start until March to May. And given the general uncertainty in those market, those could very well be seasonal increases also or get trimmed back quickly once the numbers are not there. And most people wouldn't notice outside of these boards.

Which routes at SJC do you think should be cut?

I'm simply saying that they could cut some routes. It's all about what their tolerance for losses are on certain routes. Every airlines have profitable and unprofitable routes. SJC was a really poor performing one that was an easy pick to cut. After that, it's really dependent on their aspirations at SJC. Never easy to battle against WN on some of these routes, since WN has a lot of network advantage. An obvious one they could cut is one of EWR/JFK.

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

Glad to see that announcement is finally out there; wasn’t expecting it for another few hours.

EA CO AS wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

Glad to see that announcement is finally out there; wasn’t expecting it for another few hours.

Went live just a few minutes ago!

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

AS is going to own the greater San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande metro area (23rd largest in the state)

ucdtim17 wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

AS is going to own the greater San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande metro area (23rd largest in the state)

I'm not sure they're going to "own" it with 3 flights vs 10 for UA and 5 for AA

ucdtim17 wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

AS is going to own the greater San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande metro area (23rd largest in the state)

Maybe there will be a flight between SAN and SBA.

Perhaps, SMX (I know it's close to both SBP and SBA) is next...or BFL.

wedgetail737 wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

AS is going to own the greater San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande metro area (23rd largest in the state)

Maybe there will be a flight between SAN and SBA.

Perhaps, SMX (I know it's close to both SBP and SBA) is next...or BFL.

I highly doubt AS will make SMX work. They couldn't make UA CRJ-200s work from there. I'll be very interested to see how the G4 flight does when Contour starts SBP-LAS in October.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Maybe there will be a flight between SAN and SBA.

Perhaps, SMX (I know it's close to both SBP and SBA) is next...or BFL.

I just posted on the other thread that I expect we'll see SAN-SBA sooner or later as well; that route is already served from both SEA and PDX so a SoCal connection wouldn't surprise me at all. Particularly as part of the new AS w/c strategy. And I know there's lots of travel between SAN and SBA and it's not much of a fun drive any more...

SMX and BFL not so much I'm afraid...

bb

SANFan wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Maybe there will be a flight between SAN and SBA.

Perhaps, SMX (I know it's close to both SBP and SBA) is next...or BFL.

I just posted on the other thread that I expect we'll see SAN-SBA sooner or later as well; that route is already served from both SEA and PDX so a SoCal connection wouldn't surprise me at all. Particularly as part of the new AS w/c strategy. And I know there's lots of travel between SAN and SBA and it's not much of a fun drive any more...

SMX and BFL not so much I'm afraid...

bb

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

ericm2031 wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

AS is going to own the greater San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande metro area (23rd largest in the state)

I'm not sure they're going to "own" it with 3 flights vs 10 for UA and 5 for AA

Snark born out of annoyance at #mostwestcoast or trying to claim to be California's airline by expanding service at tertiary airports like SBP and STS while mostly skipping over much larger airports in much larger metros (OAK, SMF, BUR, ONT, LGB)

ucdtim17 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

AS is going to own the greater San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande metro area (23rd largest in the state)

I'm not sure they're going to "own" it with 3 flights vs 10 for UA and 5 for AA

Snark born out of annoyance at #mostwestcoast or trying to claim to be California's airline by expanding service at tertiary airports like SBP and STS while mostly skipping over much larger airports in much larger metros (OAK, SMF, BUR, ONT, LGB)

AS serves OAK, SMF, BUR, and ONT. Not sure why they discontinued SEA-LGB. Seems like they should be able to make it work.

Or are you suggesting that AS should be expanding more at those airports too?

BoeingGuy wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

I'm not sure they're going to "own" it with 3 flights vs 10 for UA and 5 for AA

Snark born out of annoyance at #mostwestcoast or trying to claim to be California's airline by expanding service at tertiary airports like SBP and STS while mostly skipping over much larger airports in much larger metros (OAK, SMF, BUR, ONT, LGB)

AS serves OAK, SMF, BUR, and ONT. Not sure why they discontinued SEA-LGB. Seems like they should be able to make it work.

Or are you suggesting that AS should be expanding more at those airports too?

I'm saying that they are tiny (or nonexistent) at those airports, and certainly compared to the primary competition (WN). AS is great if you want to fly to SBP or MRY or STS but if you want many flights on big planes to big airports, WN is much more useful.

I noticed something a bit fishy in the January 2020 schedules that could signal something else new may be coming. (I posted a similar find on the 'SBP-SAN/PDX'-thread earlier today; this is a similar situation involving a different route.)

The SAN-ELP route is cut starting Jan 7. The a/c currently ops SEA-ELP-SAN-ELP-SEA. Take away SAN and we should see a simple SEA-ELP-SEA turn. However, what shows currently on the skeds is SEA-ELP, arriving TX at noon, but the return to SEA still shows a sked departure at 5:40pm. I.E., the skeds currently show that the QX EMJ will just sit in ELP for almost 6 hours!

The greatest probability is that the Network Planners have not yet adjusted the sked to move ELP-SEA up to ~12:45pm but I have some doubts that that is the case -- including the fact that the Jan 7 schedule is already in pretty good shape despite it being 4 months out. Yet I can't come up with any other new route that AS would start from ELP that fits the time frame or makes any sense. I can't really see LA, the Bay Area, or DAL, or any other city that fits in AS's new strategy. Just thought I'd throw it out there for fun... (Any ideas here, steex?)

bb

SANFan wrote:

I noticed something a bit fishy in the January 2020 schedules that could signal something else new may be coming. (I posted a similar find on the 'SBP-SAN/PDX'-thread earlier today; this is a similar situation involving a different route.)

The SAN-ELP route is cut starting Jan 7. The a/c currently ops SEA-ELP-SAN-ELP-SEA. Take away SAN and we should see a simple SEA-ELP-SEA turn. However, what shows currently on the skeds is SEA-ELP, arriving TX at noon, but the return to SEA still shows a sked departure at 5:40pm. I.E., the skeds currently show that the QX EMJ will just sit in ELP for almost 6 hours!

The greatest probability is that the Network Planners have not yet adjusted the sked to move ELP-SEA up to ~12:45pm but I have some doubts that that is the case -- including the fact that the Jan 7 schedule is already in pretty good shape despite it being 4 months out. Yet I can't come up with any other new route that AS would start from ELP that fits the time frame or makes any sense. I can't really see LA, the Bay Area, or DAL, or any other city that fits in AS's new strategy. Just thought I'd throw it out there for fun... (Any ideas here, steex?)

bb

You're correct, there is something else coming still, I can't say what, because I don't fully know. If I was a betting man, I'd say this isn't over. Lets face it, AAG is just at the point where the first round of adds right after the merger have been operating long enough to ascertain their viability & AS has enough fleet flexibility in the first quarter 2020, that it's the perfect time for them to reach this second phase & that is the starting of their real direction as a carrier & I agree with many, they are shoring up their turf on the West Coast & bolstering their presence where it is important.

By having a reasonable presence at LAX & SAN, having the #2 slot in SJC & SFO & the #1 spot at PDX, SEA & ANC they are well situated to take on the West Coast. They never stated they were interested or even planning on being a national carrier like AA or UA, even on a smaller scale.

AAG is content with what is is shaping to be now & West Coast growth is their primary concern, adding any other cities countrywide that seem viable also. I do think in long range planning there are more aggressive expansion ideas, but they are laser focused on making sure the integration comes around correctly for their investors & the overall health of the carrier.

From absolutely everything I ever hear about AAG & their intents, all of the current hubs & focus cites are important to them, but routes are not their main concern, it's retaining gates, the valuable real estate in places like SEA of course & SFO, LAX & SAN. They are not at all interested in loosing any space, in most cases they would expand if given more room.

Next year I expect growth to be rather flat until the latter part of 2020, then I expect them to start back to a more aggressive expansion process. I still expect more route announcements as underperforming routes are trimmed & new opportunities from those freed up frames.

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

RWA380 wrote:

You're correct, there is something else coming still, I can't say what, because I don't fully know. If I was a betting man, I'd say this isn't over. Lets face it, AAG is just at the point where the first round of adds right after the merger have been operating long enough to ascertain their viability & AS has enough fleet flexibility in the first quarter 2020, that it's the perfect time for them to reach this second phase & that is the starting of their real direction as a carrier & I agree with many, they are shoring up their turf on the West Coast & bolstering their presence where it is important.

By having a reasonable presence at LAX & SAN, having the #2 slot in SJC & SFO & the #1 spot at PDX, SEA & ANC they are well situated to take on the West Coast. They never stated they were interested or even planning on being a national carrier like AA or UA, even on a smaller scale.

AAG is content with what is is shaping to be now & West Coast growth is their primary concern, adding any other cities countrywide that seem viable also. I do think in long range planning there are more aggressive expansion ideas, but they are laser focused on making sure the integration comes around correctly for their investors & the overall health of the carrier.

From absolutely everything I ever hear about AAG & their intents, all of the current hubs & focus cites are important to them, but routes are not their main concern, it's retaining gates, the valuable real estate in places like SEA of course & SFO, LAX & SAN. They are not at all interested in loosing any space, in most cases they would expand if given more room.

Next year I expect growth to be rather flat until the latter part of 2020, then I expect them to start back to a more aggressive expansion process. I still expect more route announcements as underperforming routes are trimmed & new opportunities from those freed up frames.

They seem to be pretty astute in how they have absorbed Virgin and are now playing to their advantage. In the end, they are a 3 fleet type aircraft and they are using that advantage. WN may have the advantage, but by picking secondary and tertiary airports all along the west coast, they will certainly pick market share.

FATFlyer wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

MIflyer12 wrote:

RDM-SAN and MSO-LAX don't see service on other carriers (tomorrow, according to ITA Matrix, anyway) but the other routes have a competitor (or two).

Maybe this will get UA to offer something better than CR2s on GEG/RDM-SFO.

I flew MSO-LAX last month on Delta (Compass) on a E175, so unless they've canceled the service, there is another choice besides AS.

FATFlyer wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

True, but I can’t imagine that BFL is a viable market by itself, at least for more flights than at present.

BoeingGuy wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

Lower fares in the Southern California markets will pull a lot of passengers from BFL. Even FAT has lower fares than BFL.

The larger number of nonstop choices and lower fares due to more competition will likely always hurt demand at BFL. For many passengers the traffic issues will be worth the savings, or they simply will use the Bakersfield to LAX airport bus service to avoid driving.

As I mentioned before, I was on a recent flight with Bakersfield residents who drove to Fresno for a nonstop rather than fly a connection on UA or AA. But I found that unusual given the choices to the south.

For what its worth, BFL's own leakage study says it captures 20% of its market area. 62% use LAX, 7% use FAT, BUR with 5% and the rest going to SFO, LAS, etc.

vadodara wrote:

They seem to be pretty astute in how they have absorbed Virgin and are now playing to their advantage. In the end, they are a 3 fleet type aircraft and they are using that advantage. WN may have the advantage, but by picking secondary and tertiary airports all along the west coast, they will certainly pick market share.

I am pleased another person sees it as I do. AAG did NOT just willy-nilly decide to but VX. AS had been deliberating for years about growing naturally (which was magic for years upon years) but AS knew that the real estate at in demand airports was at a premium. VX was bought for the major increase of space at SFO, the increased gates at LAX & lastl, but certainly not least was the JFK access & lounge.

Make no mistakes, AS wanted a polished look at JFK & now the boardroom has been completely refurbished & is the only one, outside of the West coast time zone. The East Coast is important to AS & they have invested a lot to keep relative in the T-con market. They offer a good product & don't charge 3k for 5 hours in a lie flat bed vs a comfy recliner, while you drink & eat nuts.

AS knew how this was going down years ago when they made their bid. As much as AS has stated their dislike of the Airbus fleet, it does offer more flexibility in shifting aircraft last minute.

FATFlyer wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

Lower fares in the Southern California markets will pull a lot of passengers from BFL. Even FAT has lower fares than BFL.

The larger number of nonstop choices and lower fares due to more competition will likely always hurt demand at BFL. For many passengers the traffic issues will be worth the savings, or they simply will use the Bakersfield to LAX airport bus service to avoid driving.

As I mentioned before, I was on a recent flight with Bakersfield residents who drove to Fresno for a nonstop rather than fly a connection on UA or AA. But I found that unusual given the choices to the south.

For what its worth, BFL's own leakage study says it captures 20% of its market area. 62% use LAX, 7% use FAT, BUR with 5% and the rest going to SFO, LAS, etc.

BUR makes a lot of sense for leakage from BFL. The traffic usually isn't *that bad* for all but the last few miles unless you hit it right in the middle of rush hour and/or there is something like an accident or construction. LAX, on the other hand, can be as much as another 1:30-1:45 past BUR in the worst traffic (and even be more than that in those nightmare Thanksgiving rush hours). Being as FAT is only 5 miles further from BFL than LAX is, and there is almost never any traffic along the way (with things like construction and the Tule fog being the only real obstacles that ever present themselves), I can see people choosing FAT if fares are competitive with LAX, even with not as many options. Some people just hate sitting in traffic. Also, I believe both parking and hotels are much cheaper around FAT than LAX.

RWA380 wrote:

I am pleased another person sees it as I do. AAG did NOT just willy-nilly decide to but VX. AS had been deliberating for years about growing naturally (which was magic for years upon years) but AS knew that the real estate at in demand airports was at a premium. VX was bought for the major increase of space at SFO, the increased gates at LAX & lastl, but certainly not least was the JFK access & lounge.

Make no mistakes, AS wanted a polished look at JFK & now the boardroom has been completely refurbished & is the only one, outside of the West coast time zone. The East Coast is important to AS & they have invested a lot to keep relative in the T-con market. They offer a good product & don't charge 3k for 5 hours in a lie flat bed vs a comfy recliner, while you drink & eat nuts.

AS knew how this was going down years ago when they made their bid. As much as AS has stated their dislike of the Airbus fleet, it does offer more flexibility in shifting aircraft last minute.

Of course; real estate at airports like JFK/LAX/SFO has always been at a premium. In addition, as they develop their spokes like AUS and RDU, it may give them enough name recognition to add flights to likes of SJC as well.

Honestly, in using that limited space for p2p travelers is a better use of the facility than using it as a plane hopping hub. In this round, it is secondary cities in PNW getting connectivity to LAX/SFO. Next round, it will probably expand along the Rocky Mountain Zone.

BoeingGuy wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

Depends largely on cost, compounded by number of travelers in the group. Those flights are not cheap, if a family of 4 needs to get out of Bakersfield, 2-3 hours in a car to LA makes lots of sense.

AS should do ANC to PEK!

BoeingGuy wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

AA used to fly BFL-LAX. I was actually on one of the last flights before the route was discontinued in the weeks after 9/11. The gate agent said the route was popular with business travelers, who were sad to see it go, but that it was no longer economically viable. That was was when Eagle still flew turboprops (We were on a Saab 340). I'd think it is even less viable now that it would be a regional jet route.

msp747 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

It is also only about 100 miles from Bakersfield to BUR, 115 miles Bakersfield to LAX.

BFL has a lot of competition within a 90 minute to 2 hour drive.

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

AA used to fly BFL-LAX. I was actually on one of the last flights before the route was discontinued in the weeks after 9/11. The gate agent said the route was popular with business travelers, who were sad to see it go, but that it was no longer economically viable. That was was when Eagle still flew turboprops (We were on a Saab 340). I'd think it is even less viable now that it would be a regional jet route.

You are correct, not much O/D & the pennies carved out of the fare for the short hop, of a long journey equate to loss making revenue. Also as carriers added out stations like BFL, it eliminated the extra LAX stop.

KLMatSJC wrote:

AS just announced SAN/PDX-SBP. The West Coast takeover continues.

It really is amazing.

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

Most people would think so. But over and over it isn't true all over the country -- if flights from FAT are $50 cheaper than BFL, it's amazing how many people will drive 114 miles to save $50.

IPFreely wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

It is 114 miles from Bakersfield to Fresno, and Bakersfield has a population of 380,000. You’d think there would be more of a market for flights there.

Most people would think so. But over and over it isn't true all over the country -- if flights from FAT are $50 cheaper than BFL, it's amazing how many people will drive 114 miles to save $50.

BFL also isn't exactly a rich area of California so many residents either don't fly or seek the best bargain possible.

flyfresno wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Right, because most people would much prefer to drive 100-115 miles in LA bumper to bumper traffic and then pay for parking, rather than fly out of a convenient local airport.

Lower fares in the Southern California markets will pull a lot of passengers from BFL. Even FAT has lower fares than BFL.

The larger number of nonstop choices and lower fares due to more competition will likely always hurt demand at BFL. For many passengers the traffic issues will be worth the savings, or they simply will use the Bakersfield to LAX airport bus service to avoid driving.

As I mentioned before, I was on a recent flight with Bakersfield residents who drove to Fresno for a nonstop rather than fly a connection on UA or AA. But I found that unusual given the choices to the south.

For what its worth, BFL's own leakage study says it captures 20% of its market area. 62% use LAX, 7% use FAT, BUR with 5% and the rest going to SFO, LAS, etc.

BUR makes a lot of sense for leakage from BFL. The traffic usually isn't *that bad* for all but the last few miles unless you hit it right in the middle of rush hour and/or there is something like an accident or construction. LAX, on the other hand, can be as much as another 1:30-1:45 past BUR in the worst traffic (and even be more than that in those nightmare Thanksgiving rush hours). Being as FAT is only 5 miles further from BFL than LAX is, and there is almost never any traffic along the way (with things like construction and the Tule fog being the only real obstacles that ever present themselves), I can see people choosing FAT if fares are competitive with LAX, even with not as many options. Some people just hate sitting in traffic. Also, I believe both parking and hotels are much cheaper around FAT than LAX.

BFL leakage study shows 62% use LAX. I guess Bakersfield to LAX works for most people or maybe it’s LAX that has the flights and airlines that people wanna fly rather than Burbank. Either way most BFL leakage goes to LAX.

AirFiero wrote:

SANFan wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

I was hoping the same for SJC. It looks like AS is emphasizing more point to point over hubs.

Personally, I think we need to keep a close eye on AS in SJC.

With both WN and DL growing to some degree at Mineta, I wonder if AS might back off some of the routes they fly there, as they just did in SAN and SFO? It seems that WN chased AS off several routes so might the same thing also occur in SJC? After all, SJC-DAL and SJC-BUR are being dropped already by AS -- is that it?

Perhaps, as a few hints have suggested, this strategy change by AAG is quite limited in scope, and/or even just temporary. (That would be wonderful news for me!) And it's very possible that everything AS flies to and from SJC is performing great and the network there is just the way AAG wants it.

Remember, SJC and SAN are the 2 AS focus cities with roughly the same number of daily flights. I certainly hope they don't cull several routes from SJC but I will sure be watching what happens next.

bb

Yes, I'm a bit concerned with the direction AS will go and the ramifications for my home airport. I can see your concerns, as well. I was rather alarmed at them dropping DAL and now BUR is troubling, although tphuang pointed out the low LF on the route. I guess I can't blame AS for cutting potential losses.

Also (as echoed buy RWA380), DL's announcement of a build up at SJC is yet another wild card. I have to say, when I first read about that, it nearly knocked me out of my chair. With all the existing competition at SJC, I'm wondering how and why DL decided to jump in. WN has done a crazy amount of build up at SJC, a virtual fortress. AS has been taking them on. Now comes DL. My take on it is that WN is probably seen as less than a top choice for business travelers, and those wanting premium service. For my money, I put up the extra cash and often fly First/Business if for no other reason than my wife has mobility issues that make F/J much more comfortable and convenient. Plus it is deluxe and bitchen. Plus I don't fly WN because I also like to reserve seats. Anyway, I think DL is going for the premium flyers. I don't know how many flights DL has out of SFO, but maybe they see an opportunity for premium passengers in Silicon Valley, and maybe they think they can siphon off some people from SFO who live/work closer to SJC?

It will be interesting to watch what moves AS makes at SJC and SAN. In this week's OAG thread, I noticed that (ignoring the DAL cut), AS cut 3 flights from SJC - all to BUR, but added 3 flights - 1 to PDX and 2 to SAN. So here, no net loss. And unless they are planning more moves, this schedule looks to be all the way to the beginning of next summer. Time will tell.

I wish you well down there in SUN Diego.

Hey Fiero, what is the gate situation at SJC? From my current understanding it's nuts to butts down there. If that is the case, how much can DL build up at SJC? It's been a hard road for carriers based or hubbed at SJC. CO & then CO West, QQ, AA after buying QQ. So I guess my question would be what market is DL chasing? The premium passengers that don't like WN because there is no premium cabin, yeah likely. But will that in itself be enough traffic to warrant a focus city?

I have a feeling that they will target BOS, JFK, PDX, SAN. But I believe most of the SJC area travelers are more often UA loyalists, since UA has flown mainline there for 50+ years, even just to SFO for a connection. Now where those premium passengers can't get non-stop from SJC, they can connect or in some cases drive up to SFO & go n/s to the likes of PPT/ZRH/AKL/SYD et al...

RWA380 wrote:

Hey Fiero, what is the gate situation at SJC? From my current understanding it's nuts to butts down there. If that is the case, how much can DL build up at SJC? It's been a hard road for carriers based or hubbed at SJC. CO & then CO West, QQ, AA after buying QQ. So I guess my question would be what market is DL chasing? The premium passengers that don't like WN because there is no premium cabin, yeah likely. But will that in itself be enough traffic to warrant a focus city?

I have a feeling that they will target BOS, JFK, PDX, SAN. But I believe most of the SJC area travelers are more often UA loyalists, since UA has flown mainline there for 50+ years, even just to SFO for a connection. Now where those premium passengers can't get non-stop from SJC, they can connect or in some cases drive up to SFO & go n/s to the likes of PPT/ZRH/AKL/SYD et al...

CO's hub wasn't too huge, but we've had AA, QQ, AA (again), and now AS, WN, and DL soon. Silicon Valley is just so flush with money that DL purely wants a piece of the pie. They will likely have a few major P2P routes from SJC. I can see stuff like PDX, DEN, PHX, BOS, IAD/DCA, RDU, AUS. There are a lot of UA loyalists in San Jose (especially a lot with corporate contracts) as well as quite a few holdovers from the AA days. Just by the size of the market, there's a significant number of DL flyers as well.

SJC is pretty bad on gates, but the recent addition has helped quite a bit. By November, SJC will have 37 gates (36 w/ jet bridges and 1 bus gate). Southwest will have 15 of those, AS will have 6, and DL will have 4, but they have access to 2 more common-use gates. DL can probably get up to 50-ish flights a day if they wanted to. Depends especially on the time of day of the flights.

KLMatSJC wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Hey Fiero, what is the gate situation at SJC? From my current understanding it's nuts to butts down there. If that is the case, how much can DL build up at SJC? It's been a hard road for carriers based or hubbed at SJC. CO & then CO West, QQ, AA after buying QQ. So I guess my question would be what market is DL chasing? The premium passengers that don't like WN because there is no premium cabin, yeah likely. But will that in itself be enough traffic to warrant a focus city?

I have a feeling that they will target BOS, JFK, PDX, SAN. But I believe most of the SJC area travelers are more often UA loyalists, since UA has flown mainline there for 50+ years, even just to SFO for a connection. Now where those premium passengers can't get non-stop from SJC, they can connect or in some cases drive up to SFO & go n/s to the likes of PPT/ZRH/AKL/SYD et al...

CO's hub wasn't too huge, but we've had AA, QQ, AA (again), and now AS, WN, and DL soon. Silicon Valley is just so flush with money that DL purely wants a piece of the pie. They will likely have a few major P2P routes from SJC. I can see stuff like PDX, DEN, PHX, BOS, IAD/DCA, RDU, AUS. There are a lot of UA loyalists in San Jose (especially a lot with corporate contracts) as well as quite a few holdovers from the AA days. Just by the size of the market, there's a significant number of DL flyers as well.

SJC is pretty bad on gates, but the recent addition has helped quite a bit. By November, SJC will have 37 gates (36 w/ jet bridges and 1 bus gate). Southwest will have 15 of those, AS will have 6, and DL will have 4, but they have access to 2 more common-use gates. DL can probably get up to 50-ish flights a day if they wanted to. Depends especially on the time of day of the flights.

Thanks, KLM. So WN has 15 gates...exclusively? WN seemed to be making things work before the 5 gate (plus 1 coming in November), so I would have thought those new gates would give a lot more room and flexibility? But WN, seriously, has nearly half of the gates for their exclusive use? That’s interesting.

How many flights per day per gate are we assuming? Around 12?

Airline - Gates - Potential - (current)
WN 15 180 (110?]
AS 6 60 (38?)
DL 4 48 (30?)

DL was only talking about a percentage growth that projects to 7-8 additional flights. WN already has over 100 flights, pretty much had all the potential nonstop destinations covered before the Max grounding, so I’d assume any additional flights would be a few additional frequency. And I doubt they would put more flights at SJC than OAK. AS is likely maxed out, except for additional frequency. So, by your numbers and the current service levels, it looks like all airlines are already near their theoretical maximum for the near future and still have plenty of room to expand. What do you think?

KLMatSJC wrote:

I can see stuff like PDX, DEN, PHX, BOS, IAD/DCA, RDU, AUS.

I think it'd be pretty funny if Delta flew Bay Area-PHX before Alaska did.

KLMatSJC wrote:

SJC is pretty bad on gates, but the recent addition has helped quite a bit. By November, SJC will have 37 gates (36 w/ jet bridges and 1 bus gate).

A bus gate? At SJC? Are they parking a plane over by the old yellow FIS shack and bussing people over there or something?