QXAS wrote:

As far as I’m aware, the 321s are doing very well for AS. Great yields, pax love them, etc.. I’d expect the 321N to stay in the fleet for a long time. I also expect at least some of the 30 320neos to be converted to 321Neos. I do not expect AS to take delivery of a 320neo. The 738 can do everything that AS would otherwise need the 320neo to do, with more seats. Additionally the conversion of Max 8 to Max 9 indicates where AS wants their standard aircraft size to be.

With the conversion of the max 8s to max 9s. It seems that there will be, at some point, quite a gap from the 175s to the max 9s. Could an E2 190/5 fill that gap?

WeAreUnited wrote:

As of 11/5; all 5 flights (2x SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX) to/from DCA will be on the 321.

Well, there you go! By my math, that's going to be more than half of the total 321 fleet utilization. I think that's going to bring them quite a bit of incremental revenue on SEA in particular.

While the 737 MAX grounding has limited AS's ability to expand its network, AS wasn't as adversely affected by the 737 MAX groundings as AS was already operating most of its nonstop routes out of its main SEA hub prior to WN, AA, and UA operating any 737 MAX planes. AS also took delivery of additional 737-900ER planes subsequent to other airlines starting Boeing 737 MAX operations but prior to the 737 MAX groundings, and AS also inherited Airbus A319, Airbus A320, and Airbus A321neo planes through the AS-VX merger.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DCAfan wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

For their direct flights from Anchorage to Tokyo connecting with JAL, or Helsinki connecting with FinnAir...

Ok. You're right. They don't need em.

*kicks can*

They need the A321's for DCA. Next summer all of their beyond perimeter flights at DCA will be operated with A321's. The 737-900ER cannot operate transcons at DCA due to the fact that the runways there are too short.

You'd be wise to check before you make these posts. The AS 739 has operated out of DCA. Furthermore, you don't have a fleet of aircraft for just one airport. AS could have ordered the A321 long before acquiring Virgin America if they had wanted it.

I think you'd be wise to check. Although the 739 has the capability to operate out of DCA and may have operated as a sub in the past, it was NEVER scheduled, as the performance of the -900 limits it to fewer pax than the 738 on DCA's runways.

packmedic wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

DCAfan wrote:

They need the A321's for DCA. Next summer all of their beyond perimeter flights at DCA will be operated with A321's. The 737-900ER cannot operate transcons at DCA due to the fact that the runways there are too short.

You'd be wise to check before you make these posts. The AS 739 has operated out of DCA. Furthermore, you don't have a fleet of aircraft for just one airport. AS could have ordered the A321 long before acquiring Virgin America if they had wanted it.

I think you'd be wise to check. Although the 739 has the capability to operate out of DCA and may have operated as a sub in the past, it was NEVER scheduled, as the performance of the -900 limits it to fewer pax than the 738 on DCA's runways.

Actually, SEADCA was originally scheduled with the 739, and scheduled service used it beginning on 9/4/01, right up to DCA's temporary closure on 9/11. In fact, the DOT petition for that beyond-the-perimeter exemption would have gone to another carrier if the DOT hadn't told AS they were hoping for a larger capacity aircraft, as they originally filed for 73G service, then amended it to 739 service after the DOT raised eyebrows at it.

EA CO AS wrote:

Actually, SEADCA was originally scheduled with the 739, and scheduled service used it beginning on 9/4/01, right up to DCA's temporary closure on 9/11. In fact, the DOT petition for that beyond-the-perimeter exemption would have gone to another carrier if the DOT hadn't told AS they were hoping for a larger capacity aircraft, as they originally filed for 73G service, then amended it to 739 service after the DOT raised eyebrows at it.

What sort of passenger loads were they able to carry on the DCA-SEA leg?

scbriml wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

No doubt the lease rates on the A321neos will be sky high since they are in ultra high demand. But there's nothing they can do that the 737 can't do.

Except there is. The sales numbers don't lie.

AS is saying that "within the AS network" there's nothing the A321 Neos can do that the 737s can't do>

Or as AS could say: "what's the point in buying capability that we don't need.?"

seabosdca wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Actually, SEADCA was originally scheduled with the 739, and scheduled service used it beginning on 9/4/01, right up to DCA's temporary closure on 9/11. In fact, the DOT petition for that beyond-the-perimeter exemption would have gone to another carrier if the DOT hadn't told AS they were hoping for a larger capacity aircraft, as they originally filed for 73G service, then amended it to 739 service after the DOT raised eyebrows at it.

What sort of passenger loads were they able to carry on the DCA-SEA leg?

It routinely took around a 16 passenger weight restriction out of DCA. Full loads weren't a problem out of SEA, however.

bob75013 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

No doubt the lease rates on the A321neos will be sky high since they are in ultra high demand. But there's nothing they can do that the 737 can't do.

Except there is. The sales numbers don't lie.

AS is saying that "within the AS network" there's nothing the A321 Neos can do that the 737s can't do>

Or as AS could say: "what's the point in buying capability that we don't need.?"

CASM will win the day, and that's probably a wash between the MAX9 and the A321neo. I still think there's an outside chance at AS going for the MAX10, converted from MAX9 options, and turning all 30 A320neos into 30 A321neos, plus adding 15 options (which they'll take, eventually; AS always takes up their options).

EA CO AS wrote:

It routinely took around a 16 passenger weight restriction out of DCA. Full loads weren't a problem out of SEA, however.

Didn't the 737-900 only operate SEA-DCA for a week or two? I don't recall it being scheduled after DCA reopened and they moved the flight over from IAD. However my memory from that time is getting hazy so I could be misremembering things.

chrisair wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

It routinely took around a 16 passenger weight restriction out of DCA. Full loads weren't a problem out of SEA, however.

Didn't the 737-900 only operate SEA-DCA for a week or two? I don't recall it being scheduled after DCA reopened and they moved the flight over from IAD. However my memory from that time is getting hazy so I could be misremembering things.

Exactly one week, from 9/4/01 to 9/11/01. It was permanently scheduled to continue but of course, 9/11 happened and the flight eventually moved to IAD. Once DCA reopened, there were a few -900s scheduled in and out but once there were enough -800s on the property, they took over.

But claiming they were never scheduled, as others did earlier in the thread, is an outright falsehood. The only reason AS even got the slot in the first place was because they re-filed their petition with 739 equipment after the DOT balked at 73Gs being used.

flybynight wrote:

Maybe AS is warming up to Airbus?

BEN (LUCKY) | JULY 19, 2017 wrote:

Alaska Plans On Having An All Boeing Fleet Long Term
As it stands, Virgin America has 65 planes in their fleet, so there’s no way we’re going to see all of those planes retired anytime soon, as it would represent a huge reduction in capacity for the airline.

Current make up:
Airbus A319 10
Airbus A320 53
Airbus A321 10

Does anyone know when Alaska was scheduled to receive those last 30 A320neos?

PacoMartin wrote:

flybynight wrote:

Maybe AS is warming up to Airbus?

BEN (LUCKY) | JULY 19, 2017 wrote:

Alaska Plans On Having An All Boeing Fleet Long Term
As it stands, Virgin America has 65 planes in their fleet, so there’s no way we’re going to see all of those planes retired anytime soon, as it would represent a huge reduction in capacity for the airline.

Current make up:
Airbus A319 10
Airbus A320 53
Airbus A321 10

Does anyone know when Alaska was scheduled to receive those last 30 A320neos?

Currently 2023-2025 but they are a bit of a moving target since they were originally scheduled to start in 2020

Longest current schedule
1,739 mi LAS TYS Allegiant Air
2,446 mi SFO MCO Frontier Airlines
2,537 mi MSP SXM Sun Country Airlines
2,627 mi FLL LIM Spirit Airlines
2,695 mi OGG LAS Hawaiian Airlines (longest route schedule A321neo)
2,704 mi BOS SFO JetBlue Airways
2,874 mi KOA ANC Alaska Airlines
2,917 mi HNL PHX Hawaiian Airlines (longest potential route with A321neo)

TTailedTiger wrote:

Alaska has sweetheart deal from Boeing written all over them. No doubt the lease rates on the A321neos will be sky high since they are in ultra high demand. But there's nothing they can do that the 737 can't do.

I think that is a good question. What would a USA airline do with an A321XLR?
Hawaiian Airlines has 16 A321neos, but they might want to fly to Austin (HNL-AUS 3,763 mi)
JetBlue to BOS-London (BOS-LGW 3,283 miles)
Spirit Airlines may want to explore further into South America FLL-SCL 4,135 mi
Frontier Airlines might want to connect to base of partner airline, Jetsmart: DEN-SCL 5,486 mi (4,767 nm), but that seems too long for an A321XLR
MIA-SCL seems more doable at 4,118 mi (Miami is a "focus city for Frontier")

Allegiant Air seems uninterested
Sun Country Airlines ???
Alaska Airlines ??? (their current destinations are all reachable from any city in the USA without an A321neo)
LIR Liberia Costa Rica
SJO San José Costa Rica
LTO Loreto Mexico (Baja California Sur)
SJD San José del Cabo Mexico (Baja California Sur)
ZLO Manzanillo Mexico (Colima)
ZIH Ixtapa Mexico (Guerrero)
GDL Guadalajara Mexico (Jalisco)
PVR Puerto Vallarta Mexico (Jalisco)

TTailedTiger wrote:

Alaska has sweetheart deal from Boeing written all over them. No doubt the lease rates on the A321neos will be sky high since they are in ultra high demand. But there's nothing they can do that the 737 can't do.

Facts - since you know it more than the rest of us, prove it
to my understanding the 321neo is far superior to the max 9
but i'm willing to learn, prove it

A 321neo is a slightly different tool than a 739. If you happen to have it in your tool box (or shop) you will take advantage of its differences. That does not necessarily mean that if you do not happen to have it that you will buy it. And it works the other way around, if your tools are all 320s .......

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A 321neo is a slightly different tool than a 739. If you happen to have it in your tool box (or shop) you will take advantage of its differences. That does not necessarily mean that if you do not happen to have it that you will buy it. And it works the other way around, if your tools are all 320s .......

But what would Alaska Air do with an A321XLR? There are long range flights destinations from SEA, but all of them except Iceland are out of the range of an A321XLR.
Would they go to San Juan? How about Aruba? It seems as if the traffic to beach destinations can all be served by flights to Hawaii.

Delta Air Lines Amsterdam, Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Icelandair Reykjavík–Keflavík
British Airways London–Heathrow
Virgin Atlantic London–Heathrow
Norwegian Air Shuttle Seasonal: London–Gatwick
Aer Lingus Dublin
Air France Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Lufthansa Frankfurt, Munich (begins June 1, 2020)
Condor Frankfurt
.
Emirates Dubai–International
.
Delta Air Lines Seoul–Incheon, Shanghai–Pudong, Tokyo–Haneda (begins March 28, 2020) Seasonal: Osaka–Kansai
All Nippon Airways Tokyo–Narita
Asiana Airlines Seoul–Incheon
Cathay Pacific Hong Kong
EVA Air Taipei–Taoyuan
Hainan Airlines Beijing–Capital, Shanghai–Pudong
Japan Airlines Tokyo–Narita
Korean Air Seoul–Incheon
Singapore Airlines Singapore

ANC to Florida? Certainly not a large enough demand for a sub fleet in its own, but if they have them...

Helsinki to Hawaii, with a stopover in Anchorage. Book it, done.

HIA350 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Alaska has sweetheart deal from Boeing written all over them. No doubt the lease rates on the A321neos will be sky high since they are in ultra high demand. But there's nothing they can do that the 737 can't do.

Facts - since you know it more than the rest of us, prove it
to my understanding the 321neo is far superior to the max 9
but i'm willing to learn, prove it

If you need more capacity in a single aisle or more capacity/range you get more with the A321neo, than both the 737-9 or -10.
If you need a good field performance at MTOW, you get a better performance from the A321neo than the 737-9. There are not yet numbers regarding the field performance of the 737-10

PacoMartin wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A 321neo is a slightly different tool than a 739. If you happen to have it in your tool box (or shop) you will take advantage of its differences. That does not necessarily mean that if you do not happen to have it that you will buy it. And it works the other way around, if your tools are all 320s .......

But what would Alaska Air do with an A321XLR? There are long range flights destinations from SEA, but all of them except Iceland are out of the range of an A321XLR.
Would they go to San Juan? How about Aruba? It seems as if the traffic to beach destinations can all be served by flights to Hawaii.

Delta Air Lines Amsterdam, Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Icelandair Reykjavík–Keflavík
British Airways London–Heathrow
Virgin Atlantic London–Heathrow
Norwegian Air Shuttle Seasonal: London–Gatwick
Aer Lingus Dublin
Air France Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Lufthansa Frankfurt, Munich (begins June 1, 2020)
Condor Frankfurt
.
Emirates Dubai–International
.
Delta Air Lines Seoul–Incheon, Shanghai–Pudong, Tokyo–Haneda (begins March 28, 2020) Seasonal: Osaka–Kansai
All Nippon Airways Tokyo–Narita
Asiana Airlines Seoul–Incheon
Cathay Pacific Hong Kong
EVA Air Taipei–Taoyuan
Hainan Airlines Beijing–Capital, Shanghai–Pudong
Japan Airlines Tokyo–Narita
Korean Air Seoul–Incheon
Singapore Airlines Singapore

Your posts fill up so much space. But thank you for listing all the international destinations from Seattle. And thank you for listing a bunch of A321XLR potential that aren’t at all relevant to this discussion.

The MAX 8 is still more efficient than the A320 NEO. If Boeing starts it's NSA program to replace the 737 earlier than initially planned, Airbus is going to need to do a NEO on the A220 or develop a new 6 abreast single aisle aircraft.

PacoMartin wrote:

Likewise they could probably sell those Virgin America orders for A320neos at a profit to some airline that can't wait.

Recent contracts forbid resale of new airliners for a certain period (IIRC, two years?) after accepting delivery (other than traditional lease/buyback deals) to prevent airlines with a favorable deal from competing with the manufacturer. That may be a restraint of trade, but no airline dares angering the manufacturer by violating such provisions.

LAXBUR wrote:

Your posts fill up so much space. But thank you for listing all the international destinations from Seattle. And thank you for listing a bunch of A321XLR potential that aren’t at all relevant to this discussion.

I'm glad you appreciate it. Thank you for your thanks.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The MAX 8 is still more efficient than the A320 NEO. If Boeing starts it's NSA program to replace the 737 earlier than initially planned, Airbus is going to need to do a NEO on the A220 or develop a new 6 abreast single aisle aircraft.

At least NEO is flying.

None of us know what Max will look like (operationally) until the FAA gives it the clear. FAA may throw a ton of operational restrictions on the planes until theyve been flying for a while without issues. I sense that ETOPS in Max will be toast, and quite possibly even EOW status.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The MAX 8 is still more efficient than the A320 NEO. If Boeing starts it's NSA program to replace the 737 earlier than initially planned, Airbus is going to need to do a NEO on the A220 or develop a new 6 abreast single aisle aircraft.

The efficiency difference between a A320neo and the 737 MAX8 depends on the length of the flight. The 737 doing the short hops better and the A320 the longer flights.
That is why Boeing compares the two over a 500 nm flight and Airbus likes to do it's calculation on considerable longer flights.

TTailedTiger wrote:

QXAS wrote:

As far as I’m aware, the 321s are doing very well for AS. Great yields, pax love them, etc.. I’d expect the 321N to stay in the fleet for a long time. I also expect at least some of the 30 320neos to be converted to 321Neos. I do not expect AS to take delivery of a 320neo. The 738 can do everything that AS would otherwise need the 320neo to do, with more seats. Additionally the conversion of Max 8 to Max 9 indicates where AS wants their standard aircraft size to be.

VX was not a financially healthy airline. Those Airbus have some very high lease rates. And I highly doubt AS would be able to negotiate better terms since the leasing company can just pitch them to another airline who will pay those high lease rates or more.

By definition, if any other airlines pays the same or even higher lease rates if placed new, AS is not paying too much aka very high lease rates. But apparently what the market thinks the capability is worth.

Nicoeddf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

VX was not a financially healthy airline. Those Airbus have some very high lease rates. And I highly doubt AS would be able to negotiate better terms since the leasing company can just pitch them to another airline who will pay those high lease rates or more.

By definition, if any other airlines pays the same or even higher lease rates if placed new, AS is not paying too much aka very high lease rates. But apparently what the market thinks the capability is worth.

Sorry, but one factor the market takes in to account is the risk that the company leasing the plane may not be able to pay off the lease. It's the same idea as how people with bad credit ratings often pay a premium in interest rate to secure loans, the lender wants some compensation to offset the risk that there may be a default.

Revelation wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

VX was not a financially healthy airline. Those Airbus have some very high lease rates. And I highly doubt AS would be able to negotiate better terms since the leasing company can just pitch them to another airline who will pay those high lease rates or more.

By definition, if any other airlines pays the same or even higher lease rates if placed new, AS is not paying too much aka very high lease rates. But apparently what the market thinks the capability is worth.

Sorry, but one factor the market takes in to account is the risk that the company leasing the plane may not be able to pay off the lease. It's the same idea as how people with bad credit ratings often pay a premium in interest rate to secure loans, the lender wants some compensation to offset the risk that there may be a default.

No doubt. And the same mechanism leads to ,generally speaking, low risk premiums for a type being in high demand.
Hence I simply don't see AS being in a subpar spot with regards to their 321s.

But well.

flybynight wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

I realize that with only 10 aircraft flexibility is limited. But given the yields and slot limitations out of DCA I'm a bit surprised that they haven't scheduled the A321neos for as many DCA legs as possible. Instead they have been flying a variety of stuff, with some DCA, but also some transcon and west coast routes that could be covered by 737-900ERs.

Seems the 321NEO's would be good to the Big Island as well. Or Hawaii in general, at least from SEA.
Not a lot of range left for a 900ER heading/coming back from Kona.

I wonder if a NEO has the range to make it to Costa Rico from the PNW

The 321NEO has more than enough range to make it from the PNW to Costa Rica

Nicoeddf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

By definition, if any other airlines pays the same or even higher lease rates if placed new, AS is not paying too much aka very high lease rates. But apparently what the market thinks the capability is worth.

Sorry, but one factor the market takes in to account is the risk that the company leasing the plane may not be able to pay off the lease. It's the same idea as how people with bad credit ratings often pay a premium in interest rate to secure loans, the lender wants some compensation to offset the risk that there may be a default.

No doubt. And the same mechanism leads to ,generally speaking, low risk premiums for a type being in high demand.
Hence I simply don't see AS being in a subpar spot with regards to their 321s.

Sure, the popularity of the type is a positive factor, but the lessor still risks a lot of cost if payment stops and they must go to court to regain possession, and this would be priced in to the contract.

Revelation wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Sorry, but one factor the market takes in to account is the risk that the company leasing the plane may not be able to pay off the lease. It's the same idea as how people with bad credit ratings often pay a premium in interest rate to secure loans, the lender wants some compensation to offset the risk that there may be a default.

No doubt. And the same mechanism leads to ,generally speaking, low risk premiums for a type being in high demand.
Hence I simply don't see AS being in a subpar spot with regards to their 321s.

Sure, the popularity of the type is a positive factor, but the lessor still risks a lot of cost if payment stops and they must go to court to regain possession, and this would be priced in to the contract.

Generally, we are in full agreement.

In this specific case, while VX surely wasn't WN in financial terms, they hardly were in a high risk category w.r.t. reposessing, via courts or bankruptcy.

snowzilla wrote:

The NEO’s were pushed back beyond 2022, not the Max’s. They have 2 now stored in Moses Lake.

Only one is at Moses. The other is still on the ramp at BFI

The MAX is not certified yet. It is still guessing that the grounded frames go into operation in March. Deliveries overall must be delayed, not only because of the delivery stops and the now following slow flow out of the already produce frames, but also because production rate was cut and there will be 100 or more frames less produced than planed, especially as it was the plan to up the rate to 57 frames this year and production was instead cut to 42.

Because we can assume slow deliveries of 737 MAX for quite a while, would it not be sensible for AS do extend the leasing contracts of the current A320 and pull the ordered A320neo forward again?

mjoelnir wrote:

The MAX is not certified yet. It is still guessing that the grounded frames go into operation in March. Deliveries overall must be delayed, not only because of the delivery stops and the now following slow flow out of the already produce frames, but also because production rate was cut and there will be 100 or more frames less produced than planed, especially as it was the plan to up the rate to 57 frames this year and production was instead cut to 42.

Because we can assume slow deliveries of 737 MAX for quite a while, would it not be sensible for AS do extend the leasing contracts of the current A320 and pull the ordered A320neo forward again?

Not sure what you’ve read. But I read December for deliveries to begin again with a back in service in January.

usxguy wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The MAX 8 is still more efficient than the A320 NEO. If Boeing starts it's NSA program to replace the 737 earlier than initially planned, Airbus is going to need to do a NEO on the A220 or develop a new 6 abreast single aisle aircraft.

At least NEO is flying.

None of us know what Max will look like (operationally) until the FAA gives it the clear. FAA may throw a ton of operational restrictions on the planes until theyve been flying for a while without issues. I sense that ETOPS in Max will be toast, and quite possibly even EOW status.

What makes you think ETOPS will be toast? The issue with the plane wasn’t range. It was flawed software. I don’t see any reason etops would be suspended.

NameOmitted wrote:

Helsinki to Hawaii, with a stopover in Anchorage. Book it, done.

HEL - ANC - HNL 3,522 nm + 2,413 nm = 5,935 nm (21 nm further than nonstop)
CPH - ANC - HNL 3,760 nm + 2,413 nm = 6,174 nm
OSL - ANC - HNL 3,481 nm + 2,413 nm = 5,894 nm

A lot of potential there. Good idea!

The A321neo is likely ensured a long hard look by Alaska Airlines for this, but I don't see the A319s or A320s staying. It's likely a matter of time before the 12 owned A320s are put up for sale or AS finds a buyer for them...perhaps F9, as these are CFM-powered frames?

F9 will not acquire any older gen A320's going forward. In fact the only one's staying on property will be Sharklets. Everything is leaving at lease expiration. F9 is planning a future on NEO's.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The A321neo is likely ensured a long hard look by Alaska Airlines for this, but I don't see the A319s or A320s staying. It's likely a matter of time before the 12 owned A320s are put up for sale or AS finds a buyer for them...perhaps F9, as these are CFM-powered frames?

seahawks7757 wrote:

What makes you think ETOPS will be toast? The issue with the plane wasn’t range. It was flawed software. I don’t see any reason etops would be suspended.

When planes do uncommanded nose-dives into the ground, and with Boeing and the FAA being a bit cozy, I can see the FAA being a bit more "harsh" before letting these things fly more than 60 miles off shore until they haven't killed anyone for some time. We are entering into some unknown territory as I can't think of any model that was grounded like this.... so who knows what will come out of it.

LAXBUR wrote:

And thank you for listing a bunch of A321XLR potential that aren’t at all relevant to this discussion.

As I understand it Virgin America made an order in 2011 which still has 30 A320neos unfilled. Alaska Airlines inherited that order. I thought one of the options was to up-gauge the order to a higher level of neo. Am I wrong?

Why wouldn't you discuss the potential of the A321XLR from Seattle?

PacoMartin wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

And thank you for listing a bunch of A321XLR potential that aren’t at all relevant to this discussion.

As I understand it Virgin America made an order in 2011 which still has 30 A320neos unfilled. Alaska Airlines inherited that order. I thought one of the options was to up-gauge the order to a higher level of neo. Am I wrong?

Why wouldn't you discuss the potential of the A321XLR from Seattle?

The primary reason is that given the conservative natural of the current management at AS the likely hood of any oddball XLR maximum range routes being announced by AS is about 0.00001%, not impossible but highly unlikely. An order upgrade from A320 to A321 non XLR would allow AS to fill the many holes in their current network without introducing what AS would essential consider a new subfleet.

gmcc wrote:

The primary reason is that given the conservative natural of the current management at AS the likely hood of any oddball XLR maximum range routes being announced by AS is about 0.00001%, not impossible but highly unlikely. An order upgrade from A320 to A321 non XLR would allow AS to fill the many holes in their current network without introducing what AS would essential consider a new subfleet.

Thank you for the sensible answer without the need for ridicule

PacoMartin wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

And thank you for listing a bunch of A321XLR potential that aren’t at all relevant to this discussion.

As I understand it Virgin America made an order in 2011 which still has 30 A320neos unfilled. Alaska Airlines inherited that order. I thought one of the options was to up-gauge the order to a higher level of neo. Am I wrong?

Why wouldn't you discuss the potential of the A321XLR from Seattle?

You weren’t discussing. You were listing a bunch of irrelevant information. You then answer your own questions. Most tiring poster I’ve ever seen.

It took nine years for Hawaiian Airlines to go from 6 to 24 A330-200s
When they purchased 16 A321neos and then leased 2 others, they must have looked at their network (miles from HNL) and decided how they could use these long range single-aisle jets and where the A332s could be redeployed (BOS, JFK, etc)
SFO 2398
OAK 2409
SJC 2417
SMF 2462
LAX 2556
LGB 2569
PDX 2603
SAN 2614
SEA 2677
LAS 2762
PHX 2917
PPG 2599
PPT 2730

----------------------
In a similar thought process, Alaska Airlines is unlikely to take the 30 A320neos to supplement its existing 63 jet A319/A320ceo fleet on the outside chance that the MAX flights are suspended again in the future. If they do keep the Airbus order they will no doubt want to up-gauge to an A321neo or possibly a longer-range variant.

The natural thing would be to look at what international markets are served from Seattle. They are all Transcon and well over 4000 miles except for Iceland.
LHR (4,800 miles), CDG (5,016 miles), and ICN (5,216 miles) are possibilities with the XLR variant as are smaller airports in Japan or United Kingdom.

Seattle to Latin America consists of only four destinations, all of which are easily reachable with a B737NG (1800-2700 miles): Mexico City Seasonal: Cancún, Puerto Vallarta, San José del Cabo.

LAXBUR wrote:

You weren’t discussing. You were listing a bunch of irrelevant information.

How could the international market from Seattle be irrelevant to potential expansion for Alaska?

LAXBUR wrote:

You then answer your own questions.

I don't answer my own questions. Sometimes I agree with the most likely outcome.

I agree with most other people that Alaska airlines will re-affirm their goal of returning to an all Boeing fleet, they will try to abandon their commitment to purchase 30 A320s from Airbus at as little penalty as possible, they will not aggressively expand to new foreign destinations.

The B737-900ER is flown a maximum distance of 2936 nm today by Istanbul Air. So Alaska's theoretical maximum range today is probably ANC-JFK (2942 nm). Data helps me evaluate secondary options. Right now there is no competition from secondary international airports to Seattle. With a nominal range of 4700 nm for the XLR, Alaska Air might have a business flying to secondary airports in Japan/ UK in five years (distance from SEA:)
CTS 3,814 nm
KIX 4,379 nm
EDI 3,897 nm (Edinburgh Scotland)
MAN 4,041 nm (Manchester, UK)

LAXBUR wrote:

Most tiring poster I’ve ever seen.

An answer without data is just a lame opinion. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one and they are usually of very little value to other people.

PacoMartin wrote:

The B737-900ER is flown a maximum distance of 2936 nm today by Istanbul Air. So Alaska's theoretical maximum range today is probably ANC-JFK (2942 nm). Data helps me evaluate secondary options. Right now there is no competition from secondary international airports to Seattle. With a nominal range of 4700 nm for the XLR, Alaska Air might have a business flying to secondary airports in Japan/ UK in five years (distance from SEA:)
CTS 3,814 nm
KIX 4,379 nm
EDI 3,897 nm (Edinburgh Scotland)
MAN 4,041 nm (Manchester, UK)

Alaska had its own trajectory to expand organically till Virgin came along and in some sense threw a curve ball in those plans. Now that it is clear that Virgin became more of a real estate deal for gates at SFO/LAX, that enabled AS to expand its North-South network all along the W Coast, it does lead to an interesting question. What next.

It is obvious that the incumbents are going to defend their turf fiercely. It is also apparent that Alaska has decided to clip away at the edges, by deploying E-170's from secondary airport's where it has dominance/brand recognition into LAX/SFO. This is a pretty good strategy.

That leaves the door open for both SEA and PDK. Both secondary Asia/Europe destinations make for interesting options. In some sense, it will not rock their existing alliances. If anything, it will go supplement them. Certainly with likes of JAL. With the Seattle economy showing no signs of slowing down, secondary destinations both in Europe as well as Asia will be the next frontier.

Behind closed doors when AS management discusses expansion, I'd think longer range planes would be on the table. SEA - MIA is a stretch for the 737's. Not to mention if AS should consider more expansion outside of the US. Maybe Puerto Rico? The Bahamas? Even as far as London? Of course no single-aisle plane, I believe, will have the range to fly SEA-LHR, which is 4800'ish miles.

flybynight wrote:

Behind closed doors when AS management discusses expansion, I'd think longer range planes would be on the table. SEA - MIA is a stretch for the 737's. Not to mention if AS should consider more expansion outside of the US. Maybe Puerto Rico? The Bahamas? Even as far as London? Of course no single-aisle plane, I believe, will have the range to fly SEA-LHR, which is 4800'ish miles.

I don't think there are issues with 737 on SEA-FLL, its not even their longest 737 route.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Alaska has sweetheart deal from Boeing written all over them. No doubt the lease rates on the A321neos will be sky high since they are in ultra high demand. But there's nothing they can do that the 737 can't do.

If the 737 can do everything the A321 can do, why is the A321 drawing more demand and running much higher lease rates. Surely no one would pay extra for something that does the same job as a cheaper alternative. You contradict your own logic here.

AS is in the final stages of completing a new 5 year plan for the company, which will be rolled out in the next month or so. This will include the fleet plan. As a reminder, AS buys aircraft with a 20 year life cycle in mind, and within that timeframe, all the early build 739As and some of the 61-frame strong 738 fleet will hit the end of that cycle.

So this is about more than just what happens to the 30 options with Airbus. More to come.