Airliners.net

tiptoe42 wrote:

There is no scope in the current pilot contract, so Alaska is free to put whatever airplane on whatever certificate they want.
I agree with you on the commonality of the 175/195, plus embraer’s relationship with Boeing makes that the likely aircraft between the two. With no scope what would be the motivation for AAG management to fly it at Alaska, they’ll have Horizon fly it. Adding a scope clause after the fact wouldn’t help because management would likely demand any current or ordered aircraft for Horizon be grandfathered in.

The reason not to put the E195 or any airplane that is over 76 seats at QX is so that you do not piss off the pilots union at AS. The general industry limit for non-mainline flying seems to be 76 seats. Having a good constructive working relationship with the union is a benefit, so if you start throwing metaphorical punches at them by putting an E195 at QX, you're just asking them to be disgruntled.

The real question is if there is a need for a 100-120 seater airplane at AS. The 73G fleet is pretty small, but that might just be a reflection of the close operating costs between the 73G and 738, making the 738 make more sense to fly.

I promise you that AAG management couldn’t care less about what the pilot union thinks or wants.
Management cares about increasing shareholder value, and being profitable.

tiptoe42 wrote:

I promise you that AAG management couldn’t care less about what the pilot union thinks or wants.
Management cares about increasing shareholder value, and being profitable.

It seems that you do not like the A320 family frames and your opinion is, that Alaska Airlines should get rid of them as fast as possible. But could you give a good reason for Alaska Airlines to scramble and get rid of the A320 family frames?
Because sorry, I would say it would be a brain dead action, while the future of the 737 MAX is up in the air. Even if Boeing should at one time start to deliver 737MAX again, it is no question, that a lot of those frames will be considerable delayed.

Quite the contrary actually, I prefer the Airbus to the 737, the 321NEO is superior to any 737 model in almost every way. I think it is a huge mistake to get rid of the Airbus, particularly the 321, given its performance and the issues with the Max. Sadly Alaska management looks at cost above all else, the Neo is expensive and in high demand, the Max, not so much.

tiptoe42 wrote:

Quite the contrary actually, I prefer the Airbus to the 737, the 321NEO is superior to any 737 model in almost every way. I think it is a huge mistake to get rid of the Airbus, particularly the 321, given its performance and the issues with the Max. Sadly Alaska management looks at cost above all else, the Neo is expensive and in high demand, the Max, not so much.

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

Chugach wrote:

ANC-ORD was the first transcon-ish route (not a traditional transcon but longer than most transcons) and it started in 2000 (might have even been 1999) when the 73G’s were delivered. It was same plane FAI-ANC-ORD and reverse at the beginning.

SEA-DCA started in 2001 and was the first traditional west coast-east coast transcon.

Yes, certainly a few select routes from both ANC and SEA. These days, one can see banks of AS planes from several W Coast destinations land at several E Coast and Hawaii airports.

SEA is probably one of the faster growing international airports. Now that the center of tech industry has moved from the Bay area to Seattle, at some point AS will have to throw its hat in the ring. DL will be quiet happy if it chooses not to.

I also doubt it's alliances with Asian/European carriers will be sufficient. As it has been proven, DL has enough leverage to change the game in several markets out of SEA.

vadodara wrote:

Now that the center of tech industry has moved from the Bay area to Seattle

tiptoe42 wrote:

I promise you that AAG management couldn’t care less about what the pilot union thinks or wants.
Management cares about increasing shareholder value, and being profitable.

That my friend, is a way to run an organization into the ground, especially an organization that needs its employees to operate the business.

USAirKid wrote:

tiptoe42 wrote:

I promise you that AAG management couldn’t care less about what the pilot union thinks or wants.
Management cares about increasing shareholder value, and being profitable.

That my friend, is a way to run an organization into the ground, especially an organization that needs its employees to operate the business.

All publicly held corporations focus on profits and shareholder return. All corporations need employees to operate. Some can manage this balancing act. Some cannot. Alaska seems to do an “ok” job at it. Definitely well enough to where it is unlikely they’re “running themselves into the ground.” I have no doubt an airline would rather not deal with a union or organized work group, but I also doubt they “don’t care what they think”.

seabosdca wrote:

flybynight wrote:

I think anyone who won't have any trepidation about flying on a MAX is frankly lying. I know I will, especially if the takeoff seems a little too steep or something else.

I will feel fine about flying in a MAX, since what they have changed about the MAX has been pretty well covered in the press, and they are under white-hot scrutiny from regulators.

It has shaken my confidence in future new Boeing types a little bit. The internal quality culture was more broken than anyone thought and I don't know if we'll get the same results as the MAX reboot when the regulators are not applying their fine-tooth combs to the same degree.

Your second statement is why I think Boeing needs new management. Didn't the Air Force have some harsh words on their 767's being poorly finished and refused delivery? What's going on with the company I have admired for years. Muilenberg needs to go since all of these things are happening on his shift.

As for the first statement, I guarantee you I cannot tell my wife when we eventually get on Alaska's MAX. She'll need to down about three gummies first!

flybynight wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

flybynight wrote:

I think anyone who won't have any trepidation about flying on a MAX is frankly lying. I know I will, especially if the takeoff seems a little too steep or something else.

I will feel fine about flying in a MAX, since what they have changed about the MAX has been pretty well covered in the press, and they are under white-hot scrutiny from regulators.

It has shaken my confidence in future new Boeing types a little bit. The internal quality culture was more broken than anyone thought and I don't know if we'll get the same results as the MAX reboot when the regulators are not applying their fine-tooth combs to the same degree.

Your second statement is why I think Boeing needs new management. Didn't the Air Force have some harsh words on their 767's being poorly finished and refused delivery? What's going on with the company I have admired for years. Muilenberg needs to go since all of these things are happening on his shift.

As for the first statement, I guarantee you I cannot tell my wife when we eventually get on Alaska's MAX. She'll need to down about three gummies first!

McNerney is the one you should be angry with. All of these problems were created under his terrible leadership. He cut and cut and cut to boost his own personal wealth. If Boeing had any balls, they'd go after him and try to claw back some of the massive payouts he received. But since he's part of the same good ol' boys club that the rest of the board is, they'll leave him alone and take the easy route of letting Muilenberg go (with a really, really nice severance package for his troubles). And please don't take this as me excusing Muilenberg. He has made a lot of mistakes and was slow to respond to the mess in the first place. I just think the true reasons for Boeing's problems were in place before he took over.

As for AS, it will be interesting to see what unfolds. It sounds like they love the NEO, but I will be curious to see what kind of push Boeing makes to keep them as a strictly 737 operator.

msp747 wrote:

flybynight wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

I will feel fine about flying in a MAX, since what they have changed about the MAX has been pretty well covered in the press, and they are under white-hot scrutiny from regulators.

It has shaken my confidence in future new Boeing types a little bit. The internal quality culture was more broken than anyone thought and I don't know if we'll get the same results as the MAX reboot when the regulators are not applying their fine-tooth combs to the same degree.

Your second statement is why I think Boeing needs new management. Didn't the Air Force have some harsh words on their 767's being poorly finished and refused delivery? What's going on with the company I have admired for years. Muilenberg needs to go since all of these things are happening on his shift.

As for the first statement, I guarantee you I cannot tell my wife when we eventually get on Alaska's MAX. She'll need to down about three gummies first!

McNerney is the one you should be angry with. All of these problems were created under his terrible leadership. He cut and cut and cut to boost his own personal wealth. If Boeing had any balls, they'd go after him and try to claw back some of the massive payouts he received. But since he's part of the same good ol' boys club that the rest of the board is, they'll leave him alone and take the easy route of letting Muilenberg go (with a really, really nice severance package for his troubles). And please don't take this as me excusing Muilenberg. He has made a lot of mistakes and was slow to respond to the mess in the first place. I just think the true reasons for Boeing's problems were in place before he took over.

As for AS, it will be interesting to see what unfolds. It sounds like they love the NEO, but I will be curious to see what kind of push Boeing makes to keep them as a strictly 737 operator.

You might be correct on McNerney, but Muileberg's reaction to the MAX problem was not the best and I still feel like he's not in agreement with what's going on.
He should be the most humble man on Earth at this moment, which he's not. I believe it is just a matter of time before he's shown the door. Or should be shown the door at least.

AS and Boeing are obviously Seattle-based, so I get that it makes sense they are in bed together. But that's not always the best business plan. If so, Air France would likely be all Airbus, same with LH and BA.
In fact, AS used fly a lot of MD80's up until, what, about 10 years ago. I think a lot of those planes were bought before Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas ( I could be wrong on the dates), so I don't see why Alaska should be so hellbent on sticking with Boeing. I like the idea of NEO's and 737's in a mixed fleet. Frankly most airlines have a similar strategy. UA, AA and DL certainly do. Yeah, I know, Ryan Air and SWA

I hope this pressure on Boeing is making it obvious they need to take a chance and move forward with the 797. It is 1969 all over again for Boeing! Then it was the 747, now it is the 797.
Start the sunsetting process of the 737. Frankly it is overdue. You want to win over Airbus, make this move and make it damn soon.

flybynight wrote:

msp747 wrote:

flybynight wrote:

Your second statement is why I think Boeing needs new management. Didn't the Air Force have some harsh words on their 767's being poorly finished and refused delivery? What's going on with the company I have admired for years. Muilenberg needs to go since all of these things are happening on his shift.

As for the first statement, I guarantee you I cannot tell my wife when we eventually get on Alaska's MAX. She'll need to down about three gummies first!

McNerney is the one you should be angry with. All of these problems were created under his terrible leadership. He cut and cut and cut to boost his own personal wealth. If Boeing had any balls, they'd go after him and try to claw back some of the massive payouts he received. But since he's part of the same good ol' boys club that the rest of the board is, they'll leave him alone and take the easy route of letting Muilenberg go (with a really, really nice severance package for his troubles). And please don't take this as me excusing Muilenberg. He has made a lot of mistakes and was slow to respond to the mess in the first place. I just think the true reasons for Boeing's problems were in place before he took over.

As for AS, it will be interesting to see what unfolds. It sounds like they love the NEO, but I will be curious to see what kind of push Boeing makes to keep them as a strictly 737 operator.

You might be correct on McNerney, but Muileberg's reaction to the MAX problem was not the best and I still feel like he's not in agreement with what's going on.
He should be the most humble man on Earth at this moment, which he's not. I believe it is just a matter of time before he's shown the door. Or should be shown the door at least.

AS and Boeing are obviously Seattle-based, so I get that it makes sense they are in bed together. But that's not always the best business plan. If so, Air France would likely be all Airbus, same with LH and BA.
In fact, AS used fly a lot of MD80's up until, what, about 10 years ago. I think a lot of those planes were bought before Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas ( I could be wrong on the dates), so I don't see why Alaska should be so hellbent on sticking with Boeing. I like the idea of NEO's and 737's in a mixed fleet. Frankly most airlines have a similar strategy. UA, AA and DL certainly do. Yeah, I know, Ryan Air and SWA

I hope this pressure on Boeing is making it obvious they need to take a chance and move forward with the 797. It is 1969 all over again for Boeing! Then it was the 747, now it is the 797.
Start the sunsetting process of the 737. Frankly it is overdue. You want to win over Airbus, make this move and make it damn soon.

I think the fact that AS was an all-Boeing fleet was largely coincidence, and not really related to them both being Seattle companies. The MD-80 fleet came long before the McD/Boeing merger. I don't know if they initially ordered them on their own, or if they started buying them after inheriting Jet America's fleet when they bought that airline in the mid-1980s, but that was a huge part of their fleet for much of the late 80s and through the 90s. I know they even placed an MD-90 order at one point, so that may be the reason behind the move to the 737NG following the McD/Boeing merger. At the time, the airline was much smaller and it made sense to stick with one fleet type. Now that they've grown quite a bit, I see no reason not to keep both the NEOs and the 737s, I was just saying Boeing might make it worth their while to stick with just the MAX.

As for the 797, I think it will become more of a 738/739/757 replacement than the MoM plane Boeing had originally talked about. My guess is they'll start with the bigger version before the smaller ones, so those who invested in the MAX will get plenty of use out of their fleet. As for Muilenberg, I think it's no longer 'if' but 'when' he gets the boot. My bet is after the MAX has returned to service and deliveries have resumed.

Alaska was a launch customer for the MD83 and began receiving them in 1985. The Jet American MD82s joined the fleet in 1987. Alaska, a long term Boeing customer was looking for a 727-200 replacement aircraft and all Boeing had to offer at the time was the 737-300 which was too small and the 757-200, which was too big, so the MD83 got the order. Alaska, along with Delta were MD90 launch customers, however Alaska never took delivery of any because they felt it didn't give them enough performance improvement over the MD83 so they opted for more of those aircraft. The same day they announced the MD90 order, they also announced they would acquire 737-400s.

hiflyeras wrote:

tiptoe42 wrote:

Quite the contrary actually, I prefer the Airbus to the 737, the 321NEO is superior to any 737 model in almost every way. I think it is a huge mistake to get rid of the Airbus, particularly the 321, given its performance and the issues with the Max. Sadly Alaska management looks at cost above all else, the Neo is expensive and in high demand, the Max, not so much.

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

Crew, at least inflight cabin crew do NOT like working the A-321's, in fact AS most likely would want to reconfigure the layout some. I just spoke to my friend who flies for them & the Airbus fleet is considered inferior with the galley space & function, ex VX employees may not like the Boeings as much, but they are better fitted to the services & products AS offers..

That I believe is being partly remedied with the current re-fits. But with respect to the 737 fleet, the in flight AS crew prefers the Boeings. Not saying there are not those that enjoy some of the cooler features of the Airbus fleet. I also heard (rumor only) the A-321's may be going to Hawaii in the future. I am sure passengers enjoy them, I hear they are nice aircraft, I'm finally flying one in January.

EA CO AS wrote:

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 is going to release a fleet plan for the next 5 years while the MAX is still grounded. Amazing!

PacoMartin wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

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 is going to release a fleet plan for the next 5 years while the MAX is still grounded. Amazing!

Well the MAX is going to fly again, it's just a matter of when. Therefore, I don't think it's strange that AS would announce their fleet plan. He also said it would come out in the next month or so, so the MAX might be re-certified by the time the fleet plan is finalized anyway.

My guess at Alaska Air Group’s Fleet in the coming years

Alaska Airlines: 737-800, 900, Max9
Horizon: E175, E190, Q400
Skywest: E175

msp747 wrote:

Now that they've grown quite a bit, I see no reason not to keep both the NEOs and the 737s, I was just saying Boeing might make it worth their while to stick with just the MAX.

For USA airlines we stand at 608 NEO orders vs 549 MAX orders. Switching those 30 orders would make it 578 vs 579.
I would think that Boeing would feel strongly about keeping a hometown airline.

MAX orders from Boeing (not including leases)
280 : Southwest Airlines
137 : United Airlines
100 : American Airlines
32 : Alaska Airlines
549

Neo orders from Airbus (not including leases)
Neo = A320neo + A321neo @Oct 2019
214 = 165 + 49 : FRONTIER AIRLINES
120 = 0 + 120 : AMERICAN AIRLINES
100 = 0 + 100 : DELTA AIR LINES
85 = 0 + 85 : JETBLUE AIRWAYS
43 = 43 + 0 : SPIRIT AIRLINES
30 = 30 + 0 : VIRGIN AMERICA→ ALASKA
16 = 0 + 16 : HAWAIIAN AIRLINES
608 = 238 + 370 : All Neos

PacoMartin wrote:

msp747 wrote:

Now that they've grown quite a bit, I see no reason not to keep both the NEOs and the 737s, I was just saying Boeing might make it worth their while to stick with just the MAX.

For USA airlines we stand at 608 NEO orders vs 549 MAX orders. Switching those 30 orders would make it 578 vs 579.
I would think that Boeing would feel strongly about keeping a hometown airline.

MAX orders from Boeing (not including leases)
280 : Southwest Airlines
137 : United Airlines
100 : American Airlines
32 : Alaska Airlines
549

Neo orders from Airbus (not including leases)
Neo = A320neo + A321neo @Oct 2019
214 = 165 + 49 : FRONTIER AIRLINES
120 = 0 + 120 : AMERICAN AIRLINES
100 = 0 + 100 : DELTA AIR LINES
85 = 0 + 85 : JETBLUE AIRWAYS
43 = 43 + 0 : SPIRIT AIRLINES
30 = 30 + 0 : VIRGIN AMERICA→ ALASKA
16 = 0 + 16 : HAWAIIAN AIRLINES
608 = 238 + 370 : All Neos

Didn't Spirit just order 100 Neo's last month? 19's, 20's, and 21's?

tiptoe42 wrote:

My guess at Alaska Air Group’s Fleet in the coming years

Alaska Airlines: 737-800, 900, Max9
Horizon: E175, E190, Q400
Skywest: E175

AS cargo is not getting rid of the 73G anytime soon.

RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

tiptoe42 wrote:

Quite the contrary actually, I prefer the Airbus to the 737, the 321NEO is superior to any 737 model in almost every way. I think it is a huge mistake to get rid of the Airbus, particularly the 321, given its performance and the issues with the Max. Sadly Alaska management looks at cost above all else, the Neo is expensive and in high demand, the Max, not so much.

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

Crew, at least inflight cabin crew do NOT like working the A-321's, in fact AS most likely would want to reconfigure the layout some. I just spoke to my friend who flies for them & the Airbus fleet is considered inferior with the galley space & function, ex VX employees may not like the Boeings as much, but they are better fitted to the services & products AS offers..

That I believe is being partly remedied with the current re-fits. But with respect to the 737 fleet, the in flight AS crew prefers the Boeings. Not saying there are not those that enjoy some of the cooler features of the Airbus fleet. I also heard (rumor only) the A-321's may be going to Hawaii in the future. I am sure passengers enjoy them, I hear they are nice aircraft, I'm finally flying one in January.

Just wait until they get the max; if I has the lab galleys, they’ll hate that thing even more as long as they’re not partial to their hometown product. Most of the people at Air Canada, pilots, cabin crew, and mechanics, that I’ve ever heard anything about don’t like the MAX. The cabin crews especially complain about it being just a disaster to work in compared to the A320. Configuration for sure but the 737 regardless is harder to work on.

767333ER wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

Crew, at least inflight cabin crew do NOT like working the A-321's, in fact AS most likely would want to reconfigure the layout some. I just spoke to my friend who flies for them & the Airbus fleet is considered inferior with the galley space & function, ex VX employees may not like the Boeings as much, but they are better fitted to the services & products AS offers..

That I believe is being partly remedied with the current re-fits. But with respect to the 737 fleet, the in flight AS crew prefers the Boeings. Not saying there are not those that enjoy some of the cooler features of the Airbus fleet. I also heard (rumor only) the A-321's may be going to Hawaii in the future. I am sure passengers enjoy them, I hear they are nice aircraft, I'm finally flying one in January.

Just wait until they get the max; if I has the lab galleys, they’ll hate that thing even more as long as they’re not partial to their hometown product. Most of the people at Air Canada, pilots, cabin crew, and mechanics, that I’ve ever heard anything about don’t like the MAX. The cabin crews especially complain about it being just a disaster to work in compared to the A320. Configuration for sure but the 737 regardless is harder to work on.

I am woefully uninformed about the MAX configuration on AS, I suppose as always, it comes down to airline configuration & I stated my comments such, that I allowed for bias between flight groups AS v VX. I was responding to a particular comment, but I have been told that VX never had the galley capacity to process all their meals for a flight at once & one of the reasons they had staggered, order when you want it, meal service. Admittedly there are some F/A friendly options on the Airbus fleet.But the general consensus is the Boeing 700/800/900's are easier to work than the particular Airbus fleet they inherited.

The AS A-321's are of a particular issue & it has everything to do with layout, For example ... I guess one of the F/A seats abuts a passenger seat close enough, that some effort needs to be made to keep to yourself when both seats are in use. But as I said I expect the way a carrier lays out their aircraft makes all the difference.

"We're updating our strategic plan right now for the next five years, and "Portland is really prominent in that plan." I'm curious to know exactly what Alaska Airline CEO Brad Tilden means by this statement...

Alaska’s focus is to preserve their market share in the Pacific Northwest, I’d assume thats what he is referring too.

lhpdx wrote:

"We're updating our strategic plan right now for the next five years, and "Portland is really prominent in that plan." I'm curious to know exactly what Alaska Airline CEO Brad Tilden means by this statement...

Variations of that verbiage went out to elite customers in many West Coast markets, from multiple executives, calling out the home markets of those customers, like Portland, the Bay Area, Southern California, and so on. Don’t read too much into it.

PacoMartin wrote:

digitalcloud wrote:

PacoMartin wrote:

EDI 3,897 nm (Edinburgh Scotland)
MAN 4,041 nm (Manchester, UK)

Believe it or not, MAN and EDI are both in the UK.

I am not politically challenged. I do know that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the UK. But I thought I would be more specific

If you were more specific, you would have written Manchester, England (which is also part of the UK).

RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

tiptoe42 wrote:

Quite the contrary actually, I prefer the Airbus to the 737, the 321NEO is superior to any 737 model in almost every way. I think it is a huge mistake to get rid of the Airbus, particularly the 321, given its performance and the issues with the Max. Sadly Alaska management looks at cost above all else, the Neo is expensive and in high demand, the Max, not so much.

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

Crew, at least inflight cabin crew do NOT like working the A-321's, in fact AS most likely would want to reconfigure the layout some. I just spoke to my friend who flies for them & the Airbus fleet is considered inferior with the galley space & function, ex VX employees may not like the Boeings as much, but they are better fitted to the services & products AS offers..

That I believe is being partly remedied with the current re-fits. But with respect to the 737 fleet, the in flight AS crew prefers the Boeings. Not saying there are not those that enjoy some of the cooler features of the Airbus fleet. I also heard (rumor only) the A-321's may be going to Hawaii in the future. I am sure passengers enjoy them, I hear they are nice aircraft, I'm finally flying one in January.

Not true. Crew really like the A321. They really dislike the forward galley set up but are learning to make it work. Also, many don’t love the atlas containers but are learning to make that work as well. Overall, despite these things, most I’ve talked to love the 321

ASFlyer wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

Crew, at least inflight cabin crew do NOT like working the A-321's, in fact AS most likely would want to reconfigure the layout some. I just spoke to my friend who flies for them & the Airbus fleet is considered inferior with the galley space & function, ex VX employees may not like the Boeings as much, but they are better fitted to the services & products AS offers..

That I believe is being partly remedied with the current re-fits. But with respect to the 737 fleet, the in flight AS crew prefers the Boeings. Not saying there are not those that enjoy some of the cooler features of the Airbus fleet. I also heard (rumor only) the A-321's may be going to Hawaii in the future. I am sure passengers enjoy them, I hear they are nice aircraft, I'm finally flying one in January.

Not true. Crew really like the A321. They really dislike the forward galley set up but are learning to make it work. Also, many don’t love the atlas containers but are learning to make that work as well. Overall, despite these things, most I’ve talked to love the 321

Well, what can I say my GF, who has been flying for AS over 13 years, says they hate all the Airbus fleet, for the aforementioned reasons. I know the A-321 is the one liked more than the 319's & 320's. Again, I suspect that having been all Boeing for all the years she has been there, combined with a bit of a rough start on cross training (or lack thereof) it was one hurdle for the AAG side,

This may contribute to the feelings, but I can honestly say my friend has been one since high school (my cousins best friend, growing up) & she is an honest gal, maybe too honest sometimes. These things are very subjective & I am sure most VX people like their fleet of A-320's more than the multiple 737's. But I was replying to they love the A-321's & that is simply not the case.

A bit off the subject, but sort of on t too, I see the 6am PDX-SEA is an A-321neo, I assume it's a RON from the DCA flight the night before, but I can not find another neo into PDX to operate the DCA flight. I told my GF this & she said that she stopped flying the DCA turn, once it went to the A-321 because of the aircraft type, she said it used to be in her top ten favorite turns. That is how our conversation started.

I’m legacy AS FA and I actually prefer the A321neo over the Boeing. Speaking to other legacy AS flight attendants they like the A321 (could be base preference) the A320/319 are challenging on longer flights but are fine for up and down the coast..I hope we get more A321neo’s

RWA380 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Crew, at least inflight cabin crew do NOT like working the A-321's, in fact AS most likely would want to reconfigure the layout some. I just spoke to my friend who flies for them & the Airbus fleet is considered inferior with the galley space & function, ex VX employees may not like the Boeings as much, but they are better fitted to the services & products AS offers..

That I believe is being partly remedied with the current re-fits. But with respect to the 737 fleet, the in flight AS crew prefers the Boeings. Not saying there are not those that enjoy some of the cooler features of the Airbus fleet. I also heard (rumor only) the A-321's may be going to Hawaii in the future. I am sure passengers enjoy them, I hear they are nice aircraft, I'm finally flying one in January.

Not true. Crew really like the A321. They really dislike the forward galley set up but are learning to make it work. Also, many don’t love the atlas containers but are learning to make that work as well. Overall, despite these things, most I’ve talked to love the 321

Well, what can I say my GF, who has been flying for AS over 13 years, says they hate all the Airbus fleet, for the aforementioned reasons. I know the A-321 is the one liked more than the 319's & 320's. Again, I suspect that having been all Boeing for all the years she has been there, combined with a bit of a rough start on cross training (or lack thereof) it was one hurdle for the AAG side,

This may contribute to the feelings, but I can honestly say my friend has been one since high school (my cousins best friend, growing up) & she is an honest gal, maybe too honest sometimes. These things are very subjective & I am sure most VX people like their fleet of A-320's more than the multiple 737's. But I was replying to they love the A-321's & that is simply not the case.

A bit off the subject, but sort of on t too, I see the 6am PDX-SEA is an A-321neo, I assume it's a RON from the DCA flight the night before, but I can not find another neo into PDX to operate the DCA flight. I told my GF this & she said that she stopped flying the DCA turn, once it went to the A-321 because of the aircraft type, she said it used to be in her top ten favorite turns. That is how our conversation started.

A lot of AS people are avoiding the Airbus just because they don't want to go through the hassles of being on a new plane and learning all the various nuances of that. That said, once they get on the Airbus 321 they're usually sold. Like I mentioned, there are a few things that could be different that would make the Airbus a lot better but the plane, overall, is WAY better than any of the Boeings we currently operate. That's the general sentiment I hear from people that actually fly it. Even the 320's aren't bad - depending on the galley config. The galleys are the main problem, but they're getting better as we adjust things to make it easier of us. I've been at Alaska for a while and Im hearing most people say they really like the 321's - even more than the Boeings. They're not as cramped and there's just more room to move around.

As an Alaska flyer I’d love to see more A321s. That’s all the input I have here. Haha

In addition to the cramped forward galley, which is really challenging on the reconfigured A321, I’ve also heard from AS crews that they don’t like having FAs spread between 4 doors in the cabin. Being seated alone is also a complaint I’ve heard on other US A321 operators crewed with 4 FAs.

ASFlyer wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Not true. Crew really like the A321. They really dislike the forward galley set up but are learning to make it work. Also, many don’t love the atlas containers but are learning to make that work as well. Overall, despite these things, most I’ve talked to love the 321

Well, what can I say my GF, who has been flying for AS over 13 years, says they hate all the Airbus fleet, for the aforementioned reasons. I know the A-321 is the one liked more than the 319's & 320's. Again, I suspect that having been all Boeing for all the years she has been there, combined with a bit of a rough start on cross training (or lack thereof) it was one hurdle for the AAG side,

This may contribute to the feelings, but I can honestly say my friend has been one since high school (my cousins best friend, growing up) & she is an honest gal, maybe too honest sometimes. These things are very subjective & I am sure most VX people like their fleet of A-320's more than the multiple 737's. But I was replying to they love the A-321's & that is simply not the case.

A bit off the subject, but sort of on t too, I see the 6am PDX-SEA is an A-321neo, I assume it's a RON from the DCA flight the night before, but I can not find another neo into PDX to operate the DCA flight. I told my GF this & she said that she stopped flying the DCA turn, once it went to the A-321 because of the aircraft type, she said it used to be in her top ten favorite turns. That is how our conversation started.

A lot of AS people are avoiding the Airbus just because they don't want to go through the hassles of being on a new plane and learning all the various nuances of that. That said, once they get on the Airbus 321 they're usually sold. Like I mentioned, there are a few things that could be different that would make the Airbus a lot better but the plane, overall, is WAY better than any of the Boeings we currently operate. That's the general sentiment I hear from people that actually fly it. Even the 320's aren't bad - depending on the galley config. The galleys are the main problem, but they're getting better as we adjust things to make it easier of us. I've been at Alaska for a while and Im hearing most people say they really like the 321's - even more than the Boeings. They're not as cramped and there's just more room to move around.

Yes, that is what happened with my friend, then the Airbus became the backbone of the North / South fleet. It fully depends on the bids you get, one could try & avoid them, but if you go for the big money days (Out of PDX, She told me MCO-SAN-PDX was the longest day for the PDX crew base), next are the PDX-SEA-TPA/FLL flights. PDX-SEA is going Airbus A-321neo, A-320 & 739 mainline as of December or January. It's becoming almost impossible to avoid the Airbus unless you only do Hawaii overnight turns. I also heard from her that their A-321neo's would be going to Hawaii in the future. Nothing Earth shattering, but interesting. I guess the galleys are able to offer entire AS compliment of services once the refits are done with all the Airbus.

hiflyeras wrote:

I think AS sees a role for the A321 in the fleet and will possibly order more of them. Customers and crew love it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a split order coming in the next two months from AS for more MAX and more A321's.

So I presume you think the existing order for 30 A320neo can be exchanged for 25-30 A321neos. Normally manufacturers do not object to upgrades.

Breathe wrote:

If you were more specific, you would have written Manchester, England (which is also part of the UK).

I'm not trying to be specific for the Brits who know where everything is. If you did a poll, I guarantee over 50% of Americans do not know that Manchester is a city in England. We have more than one President who says "Queen of England" in a news broadcast. In theory they should have protocol advisors who should tell them they are ignoring centuries of history.

Latin Americans are no better. They simply say Reina de Inglaterra instead of Isabel II del Reino Unido.

Even the Spanish language BBC says Reina de Inglaterra.
https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-50216061

RWA380 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Well, what can I say my GF, who has been flying for AS over 13 years, says they hate all the Airbus fleet, for the aforementioned reasons. I know the A-321 is the one liked more than the 319's & 320's. Again, I suspect that having been all Boeing for all the years she has been there, combined with a bit of a rough start on cross training (or lack thereof) it was one hurdle for the AAG side,

This may contribute to the feelings, but I can honestly say my friend has been one since high school (my cousins best friend, growing up) & she is an honest gal, maybe too honest sometimes. These things are very subjective & I am sure most VX people like their fleet of A-320's more than the multiple 737's. But I was replying to they love the A-321's & that is simply not the case.

A bit off the subject, but sort of on t too, I see the 6am PDX-SEA is an A-321neo, I assume it's a RON from the DCA flight the night before, but I can not find another neo into PDX to operate the DCA flight. I told my GF this & she said that she stopped flying the DCA turn, once it went to the A-321 because of the aircraft type, she said it used to be in her top ten favorite turns. That is how our conversation started.

A lot of AS people are avoiding the Airbus just because they don't want to go through the hassles of being on a new plane and learning all the various nuances of that. That said, once they get on the Airbus 321 they're usually sold. Like I mentioned, there are a few things that could be different that would make the Airbus a lot better but the plane, overall, is WAY better than any of the Boeings we currently operate. That's the general sentiment I hear from people that actually fly it. Even the 320's aren't bad - depending on the galley config. The galleys are the main problem, but they're getting better as we adjust things to make it easier of us. I've been at Alaska for a while and Im hearing most people say they really like the 321's - even more than the Boeings. They're not as cramped and there's just more room to move around.

Yes, that is what happened with my friend, then the Airbus became the backbone of the North / South fleet. It fully depends on the bids you get, one could try & avoid them, but if you go for the big money days (Out of PDX, She told me MCO-SAN-PDX was the longest day for the PDX crew base), next are the PDX-SEA-TPA/FLL flights. PDX-SEA is going Airbus A-321neo, A-320 & 739 mainline as of December or January. It's becoming almost impossible to avoid the Airbus unless you only do Hawaii overnight turns. I also heard from her that their A-321neo's would be going to Hawaii in the future. Nothing Earth shattering, but interesting. I guess the galleys are able to offer entire AS compliment of services once the refits are done with all the Airbus.

Yeah, word on the street is that the Airbus 321's will be going to Hawaii soon. Heard January but then it was delayed. Not sure when it's going to happen now. The retrofits don't affect the galleys in any way - only the passenger cabin. The aft galley is much more roomy than any of the Boeing galleys. The fwd galley is okay but just has one small oven to heat 16 meals, 2 pilots meals, rolls, plates and nuts in. You have to go into with a plan and know what you're doing to make it work but if you do that, you can actually make it work just fine. It's a nightmare the first few times you work out of it. There are things I like about it - for instance, the larger counter and a drain that actually works to dump liquids in. To your point with respect to avoiding the Airbus, it's becoming harder and harder as more and more "senior trips" have moved to the Airbus and there's no assurance that you won't end up being swapped to one if there's a need to do it. Senior people are slowly but surely jumping in and working it. There's a lot less complaining now. I think the loudest complainers were the people that hadn't even been on it yet. In any case, the 321 is becoming a crew favorite for a lot of people. Some people like the 320 - some don't mind it - some loathe it. I don't know of anyone that really "likes" the 319's.

ASFlyer wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

A lot of AS people are avoiding the Airbus just because they don't want to go through the hassles of being on a new plane and learning all the various nuances of that. That said, once they get on the Airbus 321 they're usually sold. Like I mentioned, there are a few things that could be different that would make the Airbus a lot better but the plane, overall, is WAY better than any of the Boeings we currently operate. That's the general sentiment I hear from people that actually fly it. Even the 320's aren't bad - depending on the galley config. The galleys are the main problem, but they're getting better as we adjust things to make it easier of us. I've been at Alaska for a while and Im hearing most people say they really like the 321's - even more than the Boeings. They're not as cramped and there's just more room to move around.

Yes, that is what happened with my friend, then the Airbus became the backbone of the North / South fleet. It fully depends on the bids you get, one could try & avoid them, but if you go for the big money days (Out of PDX, She told me MCO-SAN-PDX was the longest day for the PDX crew base), next are the PDX-SEA-TPA/FLL flights. PDX-SEA is going Airbus A-321neo, A-320 & 739 mainline as of December or January. It's becoming almost impossible to avoid the Airbus unless you only do Hawaii overnight turns. I also heard from her that their A-321neo's would be going to Hawaii in the future. Nothing Earth shattering, but interesting. I guess the galleys are able to offer entire AS compliment of services once the refits are done with all the Airbus.

Yeah, word on the street is that the Airbus 321's will be going to Hawaii soon. Heard January but then it was delayed. Not sure when it's going to happen now. The retrofits don't affect the galleys in any way - only the passenger cabin. The aft galley is much more roomy than any of the Boeing galleys. The fwd galley is okay but just has one small oven to heat 16 meals, 2 pilots meals, rolls, plates and nuts in. You have to go into with a plan and know what you're doing to make it work but if you do that, you can actually make it work just fine. It's a nightmare the first few times you work out of it. There are things I like about it - for instance, the larger counter and a drain that actually works to dump liquids in. To your point with respect to avoiding the Airbus, it's becoming harder and harder as more and more "senior trips" have moved to the Airbus and there's no assurance that you won't end up being swapped to one if there's a need to do it. Senior people are slowly but surely jumping in and working it. There's a lot less complaining now. I think the loudest complainers were the people that hadn't even been on it yet. In any case, the 321 is becoming a crew favorite for a lot of people. Some people like the 320 - some don't mind it - some loathe it. I don't know of anyone that really "likes" the 319's.

The intention was always Hawaii with the A-321neo's that VX was to get, VX sometimes left LAX weight restricted westbound by up to 8-12 seats IIRC. SFO being closer, obviously was not impacted as many times with the A-320 w/sharklets that were originally used for their Hawaii services to HNL & OGG.

I would imagine that the A-321neo's came properly equipped & certified for ETOPS 180. VX had their ETOPS with the A-320 family & AS of course is ETOPS certified, with many 800's & 900's ETOPS 180.

321Ns heading to Hawaii on one side and DCA on the other seems like a highly efficient operation that plays to the aircraft's strengths.

seabosdca wrote:

321Ns heading to Hawaii on one side and DCA on the other seems like a highly efficient operation that plays to the aircraft's strengths.

Alaska had been flying the plane SEA-FLL for the last four or five months until a few weeks ago. That's longer than most of the Hawaii routes - definitely using the plane to it's strength. There's a huge difference onboard between a 737 and a 321. The 321's feel roomier and not as claustrophobic on a 7 hour flight - that's big when 200 people are crammed into a narrow metal tube.

I flew an AS A321neo from SFO-OGG in May 2018, shortly after the final VX flight. So AS has already flown the Neos to Hawaii, albeit only for a short while.

This flight and another JFK-SFO flight I took last year had the newest VX seats and IFE, which I was sad to see ripped out a short while later. A321 is far more comfortable than 737NG for these 5-6 hr flights.

The AS 738/739 fleet is deplorable on the inside. The Recaro slimlines are terribly uncomfortable for anything over 90-120 minutes and are a first-generation slimline. In contrast the new seats on the ex-VA fleet are much more comfortable. And back to the 738/739, the 1989 color scheme with the interiors is drab and to the point it makes a year-old 739 feel like it's 20 years old.

ASFlyer wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

321Ns heading to Hawaii on one side and DCA on the other seems like a highly efficient operation that plays to the aircraft's strengths.

Alaska had been flying the plane SEA-FLL for the last four or five months until a few weeks ago. That's longer than most of the Hawaii routes - definitely using the plane to it's strength. There's a huge difference onboard between a 737 and a 321. The 321's feel roomier and not as claustrophobic on a 7 hour flight - that's big when 200 people are crammed into a narrow metal tube.

The 321s return to Hawaii has been pushed back to at least August of 2020, that is if they haven’t been sold by then.

Flag waving silliness aside, I think AS is now seeing that the Airbuses aren't inferior French crap and are more comfortable and more popular with the pax. I get why they would want to be loyal to hometown Boeing but the difficulties the MAX is facing, and the extremely capable NEOs they have make for a situation few of us ever thought we'd see in our lifetimes - AS seriously being forced to concede that the Airbus is the superior product in this size range - it would be astonishing but imagine if they actually bought more NEOs new off their own back instead of inheriting them from VX?

Many pax prefer it, it hasn't had a well-publicised crash scandal, its competitively priced, its very fuel efficient and its a compelling choice over the larger MAXes. The backlash they'd receive for ordering Airbus would be hardcore but might we see it anyway?

Isnt all this A vs B / Europe vs US stupidity all a relic of the last century? Is it generally acknowledged now that you buy what's best for your needs no matter where it comes from? Even for Boeing's home town airline? Times they are a changin' folks.

CHRISBA35X wrote:

Isnt all this A vs B / Europe vs US stupidity all a relic of the last century? Is it generally acknowledged now that you buy what's best for your needs no matter where it comes from? Even for Boeing's home town airline? Times they are a changin' folks.

AS is definitely open to giving Airbus some business; in a conversation with Brad awhile back about the fleet, he’d acknowledged that neither Airbus nor Boeing had stepped up with an offer that was too good to pass up. It’s quite possible that has changed by now, however, as the fleet plan gets finalized. More to come.

ASFlyer wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

321Ns heading to Hawaii on one side and DCA on the other seems like a highly efficient operation that plays to the aircraft's strengths.

Alaska had been flying the plane SEA-FLL for the last four or five months until a few weeks ago. That's longer than most of the Hawaii routes - definitely using the plane to it's strength. There's a huge difference onboard between a 737 and a 321. The 321's feel roomier and not as claustrophobic on a 7 hour flight - that's big when 200 people are crammed into a narrow metal tube.

When the continental U.S. cleaves in half and SEA-FLL becomes an ETOPS 180 flight do let us know.

A32X has 5" of extra width at shoulder level vs. a 737/757/MAX, spread across six seats and an aisle in coach. Seat choice (I'm not a fan of the slab-of-rock Recaros) and pitch are all on the carrier.

Leeham published a chart comparing per seat fuel efficiency of MAX10 to 321Neo, and showed the former with a 5% advantage. Comparable advantages existed MAX8 to 320Neo, and MAX7 to 319Neo. AS won't overlook that.

sxf24 wrote:

I’ve also heard from AS crews that they don’t like having FAs spread between 4 doors in the cabin. Being seated alone is also a complaint I’ve heard on other US A321 operators crewed with 4 FAs.

Because they can't talk to each other. They have to sit there, not read or text, and (gasp) make eye contact with a passenger!

RWA380 wrote:

Well, what can I say my GF, who has been flying for AS over 13 years, says they hate all the Airbus fleet, for the aforementioned reasons. I know the A-321 is the one liked more than the 319's & 320's. Again, I suspect that having been all Boeing for all the years she has been there, combined with a bit of a rough start on cross training (or lack thereof) it was one hurdle for the AAG side,

The lack of a girt bar is usually a plus for many of the FAs I talk to. "Push button, arm door."

EA CO AS wrote:

AS is definitely open to giving Airbus some business; in a conversation with Brad awhile back about the fleet, he’d acknowledged that neither Airbus nor Boeing had stepped up with an offer that was too good to pass up. It’s quite possible that has changed by now, however, as the fleet plan gets finalized. More to come.

AS is big enough now that a two-OEM fleet would work fine if that's what the green eyeshades decide provides the best deal. I could easily see a split order between A321neo and MAX. Use the 321neo on Hawaii and the long transcons, and the MAX on everything else.

It's time for Boeing partisans (of which I consider myself one) to acknowledge that the A321neo is an extraordinary aircraft and just about any airline could make good use of it.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

321Ns heading to Hawaii on one side and DCA on the other seems like a highly efficient operation that plays to the aircraft's strengths.

Alaska had been flying the plane SEA-FLL for the last four or five months until a few weeks ago. That's longer than most of the Hawaii routes - definitely using the plane to it's strength. There's a huge difference onboard between a 737 and a 321. The 321's feel roomier and not as claustrophobic on a 7 hour flight - that's big when 200 people are crammed into a narrow metal tube.

When the continental U.S. cleaves in half and SEA-FLL becomes an ETOPS 180 flight do let us know.

A32X has 5" of extra width at shoulder level vs. a 737/757/MAX, spread across six seats and an aisle in coach. Seat choice (I'm not a fan of the slab-of-rock Recaros) and pitch are all on the carrier.

Leeham published a chart comparing per seat fuel efficiency of MAX10 to 321Neo, and showed the former with a 5% advantage. Comparable advantages existed MAX8 to 320Neo, and MAX7 to 319Neo. AS won't overlook that.

who said anything at all about SEA-FLL being an ETOPS 180 flight? Who even cares? I said that SEA-FLL is the longer than most (all but one, in fact) Hawaii routes that AS currently flies. I didn't say one word about ETOPS 180 and it doesn't matter. The Airbus blows the Boeing away in terms of being a more comfortable passenger experience. You can bash it if you like, I've worked both substantially and the feeling in the cabin (despite the extra width being only 5" on Airbus) is much roomier. It's not widebody but it's the most comfortable narrow body experience in the Alaska fleet. AS also isn't going to overlook how Boeing has essentially screwed their most loyal customers that were depending on the MAX being a safe airplane. I'm guessing that AS, like WN is probably really considering whether it's a great business decision to put all your eggs in one basket. It's not working all that well for WN right now...

Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving