EA CO AS wrote:

Tack wrote:

let’s be honest, VX was a move to eliminate a competitor that was squashing yields because they we’re hemorrhaging money

While VX was absolutely taking fistfuls of money and lighting them on fire, the overlap with AS was minimal and therefore any yield problems were very, very limited. The move to acquire them wasn't about eliminating a competitor, but to acquire assets AS would take decades to obtain on their own (extra gates at LAX and SFO, JFK slots, a turnkey intra-CA operation) while simultaneously keeping them from a more nimble competitor (B6). And to the poster earlier who said they paid for the brand, no - they didn't. Actually, the brand COST money to use! That's one of the many reasons AS decided to torpedo it.

We both know the VX purchase was a move by management to keep it out of B6's hands. The assets were a bonus and not one they would have otherwise paid such a premium for. They didn't want the Airbus. They could have cared less about slots at LGA or DAL. SFO gates could have been acquired in a different way - and it's no secret that they're not really being fully utilized at this point. LAX was already in the works before the VX thing even happened. Senior management is far too smart and far too frugal to overpay for VX primarily to get their hands on more gates at SFO and LAX. They would have found another way - they always do. They've always been very opportunistic and find a way to make things happen when they want to. It's no secret that VX was an annoyance - they spent a fair amount of time and resources trying to squash them when they first started up.

ASFlyer wrote:

We both know the VX purchase was a move by management to keep it out of B6's hands. The assets were a bonus and not one they would have otherwise paid such a premium for. They didn't want the Airbus. They could have cared less about slots at LGA or DAL. SFO gates could have been acquired in a different way - and it's no secret that they're not really being fully utilized at this point. LAX was already in the works before the VX thing even happened. Senior management is far too smart and far too frugal to overpay for VX primarily to get their hands on more gates at SFO and LAX. They would have found another way - they always do. They've always been very opportunistic and find a way to make things happen when they want to. It's no secret that VX was an annoyance - they spent a fair amount of time and resources trying to squash them when they first started up.

They didn't want an Airbus fleet, but senior leadership had a belief that they learned two important things from DL; one, you don't put all your eggs in one basket if you can (SEA), and two, you don't allow a competitor to get a hold in a place where you believe your future lies (CA for AS, ATL for DL when they allowed FL to grow unchallenged). Hence the willingness to forgo the conservative approach to growth, where CA would have taken the next decade or two to get bigger, and instead move immediately to get what they felt was needed long-term.

LGA, DAL - those were added bonuses, but not strategic assets. SFO and LAX were, and while VX was an annoyance that took up far too much of the company's time early in their existence, that overlap of just 6 markets meant they were a nuisance that could be lived with, especially since they were losing money so fast it was just a matter of waiting for the next economic downturn for VX to disappear on their own. VX's BOD making the choice to put the company on the auction block is what prompted the bid more than anything.

EA CO AS wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

We both know the VX purchase was a move by management to keep it out of B6's hands. The assets were a bonus and not one they would have otherwise paid such a premium for. They didn't want the Airbus. They could have cared less about slots at LGA or DAL. SFO gates could have been acquired in a different way - and it's no secret that they're not really being fully utilized at this point. LAX was already in the works before the VX thing even happened. Senior management is far too smart and far too frugal to overpay for VX primarily to get their hands on more gates at SFO and LAX. They would have found another way - they always do. They've always been very opportunistic and find a way to make things happen when they want to. It's no secret that VX was an annoyance - they spent a fair amount of time and resources trying to squash them when they first started up.

They didn't want an Airbus fleet, but senior leadership had a belief that they learned two important things from DL; one, you don't put all your eggs in one basket if you can (SEA), and two, you don't allow a competitor to get a hold in a place where you believe your future lies (CA for AS, ATL for DL when they allowed FL to grow unchallenged). Hence the willingness to forgo the conservative approach to growth, where CA would have taken the next decade or two to get bigger, and instead move immediately to get what they felt was needed long-term.

LGA, DAL - those were added bonuses, but not strategic assets. SFO and LAX were, and while VX was an annoyance that took up far too much of the company's time early in their existence, that overlap of just 6 markets meant they were a nuisance that could be lived with, especially since they were losing money so fast it was just a matter of waiting for the next economic downturn for VX to disappear on their own. VX's BOD making the choice to put the company on the auction block is what prompted the bid more than anything.

Yeah, we're going to probably have to agree to disagree. I have access to all the same stuff management puts out to us frontline employees that you have. Alaska management didn't want anything to do with Airbus until they had to buy an airline that flew only Airbus, and it seems like they're edging towards putting all their eggs back in one basket where that's concerned too. I expected they would have kept a small A321 fleet at one point but things being what they are, I don't expect that to be the case now - especially if you read between the lines on their communications. They've always been about keeping costs low and their philosophy was that a single fleet type did just that.

We agree that VX probably would have been gone in the next downturn, like the one we're in now, and I think management was fine waiting for that to happen. B6 pushed them to move quickly on the VX acquisition and to overpay. There was little that they got out of it that they couldn't have acquired organically - which is exactly how they repeatedly state that they wish to grow. Acquisitions are difficult at best and organic growth has always served our airline well. It's part of the philosophy of this management team. Gregg Saretsky had much more ambitious growth ideas and you see where he's at now...

I wanted to post here that there are new flights appearing in Alaska's schedules today (and last night) but so far there's no announcement nor even a new OAG thread to post them on.

So far, I've found new SAN/PDX - CUN service beginning on 11/20; both routes are sub-daily and daylight flights operated with 738s. As of now, the flights all end around 4/11/21.

For those (others) of you into schedules and a/c deployment, etc., both of these planes at SAN and PDX are split with the new FLL service announced recently as part of the LAX-growth. (It doesn't appear that that announcement was even discussed on this thread.) In SAN, FLL is 3x weekly while CUN takes the remaining 4 days; in PDX, the FLL departure is 4x per week while their CUN flight is the other 3 days. Even the times are similar in each city, heck even the flight numbers are kind of similar.

Also, in March 2021, AS will inaugurate 2 more related routes: SAN and SJC to MSO. Both will fly daily on EMJs starting 3/11/21 and appear permanent. This is certainly the first daily service from SAN to MT that I'm aware of even though G4 flies once in a while, a couple days a week to BIL. I do not know SJC's history well enough to comment on that.

There may well be other new routes loaded in AS's schedules but at this point, anyone interested in them will have to look for them! I'm happy to do that for SAN but I'm not as young as I used to be so I'm limited in how much I can look thru...

Nice to see Alaska remaining on the move!

bb

AS needs to get e175s on ENA and HOM before FLOAT launches

32andBelow wrote:

AS needs to get e175s on ENA and HOM before FLOAT launches

I don't see that happening. With no TSA at either of those it would be too much of a hassle to bring that in there like they do in Cold Bay. Also can the runways even handle a E175?

I'm sure the locals would love having that type of service though.

ytib wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

AS needs to get e175s on ENA and HOM before FLOAT launches

I don't see that happening. With no TSA at either of those it would be too much of a hassle to bring that in there like they do in Cold Bay. Also can the runways even handle a E175?

I'm sure the locals would love having that type of service though.

yes they are routinely used for anc alternates. They both have way more enplanements than AKN and DLG which they took year round already

SANFan wrote:

I do not know SJC's history well enough to comment on that.

I believe this is indeed the first flight between SJC and Montana.

AS has also added SJC-GEG and RDM, starting next March. GEG is currently served from WN and has been done by AS in the past (last with QX Q400s which ended in Jan 2011). I believe RDM was briefly served in 1995 by Reno Air (at least that's what I saw on a route map).

NWAESC wrote:

Who ground handles AS in MSP?

An outfit called GAT.

ASFlyer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

We both know the VX purchase was a move by management to keep it out of B6's hands. The assets were a bonus and not one they would have otherwise paid such a premium for. They didn't want the Airbus. They could have cared less about slots at LGA or DAL. SFO gates could have been acquired in a different way - and it's no secret that they're not really being fully utilized at this point. LAX was already in the works before the VX thing even happened. Senior management is far too smart and far too frugal to overpay for VX primarily to get their hands on more gates at SFO and LAX. They would have found another way - they always do. They've always been very opportunistic and find a way to make things happen when they want to. It's no secret that VX was an annoyance - they spent a fair amount of time and resources trying to squash them when they first started up.

They didn't want an Airbus fleet, but senior leadership had a belief that they learned two important things from DL; one, you don't put all your eggs in one basket if you can (SEA), and two, you don't allow a competitor to get a hold in a place where you believe your future lies (CA for AS, ATL for DL when they allowed FL to grow unchallenged). Hence the willingness to forgo the conservative approach to growth, where CA would have taken the next decade or two to get bigger, and instead move immediately to get what they felt was needed long-term.

LGA, DAL - those were added bonuses, but not strategic assets. SFO and LAX were, and while VX was an annoyance that took up far too much of the company's time early in their existence, that overlap of just 6 markets meant they were a nuisance that could be lived with, especially since they were losing money so fast it was just a matter of waiting for the next economic downturn for VX to disappear on their own. VX's BOD making the choice to put the company on the auction block is what prompted the bid more than anything.

Yeah, we're going to probably have to agree to disagree. I have access to all the same stuff management puts out to us frontline employees that you have. Alaska management didn't want anything to do with Airbus until they had to buy an airline that flew only Airbus, and it seems like they're edging towards putting all their eggs back in one basket where that's concerned too. I expected they would have kept a small A321 fleet at one point but things being what they are, I don't expect that to be the case now - especially if you read between the lines on their communications. They've always been about keeping costs low and their philosophy was that a single fleet type did just that.

We agree that VX probably would have been gone in the next downturn, like the one we're in now, and I think management was fine waiting for that to happen. B6 pushed them to move quickly on the VX acquisition and to overpay. There was little that they got out of it that they couldn't have acquired organically - which is exactly how they repeatedly state that they wish to grow. Acquisitions are difficult at best and organic growth has always served our airline well. It's part of the philosophy of this management team. Gregg Saretsky had much more ambitious growth ideas and you see where he's at now...

As an AS retiree I respect the hell out of both you and EA CO AS. But we all know there are two Alaska’s when it comes to just about anything. The public facing talking points and then what is their real motivation, shared by friends in higher places. As a guy who spent a fair amount of time in the GO working on YYZ, VVO and MEX back in the day, a few of my buddies from those years made it to the late 2000’s with me. A couple of us retired within a few months of each other in late 2017. It was communicated very clearly to me that the merger went down in this order - kill a pain the ass competitor. Stave off a stronger one, grab a bonus SFO footprint. Dump the VX brand as fast as possible, (Royalties to his Royal highness) by turning all the tails blue ASAP. In fact, a guy I started with in ‘82 who advanced further up the food chain than I, said he was asked to delay his retirement by a year to help see that through. My point is I think we’re all basically telling the same story. Now B6 is a good airline, not great, honestly none are great. I like them and as an recently crowned AA CK, I look forward to them joining the AA network. I’m in this conversation simply because some B6 fans were a little off on how amazing they thought the recent B6 moves were and how it was going to change the landscape at LAX forever, up to LAWA booting AS out of T6! Kool-aide is such an aphrodisiac. The fact is, they needed to do something to grow their underwhelming margins. They are feeling the DL pressure in both NYC and BOS. LAX was a smart move. AA partnership was even smarter. If at some point AA/AS/B6 code share up, then I believe DL won’t just be worried, but maybe leaning toward nervous as hell. Just my 2cents. Cheers.

roadrunner165 wrote:

As a Gold and soon to be Gold75K I don’t find anything inferior about the Alaska product. Their app is easy to use and comprehensive. I rarely need to contact customer service with an issue. And now I can text customer service rather then call - I’ve done a complete rerouting via text message in less than 10 minutes when the phone wait time was 45 minutes during peak hours. Been a while since I sat in regular coach (Other than row 17), but premium economy is comfy and first class is adequate. I don’t understand why anyone cares about in flight entertainment in 2020. I can literally stream 700+ movies and TV shows to my phone with Alaska Beyond Entertainment. I’ve been on close to 75 fights this last year and only twice has a power outlet not worked. Both times were on the same seat of the same A320 in the old Virgin layout. And if your outlet by chance isnt working, there are still two more in the row to use, just ask your seat mate.

My only gripe lately on Alaska Listens has been the ground staff in Minneapolis. They’re totally competent at their jobs, just rather cold and robotic. I’m rarely greeted as a Gold Or thanked for my loyalty. You’d think in the fortress hub of a direct competitor you’d want your customer service to be top notch — right EA CO AS? Hint hint.

MSP staff are not AS employees. They work for a company called GAT Airline Ground Support.

The no change fee for 75K MVP is a huge advantage for AS. Huge. Especially to the fliers who own their own business or run a small company. DL fooled around internally a handful of years ago about a work-around for SEA Diamonds that would've made DL more competitive based on the change fee vs travel bank. Nothing came of it.

usxguy wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

usxguy wrote:

glad to see FLL/LAX is back. I took that flight frequently as it timed up well with LAX/ANC. Add in that FLL/SEA was typically an early AM flight and suddenly the 4PMish LA flight gets a lot of connecting traffic

So far out of the way! DL ANCMSP all day long going east!

I status matched to DL Diamond from AS 75K a few years ago. After nearly $2,000 in change fees it was back to Alaska

The LA flight from FLL offers more connecting opportunities since the "original" SEA flight was normally a morning flight, or departed so late it arrived in SEA after 10pm. So Im glad the LAX flight is sticking around.

LOL: just rather cold and robotic. You aren't very familiar with Minnesotans are you?

roadrunner165 wrote:

As a Gold and soon to be Gold75K I don’t find anything inferior about the Alaska product. Their app is easy to use and comprehensive. I rarely need to contact customer service with an issue. And now I can text customer service rather then call - I’ve done a complete rerouting via text message in less than 10 minutes when the phone wait time was 45 minutes during peak hours. Been a while since I sat in regular coach (Other than row 17), but premium economy is comfy and first class is adequate. I don’t understand why anyone cares about in flight entertainment in 2020. I can literally stream 700+ movies and TV shows to my phone with Alaska Beyond Entertainment. I’ve been on close to 75 fights this last year and only twice has a power outlet not worked. Both times were on the same seat of the same A320 in the old Virgin layout. And if your outlet by chance isnt working, there are still two more in the row to use, just ask your seat mate.

My only gripe lately on Alaska Listens has been the ground staff in Minneapolis. They’re totally competent at their jobs, just rather cold and robotic. I’m rarely greeted as a Gold Or thanked for my loyalty. You’d think in the fortress hub of a direct competitor you’d want your customer service to be top notch — right EA CO AS? Hint hint.

ytib wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

AS needs to get e175s on ENA and HOM before FLOAT launches

I don't see that happening. With no TSA at either of those it would be too much of a hassle to bring that in there like they do in Cold Bay. Also can the runways even handle a E175?

I'm sure the locals would love having that type of service though.

Kenai and Homer both have more runway than most other airports AS serves in Alaska. Off the top of my head...WRG, PSG, GST, SIT, DLG, OTZ, BET, SCC, and I believe OME and BRW.

Chugach wrote:

ytib wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

AS needs to get e175s on ENA and HOM before FLOAT launches

I don't see that happening. With no TSA at either of those it would be too much of a hassle to bring that in there like they do in Cold Bay. Also can the runways even handle a E175?

I'm sure the locals would love having that type of service though.

Kenai and Homer both have more runway than most other airports AS serves in Alaska. Off the top of my head...WRG, PSG, GST, SIT, DLG, OTZ, BET, SCC, and I believe OME and BRW.

There’s absolutely no reason for AS to retain their gentleman’s agreements now that penair and ravn are dead. Time to take the venture boys out

EA CO AS wrote:

Tack wrote:

let’s be honest, VX was a move to eliminate a competitor that was squashing yields because they we’re hemorrhaging money

but to acquire assets AS would take decades to obtain on their own .

Then covid came along and space will be available in the old VX hubs anyways.

ASFlyer wrote:

Yeah, we're going to probably have to agree to disagree.

I think we’re in agreement; they definitely didn’t want an Airbus fleet, although they did fall in love with the A321NEO once they inherited it. It wouldn’t surprise me to see those disappear in favor of MAX9s and possibly even MAX10s, though. Just give us mid-cabin lavs!

catiii wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

catiii wrote:

This is what passes for "bullish" and "big" at AS? This was at best a timid response to B6's LAX growth and TCON expansion out of Newark. It actually sounds like they got a courtesy heads up from AA about the B6 codeshare and threw something together to get out there as a competitive response.

You do realize that JetBlue’s “big” LAX announcement was moving an operation from one local airport to another and not even keeping all the flights? The rest was just “we want to have this many flights later”. So if you want to play that game you’re not batting with much. Kinda pathetic.

I was responding to the poster’s adjectives. No one at B6 has characterized closing LGB, moving all the flying to LAX (except PDX) and announcing up to 70 flights a day to new markets as “big.” That’s your word.

And yeah, if you want to play that game let’s review solely the LAX stuff:

Shuttered LGB
Moved every route except PDX to LAX
Announced Mint TCON to EWR
Internally, and externally, alluded to a whole list of cities that likely will open up from LAX (BDL, CHS, Hawaii, Mexico beach, and a number of others not “public” but alluded to in town hall meetings)

But yeah, enjoy flying that Alaska hard product from SEA to FLL, or RSW.

“Shuttered.”

“Likely”.

Yikes. Guess you’ve never been on a debate team.

n7371f wrote:

LOL: just rather cold and robotic. You aren't very familiar with Minnesotans are you?

Hahaha, now ain’t that the truth! Both the wife and I are very tired of ‘Minnesota Nice’. And I grew up there. (This past year has made me fully understand why I left after high school and never looked back.)

Unfortunately, little choice but to continue for the time being. Our son who is being treated at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis as they have a fantastic cardiovascular intensive care unit.

But back to the contractor - GAT. They aren’t bad. They could just do so much more for the Alaska brand if they connected more with the passengers - especially elites.

Maybe I’m a sucker — but when I hear sincerity in people’s voices, like I often do with AS employees In Seattle and Anchorage, It resonates with me and I wanna stick with them through thick and thin. I don’t get that feeling in MSP.

I wonder what it takes to petition for TSA services at airports like Homer and Kenai?

Chugach wrote:

ytib wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

AS needs to get e175s on ENA and HOM before FLOAT launches

I don't see that happening. With no TSA at either of those it would be too much of a hassle to bring that in there like they do in Cold Bay. Also can the runways even handle a E175?

I'm sure the locals would love having that type of service though.

Kenai and Homer both have more runway than most other airports AS serves in Alaska. Off the top of my head...WRG, PSG, GST, SIT, DLG, OTZ, BET, SCC, and I believe OME and BRW.

It is not runway length which would be the concern but weight limits on the pavement. I just checked and they could handle the heavier planes with a PCN which is equal to or better than WRG or YAK.

I’ve seen NAC 737s in ENA and HOM.

roadrunner165 wrote:

Maybe I’m a sucker — but when I hear sincerity in people’s voices, like I often do with AS employees In Seattle and Anchorage, It resonates with me and I wanna stick with them through thick and thin. I don’t get that feeling in MSP.

A company generally can't buy sincerity thorough outsourcing. OO does outsourced sincerity well, but they are a rarity.

/edit to fix autocorrect and formatting

The issue with Alaska's hard product isn't that its worse than anyone else's; its that it isn't markedly better than anyone else's. Assuming fares are about the same price, there's no compelling reason for the average cost-conscious flyer to book on Alaska when the hard product is no different, and certainly not demonstrably superior.

ytib wrote:

Chugach wrote:

ytib wrote:

I don't see that happening. With no TSA at either of those it would be too much of a hassle to bring that in there like they do in Cold Bay. Also can the runways even handle a E175?

I'm sure the locals would love having that type of service though.

Kenai and Homer both have more runway than most other airports AS serves in Alaska. Off the top of my head...WRG, PSG, GST, SIT, DLG, OTZ, BET, SCC, and I believe OME and BRW.

It is not runway length which would be the concern but weight limits on the pavement. I just checked and they could handle the heavier planes with a PCN which is equal to or better than WRG or YAK.

Kenai sees 737’s from time to time when the wind shear at ANC causes diversions.

The bigger issue is TSA. I’d be surprised if ENA isn’t at least on AS’ radar. It’s the biggest market in Alaska they don’t serve, and a bigger market than many of their existing Alaska destinations, but it seems like they are waiting to see what happens with Zombie Ravn first. HOM is a lot smaller than ENA but could still handle AS service. I travel to ENA in particular with some frequency from the lower 48, and losing connecting options on Ravn hurts big time. Grant Aviation is ok for local traffic but with no interline at ANC doesn’t really cut it for most people needing to get beyond ANC. AS getting into the Kenai Peninsula would be a huge boost.

Chugach wrote:

ytib wrote:

Chugach wrote:

Kenai and Homer both have more runway than most other airports AS serves in Alaska. Off the top of my head...WRG, PSG, GST, SIT, DLG, OTZ, BET, SCC, and I believe OME and BRW.

It is not runway length which would be the concern but weight limits on the pavement. I just checked and they could handle the heavier planes with a PCN which is equal to or better than WRG or YAK.

Kenai sees 737’s from time to time when the wind shear at ANC causes diversions.

The bigger issue is TSA. I’d be surprised if ENA isn’t at least on AS’ radar. It’s the biggest market in Alaska they don’t serve, and a bigger market than many of their existing Alaska destinations, but it seems like they are waiting to see what happens with Zombie Ravn first. HOM is a lot smaller than ENA but could still handle AS service. I travel to ENA in particular with some frequency from the lower 48, and losing connecting options on Ravn hurts big time. Grant Aviation is ok for local traffic but with no interline at ANC doesn’t really cut it for most people needing to get beyond ANC. AS getting into the Kenai Peninsula would be a huge boost.

I think homer could support it but ENA seems like an absolute no brainer. While it is a very short flight (it would probably be less than 10 minutes on an e175, it’s about a 2+ hour drive and more in the winter.

32andBelow wrote:

I think homer could support it but ENA seems like an absolute no brainer. While it is a very short flight (it would probably be less than 10 minutes on an e175, it’s about a 2+ hour drive and more in the winter.

It's a 2+ hour drive from Girdwood some summers.
How's about an RV park and ride at ENA?

NameOmitted wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

I think homer could support it but ENA seems like an absolute no brainer. While it is a very short flight (it would probably be less than 10 minutes on an e175, it’s about a 2+ hour drive and more in the winter.

It's a 2+ hour drive from Girdwood some summers.
How's about an RV park and ride at ENA?

I think AQY would be a little tough!!!

32andBelow wrote:

Chugach wrote:

ytib wrote:

It is not runway length which would be the concern but weight limits on the pavement. I just checked and they could handle the heavier planes with a PCN which is equal to or better than WRG or YAK.

Kenai sees 737’s from time to time when the wind shear at ANC causes diversions.

The bigger issue is TSA. I’d be surprised if ENA isn’t at least on AS’ radar. It’s the biggest market in Alaska they don’t serve, and a bigger market than many of their existing Alaska destinations, but it seems like they are waiting to see what happens with Zombie Ravn first. HOM is a lot smaller than ENA but could still handle AS service. I travel to ENA in particular with some frequency from the lower 48, and losing connecting options on Ravn hurts big time. Grant Aviation is ok for local traffic but with no interline at ANC doesn’t really cut it for most people needing to get beyond ANC. AS getting into the Kenai Peninsula would be a huge boost.

I think homer could support it but ENA seems like an absolute no brainer. While it is a very short flight (it would probably be less than 10 minutes on an e175, it’s about a 2+ hour drive and more in the winter.

More like a 3 hour drive, and I’ve had my share of “unforgettable” experiences on that damn road between Anchorage and Kenai, just like anybody else who has ever spent time up there. There’s a reason why Ravn had so many ANC-ENA flights every day.

Chugach wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Chugach wrote:

Kenai sees 737’s from time to time when the wind shear at ANC causes diversions.

The bigger issue is TSA. I’d be surprised if ENA isn’t at least on AS’ radar. It’s the biggest market in Alaska they don’t serve, and a bigger market than many of their existing Alaska destinations, but it seems like they are waiting to see what happens with Zombie Ravn first. HOM is a lot smaller than ENA but could still handle AS service. I travel to ENA in particular with some frequency from the lower 48, and losing connecting options on Ravn hurts big time. Grant Aviation is ok for local traffic but with no interline at ANC doesn’t really cut it for most people needing to get beyond ANC. AS getting into the Kenai Peninsula would be a huge boost.

I think homer could support it but ENA seems like an absolute no brainer. While it is a very short flight (it would probably be less than 10 minutes on an e175, it’s about a 2+ hour drive and more in the winter.

More like a 3 hour drive, and I’ve had my share of “unforgettable” experiences on that damn road between Anchorage and Kenai, just like anybody else who has ever spent time up there. There’s a reason why Ravn had so many ANC-ENA flights every day.

The moral thing to do would be to end float Alaska before it drags people along for another year.

Chugach wrote:

More like a 3 hour drive, and I’ve had my share of “unforgettable” experiences on that damn road between Anchorage and Kenai, just like anybody else who has ever spent time up there. There’s a reason why Ravn had so many ANC-ENA flights every day.

It is a lot better than it used to be, and be it by accident or design the DOT is making good use of our light traffic summer to make vast improvements between Girdwood and Turnagain Pass. In the next ten years, we should see the Copper Landing Bypass and the overall drive should be upgraded from a "damned road" to merely a "40 oz. of coffee" road, filled with damned RVs.

NameOmitted wrote:

Chugach wrote:

More like a 3 hour drive, and I’ve had my share of “unforgettable” experiences on that damn road between Anchorage and Kenai, just like anybody else who has ever spent time up there. There’s a reason why Ravn had so many ANC-ENA flights every day.

It is a lot better than it used to be, and be it by accident or design the DOT is making good use of our light traffic summer to make vast improvements between Girdwood and Turnagain Pass. In the next ten years, we should see the Copper Landing Bypass and the overall drive should be upgraded from a "damned road" to merely a "40 oz. of coffee" road, filled with damned RVs.

We need a couple bridges and we’d really be stylin.

32andBelow wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Chugach wrote:

More like a 3 hour drive, and I’ve had my share of “unforgettable” experiences on that damn road between Anchorage and Kenai, just like anybody else who has ever spent time up there. There’s a reason why Ravn had so many ANC-ENA flights every day.

It is a lot better than it used to be, and be it by accident or design the DOT is making good use of our light traffic summer to make vast improvements between Girdwood and Turnagain Pass. In the next ten years, we should see the Copper Landing Bypass and the overall drive should be upgraded from a "damned road" to merely a "40 oz. of coffee" road, filled with damned RVs.

We need a couple bridges and we’d really be stylin.

A ferry to Point Possession and an upgrade to Pipeline Road would be a lot cheaper... Provided the ferry was not a military proof of concept prototype, of course.

EA CO AS wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Yeah, we're going to probably have to agree to disagree.

I think we’re in agreement; they definitely didn’t want an Airbus fleet, although they did fall in love with the A321NEO once they inherited it. It wouldn’t surprise me to see those disappear in favor of MAX9s and possibly even MAX10s, though. Just give us mid-cabin lavs!

Is my aging memory bad or did I fly in a few Alaska birds with a lav at 6ABC?!? Cause having a fwd lav really does make a difference in traffic flow.

Heard back from a friend at AS HDQ. Apparently a data mine project showed that almost 2/5th of SEATPA's traffic is from SW Florida (Sarasota south).

Aptivaboy wrote:

The issue with Alaska's hard product isn't that its worse than anyone else's; its that it isn't markedly better than anyone else's. Assuming fares are about the same price, there's no compelling reason for the average cost-conscious flyer to book on Alaska when the hard product is no different, and certainly not demonstrably superior.

I'll take a stab at this one. And I know, my experience is anecdotal. This is where the Mileage Plan comes into play. If you define average cost-conscious flyer as someone who flies once or twice a year and simply wants the cheapest fare -- that's what Saver fares goes after as that type of customer will always fly whoever has the cheapest seat and typically doesn't care about hard product anyhow. But if you define average cost-conscious flyer as someone who travels regularly (4 times a year or more) and is halfway intelligent, then those passengers begin to factor in the value of each airlines rewards program. I routinely price shop, but when I factor in the value of the miles earned that I will use towards future free tickets, Alaska becomes superior quite fast. Again, my experience is my own. But I don't think I'm alone. I always did the math, even before I had status.

usxguy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Yeah, we're going to probably have to agree to disagree.

I think we’re in agreement; they definitely didn’t want an Airbus fleet, although they did fall in love with the A321NEO once they inherited it. It wouldn’t surprise me to see those disappear in favor of MAX9s and possibly even MAX10s, though. Just give us mid-cabin lavs!

Is my aging memory bad or did I fly in a few Alaska birds with a lav at 6ABC?!? Cause having a fwd lav really does make a difference in traffic flow.

Heard back from a friend at AS HDQ. Apparently a data mine project showed that almost 2/5th of SEATPA's traffic is from SW Florida (Sarasota south).

about 10 or so of the 737-900's originally had a lav and a really large closet at row 6. Having a lav somewhere else in the cabin other than the rear and the front are really nice for the passengers - especially during service. The Airbus A321 has a lav about 2/3 of the way back.

roadrunner165 wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

The issue with Alaska's hard product isn't that its worse than anyone else's; its that it isn't markedly better than anyone else's. Assuming fares are about the same price, there's no compelling reason for the average cost-conscious flyer to book on Alaska when the hard product is no different, and certainly not demonstrably superior.

I'll take a stab at this one. And I know, my experience is anecdotal. This is where the Mileage Plan comes into play. If you define average cost-conscious flyer as someone who flies once or twice a year and simply wants the cheapest fare -- that's what Saver fares goes after as that type of customer will always fly whoever has the cheapest seat and typically doesn't care about hard product anyhow. But if you define average cost-conscious flyer as someone who travels regularly (4 times a year or more) and is halfway intelligent, then those passengers begin to factor in the value of each airlines rewards program. I routinely price shop, but when I factor in the value of the miles earned that I will use towards future free tickets, Alaska becomes superior quite fast. Again, my experience is my own. But I don't think I'm alone. I always did the math, even before I had status.

People like Alaska. They tend to be nicer than other airlines. They have a valuable FF program and lots of partners. They win awards. A few people seem to omit that. Is Alaska some amazing experience? No. The person trying to suggest B6 is somehow leaps and bounds above Alaska in coach is a bit delusional. All economy seats on all airlines are cramped and uncomfortable. Some have screens which is nice. And those arguing about Alaska First vs JetBlue Mint are arguing about products that aren’t actually competing. It is really quite dumb and a waste of time. Alaska offers a competitive product vs US3 traditional First. Anyone that has actually flown Alaska can tell you that. Back during the VX merger a lot of people went on about how awful Alaska was and later admitted they’d never flown them. Have a feeling this is still happening.

JetBlue is great too. It is pretty amazing how just being nice gets an airline. Both Alaska and JetBlue offer a product that slots itself between US3 and WN. I’m not sure why the hate for Alaska (or JetBlue) even exists. I usually stick to Alaska, Delta and Southwest because they’re mostly nice and fly where I need to go. I’ve had consistently apathetic to not so nice experience on other carriers.

ASFlyer wrote:

usxguy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I think we’re in agreement; they definitely didn’t want an Airbus fleet, although they did fall in love with the A321NEO once they inherited it. It wouldn’t surprise me to see those disappear in favor of MAX9s and possibly even MAX10s, though. Just give us mid-cabin lavs!

Is my aging memory bad or did I fly in a few Alaska birds with a lav at 6ABC?!? Cause having a fwd lav really does make a difference in traffic flow.

Heard back from a friend at AS HDQ. Apparently a data mine project showed that almost 2/5th of SEATPA's traffic is from SW Florida (Sarasota south).

about 10 or so of the 737-900's originally had a lav and a really large closet at row 6. Having a lav somewhere else in the cabin other than the rear and the front are really nice for the passengers - especially during service. The Airbus A321 has a lav about 2/3 of the way back.

Close, 6 of the 12 classic 900’s had the mid cabin lav with large closet across the way - N315AS-N323AS.
While I agree they were great from a guest perspective, they were out of service frequently for clogged waste lines which hurt the reliability. They also provided less flexibility in adjusting your cabin seating layout.

Blue

I got to thinking...this tie-up between both AS and B6 with AA is a huge middle finger to DL and their encroachment into SEA and BOS. Revenge can sometimes be sweet...we'll see how the story plays out.

hiflyeras wrote:

I got to thinking...this tie-up between both AS and B6 with AA is a huge middle finger to DL and their encroachment into SEA and BOS. Revenge can sometimes be sweet...we'll see how the story plays out.

Don't get too excited, since it hasn't happened yet. Yes...it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. It could be a great success...and it could be a great failure.

Personally I am surprised this thread has gone this far. It is not as if any one airline is
clair·voy·ant or anything! I do not think even Alaska could react almost overnight to these few new JetBlue routes as was done.

It is actually kind of preposterous to think Alaska would do this without scripted research actually. I am sure these routes were well in the planning process way before JetBlue’s quite advertised displeasure, relocation, and draw down of LGB.

Just my 2 cents. Should be interesting to see if California’s governor does everything he can possibly do to keep the California economy shut down at a detriment to free enterprise and its citizens as he seems intent on doing.

bayareablue wrote:

Close, 6 of the 12 classic 900’s had the mid cabin lav with large closet across the way - N315AS-N323AS.
While I agree they were great from a guest perspective, they were out of service frequently for clogged waste lines which hurt the reliability. They also provided less flexibility in adjusting your cabin seating layout.

Blue

I could have sworn the first 3 of the -800s came with mid-cabin lavs as well. In any event, at a leadership summit a decade ago, I was in a group with Irv Bertram, the man who quite literally signed for every new plane AS had in the past 20-30 years, and we had a LONG talk about mid-cabin lavs. His final take was yeah, the customer satisfaction scores are higher for them, but when you look at a 20 year average service life with AS before selling the fleet on the secondhand market, they're easier to move and at a higher value when there's no fixed monument to contend with removing, re-plumbing, etc. Magnify that by the 61 -800s in the fleet and you're talking serious money, and the cost-benefit analysis of that slight score increase vs. the fixed costs won on the cost saving side.

Of course in a post-COVID world I have no idea if those cost savings still pencil out...

EA CO AS wrote:

bayareablue wrote:

Close, 6 of the 12 classic 900’s had the mid cabin lav with large closet across the way - N315AS-N323AS.
While I agree they were great from a guest perspective, they were out of service frequently for clogged waste lines which hurt the reliability. They also provided less flexibility in adjusting your cabin seating layout.

Blue

I could have sworn the first 3 of the -800s came with mid-cabin lavs as well. In any event, at a leadership summit a decade ago, I was in a group with Irv Bertram, the man who quite literally signed for every new plane AS had in the past 20-30 years, and we had a LONG talk about mid-cabin lavs. His final take was yeah, the customer satisfaction scores are higher for them, but when you look at a 20 year average service life with AS before selling the fleet on the secondhand market, they're easier to move and at a higher value when there's no fixed monument to contend with removing, re-plumbing, etc. Magnify that by the 61 -800s in the fleet and you're talking serious money, and the cost-benefit analysis of that slight score increase vs. the fixed costs won on the cost saving side.

Of course in a post-COVID world I have no idea if those cost savings still pencil out...

The first 3 -800's were originally ordered by and configured for Delta. Alaska got them because Delta didn't take delivery for whatever reason so Alaska was able to take those orders and expedite delivery of their first -800's. They always had 3 lavs in the back and one up front.

I've heard Ben give the same reason to everyone for not adding mid cabin lavs. On the flip side Ben has also said Alaska is not in the used airplane market and they buy planes that suit their needs. I wonder the real reason they retrofitted those planes that had mid cabin lavs and discontinued ordering them in that configuration. They are definitely more passenger friendly.

bayareablue wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Is my aging memory bad or did I fly in a few Alaska birds with a lav at 6ABC?!? Cause having a fwd lav really does make a difference in traffic flow.

Heard back from a friend at AS HDQ. Apparently a data mine project showed that almost 2/5th of SEATPA's traffic is from SW Florida (Sarasota south).

about 10 or so of the 737-900's originally had a lav and a really large closet at row 6. Having a lav somewhere else in the cabin other than the rear and the front are really nice for the passengers - especially during service. The Airbus A321 has a lav about 2/3 of the way back.

Close, 6 of the 12 classic 900’s had the mid cabin lav with large closet across the way - N315AS-N323AS.
While I agree they were great from a guest perspective, they were out of service frequently for clogged waste lines which hurt the reliability. They also provided less flexibility in adjusting your cabin seating layout.

Blue

Thanks - I knew there were a handful. Funny, because I knew the -900's that started with 30 (like 305, 306) were no mid cabin lav. Whenever I saw one of the 315 + numbers I knew it would be a good flight. LOL I did also hear they had plumbing issues more frequently. I wonder if the A321's experience similar issues.

ASFlyer wrote:

bayareablue wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

about 10 or so of the 737-900's originally had a lav and a really large closet at row 6. Having a lav somewhere else in the cabin other than the rear and the front are really nice for the passengers - especially during service. The Airbus A321 has a lav about 2/3 of the way back.

Close, 6 of the 12 classic 900’s had the mid cabin lav with large closet across the way - N315AS-N323AS.
While I agree they were great from a guest perspective, they were out of service frequently for clogged waste lines which hurt the reliability. They also provided less flexibility in adjusting your cabin seating layout.

Blue

Thanks - I knew there were a handful. Funny, because I knew the -900's that started with 30 (like 305, 306) were no mid cabin lav. Whenever I saw one of the 315 + numbers I knew it would be a good flight. LOL I did also hear they had plumbing issues more frequently. I wonder if the A321's experience similar issues.

I have a sizable collection of the old AS trading cards. Miss those things, I bring them with me when I travel and ask crews to sign them. But I digress, what made me think about those is the card for N318AS makes the presence of the mid cabin lavatory fairly obvious. But it’s something I never knew AS had until it was mentioned in this thread. My first 739 flight was on UA in 2014. UA has the mid cabin lavatory and it makes the flight so much more pleasant. Less traffic in the F cabin and Y pax don’t need to worry about carts. Then I moved to AZ and now I fly on AS 739s constantly, often wishing there was a lavatory in the Y cabin not blocked by carts.

On the topic of the thread, some interesting adds here. Particularly RSW. I’m also happy to see LAX get some adds. I would be more appreciative of the OW/AA relationship except for the small detail of the vast number of LUS aircraft based at my home airport. I do hope to see AS and B6 cooperate in the future, I don’t want a merger because I love both carriers for different reasons and losing either one would be a detriment to the industry. But a codeshare and earn and burn agreement between the two would make AA-AS-B6 a force to be reckoned with.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but what are the chances they could launch ANC-NRT

wedgetail737 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

I got to thinking...this tie-up between both AS and B6 with AA is a huge middle finger to DL and their encroachment into SEA and BOS. Revenge can sometimes be sweet...we'll see how the story plays out.

Don't get too excited, since it hasn't happened yet. Yes...it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. It could be a great success...and it could be a great failure.

“Great failure” seems like strong language for the scenario where codesharing doesn’t work out. At least for AS & B6.

SANFan wrote:

I wanted to post here that there are new flights appearing in Alaska's schedules today (and last night) but so far there's no announcement nor even a new OAG thread to post them on.

So far, I've found new SAN/PDX - CUN service beginning on 11/20; both routes are sub-daily and daylight flights operated with 738s. As of now, the flights all end around 4/11/21.

Also, in March 2021, AS will inaugurate 2 more related routes: SAN and SJC to MSO. Both will fly daily on EMJs starting 3/11/21 and appear permanent. This is certainly the first daily service from SAN to MT that I'm aware of even though G4 flies once in a while, a couple days a week to BIL. I do not know SJC's history well enough to comment on that.

There may well be other new routes loaded in AS's schedules but at this point, anyone interested in them will have to look for them! I'm happy to do that for SAN but I'm not as young as I used to be so I'm limited in how much I can look thru...

The OAG thread came online today and it appears that SFO-MSO will also be inaugurated Mar 11, along with SAN & SJC. If I'm not mistaken, that will connect MSO and Western Montana with all 6 of AS's hubs and focus cities located in the Lower 48 -- SEA, PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX and SAN. Way to grow Alaska!

bb

SANFan wrote:

The OAG thread came online today and it appears that SFO-MSO will also be inaugurated Mar 11, along with SAN & SJC. If I'm not mistaken, that will connect MSO and Western Montana with all 6 of AS's hubs and focus cities located in the Lower 48 -- SEA, PDX, SFO, SJC, LAX and SAN. Way to grow Alaska!

bb

Great news for Montana...and those wanting to visit. Thanks for the good news, SANFan!!

This evening, I see that the times are being completely changed on the new SAN/PDX-FLL/CUN flights that start (hopefully) in November.

I guess the original times and frequencies were just too perfect to hold up. I'd sure love to know what's going on; the flights now show as leaving FLL & CUN in the mornings, arriving the west coast around noon, turning and flying back to FLL & CUN respectively now arriving there at night. Really messes up hotel check-in and -out. I guess at this point in time, I'll just be glad if the flights start at all...

bb