Regarding AA @ SFO, AA is scheduled to move all ops to T1B next month. A new Admirals Club will open on March 24 in T1 - it will be about 20% larger than the current AC in T2 and will include two showers. There will not be a fireplace, but the fake trees will be moved over to the new club.

A lot of doomsday scenarios here, but we have to wait and see. There were those who predicted WNs acquisition of FL would create a cascading effect that would eventually topple DL entirely. Obviously, that didn't happen. Of course AS is larger in SEA than DL, but it's not as though DL is going to just walk away from SEA.

I'm also seeing some of the same arguments re: DLs decision to not acquire the 787. DL has the A350 which it can use to start these routes if it so chooses. It's noteworthy that the A350 in DL config doesn't seat all that many more than AAs 789. Moreover, the 787 isn't some sort of magical panacea that automatically makes any flights viable and/or profitable. If it were, AA wouldn't have dumped it's China flying from ORD and UA wouldn't have cancelled ORD-HKG just shortly before announcing 787 flying from ORD. I think the point that people are missing is that outside a few select markets, DL has decided that ULH flying is not in the companies best interest. UA, and to a lesser extent AA, have decided otherwise. Time will tell who is correct, but ULH flights are very costly to operate and it really only makes sense when you have large hubs in major cities like UA does.

tphuang wrote:

DBCoop3r wrote:

sand26391 wrote:

:

" "Bangalore is one of Amazon’s top three business-travel markets" said Brett Catlin, Alaska’s head of network planning and alliances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/airline ... r=sharebar

Oh weird. The airliners.net armchair analysts always say DL is losing so much money in SEA, but the real analysts say SEA is one of their most profitable hubs. Whom to believe...

right, a comment by CNBC overrides all the domestic fare data we have access to. These guys must really be making boatloads on those China flights!

Those numbers only tell part of the story. Unless you have access to the actual P & L numbers, you can't say how profitable or not SEA is for DL.

LAXBUR wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

That blogger is misinformed.

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

TYWoolman wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

I think it was Alaska that did all the leg-work to propose a case for SEA-Bangalore. Willing to bet they initiated the alliance as well. There were many bees protecting the SEA hive. Not that it detracts from the brilliance of the move.

So AA & BA - LHR from Seattle

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

I can understand the logic why they would want to prohibit. But a limited scope partnership would involve Delta international into Southwest domestic (vic-a-versa) most likely using aircraft Southwest does not have. I am sure a case can be made. Doesn't sound so alien to me as it may be to some, especially if American gets approval and most especially if United and JetBlue hook up. Just another way for Delta to fill up planes using a P2P strategy into Asia, Latin America and Europe from U.S. cities Delta would never dream of having comprehensive domestic coverage.

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

I can understand the logic why they would want to prohibit. But a limited scope partnership would involve Delta international into Southwest domestic (vic-a-versa) most likely using aircraft Southwest does not have. I am sure a case can be made. Doesn't sound so alien to me as it may be to some, especially if American gets approval and most especially if United and JetBlue hook up. Just another way for Delta to fill up planes using a P2P strategy into Asia, Latin America and Europe from U.S. cities Delta would never dream of having comprehensive domestic coverage.

Once again what you propose is prohibited by the Pilots CBA and won’t change anytime soon.

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

All forms of codesharing or just with domestic competitors?

At some point, they are going to have to explore codeshare with international carriers.

BNAMealer wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

All forms of codesharing or just with domestic competitors?

At some point, they are going to have to explore codeshare with international carriers.

I wouldn't say it's inevitable that they do, but definitely something to consider given the ever-changing industry. It would open up options for them and allow them to consider strategic alternatives to its current model, which has been very successful, however.

BNAMealer wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Unless someone else suggested merger, I am pretty sure what was suggested was a limited scope alliance between Delta and Southwest.

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

All forms of codesharing or just with domestic competitors?

At some point, they are going to have to explore codeshare with international carriers.

Only code share allowed is inter island HI and AS

TYWoolman wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

All forms of codesharing or just with domestic competitors?

At some point, they are going to have to explore codeshare with international carriers.

I wouldn't say it's inevitable that they do, but definitely something to consider given the ever-changing industry. It would open up options for them and allow them to consider strategic alternatives to its current model, which has been very successful, however.

You do realize they will have to negotiate it with the pilots and it won’t come cheap.

Why would they even want to? They've been the most consistently profitable airline in America for decades not doing it. What is going to fundamentally change in the next decade or two that would change their (very successful) model?

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

All forms of codesharing or just with domestic competitors?

At some point, they are going to have to explore codeshare with international carriers.

I wouldn't say it's inevitable that they do, but definitely something to consider given the ever-changing industry. It would open up options for them and allow them to consider strategic alternatives to its current model, which has been very successful, however.

You do realize they will have to negotiate it with the pilots and it won’t come cheap.

Understood. I am only providing a hypothetical. A true case for any alliance would have to be formerly presented to the CBA with negotiation in mind, and in doing so then, the business case for an alliance had better be strong!

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

I wouldn't say it's inevitable that they do, but definitely something to consider given the ever-changing industry. It would open up options for them and allow them to consider strategic alternatives to its current model, which has been very successful, however.

You do realize they will have to negotiate it with the pilots and it won’t come cheap.

Understood. I am only providing a hypothetical. A true case for any alliance would have to be formerly presented to the CBA with negotiation in mind, and in doing so then, the business case for an alliance had better be strong!

Their pilots are under no obligation to open their CBA for that too happen.

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

You do realize they will have to negotiate it with the pilots and it won’t come cheap.

Understood. I am only providing a hypothetical. A true case for any alliance would have to be formerly presented to the CBA with negotiation in mind, and in doing so then, the business case for an alliance had better be strong!

Their pilots are under no obligation to open their CBA for that too happen.

I am not going to pretend there is any scenario where they should be obligated. At such time any strategic option is presented, either the pilots will think only their direction for the company is best, management will think only their direction of the company is best, or they both will be on the same page. Either way, I am sure Southwest will be just fine, but talk of another aircraft type into the fleet sure makes you wonder that the status quo is sustainable!

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Understood. I am only providing a hypothetical. A true case for any alliance would have to be formerly presented to the CBA with negotiation in mind, and in doing so then, the business case for an alliance had better be strong!

Their pilots are under no obligation to open their CBA for that too happen.

I am not going to pretend there is any scenario where they should be obligated. At such time any strategic option is presented, either the pilots will think only their direction for the company is best, management will think only their direction of the company is best, or they both will be on the same page. Either way, I am sure Southwest will be just fine, but talk of another aircraft type into the fleet sure makes you wonder that the status quo is sustainable!

Their pilots have consistently told WN no, that’s why they couldn’t get a B6 interline agreement.

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Their pilots are under no obligation to open their CBA for that too happen.

I am not going to pretend there is any scenario where they should be obligated. At such time any strategic option is presented, either the pilots will think only their direction for the company is best, management will think only their direction of the company is best, or they both will be on the same page. Either way, I am sure Southwest will be just fine, but talk of another aircraft type into the fleet sure makes you wonder that the status quo is sustainable!

Their pilots have consistently told WN no, that’s why they couldn’t get a B6 interline agreement.

Then I would trust that their pilots know what they are doing. And I am sure the success of Southwest has been that secret ingredient word: No.

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

I am not going to pretend there is any scenario where they should be obligated. At such time any strategic option is presented, either the pilots will think only their direction for the company is best, management will think only their direction of the company is best, or they both will be on the same page. Either way, I am sure Southwest will be just fine, but talk of another aircraft type into the fleet sure makes you wonder that the status quo is sustainable!

Their pilots have consistently told WN no, that’s why they couldn’t get a B6 interline agreement.

Then I would trust that their pilots know what they are doing. And I am sure the success of Southwest has been that secret ingredient word: No.

Well they never filed bankruptcy, nor laid anyone off, carry more domestic passengers than any other airline and have been the most consistent profitable airline. And their pilots did agree to inter-island HI and AS codesharing.

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Their pilots have consistently told WN no, that’s why they couldn’t get a B6 interline agreement.

Then I would trust that their pilots know what they are doing. And I am sure the success of Southwest has been that secret ingredient word: No.

Well they never filed bankruptcy, nor laid anyone off, carry more domestic passengers than any other airline and have been the most consistent profitable airline. And their pilots did agree to inter-island HI and AS codesharing.

Can you expound briefly on the AS codesharing. What does it allow?

Can't wait for American and Alaska to merge.

Boof02671 wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

WN’s pilots’ CBA prohibits code sharing etc.

All forms of codesharing or just with domestic competitors?

At some point, they are going to have to explore codeshare with international carriers.

Only code share allowed is inter island HI and AS

Others on here have said certain long haul codesharing would be allowed subject to approval by the pilot union.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1358263

They don't need to codeshare for domestic, but since they can't really fly long haul services without changing their business model, I don't see why they can't codeshare to Europe/Asia like AS/B6 do. If they were still a niche carrier, I'd say codesharing wouldn't be necessary, but now that they are a major carrier in the US market that is being increasingly used by business travelers, codesharing is something that will have to be done eventually.

Honestly, WN codesharing would probably increase demand for WN flights as new gateways could be opened at less congested airports like BWI, BNA, OAK, etc. I don't see why the WN pilots are so sensitive towards long haul codesharing.

Detroit313 wrote:

Can't wait for American and Alaska to merge.

... and the merged AAAS develop DTW to the hub it really deserves to be

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Then I would trust that their pilots know what they are doing. And I am sure the success of Southwest has been that secret ingredient word: No.

Well they never filed bankruptcy, nor laid anyone off, carry more domestic passengers than any other airline and have been the most consistent profitable airline. And their pilots did agree to inter-island HI and AS codesharing.

Can you expound briefly on the AS codesharing. What does it allow?

Not AS the airline sorry, they can codeshare in the state of Alaska only b

Boof02671 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Well they never filed bankruptcy, nor laid anyone off, carry more domestic passengers than any other airline and have been the most consistent profitable airline. And their pilots did agree to inter-island HI and AS codesharing.

Can you expound briefly on the AS codesharing. What does it allow?

Not AS the airline sorry, they can codeshare in the state of Alaska only b

Ok. Interesting. I guess because it's so remote.

Detroit313 wrote:

Can't wait for American and Alaska to merge.

As an alternative to merging, I'm wondering how much of AS could AA purchase without the DOJ becoming irate.

Go start your own thread about WN. Zzzzzzz

hiflyeras wrote:

Go start your own thread about WN. Zzzzzzz

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Go start your own thread about WN. Zzzzzzz

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

AS has three statuses; MVP, Gold and 75k. Roughly translated those would meet up with Gold, Platinum and Exec Platinum for AA and Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald for OW.

I see no reason for AS why they really have to change since they already devalue partner flights over direct AS legs and currently Mileage Plan is an asset for them.

alasizon wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Go start your own thread about WN. Zzzzzzz

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

AS has three statuses; MVP, Gold and 75k. Roughly translated those would meet up with Gold, Platinum and Exec Platinum for AA and Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald for OW.

I see no reason for AS why they really have to change since they already devalue partner flights over direct AS legs and currently Mileage Plan is an asset for them.

Doesn't AS not allow members to redeem miles on multiple airlines on a single award? Meaning you can use AS miles to book a CX award, but you can't book CX flights and an onward connection on AA in the same award. At least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. They'll have to change that when they join oneworld, hence a devaluation. There's no way they're going to sell a SE Asia-US J award for 55K miles.

9w748capt wrote:

alasizon wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

AS has three statuses; MVP, Gold and 75k. Roughly translated those would meet up with Gold, Platinum and Exec Platinum for AA and Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald for OW.

I see no reason for AS why they really have to change since they already devalue partner flights over direct AS legs and currently Mileage Plan is an asset for them.

Doesn't AS not allow members to redeem miles on multiple airlines on a single award? Meaning you can use AS miles to book a CX award, but you can't book CX flights and an onward connection on AA in the same award. At least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. They'll have to change that when they join oneworld, hence a devaluation. There's no way they're going to sell a SE Asia-US J award for 55K miles.

They are not going to change that. Asiamiles doesn't allow multiple partners w/ the standard chart as well.

9w748capt wrote:

alasizon wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

AS has three statuses; MVP, Gold and 75k. Roughly translated those would meet up with Gold, Platinum and Exec Platinum for AA and Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald for OW.

I see no reason for AS why they really have to change since they already devalue partner flights over direct AS legs and currently Mileage Plan is an asset for them.

Doesn't AS not allow members to redeem miles on multiple airlines on a single award? Meaning you can use AS miles to book a CX award, but you can't book CX flights and an onward connection on AA in the same award. At least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. They'll have to change that when they join oneworld, hence a devaluation. There's no way they're going to sell a SE Asia-US J award for 55K miles.

Cathay is a weird one with married segments. They require certain parameters for redemption. I actually almost booked a CX to AS connection with AA last month. It can be done.

KLMatSJC wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

alasizon wrote:

AS has three statuses; MVP, Gold and 75k. Roughly translated those would meet up with Gold, Platinum and Exec Platinum for AA and Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald for OW.

I see no reason for AS why they really have to change since they already devalue partner flights over direct AS legs and currently Mileage Plan is an asset for them.

Doesn't AS not allow members to redeem miles on multiple airlines on a single award? Meaning you can use AS miles to book a CX award, but you can't book CX flights and an onward connection on AA in the same award. At least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. They'll have to change that when they join oneworld, hence a devaluation. There's no way they're going to sell a SE Asia-US J award for 55K miles.

Cathay is a weird one with married segments. They require certain parameters for redemption. I actually almost booked a CX to AS connection with AA last month. It can be done.

Are you talking about redeeming AA miles or CX? Because yes, it's always been possible with AA miles to create a mixed-airline award ticket. I'm not too familiar with Asiamiles.

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Go start your own thread about WN. Zzzzzzz

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

I have a few questions regarding the loyalty program. Not sure if there are answers out there for this, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Do you think that AS will change from miles flown to ticket price paid when it comes to mileage accrual?
2.If they do keep miles flown, how will it work when I fly AA and try to credit the miles to AS? If I fly let's say 1500 miles with AA, will I receive the 1500 miles on my AS account?
3. If I have MVP status with AS and fly AA will I receive 50% more miles on my AS account?
4. Do we know the exact date we can start earning AS miles on AA metal? I have a few trips coming up and this answer will determine who I book with.

CLJFlyer wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Go start your own thread about WN. Zzzzzzz

Seconded.

Back on topic though: what can we expect to happen to AS’s loyalty program? I’ve always enjoyed it for being (in my opinion) far more generous than other airlines — especially compared to AA. Will AS have to water down its program and create new statuses since they have 2 and AA has 4?

I have a few questions regarding the loyalty program. Not sure if there are answers out there for this, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Do you think that AS will change from miles flown to ticket price paid when it comes to mileage accrual?
2.If they do keep miles flown, how will it work when I fly AA and try to credit the miles to AS? If I fly let's say 1500 miles with AA, will I receive the 1500 miles on my AS account?
3. If I have MVP status with AS and fly AA will I receive 50% more miles on my AS account?
4. Do we know the exact date we can start earning AS miles on AA metal? I have a few trips coming up and this answer will determine who I book with.

I don’t think those details have been revealed, the answer to your questions would be speculative at beat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AS will be keeping a mileage-based program.

EA CO AS wrote:

AS will be keeping a mileage-based program.

I'd not make a long term bet on that. They kept it mile based as they needed to keep the program more appealing versus their competitors. Joining Oneworld negates that need to some degree and I'd expect AS's ranks would swell due to this difference (think mid-tier AAdvantage members moving to Alaska's program to generate more miles vs AA). Once the ranks swell with members that fly AA, but book AS, there will be pressure (investors / internal AS) to remove cost from the AS program and a revenue-based program will be the most likely path.

In 3 years it will be on its way to revenue-based for the above reasons. 

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

AS will be keeping a mileage-based program.

I'd not make a long term bet on that. They kept it mile based as they needed to keep the program more appealing versus their competitors. Joining Oneworld negates that need to some degree and I'd expect AS's ranks would swell due to this difference (think mid-tier AAdvantage members moving to Alaska's program to generate more miles vs AA). Once the ranks swell with members that fly AA, but book AS, there will be pressure (investors / internal AS) to remove cost from the AS program and a revenue-based program will be the most likely path.

In 3 years it will be on its way to revenue-based for the above reasons. 

I disagree. Revenue based programs work best when you can incentivize paid premium traffic, mostly on international flights. Since AS doesn’t receive the same benefit with partnerships or codeshares, and has a stronger leisure focus, mileage-based works well.

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

AS will be keeping a mileage-based program.

I'd not make a long term bet on that. They kept it mile based as they needed to keep the program more appealing versus their competitors. Joining Oneworld negates that need to some degree and I'd expect AS's ranks would swell due to this difference (think mid-tier AAdvantage members moving to Alaska's program to generate more miles vs AA). Once the ranks swell with members that fly AA, but book AS, there will be pressure (investors / internal AS) to remove cost from the AS program and a revenue-based program will be the most likely path.

In 3 years it will be on its way to revenue-based for the above reasons. 

I would absolutely make a long term bet on that. AS domestic route structure, combined with its global partner reach, makes revenue-based/dollar spend ineffective.

AS ranks will not swell. It doesn’t make sense. People who fly AA want the AA elite benefits that are not transferable to AS, specifically upgrades.

And AA flights in lower buckets will likely only earn 25% EQM. Combined with the increased requirement for partnered requal (you need to fly 25k minimum), that means somebody who only flies AA will need to fly 100,000 actual miles on AA to earn the lowest tier of Alaska status!

I believe "All" of us knew AS joining One World was a matter of time.

Excellent Thread by the way

As time progresses, I hope AS being in AA Colors / Livery doesn't happen. Alaska needs to stay - ALASKA!

enilria wrote:

runway23 wrote:

AA to make SEA an INT hub/launches SEA-BLR in Oct 20/AS to join OneWorld

Adding two flights does not make SEA a hub. It was already an AS hub. We will see if they add more.

And even if AA wanted a hub in Seattle, I don't think SEA has the capacity to add a third airline as a hub.

Seems to me, if an airline wants a hub in the PNW they should look at PDX.
Frankly I think it is much more pleasant airport (granted, we'll have to see what SEA looks like after the N-terminal and the international terminal are upgraded and completed).

OA412 wrote:

I think the point that people are missing is that outside a few select markets, DL has decided that ULH flying is not in the companies best interest. UA, and to a lesser extent AA, have decided otherwise. Time will tell who is correct, but ULH flights are very costly to operate and it really only makes sense when you have large hubs in major cities like UA does.

I have said this before on other threads. DL’s international network strategy is different that UA’s and AA’s.

However, SEA-BLR is a good example as to whether DL missed a “select markets” opportunity. Certainly DL is smart in analyzing future route potential and profitability.

The questions are:
Did DL underestimate SEA-BLR O&D nonstop demand?
Does AS’s feed into SEA make a case for SEA-BLR that DL would never have?
Is DL sitting back shaking their heads knowing this will not work for AA?
Are there other SEA to non-partner hubs (SkyTeam or oneworld) that are underserved nonstop?

If DL believes there is money to be made with a nonstop flight and/or overall market share in SEA will be at risk by not offering nonstop flights their customers (corporate and premium) want, DL will have a competitive response.

MAH4546 wrote:

AS ranks will not swell. It doesn’t make sense. People who fly AA want the AA elite benefits that are not transferable to AS, specifically upgrades.

It will be easier for many people to reach Oneworld Emerald/Saphire on Alaska than AA. There are many conditions of infrequent flyers that buy cheap J/W flights on AA than would earn many times more towards making Oneworld E/S on AS than AA.

What AA Platinum or Gold is getting upgrades, the benefits would be the same for an Alaska Oneworld Emerald/Saphire.

MAH4546 wrote:

And AA flights in lower buckets will likely only earn 25% EQM.

So a guess.

questions wrote:

OA412 wrote:

I think the point that people are missing is that outside a few select markets, DL has decided that ULH flying is not in the companies best interest. UA, and to a lesser extent AA, have decided otherwise. Time will tell who is correct, but ULH flights are very costly to operate and it really only makes sense when you have large hubs in major cities like UA does.

I have said this before on other threads. DL’s international network strategy is different that UA’s and AA’s.

However, SEA-BLR is a good example as to whether DL missed a “select markets” opportunity. Certainly DL is smart in analyzing future route potential and profitability.

The questions are:
Did DL underestimate SEA-BLR O&D nonstop demand?
Does AS’s feed into SEA make a case for SEA-BLR that DL would never have?
Is DL sitting back shaking their heads knowing this will not work for AA?
Are there other SEA to non-partner hubs (SkyTeam or oneworld) that are underserved nonstop?

If DL believes there is money to be made with a nonstop flight and/or overall market share in SEA will be at risk by not offering nonstop flights their customers (corporate and premium) want, DL will have a competitive response.

It is very simple DL does not have the planes for SEA-BLR. The 77Ls are all accounted for and that is the only machine DL has that could make the flight. DL is going to use JFK for their India flights, which is fine. NYC will get BLR eventually be it UA or DL.

AA did not have enough feed to make NYC work for them, so SEA and the west coast is where they threw their hat in for India, which makes a lot of sense for them.

dc10lover wrote:

As time progresses, I hope AS being in AA Colors / Livery doesn't happen. Alaska needs to stay - ALASKA!

I think before you see AS in AA livery you will see AA influence on AS in a lot of ways.

Enhancements...

We’re listening to you...

To better serve our customers...

We’re offering you more options than ever... (Just not the ones you want!)

There will be a lot of revenue and cost pressures on AS from the Street as they will be looking for earnings, earnings, earnings from this strategic partnership.

What you thought you were getting post new branding, e.g., new F, will go the way of mashed potatoes.

This is not about SEA.

This is all about providing flow to oneworld networks at LAX, SFO, PDX and SEA and investors will be looking to make sure AS is getting a significant earnings bump from the partnership. And when they don’t get enough, look for the adoption of AA’s race to the bottom tactics to enter the picture.

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

AS ranks will not swell. It doesn’t make sense. People who fly AA want the AA elite benefits that are not transferable to AS, specifically upgrades.

It will be easier for many people to reach Oneworld Emerald/Saphire on Alaska than AA. There are many conditions of infrequent flyers that buy cheap J/W flights on AA than would earn many times more towards making Oneworld E/S on AS than AA.

What AA Platinum or Gold is getting upgrades, the benefits would be the same for an Alaska Oneworld Emerald/Saphire.

MAH4546 wrote:

And AA flights in lower buckets will likely only earn 25% EQM.

So a guess.

Again, to earn that “fast” OW status they need to fly Alaska! You need to fly 5x the amount of miles on most coach fares to earn that status not flying Alaska! On Cathay, for example, OneWorld Ruby on coach would require flying 100k miles. Or between LA and HK 12 times!

Yea, there might be a handful of people who fly a lot of long haul J that will prefer to credit to AS, but that amount will be negligible, and likely already exists. If you are flying long haul premium, many of the OW elite benefits don’t matter. You get them with your ticket as is.

And it is hardly a guess. 25% is what AS elites flying AA internationally currently earn.

MAH4546 wrote:

And it is hardly a guess. 25% is what AS elites flying AA internationally currently earn.

Mileage Plan does not earn EQM today on AA, so I am not sure what you are on about that.

I have a bridge to sell you if you think AS is not going to have a favorable chart for AA when it comes to EQM/Bonus Miles/etc...

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

questions wrote:

OA412 wrote:

I think the point that people are missing is that outside a few select markets, DL has decided that ULH flying is not in the companies best interest. UA, and to a lesser extent AA, have decided otherwise. Time will tell who is correct, but ULH flights are very costly to operate and it really only makes sense when you have large hubs in major cities like UA does.

I have said this before on other threads. DL’s international network strategy is different that UA’s and AA’s.

However, SEA-BLR is a good example as to whether DL missed a “select markets” opportunity. Certainly DL is smart in analyzing future route potential and profitability.

The questions are:
Did DL underestimate SEA-BLR O&D nonstop demand?
Does AS’s feed into SEA make a case for SEA-BLR that DL would never have?
Is DL sitting back shaking their heads knowing this will not work for AA?
Are there other SEA to non-partner hubs (SkyTeam or oneworld) that are underserved nonstop?

If DL believes there is money to be made with a nonstop flight and/or overall market share in SEA will be at risk by not offering nonstop flights their customers (corporate and premium) want, DL will have a competitive response.

It is very simple DL does not have the planes for SEA-BLR. The 77Ls are all accounted for and that is the only machine DL has that could make the flight. DL is going to use JFK for their India flights, which is fine. NYC will get BLR eventually be it UA or DL.

AA did not have enough feed to make NYC work for them, so SEA and the west coast is where they threw their hat in for India, which makes a lot of sense for them.

I’ve seen folks here say the A350 can’t fly SEA-BLR, but the 787s can. My understanding is the A350 is Airbus’s answer to the
787? Is the 787 that much more capable, or for Airbuses sake they built a plane that was supposed to compete but didn’t?

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

And it is hardly a guess. 25% is what AS elites flying AA internationally currently earn.

Mileage Plan does not earn EQM today on AA, so I am not sure what you are on about that.

I have a bridge to sell you if you think AS is not going to have a favorable chart for AA when it comes to EQM/Bonus Miles/etc...

Mileage plan earns miles today on international flights. When EQM is added, like other partners, the rate will be the same as base miles. You are dead wrong in thinking they are going to be “favorable.” It’ll be 25% as it already is.

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/milea ... verview:AA