Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
strfyr51
Posts: 4903
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:30 pm

this makes NO sense. If they took over Virgin America who was flying FROM SFO? Then it wouldn't make sense to downgrade what they bought.
It makes as much sense as when USAir took over PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines )then abandoned San Diego where PSA was based along with their coastal dominance OF the West coast. including Hangars at SAN and SFO.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4903
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:50 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
it’s California’s business city...


It isn't. Ten seconds with stats on GDP shows the LA MSA has nearly a 2:1 advantage v. the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA. It doesn't matter if you include San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, either. If you knew the typical composition of U.S. GDP you'd know San Francisco couldn't have a bigger business sector by that detail alone.

so are you trying to convince US? or yourself. The Bay Area has money in all 4 pockets and all you have t do is look at the companies that are here from San Francisco east to Walnut Creek and Concord southwest to Freemont, San Jos,e and Cupertino. then North back up the West Bay thru San Mateo back to SFO. Show me another place in the USA with the Hi Tech companies and related Businesses. AS is doing themselves well flying from the Bay area.
 
User avatar
itripreport
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:59 pm

It's really hard to tell, since they did buy VX for their SFO network, but at the same time they seem to be focusing more on OAK and SJC traffic. Although who knows, maybe with the arrival of OW they might even rival to a small extent United's network at SFO.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:07 pm

itripreport wrote:
It's really hard to tell, since they did buy VX for their SFO network, but at the same time they seem to be focusing more on OAK and SJC traffic. Although who knows, maybe with the arrival of OW they might even rival to a small extent United's network at SFO.


They've done just about zero with their OAK offerings so far since the purchase. They're still basically at 2012/recession levels of service at OAK. Compared to kitchen sink attempts all over the map at SFO and SJC, they don't seem to be interested at all in developing anything out of OAK. They certainly have increased marketing in the East Bay, but with the implicit assumption that those customers will hopefully go to SFO to fly AS.
 
gmcc
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:50 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
itripreport wrote:
It's really hard to tell, since they did buy VX for their SFO network, but at the same time they seem to be focusing more on OAK and SJC traffic. Although who knows, maybe with the arrival of OW they might even rival to a small extent United's network at SFO.


They've done just about zero with their OAK offerings so far since the purchase. They're still basically at 2012/recession levels of service at OAK. Compared to kitchen sink attempts all over the map at SFO and SJC, they don't seem to be interested at all in developing anything out of OAK. They certainly have increased marketing in the East Bay, but with the implicit assumption that those customers will hopefully go to SFO to fly AS.


There is a compelling reason for their lack of growth at OAK, according to Wiki, 75% market share by WN verses only 41% at SFO for UA. AS market share in OAK is 5% vs 13% in SFO. Given WN fortress like hub at OAK, a west coast DAL if you like, coupled with SFO allotting gates by seat count ala SEA and the fact they paid 2.6 billion for the gate at SFO, I would expect that OAK will be an afterthought until SFO and SJC have been maxed out and the have extra capacity in the system.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:31 pm

gmcc wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
itripreport wrote:
It's really hard to tell, since they did buy VX for their SFO network, but at the same time they seem to be focusing more on OAK and SJC traffic. Although who knows, maybe with the arrival of OW they might even rival to a small extent United's network at SFO.


They've done just about zero with their OAK offerings so far since the purchase. They're still basically at 2012/recession levels of service at OAK. Compared to kitchen sink attempts all over the map at SFO and SJC, they don't seem to be interested at all in developing anything out of OAK. They certainly have increased marketing in the East Bay, but with the implicit assumption that those customers will hopefully go to SFO to fly AS.


There is a compelling reason for their lack of growth at OAK, according to Wiki, 75% market share by WN verses only 41% at SFO for UA. AS market share in OAK is 5% vs 13% in SFO. Given WN fortress like hub at OAK, a west coast DAL if you like, coupled with SFO allotting gates by seat count ala SEA and the fact they paid 2.6 billion for the gate at SFO, I would expect that OAK will be an afterthought until SFO and SJC have been maxed out and the have extra capacity in the system.


All true, but those market share numbers are not fully independent variables. If AS had decided to expand at OAK instead of SJC 5-10 years ago, the WN market share would be lower at OAK and higher at SJC. It's an outcome as well as a cause.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:48 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
it’s California’s business city...


It isn't. Ten seconds with stats on GDP shows the LA MSA has nearly a 2:1 advantage v. the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA. It doesn't matter if you include San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, either. If you knew the typical composition of U.S. GDP you'd know San Francisco couldn't have a bigger business sector by that detail alone.

so are you trying to convince US? or yourself. The Bay Area has money in all 4 pockets and all you have t do is look at the companies that are here from San Francisco east to Walnut Creek and Concord southwest to Freemont, San Jos,e and Cupertino. then North back up the West Bay thru San Mateo back to SFO. Show me another place in the USA with the Hi Tech companies and related Businesses. AS is doing themselves well flying from the Bay area.


The Bay Area has a great economy and all, but there is a reason why nearly every major airline has a hub/focus city in the LA area.

While LA doesn't have the flashy names that the Bay does, nearly every major corporation has at least some sort of presence in the LA region. Manufacturing, Shipping, Retail, Entertainment, Tourism, Aerospace, Defense, you name the industry & there is probably an industry cluster in the LA area.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
Flaps
Posts: 1645
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:53 pm

tphuang wrote:
Flaps wrote:
tphuang wrote:
It's amazing how quickly people get offended that JetBlue might do something well.


Can you provide any credible evidence that would imply they could?



You can never know what would've happened if B6 would have merged with VX. Obviously, there was a price that B6 felt comfortable given the other challenges in their network. But I could definitely have seen a couple of scenarios where this would've worked out.

First of all, VX made a lot of money in transcon markets that were not seeing anything more than domestic first. And the margins from those markets allowed them to finally turn a profit despite having a high CASM product with FC that was too luxurious for short haul. The reason this model died was because B6 added mint in a bunch of markets that had no lie flat product before. So if VX and B6 merged, mint expansion that we saw would not have happened. It would've remained just in JFK/BOS-LAX/SFO allowing VX product to continue to shine in markets like IAD/FLL-LAX/SFO or JFK/BOS-SAN/LAS. Maybe they could've put mint on LAX/SFO-HNL.

VX's prime time JFK slots + LGA/DCA slots would've helped B6 in allowing them to expand on BOS-LGA/DCA shuttle without sacrificing other routes, which have been a drain on their resources.

If they had the extra SFO/LAX gates, they would've been more focused on west coast, which most likely meant they would've not entered ATL and MSP until much later. DL buildup in BOS was triggered by the news of B6 entrance into ATL. To this day, ATL and MSP have been huge drain on their resources. A slower buildup in BOS likely would not have triggered legacy response in the market and kept the yield at BOS higher than what it is now.

Over at west coast, having additional LAX gates would've allowed them to drawdown LGB operation much sooner. They wasted a lot of money trying to slot squat back in 2017/2018 which would not have happened had LAX gates being available. Since VX was already in many of the intra-west coast markets, they could've just replaced those aircraft with E90s which would've worked a lot better on markets like SFO-LAX/SAN/PSP. These would still have been a drain on resources, but not any more than LGB's intra west coast stuff. And they could've put many of those A319/A320s with large FC cabin on midcon markets or non-premium transcon markets out of JFK/BOS where JetBlue currently have problems in.

And I know this is hard for AS supporters to admit, but the culture/product between B6 and VX was a better match. A lot of VX ff who did not stick around with AS would've stuck around with B6.

Now, you could disagree with the scenario I listed. But to say there is no way they could've made it work is absolutely ridiculous. I think AS could've made this merger with VX work a lot better if they had added markets slowly out of SFO instead of using the dart board strategy to trigger UA response. How many of those routes they added have stuck around as full year daily flights?


All well and good in theory but missing one very key point. That is a management team that could pull all of this together. I'm going to reiterate my previous point They can't seem to effectively manage what they have. How would/could they possibly pull off any of what you suggest above. I'm not knocking your points, they are valid in terms of their potential. The B6 management team however shows no signs whatsoever of being able to execute on that potential.
 
hereandthere41
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:31 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:11 am

I'm gonna wager that if the travel market continues downward and all the airlines have to make hard choices, AS will pull down SFO. In the long run, I don't think they can keep up with the largest carrier at SFO. They'll move those assets to SEA and PDX.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:35 am

I can't imagine AS would reduce its footprint in SFO but it does face more headwinds in competing with UA there than it did when it acquired VX. UA does have a scale at SFO that is going to help it hold on to and grow key corporate contracts. We already know it has a huge slice of Apple's travel dollar. UA is a stronger and more formidable competitor than it was just a couple of years ago. Of course, a prolonged downturn in the airline industry or an economic recession would throw some of the current dynamics into some changes. A recession could push AS into a merger and given the recent developments with oneworld and AA, an AS/AA tie up could become a reality. The real loser there would be WN
 
tphuang
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:59 am

Flaps wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Flaps wrote:

Can you provide any credible evidence that would imply they could?



You can never know what would've happened if B6 would have merged with VX. Obviously, there was a price that B6 felt comfortable given the other challenges in their network. But I could definitely have seen a couple of scenarios where this would've worked out.

First of all, VX made a lot of money in transcon markets that were not seeing anything more than domestic first. And the margins from those markets allowed them to finally turn a profit despite having a high CASM product with FC that was too luxurious for short haul. The reason this model died was because B6 added mint in a bunch of markets that had no lie flat product before. So if VX and B6 merged, mint expansion that we saw would not have happened. It would've remained just in JFK/BOS-LAX/SFO allowing VX product to continue to shine in markets like IAD/FLL-LAX/SFO or JFK/BOS-SAN/LAS. Maybe they could've put mint on LAX/SFO-HNL.

VX's prime time JFK slots + LGA/DCA slots would've helped B6 in allowing them to expand on BOS-LGA/DCA shuttle without sacrificing other routes, which have been a drain on their resources.

If they had the extra SFO/LAX gates, they would've been more focused on west coast, which most likely meant they would've not entered ATL and MSP until much later. DL buildup in BOS was triggered by the news of B6 entrance into ATL. To this day, ATL and MSP have been huge drain on their resources. A slower buildup in BOS likely would not have triggered legacy response in the market and kept the yield at BOS higher than what it is now.

Over at west coast, having additional LAX gates would've allowed them to drawdown LGB operation much sooner. They wasted a lot of money trying to slot squat back in 2017/2018 which would not have happened had LAX gates being available. Since VX was already in many of the intra-west coast markets, they could've just replaced those aircraft with E90s which would've worked a lot better on markets like SFO-LAX/SAN/PSP. These would still have been a drain on resources, but not any more than LGB's intra west coast stuff. And they could've put many of those A319/A320s with large FC cabin on midcon markets or non-premium transcon markets out of JFK/BOS where JetBlue currently have problems in.

And I know this is hard for AS supporters to admit, but the culture/product between B6 and VX was a better match. A lot of VX ff who did not stick around with AS would've stuck around with B6.

Now, you could disagree with the scenario I listed. But to say there is no way they could've made it work is absolutely ridiculous. I think AS could've made this merger with VX work a lot better if they had added markets slowly out of SFO instead of using the dart board strategy to trigger UA response. How many of those routes they added have stuck around as full year daily flights?


All well and good in theory but missing one very key point. That is a management team that could pull all of this together. I'm going to reiterate my previous point They can't seem to effectively manage what they have. How would/could they possibly pull off any of what you suggest above. I'm not knocking your points, they are valid in terms of their potential. The B6 management team however shows no signs whatsoever of being able to execute on that potential.

In the past 15 years, they have built what they have at Boston and South Florida out of scratch. And they have also built the most profitable product in the transcon market. Let's not make it sound like they are incapable of building anything good.
 
vadodara
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:56 am

jonair8 wrote:
... So far, it would appear they took what VX made and right sized all the routes it to make it more profitable. Expand modestly where AS already does well, and cutting markets that do not perform. It would appear AS is working on trying to do the simple stuff well out of SFO and trying to achieve guests on the profitable routes, then they will one day again slowly expand out of SFO, especially once they begin to take on more aircraft. Today, SFO is still decently sized for AS.

I just hope that one day AS will be a more formidable competitor to UA in SFO. It is a market that AS could definitely grow in. Based off AS's trigger happy changes to their network plans lately, who knows if AS will actually take the opportunity.


Precisely; in addition, lack of international service was probably going to be a factor in not gaining market share in tech-heavy SFO.

They have paid a substantial debt down, ready to purchase new aircraft, and now have an alliance with AA. I would guess they first expand this partnership at LAX but would think SFO also has a chance with OW partners.
 
SocalApproach
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:08 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:25 am

hereandthere41 wrote:
I'm gonna wager that if the travel market continues downward and all the airlines have to make hard choices, AS will pull down SFO. In the long run, I don't think they can keep up with the largest carrier at SFO. They'll move those assets to SEA and PDX.


They have already started moving their assets to SEA/PDX. Do people not understand this? UA is not worried about AS just like they were asleep at the wheel when VX was around. AS is not trying to go to battle with UA. Just do a random search on their website and look around for yourself. SFO-LAX for example I just did a random search for this fall and they operate it 14 times per day and 11 of those flights are operated by OO. When the "most west coast" thing first got announced and the VX integration was well underway who would have thought that California would be reduced to mostly regional flying? I certainly didn't
 
SonaSounds
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:24 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
Anybody have the raw number of flights for AS at SFO now, and AS+VX just before the merger?



At SFO

Summer 2017 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 178/25,727/9
VX - 439/64,546/22
Combined - 617/90,273/26*
*Overlapping network on some destinations



Summer 2020 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 666/81,359/28
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:01 am

Well I hope that puts an end to much of the gloom and doom about AS at SFO. The next few months will be interesting for ALL airlines...fasten your seat belts.
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:12 am

SonaSounds wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
Anybody have the raw number of flights for AS at SFO now, and AS+VX just before the merger?



At SFO

Summer 2017 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 178/25,727/9
VX - 439/64,546/22
Combined - 617/90,273/26*
*Overlapping network on some destinations


Summer 2020 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 666/81,359/28


Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:01 am

Aliqiout wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
Anybody have the raw number of flights for AS at SFO now, and AS+VX just before the merger?



At SFO

Summer 2017 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 178/25,727/9
VX - 439/64,546/22
Combined - 617/90,273/26*
*Overlapping network on some destinations


Summer 2020 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 666/81,359/28


Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:12 am

tphuang wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:


At SFO

Summer 2017 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 178/25,727/9
VX - 439/64,546/22
Combined - 617/90,273/26*
*Overlapping network on some destinations


Summer 2020 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 666/81,359/28


Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.


The data itself is extremely misleading, AS/VX announced a ton of new SFO flying that started in fall 2017, VX SFO-BWI/IND/KOA/BNA/MSY/MCO/PHL/RDU + AS SFO-MEX/ABQ/MSP/SNA/MCI

Probably need to do a comparison of S18 v S20 for the true picture to be clear
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:05 am

Midwestindy wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:

Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.


The data itself is extremely misleading, AS/VX announced a ton of new SFO flying that started in fall 2017, VX SFO-BWI/IND/KOA/BNA/MSY/MCO/PHL/RDU + AS SFO-MEX/ABQ/MSP/SNA/MCI

Probably need to do a comparison of S18 v S20 for the true picture to be clear

That would be interesting but not relevant to the claims of AS dismantling VX.
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:24 am

tphuang wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:


At SFO

Summer 2017 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 178/25,727/9
VX - 439/64,546/22
Combined - 617/90,273/26*
*Overlapping network on some destinations


Summer 2020 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 666/81,359/28


Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.

But we aren't trying to measure capacity here. We are trying to measure success. The industry standard for success is not capacity, it is profit. Replacing a transcon with a 1.5hr flight that brings in the same fare is not a retreat. The real question is, is AS making more profit in SFO than VX was?
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:29 am

Aliqiout wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
tphuang wrote:

Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.


The data itself is extremely misleading, AS/VX announced a ton of new SFO flying that started in fall 2017, VX SFO-BWI/IND/KOA/BNA/MSY/MCO/PHL/RDU + AS SFO-MEX/ABQ/MSP/SNA/MCI

Probably need to do a comparison of S18 v S20 for the true picture to be clear

That would be interesting but not relevant to the claims of AS dismantling VX.


AS & VX didn't fully merge until mid-2018, that is when the clock should start in terms of changes AS made to VX's previous network.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
USAirKid
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:59 am

Midwestindy wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:

The data itself is extremely misleading, AS/VX announced a ton of new SFO flying that started in fall 2017, VX SFO-BWI/IND/KOA/BNA/MSY/MCO/PHL/RDU + AS SFO-MEX/ABQ/MSP/SNA/MCI

Probably need to do a comparison of S18 v S20 for the true picture to be clear

That would be interesting but not relevant to the claims of AS dismantling VX.


AS & VX didn't fully merge until mid-2018, that is when the clock should start in terms of changes AS made to VX's previous network.


I'd argue the date where you have to start looking for changes is December 14, 2016, when the acquisition closed, and VX joined Alaska Air Group. So the spring/summer of 2017 would be the first time that AS could have realistically made changes to VX's network.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:13 am

It bears remembering that the reason another airline is able to "dismantle" VX's network is that VX was not doing well enough with it to avoid being taken over.

The VX network out of SFO was struggling long before AS entered the picture.
 
SocalApproach
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:08 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:22 am

NameOmitted wrote:
It bears remembering that the reason another airline is able to "dismantle" VX's network is that VX was not doing well enough with it to avoid being taken over.

The VX network out of SFO was struggling long before AS entered the picture.


There is no reason to rehash this debate for the millionth time. There are people who believe what you said above and there are people who will state VX was profitable at the time and technically the facts are VX was profitable at the time. Anything that could have/would have happened if VX didn't sell is just an opinion because there is no facts to back it up since we never actually got to see it.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:56 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:

Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.

But we aren't trying to measure capacity here. We are trying to measure success. The industry standard for success is not capacity, it is profit. Replacing a transcon with a 1.5hr flight that brings in the same fare is not a retreat. The real question is, is AS making more profit in SFO than VX was?

When you list the 2017 to 2020 comparisons on seats/flights, the question is whether they are adding or subtracting from SFO. I think the answer to that is quite obvious. Doesn't mean they can't change that down the road.

They have obviously changed their strategy in the past year to route everyone up and down the west coast to midcon/transcon destinations via SEA to support their SEA hub. All done to protect their position in SEA.

Why is there so much defensiveness? Frankly, we don't have enough data to show if they are more profitable now at SFO than VX was at SFO in 2016. My guess is no, because VX was actually quite profitable in the transcon markets in those few years before mint came along.
 
SonaSounds
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:49 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:

Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.


The data itself is extremely misleading, AS/VX announced a ton of new SFO flying that started in fall 2017, VX SFO-BWI/IND/KOA/BNA/MSY/MCO/PHL/RDU + AS SFO-MEX/ABQ/MSP/SNA/MCI

Probably need to do a comparison of S18 v S20 for the true picture to be clear


Given VX officially disappeared April 24th, 2018 there would be practically no summer 2018 to compare hence why I pulled the last real summer season VX operated, 2017.

I believe the point was to see how VX and AS operated separately before the merger. By fall of 2017 Alaska was more or less in the driver's seat calling the shots on the new routes for both airlines even though the merger was not finalized yet.
Last edited by SonaSounds on Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SonaSounds
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:56 pm

tphuang wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:


At SFO

Summer 2017 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 178/25,727/9
VX - 439/64,546/22
Combined - 617/90,273/26*
*Overlapping network on some destinations


Summer 2020 weekly flights/seats/destinations:

AS - 666/81,359/28


Thanks, as I suspected more flights and more destinations. I realize the combined seats are down, but this is a huge increase in seats for AS and a substantial increase for VX.

Reductions on flashy routes, but I wouldn't call this a retreat or a failure yet.


Well just on seats alone, it's down 10%.

Keep in mind what this doesn't show is ASM, which is the industry standard for capacity. A lot of the cuts/reductions have been transcon and midcon routes in exchange for more west coast stuff. That likely would mean even larger than 10% reduction in capacity.


Weekly ASMs for fun

Summer 2017:
VX - 86,174,974
AS - 19,571,913
Total - 105,746,887

Summer 2020:
AS - 93,950,778

~11.2% drop in ASMs....nearly in line with capacity change
 
S75752
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:38 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:19 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
The Bay Area has a great economy and all, but there is a reason why nearly every major airline has a hub/focus city in the LA area.

While LA doesn't have the flashy names that the Bay does, nearly every major corporation has at least some sort of presence in the LA region. Manufacturing, Shipping, Retail, Entertainment, Tourism, Aerospace, Defense, you name the industry & there is probably an industry cluster in the LA area.


While it is true that LA has much presence by sheer force of industry and population, one other reason why we may see AS scaling back SFO but not LAX is also that Los Angeles is the second largest Metro area in the US but has only one airport that isn't smothered by NIMBY's; LAX. (And ONT I guess, but that's rather distant to consider)

The population and economy is absolutely there for 2 or more airlines to have a focus city in the bay area for O&D, as it is both larger in population and economy than many other metros that do have 2 airlines focusing. Location may or may not be ideal for connections, but definitely better than LAX or SEA for domestic connections.

I think that the real issue with SFO though is that all 3 airports nearby are not only long haul capable, but also have basically full freedom for airlines to expand as much as they would like, and many do. AS has to consider their operations from SJC and OAK to avoid overcompeting with themselves. That said though, I'm not convinced that AS downsizing SFO is due to lack of success, it does seem like the VX purchase was much more of a move to reduce competition (especially the sheer tour de force that B6 would have become if they had gotten VX), than a move to gain much if any SFO network. AS next goal with their grown fleet may be to try and put the vice on DL at SEA.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:09 pm

I’m just hoping a full service carrier will decide to build SJC versus or as an alternative to driving to SFO. There are lots of people who drive to SFO but live, work or travel closer to SJC. Nothing against WN, I just prefer business class and reserved seating and so on.
 
Detroit313
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:12 pm

Only a merger with American Airlines will make Alaska viable at this point. Their networks are meant for each other.
 
ASFlyer
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:25 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:25 pm

Detroit313 wrote:
Only a merger with American Airlines will make Alaska viable at this point. Their networks are meant for each other.


AS is one of the more profitable airlines in the U.S. I would say they are “viable” right now.
 
gmcc
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:46 pm

Detroit313 wrote:
Only a merger with American Airlines will make Alaska viable at this point. Their networks are meant for each other.


Please tell me you are joking. AA can't as it is leverage at around 103% and AS won't as they have not reach their long term ROI goal of around 12% yet.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:53 pm

AirFiero wrote:
I’m just hoping a full service carrier will decide to build SJC versus or as an alternative to driving to SFO. There are lots of people who drive to SFO but live, work or travel closer to SJC. Nothing against WN, I just prefer business class and reserved seating and so on.


You already mostly have that with AS. I wish OAK had what AS offers at SJC. Be glad you don't just have WN.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:59 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
I’m just hoping a full service carrier will decide to build SJC versus or as an alternative to driving to SFO. There are lots of people who drive to SFO but live, work or travel closer to SJC. Nothing against WN, I just prefer business class and reserved seating and so on.


You already mostly have that with AS. I wish OAK had what AS offers at SJC. Be glad you don't just have WN.


That’s true, but will it last? With AS re-emphasizing SEA, and the merger with VX supposedly being about SFO, how reasonable is it to assume SJC won’t be sacrificed for SEA and SFO?
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:51 pm

SocalApproach wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
It bears remembering that the reason another airline is able to "dismantle" VX's network is that VX was not doing well enough with it to avoid being taken over.

The VX network out of SFO was struggling long before AS entered the picture.


There is no reason to rehash this debate for the millionth time. There are people who believe what you said above and there are people who will state VX was profitable at the time and technically the facts are VX was profitable at the time. Anything that could have/would have happened if VX didn't sell is just an opinion because there is no facts to back it up since we never actually got to see it.

It's funny that you are tired of this argument because of no facts, yet you keep talking about how AS is going to cut its mainline fleet and replace most of it with regional jets despite evidence to the contrary.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... bus-a321s/

SocalApproach wrote:
hereandthere41 wrote:
I'm gonna wager that if the travel market continues downward and all the airlines have to make hard choices, AS will pull down SFO. In the long run, I don't think they can keep up with the largest carrier at SFO. They'll move those assets to SEA and PDX.


They have already started moving their assets to SEA/PDX. Do people not understand this? UA is not worried about AS just like they were asleep at the wheel when VX was around. AS is not trying to go to battle with UA. Just do a random search on their website and look around for yourself. SFO-LAX for example I just did a random search for this fall and they operate it 14 times per day and 11 of those flights are operated by OO. When the "most west coast" thing first got announced and the VX integration was well underway who would have thought that California would be reduced to mostly regional flying? I certainly didn't


Just because AS uses E-jets on a lot of its SFO routes does not mean it's a failure. You seem to imply that because 11 of those 14 SFO-LAX flights are on regional jets, that we shouldn't take AS seriously. To me, that is the definition of competing. They are running a full schedule out of a hub dominated by another carrier, with flight times that people want... as opposed to running half as many flights, but using only mainline aircraft... or running a full schedule with mainline aircraft and having crummy load factors. Personally, I'd take an E-Jet any day of the week over sitting cattle class on a UA 737/A320.
 
vadodara
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:29 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
[
Weekly ASMs for fun

Summer 2017:
VX - 86,174,974
AS - 19,571,913
Total - 105,746,887

Summer 2020:
AS - 93,950,778

~11.2% drop in ASMs....nearly in line with capacity change


Interesting; the A321’s have been redeployed. Mainline replaced by RJ’s. Yet only 10% drop.

AS extremely profitable. Seems like UA may have a viable competitor.
 
SocalApproach
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:08 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:38 pm

msp747 wrote:
SocalApproach wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
It bears remembering that the reason another airline is able to "dismantle" VX's network is that VX was not doing well enough with it to avoid being taken over.

The VX network out of SFO was struggling long before AS entered the picture.


There is no reason to rehash this debate for the millionth time. There are people who believe what you said above and there are people who will state VX was profitable at the time and technically the facts are VX was profitable at the time. Anything that could have/would have happened if VX didn't sell is just an opinion because there is no facts to back it up since we never actually got to see it.

It's funny that you are tired of this argument because of no facts, yet you keep talking about how AS is going to cut its mainline fleet and replace most of it with regional jets despite evidence to the contrary.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... bus-a321s/

SocalApproach wrote:
hereandthere41 wrote:
I'm gonna wager that if the travel market continues downward and all the airlines have to make hard choices, AS will pull down SFO. In the long run, I don't think they can keep up with the largest carrier at SFO. They'll move those assets to SEA and PDX.


They have already started moving their assets to SEA/PDX. Do people not understand this? UA is not worried about AS just like they were asleep at the wheel when VX was around. AS is not trying to go to battle with UA. Just do a random search on their website and look around for yourself. SFO-LAX for example I just did a random search for this fall and they operate it 14 times per day and 11 of those flights are operated by OO. When the "most west coast" thing first got announced and the VX integration was well underway who would have thought that California would be reduced to mostly regional flying? I certainly didn't


Just because AS uses E-jets on a lot of its SFO routes does not mean it's a failure. You seem to imply that because 11 of those 14 SFO-LAX flights are on regional jets, that we shouldn't take AS seriously. To me, that is the definition of competing. They are running a full schedule out of a hub dominated by another carrier, with flight times that people want... as opposed to running half as many flights, but using only mainline aircraft... or running a full schedule with mainline aircraft and having crummy load factors. Personally, I'd take an E-Jet any day of the week over sitting cattle class on a UA 737/A320.


AS isn’t “going to cut its mainline fleet” they are. YOY the mainline fleet has shrunk while the regional fleet is getting larger. I used SFO-LAX as an example. And yes I do not take AS seriously because The California expansion as a whole has in fact been a failure and if you think AS returning airbuses right now as we speak while they take on more E-Jets and Parked 737maxs while also retreating back to Seattle isn’t a failure then we will have to agree to disagree. You see the thing is I actually have no issues personally with AS. I was on board with the plan they rolled out with several years ago but their actions have been the complete opposite so I’m out. I do not buy anything they are doing because they are not the national airline they claimed to want to be. I am not surprised at anything they do, or don’t do for that matter.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:10 pm

AirFiero wrote:
I’m just hoping a full service carrier will decide to build SJC versus or as an alternative to driving to SFO. There are lots of people who drive to SFO but live, work or travel closer to SJC. Nothing against WN, I just prefer business class and reserved seating and so on.

The Airport with the Lowest Fares has more Travelers.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:31 pm

dc10lover wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
I’m just hoping a full service carrier will decide to build SJC versus or as an alternative to driving to SFO. There are lots of people who drive to SFO but live, work or travel closer to SJC. Nothing against WN, I just prefer business class and reserved seating and so on.

The Airport with the Lowest Fares has more Travelers.


As tphuang might say, but what about revenue? First and business travelers typically “pay the freight” on an airlines income and profitability.
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:44 pm

SocalApproach wrote:
msp747 wrote:
SocalApproach wrote:

There is no reason to rehash this debate for the millionth time. There are people who believe what you said above and there are people who will state VX was profitable at the time and technically the facts are VX was profitable at the time. Anything that could have/would have happened if VX didn't sell is just an opinion because there is no facts to back it up since we never actually got to see it.

It's funny that you are tired of this argument because of no facts, yet you keep talking about how AS is going to cut its mainline fleet and replace most of it with regional jets despite evidence to the contrary.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... bus-a321s/

SocalApproach wrote:

They have already started moving their assets to SEA/PDX. Do people not understand this? UA is not worried about AS just like they were asleep at the wheel when VX was around. AS is not trying to go to battle with UA. Just do a random search on their website and look around for yourself. SFO-LAX for example I just did a random search for this fall and they operate it 14 times per day and 11 of those flights are operated by OO. When the "most west coast" thing first got announced and the VX integration was well underway who would have thought that California would be reduced to mostly regional flying? I certainly didn't


Just because AS uses E-jets on a lot of its SFO routes does not mean it's a failure. You seem to imply that because 11 of those 14 SFO-LAX flights are on regional jets, that we shouldn't take AS seriously. To me, that is the definition of competing. They are running a full schedule out of a hub dominated by another carrier, with flight times that people want... as opposed to running half as many flights, but using only mainline aircraft... or running a full schedule with mainline aircraft and having crummy load factors. Personally, I'd take an E-Jet any day of the week over sitting cattle class on a UA 737/A320.


AS isn’t “going to cut its mainline fleet” they are. YOY the mainline fleet has shrunk while the regional fleet is getting larger. I used SFO-LAX as an example. And yes I do not take AS seriously because The California expansion as a whole has in fact been a failure and if you think AS returning airbuses right now as we speak while they take on more E-Jets and Parked 737maxs while also retreating back to Seattle isn’t a failure then we will have to agree to disagree. You see the thing is I actually have no issues personally with AS. I was on board with the plan they rolled out with several years ago but their actions have been the complete opposite so I’m out. I do not buy anything they are doing because they are not the national airline they claimed to want to be. I am not surprised at anything they do, or don’t do for that matter.

So you're using a small sample size to make your argument, and then acknowledge they can't take delivery of their MAXs. Obviously they were supposed to have a few in the fleet by now, and several more this year. It seems apparent to me that they expect them in the fleet soon enough that they didn't think it was worth it to extend the leases on the Airbuses that left the fleet. And as that article I linked showed, AS plans to add a lot more mainline jets in the coming year.

Second off, their regional jet fleet has grown in the past few years, but it grew from a smaller turboprop and CRJ operation, flown entirely by QX... to a similar model that all the big airlines use, based on the more versatile E-Jets. And a large number of the E-Jets that they fly now replaced the entire CRJ-700 fleet and a lot of Q400s, which have been drawn down significantly. If there's a plane that's in danger of disappearing from their fleet, it's the Q400. I have also seen no evidence that they plan to add more E-Jets other than what they've had on order for years... which they would need to do to become a primarily regional jet airline.

As for SFO, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You see it as a retreat, I see it as a right-sizing. The fact that they will offer more destinations than they did in 2017 (according to that earlier post on this thread) and that they still offer a high number of flights a day suggests to me that they are very serious about remaining at SFO. Right now, they see more profits from those mainline planes in other places. It seems silly to fly bigger planes at SFO if they are not full, when they could be full if used on other routes. The fact that AS has almost paid off the merger tells me they know how to maximize profitability. IAD has more regional jet flying than mainline flying for UA, and the airline has said it's a highly profitable hub. Why can't that be the case for AS at SFO? And just because it is mostly regional jet now doesn't mean it will always be that way. DL started their SEA hub with mostly regional jets and is adding more and more mainline as they get established.

It also makes sense to me for them to strengthen their position on the west coast before expanding further into the Midwest and East. If you are just focused on California, maybe it doesn't look like they're doing anything, but from long-time AS stations like BOI and GEG, they are seeing things change for the better. From BOI, the only major west coast city AS doesn't currently fly direct to is SFO (they do fly twice daily to SJC). No other carrier can offer that, not even WN, who does compete on several of the routes. It seems smart to grow where you know your brand is strong and build up more loyalty and revenue, then push into uncharted waters.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:39 pm

Does Alaska still use any of the Boarding Area A Gates?
 
QXAS
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:55 pm

SocalApproach wrote:
msp747 wrote:
SocalApproach wrote:

There is no reason to rehash this debate for the millionth time. There are people who believe what you said above and there are people who will state VX was profitable at the time and technically the facts are VX was profitable at the time. Anything that could have/would have happened if VX didn't sell is just an opinion because there is no facts to back it up since we never actually got to see it.

It's funny that you are tired of this argument because of no facts, yet you keep talking about how AS is going to cut its mainline fleet and replace most of it with regional jets despite evidence to the contrary.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... bus-a321s/

SocalApproach wrote:

They have already started moving their assets to SEA/PDX. Do people not understand this? UA is not worried about AS just like they were asleep at the wheel when VX was around. AS is not trying to go to battle with UA. Just do a random search on their website and look around for yourself. SFO-LAX for example I just did a random search for this fall and they operate it 14 times per day and 11 of those flights are operated by OO. When the "most west coast" thing first got announced and the VX integration was well underway who would have thought that California would be reduced to mostly regional flying? I certainly didn't


Just because AS uses E-jets on a lot of its SFO routes does not mean it's a failure. You seem to imply that because 11 of those 14 SFO-LAX flights are on regional jets, that we shouldn't take AS seriously. To me, that is the definition of competing. They are running a full schedule out of a hub dominated by another carrier, with flight times that people want... as opposed to running half as many flights, but using only mainline aircraft... or running a full schedule with mainline aircraft and having crummy load factors. Personally, I'd take an E-Jet any day of the week over sitting cattle class on a UA 737/A320.


AS isn’t “going to cut its mainline fleet” they are. YOY the mainline fleet has shrunk while the regional fleet is getting larger. I used SFO-LAX as an example. And yes I do not take AS seriously because The California expansion as a whole has in fact been a failure and if you think AS returning airbuses right now as we speak while they take on more E-Jets and Parked 737maxs while also retreating back to Seattle isn’t a failure then we will have to agree to disagree. You see the thing is I actually have no issues personally with AS. I was on board with the plan they rolled out with several years ago but their actions have been the complete opposite so I’m out. I do not buy anything they are doing because they are not the national airline they claimed to want to be. I am not surprised at anything they do, or don’t do for that matter.

The Mainline Fleet has not shrunk. I don’t know where or how that myth started, nor do I care. It hasn’t gotten much bigger. But it has not shrunk.

Since April 24, 2018 Alaska Airlines has taken delivery of:
4 Airbus A321NEO
11 Boeing 737-900ER
10 aircraft in 2018
5 aircraft in 2019
Since the same date:
1 A320 Stored in 2019
1 A320 Returned to lessor in 2020

Some simple math: 15-2=13

The Alaska Airlines’ Mainline fleet has not shrunk. Assuming Boeing gets their stuff together, that will continue to be the case. Has growth been slow? For sure. But there has been growth.

Horizon Air has retired 16 Q400 aircraft since April 24, 2018 and taken delivery of 17 Embraer 175 aircraft.

SkyWest has taken delivery of 7 E175 on behalf of AS in the same timeframe.

Mainline Fleet Growth since Merger: 13 Frames
Regional Fleet Growth since Merger: 8 Frames

All data courtesy of airfleets.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
gmcc
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

Re: Is Alaska struggling at SFO?

Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:03 am

blacksoviet wrote:
Does Alaska still use any of the Boarding Area A Gates?

According to AS website yes but only for arrivals. No mention if it is for only international arrivals or for all arrivals.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos