panamair wrote:

TW870 wrote:

Thank you as always enilria for the exhausting work.

I am reading that right that Delta still thinks that Athens and Lisbon are going to start in late July? It looks like Madrid and Milan (among many others) don't come back at all in July. Obviously this is all speculative, as it is only a projection that the Greek beaches are going to be opened to tourism. My guess is you may see those routes fall away as well.

Also I see a second DTW-ICN. Would I be right that this is being flown in part to serve cargo demand?

I believe Greece and Portugal have indicated they would welcome tourists this summer without a mandatory quarantine so I guess Delta is hanging on to these two at the moment. For now, both JFK-ATH and JFK-LIS are planned to restart the second half of July at 4x weekly. They also downgauged JFK-ATH from an A333 to a 763ER given the paucity of cruise traffic.

As for the second DTW-ICN, this is actually part of their attempts to resume flights to PVG from both DTW and SEA (hence you also see ICN-SEA going from 0.5 to 1.5 in June). What's loaded so far are DTW-ICN-PVG and SEA-ICN-PVG - hence from an OAG perspective, what you see is an increase in DTW-ICN and SEA-ICN but with DTW-PVG and SEA-PVG going to zero. Like the all-cargo flights they are operating currently into PVG, they involve a 'techincal' stop at ICN for a crew change. I believe this is done so that the crew do not have to layover in China (I think China may still have a restriction on foreigners staying over). The second DTW-ICN and SEA-ICN are both not for sale - for those flights, they are only selling to pax traveling DTW-PVG and SEA-PVG.

Thanks so much for the informative reply!

enilria wrote:

VX purchase is seeming smart
**AS JFK-LAX JUL 5>0[5] AUG 5>0[5] SEP 5>0[5]

Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. I think most people here realize that the purchase was necessary to prevent B6 from gaining a strong foothold along the west coast. Had they been successful in their purchase of VX they likely would have a more robust west coast network than they do currently and AS would have had one more competitor up and down the coast to contend with. Temporarily ceasing a route that is probably over served, given the situation, doesn't seem a bad idea. VX was going away any way you look at it.

a320flyer wrote:

lugie wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Not sure if DL will cut further. But here are the coastal hubs/focus cities # of flights after initial cut.
SEA - 76
LAX - 57
JFK - 36
LGA - 47
BOS - 23
RDU - 13
CVG - 12

SEA seems to be coming back nicely and LAX is seeing a big increase over June. NYC is coming back with LGA first and JFK is quite slow. BOS is still just hubs + 1x to MCO/TPA. RDU/CVG are just hubs

How likely do you think it is that these focus cities (especially RDU and CVG) are going to return to their pre-Covid sizes? Since you had pointed out that those are the only two that have regained service to only to hubs so far I compared the new July schedule to what had originally been planned (total daily departures with number of destinations in brackets) and the difference is huge:

CVG 63.9 [30] -> 12 [4]
RDU 72.8 [27] -> 13 [4]

CVG will still see its departures cut by 81.22% and destinations offered by 86.7% in July, which is supposedly already part of the recovery trajectory... At RDU it's -82.14% for departures and -85.19% for destinations.
Does this spell the indefinite end for DL's focus cities?

Not at all. These reductions are no worse than any other city on this list (CVG is at 15, that data is wrong). CVG/RDU are a fraction of the size of SEA/BOS/LAX/NYC, so it's unreasonable to assume they will be reduced similarly. About half of CVG's seats were to other hubs pre-COVID (8xATL, 6xDTW, 6xLGA, 5xMSP, 5xBOS, 2xJFK, 2xSLC, 2xLAX, 1xSEA = 37 out of 82 flights), so even with the recent improvements, CVG/RDU aren't going to see non-hub routes for another few months.

Leisure routes will return first and demand is already picking up on these (hence the 5x to Atlanta). Given the business contracts between Cincinnati companies and DL, what routes return will be based on what they fill. The most recent updates from CVG/DL were that some routes will return starting in September.

Alright, let's do some math here.

DL is scheduling here around 27 to 28% of their pre-COVID schedule in terms of number of flights (1500 out of 5500 previously). The comments so far have indicated about running a 70% schedule by Q3 of 2021 and under 75% by end of 2021. Let's say they get to a little more than 80% by end of 2022, 85 to 90% by end of 2023, close to 95% by end of 2024 and pre-COVID size by 2025. That seems a reasonable recovery schedule to me since TATL/TPAC will probably take that many years to recover. If we get a multi-year depression (which could happen), then we might get a scenario of 80% by end of 2022, 90% by 2025 and full recovery by 2027.

Anyhow, you are looking at about 2.5 times the number of flight for Q3 2021 and 3 times the number of flight by end of 2022.

That would bring these total to
SEA - 76 -> 190
LAX - 57 -> 143
JFK - 36 -> 90
LGA - 47 -> 118
BOS - 23 -> 58
RDU - 13 -> 33
CVG - 15 -> 38
by Q3 2021

and by end of 2022.
SEA -> 225 to 230
LAX -> 170 to 180
JFK -> 110 to 120
LGA -> 140 to 150
BOS -> 65 to 70
RDU -> 40?
CVG -> 45

out of this, the only adjustment I'd make is that maybe SEA won't add back as quickly and I think LGA gets back to 250 by the time slot waiver ends and I'd imagine JFK gets added back soon too. Maybe the core hubs didn't get cut down as much and won't need to add back as many flights, but I also don't see JFK/LGA having under 400 flights a day by the time slot waiver ends. Seems to me BOS/RDU/CVG are permanently downsized. And SEA will exceed its pre-COVID size before other stations. And possibly LAX too.

tphuang wrote:

a320flyer wrote:

lugie wrote:

How likely do you think it is that these focus cities (especially RDU and CVG) are going to return to their pre-Covid sizes? Since you had pointed out that those are the only two that have regained service to only to hubs so far I compared the new July schedule to what had originally been planned (total daily departures with number of destinations in brackets) and the difference is huge:

CVG 63.9 [30] -> 12 [4]
RDU 72.8 [27] -> 13 [4]

CVG will still see its departures cut by 81.22% and destinations offered by 86.7% in July, which is supposedly already part of the recovery trajectory... At RDU it's -82.14% for departures and -85.19% for destinations.
Does this spell the indefinite end for DL's focus cities?

Not at all. These reductions are no worse than any other city on this list (CVG is at 15, that data is wrong). CVG/RDU are a fraction of the size of SEA/BOS/LAX/NYC, so it's unreasonable to assume they will be reduced similarly. About half of CVG's seats were to other hubs pre-COVID (8xATL, 6xDTW, 6xLGA, 5xMSP, 5xBOS, 2xJFK, 2xSLC, 2xLAX, 1xSEA = 37 out of 82 flights), so even with the recent improvements, CVG/RDU aren't going to see non-hub routes for another few months.

Leisure routes will return first and demand is already picking up on these (hence the 5x to Atlanta). Given the business contracts between Cincinnati companies and DL, what routes return will be based on what they fill. The most recent updates from CVG/DL were that some routes will return starting in September.

Alright, let's do some math here.

DL is scheduling here around 27 to 28% of their pre-COVID schedule in terms of number of flights (1500 out of 5500 previously). The comments so far have indicated about running a 70% schedule by Q3 of 2021 and under 75% by end of 2021. Let's say they get to a little more than 80% by end of 2022, 85 to 90% by end of 2023, close to 95% by end of 2024 and pre-COVID size by 2025. That seems a reasonable recovery schedule to me since TATL/TPAC will probably take that many years to recover. If we get a multi-year depression (which could happen), then we might get a scenario of 80% by end of 2022, 90% by 2025 and full recovery by 2027.

Anyhow, you are looking at about 2.5 times the number of flight for Q3 2021 and 3 times the number of flight by end of 2022.

That would bring these total to
SEA - 76 -> 190
LAX - 57 -> 143
JFK - 36 -> 90
LGA - 47 -> 118
BOS - 23 -> 58
RDU - 13 -> 33
CVG - 15 -> 38
by Q3 2021

and by end of 2022.
SEA -> 225 to 230
LAX -> 170 to 180
JFK -> 110 to 120
LGA -> 140 to 150
BOS -> 65 to 70
RDU -> 40?
CVG -> 45

out of this, the only adjustment I'd make is that maybe SEA won't add back as quickly and I think LGA gets back to 250 by the time slot waiver ends and I'd imagine JFK gets added back soon too. Maybe the core hubs didn't get cut down as much and won't need to add back as many flights, but I also don't see JFK/LGA having under 400 flights a day by the time slot waiver ends. Seems to me BOS/RDU/CVG are permanently downsized. And SEA will exceed its pre-COVID size before other stations. And possibly LAX too.

The rebound is kinda getting skewed because the normal year schedules grow in the summer as well

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

alasizon wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

This probably has more to do with the AA/OW partnership.

AA already has Skywest resuming Eagle flights to LAX in the schedule. One of those departs Fresno only 20 minutes earlier than the first of these AS flights.

These AS flights then mean it will be 5X daily FAT-LAX for a AS/AA/OW combination on a mix of E75s and CR7s.

The notion that it has to do with AA/OW isn't true. First, they still can't coordinate domestic schedules without a JV, second AS isn't a member yet and third, placing a flight 20 minutes apart isn't exactly going to drive some new great synergy that didn't previously exist.

That is what I was trying to say by mentioning the AA flights, but I did a lousy job of explaining what I meant.

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cabin fever.
Impatience.
Stupidity.

tphuang wrote:

a320flyer wrote:

lugie wrote:

How likely do you think it is that these focus cities (especially RDU and CVG) are going to return to their pre-Covid sizes? Since you had pointed out that those are the only two that have regained service to only to hubs so far I compared the new July schedule to what had originally been planned (total daily departures with number of destinations in brackets) and the difference is huge:

CVG 63.9 [30] -> 12 [4]
RDU 72.8 [27] -> 13 [4]

CVG will still see its departures cut by 81.22% and destinations offered by 86.7% in July, which is supposedly already part of the recovery trajectory... At RDU it's -82.14% for departures and -85.19% for destinations.
Does this spell the indefinite end for DL's focus cities?

Not at all. These reductions are no worse than any other city on this list (CVG is at 15, that data is wrong). CVG/RDU are a fraction of the size of SEA/BOS/LAX/NYC, so it's unreasonable to assume they will be reduced similarly. About half of CVG's seats were to other hubs pre-COVID (8xATL, 6xDTW, 6xLGA, 5xMSP, 5xBOS, 2xJFK, 2xSLC, 2xLAX, 1xSEA = 37 out of 82 flights), so even with the recent improvements, CVG/RDU aren't going to see non-hub routes for another few months.

Leisure routes will return first and demand is already picking up on these (hence the 5x to Atlanta). Given the business contracts between Cincinnati companies and DL, what routes return will be based on what they fill. The most recent updates from CVG/DL were that some routes will return starting in September.

Alright, let's do some math here.

DL is scheduling here around 27 to 28% of their pre-COVID schedule in terms of number of flights (1500 out of 5500 previously). The comments so far have indicated about running a 70% schedule by Q3 of 2021 and under 75% by end of 2021. Let's say they get to a little more than 80% by end of 2022, 85 to 90% by end of 2023, close to 95% by end of 2024 and pre-COVID size by 2025. That seems a reasonable recovery schedule to me since TATL/TPAC will probably take that many years to recover. If we get a multi-year depression (which could happen), then we might get a scenario of 80% by end of 2022, 90% by 2025 and full recovery by 2027.

Anyhow, you are looking at about 2.5 times the number of flight for Q3 2021 and 3 times the number of flight by end of 2022.

That would bring these total to
SEA - 76 -> 190
LAX - 57 -> 143
JFK - 36 -> 90
LGA - 47 -> 118
BOS - 23 -> 58
RDU - 13 -> 33
CVG - 15 -> 38
by Q3 2021

and by end of 2022.
SEA -> 225 to 230
LAX -> 170 to 180
JFK -> 110 to 120
LGA -> 140 to 150
BOS -> 65 to 70
RDU -> 40?
CVG -> 45

out of this, the only adjustment I'd make is that maybe SEA won't add back as quickly and I think LGA gets back to 250 by the time slot waiver ends and I'd imagine JFK gets added back soon too. Maybe the core hubs didn't get cut down as much and won't need to add back as many flights, but I also don't see JFK/LGA having under 400 flights a day by the time slot waiver ends. Seems to me BOS/RDU/CVG are permanently downsized. And SEA will exceed its pre-COVID size before other stations. And possibly LAX too.

Just wondering if DL has said anything about what the potential future of RDU would be? I see they kinda talk about other hubs/focus cities but I don’t see them actually say anything about RDU. Or did I miss something? I saw they said other station CDG flights were pushed out until 2021 but nothing about RDU. I saw they said other stations may not have as many flights return but nothing about RDU. Does this mean they don’t know yet or what?

jfklganyc wrote:

sunking737 wrote:

At this point in time, the biggest surprise is the fact anyone is flying any airline period.

You have the mindset of 4 weeks ago.

Flights are filling up, people are on the move again

I flew this week on business. Flights will slowly fill up on cheap fares until the next spike shutdown, or bankruptcy.
I saw a LOT of idiots not following the rules, even on an airline I applaud for doing as much right as they can, under the circumstances. The next airline passenger super-spreader is inevitable.

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

Leisure travel typically picks up faster than business travel.

Unfortunately, the best information is the Allegiant 1Q2020 call where the verbal was much more comprehensive than the written:

http://ir.allegiantair.com/events/event ... rence-call

"Historically, Leisure traffic is the first to recover"

In the call, noted in 2009 leisure traffic started to recover in one quarter.

Lightsaber

ASFlyer wrote:

enilria wrote:

VX purchase is seeming smart
**AS JFK-LAX JUL 5>0[5] AUG 5>0[5] SEP 5>0[5]

Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. I think most people here realize that the purchase was necessary to prevent B6 from gaining a strong foothold along the west coast. Had they been successful in their purchase of VX they likely would have a more robust west coast network than they do currently and AS would have had one more competitor up and down the coast to contend with. Temporarily ceasing a route that is probably over served, given the situation, doesn't seem a bad idea. VX was going away any way you look at it.

That's complete nonsense. B6's focus has always been on the east coast. Even a purchase of VX would not have changed that. Winning BOS is far more important than being a 5th place airline at LAX or 3rd place airline at SFO. Frankly with the current COVID crisis, B6 will get all the gates it would want in the near to medium term at LAX and SFO. It's focus is on NYC and BOS. This crisis has given them the opening to own much larger market share in both markets and that's what they care about. It will worry about west coast once it is on its way to completing east coast buildout, not before that.

AS overpaid for VX. It bought VX at the height of airlines stock prices. All the assets AS got for VX purchase can now basically be gotten for a fraction of the prices. That's what happens when you acquire assets at height of their value rather than at their basement.

On SQ26/25, is there a down-gauge of equipment proposed? With the A380 now very uneconomical, I'd expect a 4-class B77W or a 3-class (253-seat) A359 to fly the route instead upon resumption (EWR will, of course, be on the 161-seat A359).

As for AY, it makes sense for them to just cut back North America to JFK for now...which would place every wide-body route in a 1-aircraft rotation. This can be on a high-density A333.

Now, regarding AS ending LAX-JFK, I suspect that AS really wanted the VX slots on the West Coast end. Where could B6 use those slots? B6 appears to be sitting pretty with VFR and regional travel likely to come back more quickly. Yields from Florida will be problematic for a while though.

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

enilria wrote:

VX purchase is seeming smart
**AS JFK-LAX JUL 5>0[5] AUG 5>0[5] SEP 5>0[5]

Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. I think most people here realize that the purchase was necessary to prevent B6 from gaining a strong foothold along the west coast. Had they been successful in their purchase of VX they likely would have a more robust west coast network than they do currently and AS would have had one more competitor up and down the coast to contend with. Temporarily ceasing a route that is probably over served, given the situation, doesn't seem a bad idea. VX was going away any way you look at it.

That's complete nonsense. B6's focus has always been on the east coast. Even a purchase of VX would not have changed that. Winning BOS is far more important than being a 5th place airline at LAX or 3rd place airline at SFO. Frankly with the current COVID crisis, B6 will get all the gates it would want in the near to medium term at LAX and SFO. It's focus is on NYC and BOS. This crisis has given them the opening to own much larger market share in both markets and that's what they care about. It will worry about west coast once it is on its way to completing east coast buildout, not before that.

AS overpaid for VX. It bought VX at the height of airlines stock prices. All the assets AS got for VX purchase can now basically be gotten for a fraction of the prices. That's what happens when you acquire assets at height of their value rather than at their basement.

actually - your post is mostly nonsense. Except for the part about Alaska overpaying for VX - but that's been discussed ad nauseam here, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. We all know that. The rest of your post is nonsense. B6 was trying to buy VX to gain a foothold on the west coast. Pure and simple. They certainly weren't trying to get hold of a bunch of second hand Airbus 320's and 319's - or the order for 320 NEO's. As for AS, they are in a much better position on the west coast than they would have been had B6 won the bidding war for VX... and it shows in the difference between B6's stock price and that of AS'.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

Cheap fares, likely but putting this all on millennials? Get real. Dismissal of the risks of Covid cut across generational lines.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

Should they hide inside for the 99.8% survival rate in their age group

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. I think most people here realize that the purchase was necessary to prevent B6 from gaining a strong foothold along the west coast. Had they been successful in their purchase of VX they likely would have a more robust west coast network than they do currently and AS would have had one more competitor up and down the coast to contend with. Temporarily ceasing a route that is probably over served, given the situation, doesn't seem a bad idea. VX was going away any way you look at it.

That's complete nonsense. B6's focus has always been on the east coast. Even a purchase of VX would not have changed that. Winning BOS is far more important than being a 5th place airline at LAX or 3rd place airline at SFO. Frankly with the current COVID crisis, B6 will get all the gates it would want in the near to medium term at LAX and SFO. It's focus is on NYC and BOS. This crisis has given them the opening to own much larger market share in both markets and that's what they care about. It will worry about west coast once it is on its way to completing east coast buildout, not before that.

AS overpaid for VX. It bought VX at the height of airlines stock prices. All the assets AS got for VX purchase can now basically be gotten for a fraction of the prices. That's what happens when you acquire assets at height of their value rather than at their basement.

actually - your post is mostly nonsense. Except for the part about Alaska overpaying for VX - but that's been discussed ad nauseam here, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. We all know that. The rest of your post is nonsense. B6 was trying to buy VX to gain a foothold on the west coast. Pure and simple. They certainly weren't trying to get hold of a bunch of second hand Airbus 320's and 319's - or the order for 320 NEO's. As for AS, they are in a much better position on the west coast than they would have been had B6 won the bidding war for VX... and it shows in the difference between B6's stock price and that of AS'.

B6 was willing to buy VX at a price to expand, but west coast will never be its priority. To say that B6 will suddenly become this great west coast competitor to WN and AS is very unrealistic. Remember, VX's A320 product and customer base + company culture would've probably fit much better with B6 than AS, so merger considerations were not just about 4 gates at LAX and 7 to 10 gates at SFO. They would not have spent all that money getting mint aircraft if they could've just used VX A320s for those routes. The VX A320 fleet would've continued to perform well on transcon market with a little cabin refresh and no mint presence. And any new A321 delivery for them would've been used to add capacity on the Northeast to Florida/Caribbean markets.

There were also some slots/gates on the east coast that have more value to B6 than WN. 11 slots at JFK, EWR time "slots", 6 slots at LGA and 5 slots at DCA alone would've been worth close to $300 million to JetBlue at the time.

The reality is if B6 actually got VX's assets on west coast, it would've been in trouble the moment DL starts to build up at BOS. JetBlue simply does not have enough of a solid foundation to sustain 2 coast operation under attack. AS was always in a strong position to make acquisition than B6. So, losing out on that VX acquisition really didn't matter that much.

There is an opportunity in the next 2 or 3 years for JetBlue to consolidate its position in Boston (with DL retreating) and NYC (with a lot of slots becoming available) and begin the important task of flying to Europe. 12 out of 17 A321 deliveries of A321s in next 2 years are LR variant. That should show you where their priorities lie. There are so many things opening up from COVID on the east coast even outside of NYC/BOS:
- IAD is likely to get a lot of cuts from UA and have mass number of gates becoming available
- RDU is likely to see huge cuts by DL and have gates available
- MIA/FLL will see large cuts from AA and WN and probably B6
- MCO has new terminal and capacity will be way down
Until they get their house in order on the east coast, expecting to be a rival on the west coast is just not realistic.

amadorE175 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

Cheap fares, likely but putting this all on millennials? Get real. Dismissal of the risks of Covid cut across generational lines.

I have been on two flights this week to a beach city. That only reinforced my opinion.

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. I think most people here realize that the purchase was necessary to prevent B6 from gaining a strong foothold along the west coast. Had they been successful in their purchase of VX they likely would have a more robust west coast network than they do currently and AS would have had one more competitor up and down the coast to contend with. Temporarily ceasing a route that is probably over served, given the situation, doesn't seem a bad idea. VX was going away any way you look at it.

That's complete nonsense. B6's focus has always been on the east coast. Even a purchase of VX would not have changed that. Winning BOS is far more important than being a 5th place airline at LAX or 3rd place airline at SFO. Frankly with the current COVID crisis, B6 will get all the gates it would want in the near to medium term at LAX and SFO. It's focus is on NYC and BOS. This crisis has given them the opening to own much larger market share in both markets and that's what they care about. It will worry about west coast once it is on its way to completing east coast buildout, not before that.

AS overpaid for VX. It bought VX at the height of airlines stock prices. All the assets AS got for VX purchase can now basically be gotten for a fraction of the prices. That's what happens when you acquire assets at height of their value rather than at their basement.

actually - your post is mostly nonsense. Except for the part about Alaska overpaying for VX - but that's been discussed ad nauseam here, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. We all know that. The rest of your post is nonsense. B6 was trying to buy VX to gain a foothold on the west coast. Pure and simple. They certainly weren't trying to get hold of a bunch of second hand Airbus 320's and 319's - or the order for 320 NEO's. As for AS, they are in a much better position on the west coast than they would have been had B6 won the bidding war for VX... and it shows in the difference between B6's stock price and that of AS'.

That makes sense. AS had critical mass on the West Coast before the VX acquisition (SEA, SFO, PDX, LAX) and the VX/AS deal gave it more at SFO and LAX principally. While I don't entirely disagree that AS paid a premium to acquire VX, the statement that AS got VX assets for what now can be a fraction of the price is an irrelevant and unfair comparison as the entire industry's stock profile has essentially tanked. B6 focused on East-West transcon service for a while and de-emphasized it long ago in favor of building out BOS, FLL, JFK even further. For B6 to have been more of a presence on the intra-west coast market, it would have had to commit more capital, people, planes, and resources there and I am not sure acquiring VX would have accomplished that.

If AS does struggle on transcons (I am not saying it does definitively) particularly to the NY Area, it is more likely due to the fact that it does not offer the most competitive product and is operating in a crowded field. The big 3 all offer better premium products (and more seats) and capture more East Coast originating demand than AS does. B6, with Mint, has an edge as well.

If the industry rebounds, I wonder what the AS/AA codeshare expansion means for some of AS transcons and for AA's footprint on the West Coast post-COVID.

FlyingElvii wrote:

amadorE175 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

Cheap fares, likely but putting this all on millennials? Get real. Dismissal of the risks of Covid cut across generational lines.

I have been on two flights this week to a beach city. That only reinforced my opinion.

Gosh dagnit why are all these millennials doing the exactly same thing I’m currently doing

FlyingElvii wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

You absolutely couldnt be more wrong. Been flying a lot and I would say 50-70% of passengers are elderly (5 wheelchairs the other day!!!) actually everytime Im outside most people outside are the “vulnerable” ones. So check again.

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

That's complete nonsense. B6's focus has always been on the east coast. Even a purchase of VX would not have changed that. Winning BOS is far more important than being a 5th place airline at LAX or 3rd place airline at SFO. Frankly with the current COVID crisis, B6 will get all the gates it would want in the near to medium term at LAX and SFO. It's focus is on NYC and BOS. This crisis has given them the opening to own much larger market share in both markets and that's what they care about. It will worry about west coast once it is on its way to completing east coast buildout, not before that.

AS overpaid for VX. It bought VX at the height of airlines stock prices. All the assets AS got for VX purchase can now basically be gotten for a fraction of the prices. That's what happens when you acquire assets at height of their value rather than at their basement.

actually - your post is mostly nonsense. Except for the part about Alaska overpaying for VX - but that's been discussed ad nauseam here, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. We all know that. The rest of your post is nonsense. B6 was trying to buy VX to gain a foothold on the west coast. Pure and simple. They certainly weren't trying to get hold of a bunch of second hand Airbus 320's and 319's - or the order for 320 NEO's. As for AS, they are in a much better position on the west coast than they would have been had B6 won the bidding war for VX... and it shows in the difference between B6's stock price and that of AS'.

B6 was willing to buy VX at a price to expand, but west coast will never be its priority. To say that B6 will suddenly become this great west coast competitor to WN and AS is very unrealistic. Remember, VX's A320 product and customer base + company culture would've probably fit much better with B6 than AS, so merger considerations were not just about 4 gates at LAX and 7 to 10 gates at SFO. They would not have spent all that money getting mint aircraft if they could've just used VX A320s for those routes. The VX A320 fleet would've continued to perform well on transcon market with a little cabin refresh and no mint presence. And any new A321 delivery for them would've been used to add capacity on the Northeast to Florida/Caribbean markets.

There were also some slots/gates on the east coast that have more value to B6 than WN. 11 slots at JFK, EWR time "slots", 6 slots at LGA and 5 slots at DCA alone would've been worth close to $300 million to JetBlue at the time.

The reality is if B6 actually got VX's assets on west coast, it would've been in trouble the moment DL starts to build up at BOS. JetBlue simply does not have enough of a solid foundation to sustain 2 coast operation under attack. AS was always in a strong position to make acquisition than B6. So, losing out on that VX acquisition really didn't matter that much.

There is an opportunity in the next 2 or 3 years for JetBlue to consolidate its position in Boston (with DL retreating) and NYC (with a lot of slots becoming available) and begin the important task of flying to Europe. 12 out of 17 A321 deliveries of A321s in next 2 years are LR variant. That should show you where their priorities lie. There are so many things opening up from COVID on the east coast even outside of NYC/BOS:
- IAD is likely to get a lot of cuts from UA and have mass number of gates becoming available
- RDU is likely to see huge cuts by DL and have gates available
- MIA/FLL will see large cuts from AA and WN and probably B6
- MCO has new terminal and capacity will be way down
Until they get their house in order on the east coast, expecting to be a rival on the west coast is just not realistic.

Nobody is denying that B6 is focused on BOS and JFK. Nor is anybody saying that B6 couldn’t find some additional gate space at LAX and SFO right now if they wanted it. That said, when B6 was in a bidding war with AS to buy VX the landscape was vastly different and buying VX was a way for them to get more space at two airports that didn’t have it at the time. So you can stop going on and on about what you think B6’s strategy is today - that’s not what I’m talking about. B6 was trying to buy VX because they were trying to become more relevant on the west coast. THAT is what I’m saying - not speaking to their current strategy that evolved after losing the bidding war for VX.

santi319 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Can anyone explain to me why leisure demand allegedly is picking up while the CDC still has a Level 4 Travel Ban on their website??

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

You absolutely couldnt be more wrong. Been flying a lot and I would say 50-70% of passengers are elderly (5 wheelchairs the other day!!!) actually everytime Im outside most people outside are the “vulnerable” ones. So check again.

Are you suggesting the elderly are a bunch of hypocrites?

Dieuwer wrote:

santi319 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Cheap airfares, and Millennial travelers. Facebook and Instagram have convinced them that they are immune and bullet-proof.

You absolutely couldnt be more wrong. Been flying a lot and I would say 50-70% of passengers are elderly (5 wheelchairs the other day!!!) actually everytime Im outside most people outside are the “vulnerable” ones. So check again.

Are you suggesting the elderly are a bunch of hypocrites?

Hypocresy would imply their action does not match their words. They just don’t care as simply as that.

santi319 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

santi319 wrote:

You absolutely couldnt be more wrong. Been flying a lot and I would say 50-70% of passengers are elderly (5 wheelchairs the other day!!!) actually everytime Im outside most people outside are the “vulnerable” ones. So check again.

Are you suggesting the elderly are a bunch of hypocrites?

Hypocresy would imply their action does not match their words. They just don’t care as simply as that.

You are making a statement based on your interactions and observations with likely a small sampling of people. Trust me, regard as well as disregard for others and rules is common among people of all ages.

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

actually - your post is mostly nonsense. Except for the part about Alaska overpaying for VX - but that's been discussed ad nauseam here, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. We all know that. The rest of your post is nonsense. B6 was trying to buy VX to gain a foothold on the west coast. Pure and simple. They certainly weren't trying to get hold of a bunch of second hand Airbus 320's and 319's - or the order for 320 NEO's. As for AS, they are in a much better position on the west coast than they would have been had B6 won the bidding war for VX... and it shows in the difference between B6's stock price and that of AS'.

B6 was willing to buy VX at a price to expand, but west coast will never be its priority. To say that B6 will suddenly become this great west coast competitor to WN and AS is very unrealistic. Remember, VX's A320 product and customer base + company culture would've probably fit much better with B6 than AS, so merger considerations were not just about 4 gates at LAX and 7 to 10 gates at SFO. They would not have spent all that money getting mint aircraft if they could've just used VX A320s for those routes. The VX A320 fleet would've continued to perform well on transcon market with a little cabin refresh and no mint presence. And any new A321 delivery for them would've been used to add capacity on the Northeast to Florida/Caribbean markets.

There were also some slots/gates on the east coast that have more value to B6 than WN. 11 slots at JFK, EWR time "slots", 6 slots at LGA and 5 slots at DCA alone would've been worth close to $300 million to JetBlue at the time.

The reality is if B6 actually got VX's assets on west coast, it would've been in trouble the moment DL starts to build up at BOS. JetBlue simply does not have enough of a solid foundation to sustain 2 coast operation under attack. AS was always in a strong position to make acquisition than B6. So, losing out on that VX acquisition really didn't matter that much.

There is an opportunity in the next 2 or 3 years for JetBlue to consolidate its position in Boston (with DL retreating) and NYC (with a lot of slots becoming available) and begin the important task of flying to Europe. 12 out of 17 A321 deliveries of A321s in next 2 years are LR variant. That should show you where their priorities lie. There are so many things opening up from COVID on the east coast even outside of NYC/BOS:
- IAD is likely to get a lot of cuts from UA and have mass number of gates becoming available
- RDU is likely to see huge cuts by DL and have gates available
- MIA/FLL will see large cuts from AA and WN and probably B6
- MCO has new terminal and capacity will be way down
Until they get their house in order on the east coast, expecting to be a rival on the west coast is just not realistic.

Nobody is denying that B6 is focused on BOS and JFK. Nor is anybody saying that B6 couldn’t find some additional gate space at LAX and SFO right now if they wanted it. That said, when B6 was in a bidding war with AS to buy VX the landscape was vastly different and buying VX was a way for them to get more space at two airports that didn’t have it at the time. So you can stop going on and on about what you think B6’s strategy is today - that’s not what I’m talking about. B6 was trying to buy VX because they were trying to become more relevant on the west coast. THAT is what I’m saying - not speaking to their current strategy that evolved after losing the bidding war for VX.

So basically, whatever they did to prevent B6 to come to west coast was not necessary at the end. This downturn has allowed al the assets B6 would need on the west coast to become available. And if they were already at west coast, they would've had to do significantly cut their west coast operation anyhow to build east coast.

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

B6 was willing to buy VX at a price to expand, but west coast will never be its priority. To say that B6 will suddenly become this great west coast competitor to WN and AS is very unrealistic. Remember, VX's A320 product and customer base + company culture would've probably fit much better with B6 than AS, so merger considerations were not just about 4 gates at LAX and 7 to 10 gates at SFO. They would not have spent all that money getting mint aircraft if they could've just used VX A320s for those routes. The VX A320 fleet would've continued to perform well on transcon market with a little cabin refresh and no mint presence. And any new A321 delivery for them would've been used to add capacity on the Northeast to Florida/Caribbean markets.

There were also some slots/gates on the east coast that have more value to B6 than WN. 11 slots at JFK, EWR time "slots", 6 slots at LGA and 5 slots at DCA alone would've been worth close to $300 million to JetBlue at the time.

The reality is if B6 actually got VX's assets on west coast, it would've been in trouble the moment DL starts to build up at BOS. JetBlue simply does not have enough of a solid foundation to sustain 2 coast operation under attack. AS was always in a strong position to make acquisition than B6. So, losing out on that VX acquisition really didn't matter that much.

There is an opportunity in the next 2 or 3 years for JetBlue to consolidate its position in Boston (with DL retreating) and NYC (with a lot of slots becoming available) and begin the important task of flying to Europe. 12 out of 17 A321 deliveries of A321s in next 2 years are LR variant. That should show you where their priorities lie. There are so many things opening up from COVID on the east coast even outside of NYC/BOS:
- IAD is likely to get a lot of cuts from UA and have mass number of gates becoming available
- RDU is likely to see huge cuts by DL and have gates available
- MIA/FLL will see large cuts from AA and WN and probably B6
- MCO has new terminal and capacity will be way down
Until they get their house in order on the east coast, expecting to be a rival on the west coast is just not realistic.

Nobody is denying that B6 is focused on BOS and JFK. Nor is anybody saying that B6 couldn’t find some additional gate space at LAX and SFO right now if they wanted it. That said, when B6 was in a bidding war with AS to buy VX the landscape was vastly different and buying VX was a way for them to get more space at two airports that didn’t have it at the time. So you can stop going on and on about what you think B6’s strategy is today - that’s not what I’m talking about. B6 was trying to buy VX because they were trying to become more relevant on the west coast. THAT is what I’m saying - not speaking to their current strategy that evolved after losing the bidding war for VX.

So basically, whatever they did to prevent B6 to come to west coast was not necessary at the end. This downturn has allowed al the assets B6 would need on the west coast to become available. And if they were already at west coast, they would've had to do significantly cut their west coast operation anyhow to build east coast.

You seem to be insinuating that B6 had some sort of crystal ball and this has all gone the way they expected. I suppose if airlines could have seen four years down the road they would have done a lot of things different. JetBlue may never have tried to buy Virgin. Alaska may have not overpaid for Virgin - or even bought them at all. Delta may have retired older planes a long time ago. American may have paid down some debt rather than buy back stock. United may have diversified more rather than commit a huge chunk of it's flying to international ops - same for Delta - same for American. The short of it is that nobody had any idea - including JetBlue. JetBlue was trying to grow their west coast operations by way of an acquisition. When that failed they started looking at other things. You have no idea whether they would have cut their west coast ops to build on their east coast ops. If they paid billions for a west coast airline they probably would have committed to that in some kind of way. Since they lost the bid we can't know what JetBlue would look like by now.

This is an odd conversation to have with you because you usually like to throw numbers around, but here you're just opining as though it's gospel. You don't know more than anyone else here. We can only judge by what JetBlue was doing four years ago. Four years ago they were trying to buy an airline based on the west coast with two west coast "hubs". JetBlue didn't need VX Airbus aircraft. They've grown organically and seem to have grown out as much as is sustainable at this point - as judged by the number of cities they've tried to discontinue.

I guess I mix up different government sources. The State Department has a Level 4 Global Health Advisory - "Do Not Travel".

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... issue.html

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Nobody is denying that B6 is focused on BOS and JFK. Nor is anybody saying that B6 couldn’t find some additional gate space at LAX and SFO right now if they wanted it. That said, when B6 was in a bidding war with AS to buy VX the landscape was vastly different and buying VX was a way for them to get more space at two airports that didn’t have it at the time. So you can stop going on and on about what you think B6’s strategy is today - that’s not what I’m talking about. B6 was trying to buy VX because they were trying to become more relevant on the west coast. THAT is what I’m saying - not speaking to their current strategy that evolved after losing the bidding war for VX.

So basically, whatever they did to prevent B6 to come to west coast was not necessary at the end. This downturn has allowed al the assets B6 would need on the west coast to become available. And if they were already at west coast, they would've had to do significantly cut their west coast operation anyhow to build east coast.

You seem to be insinuating that B6 had some sort of crystal ball and this has all gone the way they expected. I suppose if airlines could have seen four years down the road they would have done a lot of things different. JetBlue may never have tried to buy Virgin. Alaska may have not overpaid for Virgin - or even bought them at all. Delta may have retired older planes a long time ago. American may have paid down some debt rather than buy back stock. United may have diversified more rather than commit a huge chunk of it's flying to international ops - same for Delta - same for American. The short of it is that nobody had any idea - including JetBlue. JetBlue was trying to grow their west coast operations by way of an acquisition. When that failed they started looking at other things. You have no idea whether they would have cut their west coast ops to build on their east coast ops. If they paid billions for a west coast airline they probably would have committed to that in some kind of way. Since they lost the bid we can't know what JetBlue would look like by now.

This is an odd conversation to have with you because you usually like to throw numbers around, but here you're just opining as though it's gospel. You don't know more than anyone else here. We can only judge by what JetBlue was doing four years ago. Four years ago they were trying to buy an airline based on the west coast with two west coast "hubs". JetBlue didn't need VX Airbus aircraft. They've grown organically and seem to have grown out as much as is sustainable at this point - as judged by the number of cities they've tried to discontinue.

you wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " If now 4 years later, JetBlue can have access to all the gates it would need in LAX/SFO, how is the purchase smarter than they could have known at the time?

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

So basically, whatever they did to prevent B6 to come to west coast was not necessary at the end. This downturn has allowed al the assets B6 would need on the west coast to become available. And if they were already at west coast, they would've had to do significantly cut their west coast operation anyhow to build east coast.

You seem to be insinuating that B6 had some sort of crystal ball and this has all gone the way they expected. I suppose if airlines could have seen four years down the road they would have done a lot of things different. JetBlue may never have tried to buy Virgin. Alaska may have not overpaid for Virgin - or even bought them at all. Delta may have retired older planes a long time ago. American may have paid down some debt rather than buy back stock. United may have diversified more rather than commit a huge chunk of it's flying to international ops - same for Delta - same for American. The short of it is that nobody had any idea - including JetBlue. JetBlue was trying to grow their west coast operations by way of an acquisition. When that failed they started looking at other things. You have no idea whether they would have cut their west coast ops to build on their east coast ops. If they paid billions for a west coast airline they probably would have committed to that in some kind of way. Since they lost the bid we can't know what JetBlue would look like by now.

This is an odd conversation to have with you because you usually like to throw numbers around, but here you're just opining as though it's gospel. You don't know more than anyone else here. We can only judge by what JetBlue was doing four years ago. Four years ago they were trying to buy an airline based on the west coast with two west coast "hubs". JetBlue didn't need VX Airbus aircraft. They've grown organically and seem to have grown out as much as is sustainable at this point - as judged by the number of cities they've tried to discontinue.

you wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " If now 4 years later, JetBlue can have access to all the gates it would need in LAX/SFO, how is the purchase smarter than they could have known at the time?

So you’re arguing that airline execs were supposed to predict and plan for the Covid pandemic years in advance?

At the end of the day B6’s west coast plan was to buy VX. When they failed to do that the west coast strategy became a political gamble to get an FIS and significant slot increases at LGB of all places. That also failed (mercifully for B6’s finances, IMO, especially in light of Covid) and now there is no west coast plan. That B6 may be able to capitalize on a global pandemic clearing some gate space at LAX doesn’t make them master planners.

Either way all these predictions about airlines capitalizing on new gate space are laughable to me when every airline has announced significant size reductions. Where is everyone getting this capacity? Why take a flyer on a new strategy instead of devoting the next few years clawing back your 2019 network?

madpropsyo wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

You seem to be insinuating that B6 had some sort of crystal ball and this has all gone the way they expected. I suppose if airlines could have seen four years down the road they would have done a lot of things different. JetBlue may never have tried to buy Virgin. Alaska may have not overpaid for Virgin - or even bought them at all. Delta may have retired older planes a long time ago. American may have paid down some debt rather than buy back stock. United may have diversified more rather than commit a huge chunk of it's flying to international ops - same for Delta - same for American. The short of it is that nobody had any idea - including JetBlue. JetBlue was trying to grow their west coast operations by way of an acquisition. When that failed they started looking at other things. You have no idea whether they would have cut their west coast ops to build on their east coast ops. If they paid billions for a west coast airline they probably would have committed to that in some kind of way. Since they lost the bid we can't know what JetBlue would look like by now.

This is an odd conversation to have with you because you usually like to throw numbers around, but here you're just opining as though it's gospel. You don't know more than anyone else here. We can only judge by what JetBlue was doing four years ago. Four years ago they were trying to buy an airline based on the west coast with two west coast "hubs". JetBlue didn't need VX Airbus aircraft. They've grown organically and seem to have grown out as much as is sustainable at this point - as judged by the number of cities they've tried to discontinue.

you wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " If now 4 years later, JetBlue can have access to all the gates it would need in LAX/SFO, how is the purchase smarter than they could have known at the time?

So you’re arguing that airline execs were supposed to predict and plan for the Covid pandemic years in advance?

At the end of the day B6’s west coast plan was to buy VX. When they failed to do that the west coast strategy became a political gamble to get an FIS and significant slot increases at LGB of all places. That also failed (mercifully for B6’s finances, IMO, especially in light of Covid) and now there is no west coast plan. That B6 may be able to capitalize on a global pandemic clearing some gate space at LAX doesn’t make them master planners.

Either way all these predictions about airlines capitalizing on new gate space are laughable to me when every airline has announced significant size reductions. Where is everyone getting this capacity? Why take a flyer on a new strategy instead of devoting the next few years clawing back your 2019 network?

He wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " Since JetBlue had no gate access at LAX/SFO and now they will have access to enough gates should they decide to close down LGB and build their west coast around LAX/SFO. I don't see how you can argue the purchase looks smarter now than 4 years ago.

Dieuwer wrote:

I guess I mix up different government sources. The State Department has a Level 4 Global Health Advisory - "Do Not Travel".

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... issue.html

Who cares?

-Signed, America

In jest, but seriously. Mask up, glove up...Onward and upward...and obviously that is what is happening presently

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

So basically, whatever they did to prevent B6 to come to west coast was not necessary at the end. This downturn has allowed al the assets B6 would need on the west coast to become available. And if they were already at west coast, they would've had to do significantly cut their west coast operation anyhow to build east coast.

You seem to be insinuating that B6 had some sort of crystal ball and this has all gone the way they expected. I suppose if airlines could have seen four years down the road they would have done a lot of things different. JetBlue may never have tried to buy Virgin. Alaska may have not overpaid for Virgin - or even bought them at all. Delta may have retired older planes a long time ago. American may have paid down some debt rather than buy back stock. United may have diversified more rather than commit a huge chunk of it's flying to international ops - same for Delta - same for American. The short of it is that nobody had any idea - including JetBlue. JetBlue was trying to grow their west coast operations by way of an acquisition. When that failed they started looking at other things. You have no idea whether they would have cut their west coast ops to build on their east coast ops. If they paid billions for a west coast airline they probably would have committed to that in some kind of way. Since they lost the bid we can't know what JetBlue would look like by now.

This is an odd conversation to have with you because you usually like to throw numbers around, but here you're just opining as though it's gospel. You don't know more than anyone else here. We can only judge by what JetBlue was doing four years ago. Four years ago they were trying to buy an airline based on the west coast with two west coast "hubs". JetBlue didn't need VX Airbus aircraft. They've grown organically and seem to have grown out as much as is sustainable at this point - as judged by the number of cities they've tried to discontinue.

you wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " If now 4 years later, JetBlue can have access to all the gates it would need in LAX/SFO, how is the purchase smarter than they could have known at the time?

Except that JetBlue (or any other airline really) isn't any position to make a big play for anything at the moment, no matter how available it may be - and it will likely be a while before they'll be in a position to do so. It's gonna be a while before they get their east coast ops back to where they were - and if there's a resurgence of the virus this fall then they're gonna be even worse off. Had B6 bought VX they would already have been flying many routes along the west coast in direct competition with AS, thus adding one more airline on the west coast for AS to have to compete with. Alaska is better off not having to struggle with DL, WN, UA, AA and also B6 for traffic up and down the west coast, no? That's my point - are you misreading it or just trying to argue?

Look...without getting political or getting into what it right or wrong; a vast majority of this country has gone unscathed in the pandemic.

People have established their own risk profile for what they feel is reasonable and safe or unsafe.

We are seeing many people who feel it is safe to travel. There is a small subset of truly essential business and infrastructure related travel. There are others who have essential personal travel attending to family matters.

We are starting to see things open up, people wanting to travel, wanting to reconnect with family. Some business travel.

It’s a strange time that even I can’t fully process.

At some point we need to let people. Establish their own risk profile if following procedures to get on with life instead of shaming those who are getting out there and being safe.

This is correct by ASFlyer. The overpaying was strictly due to B6 making a purchase attempt.

I will add AS also wanted Virgin out of its west coast markets with DAL pressing down on SEA. Virgin was the oddball on the west coast with yield wrecking fares and given Alaska's geographic profile at the time, it negatively affected AS more than anyone else flying west. Many AS loyalists still get sweaty at this but it's real. Not sure why - scores of US airlines have histories of forcing a low-cost competitor from their markets.

the overpaying was strictly due to B6 making a purchase attempt.

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. I think most people here realize that the purchase was necessary to prevent B6 from gaining a strong foothold along the west coast. Had they been successful in their purchase of VX they likely would have a more robust west coast network than they do currently and AS would have had one more competitor up and down the coast to contend with. Temporarily ceasing a route that is probably over served, given the situation, doesn't seem a bad idea. VX was going away any way you look at it.

That's complete nonsense. B6's focus has always been on the east coast. Even a purchase of VX would not have changed that. Winning BOS is far more important than being a 5th place airline at LAX or 3rd place airline at SFO. Frankly with the current COVID crisis, B6 will get all the gates it would want in the near to medium term at LAX and SFO. It's focus is on NYC and BOS. This crisis has given them the opening to own much larger market share in both markets and that's what they care about. It will worry about west coast once it is on its way to completing east coast buildout, not before that.

AS overpaid for VX. It bought VX at the height of airlines stock prices. All the assets AS got for VX purchase can now basically be gotten for a fraction of the prices. That's what happens when you acquire assets at height of their value rather than at their basement.

actually - your post is mostly nonsense. Except for the part about Alaska overpaying for VX - but that's been discussed ad nauseam here, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. We all know that. The rest of your post is nonsense. B6 was trying to buy VX to gain a foothold on the west coast. Pure and simple. They certainly weren't trying to get hold of a bunch of second hand Airbus 320's and 319's - or the order for 320 NEO's. As for AS, they are in a much better position on the west coast than they would have been had B6 won the bidding war for VX... and it shows in the difference between B6's stock price and that of AS'.

AS really late to the GEG-California nonstop game but the added GEG-SJC nonstop is noted. Assuming life moves toward what was, that would give AS nonstops from GEG to SFO/SJC/LAX/SAN on E75's. While AS fiddled with the Virgin merger and adding E75 service around CA and even PAE, WN and DL took advantage and built up GEG - this despite the airport management all but handing feeding AS new routes that would be $ makers. WN for example has added SMF/SJC/SAN in the period I mentioned. Granted this is all based on pre-covid schedules.

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

You seem to be insinuating that B6 had some sort of crystal ball and this has all gone the way they expected. I suppose if airlines could have seen four years down the road they would have done a lot of things different. JetBlue may never have tried to buy Virgin. Alaska may have not overpaid for Virgin - or even bought them at all. Delta may have retired older planes a long time ago. American may have paid down some debt rather than buy back stock. United may have diversified more rather than commit a huge chunk of it's flying to international ops - same for Delta - same for American. The short of it is that nobody had any idea - including JetBlue. JetBlue was trying to grow their west coast operations by way of an acquisition. When that failed they started looking at other things. You have no idea whether they would have cut their west coast ops to build on their east coast ops. If they paid billions for a west coast airline they probably would have committed to that in some kind of way. Since they lost the bid we can't know what JetBlue would look like by now.

This is an odd conversation to have with you because you usually like to throw numbers around, but here you're just opining as though it's gospel. You don't know more than anyone else here. We can only judge by what JetBlue was doing four years ago. Four years ago they were trying to buy an airline based on the west coast with two west coast "hubs". JetBlue didn't need VX Airbus aircraft. They've grown organically and seem to have grown out as much as is sustainable at this point - as judged by the number of cities they've tried to discontinue.

you wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " If now 4 years later, JetBlue can have access to all the gates it would need in LAX/SFO, how is the purchase smarter than they could have known at the time?

Except that JetBlue (or any other airline really) isn't any position to make a big play for anything at the moment, no matter how available it may be - and it will likely be a while before they'll be in a position to do so. It's gonna be a while before they get their east coast ops back to where they were - and if there's a resurgence of the virus this fall then they're gonna be even worse off. Had B6 bought VX they would already have been flying many routes along the west coast in direct competition with AS, thus adding one more airline on the west coast for AS to have to compete with. Alaska is better off not having to struggle with DL, WN, UA, AA and also B6 for traffic up and down the west coast, no? That's my point - are you misreading it or just trying to argue?

No, you are just wrong. Regardless of whether they bought VX or not, west coast would be the first place they trim in an event like this. If you've seen how quickly they have cut FLL/MCO down to basically nothing, it should tell you how they view anything that's not NYC/BOS. And B6 definitely has no interest in PNW, which is where AS will bring back capacity the quickest.

The fact is when they are ready to bring back west coast capacity, they will have all the gate access they were interested in back 4 years ago. So outside of the east coast gate/slot accesses, which are also worth a lot less now, it turned out they really didn't miss out on much. And AS never had as much to worry about in west coast of B6 as claimed here on a.net.

So again, your statement of "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " shows you fundamentally don't understand how B6 values its network. Gate constrained -> you can make argument that you are denying B6. No gate constrained -> you really can't make that argument.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

On SQ26/25, is there a down-gauge of equipment proposed? With the A380 now very uneconomical, I'd expect a 4-class B77W or a 3-class (253-seat) A359 to fly the route instead upon resumption (EWR will, of course, be on the 161-seat A359).

Good question, but also by the listing, SQ bringing back SIN-EWR in June?

I'm surprised by this as this is a flight almost purely driven by business traffic that I can't imagine is back yet, not to mention restrictions in Singapore....

May be a bit old on my knowledge of what's going on around entry to Singapore however

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

you wrote "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " If now 4 years later, JetBlue can have access to all the gates it would need in LAX/SFO, how is the purchase smarter than they could have known at the time?

Except that JetBlue (or any other airline really) isn't any position to make a big play for anything at the moment, no matter how available it may be - and it will likely be a while before they'll be in a position to do so. It's gonna be a while before they get their east coast ops back to where they were - and if there's a resurgence of the virus this fall then they're gonna be even worse off. Had B6 bought VX they would already have been flying many routes along the west coast in direct competition with AS, thus adding one more airline on the west coast for AS to have to compete with. Alaska is better off not having to struggle with DL, WN, UA, AA and also B6 for traffic up and down the west coast, no? That's my point - are you misreading it or just trying to argue?

No, you are just wrong. Regardless of whether they bought VX or not, west coast would be the first place they trim in an event like this. If you've seen how quickly they have cut FLL/MCO down to basically nothing, it should tell you how they view anything that's not NYC/BOS. And B6 definitely has no interest in PNW, which is where AS will bring back capacity the quickest.

The fact is when they are ready to bring back west coast capacity, they will have all the gate access they were interested in back 4 years ago. So outside of the east coast gate/slot accesses, which are also worth a lot less now, it turned out they really didn't miss out on much. And AS never had as much to worry about in west coast of B6 as claimed here on a.net.

So again, your statement of "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " shows you fundamentally don't understand how B6 values its network. Gate constrained -> you can make argument that you are denying B6. No gate constrained -> you really can't make that argument.

And yet.... Alaska is in a better position to weather this storm now than they would be if they had been fighting back B6 on the west coast over the last 4 years - because B6 would absolutely be a bigger airline on the west coast than they are now. It doesn’t matter what they did AFTER Covid-19 shut everything down, because Alaska’s fate would likely have already been determined. Which is the entire reason Alaska ponied up so much money for Virgin in the first place.

ASFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Except that JetBlue (or any other airline really) isn't any position to make a big play for anything at the moment, no matter how available it may be - and it will likely be a while before they'll be in a position to do so. It's gonna be a while before they get their east coast ops back to where they were - and if there's a resurgence of the virus this fall then they're gonna be even worse off. Had B6 bought VX they would already have been flying many routes along the west coast in direct competition with AS, thus adding one more airline on the west coast for AS to have to compete with. Alaska is better off not having to struggle with DL, WN, UA, AA and also B6 for traffic up and down the west coast, no? That's my point - are you misreading it or just trying to argue?

No, you are just wrong. Regardless of whether they bought VX or not, west coast would be the first place they trim in an event like this. If you've seen how quickly they have cut FLL/MCO down to basically nothing, it should tell you how they view anything that's not NYC/BOS. And B6 definitely has no interest in PNW, which is where AS will bring back capacity the quickest.

The fact is when they are ready to bring back west coast capacity, they will have all the gate access they were interested in back 4 years ago. So outside of the east coast gate/slot accesses, which are also worth a lot less now, it turned out they really didn't miss out on much. And AS never had as much to worry about in west coast of B6 as claimed here on a.net.

So again, your statement of "Actually, the purchase seems smarter than they could have known at the time. " shows you fundamentally don't understand how B6 values its network. Gate constrained -> you can make argument that you are denying B6. No gate constrained -> you really can't make that argument.

And yet.... Alaska is in a better position to weather this storm now than they would be if they had been fighting back B6 on the west coast over the last 4 years - because B6 would absolutely be a bigger airline on the west coast than they are now. It doesn’t matter what they did AFTER Covid-19 shut everything down, because Alaska’s fate would likely have already been determined. Which is the entire reason Alaska ponied up so much money for Virgin in the first place.

If B6 had purchased VX, AS would have even more money in the bank to weather any kind of storm DL throws at them. It would've had more cash to further build up SJC/SAN, since the SFO/LAX transcon stuff inherited from VX didn't do well. B6 had no interest in competing in most of the intra west coast markets AS was in prior to VX merger and after VX merger. Look at VX's map before AS merger, they really didn't compete directly with AS on that many routes. B6 is a gnat on the west coast. The only thing it really had potential to compete with AS on is in the transcon market.

Maybe AS should have more concerns about B6 in 2 or 3 years when they get their house in order and feels the need to expand in west coast. But frankly, these airlines will be better off to be in a partnership than anything. Anyhow, this is going nowhere, so I'm out.

God, can we just go back to the usual which is better Boeing or Airbus drama debates we used to have on airliners.net.

Enilria has posted unbiased information about airline route changes, but for some reason people have turned this into a whizzing match debate about who should have gotten Virgin (who would have been out of business with this Covid stuff) America... JetBlue or Alaska.

All this arguing debate is just stupid at this stage. Airlines did not have crystal balls to predict the future be it AA, AS, B6, DL, WN, UA, VX, or anyone. I am always harassed on here for not keeping it exactly on topic (though I do) so I am just going to say keep it on topic.

Enilria... we appreciate your unbiased weekly reports.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

.....
All this arguing debate is just stupid at this stage. Airlines did not have crystal balls to predict the future be it AA, AS, B6, DL, WN, UA, VX, or anyone. I am always harassed on here for not keeping it exactly on topic (though I do) so I am just going to say keep it on topic.

Enilria... we appreciate your unbiased weekly reports.

I totally agree ... ancient history and 20/20 vision. Regards this thread, I will say that the routes that the airlines flew last year don't ... at this point ... have much relevance. What they are adding since somewhere around now .. the CV-19 recovery phase .. would seem to be a lot more interesting. My opinion of course ...

This OAG thread has turned into some sort of battleground between AS and B6. Maybe we can leave the battle for another time, somewhere else.

Dieuwer wrote:

This OAG thread has turned into some sort of battleground between AS and B6. Maybe we can leave the battle for another time, somewhere else.

Please YES. Two users have hijacked this thread.

ZazuPIT wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

This OAG thread has turned into some sort of battleground between AS and B6. Maybe we can leave the battle for another time, somewhere else.

Please YES. Two users have hijacked this thread.

you know, you all can look away if you don't want to read the posts. I wasn't pontificating about "what if" or talking about ancient history or 20/20 vision. I also wasn't in a JetBlue/Alaska pissing match. I like JetBlue - a lot. Their people are great and I like their business model. I was simply saying that Alaska couldn't have had any idea that the VX/AS merger would have helped them by reducing competitors some 4 years later in their most busy corridor. That's it. It wasn't a pissing match. The one thing I may have been guilty of is continuing to try to explain my clearly misunderstood post - over and over. So yeah, in that respect maybe I should have just dropped it and walked away. I was not "hijacking a thread" Nothing is stopping any one of you from freely discussing the reduction in flights listed here - or whatever else you wanted to talk about.

Edited to add: my original post was totally germane to this thread. Enliria, made a comment about AS and the VX purchase to which I responded - on topic. My post was called "nonsense" for reasons that had nothing to do with what I said - thus the back and forth.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Look...without getting political or getting into what it right or wrong; a vast majority of this country has gone unscathed in the pandemic.

This is the same nonsense as looking at political outcomes by land area - votes matter, not acreage. Cases and deaths matter - not the unpopulated areas with few cases just because few people live there.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, greater population density has routinely led to higher rates of infection and death. Look at the big numbers of confirmed cases - NYC, BOS, New Jersey, Chicago, metro Detroit, eastern Maryland, LA, south Florida... From where does the majority of U.S. air travel demand emanate? It's not western Nebraska nor eastern Montana!

Dieuwer wrote:

I guess I mix up different government sources. The State Department has a Level 4 Global Health Advisory - "Do Not Travel".

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... issue.html

What you quoted is for the US STATE DEPARTMENT advising against any INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE US.
It doesn't say you shouldn't travel inside the US.

jfklganyc wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I guess I mix up different government sources. The State Department has a Level 4 Global Health Advisory - "Do Not Travel".

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... issue.html

Who cares?

-Signed, America

In jest, but seriously. Mask up, glove up...Onward and upward...and obviously that is what is happening presently

Agreed, I think there is a lot of misinformation about how dangerous flying is. The WHO says “Research has shown that there is little risk of any communicable disease being transmitted on board an aircraft.”
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detai ... vel-advice

Even before Coronavirus, the risk of catching a disease/sickness while on a plane was minimal unless you were in physical contact with the person, but that is no different than being in any place where you could be in close proximity to someone infected.


With masks the risk is even lowered further, not to mention the hospital grade air filters onboard aircraft & the additional cleaning being done.

At some point we as a society need to accept that travel (excluding corporate) can return, as long as individuals are taking precautions, following state & local restrictions, and not traveling to & from different hotspots.

MIflyer12 wrote:

This is the same nonsense as looking at political outcomes by land area - votes matter, not acreage. Cases and deaths matter - not the unpopulated areas with few cases just because few people live there.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, greater population density has routinely led to higher rates of infection and death. Look at the big numbers of confirmed cases - NYC, BOS, New Jersey, Chicago, metro Detroit, eastern Maryland, LA, south Florida... From where does the majority of U.S. air travel demand emanate? It's not western Nebraska nor eastern Montana!

it sounds like you're trying to make this political somehow. I read this and think WTF is this about...votes and acreage...The electoral college? If so, unfortunately the US Constitution disagrees with you,

If you didn't mean that, perhaps you can explain your point? and how is it related to OAG flight schedules?

HardeesBiscuit wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

This is the same nonsense as looking at political outcomes by land area - votes matter, not acreage. Cases and deaths matter - not the unpopulated areas with few cases just because few people live there.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, greater population density has routinely led to higher rates of infection and death. Look at the big numbers of confirmed cases - NYC, BOS, New Jersey, Chicago, metro Detroit, eastern Maryland, LA, south Florida... From where does the majority of U.S. air travel demand emanate? It's not western Nebraska nor eastern Montana!

it sounds like you're trying to make this political somehow. I read this and think WTF is this about...votes and acreage...The electoral college? If so, unfortunately the US Constitution disagrees with you,

If you didn't mean that, perhaps you can explain your point? and how is it related to OAG flight schedules?

ZazuPIT wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

This OAG thread has turned into some sort of battleground between AS and B6. Maybe we can leave the battle for another time, somewhere else.

Please YES. Two users have hijacked this thread.

This thread is for OAG Changes. Please be sure that comments / discussions continue to be related to the topic at hand. Extended AS / B6 discussions need to move elsewhere.

Thanks!