Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
allegiantflyer
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:36 pm

It's nice to see the Bullish AS that we saw in 2017 after the acquisition come out in force again, it seemed they became very timid and eager to cutback following that period in time. Big expansion announcements like these are very exciting, they only come every few years. here are some of my takeaways;

- AS seems in the likes of B6 (and VX for that matter, whom I wonder if old VX people are now at AS) to steer clear of making expansions to cities in the mid-continent in preference to explore transcons, which would explain the Florida routes.
-The adds in Montana help solidify AS's longtime leadership role in the (albeit very small) Montana market. They also seem to have been building up BOI again, reminds me of the old Horizon hub from a long time ago.
-The Hawaii adds are nice to see but also arent daily like some of their other HI routes, maybe if they are interested in serving with a few frequencies a week they should consider doing BOI-HNL etc the way allegiant did a few years back, would also complement their other BOI adds.
-Beware, we've seen in the past with every AS expansion comes a AS drawback. Many of the California routes AS added in 2017 following the merger were cut within less than a year of their addition. AS is not patient with new routes that don't immediately turn a profit.
Last edited by allegiantflyer on Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:58 pm

dfwjim1 wrote:
As a side note I was able to book a RT FLL to SFO nonstop on AS Christmas week.


The FLL-SFO AS route has nine lives. It seems every year the route is cut only to reappear as a seasonal route. With these ads from FLL it might as well be permanent seasonal now.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8017
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:00 pm

allegiantflyer wrote:
-Beware, we've seen in the past with every AS expansion comes a AS drawback. Many of the California routes AS added in 2017 following the merger were cut within less than a year of their addition. AS is not patient with new routes that don't immediately turn a profit.


AS has, intermittently, been a little capacity constrained. That's not the case for 2020 or 2021!
 
BTVB6Flyer
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:20 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:45 pm

Also appears they are adding 3x weekly SFO-TPA, starting November 20th
 
FSDan
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:04 am

Wow, some definite drama in this thread!

My takes on these adds:
LAX-EUG/MFR/BZN - these make a ton of sense and should do well on E75s; I expect AA won't bring these back either
PDX/SAN-FLL - I think AS will do alright with these; my guess is point of sale is higher on the West Coast than in FLL for these
LAX-TPA - jury is out - AS probably has a better shot than AA had at making this work, but if WN stays in the market that will be 3 carriers, and that seems like too many for this route (and DL and WN are way stronger on the TPA end)
SEA/LAX-RSW - I'm skeptical on these - they seem like long, low yield routes, although it does help that there's no competition
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26212
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:05 am

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
dfwjim1 wrote:
As a side note I was able to book a RT FLL to SFO nonstop on AS Christmas week.


The FLL-SFO AS route has nine lives. It seems every year the route is cut only to reappear as a seasonal route. With these ads from FLL it might as well be permanent seasonal now.


It's never been permanently discontinued, but sometimes it has been flown all winter long and other times only during peak (Thanksgiving+Christmas+February/March).

As a frequent traveler on FLLLAX due to my status on Alaska, happy to see AS double down on LAX-Florida flying.
a.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:20 am

11C wrote:
Is AA going to be an intermediary between its partners B6 and AS and have them work together as a 3 tiered team or are they going to battle independently while giving feed to AA?


That’s an excellent question. I wish I had the answer.[/quote]

That will be interesting to see. In a perfect world (for AA, anyway), I think the coastal strategy would look like this:
  • AS would give up on LAX and SFO transcons and focus their transcon efforts on SEA/PDX/SAN-FLL/MCO/DCA/EWR/BOS, as well as having a beefy presence up and down the West Coast (including the Mexican resort destinations and Hawai'i)
  • B6 would focus on JFK/BOS transcons and maybe some LAX-secondary East Coast transcons, as well as service between the Northeast and Florida/Caribbean
  • AA would handle traffic from both coasts to the interior of the country, some high premium routes like JFK-LAX/SFO, and long haul.

In reality, whether or not B6/AS can figure out how to cooperate in areas where they both want a piece of the pie, as well as how AA handles their relationship with B6 outside the Northeast (particularly at FLL and now also LAX) is yet to be seen.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:06 am

Chugach wrote:
New routes are LAX-RSW/TPA/LIH/KOA/BZN/MFR/EUG, PDX-FLL, SAN-FLL, and SEA-RSW.

Discuss.

https://investor.alaskaair.com/news-rel ... s-2020-lax


Also FAT. Although it was announced before most of the others.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8621
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:22 am

Did AS announce TPA-SFO too?

I see it.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1818
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:25 am

Choosing AS over B6 on LAX-FLL is akin to asking a 65 yr old woman out on a date vs a 35 year old.

This AS LAX "expansion" one of worst kept secrets in industry. And when you look at it, it's a handful of flights a day and more than half are on 76 seat RJ's. Minimal risk/exposure.

The real interest is what they do at SFO. They now have the room to grow, if they choose to, with AA vacating T2. But SFO has been tough for AS on just about anything inherited from Virgin - they've found better success going back to their old home, adding direct flights to Pac NW.

SANFan wrote:
In a slightly different view from most of the posts so far, very nice to see AS taking a direct stab at Blue with SAN-FLL! (I wonder if this might also have a slight hint toward AS's "buddies" over at AA to be careful with what they are apparently cooking up with B6 today...? I refer to AA's SAN-MIA service.)

This addition (SAN-Lauderdale) comes as a very pleasant surprise. I think most of us were expecting to see PDX-FLL announced since AS has been hinting at it for a couple of weeks now. I had wondered if AS might take a swipe at Blue for adding SAN-EWR and SAN-FLL sure seemed like a good fit for such a swipe so it's all good I say!

Next I'd love to see AS jump into SAN-TPA -- keeping the Florida theme and all -- since that's a route that I believe the carrier has been looking at for a while now; I'm not sure what WN's plans are for the route. Let's remember that AS has already scheduled daily-double flights between SAN and MCO for the winter so that's more toward the Florida theme...

Thank you Alaska for giving us here in SAN something to chew on as part of this big and important announcement!

bb
 
iAmAlaska49
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:06 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:40 am

jplatts wrote:
AS adding SFO-TPA nonstop service is also a possibility with UA currently being the only airline serving TPA nonstop from the San Francisco Bay Area.


SFO-TPA has been added as well. It's weird they didn't announce it with all the other routes. Their schedule shows it starting 11/20, which is the same day LAX-TPA starts.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:42 am

It seems like a lot of routes are being announced on a lot of carriers for a “dying” industry
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26212
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:12 am

iAmAlaska49 wrote:
jplatts wrote:
AS adding SFO-TPA nonstop service is also a possibility with UA currently being the only airline serving TPA nonstop from the San Francisco Bay Area.


SFO-TPA has been added as well. It's weird they didn't announce it with all the other routes. Their schedule shows it starting 11/20, which is the same day LAX-TPA starts.


Indeed, but weekend-only.

Also as part of expansion, LAXFLL is back to being a year-round route.
a.
 
vadodara
Posts: 1146
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:10 pm

Seems like AS has figured out how to grow these markets profitably.
a) extend the network to Pacific NW
b) pick transcon's to leisure/seasonal markets

Not a bad strategy; it allows its presence to grow in S Cal and probably offers a future launch pad to other destinations such as RDU, AUS and perhaps even iAH/ATL.
 
LAXBUR
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:05 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:28 pm

n7371f wrote:
Choosing AS over B6 on LAX-FLL is akin to asking a 65 yr old woman out on a date vs a 35 year old.


Yeah. The 65-year old may be frugal, but has more money and a better network of friends and business colleagues to connect with.
 
kavok
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:39 pm

Don’t forget that AS’s bread and butter has always been moving pax north and south along the West Coast. Strengthening LAX helps AS achieve that better. AS’s biggest challenge in building up LAX previously was competition from AA. And that competition is no longer necessary.

Simply put, there were many cities like FAT or EUG that AA had to have in its network. To be a competitive domestic player on the national level, AA couldn’t simply tell it’s frequent flyers out East that “I am sorry, but we can’t fly you to EUG or FAT because those cities aren’t accessible from anywhere in our network”. And thus AA operated (likely unprofitable) flights from LAX to EUG, FAT, and others simply to achieve the de facto broad network requirement of being a legacy airline.

With the OW partnerships, AA can now use AS to get pax to FAT and EUG. More importantly, they can also drop those unprofitable flights to those cities that AS serves. And in doing so, it opens then door for AS to strengthen their own network by flying to more of those destinations from LAX.

It doesn’t really require coordination, because it is a natural move for both airlines. AA can drop those unprofitable intra-West coast routes, and AS can solidify its passenger base in the west by offering more LAX service.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8017
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:57 pm

kavok wrote:
Simply put, there were many cities like FAT or EUG that AA had to have in its network. To be a competitive domestic player on the national level, AA couldn’t simply tell it’s frequent flyers out East that “I am sorry, but we can’t fly you to EUG or FAT because those cities aren’t accessible from anywhere in our network”. And thus AA operated (likely unprofitable) flights from LAX to EUG, FAT, and others simply to achieve the de facto broad network requirement of being a legacy airline.

With the OW partnerships, AA can now use AS to get pax to FAT and EUG. More importantly, they can also drop those unprofitable flights to those cities that AS serves. And in doing so, it opens then door for AS to strengthen their own network by flying to more of those destinations from LAX.


I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:59 pm

LAXBUR wrote:
n7371f wrote:
Choosing AS over B6 on LAX-FLL is akin to asking a 65 yr old woman out on a date vs a 35 year old.


Yeah. The 65-year old may be frugal, but has more money and a better network of friends and business colleagues to connect with.



That is true, but in the end, everyone wants to at least dance with the young, sexy one...
 
kavok
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:36 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
kavok wrote:
Simply put, there were many cities like FAT or EUG that AA had to have in its network. To be a competitive domestic player on the national level, AA couldn’t simply tell it’s frequent flyers out East that “I am sorry, but we can’t fly you to EUG or FAT because those cities aren’t accessible from anywhere in our network”. And thus AA operated (likely unprofitable) flights from LAX to EUG, FAT, and others simply to achieve the de facto broad network requirement of being a legacy airline.

With the OW partnerships, AA can now use AS to get pax to FAT and EUG. More importantly, they can also drop those unprofitable flights to those cities that AS serves. And in doing so, it opens then door for AS to strengthen their own network by flying to more of those destinations from LAX.


I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams. Consider a college textbook publisher based in PHL, who by virtue of being based in PHL is inclined to fly AA for business. But if AA doesn’t fly to any west coast college town, that publisher may switch to DL/UA even though they live in PHL. Being a US3 means you have to fly to many of those tertiary cities from somewhere, even if those specific flights don’t generate profits on their own. Otherwise you lose the whole corporate contract. So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.

Enter the AS partnership. Now AS can provide the necessary connectivity to those smaller West Coast markets. AA no longer is “required” to serve EUG/FAT/etc. And since they are money losers, AA can finally achieve their goal of dropping those stations. All of that requires no coordination, and makes obvious business sense.

Part 2:
For it’s own benefit, AA is dropping LAX flying to small cities for reasons described above. AS has always wanted a bigger presence in LAX. AS has a lot of frequent flyers in EUG. And most importantly, the legacy competition (AA) that previously existed on a route (AA’s LAX-EUG) just went away. Now AS has an opportunity to try a route they have always wanted to see if they could make work, without having a competitor. So AS can add it, again without coordination with AA.

So AS expands LAX, and AA shrinks it... because it is in each parties interest to do so, even without coordination.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 4996
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:34 pm

Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5251
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:40 pm

kavok wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
kavok wrote:
Simply put, there were many cities like FAT or EUG that AA had to have in its network. To be a competitive domestic player on the national level, AA couldn’t simply tell it’s frequent flyers out East that “I am sorry, but we can’t fly you to EUG or FAT because those cities aren’t accessible from anywhere in our network”. And thus AA operated (likely unprofitable) flights from LAX to EUG, FAT, and others simply to achieve the de facto broad network requirement of being a legacy airline.

With the OW partnerships, AA can now use AS to get pax to FAT and EUG. More importantly, they can also drop those unprofitable flights to those cities that AS serves. And in doing so, it opens then door for AS to strengthen their own network by flying to more of those destinations from LAX.


I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. (You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams). So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.

Enter the AS partnership. Now AS can provide the necessary connectivity to those smaller West Coast markets. AA no longer is “required” to serve EUG/FAT/etc. And since they are money losers, AA can finally achieve their goal of dropping those stations. All of that requires no coordination, and makes obvious business sense.

Part 2: For it’s own benefit, AA is dropping LAX flying to small cities for reasons described above. AS has always wanted a bigger presence in LAX. AS has a lot of frequent flyers in EUG. And most importantly, the legacy competition (AA) that previously existed on a route (AA’s LAX-EUG) just went away. Now AS has an opportunity to try a route they have always wanted to see if they could make work, without having a competitor. So AS can add it, again without coordination with AA.

So AS expands LAX, and AA shrinks it... because it is in each parties interest to do so, even without coordination.


I've actually looked at the financials on some of these routes and most of the smaller destinations didn't perform poorly, domestically it was the LAX-IAH/AUS/SLC/DEN/SEA/e.t.c that were the worse performers for obvious reasons. They actually do pretty well on regional routes like LAX-OKC/TUL/TUS/XNA/OMA/ABQ/MFR/e.t.c

I do agree there is room to relinquish some of that flying to the Pacific Northwest though, as you can leverage AS's strength there.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
winginit
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:53 pm

klm617 wrote:
Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?


Why would they be on the same team? Because they're both going to codeshare with American? They remain fierce competitors albeit with strengths in different markets apart from what will be notable overlap in LAX.

At one point both QR and EY had codeshare with American. Were they on the same team? CZ and CX both codeshare with American - they despise each other and compete fiercely.
 
kavok
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:19 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
kavok wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. (You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams). So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.

Enter the AS partnership. Now AS can provide the necessary connectivity to those smaller West Coast markets. AA no longer is “required” to serve EUG/FAT/etc. And since they are money losers, AA can finally achieve their goal of dropping those stations. All of that requires no coordination, and makes obvious business sense.

Part 2: For it’s own benefit, AA is dropping LAX flying to small cities for reasons described above. AS has always wanted a bigger presence in LAX. AS has a lot of frequent flyers in EUG. And most importantly, the legacy competition (AA) that previously existed on a route (AA’s LAX-EUG) just went away. Now AS has an opportunity to try a route they have always wanted to see if they could make work, without having a competitor. So AS can add it, again without coordination with AA.

So AS expands LAX, and AA shrinks it... because it is in each parties interest to do so, even without coordination.


I've actually looked at the financials on some of these routes and most of the smaller destinations didn't perform poorly, domestically it was the LAX-IAH/AUS/SLC/DEN/SEA/e.t.c that were the worse performers for obvious reasons. They actually do pretty well on regional routes like LAX-OKC/TUL/TUS/XNA/OMA/ABQ/MFR/e.t.c

I do agree there is room to relinquish some of that flying to the Pacific Northwest though, as you can leverage AS's strength there.


Agreed, and I should have clarified that the small cities I was referring to were those that are north-south routes from LAX (roughly along or west of interstate 15). I agree that those routes whose flight path is more East-West in orientation are still valuable for AA, as pax on those flights tend to have LAX as the destination, or as a connection point to TPAC/Hawaii. The other advantage is flyers in those small cities east of LAX will likely also have service to the DFW megahub, meaning there are probably more local AA frequent flyers than in cities west of I-15. Currently if you live west of I-15 (and not in LAX) there is little reason to be an AA frequent flyer.
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:30 pm

glad to see FLL/LAX is back. I took that flight frequently as it timed up well with LAX/ANC. Add in that FLL/SEA was typically an early AM flight and suddenly the 4PMish LA flight gets a lot of connecting traffic :)
xx
 
dfwjim1
Posts: 2439
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:28 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
dfwjim1 wrote:
As a side note I was able to book a RT FLL to SFO nonstop on AS Christmas week.


The FLL-SFO AS route has nine lives. It seems every year the route is cut only to reappear as a seasonal route. With these ads from FLL it might as well be permanent seasonal now.


It's never been permanently discontinued, but sometimes it has been flown all winter long and other times only during peak (Thanksgiving+Christmas+February/March).

As a frequent traveler on FLLLAX due to my status on Alaska, happy to see AS double down on LAX-Florida flying.


I flew AS FLL-SFO last Christmas and was also going to this route in April, 2020 (was to leave FLL early in the morning and return to FLL at 430 AM) but the Corona thing put an end to that trip.
 
jplatts
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:52 pm

vadodara wrote:
Seems like AS has figured out how to grow these markets profitably.
a) extend the network to Pacific NW
b) pick transcon's to leisure/seasonal markets

Not a bad strategy; it allows its presence to grow in S Cal and probably offers a future launch pad to other destinations such as RDU, AUS and perhaps even iAH/ATL.


While VX never served Atlanta or Houston, VX had considered adding service to ATL and Houston prior to the AS-VX merger.

However, AS adding LAX-ATL/IAH and SFO-ATL/IAH nonstop service might be possibilities with
(a) ATL and IAH both being top destinations that AS doesn't currently serve nonstop from California,
(b) AS having a FF base (including the former VX FF base) in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles to support LAX-ATL/IAH and SFO-ATL/IAH nonstop service on AS, and
(c) VX having considered serving these two destinations nonstop from SFO and LAX prior to the VX-AS merger.

While VX had never served AUS nonstop from LAX, VX adding LAX-AUS nonstop service might have happened if VX were still around and the AS-VX merger hadn't taken place. AS adding LAX-AUS nonstop service might still be a possibility with AS's FF base in Greater Los Angeles, the AS-AA partnership, AA's FF base in both Greater Los Angeles and Greater Austin, and the former VX FF base in Greater Los Angeles.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:04 pm

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

So far out of the way! DL ANCMSP all day long going east!
 
catiii
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:19 pm

allegiantflyer wrote:
It's nice to see the Bullish AS that we saw in 2017 after the acquisition come out in force again, it seemed they became very timid and eager to cutback following that period in time. Big expansion announcements like these are very exciting,


This is what passes for "bullish" and "big" at AS? This was at best a timid response to B6's LAX growth and TCON expansion out of Newark. It actually sounds like they got a courtesy heads up from AA about the B6 codeshare and threw something together to get out there as a competitive response.
 
catiii
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:20 pm

klm617 wrote:
Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?


No. They aren't.
 
vadodara
Posts: 1146
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm

jplatts wrote:
While VX had never served AUS nonstop from LAX, VX adding LAX-AUS nonstop service might have happened if VX were still around and the AS-VX merger hadn't taken place. AS adding LAX-AUS nonstop service might still be a possibility with AS's FF base in Greater Los Angeles, the AS-AA partnership, AA's FF base in both Greater Los Angeles and Greater Austin, and the former VX FF base in Greater Los Angeles.


So VX probably got done due to 2 changes and didnt have deep pockets to pivot:
a) the transcon product got drastically upgraded so VX 'cool' cabins were not so cool
b) A319 was probably a non-optimum aircraft for intrastate or even WA/OR to CA routes

AS's simple fleet probably provides greater flexibility to manage these markets.
 
vadodara
Posts: 1146
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:34 pm

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


B6 has done fairly well with their strategy out of BOS/JFK. But at some point they will get trapped in their own box.

For starters, they could not outbid AS for VX. FLL is fairly modest. Even on E Coast, B6 may find it hard to muscle in the space held by AA/DL/UA. AA's weakness at JFK helps but it still has limited upside.
 
LAXBUR
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:05 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:42 pm

catiii wrote:
allegiantflyer wrote:
It's nice to see the Bullish AS that we saw in 2017 after the acquisition come out in force again, it seemed they became very timid and eager to cutback following that period in time. Big expansion announcements like these are very exciting,


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


You do realize that JetBlue’s “big” LAX announcement was moving an operation from one local airport to another and not even keeping all the flights? The rest was just “we want to have this many flights later”. So if you want to play that game you’re not batting with much. Kinda pathetic.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5173
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:44 pm

LAXBUR wrote:
catiii wrote:
allegiantflyer wrote:
It's nice to see the Bullish AS that we saw in 2017 after the acquisition come out in force again, it seemed they became very timid and eager to cutback following that period in time. Big expansion announcements like these are very exciting,


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


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


I think retaliation was in reference to the earlier 30 routes add which definitely involved many AS markets. Based on how many routes B6 added that time, I really don't see this as a major response.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 4996
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:48 pm

catiii wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?


No. They aren't.


Call me naïve but I think these three are working together towards a common goal so in my estimation they are all on the same team at this point. But what do I know.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:29 pm

klm617 wrote:
catiii wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?


No. They aren't.


Call me naïve but I think these three are working together towards a common goal so in my estimation they are all on the same team at this point. But what do I know.


Either you're naive or AS and B6 are breaking the law.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:50 pm

kavok wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams. Consider a college textbook publisher based in PHL, who by virtue of being based in PHL is inclined to fly AA for business. But if AA doesn’t fly to any west coast college town, that publisher may switch to DL/UA even though they live in PHL. Being a US3 means you have to fly to many of those tertiary cities from somewhere, even if those specific flights don’t generate profits on their own. Otherwise you lose the whole corporate contract. So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.


I think you missed the part where EUG, FAT, and many other small Western cities are already connected into the broader AA network via PHX, and often additionally DFW. AA arguably never needed to fly LAX-EUG for network reasons. AA was flying LAX-FAT long before the US merger, but even back then FAT was connected to the rest of the AA network via DFW, and US had it connected to their network via PHX.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:22 pm

FSDan wrote:
kavok wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams. Consider a college textbook publisher based in PHL, who by virtue of being based in PHL is inclined to fly AA for business. But if AA doesn’t fly to any west coast college town, that publisher may switch to DL/UA even though they live in PHL. Being a US3 means you have to fly to many of those tertiary cities from somewhere, even if those specific flights don’t generate profits on their own. Otherwise you lose the whole corporate contract. So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.


The AA EUG-PHX flight is (I think) new in the last couple of years and isn't the best for connections timing....it arrives PHX at 2:30 or 3:00 pm depending on schedule adjustments. If you want to get somewhere earlier in the day, that means a different route or carrier out of EUG. The E75 to LAX T6 will be a big improvement on metal and avoiding the eagle's nest hassles, plus better mileage plan credit.
I think you missed the part where EUG, FAT, and many other small Western cities are already connected into the broader AA network via PHX, and often additionally DFW. AA arguably never needed to fly LAX-EUG for network reasons. AA was flying LAX-FAT long before the US merger, but even back then FAT was connected to the rest of the AA network via DFW, and US had it connected to their network via PHX.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:30 pm

cschleic wrote:
FSDan wrote:
kavok wrote:

My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams. Consider a college textbook publisher based in PHL, who by virtue of being based in PHL is inclined to fly AA for business. But if AA doesn’t fly to any west coast college town, that publisher may switch to DL/UA even though they live in PHL. Being a US3 means you have to fly to many of those tertiary cities from somewhere, even if those specific flights don’t generate profits on their own. Otherwise you lose the whole corporate contract. So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.


I think you missed the part where EUG, FAT, and many other small Western cities are already connected into the broader AA network via PHX, and often additionally DFW. AA arguably never needed to fly LAX-EUG for network reasons. AA was flying LAX-FAT long before the US merger, but even back then FAT was connected to the rest of the AA network via DFW, and US had it connected to their network via PHX.


The AA EUG-PHX flight is (I think) new in the last couple of years and isn't the best for connections timing....it arrives PHX at 2:30 or 3:00 pm depending on schedule adjustments. If you want to get somewhere earlier in the day, that means a different route or carrier out of EUG. The E75 to LAX T6 will be a big improvement on metal and avoiding the eagle's nest hassles, plus better mileage plan credit.


PHX-EUG definitely predates LAX-EUG. LAX-EUG/MFR/RDM on AA are some of the more recent domestic adds (although LAX-TUL/OMA/SDF etc. are even newer).
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
kavok
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:47 pm

FSDan wrote:
kavok wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams. Consider a college textbook publisher based in PHL, who by virtue of being based in PHL is inclined to fly AA for business. But if AA doesn’t fly to any west coast college town, that publisher may switch to DL/UA even though they live in PHL. Being a US3 means you have to fly to many of those tertiary cities from somewhere, even if those specific flights don’t generate profits on their own. Otherwise you lose the whole corporate contract. So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.


I think you missed the part where EUG, FAT, and many other small Western cities are already connected into the broader AA network via PHX, and often additionally DFW. AA arguably never needed to fly LAX-EUG for network reasons. AA was flying LAX-FAT long before the US merger, but even back then FAT was connected to the rest of the AA network via DFW, and US had it connected to their network via PHX.


Agreed on PHX. Arguably if there was a reason for AA to be flying PHX-XXX before, that reason doesn’t change by AS building up LAX. So many of those stations may still remain in the AA network. However, most of the smaller cities west of I-15 don’t really see service to DFW. If they do have AA service, it is only to PHX and/or LAX. And the further north you go up the Pacific coast, the more out of the way PHX/LAX becomes as a connection point to somewhere East.

I guess my biggest point is that AA frequent flyers going to one of those small cities west of I-15 would still choose to connect in PHX/LAX because they had to. Now they don’t have to, and can use AS, which means demand goes down on those AA Eagle flights from PHX/LAX. So it may no longer make sense for AA to fly the route.

And while yes AA/AS can’t coordinate... but if AA drops and AS adds (or vice versa), both airlines win.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: AS responds to B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:10 am

Do you mean I-5, not I-15? Cities West of I-15 include AA/Eagle cities SEA, PDX, GEG, BOI, RDM, EUG, MFR, RNO, SMF, STS, SFO, OAK, SJC, MRY, FAT, SBP, BFL, SBA, LAX, SNA, skirts ONT, goes through LAS and SLC plus SAN. Most of these are connected to DFW, many to ORD, in addition to PHX and LAX. Lots of college towns. So I'm not understanding your logic. West of I-5 is different; it goes through many of these, with few actually being west of I-5. Either way, these are big AAdvantage frequent flyer markets, and make it worthwhile to be a member.
Since AA and AS don't and won't by this agreement have a joint venture and revenue sharing, AA would lose revenue and on-line feed if they stopped flying the West Coast-> LAX/PHX markets. AS feed, whether by codeshare or just those capitalizing on frequent flyer mileage accrual is gravy, not a replacement revenue source.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
flyby519
Posts: 1570
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:48 am

catiii wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?


No. They aren't.


Will that rebooking agreement turn into anything more substantial between B6/AS like it did with B6/AA?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4933
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:14 am

flyby519 wrote:
catiii wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Aren't AS and B6 on the same team now ?


No. They aren't.


Will that rebooking agreement turn into anything more substantial between B6/AS like it did with B6/AA?

Couldn’t they rebook into the AA code in this circumstance?
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:31 am

kavok wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
kavok wrote:
Simply put, there were many cities like FAT or EUG that AA had to have in its network. To be a competitive domestic player on the national level, AA couldn’t simply tell it’s frequent flyers out East that “I am sorry, but we can’t fly you to EUG or FAT because those cities aren’t accessible from anywhere in our network”. And thus AA operated (likely unprofitable) flights from LAX to EUG, FAT, and others simply to achieve the de facto broad network requirement of being a legacy airline.

With the OW partnerships, AA can now use AS to get pax to FAT and EUG. More importantly, they can also drop those unprofitable flights to those cities that AS serves. And in doing so, it opens then door for AS to strengthen their own network by flying to more of those destinations from LAX.


I don't see your points. AA & AS don't have an anti-trust immunized JV. They will still compete - they can't coordinate capacity, or scheduling, or pricing NOT to compete. People expect way too much from codesharing. If codesharing could achieve even half what some people think there would be no use for alliances, JV, or equity stakes.

As for FAT and EUG, AA's route map (perhaps slow to catch up with COVID reductions) shows both with service from PHX, and FAT with service from both DFW and PHX. That's pretty good for airports ranked #102 and #118 in arrivals count for 12 months ending 4/2020. One would struggle to call either a must-serve destination - WN certainly doesn't.


My point is basically this:
Part 1:
AA doesn’t want to be flying LAX-EUG/FAT/etc. Those routes are money losers, and cash is obviously very tight right now. The obvious financial answer is to simply drop them. But they can’t drop them and still consider themselves a full service domestic carrier. You can’t tell your corporate clients that the only cities west of the Rocky Mountains they can fly to are those big enough to have pro sports teams. Consider a college textbook publisher based in PHL, who by virtue of being based in PHL is inclined to fly AA for business. But if AA doesn’t fly to any west coast college town, that publisher may switch to DL/UA even though they live in PHL. Being a US3 means you have to fly to many of those tertiary cities from somewhere, even if those specific flights don’t generate profits on their own. Otherwise you lose the whole corporate contract. So AA was forced to fly to EUG/FAT/etc. when they didn’t want to.

Enter the AS partnership. Now AS can provide the necessary connectivity to those smaller West Coast markets. AA no longer is “required” to serve EUG/FAT/etc. And since they are money losers, AA can finally achieve their goal of dropping those stations. All of that requires no coordination, and makes obvious business sense.

Part 2:
For it’s own benefit, AA is dropping LAX flying to small cities for reasons described above. AS has always wanted a bigger presence in LAX. AS has a lot of frequent flyers in EUG. And most importantly, the legacy competition (AA) that previously existed on a route (AA’s LAX-EUG) just went away. Now AS has an opportunity to try a route they have always wanted to see if they could make work, without having a competitor. So AS can add it, again without coordination with AA.

So AS expands LAX, and AA shrinks it... because it is in each parties interest to do so, even without coordination.


AA has long been the strongest carrier at FAT, and they have a large FF base in and around Fresno (FAT's departure seat count on AA rivals some much larger airports, at least pre-COVID). While PHX and DFW can cover a lot of the country, LAX provides connections to int'l destinations, including on other OneWorld partners, as well as to Hawaii. I think your position that AA doesn't want to provide those connecting options probably isn't accurate.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:44 am

32andBelow wrote:
flyby519 wrote:
catiii wrote:

No. They aren't.


Will that rebooking agreement turn into anything more substantial between B6/AS like it did with B6/AA?

Couldn’t they rebook into the AA code in this circumstance?

Rebooking rules are to book on the operating carrier flight number, not a codeshare; the exception being the Eagles, Horizons and Expresses that don't sell under their own codes. So a ticketing agreement -at least a special involuntary reroute provision- is necessary between the carriers involved. So B6 could not protect on an AA* flight operated by AS. They'd have to have an agreement to book an AS operated flight.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
Tack
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:13 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:56 am

catiii wrote:
allegiantflyer wrote:
It's nice to see the Bullish AS that we saw in 2017 after the acquisition come out in force again, it seemed they became very timid and eager to cutback following that period in time. Big expansion announcements like these are very exciting,


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


I know right? It’s almost like they were a financially underperforming airline that went all in with a LGB operation and went, ‘ah hell, guess we’ll just move flights to LAX. And maybe add some later”. Lol, we get it, B6 is the most bestest ever. Luckily for them, AA wants to code share, because, with their poor network, they were going find ways to continue to grow their revenue a wee bit difficult.
 
alasizon
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:22 am

FSDan wrote:
PHX-EUG definitely predates LAX-EUG. LAX-EUG/MFR/RDM on AA are some of the more recent domestic adds (although LAX-TUL/OMA/SDF etc. are even newer).


LAX-EUG/MFR/RDM actually predates the PHX service as far as AA is concerned. US dropped the PHX routes at least a few years prior to the merger.

PHX-RDM was the first to come back and was one of the initial CR7 routes for OO out of PHX, added in Mar 2017 as I recall. They were already flying LAX at that point with a Compass E75 but had suspended it from Dec-Mar for runway construction and then resumed both at once (the runway construction wasn't done in time for the inaugural anyhow but AA continued with the launch).

MFR and EUG came later for PHX and AA had already been running LAX in both these markets for a while. LAX-EUG was the first Oregon route to go double daily (something PHX-EUG and PHX-MFR have done since then on and off and originally all three from PHX were loaded as double daily starting in Sep pre-demand drop).
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
n7371f
Posts: 1818
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:23 am

Actually I was referring to it from a customer standpoint...but I'm sure you knew that anyway.

LAXBUR wrote:
n7371f wrote:
Choosing AS over B6 on LAX-FLL is akin to asking a 65 yr old woman out on a date vs a 35 year old.


Yeah. The 65-year old may be frugal, but has more money and a better network of friends and business colleagues to connect with.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3618
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:30 am

jplatts wrote:
AS adding PDX-TPA nonstop service might be a possibility with the lack of PDX-TPA nonstop service is one of the biggest holes in both the PDX and TPA markets. There are also other adds that could be made by AS out of PDX such as PDX-ATL/IND/BNA/RDU/SAT.

AS adding SFO-TPA nonstop service is also a possibility with UA currently being the only airline serving TPA nonstop from the San Francisco Bay Area.


PSX-TPA is one of the biggest holes in the TPA & PDX markets. Why exactly do you figure that.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4214
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: AS responds to B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:30 pm

Alaska lost some of its luster after Delta hit Seattle. A fair number of AS loyalists switched over to Delta as it offered a better product. B6 has suffered some of the same from Delta. Both should aim at bettering Delta. Everyone knows AA could improve its product. Both Alaska and B6 do a few forays beyond their fortress areas, but really are not continental airlines. I can easily see all three improving their product particularly compared to Delta and providing superior services, AS western states, mexico and Hawaii, B6 eastern third of the US and Caribbean. AA everything else - but all doing a better job in their main areas.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
jplatts
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: AS claps back at B6, announces LAX and FLL expansion

Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:47 pm

rbavfan wrote:
PSX-TPA is one of the biggest holes in the TPA & PDX markets. Why exactly do you figure that.


The PDEW of PDX-TPA was 92 passengers per day in Q3 2019, and AS would also have some connecting feed from Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii in addition to O&D traffic on the PDX-TPA route if it adds PDX-TPA nonstop service.

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