Wish they would try to be more aggressive here in the Bay Area and make mid-con and intra-CA adds. DEN/IAH/MSY/ABQ/TUS/STL/BNA/RDU would be nice. And they are lacking two of the four Hawaiian destinations! (no LIH or KOA).

For intra-CA/regional west coast, their network is lacking from SFO. Missing SBA/ONT/BUR/ACV/EUG/RNO among others. Ever since they have hired the new regional VP of California, not much has changed here. It seems they have found solid footing in SAN however which is great.

AS's eventual move to T1 starting later this year will give them access to AA and OW partners in the A Gates of the intl terminal which is great, but it certainly puts a cap on their "hub" operation here since they will be in the same terminal along with WN, AA, and B6–and I am pretty sure that HA, SY, and F9 will eventually leave the Intl terminal and move into T1 as well. That's a red flag for potential future growth... I cannot imagine AS successfully running a "hub" from a terminal where they are colocated along with up to six other carriers.

I'm not sure I see much of a future here in the Bay Area if they continue on their current path. They don't seem to be looking to build relevance–their operations seem pretty stagnant with limited route, frequency, and gauge additions. Some of us love UA and others don't. But no one wants to be chained to one airline when looking to fly to the interior of the country from SFO, and a competitor to drive down WN's prices (which are now ridiculous for a supposed LCC) is necessary when it comes to intra-CA. When I fly from SFO I now use either UA (my preference due to FF) or DL. AS is kind of an afterthought at this point and I hope (but kind of doubt) that this will change. Come on, Alaska. Be more aggressive where it counts instead of making nonsense SNA-TUS adds!

As noted upthread, AS is maxxed out for metal and crew. Before Covid they flew 2 ABQ-SEA flights, mostly full. Now one - completely full.

I do not think they would have any issue filling a 700 once a day ABQ-PAE as an addition.

sfojvjets wrote:

When I fly from SFO I now use either UA (my preference due to FF) or DL. AS is kind of an afterthought at this point and I hope (but kind of doubt) that this will change. Come on, Alaska. Be more aggressive where it counts instead of making nonsense SNA-TUS adds!

Are you hoping to fly AS over UA / DL if they add routes that you would fly, or just hoping they'd help push fares down on your preferred carrier UA with some competition? You don't sound like someone who would choose AS. I understand the FF issue of being loyal to a carrier or alliance, based on your preference toward *A, why worry about what AS flies out of SFO if you're a UA customer?

2023 is all about fleet transition. Assuming that all of their deliveries come as planned, the end of the year fleet count will be higher than YE2022. All of the fleet growth is in the 4th quarter. Here’s where the passenger fleet is.

End 2022 – 308 airplanes (222 – AS, 44 – QX, 42 – OO)
Today – 295 airplanes (219 – AS, 34 – QX, 42 – OO)
September 2022 (guess) 304 airplanes (223 – AS, 39 – QX, 42 – OO)
End 2023 – 319 airplanes (235 – AS, 42 – QX, 42 – OO)

There are 11 more airplanes leaving, probably all in September (not sure when the other -800 will go off for freighter conversion, but it should be in that time frame). There are 27 more MAX and 7 E175 planned this year (based on their last quarterly guidance). If they get 4 MAX a month, by September they will have enough airplanes to cover the 11 airplanes leaving and will have a couple of extra airplanes. Q4, they will get a lot of additional capacity. New markets, new routes and rebuilding of lost capacity/frequencies will likely start appearing in the next few months for start around the turn of the year. Like SNA-TUS/BZN, don't be surprised to see winter seasonal type routes. 2024, Alaska will grow by 25 airplanes. Stay tuned.

SuperDash wrote:

2023 is all about fleet transition. Assuming that all of their deliveries come as planned, the end of the year fleet count will be higher than YE2022. All of the fleet growth is in the 4th quarter. Here’s where the passenger fleet is.

End 2022 – 308 airplanes (222 – AS, 44 – QX, 42 – OO)
Today – 295 airplanes (219 – AS, 34 – QX, 42 – OO)
September 2022 (guess) 304 airplanes (223 – AS, 39 – QX, 42 – OO)
End 2023 – 319 airplanes (235 – AS, 42 – QX, 42 – OO)

There are 11 more airplanes leaving, probably all in September (not sure when the other -800 will go off for freighter conversion, but it should be in that time frame). There are 27 more MAX and 7 E175 planned this year (based on their last quarterly guidance). If they get 4 MAX a month, by September they will have enough airplanes to cover the 11 airplanes leaving and will have a couple of extra airplanes. Q4, they will get a lot of additional capacity. New markets, new routes and rebuilding of lost capacity/frequencies will likely start appearing in the next few months for start around the turn of the year. Like SNA-TUS/BZN, don't be surprised to see winter seasonal type routes. 2024, Alaska will grow by 25 airplanes. Stay tuned.

Thanks for this info. Does this account for Boeing delays? If not, probably need to knock that down a bit, but principle still holds.

jbs2886 wrote:

SuperDash wrote:

2023 is all about fleet transition. Assuming that all of their deliveries come as planned, the end of the year fleet count will be higher than YE2022. All of the fleet growth is in the 4th quarter. Here’s where the passenger fleet is.

End 2022 – 308 airplanes (222 – AS, 44 – QX, 42 – OO)
Today – 295 airplanes (219 – AS, 34 – QX, 42 – OO)
September 2022 (guess) 304 airplanes (223 – AS, 39 – QX, 42 – OO)
End 2023 – 319 airplanes (235 – AS, 42 – QX, 42 – OO)

There are 11 more airplanes leaving, probably all in September (not sure when the other -800 will go off for freighter conversion, but it should be in that time frame). There are 27 more MAX and 7 E175 planned this year (based on their last quarterly guidance). If they get 4 MAX a month, by September they will have enough airplanes to cover the 11 airplanes leaving and will have a couple of extra airplanes. Q4, they will get a lot of additional capacity. New markets, new routes and rebuilding of lost capacity/frequencies will likely start appearing in the next few months for start around the turn of the year. Like SNA-TUS/BZN, don't be surprised to see winter seasonal type routes. 2024, Alaska will grow by 25 airplanes. Stay tuned.

Thanks for this info. Does this account for Boeing delays? If not, probably need to knock that down a bit, but principle still holds.

It is based on Alaska's guidance in their 10Q. It takes into account everything they knew in April which did include some MAX adjustments. Post 598 (Page 12) has additional detail.

See Page 33
https://investor.alaskaair.com/static-f ... 3fddf99526

SuperDash wrote:

2023 is all about fleet transition. Assuming that all of their deliveries come as planned, the end of the year fleet count will be higher than YE2022. All of the fleet growth is in the 4th quarter. Here’s where the passenger fleet is.

End 2022 – 308 airplanes (222 – AS, 44 – QX, 42 – OO)
Today – 295 airplanes (219 – AS, 34 – QX, 42 – OO)
September 2022 (guess) 304 airplanes (223 – AS, 39 – QX, 42 – OO)
End 2023 – 319 airplanes (235 – AS, 42 – QX, 42 – OO)

There are 11 more airplanes leaving, probably all in September (not sure when the other -800 will go off for freighter conversion, but it should be in that time frame). There are 27 more MAX and 7 E175 planned this year (based on their last quarterly guidance). If they get 4 MAX a month, by September they will have enough airplanes to cover the 11 airplanes leaving and will have a couple of extra airplanes. Q4, they will get a lot of additional capacity. New markets, new routes and rebuilding of lost capacity/frequencies will likely start appearing in the next few months for start around the turn of the year. Like SNA-TUS/BZN, don't be surprised to see winter seasonal type routes. 2024, Alaska will grow by 25 airplanes. Stay tuned.

Thanks for the recap 'Dash. As has been mentioned, how "on time" Boeing is with the deliveries is a major factor for AS (and everyone else) as we head toward 2024.

I think we also have to see how demand is later this year and in 2024. Restocking the shelves next year is dependent on the return of demand which, IMO is still an unknown. AS just further suspended a couple of PDX routes -- MCI & MSP, now dropped between Oct and January -- and I keep seeing as the Company further "adjusts" their fall and winter schedules, that many of SAN's thinner, shorter routes are still not even operating daily, let alone seeing multiple daily frequencies; trimming and cutting are alive and well at Network Planning. Some of BOI's routes are still under-served compared to even last year's offerings. Many of AS's Hawaii routes that I'm familiar with are seeing reduced capacity later this year. LA and SFO are still underperforming according to some articles & discussions I've been hearing so despite lots of facility improvements (e.g., more gates and lounges) being made by AS at those stations, we may not see a huge bolus of new flights and routes right away at many of AS's airports - small or large!

My feeling is that because of fleet expansion and staffing improvements, AS will hopefully be in a very good position to start adding frequency, and restoring current (suspended) routes plus some selective dot-connecting as network demand returns. I know they aren't going to leave new-delivery Boeings sitting on the ground so late 2023 and 2024 will be very interesting to watch develop as AS decides where to place incoming assets!

(I must add that I remain very hopeful that later this year will see announcements by AS of more growth at SAN to continue the expansion of their large SoCal focus city. If AS Network Planning needs any suggestions for dots to connect from SAN, boy, do I have a List!...)

bb

planemanofnz wrote:

They've repeatedly said (2017, 2021, etc) that they don't want lie-flat beds in Business Class on trans-cons.

Delta's A321Neo are not lie-flat in first, so I'm not sure of what point you're trying to make?
Flying on an Alaska 737-900 transcontinental in first vs. a Delta NEO, it's night and day.
These companies are competing, after all. I love the Alaska MAX interior. But the NG fleet needs a refresh, fast.

Pontiac wrote:

As noted upthread, AS is maxxed out for metal and crew. Before Covid they flew 2 ABQ-SEA flights, mostly full. Now one - completely full.

I do not think they would have any issue filling a 700 once a day ABQ-PAE as an addition.

A 3-hour flight in a CR700? I would need to be sedated.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

Pontiac wrote:

As noted upthread, AS is maxxed out for metal and crew. Before Covid they flew 2 ABQ-SEA flights, mostly full. Now one - completely full.

I do not think they would have any issue filling a 700 once a day ABQ-PAE as an addition.

A 3-hour flight in a CR700? I would need to be sedated.

There are no CRJ-700s for Alaska. He's referring to the 737-700 because its the only "700" in the fleet.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

Pontiac wrote:

As noted upthread, AS is maxxed out for metal and crew. Before Covid they flew 2 ABQ-SEA flights, mostly full. Now one - completely full.

I do not think they would have any issue filling a 700 once a day ABQ-PAE as an addition.

A 3-hour flight in a CR700? I would need to be sedated.

Fortunately it won't be on CJR700 as those are extinct at AS. Poster was more than likely referring to a 737-700, a rare bird outside of Alaska proper but occasional they are release for routes in the lower 48.

BobRoss wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

They've repeatedly said (2017, 2021, etc) that they don't want lie-flat beds in Business Class on trans-cons.

Delta's A321Neo are not lie-flat in first, so I'm not sure of what point you're trying to make?
Flying on an Alaska 737-900 transcontinental in first vs. a Delta NEO, it's night and day.
These companies are competing, after all. I love the Alaska MAX interior. But the NG fleet needs a refresh, fast.

I know retrofits on the -800 were apparently paused, not sure what the state of that is.

sfojvjets wrote:

Wish they would try to be more aggressive here in the Bay Area and make mid-con and intra-CA adds. DEN/IAH/MSY/ABQ/TUS/STL/BNA/RDU would be nice. And they are lacking two of the four Hawaiian destinations! (no LIH or KOA).

For intra-CA/regional west coast, their network is lacking from SFO. Missing SBA/ONT/BUR/ACV/EUG/RNO among others. Ever since they have hired the new regional VP of California, not much has changed here. It seems they have found solid footing in SAN however which is great.

AS's eventual move to T1 starting later this year will give them access to AA and OW partners in the A Gates of the intl terminal which is great, but it certainly puts a cap on their "hub" operation here since they will be in the same terminal along with WN, AA, and B6–and I am pretty sure that HA, SY, and F9 will eventually leave the Intl terminal and move into T1 as well. That's a red flag for potential future growth... I cannot imagine AS successfully running a "hub" from a terminal where they are colocated along with up to six other carriers.

I'm not sure I see much of a future here in the Bay Area if they continue on their current path. They don't seem to be looking to build relevance–their operations seem pretty stagnant with limited route, frequency, and gauge additions. Some of us love UA and others don't. But no one wants to be chained to one airline when looking to fly to the interior of the country from SFO, and a competitor to drive down WN's prices (which are now ridiculous for a supposed LCC) is necessary when it comes to intra-CA. When I fly from SFO I now use either UA (my preference due to FF) or DL. AS is kind of an afterthought at this point and I hope (but kind of doubt) that this will change. Come on, Alaska. Be more aggressive where it counts instead of making nonsense SNA-TUS adds!

SFO-MSY/KOA/RDU/IND/DEN have all been flown previously by either AS or VX and they have all been dropped. DEN in particular was a controversial drop with many thinking it damaged AS’s overall relevance in SFO, but it’s obviously a very competitive route with service on UA, WN, and F9 baked in. The intra-CA/NV adds you suggest would all almost have to be on OO or QX which are stretched thin and have their own staffing problems, that capacity is a limited resource right now and seems to have been used to connect CA to the PNW or allocated to SAN.

Tack wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

When I fly from SFO I now use either UA (my preference due to FF) or DL. AS is kind of an afterthought at this point and I hope (but kind of doubt) that this will change. Come on, Alaska. Be more aggressive where it counts instead of making nonsense SNA-TUS adds!

Are you hoping to fly AS over UA / DL if they add routes that you would fly, or just hoping they'd help push fares down on your preferred carrier UA with some competition? You don't sound like someone who would choose AS. I understand the FF issue of being loyal to a carrier or alliance, based on your preference toward *A, why worry about what AS flies out of SFO if you're a UA customer?

That's a good question. I think UA works, but isn't super wallet friendly. And my preference for them is largely on intl flying where *A has superior connectivity. I have found that AS typically has better pricing on the routes where the two carriers do coexist (LAX, SEA, etc) and I view the onboard experience as similar enough to not be important. That's why I wish they'd expand their network from here–UA and WN pricing isn't doing anyone favors. I think AS has a chance to make inroads with the younger crowd and try some trunk routes where UA is the token dominant carrier. I will say that WN is a much harder beast to fight IMO. But a third option would be nice, and I was excited early on in the merger to see new adds but they quickly began cutting the core stuff like DEN for example–I guess routes like that were losing enough money to outweigh time and investment. Now I think the question is if AS would be willing to re-add such routes to make them more relevant to Bay Area travelers and expand their CA/West Coast base, even if it means they're loss leaders. If I can get a similar experience to UA but for cheaper at AS, then I'll take AS like I've done in the past to LAX, SEA, and Cabo, and will be doing to PAE this summer. Just want this option on more routes. Excited to see the space that they unveil for their new T1 lounge later this year.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

A 3-hour flight in a CR700? I would need to be sedated.

I flew many TUS-PDX flights on the CR7. The free booze helped.

wedgetail737 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

BobRoss wrote:

I recently flew SEAMCO on an Alaska 739ER. Food was great but onboard hard product was lacking. Today I'm flying a Delta A321Neo MCOSEA in F and it's night and day, just fabulous. I hope Alaska accelerates cabin updates.

Does AS have any plans to 'update' its cabins?

They've repeatedly said (2017, 2021, etc) that they don't want lie-flat beds in Business Class on trans-cons.

https://simpleflying.com/alaska-no-lie-flat-thankful/

https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... -our-thing

Well, AA is canning their lie-flat beds on their LAX/SFO to JFK/BOS routes. Unless you're flying a widebody on DL, AA or UA, B6 Mint is about it. People may think AS 1st class seats are inferior to others, but in the long-run, it might be the right thing to stick with current style.

AA is not canning their lie-flats. They are consolidating to a two-class lie flat product instead of a 3-class one.

chrisair wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

A 3-hour flight in a CR700? I would need to be sedated.

I flew many TUS-PDX flights on the CR7. The free booze helped.

Yeah...along with the Q400's, so did the freeze booze for everyone. Now, you have to book Premium Economy or higher to get "free" booze.

sfojvjets wrote:

That's a good question. I think UA works, but isn't super wallet friendly. And my preference for them is largely on intl flying where *A has superior connectivity. I have found that AS typically has better pricing on the routes where the two carriers do coexist (LAX, SEA, etc) and I view the onboard experience as similar enough to not be important. That's why I wish they'd expand their network from here–UA and WN pricing isn't doing anyone favors. I think AS has a chance to make inroads with the younger crowd and try some trunk routes where UA is the token dominant carrier. I will say that WN is a much harder beast to fight IMO. But a third option would be nice, and I was excited early on in the merger to see new adds but they quickly began cutting the core stuff like DEN for example–I guess routes like that were losing enough money to outweigh time and investment. Now I think the question is if AS would be willing to re-add such routes to make them more relevant to Bay Area travelers and expand their CA/West Coast base, even if it means they're loss leaders. If I can get a similar experience to UA but for cheaper at AS, then I'll take AS like I've done in the past to LAX, SEA, and Cabo, and will be doing to PAE this summer. Just want this option on more routes. Excited to see the space that they unveil for their new T1 lounge later this year.

That's largely been the strategy that AS has been articulating since it bought VX. Seriously: there are investor presentations that explicitly lay out a market plan of niceties like big carriers (but not lie-flats), but more price-competitive. They didn't keep up with DL on AVOD screens (nor did AA or UA on domestic routes), and it took them a long time to go all dual-class planes in SEA, but sat wi-fi on E75s will be nice.

AS can't be everything, everywhere, all at once, though, and I'm not sure the Bay Area is a top priority.

wedgetail737 wrote:

chrisair wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

A 3-hour flight in a CR700? I would need to be sedated.

I flew many TUS-PDX flights on the CR7. The free booze helped.

Yeah...along with the Q400's, so did the freeze booze for everyone. Now, you have to book Premium Economy or higher to get "free" booze.

Q400
Free booze
Multiple flights to smaller PNW cites

E175
No free booze
Single flight to smaller PNW cites

Clear win for the Q

gmcc wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

chrisair wrote:

I flew many TUS-PDX flights on the CR7. The free booze helped.

Yeah...along with the Q400's, so did the freeze booze for everyone. Now, you have to book Premium Economy or higher to get "free" booze.

Q400
Free booze
Multiple flights to smaller PNW cites

E175
No free booze
Single flight to smaller PNW cites

Clear win for the Q

They would have reduced the q400 flight eventually. It’s the same size as the 175!

gmcc wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

chrisair wrote:

I flew many TUS-PDX flights on the CR7. The free booze helped.

Yeah...along with the Q400's, so did the freeze booze for everyone. Now, you have to book Premium Economy or higher to get "free" booze.

Q400
Free booze
Multiple flights to smaller PNW cites

E175
No free booze
Single flight to smaller PNW cites

Clear win for the Q

Has AS completely eliminated the free drinks now?

I got free beer on a Q RDD-SEA (at 7am ) in 2021.

I remember when the beer was flowing on a CR7 SEA-FAT years ago. I wasn’t driving that evening. Great service on that flight.

MIflyer12 wrote:

They didn't keep up with DL on AVOD screens (nor did AA or UA on domestic routes)

Is there any chance of them bringing in PTVs in the future, even for a subfleet for transcons, and/or in Business Class? As IATA’s 2018 Global Passenger Survey reiterated, passengers prefer to watch digital content on an embedded IFE system, and more and more competitors are bringing them back (e.g. UA's 'United Next' retrofits).

planemanofnz wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

They didn't keep up with DL on AVOD screens (nor did AA or UA on domestic routes)

Is there any chance of them bringing in PTVs in the future, even for a subfleet for transcons, and/or in Business Class? As IATA’s 2018 Global Passenger Survey reiterated, passengers prefer to watch digital content on an embedded IFE system, and more and more competitors are bringing them back (e.g. UA's 'United Next' retrofits).

Close to zero chance.
Several personal thoughts on why AS won't
1) they think in seat adds weight to the seat and therefore the plane. AS is very focused on reducing the environmental impact of their flying . Assuming in seat adds 5 pounds to each seat that is 730 extra pounds flying around on a MAX9. Extra weight= extra environmental impact.
2) Elimination of potential point of guest disappointment. Since a non functioning in seat IFE won't be a reason to withdraw a plane from service customers, who thought they would get IFE won't since the plane might fly multiple legs with the non functioning in seat IFE. While streaming could also be no functional that plane would be more likely to be withdrawn from service.
3) AS doesn't like subfleets of aircraft that they can't run anywhere in the system.

gmcc wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

They didn't keep up with DL on AVOD screens (nor did AA or UA on domestic routes)

they think in seat adds weight to the seat and therefore the plane.

Are you suggesting that the fact that adding electronics to the seat adds weight is a debatable question?

Aliqiout wrote:

gmcc wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

they think in seat adds weight to the seat and therefore the plane.

Are you suggesting that the fact that adding electronics to the seat adds weight is a debatable question?

Sorry poor phasing it does add weight. Redid the numbers and at 5 pounds it is closer to 890 pounds added to a MAX 9 at 178 seats and with 47 currently in the fleet an extra 20 tons being moved every day so not small number.

gmcc wrote:

Close to zero chance.
Several personal thoughts on why AS won't
1) they think in seat adds weight to the seat and therefore the plane. AS is very focused on reducing the environmental impact of their flying . Assuming in seat adds 5 pounds to each seat that is 730 extra pounds flying around on a MAX9. Extra weight= extra environmental impact.
2) Elimination of potential point of guest disappointment. Since a non functioning in seat IFE won't be a reason to withdraw a plane from service customers, who thought they would get IFE won't since the plane might fly multiple legs with the non functioning in seat IFE. While streaming could also be no functional that plane would be more likely to be withdrawn from service.
3) AS doesn't like subfleets of aircraft that they can't run anywhere in the system.

Bingo! Yes weight is everything. 800 pounds may not seem like much but it is four passengers or 23 bags. On a payload restricted flight that could be the difference between profit and loss or happy passengers and annoyed passengers. I know that on a-net you must have lie flat seats (Really really heavy) or IFE (Heavy and unreliable - yes they really are, especially when you need 178 seat backs to work all the time), and window shades....not really heavy but they have a definite maintenance cost as passengers are brutal on them.

We love these comforts but they come at a real cost to the airlines. Some airlines think its worth adding mechanics and burning fuel (more weight) and others think that the cost is not worth it. As a regular flyer with AS, I could care less about a TV, a lie flat seat, and I don't touch the window shade....I want to see the world - window person! Give me leg room which DL won't do on their A321Neos. Free Wifi, nice but not going to impact my buying decision. In fact at $8, I will buy that and make DL look like the fool for leaving that on the table. AA at $25 you may need to think about that one.

Point is, here on A-net, weight is the physics and there is a balance on every inflight decision. From SkyMall catelogs (I know, I date myself but they were more than 1lb per) to the greatest lie fly suite - massively heavy (500-1000 lbs per). I am happy with AS and their decisions. Keep my costs low....no wait, keep my fares low.

gmcc wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

gmcc wrote:

Are you suggesting that the fact that adding electronics to the seat adds weight is a debatable question?

Sorry poor phasing it does add weight. Redid the numbers and at 5 pounds it is closer to 890 pounds added to a MAX 9 at 178 seats and with 47 currently in the fleet an extra 20 tons being moved every day so not small number.

I agree that 890 lbs is not a small number. That's almost the weight of 4 pax and luggage.

SuperDash wrote:

I am happy with AS and their decisions. Keep my costs low....no wait, keep my fares low.

Except AS isn't doing that in my experience. They're usually $50 to $100 more expensive.

chrisair wrote:

SuperDash wrote:

I am happy with AS and their decisions. Keep my costs low....no wait, keep my fares low.

Except AS isn't doing that in my experience. They're usually $50 to $100 more expensive.

AS is not a high Yield airline. With ~850 million scheduled commercial passengers a year in the U.S., anyone's individual fare experience is statistically irrelevant.

sfojvjets wrote:

Wish they would try to be more aggressive here in the Bay Area and make mid-con and intra-CA adds. DEN/IAH/MSY/ABQ/TUS/STL/BNA/RDU would be nice. And they are lacking two of the four Hawaiian destinations! (no LIH or KOA).

For intra-CA/regional west coast, their network is lacking from SFO. Missing SBA/ONT/BUR/ACV/EUG/RNO among others. Ever since they have hired the new regional VP of California, not much has changed here. It seems they have found solid footing in SAN however which is great.

AS's eventual move to T1 starting later this year will give them access to AA and OW partners in the A Gates of the intl terminal which is great, but it certainly puts a cap on their "hub" operation here since they will be in the same terminal along with WN, AA, and B6–and I am pretty sure that HA, SY, and F9 will eventually leave the Intl terminal and move into T1 as well. That's a red flag for potential future growth... I cannot imagine AS successfully running a "hub" from a terminal where they are colocated along with up to six other carriers.

I'm not sure I see much of a future here in the Bay Area if they continue on their current path. They don't seem to be looking to build relevance–their operations seem pretty stagnant with limited route, frequency, and gauge additions. Some of us love UA and others don't. But no one wants to be chained to one airline when looking to fly to the interior of the country from SFO, and a competitor to drive down WN's prices (which are now ridiculous for a supposed LCC) is necessary when it comes to intra-CA. When I fly from SFO I now use either UA (my preference due to FF) or DL. AS is kind of an afterthought at this point and I hope (but kind of doubt) that this will change. Come on, Alaska. Be more aggressive where it counts instead of making nonsense SNA-TUS adds!

they aren't going to do that for awhile which is unfortunate for you and me, but there's the possibility of SFO being a Jetblue hub post-merger, so that's what we get.

gmcc wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

They didn't keep up with DL on AVOD screens (nor did AA or UA on domestic routes)

Is there any chance of them bringing in PTVs in the future, even for a subfleet for transcons, and/or in Business Class? As IATA’s 2018 Global Passenger Survey reiterated, passengers prefer to watch digital content on an embedded IFE system, and more and more competitors are bringing them back (e.g. UA's 'United Next' retrofits).

Close to zero chance.
Several personal thoughts on why AS won't
1) they think in seat adds weight to the seat and therefore the plane. AS is very focused on reducing the environmental impact of their flying . Assuming in seat adds 5 pounds to each seat that is 730 extra pounds flying around on a MAX9. Extra weight= extra environmental impact.
2) Elimination of potential point of guest disappointment. Since a non functioning in seat IFE won't be a reason to withdraw a plane from service customers, who thought they would get IFE won't since the plane might fly multiple legs with the non functioning in seat IFE. While streaming could also be no functional that plane would be more likely to be withdrawn from service.
3) AS doesn't like subfleets of aircraft that they can't run anywhere in the system.

This is strictly off the top of my head, but for a lot of AS hubs, wouldn't the average customer be a tiny bit more likely to be boarding with an armload of PEDs versus some other carrier's networks? PNW, Silicon Valley, etc? Plus AS isn't flying the stage lengths anyway where one can watch three films and an hour-long feature between wheels up and wheels down.

Strictly my own personal experience, but before my airline removed seatback IFE, if you weren't in the very start of a new content cycle the PTVs were just window dressing for the rows and rows of pax with their own iPads, laptops, etc. The last few years, INOP in-seat power or wi-fi has been the big deal to pax - not a lot of people in the last while complain if the IFE isn't working since they were going to use their own device anyway. (Again - just my own observation, if anyone has real data on this I'll eat crow if needed.)

If an airline can always deliver the 2,3, or4 star service you are expecting, they probably can charge just a little more. Frontier will attract more customers if they quit delivering 1 star service when people are expecting 2 star. People expect Alaska to offer 3+ star service in Y - a little better than WN. Alaska lost a lot of customers to Delta in Seattle because Delta was just a little better -consistently. I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If an airline can always deliver the 2,3, or4 star service you are expecting, they probably can charge just a little more. Frontier will attract more customers if they quit delivering 1 star service when people are expecting 2 star. People expect Alaska to offer 3+ star service in Y - a little better than WN. Alaska lost a lot of customers to Delta in Seattle because Delta was just a little better -consistently. I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

AS hasn’t lost market share to DL in SEA so I don’t think you can say they lost any customers. Some people people probably switched from AS to DL and vice versa.

Do you think that all of the expansion of Delta at SeaTac was expansion of the market? Some was, but I suspect a lot of it came our of former Alaska customers. Perhaps someone has some hard data.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Do you think that all of the expansion of Delta at SeaTac was expansion of the market? Some was, but I suspect a lot of it came our of former Alaska customers. Perhaps someone has some hard data.

United and southwest lost out a lot in SEA. One example is United used to fly several daily SEAANC. Now they fly 0 and Delta flies several SEAANC

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

Consistency in inflight service is a VERY long-running issue at Alaska. Poor performance has never been addressed and the crew know that they can get away with ignoring inflight service standards and procedures. The majority meet or exceed the SOP but a large minority do the minimum or less. For example, the roll-out of pre-departure beverages was for the most part ignored. It's been how long...months or a year now and the company seems to have surrendered. Many crew know this and with the exception of flights to/from Hawaii simply ignore offering PDB's. God forbid they try to step up their service to compete with stronger competitors. They need to find a way to deal with poor performers.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Do you think that all of the expansion of Delta at SeaTac was expansion of the market? Some was, but I suspect a lot of it came our of former Alaska customers. Perhaps someone has some hard data.

There’s been tremendous growth at SEA, though WN has shrunk and others like UA haven’t really grown.


2012:
- AS had 50.43% market share and carried 16,754,563 passenger (VX had 2% market share and 665,611 passengers)
- DL had 11.6% market share and carried 3,854,632 passengers
- WN had 8.49% market share and carried 2,820,907 passengers
- UA had 6.55% market share and carried 2,174,569 passengers
2022:
- AS had 54.31% market share and carried 24,961,652 passengers
- DL had 24.34% market share and carried 11,189,570 passengers
- WN had 4.74% market share and carried 2,179,865 passengers
- UA had 4.87% market share and carried 2,240,213 passengers

Would be interesting to see a 1992 & 2002 breakdown from when UA still had the SEA hub.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

... I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

What about the hard product?

theAviationGeek wrote:

Would be interesting to see a 1992 & 2002 breakdown from when UA still had the SEA hub.

I don’t remember UA having much at SEA beyond hub routes in 2002 besides NRT. There was a lot more mainline than there is now, but I can’t think of anything beyond LAX/SFO/DEN/ORD/IAD/EWR back then. Maybe BOS?

gunsontheroof wrote:

theAviationGeek wrote:

Would be interesting to see a 1992 & 2002 breakdown from when UA still had the SEA hub.

I don’t remember UA having much at SEA beyond hub routes in 2002 besides NRT. There was a lot more mainline than there is now, but I can’t think of anything beyond LAX/SFO/DEN/ORD/IAD/EWR back then. Maybe BOS?

They had a bunch of regional routes on UAX (GEG, PSC, PDX, etc) plus ANC.

gunsontheroof wrote:

theAviationGeek wrote:

Would be interesting to see a 1992 & 2002 breakdown from when UA still had the SEA hub.

I don’t remember UA having much at SEA beyond hub routes in 2002 besides NRT. There was a lot more mainline than there is now, but I can’t think of anything beyond LAX/SFO/DEN/ORD/IAD/EWR back then. Maybe BOS?

EMB-120s were a common sight in SEA up until ~2014. They flew to PDX, GEG, even internationally up to YVR. Previous 120 destinations included BLI, EUG, PSC, YKM in addition to the previously mentioned ones.

UA had mini regional focus cities in both SEA and PDX back in the days of the E120...

planemanofnz wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

... I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

What about the hard product?

Lol. Just stop. Only 13 yr olds on here, who rarely fly ask the same question over and over. “When will AS get lie flats, What about PTV’s”… Pretty sure that’s not you.

Tack wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

... I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

What about the hard product?

Lol. Just stop. Only 13 yr olds on here, who rarely fly ask the same question over and over. “When will AS get lie flats, What about PTV’s”… Pretty sure that’s not you.

Ironic, given you've admitted that Mint elevated B6's yields in competitive markets, and that you fly QR J at least twice a year ("there is none better").

2012:
- AS had 50.43% market share and carried 16,754,563 passenger (VX had 2% market share and 665,611 passengers)
- DL had 11.6% market share and carried 3,854,632 passengers
- WN had 8.49% market share and carried 2,820,907 passengers
- UA had 6.55% market share and carried 2,174,569 passengers
2022:
- AS had 54.31% market share and carried 24,961,652 passengers
- DL had 24.34% market share and carried 11,189,570 passengers
- WN had 4.74% market share and carried 2,179,865 passengers
- UA had 4.87% market share and carried 2,240,213 passengers

I think what is interesting here is DL and AS grew by almost the same # of passengers over the timeframe. Some of these passengers were new to the market and some poached from other airlines. However what this tells me is of these passengers, AS and DL had almost an equal chance of gaining each one. That is quite the accomplishment for DL given they are emerging their hub in the market during this time and AS has made clear it will defend SEA at all costs.

QX E175 N656QX is en route from SJK-MAO-SJU-RDU-YAM for delivery, wifi installation and post-delivery work.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/N656QX

planemanofnz wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

... I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

What about the hard product?

Sat wifi on the E75s is a leap, actually, given that AS uses them on some longer segments, with nothing between E75s and 737-700s. AA/DL/UA don't have/haven't announced(?) plans for sat wifi on their ~1,000 2-class RJs.

Forget about lie-flats. AS just doesn't have the routes (& frequencies on those routes) to justify the subfleet. I invite you to do the math. See the domestic/Mexico routes where AA/DL/UA/B6 run lie-flats (and fraction of frequencies that get lie-flats) and count AS frequencies on those routes.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I hope we will see new destinations in 2024 in long-haul, medium-haul and short-haul destinations. I have my little list of predictions, but definitely speculation (unfounded)...places like ACV, COS, BFL, DSM, PBI, ORF, BDL and DAY...just to name a few.

There was a recent discussion regarding whether AS is likely to announce any new destinations this year at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1483421.

The top 10 U.S. markets traveled to from SEA without AS service in Q4 2022 were CLT, JAX, ORF/PHF, MEM, BDL, RIC, GRR, DSM, TUL, and SDF.

MIflyer12 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

... I hear Alaska is working on ensuring better service and more consistency.

What about the hard product?

Sat wifi on the E75s is a leap, actually, given that AS uses them on some longer segments, with nothing between E75s and 737-700s. AA/DL/UA don't have/haven't announced(?) plans for sat wifi on their ~1,000 2-class RJs.

Forget about lie-flats. AS just doesn't have the routes (& frequencies on those routes) to justify the subfleet. I invite you to do the math. See the domestic/Mexico routes where AA/DL/UA/B6 run lie-flats (and fraction of frequencies that get lie-flats) and count AS frequencies on those routes.

And since they do use them on longer routes and are introducing sat wifi on them it would be nice if the had in seat power in the back of the plane. Not sure it is worth it but then AS would have consistent product across the entire fleet.