We recently saw Alaska Airlines complete its acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines. While Hawaiian is now part of Alaska Air Group, the job of proving the value in this merger is just starting.
The company is now working toward getting both airlines on a single operating certificate, meaning that on the back-end, the two airlines will become one. However, the company has committed to maintaining the two separate brands in the long run, or at least that’s the claim as of now.
The biggest issue with this merger is simple — Alaska has pretty consistently been profitable, while Hawaiian has been losing money for years. Obviously Alaska acquired Hawaiian because it wants to grow (profitably), though both airlines are very connected to their home markets.
So, what can Alaska Air Group do to turn around Hawaiian’s performance? Could the plan include some of Hawaiian’s wide body aircraft being transfered to Alaska, and being flown out of Seattle?
In this post:
Alaska Air Group seeks International Development Director
Following the closing of the merger, Alaska Air Group is now hiring an International Development Director. The airline is light on details when it comes to what exactly this entails. The person who gets this role is described as “the sole subject matter expert and thought leader in driving Alaska Air Group’s (AAG) global growth with a focus on delivering successful commercial outcomes.”
We all know why Alaska is seeking someone for this role. Alaska historically hasn’t operated any wide body aircraft. Meanwhile Hawaiian has a large wide body fleet — the airline flies 24 Airbus A330-200s, and is now taking delivery of Boeing 787-9s.
Hawaiian uses its wide body jets both for flights to the US mainland, and also for flights to Asia, the South Pacific, and beyond. Presumably Alaska Air Group executives are now stepping back, looking at the big picture, and figuring out how they can best allocate their resources to maximize profitability.
Why Hawaiian Airlines has struggled financially
It’s important to first consider why Hawaiian has been losing money:
- The US mainland to Hawaii market is super competitive, and Hawaiian doesn’t have some major advantage there over other carriers, like United, so it’s not the highest margin flying on earth
- Hawaiian has faced a ton of competition on inter-island flights, due to expansion from Southwest
- Asia and South Pacific demand is weaker than in the past; in particular, Hawaii is so popular with Japanese tourists, but the weak Japanese Yen has caused a reduction in inbound travelers
- Hawaiian has frankly done an awful job monetizing its loyalty program and developing partnerships, especially given what a desirable destination Hawaii is; as far as I’m concerned, Hawaiian should never have an empty seat on a flight
Some of these issues will work themselves out. For example:
- Alaska management will do a much better job monetizing Hawaiian’s loyalty program, and capitalizing on how much people enjoy traveling to Hawaii
- On the inter-island front, Southwest is starting to pull back a bit, as the airline hasn’t been making money in the market, and is trying to boost its financial performance
- When you combine Alaska and Hawaiian, they have a really strong presence between the US mainland and Hawaii
But that still leaves the issue of Hawaiian’s rather large wide body fleet…
Will Alaska Airlines start flying wide body aircraft?
Alaska Air Group hasn’t announced plans for wide body jets to be transfered from Hawaiian to Alaska. However, I think it goes without saying that this is at least under consideration.
The merit to this is obvious. Alaska has a loyal customer base in Seattle, a massive hub with lots of connectivity, and it’s also a lucrative business market. Logically, you’d think the airline could easily fill planes to places like London, Sydney, Tokyo, etc. Or at a minimum, you’d think these flights would perform better than many of Hawaiian’s current wide body flights out of Honolulu.
Alaska flying wide body jets out of Seattle comes with its own challenges, though. For one, Alaska has historically been an airline all about close global airline partnerships, and it’s going to be hard for Alaska to expand into long haul markets without stepping onto its partners’ toes.
Long haul flying is largely dominated by joint ventures, and that’s also where most of the money is made in long haul flying. Alaska partners with American, British Airways, Japan Airlines, and Qantas, and those airlines all belong to long haul joint ventures. Surely they wouldn’t be happy if Alaska starting competing directly with them, and there could be consequences.
Then there’s the general issue of product quality. Hawaiian’s 787s are pretty great, and have business class suites with doors. Meanwhile Hawaiian’s A330s are definitely more leisure oriented, as they’re in a 2-2-2 configuration, and wouldn’t be competitive in business markets. Yes, Alaska could reconfigure these, but there’s only so much you’re going to want to invest in classic A330s.
I guess a completely different approach could be that Alaska Air Group could try to build up Hawaiian’s Pacific hub in Honolulu. For example, if you’re flying from Seattle to Sydney, then Honolulu is basically right on the way. Wouldn’t it make sense to route people through there, and then you could capture a lot more travelers?
I find this merger incredibly exciting in part because I have no clue how this is going to play out. I don’t even have a guess I’m confident about. I feel like with past airline mergers in the United States, there hasn’t been much mystery to how things would play out. However, this is a merger that’s unlike any other US merger we’ve seen, in terms of the airlines both being so closely tied to their home markets, plans to maintain separate brands, etc.
If I had to guess, my gut tells me that we’re going to maybe see 787s transfered to Alaska and flown out of Seattle in prime business markets, while the A330s might stay in Hawaii, with a bit more effort put into building an integrated network.
Since there’s just a small 787 fleet, Alaska could probably do that without annoying partners too much, while still adding some profitable flying. I could be totally wrong, but that’s my best guess.
Bottom line
Alaska Airlines has now completed its acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines, though the work is just getting started. The company intends to maintain two separate airline brands, which is unconventional, but kind of intriguing.
What I’m most curious about is to see what happens to Hawaiian’s wide body fleet, consisting of A330s and 787s. Hawaiian has struggled with flying these jets profitably, so can they be put to better use out of Seattle with Alaska? And if so, can Alaska accomplish that without causing too many issues with its partners? Or is the airline group better off optimizing long haul flying out of Honolulu?
How do you see the Alaska Air Group wide body aircraft situation playing out?
Why don't they call it Alwiing Airlines md call it a day? they could introduced a blur/ urple scheme and become the 5th player on the game.
Dunno how realistic this is but I'd love to see AS become a Pacific Icelandair. Narrowbody flights from second-tier North American destinations to ANC, then narrowbodies from ANC to second-tier East Asian destinations. Of course one weird startup recently tried to do that (Ravn/Northern Pacific/New Pacific/are they going by something else now?) but a) Alaska would be better at starting that since they have an established brand and fleet, and b) I'm not convinced that...
Dunno how realistic this is but I'd love to see AS become a Pacific Icelandair. Narrowbody flights from second-tier North American destinations to ANC, then narrowbodies from ANC to second-tier East Asian destinations. Of course one weird startup recently tried to do that (Ravn/Northern Pacific/New Pacific/are they going by something else now?) but a) Alaska would be better at starting that since they have an established brand and fleet, and b) I'm not convinced that other airline wasn't a scam from the start. I don't think it's as plausible as what Lucky is suggesting here, but it's an untapped market that could and should exist.
Delta would probably like to see this too since this is the fastest way to go bankrupt.
Running a transit hub is only feasible when cost structures are low, while the yields are high.
The highest yields still come from the US nonstop O&D.
People need to give up on this ANC connecting hub pipe dream.
No. Alaska Airlines will not start flying widebodies.
1) They don't have widebody gate space or anything whatsover at SEA to maintain and overhaul widebodies.
2) Where could they fly a widebody where the Alaska Airlines brand would be an asset over the Hawaiian Airlines brand?
Do you think an eskimo on the tail is going to be an asset when trying to get people to buy a ticket from SEL, or SYD, or even...
No. Alaska Airlines will not start flying widebodies.
1) They don't have widebody gate space or anything whatsover at SEA to maintain and overhaul widebodies.
2) Where could they fly a widebody where the Alaska Airlines brand would be an asset over the Hawaiian Airlines brand?
Do you think an eskimo on the tail is going to be an asset when trying to get people to buy a ticket from SEL, or SYD, or even JFK, to HNL?
Of course not.
At best, they might do a seasonal swap flying HA 787's in the summer JFK-ANC marketed as AS and then JFK-HNL in the winter.
As a frequent flyer (80-90 segments a year/ MVP 75K) traveler on Alaska, I have been BEGGING them to acquire a few widebodies for the cross country routes. A 737 MAX is fine for 3-4 hour flights to Anchorage and Dallas from Seattle, but its pretty bare bones for the SEA- JFK/ATL/TPA flights. A few of the twin aisle jobbers-although this means an additional 100 insufferable tourists on the flight- would make those long hauls...
As a frequent flyer (80-90 segments a year/ MVP 75K) traveler on Alaska, I have been BEGGING them to acquire a few widebodies for the cross country routes. A 737 MAX is fine for 3-4 hour flights to Anchorage and Dallas from Seattle, but its pretty bare bones for the SEA- JFK/ATL/TPA flights. A few of the twin aisle jobbers-although this means an additional 100 insufferable tourists on the flight- would make those long hauls much more comfortable and bring Alaska truly into the upper echelon of transcontinental flights.
Hopefully they put on a regular EWR/JFK-OGG flight with a nice widebody aircraft instead of the very limited seasonal one run at the moment.
Not enough traffic to support HNL to MIA ? Probably could fill a plane with hurricane researchers, these days. Or maybe HNL-MIA-MCO and HNL-MCO-MIA on alternate days.
Latin Americans could connect in MIA. If they're going to Hawaii, they're going to need a US visa anyway.
I bet Alaska wished it had paid Branson to lease the Virgin America name. What a horrid mistake that was.
Why? Who cares about the Virgin brand that much? Alaska has built a solid reputation for its own brand.
The first thing I’d look to do is optimize the existing fleet. A lot of HA’s A330s aren’t getting great utilization, only flying one round-trip to the west coast each day. Before sending planes internationally, Alaska could improve profitability just by improving utilization (thereby reducing CASM). Instead of sitting planes overnight, an A330 could rotate SEA-JFK or SEA-ANC. No, Anchorage doesn’t need lie-flats, but there’s more than enough demand to fill planes and especially to...
The first thing I’d look to do is optimize the existing fleet. A lot of HA’s A330s aren’t getting great utilization, only flying one round-trip to the west coast each day. Before sending planes internationally, Alaska could improve profitability just by improving utilization (thereby reducing CASM). Instead of sitting planes overnight, an A330 could rotate SEA-JFK or SEA-ANC. No, Anchorage doesn’t need lie-flats, but there’s more than enough demand to fill planes and especially to fill cargo.
Looking longer term, I’d absolutely expect Alaska to fly wide bodies from Seattle but likely TPAC first, focusing on existing stations where Hawaiian has brand equity. Seattle to Japan/Korea/Australia/NZ. And keep an eye out for Anchorage TPAC as well- there’s a lot of demand for Asia-Alaska tourism and some of those markets could be served with an A321 rather than a widebody.
Their frequent flyer members would appreciate a flight to EU that avoids BA's ridiculous surcharges. Loyalty programs matter.
Word.
So would paying customers. Such a headache getting to HI from Western Europe.
This!!! 1000XXX this!
I suppose AS could become carrier #5 on the SEA-TPE route...
Singapore could be a viable 787 option from HNL, being an island full of wealthy people who love to travel.
Beyond strengthening the HA connection to Japan/JAL specifically the short-term next best use is probably upgaging a few key slot controlled routes (ie SEA-JFK). Could be really interesting if they tried selectively flying wide-body on something like SEA-LAX
SEA-JFK makes sense and maybe even SEA-EWR/SEA-BOS makes sense. Target the high yield, high demand routes.
SEA-LAX makes no sense. They have so few widebodies, they need to allocate efficiently, other legacy airlines would've done SEA-LAX if they wanted to do so already.
You must be really unfamiliar with plane scheduling... AS isn't going to ground a wide-body for the other 12 hours it can't operate on its one slot pair routing for SEA-JFK. They'll reposition during that time or run a short turn elsewhere. This is why ALL of the legacy airlines operate wide-bodies on select short-haul routes. Or perhaps you have not followed the Emirates MIA-BOG saga?
A common option is one of my home bases:...
You must be really unfamiliar with plane scheduling... AS isn't going to ground a wide-body for the other 12 hours it can't operate on its one slot pair routing for SEA-JFK. They'll reposition during that time or run a short turn elsewhere. This is why ALL of the legacy airlines operate wide-bodies on select short-haul routes. Or perhaps you have not followed the Emirates MIA-BOG saga?
A common option is one of my home bases: SJU. AA and UA both run daily wide-body turns here on planes that would otherwise be wasting time and money on the ground.
There is no demand or scheduling reason for a widebody SEA-LAX. It'll waste fuel and air frames. It's quite honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've read in my life.
It's not run by a single carrier and will never be. If the widebody passes through SEA, they'll just use it for another transcon or longhaul flight.
Since they will be under one operating license does a handover to Alaska have to happen. Doesn't really matter what is on the livery...
Hawaiian management mis-managed post-COVID (30%+ of their clients were Japanese and disappeared), IT upgrades and introductions, engine repairs and much more. A disgrace to anll 95 previous years!! Alaska (with the obvious support from AA/One World) can now maximize the HA wide body fleet.
I think flying to Nagoya (NGO) from SEA attracts automotive and aerospace business travelers. Since DL discontinued its DTW-NGO route, this market has been underserved. Nagoya is Japan's aerospace and automotive hub, makes a connection at SEA logical. From SEA, AS currently goes to DTW, RDU, CVG, CMH, IND, DFW, SAT, CHS, MCI, LAX and YYZ, where demand from Japanese auto and aerospace business travelers is high. This would provide non-stop or one-stop flights to...
I think flying to Nagoya (NGO) from SEA attracts automotive and aerospace business travelers. Since DL discontinued its DTW-NGO route, this market has been underserved. Nagoya is Japan's aerospace and automotive hub, makes a connection at SEA logical. From SEA, AS currently goes to DTW, RDU, CVG, CMH, IND, DFW, SAT, CHS, MCI, LAX and YYZ, where demand from Japanese auto and aerospace business travelers is high. This would provide non-stop or one-stop flights to many key R&D and manufacturing locations in the automotive and aerospace sectors from Nagoya.
The Hawaiian name is stronger than Alaska. Dump Alaska. Part of the reason is the state of Hawaii has a better name than the state of Alaska
They can still fly long haul under the Hawaiian Airlines brand out of SEA, no need for AS to take them on. In fact, for flying to places like Tokyo or Seoul, it would make more sense, since HA has better brand recognition than Alaska. This is what I predict they will do with their 787s. ICN-SEA could be a great opportunity with no OW partner flying that route, and plenty of feeder traffic from...
They can still fly long haul under the Hawaiian Airlines brand out of SEA, no need for AS to take them on. In fact, for flying to places like Tokyo or Seoul, it would make more sense, since HA has better brand recognition than Alaska. This is what I predict they will do with their 787s. ICN-SEA could be a great opportunity with no OW partner flying that route, and plenty of feeder traffic from AS and AA out of SEA. The A330s can remain on leisure routes out of HNL. Better for optics anyway to keep the Airbus planes out of SEA.
If they're going to try to make HNL a transpacific transit hub, that's gonna be a hard sell since they will be competing with nonstop routes almost exclusively. Perhaps could help if they offered free stopovers in HNL on cash tickets, like AS does already with award tickets.
Exactly what I thought! While everyone's talking about TYO, I think ICN is a better option given the competition in TYO routes.
AS-HA should fly the routes not served by OW.
ICN, TPE, HKG(CX doesn't fly to SEA), NGO can be the options.
A central European destination--such as Munich--may be least offensive to Alaska's OneWorld partners, while enhancing Alaska's competitiveness out of Seattle. It may cost them their partnership with Condor, but that "partnership" is little more than Alaska renting out its Mileage Plan to Condor because Condor does not want to invest the time, or trouble investing in its own. Rather, Alaska's main European partner: British Airways, would likely welcome another stream of revenue from the West...
A central European destination--such as Munich--may be least offensive to Alaska's OneWorld partners, while enhancing Alaska's competitiveness out of Seattle. It may cost them their partnership with Condor, but that "partnership" is little more than Alaska renting out its Mileage Plan to Condor because Condor does not want to invest the time, or trouble investing in its own. Rather, Alaska's main European partner: British Airways, would likely welcome another stream of revenue from the West Coast into Central Europe, a region it serves through its London hub.
Nothing material will happen in the next two years in terms of long haul development , especially from Seattle. Hawaii long haul strategy is in shambles, they need to figure out Hawaii first. Trying to break in Seattle long haul is foolish before understanding what to do with Hawaii.
The Honolulu wide body scissor hub is nothing new. It was really common for CP Air/Canadian airlines for a long time
My prediction is that AS will not move A330s from the HA fleet. Why?
1. AS business model is built around the 737. Its revenue management structure is built around this aircraft. Simply adding A330s to the fleet doesn’t get the job done if they can’t effectively manage revenue.
2. The 330s are aging. As they take 787s, they can downsize the 330 fleet. In a perfect world, the 330s go away completely, but...
My prediction is that AS will not move A330s from the HA fleet. Why?
1. AS business model is built around the 737. Its revenue management structure is built around this aircraft. Simply adding A330s to the fleet doesn’t get the job done if they can’t effectively manage revenue.
2. The 330s are aging. As they take 787s, they can downsize the 330 fleet. In a perfect world, the 330s go away completely, but we are years away from that.
The better overall business strategy is realizing the flying to Hawaii to better address competitive challenges and build Honolulu as a hub.
They can move E175s to Hawaii to do the interisland flying and dump the 717s. That will make the flying less money-losing.
They can leverage the OneWorld alliance to better feed the flying they have and this will also draw additional revenue into HA.
AS flying wide bodies out of Seattle makes zero sense. They don’t need to do so to make HA profitable and AS stronger.
I think the TATL demand out of SEA is there, even with SK in the mix. I assume that LH will expand their MUC frequency and ultimately Edelweiss will up from 2x/weekly, potentially even a new LX destination once all the A350 arrived.
I don't know if one needs another LHR flight, or if another OW hub in Europe would make sense.
Many problems with this. First, AS is late to the punch with longhaul. Tons of new service has been added in the past couple of years, for example there will be 4x daily frequencies to LHR, TPE, 3x to TYO, ICN, etc. The oversaturation of the SEA market is also a problem infrastructure wise with increasingly limited gate space and an international arrivals that is too small.
Second, JVs are great at blocking the competition...
Many problems with this. First, AS is late to the punch with longhaul. Tons of new service has been added in the past couple of years, for example there will be 4x daily frequencies to LHR, TPE, 3x to TYO, ICN, etc. The oversaturation of the SEA market is also a problem infrastructure wise with increasingly limited gate space and an international arrivals that is too small.
Second, JVs are great at blocking the competition and it would be a tall order for AS to join the OW JVs after they just finished eating a competitor. B6's failing TATL service should showcase why it's hard to do longhaul without JV access. Even Delta struggles in the South Pacific because they no longer have JV access unlike AA/UA.
Third, tons of airports are slot restricted, LHR, HND, etc. that I see people mentioning don't just allow people to kickoff service whenever.
Furthermore, there's very little reason to do TATL from SEA, as a West Coast hub, it's suboptimal compared to the East Coast for scheduling, as you're basically only targeting the West Coast market. TPAC really is the only option.
I do agree with the comment below about premium transcon, the East Coast is where the majority of the population lives, premium demand is what will help fill up the plane and increase yields on AS' future longhaul service. However, they should look to add that over to SEA. SFO/LAX/etc. are already quite saturated with the 3 legacy carriers + B6 having premium transcon, adding AS' to the mix would just depress their yields further. SEA is their stronghold and it would benefit their longhaul as well.
AS should use some of its widebodies to become more competitive in the transcon market. They have a robust SFO to NYC schedule, but compete against lie-flat products with standard recliners.
What about using those 787s for SEA-MAD, thus accessing most major European cities without upsetting the applecart with BA?
Otherwise, I'd really like to see more trans-Pac flying from SEA. For those of us in secondary west coast markets (like SAN), we already have to connect for anything in Asia (other than NRT) and flying via SEA is barely out of the way for most of them. Same applies for OneWorlders in markets like PDX, SMF, PHX, LAS, and even DEN.
Just because it serves another destination doesn't mean it doesn't compete w/ BA.
A large percentage of people flying SEA-LHR on BA will connect from LHR to another destination. If people do the same with a supposed AS SEA-MAD flight, then that takes away market share from BA.
Just because they are alliance members doesn't mean they are not competitiors. For example, CX largely competes with AA/JAL for connecting in Asia.
AS must join hands...
Just because it serves another destination doesn't mean it doesn't compete w/ BA.
A large percentage of people flying SEA-LHR on BA will connect from LHR to another destination. If people do the same with a supposed AS SEA-MAD flight, then that takes away market share from BA.
Just because they are alliance members doesn't mean they are not competitiors. For example, CX largely competes with AA/JAL for connecting in Asia.
AS must join hands with the JVs in order to not compete and have a chance at success. B6 has no shot with their TATL runs right now, and even Delta fails miserably in the South Pacific due to their lack of JV.
I've been wondering about routes like this, perhaps BCN, LIS or ATH? AS does a great job attracting deeper pocketed leisure travelers.
There's so much attention on SEA, which I get. But it seems to me like LAX or SFO to ATH would be a helluva coup for AS, especially since neither of those routes are served.
Fundamentally speaking, if AS is not in on the joint venture, they are competing in the TATL market, no matter which target European market since the OW JV sells one stop connections to those other European airports at their hubs.
AS either joins the JV or becomes competition.
Plus the markets AS (and their corproate clients) asked AA to fly. LHR/TYO are a given, and PVG/BLR would be interesting. AS are going to kick DL in the arse for Asia markets.
Sounds like you need to fly LAX/PHX-HNL to review those 787’s. While 80k miles is ridiculous of course, maybe that will get knocked down to 40k given the value of AS miles?
“ Seattle,… a lucrative business market” - tell that to Delta lol
I would love Alaska to do SEA-SYD and some europe too and use Hawaiian’s new 787s for this!
Alaska might also sell the A330s and do something else - they seem to be allergic to Airbus. Just ask Virgin America (RIP)
Why not just sell the whole operation to Delta and offer customers a truly premium experience?
if you think delta is premium, you must be remembering the glory days of 2000-2018. Their service quality is not even close to what it was.
Is there a market for nonstop service from Japan to Alaska itself?
What about turning ANC into an international hub, they have the infrastructure, staff and capacity and would have no competition . I guess those of us in Alaska dream of having direct international flights, could be a huge boon to the state as well
This is a terrible idea. Alaska does not have the yields to support this kind of service. While ANC may be good at connecting cargo, the O&D pales in comparison.
Talk about a mishmash of fleets:
- Hawaii has 24 A330 with average of 10 yrs of age & 2 B787 (< 1 yr) with 10 on order plus various A321 & B717
- Alaska is all B737 (NG & MAX) with 240 airframes (10 yrs) with 120 MAX jets still on order to replace older NG units
While in the pipeline, may be better to configure the B787 to accommodate SEA and...
Talk about a mishmash of fleets:
- Hawaii has 24 A330 with average of 10 yrs of age & 2 B787 (< 1 yr) with 10 on order plus various A321 & B717
- Alaska is all B737 (NG & MAX) with 240 airframes (10 yrs) with 120 MAX jets still on order to replace older NG units
While in the pipeline, may be better to configure the B787 to accommodate SEA and LAX market demands. London is a given with Paris and Tokyo on the radar scope. Might even slap the Alaska label on the B787s to distinguish them from Hawaiian. This can be done via the single airworthiness certificate. It may be necessary to step on some alliance toes along the way, but must be done to leverage the airframes to their fullest.
Keep the A330 in their current configuration with HNL as their home base. Those in the Pacific rim are already familiar with the Hawaiian brand. With Boeing in its current state of chaos, it may be some time to get additional B787 to replace the A330 fleet.
I don’t think London is “a given” for Alaska. If they could find a way to squeeze into the transatlantic JV with AA, AY, BA, EI, and IB then maybe. Otherwise, BA is going to eat AS’ lunch on profitability.
SEA-DUB would be the obvious ad for me. Ireland has all the tech companies and AS could code hate with Aer Lingus for onward connections.
@rrapynot code hate is a bad way to do business
An interesting angle would be if Alaska built up Anchorage again. If we expect Russian airspace to be closed indefinitely, the Europe-Asia polar route via ANC becomes the pivot point of the North Pole, like it was during the Cold War. Alaska as part of Oneworld would give widebody/true Business class connectivity for partners like Finnair, British, and JAL, not to mention the non-Oneworld partners like Condor, Tahiti Nui, and Starlux. It could even work...
An interesting angle would be if Alaska built up Anchorage again. If we expect Russian airspace to be closed indefinitely, the Europe-Asia polar route via ANC becomes the pivot point of the North Pole, like it was during the Cold War. Alaska as part of Oneworld would give widebody/true Business class connectivity for partners like Finnair, British, and JAL, not to mention the non-Oneworld partners like Condor, Tahiti Nui, and Starlux. It could even work as a one-stop for Europe to Hawaii.
That, combined with the growing value of the Northwest Passage for shipping (due to the melting polar sea ice), this could be something that Alaska could even petition the US government for expanded Essential Air Service funding or some other subsidy.
Why is everyone obsessed with turning Alaska into a connecting hub.
The last thing AS wants to do is to become an ME3 carrier focused on connecting service. They can do that because of their vastly lower cost structures, AS cannot.
Fundamentally speaking, yields are lower for connecting service, meanwhile costs are also higher from a labor and fuel perspective as you have to fly further and longer.
If AS is intelligent, they will turn...
Why is everyone obsessed with turning Alaska into a connecting hub.
The last thing AS wants to do is to become an ME3 carrier focused on connecting service. They can do that because of their vastly lower cost structures, AS cannot.
Fundamentally speaking, yields are lower for connecting service, meanwhile costs are also higher from a labor and fuel perspective as you have to fly further and longer.
If AS is intelligent, they will turn SEA into what UA has done for SFO, or at the very least AC's YVR. Focus on prime O&D markets, with a secondary focus on connecting.
The combined airline should offer a free 2-3 day layover in Honolulu, similarly to what Icelandair does in Reykjavik and TAP does in Lisbon. That would be a nice incentive for many TPAC travelers looking to mix a little business with pleasure.
For sure... Fiji Airways seems to have a good business doing some of that TPAC as well
Yes to a free stopover program, but why limit it to 2-3 days? China has already shown that their 144-hour (6 day) stopover program works.
I think at least AA will rather be happy with this. AA totally gave up on TPAC market when DL and UA were making profit there. AA can put codeshare on the TPAC flights of AS-HA instead.
Oneworld has less presence in TPAC(except Austrailia) than Skyteam or Star Alliance does.
JL and CX are quite big, but CX doesn't fly to SEA, and JL flies to SEA from NRT when ANA flies from...
I think at least AA will rather be happy with this. AA totally gave up on TPAC market when DL and UA were making profit there. AA can put codeshare on the TPAC flights of AS-HA instead.
Oneworld has less presence in TPAC(except Austrailia) than Skyteam or Star Alliance does.
JL and CX are quite big, but CX doesn't fly to SEA, and JL flies to SEA from NRT when ANA flies from HND. Their presence at SFO is a lot smaller than UA and Star Alliance as well.
AS-HA can have multiple TPAC hubs. SEA/SFO can be the hubs to Asia, and HNL to Oceania. For TATL, they can put codeshare on AA and IAG.
Why would AA benefit from codesharing, when they're already part of JVs that are far more lucrative? AS' codeshare flights would be direct competition to AA and JAL's metal.
AS doesn't have enough widebodies to create dual TPAC hubs, even UA doesn't really do this as SFO is where most of their TPAC comes from, LAX just has a few basic markets.
If AS wants to go into long haul, taking the 787’s makes sense, given the premium configuration and competition in the market. AS brands itself as an all-Boeing airline. Meanwhile HA has a big cargo operation based around the A330, flying -300’s for Amazon.
Transit through the USA is an extremely unpleasant affair: Passengers need to apply for an ETA visa before hand (at the very least, or more expensive/exhausting visa assuming non-US resident), endure border processing on arrival (never pleasant for "aliens"), collect checked bags and re-check, wait in never ending TSA security lines before they can get air-side back to their continuing flight, all within the confines of some of the least exciting terminal experiences (although SEA...
Transit through the USA is an extremely unpleasant affair: Passengers need to apply for an ETA visa before hand (at the very least, or more expensive/exhausting visa assuming non-US resident), endure border processing on arrival (never pleasant for "aliens"), collect checked bags and re-check, wait in never ending TSA security lines before they can get air-side back to their continuing flight, all within the confines of some of the least exciting terminal experiences (although SEA is better than HNL) in the developed world.
Now fly the other way around the world, via Asia/MidEast, and there is generally no need for a transit visa, no border processing for transit passengers, checked bags automatically transferred to continuing/connecting flights, security is often more efficient than the USA, and the air-side terminal experiences are generally world best standard in many major Asian and MidEast airport hubs.
My guess is that the combined airline will be 'all Boeing' again in roughly 5 years. Fleet cost efficiency has always been a priority at Alaska and provides them with a major competitive edge. The future fleet will be only 737/MAX and 787.
Interisland Hawaiian flying will be 737/MAX per the hints in the merger marketing materials instead of 717, with lower frequency (unless they go with the E175 contract flight model to maintain frequency)....
My guess is that the combined airline will be 'all Boeing' again in roughly 5 years. Fleet cost efficiency has always been a priority at Alaska and provides them with a major competitive edge. The future fleet will be only 737/MAX and 787.
Interisland Hawaiian flying will be 737/MAX per the hints in the merger marketing materials instead of 717, with lower frequency (unless they go with the E175 contract flight model to maintain frequency). A330s will be on their way out, replaced by a combination of Dreamliners and 737/MAX depending on the route. I think A321s will also be replaced with 737/MAX. I think most and maybe all mainland to Hawaii flights will eventually be 737/Max, which will be sad because the lie flat seats to Hawaii are a treat. Maybe they will consider lie flat seats on some of their 737/MAX. One can hope.
The international network development will be interesting to watch. I could see a combination of routes into oneworld hubs and some one-off unique seasonal destinations as well. Lots of challenges to overcome with partners and slots before that could become a reality.
Alaska is an incredibly well managed airline and they will be thoughtful about their strategy to ensure low risks and a high probability of success.
Please don't put this out there, hopefully it will never happen, I can't imagine an all Boeing Hawaiian, it'd be messy and a total downgrade.