OMAAT reader Paul posed an interesting, about why Alaska Airlines is so much more successful than JetBlue Airways.
In many ways, I’d consider the airlines to have similar concepts — JetBlue is to the East Coast what Alaska is to the West Coast, sort of. Both are brands that people generally like, and both try to offer a pleasant passenger experience. Despite that, Alaska has some of the industry’s best margins, while JetBlue hasn’t turned a profit in years, despite having a huge presence in some really lucrative markets.
JetBlue is sort of facing the same challenges as low cost carriers (though not as bad as at Frontier and Spirit), while Alaska is enjoying similar success to carriers like Delta and United (though at lower volume). What’s driving this difference in financial performance, and what can JetBlue learn from Alaska?
Let me share what I’d consider the key factors to be. For the purposes of this, I’m excluding Alaska Air Group’s takeover of Hawaiian Airlines, since it’s too early to fully know how that’s going to play out.
In this post:
Alaska understands the importance of being number one
JetBlue has a significant presence at airports like New York Kennedy (JFK) and Boston Logan (BOS), which you’d think are awesome places to have hubs. The challenge is that at both of these airports, JetBlue trails Delta in terms of market share.
The other issue is that if you view the New York market in terms of all three main airports, JetBlue only has a strong presence at Kennedy, and not at LaGuardia (LGA). That’s a major disadvantage compared to Delta, which has a leading position at both airports.
That’s different than the situation at Alaska, where the airline enjoys the number one market share spot at its most important hubs, like Seattle (SEA), Portland (PDX), and Anchorage (ANC). Furthermore, thanks to the size of Alaska’s network and fleet, the airline can at least compete in Los Angeles (LAX), San Diego (SAN), and San Francisco (SFO). Alaska also has a huge network to Hawaii, with point-to-point routes not served by other airlines.
Why is it so important to be the dominant airline in your most important hubs? It’s something that United CEO Scott Kirby has talked about, in the context of becoming a premium airline. When you’re the dominant airline in a market, you have a lot more pricing power, and you also have a lot more upside with loyalty.
JetBlue’s issue is that it’s always going to be in a number two position behind Delta, and that’s not a good place to be. Delta also offers a great passenger experience, the airline has a more global network, and Delta can price competitively to keep JetBlue in check, by using basic economy.
The dynamics here are interesting, because Delta’s power is very different against JetBlue in New York vs. against Alaska in Seattle.
Alaska gives people products that they’ll pay for
JetBlue was founded with the concept of offering a pleasant economy experience across the board. We see the airline offering great legroom, seat back TV, free Wi-Fi, and more. There are only two issues.
The first issue is that JetBlue isn’t able to get a revenue premium for offering a better product (as American learned in its “More Room Throughout Coach” era). The second issue is that JetBlue’s biggest competitor is Delta, which is an airline that people enjoy flying as well. JetBlue has been really slow to adapt to consumer trends — JetBlue hasn’t offered lounges or first class, but that’s finally expected to change (eventually).
This is all such a contrast to Alaska, which has no seat back TV, charges for Wi-Fi, and essentially offers people the products they’ll pay for. The airline has a pretty standard economy product, but then has extra legroom economy, first class, and a robust lounge network.
JetBlue needs to do a better job monetizing its onboard real estate. You shouldn’t be offering everyone more legroom if they’re not willing to pay for it, but instead, offer products like first class.
When I say things like that, some people like to accuse me of being anti-consumer. “Wow, you’re one of those people against legroom.” No, I’m one of those people who wants the airline industry to remain competitive, and airlines shrinking and becoming increasingly irrelevant (like what we’re seeing at JetBlue) isn’t good for anyone.
Alaska knows how to lean into the power of loyalty
Alaska has long used its Mileage Plan program as a point of differentiation. It has been one of the most compelling airline loyalty programs out there, and Alaska has long established partnerships with global airlines, giving people the ability to earn and redeem miles.
In many ways, Mileage Plan has been way ahead of its time, and has been able to generate an impressive amount of money and loyalty from its program. While JetBlue has TrueBlue, for years, the airline didn’t do nearly enough to make the program lucrative and engaging, especially given the carrier’s direct competitors in the Northeast.
That’s slowly starting to change for TrueBlue, as we’re increasingly seeing partner redemption opportunities. However, the airline is at quite the disadvantage, and has a lot of catching up to do.
Alaska has a disciplined management team
Alaska probably has one of the most disciplined and focused management teams in the industry. Executives at the airline know what the airline is, and know what the airline isn’t. Now, some people might argue that some of that focus has been lost with the acquisition of Hawaiian, but for this post, I’m focusing on comparing the historic reality of the two airlines.
It’s just such a contrast to JetBlue. Admittedly JetBlue’s top two executives only took over last year, but at least prior to that, JetBlue management was all over the place in terms of its strategy. Former CEO Robin Hayes seemed to completely ignore the struggles the airline was having with its core business model, instead thinking that the solution was to focus on shiny things, ranging from launching transatlantic flights, to an acquisition of Spirit.
The attempted Spirit takeover ended up being a very costly distraction, while the transatlantic flights — not surprisingly — haven’t proven to be the solution to all of JetBlue’s problems.
Bottom line
The US airline industry has become tougher than ever before, between increased labor costs, and profits increasingly coming from loyalty programs. Therefore I think it’s interesting to compare the difference in success between Alaska and JetBlue, since I’d argue they’re generally similar, but just on different coasts.
If you ask me, JetBlue would be in a very different situation if it had taken some notes from Alaska’s playbook a little earlier. JetBlue has some valuable assets — specifically, a large presence in New York and Boston — it just doesn’t know how to use them properly.
What’s your take on the difference in success between Alaska and JetBlue?
I fly Alaska out of STS on a regualr basis. They are on time, the staff are pleasant, and the premium economy is generally (though not always) affordable.
My take - Alaska is generally reliable and part of OW. I use it a lot for transcon.
Jetblue - always delayed. I took a flight yesterday (taking advantage of the current promo) - departure delayed by almost 2 hours because we were waiting for the crew to arrive on a different flight. And that's JFK, their main hub, not some remote outstation!
The app is horrible - slow, I keep getting errors when...
My take - Alaska is generally reliable and part of OW. I use it a lot for transcon.
Jetblue - always delayed. I took a flight yesterday (taking advantage of the current promo) - departure delayed by almost 2 hours because we were waiting for the crew to arrive on a different flight. And that's JFK, their main hub, not some remote outstation!
The app is horrible - slow, I keep getting errors when I try to get a boarding pass, it's complicated and counterintuitive when you want to do a free same day change.
No fully flexible/refundable tickets offered on all flights - sometimes you can get it as an add-on, but there are flights where it's not available. Why? They don't want business travelers I guess...
No lounges, and T5 at JFK is a dump.
It just doesn't feel like a real airline. More like flying Wizz Air out of London Luton.
In the 1970's, Alaska was the leader of Alaska traffic. It also started to have north south West Coast traffic. It was known for its better food, such as lobster stew.
In the 1980's, Alaska tried to keep costs low. It built a small hub with Horizon in Seattle and Portland.
In the 1990's, Alaska partnered with many airlines, including Continental, Northwest, Delta, American, and foreign carriers flying in to Seattle. Almost every airline except...
In the 1970's, Alaska was the leader of Alaska traffic. It also started to have north south West Coast traffic. It was known for its better food, such as lobster stew.
In the 1980's, Alaska tried to keep costs low. It built a small hub with Horizon in Seattle and Portland.
In the 1990's, Alaska partnered with many airlines, including Continental, Northwest, Delta, American, and foreign carriers flying in to Seattle. Almost every airline except United was a partner in terms of earning frequent flyer miles. Wow!
In the early 2000's, Delta started a focus city or hub but still partnered with Alaska.
Now, Alaska is really big in Seattle domestically. Nearly every city in the US that has enough traffic for one 737 flight per day has a flight to Seattle.
Alaska is still the best in terms of how many miles you earn when you fly a domestic trip. Once they give that up, there will be no incentive to fly Alaska, except to Alaska.
DL's SEA hub was launched in the mid 2010s. NW had long had flights from SEA to Asia so the concept of a TPAC operation wasn't new for DL/NW.
and people talk about how generous AS' mileage plan is, but they either have to make enough money from selling those miles or subsidize their loyalty program.
The big 3 mortgaged their loyalty programs during covid so outsiders got first-ever access into the finances of...
DL's SEA hub was launched in the mid 2010s. NW had long had flights from SEA to Asia so the concept of a TPAC operation wasn't new for DL/NW.
and people talk about how generous AS' mileage plan is, but they either have to make enough money from selling those miles or subsidize their loyalty program.
The big 3 mortgaged their loyalty programs during covid so outsiders got first-ever access into the finances of those programs but AS has not provided that level of detail.
Ultimately, if AS doesn't generate the amount of revenue from its credit card program as it does from the miles it sells, the generosity of the loyalty program is at risk
Loyalty and credit card programs generate the most revenue when they are big and involve high value flyers. AS is considerably smaller than the big 4 - including WN - and AS competes w/ DL for high value flyers.
I suspect a bigger part of AS' success is the number of foreign carriers with which it codeshares and carries domestic passengers to SEA for those int'l airlines - but that comes at the cost of developing AS' own international network.
AS is likely trying to maintain a balance that can't be maintained.
Tim - I think there's one other piece: because AS is more generous and has more achievable elite status, they're able to punch above their weight. They're able to convince travelers to put up with AS' more limited schedule and also get the credit card and engage with their program.
I imagine it does cost AS more to run their loyalty program, but it probably works out fine for them given AS also has lower...
Tim - I think there's one other piece: because AS is more generous and has more achievable elite status, they're able to punch above their weight. They're able to convince travelers to put up with AS' more limited schedule and also get the credit card and engage with their program.
I imagine it does cost AS more to run their loyalty program, but it probably works out fine for them given AS also has lower unit costs than DL. (Which is expected, as they run a much simpler operation.)
Does being in oneworld also benefit Alaska?
Yes, but it would have been better to be in Star Alliance with United. With oneworld, AA is weak. BA / JL / CX / QF combination is not that strong. UA / AC / LH / SQ / BR / NH / NZ is stronger.
AA is definitely weak. But IAG has one of the best combos for TATL in their JV, which is LHR for premium O&D, the geography of DUB, and a strong secondary hub in MAD. Tokyo is definitely the premier Asia hub, and Qantas owns Australia, which is much more relevant than ANZ.
If anything the Europe geography for Star Alliance is a drawback, where LH group hubs are farther out.
AA was gifted very strong market positions and partners, but squandered them all.
Based on what metric/criteria??
Alaska simply has routes that others do not. For example, RDU - SEA. If you want to fly nonstop there is no alternative.
I think it’s more apt to compare JetBlue to Southwest. Alaska is more DL’s product married to a much more generous frequent flyer program.
JetBlue started as a leisure, lower cost, and *better service* alternative to the network carriers in the Northeast. There was a clear market segment, and it was very successful when it started. It took customers in the Northeast where they wanted to go, with better economy service and lower pricing. It was truly a better option for many.
Then the competition stepped up. Putting on my Tim Dunn cap, Delta over the past few years...
JetBlue started as a leisure, lower cost, and *better service* alternative to the network carriers in the Northeast. There was a clear market segment, and it was very successful when it started. It took customers in the Northeast where they wanted to go, with better economy service and lower pricing. It was truly a better option for many.
Then the competition stepped up. Putting on my Tim Dunn cap, Delta over the past few years became the number one airline brand in the country; most customers see its "service" as better than JetBlue. The average customer out of JFK can fly Delta and get the network benefits of a traditional carrier, get lounge access if they hold a credit card, get purportedly good on-board service, get free Wi-Fi if they are a SkyMiles member, get seatback entertainment, and often can get good pricing if they buy ahead of time. JetBlue never appropriately responded. Mint was a good attempt, but it underrated the importance of network and lounge access. The fact that JetBlue controlled a terminal at JFK and never built a lounge is absurd.
Spot on!!
Couldn't agree more with this as a fellow New Yorker.
It's because AS isn't the spawn of the child of Satan, Neelzebub; isn't tge hometown airline of the two worst cities in the world, with natives to match; and doesn't have moronic fanboys who don't realize that Mint Is Shint.
Everything about that response is completely inappropriate and should be stricken from this blog.
Oh, boo hoo, did I hurt your ickle feelings, snowflake? Guess what? I don't care.
ikr?
"two of the worst cities in the world" -- pure unadulterated crap opinion.
B6 will be acquired by UA....kirby is waiting for robin to get desparate enough to merge instead seeing her bonus disappear in BK
-Robin is not longer at JetBlue and hasn't been for about a year.
-Robin is a him, not a her.
You don't need to comment if you have no clue what you're talking about
As a 100k flyer with AS....
Generally spot on...the management is calculated almost to a fault....
I think the future is going to be interesting as the HA branding versus AS branding is up in the air and confusing. We need some bold "premium" thinking on AS's path into longhaul. I still think AS should but screens into the fleet....if they want to continue to get the premium demand and fares.
The core issue...
As a 100k flyer with AS....
Generally spot on...the management is calculated almost to a fault....
I think the future is going to be interesting as the HA branding versus AS branding is up in the air and confusing. We need some bold "premium" thinking on AS's path into longhaul. I still think AS should but screens into the fleet....if they want to continue to get the premium demand and fares.
The core issue of AS success is really creating a monopoly in thier markets...when they face competition, they pull out....afterall as mentioned...the onboard hard product is not UA or DL. But that will need to change with longhaul ops and HA acquisition. We will see what the new loyalty program looks like in August and what they announce in interiors for the 787s.
If they gut the program as Harrison has indicated he wants to do....and continues with the AA interiors for the 737s....you will see AS fortune turn very quick.
I will say the food is very good compared to the rest...but that doesnt sell the front cabin....its hard product like seatback, lieflats, etc.
AS is a network carrier and one that has corporate contracts. B6 is a leisure airline, focused on hauling people from the Northeast to Florida. The rest of its network is lapped widely by the rest of the competition. It doesn't have a corporate contract structure that is meaningful. The TATL network is great example of vanity routes. My sense is that as B6 gets closer to bankruptcy, it will shed the Europe stuff.
remember that Hawaii is a leisure market and that is what AS "bolted on" HA.
AS made the commitment to Hawaii to keep a significant chunk of HA's network - but HA has lost money for a number of years and their domestic network is a larger part of the problem on a yearly basis; international loses as much money for parts of the year.
AS is not growing the part of its network that will generate business travel and also where AS has a size advantage.
A huge part of HA’s trouble is that their network configuration limits their achievable utilization. They don’t do flying within the mainland, so each A330 or A321 could only fly 1 round-trip per day. Combined with Alaska and being able to connect to different banks at different times (or rotate up to ANC) you have a huge CASM improvement just on utilization
The true difference between Alaka Airlines and Jetblue is Horizon Airlines. Alaska airlines and spoke system with Horizon feeding it from about every regional airport on the pacific northwest and California have created a demand for connecting seats that Jetblue cannot duplicate with its larger jets. Jetblue deploys it's A220's to longer point to point routes and has discounted it's ERJ190 fleet. Still with no regional airline Jetblue has to count on it's base markets...
The true difference between Alaka Airlines and Jetblue is Horizon Airlines. Alaska airlines and spoke system with Horizon feeding it from about every regional airport on the pacific northwest and California have created a demand for connecting seats that Jetblue cannot duplicate with its larger jets. Jetblue deploys it's A220's to longer point to point routes and has discounted it's ERJ190 fleet. Still with no regional airline Jetblue has to count on it's base markets while Alaska airlines is dominating places like Billings, Medford, and Boise. They have to play the pricing game in New York while Alaska may be the only game in town at many regional airports
This needs to be said louder. I've also suspected it's the real reason driving success to AS global partnerships for so long.
The answer is that Alaska learned how to adapt much more quickly and aligns itself much more closely to the legacy carriers than JetBlue.
Alaska offers all the conventional things travelers wants, airport lounges, complimentary upgrades, and a very good loyalty redemption programme.
JetBlue has none of these in comparison, so its only sticking point has been the market location (BOS/NYC), lower prices, and a superior Mint product. None of these have built up to...
The answer is that Alaska learned how to adapt much more quickly and aligns itself much more closely to the legacy carriers than JetBlue.
Alaska offers all the conventional things travelers wants, airport lounges, complimentary upgrades, and a very good loyalty redemption programme.
JetBlue has none of these in comparison, so its only sticking point has been the market location (BOS/NYC), lower prices, and a superior Mint product. None of these have built up to long-term advantages.
What will be interesting to see is if Alaska can succeed with its longhaul flying. It's largely been able to come out on top by feeding its many partners, but longhaul is a different story, especially when not in a joint venture. Alaska's SEA-NRT flights are off to a rough start with 70% loads currently.
thanks for the data point on SEA-NRT. Given that they are not in a JV w/ JAL, they aren't likely getting great yields or benefitting from JL's NRT hub.
you are absolutely correct that they face a strategic challenge w/ all of their codeshare partners. They have made the decision to become a codeshare partner to every int'l carrier at SEA except for DL so will have to either find new routes or compete with...
thanks for the data point on SEA-NRT. Given that they are not in a JV w/ JAL, they aren't likely getting great yields or benefitting from JL's NRT hub.
you are absolutely correct that they face a strategic challenge w/ all of their codeshare partners. They have made the decision to become a codeshare partner to every int'l carrier at SEA except for DL so will have to either find new routes or compete with their own codeshare partners on existing routes.
As much as some want to believe that AS will be successful in longhaul international, the chances are that AS' international aspirations might look just like B6 at JFK and BOS against DL's larger international ops.
AS is closer to a legacy big 3 carrier - they are a legacy and have comparable IT and alliances but have just not have developed JVs or longhaul international flying.
The t100 is for half a month of operation, and generally there's a spool up. It'll be interesting to see how it develops over the summer. I wouldnt read tons of insight into this. Normally, it takes several months for a long haul international flight to gain its footing. I don't think this is a terrible start.
Yes and no. While it's true some flights take time to get going, new flights are often quite successful from the get go and only perform worse after the fanfare of the start. Even Delta's highly scrutinized SEA-TPE flight was in the 80% loads in its first month of operation, despite having a lot less going for it.
In addition, Alaska is supposed to be the "dominant" carrier at SEA, if operating 2x the domestic...
Yes and no. While it's true some flights take time to get going, new flights are often quite successful from the get go and only perform worse after the fanfare of the start. Even Delta's highly scrutinized SEA-TPE flight was in the 80% loads in its first month of operation, despite having a lot less going for it.
In addition, Alaska is supposed to be the "dominant" carrier at SEA, if operating 2x the domestic feed isn't filling up your planes better than competitors, then that doesn't really amount to much.
Finally, this is supposed to be quite the significant flight for Alaska, given its the first of its longhaul operations out of SEA, and that buzz factor has not carried over to its frequent flyers, which prefer the product of JAL for OW loyalty or even the other carriers that fly to HND.
I mean, I've worked in longhaul network planing for an airline and know not to take a half month as fully indicative of a route's success or lack therrof. Plus I think this one is starting off as very directionally strong. I'd give it more than half a month to make any grand pronouncements
I read another ChatGPT article
Alaska is also an amazingly good regional airline. Their Embraer 175s are pleasant and they fly a bunch to regional airports: Eugene, Redmond, and Medford all have 9-12 total AS flights a day to 4+ destinations.
And Alaska employees are just better. Talking to Alaska phone reps is a pleasant experience, not something to be avoided.
I fly both and much prefer Alaska. First, Alaska has better tech/app and a chat system that actually works. Second, the upgrades seem reasonable compared to JB. Third, the lounge in SFO is fabulous. Fourth, Alaska gate agents - are extremely personable- it’s that west coast vibe. JetBlue used to have a bit of this magic but it’s not so fun to fly with them. Their best product is Mint.
Maybe 12 years ago, Alaska credited Delta and American flights as well as several international carriers. That helped build a customer base
I asked a colleague who says the reason is 1. Not more expensive fares, 2. More miles credited per trip as it's mileage based, not fare based. So a $500 transcon earns 5000 miles instead of 2500 miles (both figures higher if elite). The word is if Alaska changes to dollar based, that person may switch to Delta.
I am United and Alaska preferred but a free agent.
very good and thoughtful article, Ben.
The root of the issue is that JBLU came into existence not understanding the basic principles of how airlines and most other companies win in the deregulated era.
JBLU thought that by offering a better product in a competitive market would be enough but DL quickly matched the product attributes JBLU had and then incorporated them into mainline DL and, as for Wifi, is now adding them to...
very good and thoughtful article, Ben.
The root of the issue is that JBLU came into existence not understanding the basic principles of how airlines and most other companies win in the deregulated era.
JBLU thought that by offering a better product in a competitive market would be enough but DL quickly matched the product attributes JBLU had and then incorporated them into mainline DL and, as for Wifi, is now adding them to even their regional jet fleet.
Network is what matters and, as Warren Buffett says, JBLU does not and never had any moats or unique attributes that someone else cannot easily match.
DL actually was the 3rd largest airline at JFK and LGA at the time JBLU was formed - behind AA and B6 at JFK and behind AA and US at LGA. While AA yelled for slots to be eliminated post 9/11 when the FAA ultimately decided to relax slot controls, DL grew at both LGA and JFK organically and then waited patiently for the DL-US DCA-LGA slot swap which was the single most brilliant strategic plan in the history of US aviation. DL ultimately got 1/4 of LGA's slots for a net $60 million payment courtesy of none other than Scott Kirby who was over network at US. DL grew both LGA and JFK but has never had the majority of slots at either LGA or JFK, unlike AA at DCA or UA at EWR - when it was still slot controlled - and then grew BOS where it will be 1.5X the size of B6 by this fall.
B6 has been all over the map strategically and has run a poor operation, allowing the high value travelers to flee to DL.
As for network, AS operates more of its network out of airports which is the effective only airport in the metro area, duplicating what DL does with ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC and what AA has at CLT, PHL and effectively PHX. UA does not dominate its hub airports or metros but its hubs are all very large metros and UA does dominate the international markets in all of those metros except for NYC and LAX.
let's remember that AS pays its employees less than the legacy average even though AS is a legacy and AS badly botched the Virgin America merger. UA sat heavily on AS at SFO which is what DL appears poised to do in SEA international.
and based on local market total revenue, UA is the largest on the west coast while DL is #2. AS and WN carry lots of passengers but don't get the revenue for all their efforts. even in the NE, the same dynamic plays out w/ B6
"which is what DL appears poised to do in SEA international"
"AS...carry lots of passengers but don't get the revenue for all their efforts."
What sources can you cite to corroborate these claims?
Alaska Airlines does not receive subsidies directly from the State of Alaska.
However, it does benefit from federal subsidies, primarily via the Essential Air Service (EAS) program.
I really do like Jetblue. Between the seatback entertainment/wi-fi, food/drink options (more so in Mint but economy is bit bad) and their pleasant staff, they mainly give customers what they desire. It's just funny that despite all of those things, they still get knocked.
Alaska has Alaska. Flights between SEA or PDX and ANC are always full. My flight to ANC today only shows 7 available seats and those will be filled by non rev or last minute purchases. Within the state Alaska is able to get a premium price, operating expenses of course are higher but Alaska subsidizes Alaska so it can have a more competitive price point in other markets. And that loyalty thing? It’s real, Alaskans...
Alaska has Alaska. Flights between SEA or PDX and ANC are always full. My flight to ANC today only shows 7 available seats and those will be filled by non rev or last minute purchases. Within the state Alaska is able to get a premium price, operating expenses of course are higher but Alaska subsidizes Alaska so it can have a more competitive price point in other markets. And that loyalty thing? It’s real, Alaskans pay for everything including utilities and heating oil with their BOA card so we work the system. That loyalty thing has us choose partners for our international trips too. Alaska did mess up by diluting the mp when they status matched Delta’s customers. Status fliers are seeing less free upgrades and waiting list for upgrades 20-40 people long. We will see what impact that has long term.
Roy gets it. Loyalty programs count and Jetblue's partner network is weak. Game over.
Yep, yep, and yep again. Spot-on.
"Alaskans pay for everything including utilities and heating oil with their BOA card so we work the system..."
This is also true throughout the Pacific Northwest - a large region. I live in Seattle and whenever I'm in a store (here or when traveling around WA, OR and ID) I keep an eye on what cards people are using to pay for things. It's almost always an Alaska Airlines...
Yep, yep, and yep again. Spot-on.
"Alaskans pay for everything including utilities and heating oil with their BOA card so we work the system..."
This is also true throughout the Pacific Northwest - a large region. I live in Seattle and whenever I'm in a store (here or when traveling around WA, OR and ID) I keep an eye on what cards people are using to pay for things. It's almost always an Alaska Airlines card. True in/around Seattle, Portland and all over multiple states, even in small, rural towns. Incredible loyalty across huge areas.
All of this may be true but the big three airline especially American are profitable because their loyalty programs value is supported by the likes of chase, citibank, and amex. Until the smaller airlines are able to do the same the likes of b6 or spirit will have hard time competing and ultimately surviving without consolidation.
AS has a dominance in western markets that JetBlue doesn't have on the East Coast. Also, AS doesn't have the exposure to delayed and cancelled prone flights that JetBlue has (East Coast) which drive up costs.
As AS has grown and diversified keeping some of these natural competitive advantages will be challenging. It seems that since the meltdown of 2007 JetBlue has continual operational issues.
Would costs of primarily operating in two of the most expensive markets also be a factor? I’d imagine it costs JetBlue an arm and a leg to do anything in NYC/BOS… thinking maintenance facilities, offices, salaries of corporate staff, maybe other salaries too? etc
Seattle, LA and SFO are at least as expensive as Boston and SF is probably up there with New York. I don't think that's the difference.
Actually, San Fran is more expensive than New York City.
10+ years on the East Coast and I still roll my eyes at how people here seem to believe it's the most expensive part of the country.
Generally a good analysis!
Alaska also successfully joined Oneworld a few year ago which has positioned it well. B6... well... we don't have to talk about the NEA. The real question is if B6 can successfully leverage UA for star alliance membership - the UA JFK slots may have been announced, but B6 should never make them available unless and until it becomes a star alliance member. Doesn't matter what the contract says - clearly...
Generally a good analysis!
Alaska also successfully joined Oneworld a few year ago which has positioned it well. B6... well... we don't have to talk about the NEA. The real question is if B6 can successfully leverage UA for star alliance membership - the UA JFK slots may have been announced, but B6 should never make them available unless and until it becomes a star alliance member. Doesn't matter what the contract says - clearly B6 has a healthy litigation budget already.
JFK T5 is also just not a nice space to spend time. Looked shiny when it opened but it aged terribly considering it opened in 2008, and it does not cater to a premium or loyalty based clientele. Mosaic check-in feels weird, because it is - it was added as an afterthought.
And once T6 opens I'll wager that all of the premium Mint B6 flights (to London or LAX) will leave from T6 so that they'll be near a good lounge. And they need that star alliance membership so all of the flights coming in from Europe at T6 can be connected to a B6 flight to wherever (lots of Caribbean destinations!) through the T5-T6 connection. And if they can successfully roll out Mini Mint First Class to match, you know, everyone else other than WN that understood how to successfully run an airline the past two decades, they may stand a chance. Or not!
I think it also has to do with the fact that in New York, there are two main airports at jfk and lga, and jet blue's main base is at jfk. Being at jfk means that they'll never ever be competitive for business travelers needing to go to places like Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Cleveland, etc etc etc. if they can't tap into the business traveler market, which they really haven't ever been able to do,...
I think it also has to do with the fact that in New York, there are two main airports at jfk and lga, and jet blue's main base is at jfk. Being at jfk means that they'll never ever be competitive for business travelers needing to go to places like Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Cleveland, etc etc etc. if they can't tap into the business traveler market, which they really haven't ever been able to do, they will have to fully rely on leisure traffic. That can be good, but it's not now. JetBlue needs both business and leisure traffic to survive, and they don't have that. They need the traveler who needs to go to Chicago for work then later wants to take his/her kids to the Caribbean for vacation. They will never get that.
Whereas in Seattle there's one primary airport and Alaska can get all the travelers at that one airport.
For me, that's the base problem, upon which all the others that Lucky describes are built.
Jet Blue in my experience has in my experience very bad customer service on the ground, especially at JFK and BOS. I will not fly them.
If Jetblue is number 2 against Delta, who is going tending to offer the same as Jetblue, ie free WiFi, tvs etc. why would JetBlue switch to more of a pay for WiFi and other “perks” like Alaska?
@ Rob -- Competitively, JetBlue probably has to offer free Wi-Fi and seat back TV at this point, and the industry overall is headed in the direction of free Wi-Fi.
I don't think that's the core of the issue for JetBlue. Rather, the bigger problem is the strategy of offering more legroom in economy (which people aren't willing to pay for), while not offering first class (which people are willing to pay for, especially when based in New York and Boston).