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?
Alaska has a longer history in their markets and started with little serious competition. That locked in their initial and now loyal customer base. In addition the areas they service in general have higher median incomes than comparable NE metro areas and Florida. Lastly much more favorable weather. A bad storm in the NE that results in angry customers promotes a lot of "I will try brand X next time".
Jet Blue was literally...
Alaska has a longer history in their markets and started with little serious competition. That locked in their initial and now loyal customer base. In addition the areas they service in general have higher median incomes than comparable NE metro areas and Florida. Lastly much more favorable weather. A bad storm in the NE that results in angry customers promotes a lot of "I will try brand X next time".
Jet Blue was literally gifted gates at below market lease rates at JFK with all new airplanes initially. The newness factor was key in the already hyper competitive NE corridor. Once their operating costs normalized and the newness wore off they became just another option. No cost advantage, no operational/reliability advantage, no network advantage, and only a comparable product to someone like Delta.
A more interesting comparison would be SWA and Alaska. SWA initially had a monopoly in their first 3 markets and generally good weather. Both airlines were very successful with loyal customer bases. Once they chased growth into the NE at hubs like ATL, BWI, LGA and had to deal with a lot more weather you saw their reputation become badly damaged.
As I write this, there are 105 comments posted already. My point is only to acknowledge that I have not read all 105 posts...
My home airport is SFO. I was a Virgin America elite (SFO was their home base), and thus became an Alaska customer when they took over VX. It has been *extremely* easy to maintain elite status on AS, and now that AS is a part of oneworld, it's even easier. Both...
As I write this, there are 105 comments posted already. My point is only to acknowledge that I have not read all 105 posts...
My home airport is SFO. I was a Virgin America elite (SFO was their home base), and thus became an Alaska customer when they took over VX. It has been *extremely* easy to maintain elite status on AS, and now that AS is a part of oneworld, it's even easier. Both before and after joining oneworld, I have been able to use AS Mileage Plan points for Business class travel to Europe and Asia on multiple occasions, including an emergency trip to Cambodia when our daughter was hospitalized there. Any skepticism I had about Alaska's takeover of Virgin America has long been assuaged -- both by conversations with several of Alaska's VPs and by actions both on the ground and in the air. I find their customer service representatives in the various call centers to be the most helpful of any airline, and are always enthusiastic and cheerful. Both they and the in-flight crews never fail to recognize my elite status and thank me for being an elite. Their 20 minute baggage guarantee (which in 12 years and 128 flights, I've only been able to take advantage of three times), their lounge network (admittedly not the world's best, but far, far better than the worst), and other factors make me a loyal AS pax.
JetBlue, OTOH, began as an exciting and wonderful airline. Their MINT class of service was incredible, their "regular" Economy seats were actually comfortable and had enough legroom, the IFE worked...my only problem was, being on the Left Coast, I could (then) fly B6 out of OAK (and later SFO) to LGB, JFK, or BOS but very few places in between. Indeed, between 2000 and 2019, I have flown B6 a total of 10 times and only in and out of those five airports. Last month (June 12th to be precise), I flew JetBlue SFO-JFK. The ONLY reason I did was because I had the points to fly for free (earned from the previous 10 flights). The seat-back entertainment system kept re-booting throughout the flight and was totally useless; the FAs came through once with snacks and drinks and then were never heard from again (except to collect trash); and the 8-year old A321 was looking tired.
For me, there is no comparison between the two carriers. I might feel differently if I lived in New York or Boston, but if I lived in New York or Boston, I'd probably be flying on DL or AA a lot more than I do...
The take regarding leg room and monetizing every little thing IS anti-consumer. Capitalism rewards those who exploit their customer bases. I, for one, appreciate not being nickel and dimed for everything on board, and the extra legroom has made flying longer distances much more palatable. I wouldn't consider any other airline for a NY to CA trip even though JFK is not the most convenient airport for me. Not to mention Mint is a top...
The take regarding leg room and monetizing every little thing IS anti-consumer. Capitalism rewards those who exploit their customer bases. I, for one, appreciate not being nickel and dimed for everything on board, and the extra legroom has made flying longer distances much more palatable. I wouldn't consider any other airline for a NY to CA trip even though JFK is not the most convenient airport for me. Not to mention Mint is a top notch premium product.
There are improvements to be made in loyalty programs for sure but I think JetBlue has been dealt an unfortunate hand too. Either the acquisition of Spirit or a continuation of the partnership with AA would have made them much more competitive and there is no reason that both of those were struck down but Alaska's acquisition of Hawaiian was allowed to go through.
Alaska is a much older airline and has dominated Seattle and Portalnd for 50 years. Jet blue is much younger and is taking on established carriers, you really cannot compare the two. If Alaska eas a much younger airline like Jet Blue, Alaska would like be having the same struggles.
Alaska has not dominated either one of those airports for 50 years. Before the mid/ late 1990s they were a pretty small airline that mostly flew up to Alaska and up and down the west coast. No flights further east than Las Vegas and maybe phoenix in those days. Nobody really dominated either airport at all - very fragmented. Then in the late 1990s/ early 2000s Alaska started taking deliveries of 737NG planes that allowed...
Alaska has not dominated either one of those airports for 50 years. Before the mid/ late 1990s they were a pretty small airline that mostly flew up to Alaska and up and down the west coast. No flights further east than Las Vegas and maybe phoenix in those days. Nobody really dominated either airport at all - very fragmented. Then in the late 1990s/ early 2000s Alaska started taking deliveries of 737NG planes that allowed them to fly east for the first time... and then they really started growing. But that's a relatively recent phenomenon.
@Ben--I think your analysis is on point, particularly concerning being number one in hub markets. AS is dominant at SEA, my home airport, even in the face of good competition from DL. I have been a DL loyalist for years but this year, I find myself needing to fly from SEA to a number of destinations served nonstop by AS but not by DL. In one case, DL serves the destination seasonally while AS serves...
@Ben--I think your analysis is on point, particularly concerning being number one in hub markets. AS is dominant at SEA, my home airport, even in the face of good competition from DL. I have been a DL loyalist for years but this year, I find myself needing to fly from SEA to a number of destinations served nonstop by AS but not by DL. In one case, DL serves the destination seasonally while AS serves it year round. Generally, on routes where AS and DL compete head-to-head, AS offers more frequencies. Most people around here expect nonstops, particularly on domestic routes, and AS serves this market better than any other carrier, with more nonstops to more places.
The one area in which AS is at a disadvantage, at least for me, is its OneWorld membership. That means if one must make connections, particularly on domestic routes, AA is usually involved. I just don't fly AA. If I have to make such a connection, I usually end up flying DL.
Can I state the obvious? Seattle is prob the fastest growing city in the US over the last 30 years. Alaska has the biggest market share here and took full advantage. Flying experience wise, there's not much difference between AS and Delta. But their award/mileage partnerships are very good.
I've flown Alaska twice, but nearly 10 years apart. I was quite disappointed to find neither TV's nor no free wifi after the 10 years for my cross-country haul from San Diego to Boston. Both times (one departing from Seattle the other San Diego) I endured delays related to mechanical issues. On my last trip, my 9 am flight took off at 8pm due to fog, mechanical issues, lack of a plane in San Diego,...
I've flown Alaska twice, but nearly 10 years apart. I was quite disappointed to find neither TV's nor no free wifi after the 10 years for my cross-country haul from San Diego to Boston. Both times (one departing from Seattle the other San Diego) I endured delays related to mechanical issues. On my last trip, my 9 am flight took off at 8pm due to fog, mechanical issues, lack of a plane in San Diego, and a crew time out. (So much for being positioned competitively at other airports). All the while we endured 4 gate changes, none of which were announced over the speakers. Customer service and communication was terrible. I hope that changes with the acquisition of Hawaiian, who has some of the friendliest and communicative employees. It is hard to compete against major carriers in the East. Alaska was flying to the PNW before half of today's legacy airlines. JetBlue was founded well after nearly all of them.
Alaska was able to bulk up and get a large presence at SFO when it bought Virgin America. JetBlue was trying that with Spirit until the courts blocked it. The legacy carriers allow benefited from mergers which B6 was unable to do.
As unflattering as it sounds, the airline industry is no different than any other regulated-privatized commodity business, in a similar manner to other utilities like cell phone service, gas, electric, and water services are.
Jet blue is struggling because they don't have a nationwide network with monopolized, healthy profit margin hubs to subsidize the highly competitive NYC, BOS, and FL markets.
Alaska's market share in the west coast, other than ANC, isn't a...
As unflattering as it sounds, the airline industry is no different than any other regulated-privatized commodity business, in a similar manner to other utilities like cell phone service, gas, electric, and water services are.
Jet blue is struggling because they don't have a nationwide network with monopolized, healthy profit margin hubs to subsidize the highly competitive NYC, BOS, and FL markets.
Alaska's market share in the west coast, other than ANC, isn't a monopoly, but does enjoy a leading share of gates in SEA and PDX. Combined with OW alliance partners, it's market position allows more price control.
There's a reason airlines consolidate. Too much overlapping competition bleeds red ink. The days are numbered for Jet blue, and arguably, Alaska as well, unless they can merge with a larger carrier. They will not survive in the long run as regional airlines unless they can monopolize most of that region.
The real reason is someone at the government really, really hates JetBlue.
Alaska bribed the right officials to allow things like buying Virgin, joining OneWorld, or acquiring Hawaiian Airlines. All of these resulted in cutting routes, cutting a competitor for ground services, and cutting competition for Hawaii.
By contrast, JetBlue can't even do a freakin' codeshare with AA without getting swatted down. They can't grow their network by acquiring another airline (Spirit).
The real reason is someone at the government really, really hates JetBlue.
Alaska bribed the right officials to allow things like buying Virgin, joining OneWorld, or acquiring Hawaiian Airlines. All of these resulted in cutting routes, cutting a competitor for ground services, and cutting competition for Hawaii.
By contrast, JetBlue can't even do a freakin' codeshare with AA without getting swatted down. They can't grow their network by acquiring another airline (Spirit).
I fly mostly Alaska, but have flown Jetblue from PDX to BOS and NYC. Jetblue's planes, at least on those routes, feel old and out of date. The TV screen in the seat back is laggy and not really HD. And to use it you need PLUG IN HEADPHONES! No serious flyers carry these anymore. Also, the controls are on top of the armrest, so even when I'm not using the TV it's constantly turning...
I fly mostly Alaska, but have flown Jetblue from PDX to BOS and NYC. Jetblue's planes, at least on those routes, feel old and out of date. The TV screen in the seat back is laggy and not really HD. And to use it you need PLUG IN HEADPHONES! No serious flyers carry these anymore. Also, the controls are on top of the armrest, so even when I'm not using the TV it's constantly turning on and off or changing options because I'm toggling it with my elbow. As a tall person, I do like the extra legroom, but I try not to fly coach.
This could be inaccurate, but it feels like Alaska's premium seating are cheaper. On my recent trip home from Boston on Jetblue, I purchased late and was in coach. When I looked at the premium seating, it was nearly $140 more one-way, and once on the plane, it really didn't look very premium at all.
Disclaimer: I am a 100K on AS but do not live anywhere near SEA. I've only flown JetBlue once...A321 in Mint to St. Lucia. Service was great, flight was full and they probably under achieved their profit potential on that flight. My take on JetBlue is that they have never gotten their configurations nor their aircraft selection correct. A320s couldn't do transcon in the winter so they took seats off. Instead of blocking seats such...
Disclaimer: I am a 100K on AS but do not live anywhere near SEA. I've only flown JetBlue once...A321 in Mint to St. Lucia. Service was great, flight was full and they probably under achieved their profit potential on that flight. My take on JetBlue is that they have never gotten their configurations nor their aircraft selection correct. A320s couldn't do transcon in the winter so they took seats off. Instead of blocking seats such that they could still fly as many people to Florida. Mint is a disaster-I know, people love it. But I didn't use the lie flat seat...It was a morning flight and only 4 hours. If that configuration was like AA/DL/UA's A321s and they still gave that Mint service, they would have cashed in. B6 needs regular first class big time. They absolutely have a premium customer segment. Keep Mint on anything where Mint truly pencil's out (which may only be JFK-LAX). Go with a regular A321 config. 195ish seats with 4 more first class seats beats 159 seats any day of the week. Ben's comment about their share at JFK/NYC and BOS is big and legit and they blew it at BOS a few years back. AS has share at ANC/SEA/PDX/SAN against the big 3 (not including WN). B6 needs to invest in first class and then lounges after that.
I lived on the West Coast for half my life and am very familiar with Alaska.
For decades Alaska has had a deserved reputation for being a quality product. I fondly remember a flight from SFO-SEA that had a "snack" service...which turned out to be a delicious HUGE cold lunch.
People in the West, particularly SAN, SEA, PDX and Alaska (state of) strongly prefer Alaska.
I fly them TPA-SAN all the time...
I lived on the West Coast for half my life and am very familiar with Alaska.
For decades Alaska has had a deserved reputation for being a quality product. I fondly remember a flight from SFO-SEA that had a "snack" service...which turned out to be a delicious HUGE cold lunch.
People in the West, particularly SAN, SEA, PDX and Alaska (state of) strongly prefer Alaska.
I fly them TPA-SAN all the time and have never had a bad flight.
This is why they succeed. We except them to.
I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I much prefer B6 to AS -- candidly for me it's not even close.
I fly LAX to NYC and LAX to BOS regularly, and only direct flights in business. Let's compare:
AS to NYC is only EWR. There is no AS lounge in that EWR terminal, nor can I access the AA lounge airside. The AS EWR terminal sucks. It's crowded, and there's no place...
I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I much prefer B6 to AS -- candidly for me it's not even close.
I fly LAX to NYC and LAX to BOS regularly, and only direct flights in business. Let's compare:
AS to NYC is only EWR. There is no AS lounge in that EWR terminal, nor can I access the AA lounge airside. The AS EWR terminal sucks. It's crowded, and there's no place to eat, drink or work you'd want to go. The AS LAX lounge is usually so crowded, there's a wait to get in. Worst of all, AS doesn't have flat beds. Seriously, how do you even compete on this route without lie flat? AS fares can be cheaper, but you get what you pay for, and they are always my last resort.
In contrast, B6 Mint is all lie flat, and the throne seats are the single best way to travel transcon. Admittedly, the non-throne seats are just OK, as I prefer direct aisle access. B6 also flies direct to both JFK and EWR (although that has varied, but they do now). Plus screens at all seats, free and unlimited wifi, and outstanding food. When B6 partnered with AA and I could use AA's lounges, that was ideal.
And Boston? AS doesn't even fly direct there from LAX. WTF? That's ridiculous.
Finally, many here have commented on B6's poor on-time performance. While that may be true for East Coast flights, in more than a decade of flying these routes, I've had only one flight substantially delayed. That's not bad at all. Now admittedly, when that one flight was delayed, B6 swapped it with a non-Mint plane, so I took another airline, but with B6 putting first (although not lie flat) in all its planes, this will be mitigated.
Anybody else want to weigh in on the transcon B6 and AS comparison? Truly, for me, this discussion feels like a different world from what I've experienced.
And right there is why, as Ben says, "Alaska has some of the industry’s best margins, while JetBlue hasn’t turned a profit in years..." Transcon isn't what matters.
AS has access to all the VX financials and know that lie flat seats won't increase their bottom line. Leave that to the big 3's widebodies. AS can sell a perfectly pleasant first class experience (attentive service, food, quiet cabin, more elbow room) for what I bet...
And right there is why, as Ben says, "Alaska has some of the industry’s best margins, while JetBlue hasn’t turned a profit in years..." Transcon isn't what matters.
AS has access to all the VX financials and know that lie flat seats won't increase their bottom line. Leave that to the big 3's widebodies. AS can sell a perfectly pleasant first class experience (attentive service, food, quiet cabin, more elbow room) for what I bet is a majority of people at a much more reasonable fare.
AND that plane is operationally efficient flying something like JNU-SEA-BOS-SAN-PDX-GEG in one full day. No one needs a lie flat PDX to GEG, or JNU to SEA! And really, how many people use a lie flat on a daytime flight?
Finally B6 more often than not uses remote stands at SEA. Less gross than EWR, but in many ways a comparable service to AS at EWR.
I am flying Mint from JFK-LAS. I am paying a premium price over AA F on the same route for the extra space and service. There is a market to sell 10 mint seats on a flight.
I think you're questioning a problem when there really isn't one. These two are apples and oranges. Both have great value and are successful in their own space.
25 years ago I worked for a small company that provided real time IT support for airlines to recover from "irregular operations".
We visited Jet Blue on a technical support sales call. To say that we were underwhelmed by their IT infrastructure is an understatement. Shortly afterwards they had a major disruption that took days to unravel. I was not surprised!
JetBlue used to have a differentiated product, and 10-15 years ago they were both profitable and had customers who would pay more for B6 and wouldn't book with anyone else. But then they enshittified the experience by adding checked bag fees and removing the extra space between rows and they've never been as profitable since.
Franky, I see this as an apples-oranges comparison. AS is essentially a legacy/niche carrier. It's been around for decades. Contrast this to B6 which is far younger and is more of an "upscale WN."
IMO, AS offers an "OK" product. Not great, but not horrible. Frankly, their F product is dated and not price-competitive, and the eschewing of popular liquor options for "local craft" dreck isn't a winner. But if you want a relatively...
Franky, I see this as an apples-oranges comparison. AS is essentially a legacy/niche carrier. It's been around for decades. Contrast this to B6 which is far younger and is more of an "upscale WN."
IMO, AS offers an "OK" product. Not great, but not horrible. Frankly, their F product is dated and not price-competitive, and the eschewing of popular liquor options for "local craft" dreck isn't a winner. But if you want a relatively pleasant trip with a relatively pleasant staff, AS is a sure bet.
As for B6, their biggest asset is also their biggest curse: their NYC, BOS & FLL hubs. All are in overcrowded airspace locations, where even a simple rainy day can cause significant disruptions. They would solve half of their problems by simply running schedules that are actually workable. Additionally, they need to pick cities where they are seriously going to make a sustained go of it, or don't bother. Case in point: I fly quite a bit between FLL and RDU. There's only 1 B6 nonstop... that leaves at 10p. The return? Only one, and it leaves at 6:45a. Not convenient for most people. And, as mentioned, they are latecomers to the F and lounge party, as well. As far as staff, I've found them to be a mixed bag... you either get people who are friendly and professional, or people who just don't care.
Hopefully, they will get their act together in terms of on-time performance, their F product will be competitive (both in terms of product and price), and the UA tieup will happen and provide frequent flyers more attractive options.
No mention of the impact of being in One World for AS. JetBlue had no alliance help.
I find it incompetence on Robin Hayes for not joining OneWorld when AK did. Maybe B6 will join Star Alliance soon. This and a domestic F service is needed. I do like how TrueBlue doesn't offer free upgrades, but all passangers need to pay for an upgrade if the dont have a Mint certificate.
The main difference in the competitive dynamics against Delta is mostly down to real estate: Alaska's saving grace is that Seattle is so gate-constrained, and not some great strategy on Alaska's behalf.
If Delta could get its hands on another 15 or so gates at Seattle, it'd use its overall resources to absolutely bury Alaska. I'm not saying that that's a good thing, nor that it should be permitted, but there's little doubt that that's...
The main difference in the competitive dynamics against Delta is mostly down to real estate: Alaska's saving grace is that Seattle is so gate-constrained, and not some great strategy on Alaska's behalf.
If Delta could get its hands on another 15 or so gates at Seattle, it'd use its overall resources to absolutely bury Alaska. I'm not saying that that's a good thing, nor that it should be permitted, but there's little doubt that that's what would eventually happen.
Fortunately for Alaska, there's no such room for that. And even if there was, it's not like Delta would get all (or even a majority) of such additions.
I have been flying from Los Angeles to Costa Rica over 30 years on different airlines. I had to fly last minute to see my very ill mom, who passed away on this last trip. Alaskan airlines had direct flights at the most reasonable rates I have ever seen. The best experience to walk to the gates inside and the airports, less taxi time to get to gates and take off times, very professional crew....
I have been flying from Los Angeles to Costa Rica over 30 years on different airlines. I had to fly last minute to see my very ill mom, who passed away on this last trip. Alaskan airlines had direct flights at the most reasonable rates I have ever seen. The best experience to walk to the gates inside and the airports, less taxi time to get to gates and take off times, very professional crew. I will be using them on my future flights. I joined their reward program bcuz it doesn't need a credit alignment to have flight miles. Thank you for offering excellent service and quality thru your staff.
One issue is Jet Blue is spiraling down in Orlando. It took the bait to be the only domestic route airline to relocate to MCOs new Terminal C, perhaps the worst purpose made architecture to count me as a victim I can remember. When I look at MCO itineraries I exclude Jet Blue as an option as Terminal C as a departure adds over an hour of pre-departure and as an arrival it is more...
One issue is Jet Blue is spiraling down in Orlando. It took the bait to be the only domestic route airline to relocate to MCOs new Terminal C, perhaps the worst purpose made architecture to count me as a victim I can remember. When I look at MCO itineraries I exclude Jet Blue as an option as Terminal C as a departure adds over an hour of pre-departure and as an arrival it is more than an hour and a half and that's with carry on as the only luggage each way. As I imagine the corporate idiocy that came up with the decision to move activity there, I can see where that stupidity spread across other decisions would be horrendous.
Yes, JBLU is loosing a lot of flights at MCO; especially out to the west (LAX, SLC). I've used all 3 terminals at MCO; granted, Terminal C, not as much..but how does it add an hour at departure and arrival?
Not at all a real apples to apples comparison. Points and miles blogger have all of the sudden become industry experts! But in general Ben does have the most respectful and professional site of them all.
Great post Ben. Always like your perspective and thoughts on these sorts of topics.
I want to keep validating and showing appreciation for pieces like this, rather than the drama rage bait stuff from Gary.
I average 45 flights each year. I have only ever flown JetBlue once, and I haven't flown Alaska in 5 or 6 years. I frequent East and West Coasts on almost every trip. JetBlue is my favorite airline, Alaska is my second favorite. Limited airports is the reason for failure. Neither airline favor Midwest states, which is where I live, and a good chunk of other people live here too. If either airline expanded or...
I average 45 flights each year. I have only ever flown JetBlue once, and I haven't flown Alaska in 5 or 6 years. I frequent East and West Coasts on almost every trip. JetBlue is my favorite airline, Alaska is my second favorite. Limited airports is the reason for failure. Neither airline favor Midwest states, which is where I live, and a good chunk of other people live here too. If either airline expanded or changed airports to include huge portions of the US that are not served by them, I would expect major changes. Btw, who goes to Boston? I've never known anyone to fly to Boston. Why does JetBlue fly to Boston?
Boston is the 16th largest airport in the U.S. from a passenger enplanement perspective. Over 21 million people both boarded and disembarked at Boston last year in 2024. So, obviously, somebody does. Perhaps you do not know the people who go to/ from there, but that doesnt mean it's not one of the most important aviation markets in the country.
I don’t know anyone who flies to Anchorage and Portland. For this reason, Alaska and all other airlines should stop flying there.
“Who goes to Boston?”
Tell me you’re Kansan without telling me you’re Kansan. Or Nebraskan. Or… well, I hope you get the picture. (Please take this with a bit of tongue-in-cheek)
But it should be noted that after ONE flight on B6, this midwesterner declares it to be their favorite airline! Maybe B6 should be eyeing OMA or ICT as a new focus city?
The overwhelming abundance of air travel for Alaska is up and down the west coast and for Jetblue is up and down the east coast and Caribbean. The one area they agree is on the importance of flying transcontinental to the major metropolitan cities where wealth is more concentrated. Given the size of both of these airlines there is no way they could fly with any frequency or profit to these secondary mid-west cities. Other...
The overwhelming abundance of air travel for Alaska is up and down the west coast and for Jetblue is up and down the east coast and Caribbean. The one area they agree is on the importance of flying transcontinental to the major metropolitan cities where wealth is more concentrated. Given the size of both of these airlines there is no way they could fly with any frequency or profit to these secondary mid-west cities. Other than Chicago, they are better off to let that traffic funnel to the Big 4 carriers.
Drop the weird and nonsensical nomenclature - “Mosaic”, “Tiles…” of your frequent flyer program and adopt language that travelers understand and will get excited about.
Or calling business class peppermint or whatever. The confusion doesn't help.
Jetblue is all over the place like ADHD. I worked for them years ago, and it's chaotic.
JetBlue has an issue with investing in markets to make them successful. Their strategy for years was to add as may dots to the map but not breadth. hey stubbornly focused on NYC and BOS point-of-sale while ignoring the spoke. Planes fly both directions and you can't only care about 50% of the market. Examples include all of the west coast flying (x-LAX/SFO) being red eye only. This is a utilization play to keep CASM...
JetBlue has an issue with investing in markets to make them successful. Their strategy for years was to add as may dots to the map but not breadth. hey stubbornly focused on NYC and BOS point-of-sale while ignoring the spoke. Planes fly both directions and you can't only care about 50% of the market. Examples include all of the west coast flying (x-LAX/SFO) being red eye only. This is a utilization play to keep CASM down but not a good experience or a competitive offering, so B6 is left collecting bargain basement fares while competitors can charge a premium. They also went into markets like MSP, MKE, MCI with flights only to BOS and the occasional JFK. Why not go in to FLL and MCO as well to build relevance? It's expensive to launch a new station to fly only 1-2 flights a day. Now B6 is retrenching to the only strategy that works which is NE to FL/Caribbean. Adding new dots like MHT, ISP, growing PVD; more of the same. The market becomes saturated and the offering is stale. They've given up on trying to compete in markets like AUS, IAH, DFW, SEA, PDX, etc. and retreated with their tail between their legs.
At the risk of offending New Yorkers and Bostonians, the customer base in Seattle, Portland and Anchorage is probably significantly more mellow and polite than east coasters. That adds to the experience.
How did you reach this conclusion? Please indicate the data backing your assertion that one set of customers is more mellow and polite than another.
25 years ago I worked for a small company that provided real time IT support for airlines to recover from "irregular operations".
We visited Jet Blue on a technical support sales call. To say that we were underwhelmed by their IT infrastructure is an understatement. Shortly afterwards they had a major disruption that took days to unravel. I was not surprised!
John is right , that DOES matter and is true. It’s hard to explain without looking like a complete a**hole to people that aren’t willing to see the truth of the matter because it’s hurtful or offensive. But as someone that knows for reasons I can’t say on here , it’s 1000% fact. Might I add I’m from NYC and live in the PNW now and travel weekly. All over the world for work. Culturally...
John is right , that DOES matter and is true. It’s hard to explain without looking like a complete a**hole to people that aren’t willing to see the truth of the matter because it’s hurtful or offensive. But as someone that knows for reasons I can’t say on here , it’s 1000% fact. Might I add I’m from NYC and live in the PNW now and travel weekly. All over the world for work. Culturally easy coasters are more rowdy and don’t have nearly as much airplane ettiquette although Boston is usually fine. JFK most of Florida Texas and LAX have by FAR the rowdiest passengers and for that far worst overall experiences for others. But the PNW is a very very quiet crowd.
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.
You are technically flying Horizon Air out of STS, but I agree with your assessment. I will go even further and say Horizon has better service than mainline Alaska.
STS isnt dealing with the congested skies of the Northeast or a chronic shortage of ATC that often makes B6's operation hard to keep ontime.
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.)
AS probably does "buy" some loyalty traffic and do it better than B6 but their costs will go up as they operate multiple aircraft types. International flights aren't cheap to operate either.
and the biggest variable cost is labor and AS employees have accepted being lower paid than legacies because AS is big in the NW and is a fairly good employer. But the competition for workers does change when you fly throughout the...
AS probably does "buy" some loyalty traffic and do it better than B6 but their costs will go up as they operate multiple aircraft types. International flights aren't cheap to operate either.
and the biggest variable cost is labor and AS employees have accepted being lower paid than legacies because AS is big in the NW and is a fairly good employer. But the competition for workers does change when you fly throughout the west coast and are flying similar airplanes alongside legacy carriers like DL which pay their employees much more. At some point, AS employees will expect to be paid the same.
and UA is going through this exact phase right now. UA has grown tremendously post covid but its pilots are its only workgroup that are being paid industry comparable salaries and benefits. UA's profits will fall as they deal w/ their open labor contracts or their service will deteriorate - and AS faces the same challenge. In a service industry where pay is very visible across the industry, AS employees will expect more or jump ship to other airlines
remember that AS had grandiose expectations of how well they would do in competitive markets with Virgin America and that didn't work out at all as they expected
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.
Both you and Derek are wrong. OW is objectively a stronger international network and AA has the strongest Domestic network (network not on board experience).
Based on what metric/criteria??
The issue isn’t whether being in oneworld isn’t as good as being in another alliance. The question is whether Alaska being a part of oneworld is an advantage it has over JetBlue not being in any alliance.
Alaska simply has routes that others do not. For example, RDU - SEA. If you want to fly nonstop there is no alternative.
Delta flies RDU-SEA as well
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.
Yeah, but it's my opinion and therefore correct, Lava Chicken Boy. Noo Yawkers and Massholes are the worst humans imaginable. Why anyone would want to go there beats me. Both cities are flaming garbage heaps.
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
better improvement does not necessarily improve RASM.
and AS' aircraft utilization was better than industry average even before the HA merger.
AS didn't have a CASM problem because of inefficient schedules but they do get some more opportunity to push their assets harder.
Note, however, that DL's on-time has been better than AS' in SEA for years. AS' on-time isn't bad enough relative to DL as B6 is but the harder you push assets,...
better improvement does not necessarily improve RASM.
and AS' aircraft utilization was better than industry average even before the HA merger.
AS didn't have a CASM problem because of inefficient schedules but they do get some more opportunity to push their assets harder.
Note, however, that DL's on-time has been better than AS' in SEA for years. AS' on-time isn't bad enough relative to DL as B6 is but the harder you push assets, the greater the risk that on-time will fall and you start alienating a certain segment of passengers.
HA’s on-time performance has been noticeably worse since they aligned schedules and juiced Hawaiian utilization. I’m not saying that utilization improves RASM (adding ASMs typically does the opposite) but it would improve overall profitability. $HAL was slightly unprofitable, not tremendously bad but they didn’t have a lot of avenues to improve things. Merging with Alaska they can improve things right away. I don’t think the Hawaii business unit is suddenly going to start printing money,...
HA’s on-time performance has been noticeably worse since they aligned schedules and juiced Hawaiian utilization. I’m not saying that utilization improves RASM (adding ASMs typically does the opposite) but it would improve overall profitability. $HAL was slightly unprofitable, not tremendously bad but they didn’t have a lot of avenues to improve things. Merging with Alaska they can improve things right away. I don’t think the Hawaii business unit is suddenly going to start printing money, but it adds value to the loyalty program and the network and could become more profitable over time if it isn’t already profitable again now with streamlined costs and higher utilization. And yes you are correct DL has been OTP, a lot of that is their longer block times and turns. Always a tradeoff whether that’s worth it or not because it drives up CASM but you save IRROPS$ and loyalty. I think both airlines execute well operationally
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.
I'd love to see Jetblue aquire regional jets or turboprops. That would be amazing for short routes in the Northeast. They could even use them for new routes within Florida, perhaps replacing the now-defunct Silver Airways on certain profitable routes in FL and the Carribbean. A lot of people avoided Silver due to their unfriendly and unethical business and customer service policies, along with their delays, which greatly contributed to their downfall. Unfortunately, I don't...
I'd love to see Jetblue aquire regional jets or turboprops. That would be amazing for short routes in the Northeast. They could even use them for new routes within Florida, perhaps replacing the now-defunct Silver Airways on certain profitable routes in FL and the Carribbean. A lot of people avoided Silver due to their unfriendly and unethical business and customer service policies, along with their delays, which greatly contributed to their downfall. Unfortunately, I don't know if they have the capital for this right now.
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 also work in longhaul network planning, and all I see are the actual facts and numbers being presented. What are the pieces of evidence that this show is "directionally very strong"?
There's also no sign that Alaska will magically fill up all the planes either. There's nothing that's changing after almost 2 months of operation that will make customers flock to it. Everything is remaining the same from the planes, network, service, etc. Their...
I also work in longhaul network planning, and all I see are the actual facts and numbers being presented. What are the pieces of evidence that this show is "directionally very strong"?
There's also no sign that Alaska will magically fill up all the planes either. There's nothing that's changing after almost 2 months of operation that will make customers flock to it. Everything is remaining the same from the planes, network, service, etc. Their ability to fill up its Asia flights is already capped out.
The only changes I see are that Alaska has lowered its J cabin pricing and economy fares are now lower than the competition. Alaska is consistently the cheapest or second cheapest option on SEA to TYO.
a half month is not a make or break moment but 70% in the summer is significant.
There were reports of int'l pricing issues which AS might have fixed but the bigger issue is that AS is trying to compete to Japan via NRT while HND is the preferred airport for local Tokyo traffic. NRT is fine if you have a JV with JL but JL operates the route.
They will be competing...
a half month is not a make or break moment but 70% in the summer is significant.
There were reports of int'l pricing issues which AS might have fixed but the bigger issue is that AS is trying to compete to Japan via NRT while HND is the preferred airport for local Tokyo traffic. NRT is fine if you have a JV with JL but JL operates the route.
They will be competing w/ 3 DL/KE related flights including OZ.
DL's announcement that they will match them on FCO and also fly to BCN means that AS isn't starting a single international route from SEA where it has an advantage.
As much as some people think otherwise, flying 2X as many flights from SEA to ORD and LAX as DL doesn't translate into more longhaul international passengers and the extra small cities that AS serves generate very little if any meaningful international passengers.
When you combine the fact that DL serves all of the markets from SEA that generate int'l demand, has the corporate contracts - which AS might be able to gain but DL still has the advantage in other parts of the country, and DL also has far better strength on the foreign carrier ends of routes than AS, AS' success in international markets is far from certain.
I'd say wait until we see June/July numbers before we say that 70% for half of May, the end of spring when kids still are not out of school and summer vacations have not started, is significant. I think they'll be higher for the rest of the summer. Also keep in mind that this is primarily US point of sale, so my understanding is that for the first few weeks of the flight, it was...
I'd say wait until we see June/July numbers before we say that 70% for half of May, the end of spring when kids still are not out of school and summer vacations have not started, is significant. I think they'll be higher for the rest of the summer. Also keep in mind that this is primarily US point of sale, so my understanding is that for the first few weeks of the flight, it was significantly fuller leaving the US than returning. I think we'll see more balance throughout the summer
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?
average fare data by airport.
DL and UA fly longer haul from their west coast hubs than AS. AS is clearly trying to fix that and generate more revenue but they will have to push out some of their shorter haul flying in order to add widebody international flights because SEA just doesn't have space to grow.
AS' plan is to transfer some connecting capacity to PDX but that has the potential to just leave AS' hub strength in SEA weaker.
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 dont find T5 to be that bad. You can reach the gates from security quickly, unlike T4. B6 could have recycled the EI lounge in T5 or tried to help Chase, Capital One, or Amex to open a lounge in it.
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).