I don’t think this is terribly surprising, but Alaska Air Group seems to have quietly increased its Boeing 787 order book, in line with the carrier’s long haul aspirations.
In this post:
Alaska Air Group Dreamliner order increased to 17 frames
In 2018, Hawaiian Airlines placed an order for the Boeing 787-9. The order was for up to 20 jets, including 12 firm orders and eight options. At the time, these planes were intended to modernize the carrier’s long haul fleet, which otherwise consists of Airbus A330-200s.
That strategy evolved over time, and in 2024, we saw Alaska Air Group acquire Hawaiian Airlines, which has been quite transformative for the company. As part of this, we’ve seen Alaska announce plans to turn Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) into a global gateway, with plans to operate a dozen long haul routes from the airport by 2030.
In order to fuel this growth, Alaska Air Group has just upped its Dreamliner order by five aircraft, now having 17 firm commitments. While there hasn’t been an announcement from the airline, The Alaska Pilots Podcast, which is run by the company’s chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), has revealed these details.
We know that Alaska increasingly plans to operate long haul flights out of Seattle with Dreamliners, so in March 2026, Alaska plans to open a 787 pilot base there. While Alaska Air Group initially launched long haul flights out of Seattle to Tokyo Narita (NRT) with A330s, the carrier’s new routes to Seoul Incheon (ICN) and Rome (FCO) will be operated by 787s.
So it’s logical that the company would have 787 pilots based there, rather than just cycling pilots on complicated and longer trips from their base in Honolulu (HNL) to Seattle. I imagine that those 17 Dreamliners would be sufficient to operate the dozen long haul routes out of Seattle, factoring in spares, some rotations requiring more than one frame, etc.
Alaska needs to figure out its long haul strategy, stat
It’s certainly a fascinating time for Alaska Air Group, and I’m excited to see how the company’s strategy evolves. Launching long haul flights and going head-to-head against existing players isn’t easy, especially when you’re not part of any long haul joint ventures.
I’d argue that there’s a lot of long term potential here — Alaska has a loyal customer base, a huge connecting network in Seattle, valuable airline partnerships, and is a generally well run company.
However, Alaska is also going head-to-head against Delta. Alaska has the advantage in terms of regional connectivity, while Delta has the advantage in terms of having existing long haul service and joint ventures. With that in mind, I really think Alaska needs to focus on creating a cohesive long haul strategy ASAP:
- The airline launched long haul flights out of Seattle with A330s, which simply don’t have a competitive hard product, and Alaska still hasn’t announced concrete plans to refresh the interiors of these jets
- While the 787s have a good passenger experience, those planes still don’t have Wi-Fi, which is a major issue
- The current branding is confusing — people are boarding long haul flights from Seattle on Hawaiian branded jets, with the typical Hawaiian soft product
- There’s an amazing new Delta One Lounge Seattle, while Alaska is reportedly working on a new premium lounge, but it’s still a couple of years from opening
Like I said, I think Alaska can find eventual success with long haul flying. However, it seems like maybe the carrier should’ve waited a year or so to be able to fully develop its strategy, before a sort of half baked launch of the service, since first impressions matter.
Of course I understand that a lot is going on at Alaska at the moment, and the complications of two air the air operator certificates, different unionized workforces, etc.
So far, the load factors on the new Seattle to Tokyo Narita flight aren’t exactly encouraging. I expect that will improve over time, but again, one wonders if waiting a little longer to establish a more deliberate strategy would’ve been the better option. Then again, maybe these flights are already more profitable than how Hawaiian could’ve operated them out of Honolulu.
Bottom line
Alaska Air Group has reportedly upped its Boeing 787 order from 12 jets to 17 jets, exercising five options. I don’t think that’s too surprising, and it’s a clear reflection that the company is committed to making long haul service from Seattle work. I think the big question is how long it will take for this flying to become profitable.
I understand all the challenges Alaska is facing with ramping up these flights, but it sure seems like a little more could be done to be competitive from the start.
What do you make of Alaska increasing its Dreamliner order?
@Ben -- You talk of Alaska's newly acquired old A330s and say, "[they] simply don’t have a competitive hard product, and Alaska still hasn’t announced concrete plans to refresh the interiors of these jets." If past is prologue, they won't refresh the interiors. They'll sell off the aircraft.
Alaska is "proudly 100% Boeing," and when they acquired Virgin America they dumped ALL the VX Airbus jets -- including some brand new A321s. I have little...
@Ben -- You talk of Alaska's newly acquired old A330s and say, "[they] simply don’t have a competitive hard product, and Alaska still hasn’t announced concrete plans to refresh the interiors of these jets." If past is prologue, they won't refresh the interiors. They'll sell off the aircraft.
Alaska is "proudly 100% Boeing," and when they acquired Virgin America they dumped ALL the VX Airbus jets -- including some brand new A321s. I have little doubt AS will do the same with Hawaiian's planes. HS has 34 A330s averaging 12+ years of age. Apart from the 12 which are leased, HA owns the rest. I suspect they will all disappear as the new 787s get delivered, and I wouldn't be too surprised if AS excises it's option for the other three...
@Tim Dunn, your comment doesn’t make much sense. Don’t you realize HNL is already their main widebody hub? Seattle is just an addition. So no, five or ten years from now, they’re not going to operate all their widebodies solely out of Seattle. The aircraft will be split between HNL and SEA. Some A330s may be retired or repurposed, possibly serving leisure routes to and from HNL during the winter, or high cargo demand routes...
@Tim Dunn, your comment doesn’t make much sense. Don’t you realize HNL is already their main widebody hub? Seattle is just an addition. So no, five or ten years from now, they’re not going to operate all their widebodies solely out of Seattle. The aircraft will be split between HNL and SEA. Some A330s may be retired or repurposed, possibly serving leisure routes to and from HNL during the winter, or high cargo demand routes to and from ANC in the summer. Don’t pretend you are right (and they are wrong), don’t pretend know all, Mr. Dunn - sad life!
what's sad is that people come on here w/ their guns-a-blazing ready to take out people with whom they disagree and they don't even accurately get what the other person said.
I said
"AS simply cannot successfully deploy four dozen widebodies across its network."
you do realize that HA is owned by AS so AS' network includes HNL now?
and, you reinforce exactly what I said below and someone else hints above...
what's sad is that people come on here w/ their guns-a-blazing ready to take out people with whom they disagree and they don't even accurately get what the other person said.
I said
"AS simply cannot successfully deploy four dozen widebodies across its network."
you do realize that HA is owned by AS so AS' network includes HNL now?
and, you reinforce exactly what I said below and someone else hints above which is that AS very well may get rid of the 332s.
In a premium configuration which is what AS needs to compete against other carriers, esp. from SEA, the 332 seats between 235-255 seats total - which is well less than the 789 can seat. AA and DL operate/have both operated 332s.
the 332 is a small narrowbody and the economics are just not favorable.
If AS decides to get rid of the 332s, then AS' order book for the 787s is not that great.
btw, word is that AS execs have been talked to Guam gov't leaders. There is no nonstop service from GUM to the mainland US and AS might be thinking of duplicating some of UA's GUM network plus add a nonstop GUM-mainland US flight.
THAT would be a unique TPAC route where there is a hole and where AS could grow w/o having to take on a bunch of other carriers.
GUM is not a premium destination so a premium configured 787 might not be in order - maybe the 332s would do the job as configured.
that rumor is worth watching.
Mr Dunn, this is what you wrote: “ we'll count on you to come back and let us know in 5 years if AS has managed to deploy 3 dozen passenger widebodies from SEA or break into the widebody domestic market from LAX or SFO w/ any success
I am betting the answer will be "no"
You excluded the fact that HNL is their second largest hub and it’s important for AS!
Thx for the...
Mr Dunn, this is what you wrote: “ we'll count on you to come back and let us know in 5 years if AS has managed to deploy 3 dozen passenger widebodies from SEA or break into the widebody domestic market from LAX or SFO w/ any success
I am betting the answer will be "no"
You excluded the fact that HNL is their second largest hub and it’s important for AS!
Thx for the info about GUM - if AS can pull it off, that’s great for them. My question is, will DL jump in as well? A great airline should not copycat from your competitors, but Be innovative and creative! Be the leader! Be the first!
I used to be pretty loyal to AS, but as I've started to fly in premium cabins more often, my opinion of them has changed. I find their domestic First to be a rather lackluster product. The transcon flights have decent food and drink, but the service level depends a lot on the flight attendant you happen to get. On my last such flight, the FA for First disappeared to the back of the plane...
I used to be pretty loyal to AS, but as I've started to fly in premium cabins more often, my opinion of them has changed. I find their domestic First to be a rather lackluster product. The transcon flights have decent food and drink, but the service level depends a lot on the flight attendant you happen to get. On my last such flight, the FA for First disappeared to the back of the plane for up to half an hour at a time, probably to chat with coworkers. On short-haul flights, First is nothing more than a bigger seat. On routes where Delta will typically offer you a drink on the ground and at least one in the air, e.g. SEA-YVR, AS will not even offer you water. You might not even get a greeting from the FA. How do they call this First Class?
All that is to say that I'm not going to be in a hurry to fly long-haul on AS, especially in a premium cabin. As they bring new widebody planes into service, I'll wait and see what sort of product they come up with. Loyalty and the (once great) Mileage Plan won't be enough to get me onboard.
When asked for data to back up his claim Tim Dunn goes silent.
1. I don't post on social media to make anyone feel good.
2. I am more than happy to wait for time to be the judge
"Let's check back in 5 years but I suspect I will have been one of the few people that didn't believe that AS can do what it says it will do - and will be proven right."
3. Very few people that talk about how great AS' plans...
1. I don't post on social media to make anyone feel good.
2. I am more than happy to wait for time to be the judge
"Let's check back in 5 years but I suspect I will have been one of the few people that didn't believe that AS can do what it says it will do - and will be proven right."
3. Very few people that talk about how great AS' plans will be consider the results of their Virgin America acquisition.
4. Plenty of people recognize that the SEA international market is one of the most saturated in the country per capita of the local market.
5. someone else said
"The fact that another, larger more experienced, carrier who already has the aircraft+capital+incentive to do so; yet hasn't.... does tend to give some credence to such an assertion."
I agree with you that Alaska should have waited a bit longer before launching the Narita flight. Hawaiian Airlines is a great airline but they focus on leisure market. Their current product does not even match the standard before Covid. For a premium market like SEA to NRT, those HA A330-200s are simply not good enough. They should have just waited for another year before launching the flight with a premium product that is industry...
I agree with you that Alaska should have waited a bit longer before launching the Narita flight. Hawaiian Airlines is a great airline but they focus on leisure market. Their current product does not even match the standard before Covid. For a premium market like SEA to NRT, those HA A330-200s are simply not good enough. They should have just waited for another year before launching the flight with a premium product that is industry leading. You have to start with a bang. The current product is just underwhelming at best.
The sudden decision to switch to 787-9 on Seoul Incheon is a reaction towards the possibly the complaints they get for the Narita flights especially the premium cabin. I really hope that a brand new product will be introduced on September for the Seoul Incheon launch.
For May 2026 Rome launch, I expect a totally new 787-9 in Alaska livery featuring a brand new business suite, a real premium economy product, and a good economy product with a shocking good cabin product. Delta has a pretty good Delta ONE product and their coach service is good. So Alaska has a lot to live up to. They need not only to match Delta's standard but to beat it. Or else the Rome flight will be a failure as they can only compete in prices. The Alaska Airlines elite will fly other Oneworld carriers if Alaska can't offer a good product.
Maybe the Hawaii to Asia market is so weak that Alaska is desperate to send the plane on Seattle to Tokyo flight. But I am just not sure if the Narita flight is making money.
I am not convinced that Alaska understands that the international market is very different from domestic market. Alaska's domestic product is decent but they aim for average, not industry-leading. It works for their mainly domestic/North American markets, but for flights to Tokyo and Seoul/Incheon, you have to bring your A game. They are not definitely not achieving that goal right now.
I still bet that Delta will win this Seattle's international market. Alaska Airlines really should have pushed Portland, OR for improving their international facilities. I think they actually may be able to find a niche market on Portland, OR to Asia/Europe flight. Those Hawaiian A330-200s can be refurbished into a premium heavy but less dense configuration, and can easily fill up a daily flight to Tokyo Narita or Seoul Incheon.
very well said.
PDX would die to get an AS international hub and there is virtually no international competition at PDX while AS is a slugfest in every direction.
and you are right that AS is trying to stop the bleeding on HA's international network and also "grow beyond" its PNW and western US base from SEA - but they waited so long to make that decision that they will face enormous pressure from every...
very well said.
PDX would die to get an AS international hub and there is virtually no international competition at PDX while AS is a slugfest in every direction.
and you are right that AS is trying to stop the bleeding on HA's international network and also "grow beyond" its PNW and western US base from SEA - but they waited so long to make that decision that they will face enormous pressure from every international airline in SEA, nearly all of which are AS' mileage program and codeshare partners - because that is the strategy that AS chose to use to counter DL. Problem is that strategy is counter to helping AS build its own international network.
add in that FCO is a seasonal market so they are going to have to find a lot of markets where they can use widebodies on a year round basis - and there are very few where the competitive environment is conducive to an easy entry of AS into the market.
"I still bet that Delta will win this Seattle's international market."
you and me both - and I suspect there will be a few more that sheepishly admit we were right as this whole thing plays out
Would you say they’re also going to compete with UA and SFO for connecting traffic? I wonder how from far east people would come to connect to Europe. I’m sure summer will be easy but winter will be hard and harder to get premium traffic, especially when you can have a better meal and likely quicker trip through most big 3 hubs
West Coast is not designed for Europe connecting traffic, too much backtracking or overflying. Beyond the few key JV routes, there's very little unique Europe destinations from the West Coast.
West Coast is designed for Pacific flying. SEA is in particular is more suited for Asia travel, however, SFO/LAX are better for South Pacific.
UA has an easier time since they have much more local demand from SFO for Asia-Pacific travel. Alaska will need to...
West Coast is not designed for Europe connecting traffic, too much backtracking or overflying. Beyond the few key JV routes, there's very little unique Europe destinations from the West Coast.
West Coast is designed for Pacific flying. SEA is in particular is more suited for Asia travel, however, SFO/LAX are better for South Pacific.
UA has an easier time since they have much more local demand from SFO for Asia-Pacific travel. Alaska will need to fill more of its seats with connecting passengers as a result.
I don't understand investing in new, expensive long haul aircraft while simultaneously pushing away loyal elite customers with increasingly failing technology, exorbitant fare pricing, overpriced but unredeemable award travel, and flat out refusing to honor published benefits. Their attitude towards loyal customers is not growth-oriented.
not to pile on but AS' on-time performance has fallen, particularly compared to DL.
for the month of March, DL's on-time in SEA was 88.1 while AS' was 80.7%. Neither are numbers to sneeze at and both are above average but DL understands full well that part of how to win in other airline competitive markets is to operate more reliably than "the other" carrier.
There is simply no way that AS can schedule...
not to pile on but AS' on-time performance has fallen, particularly compared to DL.
for the month of March, DL's on-time in SEA was 88.1 while AS' was 80.7%. Neither are numbers to sneeze at and both are above average but DL understands full well that part of how to win in other airline competitive markets is to operate more reliably than "the other" carrier.
There is simply no way that AS can schedule a bunch of widebodies in SEA on top of their existing flights and not impact congestion on AS' side of the operation.
I sincerely hope that AS has already figured out what it wants to do in terms of premium seating on their wide bodies, and they are quietly and secretly executing on those plans. That said, another possibility is that they are still trying to figure out what they want to do, or are laboring under the assumption that the old A330 layout for biz is adequate on these very long-haul flights. The clock is certainly...
I sincerely hope that AS has already figured out what it wants to do in terms of premium seating on their wide bodies, and they are quietly and secretly executing on those plans. That said, another possibility is that they are still trying to figure out what they want to do, or are laboring under the assumption that the old A330 layout for biz is adequate on these very long-haul flights. The clock is certainly ticking, because the competition will be flying some great hardware on these routes.
Moved from ExPlat on AA to 100K on Alaska and loving it. Based in Portland. So I will for sure be interested and booking some of those flights you mention, but not this early. They will begin to fill. And then fill more.
Interesting that Ben chose to comment on the less than great loads of the new NRT route, yet purported "airline analysts" wanted to ignore it, when the proof is in the pudding.
The reality is that Alaska is taking on a big risk with this expansion, things could improve or go south.
Unfortunately, they don't offer a competitive product to their own alliance member JAL that exactly serves this route.
Alaska has a large hub...
Interesting that Ben chose to comment on the less than great loads of the new NRT route, yet purported "airline analysts" wanted to ignore it, when the proof is in the pudding.
The reality is that Alaska is taking on a big risk with this expansion, things could improve or go south.
Unfortunately, they don't offer a competitive product to their own alliance member JAL that exactly serves this route.
Alaska has a large hub at SEA, but there have been markets that they don't do well like MEX and CUN, where they ceded ground to the DL/AM joint venture, proving exactly that JVs are the bread and butter for international expansion.
If Alaska were to enter a JV, things would be significantly different for it.
An earlier article on OMAAT leaked that Alaska is indeed trying to join the AA/JL JV. I don’t think the higher-ups at Alaska have their heads in the sand; they should be pretty aware that the Hawaiian A330s aren’t going to compete for top-end traffic on SEA-TYO. It seems like they’re making do with the resources they have, and we’ll see how things change once the first 787 and new loyalty program get revealed.
and specific to JL, DL and NH serve HND which is the preferred airport for local Tokyo traffic and gets higher average fares than NRT. The current treaty between the US and Japan does not allow any more carriers or flights to HND which means that NRT flights basically exist to connect passengers through an airport and other carriers serve the preferred airport. In the case of AA, HA and UA, they do serve both...
and specific to JL, DL and NH serve HND which is the preferred airport for local Tokyo traffic and gets higher average fares than NRT. The current treaty between the US and Japan does not allow any more carriers or flights to HND which means that NRT flights basically exist to connect passengers through an airport and other carriers serve the preferred airport. In the case of AA, HA and UA, they do serve both airports and AS when merged will serve both airports - but not from SEA for years to come.
The same thing will play out at LHR if AS decides to fly to London.
And just because AS decides at the 11th hour to start flying international flights doesn't mean that partners want them in their JVs. AA will lose the SEA-NRT leg as part of its JV because the US has never allowed 2 US carriers to use the same segment in a JV w/ 2 US carriers. JL can accomplish the same thing - which is feed for its SEA-NRT flight and picking up some of AS' feed to AS' NRT flights - w/o a JV.
I wonder if the -10 would work for them. The -10s range seem to be adequate for them, while the -9s size works for them too.
Why would they want more seats, when they can't fill the smaller gauge right now?
I wonder if there are enough wide body gates at Sea-tac to accommodate these 17 787s. With all the long-haul routes added in recent years, that airport is very full.
part of AS' strategy is to try to dump a bunch of widebodies into SEA in order to cut DL's gate advantage because SEA does calculate gate access higher based on the number of widebodies.
but widebodies can't create gates that don't exist. and SEA is not incentivizing flights that duplicate existing markets - not for AS, not for DL or any other airline.
other airlines including DL will continue to add widebodies.
...part of AS' strategy is to try to dump a bunch of widebodies into SEA in order to cut DL's gate advantage because SEA does calculate gate access higher based on the number of widebodies.
but widebodies can't create gates that don't exist. and SEA is not incentivizing flights that duplicate existing markets - not for AS, not for DL or any other airline.
other airlines including DL will continue to add widebodies.
and the reality is that there are 4 US airline hubs that use more than 35 widebodies - UA at SFO, DL at ATL, DL at JFK and UA at EWR. SEA for either AS or DL will never be in that league.
AS simply cannot successfully deploy four dozen widebodies across its network.
You stress the importance of wifi on flights all the time. My assumption is it stems largely from the fact that you want to be able to work inflight. On the other hand, I have never chosen a flight or an airline based on wifi. Yeah, it's great to have and sometimes I work on flights as well, but it's really so far down on the list of priorities that it's a non-factor. Curious if who between us is the outcast on this issue.
@ Nobody -- I don't think it's the least or most important aspect of an airline experience. However, I think it's increasingly becoming a standard amenity that passengers expect. If it weren't, we wouldn't be seeing so many airlines introducing Starlink Wi-Fi for free nowadays.
I am one of those tech people with a somewhat flexible work arrangement who is kind of online all the time - not uncommon group for buying international J - and I would literally not even consider buying a ticket without WiFi
OTOH, I do not care at all if that WiFi costs $0 or $20
The real problem is that Starlink's own ETA for the 787 type certification is over a year away at Q3 2026. It's not like these are waiting in a queue to be installed, it's just impossible to install and will be for some time.
the chances are high that AS will simply retire the A330-200s. They are not at all ideal for Pacific routes and it is hardly worth putting a premium product on them and end up w/ 50 less seats than AS' 787s and DL's 339s and 359s have.
Factor in that there will be increasing pressure for AS to fix Hawaiian's money-losing domestic and international network and using more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft could do more for HNL than SEA.
Nope.
yes, screws loose is accurate.
The notion that AS will be able to successfully deploy over 40 widebodies across its existing network and what it can deploy from SEA is beyond delusional.
but this honestly might be AS' "pride cometh before the fall" moment
Sure - I think Ben and team know a lot more about running an airline than some “blogger” who has no idea about strategy and running a company.
I'm sure he does - but that is not the question and your reply doesn't answer whether AS can successfully deploy 4 dozen widebodies across its current network. AA only has 130 widebodies.
let's get to the root of all of this which is that AS is having another 10 year itch to grow out of its PNW home. It did it last decade wiht the Virgin America acquisition which was a resounding failure no...
I'm sure he does - but that is not the question and your reply doesn't answer whether AS can successfully deploy 4 dozen widebodies across its current network. AA only has 130 widebodies.
let's get to the root of all of this which is that AS is having another 10 year itch to grow out of its PNW home. It did it last decade wiht the Virgin America acquisition which was a resounding failure no matter how you want to frame it.
Hawaiian is a money losing airline, the Hawaii market is shrinking, and the answer to just dump a bunch of widebody capacity into new flights from SEA faces the reality that SEA is very congested already and there really are nowhere near enough untapped markets from SEA to deploy even half of HA/AS' current and planned widebodies.
Let's check back in 5 years but I suspect I will have been one of the few people that didn't believe that AS can do what it says it will do - and will be proven right.
"there really are nowhere near enough untapped markets from SEA to deploy even half of HA/AS' current and planned widebodies"
I'm wondering data you have that supports of this assertion?
The fact that another, larger more experienced, carrier who already has the aircraft+capital+incentive to do so; yet hasn't.... does tend to give some credence to such an assertion.
But that's still anecdotal. DL has more lucrative alternative gateways for that kind of flying, whereas AS does not. But if SEA was rife with untapped stateside demand, there's little reason DL wouldn't have addressed it...
The fact that another, larger more experienced, carrier who already has the aircraft+capital+incentive to do so; yet hasn't.... does tend to give some credence to such an assertion.
But that's still anecdotal. DL has more lucrative alternative gateways for that kind of flying, whereas AS does not. But if SEA was rife with untapped stateside demand, there's little reason DL wouldn't have addressed it first. Italy will be a good test of that theory.
@concordeboy,
Delta doesn't have the FF and loyalty base, nor the domestic network, that Alaska has at Seattle. Just because Delta can't make it work as a #2 at Seattle doesn't mean Alaska as the larger airline there can't.
To take an extreme example, no one else can make a large international hub work at ATL. Does that mean Delta must fail there?
National metrics certainly have some importance in these matters but so...
@concordeboy,
Delta doesn't have the FF and loyalty base, nor the domestic network, that Alaska has at Seattle. Just because Delta can't make it work as a #2 at Seattle doesn't mean Alaska as the larger airline there can't.
To take an extreme example, no one else can make a large international hub work at ATL. Does that mean Delta must fail there?
National metrics certainly have some importance in these matters but so do local strengths. I'm not saying Alaska's success is certain but it's not automatically doomed to failure just because Delta is failing there.
Lune,
you eventually get around to the right conclusion that AS' success is not certain and nobody is saying that AS is doomed to failure but you can't help but throwing in your own bias in saying that DL is failing.
You simply cannot grasp that AS has a larger hub but that doesn't make it a more successful hub. AS flies to most of the same destinations as DL from SEA but with...
Lune,
you eventually get around to the right conclusion that AS' success is not certain and nobody is saying that AS is doomed to failure but you can't help but throwing in your own bias in saying that DL is failing.
You simply cannot grasp that AS has a larger hub but that doesn't make it a more successful hub. AS flies to most of the same destinations as DL from SEA but with more frequency. AS also adds a few more cities from SEA but still funnels more traffic through SEA including for domestic connections which DL can funnel through other more logical connecting hubs including SLC and MSP and even ATL which both serve many medium sized and small cities in the west.
and, as noted multiple times, the PNW is a great location for a TPAC hub but is not great as a TATL hub - esp. an airline's only TATL hub. If AS were adding only TPAC routes, we would feel a whole lot better about their potential. But they know that in order to take on DL, they have to add some TATL flights and their first add so far is to FCO with a summer seasonal route which DL already serves from a half dozen hubs, two of which are on a year-round basis.
and, the argument about DL's profitability in SEA raises the question of "if DL can make so much money elsewhere to afford to operate money-losing hubs in other parts of the country, why didn't any other airline - INCLUDING ALASKA - think of doing the same earlier?
you're still going to be spewing nonsense on other people's blogs in 5 years? loser
we'll count on you to come back and let us know in 5 years if AS has managed to deploy 3 dozen passenger widebodies from SEA or break into the widebody domestic market from LAX or SFO w/ any success
I am betting the answer will be "no"