Alaska Airlines’ plans to transition to an all-Boeing fleet should be completed in the coming months.
In this post:
Alaska Airlines is retiring all Airbus jets
Historically Alaska Airlines has operated an all-Boeing fleet, which was a point of pride, given that the airline is based in Seattle. That changed in late 2016, when Alaska acquired Virgin America, which operated an all-Airbus fleet.
In late 2020, Alaska revealed plans to retire Airbus aircraft by 2023, as part of a major fleet simplification plan. As of that time, the airline had nearly 70 Airbus jets, including 10 A319s, 49 A320s, and 10 A321neos. Over the past couple of years we’ve already seen Alaska retire A319s and A320s, meaning that at the moment, the only remaining Airbus jets are the A321neos.
As noted by @IshrionA, Alaska has updated its schedule to remove all A321neos as of October 1, 2023. This suggests that Alaska intends to retire all of these jets by this fall. Now, presumably this remains subject to change, but that appears to be the plan as of now.
Once this transition is complete, Alaska will once again exclusively have Boeing 737s in its mainline fleet. The airline has also ordered quite a few 737 MAXs, to help fuel future growth.
What will happen to Alaska’s Airbus A321neos?
Alaska’s Airbus A321neos are young — they’re an average of under five years old. They were all delivered to the airline in 2018 and 2019, well after the merger between Alaska and Virgin America was completed. Alaska never really wanted these jets, but didn’t have a way to get out of that order.
We know that Alaska’s plan isn’t to simply park these planes to maturity and just make lease payments until then, but rather the airline is looking for a new home for these jets. I can’t imagine the airline will have any trouble offloading these planes, as there are many airlines that would appreciate picking up some “gently used” A321neos.
The whole way that airlines go about fleet strategy is fascinating to me, since there’s so much at play. Alaska has retired nearly 70 Airbus jets that presumably could have been used to continue to grow, and the airline probably could have made money flying these planes.
But there are so many other considerations, and at times I wonder if airlines make the right choices. It’s hard to know exactly what the future will look like, and often these decisions are driven by accounting benefits to retiring certain jets, being able to secure good financing terms on new jets, etc.
For example, during the pandemic American retired its 757s, 767s, and A330s. Was retiring the A330s really the right move, when we’ve seen a big rebound in international travel, those planes were just recently refurbished, and American has had issues with Boeing aircraft delivery delays? Admittedly hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes you’ve gotta wonder…
Bottom line
It appears that Alaska Airlines intends to retire its 10 Airbus A321neos as of October 1, 2023, which will mark the end of Airbus operations for the Seattle-based airline. Alaska has been progressively retiring Airbus aircraft over the past couple of years, and has already retired nearly 60 A319s and A320s. You can expect that as of later in 2023, Alaska will be back to having an all-Boeing mainline fleet.
What do you make of Alaska retiring its Airbus A321neos?
Alaska isn't telling the truth and hasn't for a very long time with the "proudly all Boeing" slogan on the 737's. With the Dehavilands with Horizon, Embraers with Skywest-Alaska, and the airbus aircraft they have continued to fly since acquiring Virgin America. An airline that celebrates the way homosexuals like to have sex with a special livery, we shouldn't be surprised!
I'd rather ride transatlantic on an A330 over a B787 in economy any day. Up front, who cares!
Mistake? Not at all. There are many opinions but one fact... a single fleet type is economically sound. Ordering, training, maintenance, parts, route interchangeability and so on. When the last A321neo is retired, Alaska mainline fleet will be all Boeing 737 variants and a very young fleet. Their regional aircraft, (Horizon Air) is already exclusively the Embraer E175.
Snart business move and a benefit to overall customer experience.
It'll be interesting to see what Alaska deploys for their trans-cons out of DCA instead of the A321s.
The B737-900s (or MAX 9s) may be weight limited at times (due to DCA runway length)
And the 737-800 (or MAX 8s) have lower seating capacity but the performance to make the flights mostly unrestricted.
Why is anyone surprised that Alaska is getting rid of the aircraft all others are clambering for?
Alaska is based in Seattle. Optics people.
They are cheap hence the "clamoring"
The real reason they are splitting from them is fleet commonality - having to stock multiple fleet types with parts , maintenance training and spares availability is dumb financially. AK is fixing this issue by ridding them selves of their Airbuses. As a AK frequent flyer, they did not maintain the AB to the same standards - the IFE was constantly broken, seats would not recline and while...
They are cheap hence the "clamoring"
The real reason they are splitting from them is fleet commonality - having to stock multiple fleet types with parts , maintenance training and spares availability is dumb financially. AK is fixing this issue by ridding them selves of their Airbuses. As a AK frequent flyer, they did not maintain the AB to the same standards - the IFE was constantly broken, seats would not recline and while passenger convenience items certainly it sends a bad message to their customers.
Nothing to do with "optics" as you assert...
How many former Boeing executives have sat on the Alaska Board. Yep.
No optics? Why paint “Proudly all Boeing” when you’re not. Are the regional aircraft purchased by the Alaska Air Group Boeing? Nope. The MD80’s it fly for years. C’mon…pandering to your base market. It is what it is.
This is an incredibly dumb move by Alaska. With an Airbus fleet of 70 there are enough economies of scale at play, and Airbus jets are just very good. But if Alaska want to operate poorly designed B737 Max then all power to them. It’s just that safety conscious passengers will avoid them.
That "poorly" designed MAX is beating the pants off your Airbusses by about 18% better fuel on EVERY flight. Those economics are real... 99.99% of passengers have no clue what they are riding on...
Alaska really just bought Virgin to eliminate it. They’re making sure nobody will know Virgin America ever existed.
I understand Alaska's move to simplify its fleet to all 737s-- but, from this passenger's perspective, the A321neo is a really good airplane, and I will be sorry to see it go away.
Alaska never had A321NEO's. They are retiring A321CEOs.
They have 10 A321neos. Read the article!
NO, they wanted the SFO slots which AK was sorely lacking...
It’s a shame that Alaska is moving away from the A320/A321. They are much more passenger friendly aircraft and allow a better service offering.
Alaska risk joining a race to the lower end of the service model as another all 737 fleet.
I'd like to make a partial correction to a previous comment. The A330-300s were on their way out but the A330-200s about 9 of them, did get a refresher with a "Premium Economy" section and should have remained until the Dreamliner delivery issues were resolved. But as said in the article, hindsight is 20/20.
Alaska has no A330's at all...nor have they any 787's on order either...
Are you sure they're retiring them and not just being caught up in the issue with engines that's affecting other A321 neo operators of similar aged aircraft?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/air-new-zealand-grounds-a321-neo-and-a320-neo-amid-global-engine-shortage/C2VQFJSVONDLXLATCMOZLQ2AXQ/
What a HORRIBLE choice for Alaska Airlines to get rid of these A321's!! Just a note to Alaska management... I WILL NEVER STEP FOOT ON ONE OF YOUR 737 MAX DEATHTRAPS!! Good luck Alaska, you'll need it!
HORRIBLE HORRIBLE DECISION!
If it is cheaper, I'm betting you will - willingly so!
Alaska now sucks gone are the wonderful short haul Virgin gets on cramped puddle jumpers
The culture of a caring customer centric management down the toilet
Once the best airline in America is now simply mediocre
I’m back at American and my love affair with Alaska ended up in a divorce
That’s the short story without the dozens of disappointments American wooed me back giving me free Emerald status for 3...
Alaska now sucks gone are the wonderful short haul Virgin gets on cramped puddle jumpers
The culture of a caring customer centric management down the toilet
Once the best airline in America is now simply mediocre
I’m back at American and my love affair with Alaska ended up in a divorce
That’s the short story without the dozens of disappointments American wooed me back giving me free Emerald status for 3 years and a refund paid out in miles on my lifetime expiring upgrade stickers
Alaska kicked me to the curb in so many ways
It was a good run till Alaska became more tainted.Friendly agents at Alaska but they are clueless to One World rules for their program and that of others.Some do not know the difference between a connecting city and a stopover
"American wooed me back giving me free Emerald status for 3 years and a refund paid out in miles on my lifetime expiring upgrade stickers"
Sounds like American kicked you to the curb too. I don't know exactly how you pulled a 3 free year but you're probably among the few. But that's enough carrot for you to curse AS.
@Eskimo
Give him about a year. Then he'll come back complaining about AA like he's complaining about AS today. I'll never get how people can be so vehement in their dislike then come crawling back to the same crappy airline.
I’m sure Qatar will gladly buy these from Alaska
From a business point-of-view, I understand the desire to shed each and every Airbus plane. It's what I call "The Southwest Model" -- the fleet consists of one plane type (737); one manufacturer (Boeing).
From a passenger/customer point-of-view, Airbus makes (IMHO) better narrow bodies than Boeing, and I'll miss the A321-neos the same way I already miss the ex-VX A320s. But it's not going to stop me from flying Alaska...
From a reader's point-of-view.....zzzz. We know this already. At least show us your dirigible (to keep us interested) if you're going to sprout common knowledge about aircraft types. LOL
Problem is that Boeing then have you over a barrel.
The A320 family order backlog is something north of 7200 aircraft, so it's hard to imagine that these Neo's won't quickly find a new home.
Having just traveled on two A321’s, I think it is a pretty nice plane for passengers. But having one type of plane makes it less expensive for airlines especially when it comes to pilot training. And a pilot can go from one plane to another and not have to worry if they received enough training on it. From what I understand pilots do continuous training and knowing one type of jet inside out is easier...
Having just traveled on two A321’s, I think it is a pretty nice plane for passengers. But having one type of plane makes it less expensive for airlines especially when it comes to pilot training. And a pilot can go from one plane to another and not have to worry if they received enough training on it. From what I understand pilots do continuous training and knowing one type of jet inside out is easier than having to be an expert on 3 or 4 different types of aircraft. Less money the airline has to spend on training.
ALASKA ES DE SEATTLE Y TARDE QUE TEMPRANO TODO MUNDO AQUI SABIA QUE TARDE QUE TEMPRANO ALASKA IBA A RETIRAR ESOS MUGROSOS AVIONES DE AIRBUS...ALASKA ES 100% TERRITORIO BOEING...
Hola, Mario,
Vivo en Seattle. Ahora, Seattle no es "100% territorio Boeing.". La gerencia de Boeing no vive aquí y muchos aviones se hacen en Charleston. Sí, es verdad que los 737 todavía se hacen en esta región, pero hay una razón mas sencilla para esta decisión--es como Lucky escribó, para usar solamente un tipo de avión. Es mucho mas barato hacerlo así y para Alaska, ya tiene la mayoridad de 737s en la flota.
7200 pedidos a un avión que se estrelló dos veces por que Boeing no lo hizo bien. Entonces ningún europeo deberia comprar los "mugrosos aviones de Boeing" por que en europa se hace el airbus.. Tus comentarios no tienen sentido.
I'll take an A321 over a MAX any day of the week.
This is so sad. Best plane in the Alaska fleet by far. Boeings are so bad now.
'Hindsight is 20/20'
Ben must have been very proud of himself for that one
I don’t think it made sense for Alaska to buy virgin America because first Alaska airlines is all Boeing fleet and second they’re retiring all of them so only benefit is routes from virgin America but they barely have enough planes for those and JetBlue makes more sense because they have exact Airbus fleet fitness and would benefit from smaller a319 for low demand route.
They wanted the SFO slots...nothing more
Glad to read this . . . makes my pers. decision so much easier, to NEVER fly that airline ever!
Not only do i NOT like BOEING 737/757 jets, but i would never set foot on a 737-MAX ever.
THIS airline is one of the most notorious ones in the US, so i hope, they'll never really start flying international, as i've NEVER seen any other airline that size, that is so focused...
Glad to read this . . . makes my pers. decision so much easier, to NEVER fly that airline ever!
Not only do i NOT like BOEING 737/757 jets, but i would never set foot on a 737-MAX ever.
THIS airline is one of the most notorious ones in the US, so i hope, they'll never really start flying international, as i've NEVER seen any other airline that size, that is so focused on there home market like Alaska Airlines.
Starts with IATA ticket designator, tickets are issued on int. sales agents, there frequent flyer program (even on partner airlines that don't fly on a majority to the US, they can't be booked, and flying a strict fleet that has probably the worst reputation globally, shows how much this airline really cares about anything, but follows the US way, as if they have never learned a lesson after there overaged and also disastrous MD-80 accidents and incidents.
NO THANK YOU, i never set foot on there planes and probably never will after this just has re-assured my in my decision. Ryanair, same thing, but that's an airline i would never fly anyway.
Thanks for this info Ben! ;-)
Really? Many inaccurate comments.
You are criticizing Alaska for favoring their home market. What airline doesn't place more emphasis on their home market? This is expected behavior and an industry norm.
And you criticize them for having partners that don't fly to the majority of the US. One of their partners is American Airlines which flies to more destinations in the US than any other airline.
And sorry to inform you that Alaska...
Really? Many inaccurate comments.
You are criticizing Alaska for favoring their home market. What airline doesn't place more emphasis on their home market? This is expected behavior and an industry norm.
And you criticize them for having partners that don't fly to the majority of the US. One of their partners is American Airlines which flies to more destinations in the US than any other airline.
And sorry to inform you that Alaska already flies international - Canada, Mexico, Belize and Costa Rica.
And bringing up the MD-83 accident that happened over 23 years ago is somewhat puzzling as virtually every airline is operating differently today than it was 23 years ago. Plus Alaska hasn't had a fatality since 2000 making it one of the safest airlines in the world.
Your comments just proof once more, that the Airline does NOT care about there passengers!
Who cares if they have to fly any unsafe plane of not, obviously . . . Alaska DOESN'T!
You're just referring to the accident and fatal loss of the MD-80 back then, i was pointing out the many incidents they also had on the same plane and did little to change things then!
Looks like, NOT much has changed since then!?
Alaska buying virgin was a money laundering conspiracy.
They but the airline, spend money ruining the planes, cut a bunch of routes and then take a loss on new planes. Insane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngknx7Wag80
If Alaska wasn't going to use Virgin America's planes, why did they buy them? Why not Jetblue, who has an A320 fleet, needed to grow with more staff, aircraft, slots, etc.. Virgin America was more alike to Jetblue than Alaska. Why didn't Jetblue take over them?
Alaska bought Vrigin so that Jetblue can't buy it.
Why? Alaska wanted to expand . . . it wanted Virgin's routes. Years later, after attempting that plan, Alaska has since backed away. Had Alaska adopted the Virgin name, in customers' minds, it might have disassociated itself from the notion it was a regional carrier. A strategic blunder. So, now, it needs to structure its fleet in a way that is consistent with its current reality.
@Lee
And keep paying Richard Branson for life? They are already paying more than they wanted to.
What made VX good wasn't the name but was the product.
Would VX product be profitable at AS scale is questionable.
Would VX name and AS product avoid a strategic blunder in your mind, I don't think so.
Maybe @Lee still believes Southwest only flies around Arizona and New Mexico.
B6 should have bought VX. We all know this by hindsight. But AS didn't want B6 to get them because they were afraid of B6 expansion on the West Coast, so they ludicrously overbid for VX and took them out of B6's hands. And now B6 is doing the same thing with NK. The wheel of karma turns.
It’s a stupid move. Alaska flies most intra-California routes with cramped Skywest Embraer 175s which are always packed to the limit (and then some) when they could have used their own A321neos. The SkyWest planes are super uncomfortable on a good day. They just want to deliver less for the same airfare. Shame on them.
It’s not like Alaska would simply replace the E175s with A321s. The E175s are so much less expensive to operate and easier to operate into airports then an A321, most of these routes are E175 or nothing.
A cramped E175???? Are you serious? I’ve never heard someone say that. lol
@G6 -Agreed. The E-Jets are some of the most comfortable narrowbodies out there. Large windows, 2-2 configuration in Y, 1-2 up front, and wide seats.
@deadduck. I have never heard someone call a loaded E175 cramped, lol. No middle seats, a beautiful first class cabin, a lavatory for every thirty eight passengers. You go ahead and pack yourself into a loaded 737 and get back to us
The E175 overhead bins are not enough for First Class, definitely cramped.
Hilarious. It's as if a full E175 means you can automatically have more than twice that number of passengers to fill an A321. So many astonishing comments on this thread...
I’m sure Alaska has crunched the numbers and there are enough positives to divest themselves of the A321neos. They also could have kept them and made that work, but it’s just not in their corporate DNA.
I’ll miss the A321neos, especially traveling with someone in F. Comfortable enough product with an open cabin and lots of space. Goodbye to the last vestiges of VX.
Now, if Alaska could just restore its pre-COVID route network.
Makes sense - hard to justify keeping Airbus flight crews around for just 10 planes.
The Airbus pilots will convert to the 737.
The American A330s had not been refurbished recently. They maintained the old US Airways cabins. But the 767s had been refurbished.
Did you mean to say 737s as opposed to 767s?
If you meant to say 767s, who has the 767s to which you are referring? It would not be AA.
The AA 767s were relatively recently refurbished, around 2016 iirc, and their product was decently competitive and well kept. And 767s are one of my favorite planes to fly on, they’re not super comfortable and don’t have great air and they were not reliable with AA, but man they sounded good and were powerful.
The A330s, while having a flat bed direct aisle access seat, were just much more “tired” in terms of stains, poor cushioning in the seats, fading colors, etc.
And, we're talking about AA's widebody fleet because . . . ?
@Lee
I know. The mind boggles at how some people's minds simply wander off topic...
AA will likely pick them up.
I am pretty sure it will go to whoever pays the highest price. Maybe it will be American and maybe some airline on the other side of the world
Let's hope so. AA could use these to replace the ageing narrow-body aircraft they they inherited from USAirways.
It would be great if the USAirways A330-200s could be brought back into the AA fleet.
Am I the one feeling scammed about Alaska proudly painting all Boeing when they have a bunch of Airbuses?
That's THE really why Alaska got rid of their Airbus fleet. To make sure people don't feel scammed by their silly slogan.
Seriously? Oh, yeah, they're getting rid of 10 Airbus planes so they don't have to take a slogan off the rest of their fleet. Get real. This is clearly a money saving move. No need for different maintenance or separate crews. The only expense would be retraining Airbus pilots on Boeing aircraft