When Alaska announced that its first European route would be from Seattle to Rome/FCO next summer, there was some head-scratching all around. This is an airline that’s a member of oneworld. Wouldn’t it have chosen something with more connectivity? One of the most important European capitals? The only real reason that could be gleaned was that CEO Ben Minicucci was thrilled to be able to call his Italian mother to tell her that Rome was coming.
Yes, she was happy about that, but there’s obviously more to this story. After further review, I think I like this move as a way for Alaska to dip its toes into Europe. It’s not a conventional decision, but it is probably going to work out just fine and act as a proof of concept.
The route will begin on a B787-9 on May 11 of next year and run four days a week through the end of summer and into early fall. The end date has not yet been determined. The flight departs at 6pm from Seattle and gets back the next day at 6pm, so it takes a little more than one airplane to run this. I’m sure it will probably flow into Honolulu or something like that to keep the planes moving around the system.
But with the airline’s first Seattle long-haul routes in the post-Hawaiian merger era going to Tokyo and Seoul, you might have expected London and Madrid in Europe. But this is a different situation. In Asia, Hawaiian already flew to Tokyo and Seoul. This made it very easy to stand up new flights, already having a ground operation in those cities. There is no operation at all in Europe, so that means it was a blank slate.
I went into Cirium’s ARC/BSP data and pulled passenger numbers to Europe for May to August 2024 from the northwest corner of the US — Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming — plus Alaska and Hawaiʻi. It stands to reason that this would be Alaska’s primary catchment area, though it certainly could extend further into smaller cities in California, etc. So consider this somewhat conservative. Here are the top destinations in Europe based on daily passengers each way (PDEW).
Top Destinations in Europe (PDEW) from WA/OR/ID/MT/WY/HI/AK – May to August 2024
Data via Cirium, light gray markets are unserved from Seattle nonstop
Yes, the usual suspects are at the top of the list thanks to service from Delta and a variety of European carriers. But just look at how much demand there is to Rome. That is a LOT of people flying during the summer. Yes, Barcelona and Madrid might make more sense from a oneworld standpoint considering Iberia is a partner, but those are much smaller markets.
But of those people heading to Rome, where are they coming from? Well, you have more than 95 PDEW from Seattle followed by 47 from Portland, nearly 13 from Honolulu, and 12 from Boise. The rest are under 10 PDEW, but they are all in Alaska’s wheelhouse.
And which airlines are taking traffic today?
PDEW and Fare by Airline from WA/OR/ID/MT/WY/HI/AK to Rome – May to August 2024
Data via Cirium
The one standout here is WestJet, and it is clearly buying that traffic with some very low fares. In fact, the number one routing for passengers was WestJet over Calgary. Other airlines split between the hubs.
It should be notable that United takes more traffic than Delta. United is not a big player in Seattle while Delta has a hub there. And Delta has nonstop service to more than one city in Europe where connections can be handled, not to mention domestic connections. The biggest connecting point for United is a backtrack over San Francisco. Chicago, Newark, and Washington/Dulles follow, but the point is that this is a market where there seems to be opportunity, at least during summer. Delta will be even more hard-pressed to serve the market with ITA moving over to Lufthansa Group.
Even on American, most of its traffic heads down south to Dallas/Fort Worth first. These routings are inefficient, and there are a lot of people who are taking them. That suggests that Alaska could make a real dent, especially with its hometown loyalty.
Now, Delta could decide it wants to respond, but would it bother? At its peak to Rome this summer, Delta is flying 17x weekly from both Atlanta and New York/JFK along with 1x daily from Boston and Detroit plus 4x weekly from Minneapolis/St Paul. That is already a lot of service, but it hasn’t gone further west to Salt Lake or the West Coast. It doesn’t really need to. Those other flights can absorb plenty of demand from the west.
For Alaska, this is a pure leisure play. It doesn’t help with corporate contracts or anything that Delta really cares about the most. It seems like a heavy lift for Delta to bother responding. If Alaska wants to stick with sub-daily, seasonal flying on leisure routes, Delta will probably be pretty happy.
This gives Alaska the opportunity to try out its new long-haul service standard, work out the kinks, and do it without pissing off another airline. You can be sure that every big city in Europe is on its list, but Rome seems like the easiest way to slide into that part of the world. In the future, there will be more competitive, bigger routes to tackle. But that will come in time.
62 comments on “More Than Just the CEO’s Mom: Why Rome Isn’t Crazy for Alaska’s First European Flight”
I think that AS is poking a toe into the Atlantic market in a way that doesn’t massively impact their OneWorld partners.
London and Madrid are covered well by American, BA, and IB, including a BA flight to SEA. FCO is a smaller market without a OW airline to compete with directly. It makes sense as a growing leisure destination that could fit a few more flights.
Also makes sense from a fleet planning sense… when this service starts they might only have five 787s, all in Hawaiian livery. That’s not a very robust fleet and finished product to try fitting into the business-heavy markets. By the time the summer seasonal is over (if FCO is indeed seasonal) they should have a fleet of seven with two in Alaska livery. They’d be better positioned to enter a more competitive market then.
Do we know for sure that upcoming 787 deliveries will still get the HA livery?
Oliver
So, do we agree it was a shrewd move; both flying to Rome and pleasing your mother.
Yes for both, especially pleasing mom. Over many years I have come to know more Italians than any other ethnic group & their mothers absolutely rule in more ways than one.
What is PDEW?
Passengers per Day Each Way
SEAN – I always make sure to explain terms like that in the post. “daily passengers each way (PDEW)”
Sorry, I just missed it. When you use a screen reader as I do & you get engrossed, you can lose a detail like that.
It’s pretty simple. FCO is a large market – like most of southern Europe – that does not have service from SEA.
The demand to most of southern Europe, however, is very heavily peaked in the summer and now late spring and early fall so fares will fall for at least 12 months per year. That is why other airlines that serve southern Europe pull back their service to their core transatlantic hubs outside of the peak demand parts of the year.
SEA-FCO probably will deliver higher revenue than HNL to Asia. AS is trying to redeploy assets from HA’s money-losing TPAC operation and grow a SEA-focused international operation. They will have to start adding a lot of routes that are competitive with other airlines from SEA in order to become a serious international player – and they will still geographically not be a viable choice for 75%+ of the US.
SEA makes the most sense as a TPAC hub and to major TATL oneworld hub as well as first tier destinations which have year round demand and stronger connectivity.
Yes, I agree that SEA is a logical TPAC hub and makes no sense as a TATL gateway. That said, there is some local demand that can be met and so there’s potential there. I could see AS trying to male a few key TATL flights work out of SEA and some may we make it. But the opportunities are limited. For most western markets between SFO and SEA, it’s just as quick to connect farther east as it is to do so via SEA. And, take BOI as a good discussion point. AS has a heavy presence in that market and this connectivity could make AS a compelling choice for those in the Treasure Valley who yearn for Euirope. But…..logistically it doesn’t make much sense. You have to connect anyhow and connecting via MSP or ORD is more direct while offering more choices.
All that said, SEA does have a ton of potential for growth in TPAC flying. Its as well located for that as BOS is for TATL.
I don’t think Alaska wants to make it a TATL gateway. I think they want to serve SEA originating passengers as well as those in the catchment area CF described above with flights to European destinations that have the most demand.
For connecting flyers from this region, it will usually be the most convenient and shortest connection. For SEA pxs, they will leverage their extensive brand loyalty to pull customers from Lufthansa, Delta and BA flights. It also makes sense that they started with a new nonstop destination in order to generate more interest rather than simply becoming another option on an existing route.
I actually agree with you, even if my post may not read that well. AS can serve their flyers TATL routes that are underserved. But I don’t see a lot of potential there. Maybe a couple of routes at best. But I do think that they have good potential with TPAC flying. True, DL has staked a claim there, but DL hasn’t been as popular in the region as they’d hoped. AS is their hometown hero.
That’s a market that could be very interesting to watch over the next few years.
Agreed on all points!
I swear that Delta could put gold bars in the seat back pockets and the locals in Seattle will still pay more to fly Alaska. It’s such a blind loyalty.
> “But…..logistically it doesn’t make much sense. You have to connect anyhow and connecting via MSP or ORD is more direct while offering more choices.”
I don’t think this is really true: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=boi-sea-fco,+boi-msp-fco,+boi-ord-fco
BOI-MSP-FCO: shortest at 6,044 miles
BOI-SEA-FCO: a little bit longer at 6,087 miles
BOI-ORD-FCO: longer at 6,260 miles
Minneapolis is a tiny bit shorter on most routes, while Chicago is near universally longer.
Many fail to recognize that both Europe and Asia are essentially North of the US, not East or West. SEA is a great connecting point for the Western third of the US. Sure, a non-stop from LAX or SFO is preferred for those markets, but if you have to connect, SEA is a great option for Westerners.
Compare BOI-ORD-FCO with BOI-SEA-FCO. The total travel difference is less than 200 miles. But frankly that is completely irrelevant to me if it means first flying 1400 miles in a domestic narrow body before boarding my widebody PE or J seat. Maybe in Y the shorter longhaul is appreciated by some. And if I am already invested in the AS loyalty program, I would probably prefer the SEA route over DL’s MSP or UA’s ORD route.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=boi-sea-fco;+boi-ord-fco
UA’s SFO hub doesn’t get enough credit as a strategic jewel IMO. Not only does SFO have significant local and high-yielding corporate, leisure, and VFR (to Asia), it has also had a stronghold capturing intra-west flows to int’l markets for years. Oregon and even markets like Boise have turned to SFO, particularly for TPAC connectivity
AS has a really good opportunity to steal non-DL loyalists that probably fly AS otherwise for domestic purposes and have been choosing UA/SFO for international travel, all while getting better profitability out of their WBs during non-peak Hawaii season
CF – Maybe I missed it, but I can’t see any explicit mention in your article, that apart from Alaska, the Seattle-Rome route is (as far as I can tell) unserved by any other airline. In your chart of black and grey routes, the green is not clearly classified. That makes a big difference on the merits of this route.
You could also add the possibility that Vueling (IAG’s LCC subsidiary) decide to bulk up a little more at FCO and that for a large hub-type airport, it has a relatively high level of traffic which is not aligned with a big alliance.
Anon – I suppose I mistakenly just assumed that was a given that no other airline was serving it, but yes, no other airline serves it.
Lol forest trees
Will be interested to see the fares. I’ve flown the SEA-FCO route via Calgary on WestJet several times. It’s cheap, an easy connection, and have always had good service and reliability even in economy. Leisure travelers like me don’t have much loyalty, so the price will need to be pretty competitive to give this a try even though it is non stop.
Cranky, didn’t Edelweiss just start SEA-ZRH service like last week?
GS – Yes, 2x weekly this summer. But I was trying to show markets that were served at the time the PDEW snapshot was taken last summer. This and SAS to Copenhagen will likely change the order of things this summer. Though with only 2x weekly, maybe not.
It’s opportunistic, clever and unique. It will definitely poach from all of those carriers; I think even a lot of the Westjet passengers will “buy up” to get a nonstop. In other words, it’s the exact opposite of an AmericAAn’t decision.
Very interesting – I thought that DL would likely retaliate by adding SEA-FCO, but the data suggests room for only 1 carrier on SEA-FCO. Assuming ~50% stimulation of SEA PDEW (~95 -> ~140) and ~10% of the catchment (~120 -> ~135), the PDEW would increase from ~215 -> ~275 which as mentioned may be conservative since it discounts some of CA and perhaps some Northwest-Italy PDEW (e.g., Florence, Bologna, Venice, Milan, etc.) that may now prefer to fly to FCO and train to their destination / rearrange their Italy trip.
AS will offer a B787-9 with 300 seats on this route (34J + 266Y) – 4x weekly should be low-risk as there’s sufficient demand with strong potential to eventually go daily. It seems like a great way to test the SEA + local catchment demand to purchase 34J seats for other TATL routes and perhaps test the viability of a potential PE cabin. If FCO is unable to fill a 34J cabin at ~70-80% loads, then AS probably learns that there aren’t other viable unserved opportunities TATL from SEA outside of perhaps 1 Spain route – for more TATL would have to compete at LHR, CDG, and AMS which are already served.
Delta may still retaliate…they’ve shown they are wiling to invest to lose money (e.g., SEA-TPE runs fairly empty and they’re doubling down by switching to an A350).
Sure they could, but Enilria’s analysis last year found SEA’s standalone domestic network marginally unprofitable (slightly profitable once you account for intl), Cranky found SEA’s financial performance for DL far below other hubs, and Scott Kirby at UA clearly thinks SEA is net unprofitable for DL with his claims that UA is the only airline with all hubs profitable.
With SEA-TPE almost certainly unprofitable, SEA-LHR a subpar performer (DL shifted winter frequencies last year to MCO), & SEA-PVG middling (LFs range from the low 70’s to low 80’s year-round) with an up-gauge coming, adding more long-haul that will lose money to hurt AS will almost definitely make DL’s SEA operation unprofitable if it isn’t already. Given DL’s been unable to capture any share from AS at SEA since hubbing SEA in 2014, I’m not sure what the end goal of doing so would be. I think it’s more likely DL looks to add some TPAC long-haul from SEA to get the first-mover advantage vs AS (perhaps DEL, SYD?).
If AS gets approval to join any of the OneWorld JVs then all of a sudden things can get very interesting in SEA and potentially problematic for DL in the long-term.
his analysis did not include profitability. It was a comparison of domestic yields.
DL is not interested in overtaking AS for domestic share leadership; they built SEA as a hub in order to serve TPAC routes as a replacement hub for NRT. DL’s domestic share is proportional to its SEA capacity.
Just as is true for AA at ORD, all DL has to serve of the SEA market is enough to be relevant in the local market. Unlike AA at ORD, DL has the leading international operation at SEA.
If AS joins the AA/BA/IB etc TATL JV, that will incentify AS to fly to those carrier hubs, the only one of which DL serves from SEA is LHR as part of the AF/KL/VS JV.
The only AA TPAC JV partner hub is at NRT which DL doesn’t serve.
as for the SEA-TPE comment, DL was the 2nd carrier to be in the market. Several other carriers including China Airlines, added service later. CI just recently announced a limited partnership with WN even though CI is in SkyTeam. Others have noted DL’s SEA-TPE LFs are not the lowest in the market any more.
DL is a massive airline that, just like every other, has stronger and weaker routes and yet DL’s profits have been US industry leading for about a decade.
DL will do what it has to do in SEA – including potentially adding more service – just as AS will as well.
The key point is that AS managed to find a route which DL doesn’t serve to Europe. Since DL serves just 3 cities in Europe on its own metal from SEA, the chances are high that AS can find a few more to add before it has to bump up against DL or even its JV partners.
Despite being wrong now for years (though COVID may have been a delayer), I still think Alaska will make a play for JetBlue after Hawaiian is fully absorbed. Jetblue’s nascent TATL service is a perfect complement to Alaska’s newly-acquired TPAC capabilities. Until then, Alaska appears it will dip its toes into European waters.
I just don’t understand why FCO would be the first European city to test. This is a seasonal destination and doesn’t offer much in the way of connectivity. I’d think a better first choice would be to a northwest Europe partner hub (other than London) that offers some connectivity to other European destinations. Perhaps Dublin for U.S. passengers who want to fly on Alaska metal and connect via Aer Lingus? Or Reykjavik so people can use Icelandic Air for connections?
On a tangential subject: IMHO I think Alaska’s purchase or Hawaiian was a stroke of genius. They acquired existing international operations AND precious long-distance aircraft that could be redeployed in the network. As an added bonus for me: I can fly from my San Diego home base to Sydney or Aukland with a connection in HNL rather than having to hoof it to LAX. As a long-time Oneworld loyalist, American’s termination of RJ service between SAN and LAX really hurt. For my TPAC travel, the acquisition has been a blessing.
cactusneedle – I don’t see why connectivity matters. This is about providing additional value to the Seattle (and regional) traveler. Aer Lingus already flies to Dublin and Icelandair flies to Keflavik 3x daily in summer! Those markets don’t have nearly as much opportunity in the short term. I do like Madrid at some point to improve connectivity with Iberia since nobody else flies it.
CF,
I understand what AS is trying to do, I just don’t think SEA-FCO will be financially successful.
My point is that if AS wants to open up the Euro market on its on metal, then starting with a non-stop to a northwest Europe feeder airport seems more likely to succeed. I realize that Aer Lingus and Icelandair (and BA of course, though I try to avoid LHR) already provide service to SEA, but I also know that most U.S. frequent fliers much prefer to travel on their preferred U.S. airline versus the foreign one (upgrade opportunities, etc.). I also know that there are many flyers like me who much prefer a long TATL segment (chance to get a longer sleep session) versus a connection on the east coast and onward to Europe.
Let’s assume for a moment that AS did not announce SEA-FCO and instead announced SEA-DUB with codeshares or interlines for onward Euro destinations. If I am a Seattle-based AS loyalist flying to, say Milan, I’d much prefer flying SEA-DUB on AS and then onward to Malpensa or Linate on Aer Lingus than SEA-JFK on AS and then onward to Malpensa on AA.
In the case of Rome, of course I’d rather fly non-stop from SEA-FCO. But I just don’t think they are going to satisfactorily fill seats for 9 non-summer months. And definitely won’t get huge amounts of business travel on the route. If I am faced with a choice of how to allocate a precious finite resource (in this case, a widebody aircraft), I think I would use it in a way that can deliver the greatest return over the course of a full year.
Just my two cents, of course I could be wrong. AS certainly has more knowledgeable people and better data than me, so they must’ve been very confident in the prospects of this new flight.
I think the strategy is pretty clear that this will not be a daily, year-round market. FCO is leisure-oriented and there’s plenty of demand for that in the summer. During the winter months the plane can fly to Hawaii like how HA has always utilized them.
GS is correct. As I mentioned in the article, this will end at some point in the early fall but timing is TBD.
I think you are spot on with the long term play here – AS will make a play for B6 as soon as they can – perhaps even before they finish SOC with HA.
Not only do both AS and B6 share DL hubs on top of their major hubs but both know that the way to compete in the post covid industry is to carry international and much more premium traffic.
Not only are there significant implications for UA’s desire to partner with B6 to regain a place at JFK but there are clearly implications for DL in BOS, JFK and SEA if AS and B6 are able to unite as one airline even within 5 years. AS brings the widebodies which B6 needs – and the reach that those widebodies provide. DL still is the largest airline in NYC and BOS but has a clear headstart across the Pacific and Atlantic from SEA.
The outsized loyalty that so many believe AS has in SEA is simply not supported by data; they get local market share in line with the capacity they fly – which is true of any competitive hub. AS and DL get comparable fares in aggregate for the markets they serve – AS gets a premium to Alaska while DL gets higher average fares to the eastern US and esp. DL hubs.
AS connects much more traffic over SEA while DL, like UA has 3 hubs in the western US – on top of MSP and even ATL which serves alot of eastern US to upper mountain traffic.
The industry is figuring out how to adapt and survive. DL and UA have a headstart in premium and international traffic and both are far from standing still but AA and WN are both making positive moves that COULD serve them well in the future on top of the movement in the “middle of the industry” notably with AS and B6.
Tim & cactusneedle,
I agree with both of you regarding Alaska & JetBlue. I’ll add that JetBlue & Hawaiian also have an interline agreement & bringing in Alaska to the mix only makes that merger ever more prominent.
I’m not sure AS “bring(ing) the widebodies” would be that big of a deal in a proposed merger, at least not in the five year timeframe you mention. AS has (if the figures I have are accurate) 9 787-9s on order with options for 8 more. That’s a decent number, but presumably they had uses in mind for these planes already, so how many 787s does that actually leave for a putative AS/B6 combination to use out of JFK or BOS? If JetBlue saw a demand for widebody routes they could just order them now or buy used A330s if they wanted them quickly.
The basic question of whether JetBlue can go on in the long run with its existing model is a fair one, though, but I don’t think their management will go down without looking at alternatives that let them remain an independent company linked through arrangements like the new one with UA, or full alliance membership.
There’s like a 0% chance AS would seek to acquire B6. Jetblue is a basket case and would be an enormous, expensive distraction. An airline doesn’t have to everything to everyone to be successful. Alaska can serve their core west coast passenger base without an east coast (or midcon) hub. As for loyalty- their ‘share’ is constrained by the # of gates they’re able to acquire, but Alaska LFs outperform Delta on nearly every overlap market. Delta makes up some of it on yield, but on higher CASM configurations (more premium) that prop up that yield at the expense of overall profitability. Nobody has #s on co-brand card or loyalty penetration, but my experience with corporate deals in Seattle at least suggests Delta is basically buying passengers with enormous discounts. If AS tried to take the fight to Delta in the east they’d probably lose, but sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
I tend to agree. HA serves a strategic purpose for AS: de-seasonalizing the core of their business (PNW) for more year-round profitability (Hawaii). B6 creates significant complexity by introducing unprofitable flying in super competitive and operationally complex hub markets (BOS, JFK, FLL, MCO)
and yet HA lost money on both their domestic and international networks for years.
Virgin America was also a money-losing operation when Alaska bought it.
If there is a charge that DL operates SEA at a loss, then AS would have a case for a capacity dumping case against DL. The reason why AS likely doesn’t make a case out of much larger DL’s presence is because AS has done the same thing and will continue to do so in other parts of its network.
AS and DL have both been active in the merger and acquisition space and the common theme among both – and many well-run companies (which AS and DL both are) is that underperforming assets have been reallocated to better uses.
B6 has a plan to turn itself around and may or may not succeed but it isn’t any different from what Virgin America or Hawaiian was and might be in better shape in another year.
and the DOJ as well as alot of consumer advocates would welcome another carrier that is strong on both coasts – even if it has or would have little to show for itself in the middle of the country.
“and yet HA lost money on both their domestic and international networks for years.”
Right, that’s my point. HA couldn’t de-seasonalize their network during northern summer when Hawaii demand is lower and premium leisure shifts elsewhere. There isn’t enough high-yielding AU/NZ – Hawaii traffic to offset. Now AS can take planes out of Hawaii and put them on the mainland or to Asia or Europe. Conversely, in winter when no one wants to go to PNW, AS can send more planes to Hawaii. AS/HA should dominate mainland-Hawaii travel and own the S-curve
AS won’t be able to “own” any markets if they acquire B6. They would still be #2 in BOS, #2 at JFK (#3 in NYC), etc. It doesn’t change the competitive dynamic in those markets like it does in the PNW/Hawaii
To See_Bee’s point, so much of the loyalty game revolves around being the #1 carrier in a market. By acquiring Hawaiian, Alaska picked up the #1 position in HNL while further bolstering their case for loyalty by providing a lot more connectivity to an attractive leisure destination. With B6, Alaska would not be #1 in New York or Boston or South Florida, nor would they pickup a huge amount of compelling network benefit to their core west coast customer base. The HA/AS pairing is incredibly synergistic on seasonality, network flow and loyalty. B6/AS would be somewhat synergistic on network flow but not on the others.
As for the “HA lost money” comment- Alaska immediately cut some of the least profitable HA flying while boosting utilization of the 321neo fleet. It’s within reason that those changes alone + cost reductions from the merger would be enough to turn HA’s core business unit back into the black.
If anything, I’d put my money on AS acquiring AA in a few years than them acquiring B6. But both highly unlikely.
See Bee and Yahao
AS was already the largest carrier in the PNW and HA had a very large position to Hawaii; there isn’t much that has changed in terms of the competitive dynamics – AS/HA have been able to combine their strengths which is what end-on-end mergers do. AS/B6 would be an end on end merger just as the mergers that created the big 3 largely were.
SEA is simply a highly seasonal market and Alaska even more so. You can’t offset that much seasonality just by increasing service to Hawaii.
And the same principle will apply to AS’ service to Europe which is very seasonal. AS can chase plenty of opportunities to Europe in the summer and maybe make money 9 months of the year – but employees have to be paid for 12 months per year just like airplane mortgages have to be paid.
The credit card point is valid. But the way you increase the size of the contract you can win is by having the greatest appeal. A west coast carrier is not going to have near the appeal as the big 4- including WN – in winning a credit card deal. The west and east coasts have outsized financial impact to the country. The S curve can be created by combining two carriers – one on each coast.
AS might have cut some of the worst money-losing routes for HA but ramping up in the international marketplace is expensive.
and remember that, in some cases such as SEA-ICN, they are taking on well-established carriers in a market that is as competitive as SEA-TPE.
The bigger question is where AS sees itself going – and I believe that from the day of the Virgin America merger, they have intended to grow beyond their PNW and Alaska market strengths and I don’t think they will stop with even a dozen SEA-international flights and the addition of HA.
this will be fun to watch
If B6 sticks with UA, Alaska could merge with every mainline carrier smaller than itself and still come out just barely the size of WN. Of course all the airlines smaller than Alaska style themselves as (U)LCC, so mergers might not even be permitted. As far as merging into a fifth nationally relevant carrier, it’s JetBlue or nothing.
If B6 is out, I could see something like F9 – send some CEOs to the islands to replace the 717s, NEOs to Hawaiian, add significant ops in DEN, PHX, and LAS, focus mostly on the west. Of course all those ops exist for a ULCC market, and it’s far from assured that swapping them to a premium product would work.
I think that the limitations of this route you pointed out (seasonal, lack of connectivity in OneWorld) are actually the reasons they chose it, so they could use it as a test subject for viability of the concept. just as JetBlue has done with their European routes – each route has to stand on its own without leaning on connectivity.
The disadvantage AS has is that even at 4x/wk, 1200 seats a week is a big number, and I really question Jeremy’s idea that 50% market stimulation from Seattle itself is possible. To get anywhere close to that and capture a good share of the existing market is going to mean being really aggressive on pricing. They’ll still get a nonstop premium, but their price is going to have to be closer to WestJet than they might like.
But still, it could be good fleet utilization and a good aspirational destination for their frequent flyers, so why not give it a try?
Very interesting move. I don’t know how much connecting traffic they’ll attract from cities further south than Oregon, though – people in p
laces like RNO/SMF/FAT already have other alternatives to connect to Rome. It’ll largely depend on what FF account they want to build up and what airport they’d rather connect over.
On that, I’ve seen a few people online complaining about Sea-Tac being very crowded and annoying, one person even calling it “the Newark of the West.” Is it really that bad?
And speaking of EWR, because why not?, here’s a quote from Jonah Goldberg this morning on a completely unrelated topic that uses America’s Least Favorite Airport:
“Nietzsche meant that nihilism refutes the idea that we should yearn for some higher purpose, some great cause. It’s the idea that it is futile to try to answer the question of why we exist. There is no ultimate justification for your strivings for meaning. As it says above the entry to the Newark airport, “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.” Or something like that.”
Los Angeles is a massive market to Europe.
I’ll be shocked if LAX wasn’t one of their biggest feeders.
I gotta believe there are dozens of better ways to get to FCO from LAX than by connecting in SEA.
One better: ITA nonstop.
Then other alternatives that are pretty much the same: UA over SFO, BA over LHR, Aer Lingus over DUB, AF over CDG (although I’d rather not go at all if CDG is involved), IB over MAD. Depending on connectivity between them and other IAG airlines (I’m not familiar with that), Level over BCN could also come into play.
After that, you start wandering farther and farther off the most direct path, although UA over DEN isn’t that far off.
And the UA/SFO and UA/DEN options are also available from SNA, BUR, and ONT as well.
Connecting from the Southland over SEA isn’t a bad choice, it’s just not demonstratable better than those alternatives just based on route. As usual, people’s choices will boil down to price, connection times, and FF loyalty or lack thereof.
“demonstrably”…yeesh…
LAX to Rome, connecting through SEA? If Angelenos are trekking to LAX aren’t they used to taking a direct flight? The secondary airports like Burbank, Orange County might be interesting to watch.
LAX-FCO is 5522nm nonstop, LAX-SEA-FCO i sonly 5772 – people think they’re flying north and not east but the great circle distance through SEA is actually pretty quick. Obviously with Norse and ITA both serving that market nonstop I doubt Alaska would pull too many LAX fliers, but the catchment area could be pretty wide if the timings are good. Pretty much anywhere in California could be reasonably well-served via SEA. Only SFO and LAX already have nonstops to FCO. Fun fact, LAS-SEA-FCO is almost exactly the same distance (within 6nm) as LAS-PHL-FCO.
Distance is one thing, but time is another. Factor in connecting time and many people may not think it’s worth it.
Any properly designed bank structure would have attractive timings supporting international flights. I’m guessing a lot of that California catchment area would be scheduled to flow easily to/from FCO. Short layovers and short distance = short trip time.
Right the direction/length of the inflight time isn’t the issue – it’s the ground traffic in LA to get to LAX. If you fly from LAX you are used to having direct flights to Europe, not making a connection. I could see the Seattle flight being very attractive if you’re using another airport in So. California, like Burbank, Orange County, San Diego, where there is no direct flight to Rome. (San Diego has flights to Europe, but not many).
I think the catchment area for Eastern WA, ID, WY, MT and possibly Hawaii will be split between the new United Denver flight to FCO (starting 2025) and Seattle. If you need to make a stopover from one of those places, what’s the difference between DEN and SEA? You’re probably agnostic neglecting factors such as loyalty programs.
So who’s going to lose here – Air Canada, BA, American?
The data is right there on current Northwest-FCO passengers, who they fly, and avg. fare.
The biggest loser is the Star Alliance JV (United + Air Canada) which connects ~57 of these passengers daily at an ~$815 fare.
DL & the OneWorld JV (AA + BA) are next. DL connects 37 passengers at an ~$825 fare while AA + BA connect 41 passengers at a ~$750 fare. I’m sure Air France and KLM also have some feed (although <10 passengers) as do Aer Lingus & Lufthansa. DL has a close partnership w/ WestJet which connects 25 passengers at a garbage fare suggesting they badly need to fill seats – AS can undercut them with basic economy in this catchment.
AA's DFW-FCO and BA's SEA-LHR should be OK even w/o this catchment given feed potential from numerous other destinations in the US and EU, while DL should be fine except for perhaps MSP-FCO which started seasonally this year at 4x weekly. Given FCO is already served daily or more at DTW, ATL, JFK, and BOS, the Midwest, Southeast, and East Coast requires backtracking to fly via MSP. With UA's new DEN-FCO + AS's upcoming SEA-FCO to supplement the existing seasonal SFO-FCO and LAX-FCO, there are increasingly fewer destinations for MSP-FCO to pull connecting feed for a market I strongly doubt can support FCO sufficiently through O&D.
given that the big 3 each carry more than 1000 passengers day in and out of FCO every day, the amount of traffic that COULD be siphoned off by AS is minimal.
Given that MSP and every other Midwest hub is east of DEN and SEA, the Midwest hubs have the greatest chance of recovering whatever traffic is lost to AS or UA’s new DEN service.
and the whole point of all this new FCO service is that southern Europe demand from the US seems like it has no limit – for at least part of the year.
AS’ schedule does it give it time frames for its flights at FCO that avoid the congestion and ensure it can fit its bank times at SEA.
your post does highlight the risk that comes from operating a single flight to a city from the “opposite corner” of the country – AS has virtually no pricing power. with a single flight from FCO, every other airline operating FCO flights from a half dozen hubs east of SEA could cut fares or open discount capacity to SEA or any of the key cities that AS has targeted – and because AS has no effective ability to pull traffic from Midwest, let alone East coast cities, there isn’t a thing that AS can do.
I’m surprised that so many people backtrack to SFO from SeaTac to fly to Rome. It would seem to make more sense to fly to London, Paris, or Amsterdam and then connect on BA, Air France, or KLM to their final location. I understand why Delta is noncompetitive in this market because I would not want to keep the over ocean portion of the flight long and then take a short connection flight especially if I’m not in coach. But connecting in SFO is a total backtrack on this route.
> I’m surprised that so many people backtrack to SFO from SeaTac to fly to Rome. It would seem to make more sense to fly to London, Paris, or Amsterdam and then connect on BA, Air France, or KLM to their final location.
I understand the point about backtracking adding time. However… To each their own, but as an American I’ve always felt more comfortable doing international trips with a layover in the US and a nonstop from the US to the final destination abroad if possible, instead of vice versa. In the event something goes wrong or IRROPS happen, I perceive that method as being a little more reliable, all else equal, as it usually gives me more options to get to/from the international flight touching the US, especially if I have a generous layover on the outbound itinerary. Just my 2 cents (shrug).