Today’s post is coming a bit earlier than normal, and that’s because Alaska has just announced a whole lot of news in advance of today’s investor day. In addition to the blockbuster announcement that flights from Seattle to Tokyo/Narita will start in May (plus Seoul/Incheon in the fall), Alaska also put out impressive forward-looking guidance, seeing much bigger benefits from the Hawaiian merger than originally expected. This is an airline that has been firing on all cylinders and is now ready to reach aggressively for something bigger.
Sure, you can tune in to the investor day presentation if you’d like, or you could listen to The Air Show interview that we conducted with CEO Ben Minicucci last Friday. (Or you can be like me and do both.) We went into the interview knowing everything you’ll learn today, and that means we had a wide-ranging, fascinating discussion. This episode is another super-sized version, and you’re gonna wish it was longer. Ben had a lot to say, including talking about what this move means for… Delta?
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Listen on Amazon
Listen on Pocket Casts
We had all assumed that Alaska would eventually fly from Seattle to Asia, but I didn’t expect it this quickly. Alaska will move Hawaiian’s Tokyo/Narita slot to point airplanes toward Seattle instead of Honolulu in May. (Don’t worry, Haneda will run from Honolulu double daily, up from 12x weekly now.) Seattle is ground-zero for the airline’s widebody international flying opportunity, and there will be much more to come.
Long-haul is the one thing Delta does from its Seattle hub that Alaska couldnʻt. Now it can. Ben had strong words about what this means for the airline competitively in Seattle… and globally with the big four. He thinks Alaska belongs in that club and can compete.
Today, we also learned that the dual-brand strategy has settled on my favorite option. Everything that touches Hawaiʻi will be under Hawaiian Airlines while everything else will be Alaska Airlines. Ben talked more about that rationale with us on the podcast and mentioned what it might look like in the early days.
Of everything we discussed, what caught my attention the most was just how much combining these two airlines will enable Hawaiian’s fleet of just over 60 passenger airplanes to be better utilized. How much? Alaska says it can squeeze an extra 7 airplanes’ worth of flying out of that small fleet, which is tremendous. The A321neo fleet alone will see a 25 percent improvement. Some of that will come from new routes, but it will also be from flowing airplanes better in the combined network. Next summer, for example, the A330 is going on the Seattle – Anchorage route. The changes will be loaded soon.
There were so many questions that we wanted answered:
- Is there a place for the Airbuses in the combined fleet? (And for the geeks… will we see a 737 with Pualani on the tail?)
- What does the future of premium look like?
- Where does Portland fit in?
- How will Alaska compete on transcon?
- Why is cargo such a big opportunity?
- Are Chester and Pualani dating?
Ben did not blow these off. He gave us real answers, at least, the answers that they know today. (Ok, I don’t have answers to that last question, but I think we all know what’s going on here.) Sometimes the answer was “we need to test and see,” and that is going to be a big piece of the airline’s plans for the near future.
From a high level, this is an airline that is taking advantage of its stellar performance and solid balance sheet to push itself forward aggressively thanks to this unique opportunity with the Hawaiian integration. The rest of the industry should be paying close attention.
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Listen on Amazon
Listen on Pocket Casts
62 comments on “Alaska Goes Global With New Asia Flying, Hear From CEO Ben Minicucci About This and So Much More”
Chester versus Godzilla. I’d pay to watch that!
Chester distracts, while Pualani sneaks in for the kill.
Does Alaska have the planes to do SEA-BKK? No one in he US serves it, its the most visited city in the world, and AC flys it from YVR.
AC does it on a 789 and AS/HA have 789s.
Bangkok – I wouldn’t expect Bangkok to be at the top of Alaska’s list. It needs to start with markets that matter to its frequent fliers and corporates. Bangkok probably isn’t on that list. But the 787 could do it, I believe.
SFO to BKK on United seems much more likely, once Thailand gets its FAA Category 1 safety rating back (expected early next year). I would expect Hong Kong or Singapore from Seattle before Bangkok, which are both bigger business hubs and have partners that can connect onward traffic.
So many fun nuggets in your interview! Very well done. I am ready to start the speculation on whether the 2028 Alaska acquisition of American will result in HQ ending up in DFW or SEA and which brand survives.
The one bit that caught my attention was the intent to run more flow over PDX. The “reliever” hub has been tried all over the place and has never succeeded. STL, PIT, somewhat UA at IAD. Unclear why AS thinks PDX will be able to function effectively in that role.
I think I can answer that… in the other cases there were other hubs that were better situated, but Alaska only has Portland as a secondary hub. So they are forced to use it.
Plus it will still be primarily focused on O&D at PDX unlike most hubs which focus on connecting traffic. I can see another bank of flights or something incremental to increase connectivity but still primarily focused on O&D.
UA seems to be doing finat IAD. A new A concourse is under construction to replace the old gates.
Fine is relative, markets get moved to IAD for flow, then moved back to EWR because it has more destinations, then back to IAD because of congestion. IAD certainly has its place in the network for UA independent of EWR but hasn’t really been able to relieve EWR. Maybe if UA adds two more banks like they’ve discussed that will change.
I just really struggle to see PDX in that role.
Agreed.
One thing to keep in mind about Portland as a mini-hub is that the Portland metro population is ~2.2 million – a very sizeable population for O&D. And, if AK is serious about expanding from SEA to Asia, there will be a lot of people flying up to connect on those flights.
Also, Southwest, JetBlue and Spirit have all reduced PDX operations over the past year, so AK has a huge opportunity to seize the entire market. They have done a nice job of adding new destinations from PDX over the past couple of years, as others have drawn down service, and focused only to their major hubs.
My random suggestion for AK ….. use PDX for some flights to Europe. You would then generate continual return traffic between SEA & PDX, using each hub to serve a different continent. And, we are still severely lacking in European flight options, while SEA is not.
As I remember PDX only had two Delta international flights. One was to AMS & the other was NRT. When I mentioned this before someone commented that both flights were money losers & only stuck around do to subsidies.
Delta no longer has international flights at PDX. SkyTeam partner KLM took over the AMS-PDX route last month. The route obviously wasn’t going to last much longer since it was Delta’s only remaining A330 route at PDX. The planes came from AMS and went back there, never coming from a domestic Delta hub (at least not scheduled).
From home where I can see planes coming and going at PDX, the current routes to Europe are British Airways to London, KLM to Amsterdam, Condor to Frankfurt (seasonal) and IcelandAir to Reykjavik (seasonal).
Delta flew from PDX to NGO starting in 1991: https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-cuts-nagoya-japan/
Took a quick look at both Portland Vs Seattle related to international & transborder flying. Portland currently has only 6 cities served & those are mostly leisure locations in Mexico. Seattle OTTO has 24 cities served globally. These range from Beijing & Taipei to Paris & London with more coming in future years as the metro area continues to grow.
abcdefg – I think they’ve learned very clearly that if the HQ goes to DFW, it dies a painful death. ;)
I don’t think Portland is really a reliever hub. I think this is just the opportunity to finally build it back up. PDX has been waiting for someone to step up. I’m surprised nobody else tried to move in, because it is likely underserved.
Odds that Alaska buys JetBlue by 2030?
I believe that is quite likely, but then what name survives.
If the current trend continues, definitely Alaska – it will be the significantly larger airline by every metric – passengers, network, market cap, etc.
I could see that.
The next step will be filling in the gaps between the two networks by either flying the routes themselves or working with AA on some level.
I’m disappointed that the rumors that Alaska would add SEA-AMS flying turned out to not be true (for now at least)
TLDL (where L stands for listen ;-) ).
So does this mean that some of the Hawaiian long haul aircraft will be rebranded to Alaska as they start SEA – NRT? And what is the logic behind NRT which is less attractive than HND? My guess is that SEA departing pax will want to go to Tokyo and that is easier from HND.
They can get slots at NRT.
Long term they’ll probably try to get slots to move to HND if flying to Japan is successful, but not by next May.
HA doesn’t have HND slots at mainland-suitable times, do they? That’s why HA was initially able to make HND work when the mainland US airlines couldn’t: all the slots initially available were overnight only and not suitable for the mainland. And aren’t HND-US slots not even flexible by US destination anyway?
Alex – Yeah they do. The one night flight slot they actually gave back.
That was the one that split between Honolulu and Kona. I can’t remember if that’s been given out yet, but I think the goal was for United to use it in Guam.
Betting it’s due to HND being full, and NRT being a quick swap.
Also, as a oneworld member AS can connect folks SEA-NRT-??? on JAL, which has some utility.
The one time I’ve flown to Japan so far has been to HND, and I agree that that airport is ideal, but maybe AS fights for a slot there once they’ve filled their 330 to NRT.
Fingers crossed they’ll tweak AUS-SEA and back to have reasonable connectivity with the NRT flight; that’s a very direct route and having Starlink and ~32″ pitch in the back of the plane would interest me enough to consider flying to NRT on AS rather than HND on DL.
JAL connectivity at NRT would be a real boon. Hope the timings work out to make that happen.
CLT Flyer – When Narita starts, they will still be on separate certificates, so this will be a Hawaiian flight. In the long run, yes, this will be an Alaska flight since it doesn’t touch Hawai?i. But the paint on the airplane? That I have no idea, and it really doesn’t matter all that much. It’s what’s on the inside that I’m more curious to learn about.
As for Narita vs Haneda, I think they just looked at their assets and realized this was the best way to do it. While Haneda is preferable, it makes a much bigger difference for Japanese people than for Americans.
Since the Honolulu flights are largely Japanese-origin, it makes sense to consolidate those flights at Haneda.
I have memories of your graphic and it clearly shows why HND is preferable. I guess I’m surprised that Alaska is going to NRT from SEA instead of HND.
HND is slot controlled. One does not simply fly into HND
Chester does not fear puny Godzilla!
CLT Flyer,
you should listen to the podcast. It is worth it.
As for Tokyo, don’t forget that AS’ choice as to where they can fly is dictated by the same Japanese government policy that opened HND to longhaul international flights years after NRT was built but could never grow to the necessary size because of that one farmer that wouldn’t sell out – and in the process has rearranged the entire transpacific competitive environment.
DL could not transfer its beyond NRT flights to HND, did not have a Japanese partner so gained the most HND frequencies among US carriers, and AA and UA got JVs with Japanese carriers in a market where there is no Open Skies at the single largest airport for local market traffic in that country.
There are no more HND frequencies available and no more flights can be added. The only movement that has taken place in the US-Tokyo market before this was AA winning the PDX-HND slot which DL chose not to fly. There is no mechanism to transfer HND flights between carriers or even within the same carrier as long as every allocated flight is flown.
AS is still not adding any more US-Tokyo flights even though NRT does have Open Skies. AS is just reallocating HA’s HNL-NRT flight because it did poorly against a bunch of HND flights including HA’s own HND flights and a ton of HNL-NRT capacity including NH’s A380s. While competition in the SEA-Tokyo market is not as brutal as from HNL, there are many more TPAC destinations flown nonstop from SEA on both DL and other carriers so even the potential of connecting a bunch of traffic to destinations that are served via NRT but not served nonstop from SEA is low. and HA does not have a JV with JL or any other carrier..
finally, one very important tidbit from the podcast is AS’ CEO’s recognition that airspace, not even terminal space, is the real limiting factor for SEA to grow. any further. SEA does plan to add some more gates but widebody aircraft take up more space on the ground and in the air. SEA airspace is already very congested and it isn’t going to get any better.
AS laid out some lofty goals but in essence they are attempting to become a niche, regional global carrier using widebodies and a single global hub plus whatever international flying remains viable at HNL w/ the strong dollar – which shows no sign of weakening.
AS is a well-run airline but the sheer network size of AA, DL, and UA is a formidable obstacle to overcome, esp. since the big 3 all have multiple hubs over which they can connect most domestic cities to their international networks.
If AS succeeds at creating a niche “regional” global airline hub compared to the nationwide big 3, they will do what no other airline has ever achieved in the US.
If this were announced in 2018, SEA-HKG would have almost definitely been on the list, due to substantial demand to/from Hong Kong as well as the ability to provide onward connections to Southeast Asia on oneworld partner Cathay Pacific.
The amount of global relevance that Hong Kong has lost since then is still kind of stunning.
HKG is not dead and still serves as a very valuable connection point – with CX having exited the market, AS could potentially steal a march on any route resumption while CX struggles with crew shortages.
I’d argue it makes the most sense as AS’ third Asian destination from SEA since they could have a rare monopoly to a massive hub and O&D megaregion with major tech growth. Admittedly if Russian airspace can be overflown soon, then you probably see India before China or Southeast Asia.
I assume it goes something like TYO, ICN, LHR, CDG then ??? (that’s where HKG, DEL, TPE, PVG, PEK, MNL, SGN, and the like are going to be fighting it out and things get really interesting)
HKG – It’s not a bad idea, but I do think it matters where the corporates in Seattle need to go. Taipei and Shanghai are particularly important for tech companies, though Taipei is over-served at this point. Hong Kong might be a good option, but I’m not sure if that can work on one of the A330s with a full load. That might need to wait until they have more 787s.
If RU airspace was open, the 332 has sufficient range to make it work, even though HA’s config is a little on the dense side.
To your point on TPE, I’m sure AS is happy to let Starlux have that one.
I mentioned in another comment, but an Alaska/Starlux transpacific joint venture could be quite an interesting option.
Not sure what the corporate demand from SEA to India is like, but interesting to think about eventually.
Would a 330 or 787 have the range to do SEA-DEL with a reasonably full load of pax & cargo (after accounting for reserve fuel and everything else)? The SEA-DEL great circle route is over 7,000 statute miles but goes through Siberia; with current restrictions for US carriers’ use of Russian airspace, the distance likely be 15-20% longer than that (e.g., SEA-NRT-DEL is > 8400 statute miles). Given how optimistic/overinflated published range estimates of airliners usually are, I’m not sure how tight of a fuel/weight margin there would be.
Kilroy – Delhi should be in range of a 787, but they do need Russian airspace, I’d think. Remember, American was going to do Seattle – Bangalore which is 1,000 miles further.
Thanks, Cranky.
For my future reference, is there a good rule of thumb to translate published (Boeing/Airbus marketing department) ranges for airliner planes to “real world” (reasonably full pax/cargo loads + diversion & backup fuel, but ignoring winds) ranges? Subtract 20% or something like that?
Kilroy – Not that I know of. I think you can probably knock 10% off right away, but you need to consider how dense the configuration is and if it requires ETOPS/overwater. All of that changes weight. Also need to think about winds.
There’s a significant immigrant population from India in the Seattle region; the geopolitical influence and economic power of India is likely to rival or surpass China in this century. I think it’s a good bet that once Russian airspace opens, someone will make that flight happen.
Passenger volume at HKG in 2023 was down ~50% from 2018. Hong Kong has clearly lost its central place in the East Asian tech and finance industries. The connecting traffic is also not coming back – companies do not want their employees to transit through Hong Kong jurisdiction. American Airlines and Alaska Airlines generally won’t even show Cathay Pacific connecting itineraries if you search on their website – they will almost always route you through other partners.
So yeah, I would say that HKG is dead. Recovering its former status would require both a significant geopolitical shift and a recovery of Hong Kong’s economic growth trajectory.
Beyond Tokyo and Seoul, I’m not sure I see a lot of opportunity for additional TPAC service from SEA. TPE is the really big opportunity, but it’s also already served by 4 other carriers. Maybe Alaska can work out a transpacific joint venture with Starlux, so that both airlines can benefit from feed on each side of TPE-SEA.
Hong Kong – the city – is in decline as a pre-eminent financial center but Seattle has limited ties to finance regardless. HKG – the airport – still offers pretty easy connectivity to Shenzhen, Macau, Guangzhou, etc. No one is flying SEA-CAN or SEA-SZX anytime soon and HKG is still the best airport for that catchment area
a little too early to write off HKG as a transit hub based on 2023 numbers imo. obviously HKG and CX lagged significantly behind the rest of the world in recovering and they literally gave people free tickets to visit (I was one of them). 2024 pax #s have continued to rebound, though not quite pre-covid, pre-protest peaks yet
I do agree that Tokyo and Seoul are the “easy” options. I’m interested to see how Alaska approaches the long-haul cities that become ULH when flown from SFO/LAX, whether it’s Hong Kong or Vietnam or Bangkok and see if that makes the economics of these VFR-heavy routes more palatable
AS waited months for its investor day and is going full court press in trying to convince everyone that they have a solid revenue and earnings growth plan.
The proof will be in what AS can accomplish.
Not mentioned is that AS has to integrate not just its systems but also its labor groups. AS employees accepted being underpaid relative to the big 3 because AS was a niche domestic airline; that ended with today’s announcement. There is no reason why AS employees should accept anything less than industry average pay – and given that SEA is a high cost part of the country, AS will likely have to pay a labor premium.
Add in that AS has an enormous amount of fleet complexity now with two widebody types and 3 narrowbody types.
AS’ costs will no longer be industry low.
As for the routes that AS is adding, they are going to fly to NRT when it is clear that HND is the preferred airport for Tokyo local traffic and gets a hefty revenue premium. AS does not have a JV with JL which is the only way that a NRT hub makes sense. AA-JL have a JV on SEA-NRT so even if AS succeeds at getting in the JL JV, it will come at the cost of AA – which benefits DL and UA nationwide more than it helps AS.
As for ICN, AS’ addition proves why there are no restrictions being put on the KE-OZ merger and why DL and KE will grow. DL/OZ/KE currently operate 3 flights/day SEA-ICN and will be adding a significant amount of capacity to ICN now that the years-long approval process for the KE-OZ merger
Finally, major competitors to Hawaii are not going to sit by quietly as AS adds more capacity to Hawaii, esp. UA and WN which is making its own Hawaii network much more financially viable.
Today is AS’ day to crow. Let them. Let’s check back in a year and see how well they are doing and, more significantly, how competitors
“sit quietly” and “making much more financially viable” in the same sentence? WN is drawing Hawaii down given that they know they can’t force AS/HA out thanks to merger requirements. AS will have less competition in Hawaii from WN, not more.
As for HND vs. NRT, I’m sure AS will get there eventually, but they have to work with what was readily available, and rationalizing HNL-TYO capacity got them a flight per day out of NRT, which is a start.
Also, how many fleet types does DL have? 767, 330 (ceo and neo), 350 for widebody. 220, 320 (ceo and neo), 717, 737 (NG and soonish MAX), 757 for narrowbody. Did I forget any? As long has AS/HA keep 321s/330s based in HNL and 737s based on the mainland things should be fine. Betting the 787s get moved to SEA as the better product will do better on fares out of SEA with more business traffic.
WN was crippled in Hawaii by not flying redeyes and only having MAX8s in markets where 30 fewer seats would have pushed up their LFs by 20 points on the same amount of traffic. yes, WN’s Hawaii margins will improve dramatically over the next year.
AS is gaining connectivity from Hawaii via its west coast hubs but so will WN with redeyes.
And the biggest player that will be impacted with AS and WN will be UA; I don’t expect them to sit by idly as two other competitors get much stronger.
DL operates a total fleet that is more than twice as large as AS will have… and DL also gets alot of money from doing maintenance on other airlines’ planes – or at least will when the manufacturers produce enough parts for engines to be repaired instead of parked. Since DL has airline exclusivity for N. America on its engine maintenance contracts, it will also have an advantage.
It is also noteworthy on the podcast that Ben talked about how expensive the new generation engines are to repair on top of their much lower reliability. His words that they are not getting what was in the brochure are classic; every other airline CEO is saying the same thing and wanting lower costs and better reliability – but that doesn’t mean it will happen. it simply says that AS will be spending much more of the same costs that legacy carriers have been spending for years and, so far, DL is the only US carrier that has come up with a way to get those costs down by repairing other airlines’ engines at profit margins that far exceed air transportation margins.
Don’t forget that Delta and Northwest had only a single common aircraft at the time of their merger, the 757. I don’t think 2 widebodies and 3 narrowbodies will be that difficult to manage.
Fascinating tidbit from the Investor Day.
Speaking about corporate travel, Harrison shared that “the corporate managed accounts for Alaska Airlines spend over $300 million a year on international travel alone out of Seattle, and our top five corporates spend $200 million. That is corporate travel that we do not participate in today that we can directly participate in tomorrow.”
Seems like this could be a big quick win for AS.
That’s a really good point.
I’m curious what Alaska will do to retrofit the front cabin of the A330. The seats my be great for couples (though my wife and I both want our own windows with direct access), but they aren’t really great for strangers. Also, they lack a premium economy section, which is my preferred cabin since I can afford that more easily than business, but is way more comfortable than coach. I wonder if they can get that.
Also, I’m not convinced that Sea-Tac is as great of an international market as SFO or LAX. If it was, Delta would have had more success.
However, people in Seattle seem to be blindly loyal to Alaska. Almost to the point of where Delta could give away gold bars to all their passengers, and people would still gladly fly Alaska.
A retrofit would almost certainly need to be 1-2-1 up front. Question is how many seats to put up there, and the right answer varies depending on where the plane will go. 330 E+ is a rather large section so you might be able to manage bumping up to 20-24 biz seats in 1-2-1, 3 rows of Premium Economy (so, 21 seats), and still have a handful of E+ seats left over without taking seats out of the plane. They’d need to be picky about Tetris’ing in business class seats to do that though.
Delta has a reverse herringbone on their A30-200s and AA used to have the same configuration when they had them. I’ve flown the Delta A330-200 and -300 in J and find the seats comfortable (much better than the 767-300 in J).
But, Delta has a fancy door on the A330-900, which is used a lot in Sea-Tac now. I’m not convinced that a door is needed in J, but people seem to think a simple reverse herringbone is now inadequate. So, there are some configurations that have been proven to work.
The Hawaiian 787 business seats have doors, don’t they? I’m guessing they would use a similar seat on the A330. I’m sure the PE seats will be similar to the other US carriers. I’m curious if they will retrofit the entire A330 fleet, or just a sub fleet of them? I guess I would be interested to see if doing them all is worth it financially, when flights to the islands don’t exactly command a premium.
HA doesn’t have a premium economy cabin on its 330s or 787s. Given that nearly all international carriers at SEA have one, it is hard to think that AS can get by without one.
If you put a PE cabin on a 332 and have an industry comparable business class cabin, even if it is just between doors 1 and 2, you get at best 250 seats. If you want to put more than a couple dozen business class seats, you have to go beyond door 2 on the 332 which means that the number of seats will almost certainly drop below 240.
The 330-200 with that few seats is one of the most expensive widebody aircraft on a CASM basis to operate. You have all of the costs of a 330-300 but with 40-50 less seats.
HA has made the 332 work because they have a very small forward cabin and no premium economy. AS can’t do that in international markets with either the 332 or 787.
DL is reportedly on the verge of moving the 339s to the eastern US and putting the 359s into SEA across the Pacific. The ex-Latam 359s are in mods for conversion to DL standard 350 cabins so DL will have enough new generation widebodies to nearly exclusively use the 350 over the Pacific for the first time since the SEA hub was opened.
Of course, AS could put the 787s into SEA but if they intend to add as many international flights as they indicated, they will need far more 787s than HA ordered. It’s not exactly like Boeing is delivering 787s on top so far from certain that Boeing will be taking any significant orders for delivery in the next 5 years.
Also, the 332 cruises slower than either the 359 or 787 and has little cargo room esp. if a crew rest module is added so it isn’t a great longhaul airplane and esp. over the Pacific.
As with everything else, just getting the right airplanes on the right routes is a lot bigger effort than an interview would lead one to believe.
I may have missed some bits, but the major questions answered for me are:
* A330s to be kept long enough to justify cabin refresh.
* They’re going all in on international from SEA, 12 dest by 2030.
* Last widebody delivery is 2027, so probably more coming to make that 2030 date??? Brett, any thoughts here?
* PDX to be grown into major connecting hub to relieve SEA.
* All Hawai’i flying to be HA branded.
Biggest unanswered questions for me:
* While they’re adjusting times to make connections better from HI, will they have meaningful banks westbound to allow an expanded presence in Australia/NZ?
* How will they grow and/or organize the fleet to achieve Hawaiian brand on all Hawaiian flights? More 321s? HA brand guppies?
* How will they co-locate in space constrained SEA and LAX?
* Fate of the Amazon CMI contract.
It’s not at all likely, but maybe they could pick up some NEOs and T5 LAX gates from Spirit, and then get IAI to convert a few more 800s to Combis like they’re doing for Air Inuit.
Eric C – Widebodies, yes, there will probably need to be more on order or purchased on the secondary market.
AU/NZ seems possible, especially with Qantas being a oneworld partner. But ultimately there is only such you can do to AU/NZ so I wouldn’t expect much beyond what’s already there.
As for fleet, I don’t think people are thinking about this in the right way. It doesn’t matter what’s painted on the side of the airplane. At all. What matters is what’s on the inside. They can go from blue mood lighting on Alaska flights to pink/purple on Hawaiian. They can have different uniforms and they can serve different drinks/meals. There’s a way to do this where the customer will feel different.
Co-location in Seattle shouldn’t be too hard. Really, everything is behind security and the widebodies will probably need to be on the S concourse for awhile. In LA, the renovations just finished up at T6, so I don’t doubt there will be more room for Alaska to get comfortable there. It wouldn’t shock me if it needed to spill into 5 for a gate or two, but that should all be possible, especially with JetBlue’s pulldown.
Amazon is a thing going forward. Whether it grows or goes away, who knows?
Alaska already uses the A and S terminals in Seattle occasionally, and Hawaiian currently uses the common use gates in S. The international arrivals have to go to A or S anyway.
and B gates regularly as well… there are 2 common use gates at the end.
Thanks for answering! Any idea what the top 20 or so intercontinental PDEWs are from SEA?
You may be right on the soft product being rapidly interchangeable between brands. It’d need to be to be able to flow planes through the system to achieve that higher utilization.
The AU/NZ thing was mostly just pondering about efficiencies of hub locations. It takes two planes and crews to fly from CONUS to AU/NZ, but only one from HNL. Makes it a bit lower cost and risk to enter. MEL seems a likely next add there.
Here is the list for 12 months ending September via Cirum ARC/BSP data.
Those are daily passengers each way from Seattle
LON* 407.81 TYO* 200.26 FRA* 185.74 SEL* 183.66 PAR* 170.40 DEL 131.15 AMS 125.06 DUB 123.64 SHA* 122.06