Originally Posted by
captnmajic
Sink r8,
Good points, but the main point I was trying to make is that Alaska is basically the only carrier serving much of the intra-Alaska markets today. In past mergers there were other carriers serving those markets with big equipment. Yes, there's Era, Frontier, etc, but IMHO I think there would likely be tremendous opposition to anyone buying Alaska from most, if not all Alaskans. The reason being the airline purchasing/merging with Alaska would most likely eliminate most, if not all intra-Alaska flying within a very short time and history proves this. Most of that flying is so specialized that the big boys would not want to make the investment to keep those markets considering their return on investment. As a result I could see most of those markets without much of the current service they currently enjoy. Anyone replacing such service would most likely do it with 1900's and Dash 8's and I would personally think much lobbying would be done in order to prevent loss of service to much if not all of intra-Alaska.
I think your last sentence summarizes your point well. I can imagine a lot of lobbying would be done to get guarantees that certain service wouldn't be lost. You can codify that in terms of routes, aircraft size, and minimum times, plus a certain number of jobs. You can reach agreements on those terms.
Second, I'm not 100% sure about the ROI argument. If ALK does it profitably, I imagine that there are rewards commensurate to the risks.
So, while I don't disagree that there is a certain magic to ALK, and that it fits a specialized niche, you have to break down the part that represents aircraft, routes, and frequencies, form the nostalgic aspect. You can vertainly get too down-to-earth. Look at PSA: UsAirways butchered it. But for all the love of PSA, it was operating in a very competitive environment, where there were lots of alternatives. And UsAirways... is UsAirways.
A merger with a ALK would require a carfeul approach WRT to the intra-Alaska flying, but I'm not certain it couldn't be done with a slow integration, and guarantees on service levels.
I realize I'm talking about your backyard, and discussing how to re-plant trees, and expand the house ets., but my point all along this thread is that the people that
own the backyard and the house may make a deal, you and I are tenants in our respective houses, and cannot control whether or not a deal is contemplated. We can only figure out how to a) oppose it outright with the clear intent of killing it (not always with success), or b) endorse it with negotiated conditions that reward our participation (not always with success either).