Good read

https://crankyflier.com/2025/10/27/2...san-francisco/


The “Alaska is leaving SFO” framing still doesn’t match what Cranky Flier actually reported.

Cranky was explicit: “With all of this growth, there had to be losers.” That’s not opinion; that’s a fleet constraint. Alaska is only getting six new 737s next year, due to MAX delivery delays, which left the us with fewer aircraft than planned. That forced capacity reallocation whether anyone liked it or not.


Leadership also said the SFO and LAX cuts are “all about opportunity.” In plane (get it lol) terms, this is chasing higher margin flying. Alaska is reallocating scarce aircraft to PDX and SAN, where incremental capacity improves unit revenue, network relevance, and competitive positioning and building market and taking the fight to southwest. Everybody wants Alaska to not tuck tail and run. They are choosing their opponent smartly why go after a Goliath in sfo when you can take on southwest in a wealthy high yield market that is SAN. SFO, by contrast, is a highly competitive, lower margin environment where additional flying delivers diminishing returns.


Cranky’s line that they focused on markets that can be “sacrificed” is the key business insight. SFO represents sunk cost flying routes where pulling capacity doesn’t materially harm the network because demand is already served by multiple competitors. From a capital standpoint, it’s rational to redeploy aircraft from lower return, defensive markets to places where margins and scale improve.

This isn’t a retreat or a statement. It’s finite airplanes + margin optimization under delivery constraints. Airlines don’t allocate aircraft to preserve presence; they allocate them to maximize returns. And it’s a business its sole purpose is make money.

And since this is strictly about margins and yield discipline, the implication cuts both ways. If Alaska can consistently identify and pursue higher return flying, then it can also afford to put a credible JCBA on the table. Strong yield performance and disciplined capital deployment are exactly what support an industry leading JCBA. They can afford to pay us UA rates, 18 long call and cap conversions



It’s not personal. It’s not symbolic. It’s just business.

 

Exactly. Better known as “how to not end up like JetBlue 101” (or insert struggling airline.) Check out their threads if you wanna see what years of low margin flying gets, we honestly have a lot to be optimistic about. Good thing pilots aren’t in charge of network planning lol. Now if only we could convince everyone on Alyeska that low ALV’s are not a problem. 🤔

 

brother preach I’ve been loving LOW 70 hours ALVs and NOV DEC at 87 hours was crazy both months I flew 83+ credits 13 hours too many, but my the mother to our children works in tech and is my sugar mama

 

Proudly All Boeing

 

proudly *some* airbus nose paint coming soon?

 

This bottleneck is the result of years of intentional decision making.

United was faced with a similar dilemma. They pivoted immediately. Alaska did not. 3 words have never been so costly.

 

United is your AS equivalent?



Delta/United/American - Boeing/Airbus

Southwest - single fleet
Alaska - single fleet (pre HAL)
Frontier - single fleet
Spirit - single fleet
Avelo - single fleet
Allegiant - single fleet
Breeze - single fleet aiming as of mid 2026
Sun Country - single fleet

The only exception is JetBlue with A220 and A320, but note Airbus only, no Boeing.


It’s almost as if there’s a trend here, no?

They’ve already given a heads up on the future. Based on the recent public comments, it’s a safe bet that long term this place is headed to be a 737 and 787 airline.

 

from the Hawaiian side we all had hopes that the 321s would stay if they went with 319 or 320s for interisland. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense to keep such a small fleet compared to the 737. It pretty clear at this point that it will be a 737 and 787 fleet. The 330s will be the last to go considering they are doing a fleet refurbish. How quickly this goes depends on Boeings delivery schedule and 787 orders to replace the 330.
the bottleneck on growth is also the bottleneck on going back to all Boeing with 737s and 787s. Boeing production and quality control.

 

Both Alaska and United have a ton of MAX 10 orders. When the "quality escape" occurred, United immediately ordered A321neos and XLRs. And when certification stalled, they ordered more. The growth plan was more important than the aircraft.

Alaska chose to wait. 3 times now they've been burned by the MAX program. The growth plan must not be that important.


All the single fleet airlines you listed are struggling, whereas diverse multi fleet airlines are making record breaking revenue.

I'd rather be in the first category, thanks.

My point is that this "shift, not growth" was a consequence of choices made. Nothing more.

 

They refurbished the 320s from Virgin and almost immediately got rid of them so don’t get your hopes up.