WSJ: "An airline That Makes Money. Really"
02-04-2012, 02:48 PM
#13
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Fishfreighter
Why would DAL buy AS when they're getting it for free via the codeshare? Why buy a cow when milk is so cheap?
Last edited by Elvis90; 02-04-2012 at 03:17 PM.
02-04-2012, 04:09 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 737 f/o
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Elvis90
That's good news - it'll make Delta more profitable once the merger/acquisition of Alaskuh is complete.
Gotta love the pilot ego though, kinda reminds me of the playground in gradeschool…."yeah, well i'll tell my dad….Yeah? well my dad will beat up your dad if you do" and so on and so on…
On a side note, at $78.37/share, I don't think I would consider that a bargain and probably wouldn't help the almighty's profitability.
02-04-2012, 04:20 PM
#16
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Pelican
We've been hearing this for….what??….75 years now? At least if it ever does happen, you could say "Told ya so"
Gotta love the pilot ego though, kinda reminds me of the playground in gradeschool…."yeah, well i'll tell my dad….Yeah? well my dad will beat up your dad if you do" and so on and so on…
On a side note, at $78.37/share, I don't think I would consider that a bargain and probably wouldn't help the almighty's profitability.
Gotta love the pilot ego though, kinda reminds me of the playground in gradeschool…."yeah, well i'll tell my dad….Yeah? well my dad will beat up your dad if you do" and so on and so on…
On a side note, at $78.37/share, I don't think I would consider that a bargain and probably wouldn't help the almighty's profitability.
02-04-2012, 04:25 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Elvis90
It shuns alliances? Does that mean it's terminating its codeshare with Delta?
I think this article gives the false impression that Alaska is the only airline making money.
Alaska - $244M annual profit on $4.3B in revenue.
Delta - $1.2B annual profit on $35B in revenue.
Plus UCal, US Air, JetBlue, SWA - all good years for them.
I think this article gives the false impression that Alaska is the only airline making money.
Alaska - $244M annual profit on $4.3B in revenue.
Delta - $1.2B annual profit on $35B in revenue.
Plus UCal, US Air, JetBlue, SWA - all good years for them.
Just curious, but are you so unhappy and insecure in your life/career that you feel the need to come on these boards and bash any airline other than Delta that makes any money or enjoys success of any kind? I bet you were the kind of kid who felt the need to push down everyone around you who was smiling or enjoying any sort happiness. Am I right? Understand, everything in this industry is cyclical, even for companies such as Southwest. Those enjoying success today may not be enjoying it tomorrow, but come on dude, stop bashing everyone else who's enjoying a little happiness today. You'll sure live a lot longer and be a lot happier yourself.
02-04-2012, 04:50 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by Pelican
We've been hearing this for….what??….75 years now? At least if it ever does happen, you could say "Told ya so"
Gotta love the pilot ego though, kinda reminds me of the playground in gradeschool…."yeah, well i'll tell my dad….Yeah? well my dad will beat up your dad if you do" and so on and so on…
On a side note, at $78.37/share, I don't think I would consider that a bargain and probably wouldn't help the almighty's profitability.
Gotta love the pilot ego though, kinda reminds me of the playground in gradeschool…."yeah, well i'll tell my dad….Yeah? well my dad will beat up your dad if you do" and so on and so on…
On a side note, at $78.37/share, I don't think I would consider that a bargain and probably wouldn't help the almighty's profitability.
They have the best of all worlds with Delta/American etc willing to cede flying lettting Alaska own the west coast instead of competing for it (not saying Alaska doesnt still have to deal with SWA and VA).
They run a great product micro focused on tweaking it further.
Their current stock price along with strategic moves they have made in recent years make them an unlikely hostile takeover target. They are not interested in a merger. The CEO grand puma likes running the airline (he could still do better with employee relations but the problem areas seem to be fading as they grow and get the furloughed guys back online).
As Bar mentioned Delta's model seems centered on more of the same outsourced "symbiotic" relationship going forward, not including buying/merging. Until our pilots representation can force the issue we are basically screwed as Delta Pilots. My hat is off to the Alaska guys though. They have a good thing going with growth on the horizon.
02-04-2012, 04:56 PM
#19
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by captnmajic
Elvis,
Just curious, but are you so unhappy and insecure in your life/career that you feel the need to come on these boards and bash any airline other than Delta that makes any money or enjoys success of any kind? I bet you were the kind of kid who felt the need to push down everyone around you who was smiling or enjoying any sort happiness. Am I right? Understand, everything in this industry is cyclical, even for companies such as Southwest. Those enjoying success today may not be enjoying it tomorrow, but come on dude, stop bashing everyone else who's enjoying a little happiness today. You'll sure live a lot longer and be a lot happier yourself.
Just curious, but are you so unhappy and insecure in your life/career that you feel the need to come on these boards and bash any airline other than Delta that makes any money or enjoys success of any kind? I bet you were the kind of kid who felt the need to push down everyone around you who was smiling or enjoying any sort happiness. Am I right? Understand, everything in this industry is cyclical, even for companies such as Southwest. Those enjoying success today may not be enjoying it tomorrow, but come on dude, stop bashing everyone else who's enjoying a little happiness today. You'll sure live a lot longer and be a lot happier yourself.
02-04-2012, 05:12 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
My observations after having Alaska as a Client years ago.
IMHO it is the exact opposite of what the other US legacy carriers do. The others outsource, then take an "it's not my problem" philosophy. Alaska does the opposite, believing passengers are "Alaska's" from the parking lot to their destination. Alaska probably spends more in customer care than anyone else and from what I saw, earned passenger's loyalty.
Alaska is very nearly "Delta" prior to Ron Allen / Leo Mullin.
This is not to be critical of Richard Anderson, or the other CEO's. It would be difficult to roll out Alaska's secret sauce (although Anderson is trying) to an employee group and impossible to roll out across several coroprate divisions (ie Delta >> DCI Management >> Fee for Departure Provider >> Subcontractor >> Government Entity >> Subcontractor working for, etc...) the message is too watered down by then.
Worse ... on a percentage basis, Delta's core business is not as profitable as the flying it does not do. IMHO, that is likely to push more flying out the door.
So in contrast, Alaska does Alaska's own work without outsourcing. They control their product and maintain a real, enthusiastic, focus on constant improvement. They shun parasitic subcontractors who do not share their vision.
- They actually enjoy running an airline. They focus on their operation, emphasizing delivery of a high quality product instead of focusing externally on the next "deal."
- They take pride in their operation and are intolerant of systems, people, and even local governments that get in the way of serving their customers.
- They seek continuous improvement. Senior level management cares.
IMHO it is the exact opposite of what the other US legacy carriers do. The others outsource, then take an "it's not my problem" philosophy. Alaska does the opposite, believing passengers are "Alaska's" from the parking lot to their destination. Alaska probably spends more in customer care than anyone else and from what I saw, earned passenger's loyalty.
Alaska is very nearly "Delta" prior to Ron Allen / Leo Mullin.
This is not to be critical of Richard Anderson, or the other CEO's. It would be difficult to roll out Alaska's secret sauce (although Anderson is trying) to an employee group and impossible to roll out across several coroprate divisions (ie Delta >> DCI Management >> Fee for Departure Provider >> Subcontractor >> Government Entity >> Subcontractor working for, etc...) the message is too watered down by then.
Worse ... on a percentage basis, Delta's core business is not as profitable as the flying it does not do. IMHO, that is likely to push more flying out the door.
So in contrast, Alaska does Alaska's own work without outsourcing. They control their product and maintain a real, enthusiastic, focus on constant improvement. They shun parasitic subcontractors who do not share their vision.
Ruling a niche market is a lot easier to do than to provide a global network.
I do give extreme kudos to Alaska for identifying and capitalizing on the Hawaiian market especially after the collapse of Aloha...
In the end there is one key paragraph, and it sums up to a large extent the foundation of Alaska's financial success:
...Usually, airlines focused on the number of new markets, or the number of new planes or passengers to justify debt-financed investment. Alaska latched on to a different measure: cost per available seat mile, a standard efficiency measure of what an airline spends to do business. As of 2003, Alaska was at 8.73 cents. It set a target of 7.25 cents, a savings goal of $300 million.
Contrarily all network carriers are reducing their capacity (ASM) to increase pricing power-not a bad idea in itself-but that creates the side effect of increasing CASM.
Without wide national coverage and as one of the smaller carriers, Alaska get the side benefit rising ticket prices because of a national market with capacity constraints and can back feed capacity to grow its operation.
For the time being this is a brilliant strategy on Alaskas part and when the network carriers restore some capacity, chances are Alaska will maintain it's increased share.
It's not all roses though, as Alaska is having SkyWest operate ex Horizon RJs on routes formerly flown by Horizon. This is probably only the beginning and like to expand further...
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
