FAREWELL AIRBUS - Why Alaska Airlines Dumped Airbus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 фев 2024
- In late 2023, Alaska Airlines would pull the plug on all-Airbus-produced aircraft within its fleet and thus move back towards being an all-Boeing operated across its mainline operations. But, why did the airline dump so many brand new Airbus aircraft that seemingly are efficient and are aircraft many airlines would love to have?
BECOME A MEMBER:
/ @globetrottingatdjsavi...
🔔 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/SubscribeGlobeTrotting
🖥️ Visit the website: djsaviation.net
CONNECT WITH GLOBETROTTING
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
✍️ Form - bit.ly/SubmitVideoIdeas
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommons.org/
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
-
-
-
-
-
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
It's all in keeping with their customer friendly open door policy
😂😂 💀
The Alaskan airlines planes always have such fresh air. Incredible ventilation.
😂😂😂
@@emmett3067 Even opening their doors to let in the fresh Alaskan air 🙃
Fresh air row lol
I flew on an Alaskan Airbus after the merger. The pilot was chilling and I said, “oh, we’re not on a 737?” He said, “nope! Welcome to the 21st century!” When I walked on the plane, he was right.
Alaska. The Airline is Alaska not Alaskan.
@@GreenTigerCA Train spotter...
@@GreenTigerCA Bus spotter...
@@GreenTigerCA the sentence was about an airbus, not the airline...
From my experience A320 and 737 from the same period are much of muchness. Recaro said in 2022 it had provided the same BL3520 seats to Alaska for its A320s and 737s.
Is chilling something A320 pilots do before flights when 737 pilots are doing the preflight checks?
Cant believe that Alaska airline traded in their Toyota for a fleet of Yugos.
Maybe they have a lot of Boeing employees as repeat customers. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.
Alaska got the best deal from Boeing , it made perfect sense for Alaska to improve on their discounted space tourism portfolio by installing or not installing the doorplugs on 737s. They plan to add parachutes soon.
The parachutes will not be provided by Boeing!
💀🤣
@@Boitaoutix Boeing did offer parachutes, but they came without stitching.
Tradeoff is no lifewests under the seats. No space.
@@Boitaoutix 😅
Farewell Airbus, welcome flying doors.
Flying strip club.
Get ready for flying on convertible aircraft’s!
@@darrenliewweiyao I understand your comment about "convertibles" was meant in humour, however, sadly, in 1988, this happened to Aloha Airlines Flight 243 which did result in the loss of a life (an airhostess). This incident also involved a 737, caused by some form of fatigue. I am not going to discuss blame here.
@@JanoJ ...I actually saw that 737 when we landed at Kahului Maui back in 1988. It was parked off to the side with a white tarp over the forward fuselage
😅
I'm here for the jokes. 🍿
Me too !
Door blowout 737 max Alaska Airbus
The unbelievable thing is that Alaska made the decision to dump the Airbus aircraft AFTER the two MAX crashes and AFTER the MAX was grounded. The warnings were right there and yet they carried on. For their loyalty they have been rewarded with delayed deliveries, delayed certification on key models, a tarnished safety reputation and then a door blowing out. All down to pitiful Bowing 'quality'.
Either someone in a very high place was incredibly stupid or they now have a massive Boeing funded pension.
And this is why I insist on avoiding both Southwest and Alaska Airlines when I travel.
Stupid airbus doesn't pay accordingly to Pacific West standards!
Boeing planes for free and a big glove pay for top jobs in Alaskan airlines, Boeing just have 1000 orders cancelled what you think those airplanes will go? Is for companies like that weak that will receive them as half the price so those planes dont roth on the Boeing factory park and will continue to say we are selling! Thats how much Alaskan airlines and Virgin America really care about their passengers safety or whatever some one got alot of money and discounted hardware
High stakes poker for sure, all or nothing
Seriously the two crashes could have been avoided if the pilots had just turned off the automation and hand flown. Sadly neither crew was capable of flying without the autopilot.
One disadvantage: door blowouts 💀
After revolving doors, blowing doors!
The disadvantage has been taken care of by an air worthiness directive. It’s nothing to worry about anymore. If they kept the 320 Neo family and any of them had the PW engines they’d be having lots of groundings too.
Try to catch up and get your head out of the past however recent.
Plenty of fresh air! Enjoy the flight.
One plane! Man I have flown on tens of 737 without incident. As a matter of fact, all have been great flights.
with the trouble the MAX is giving Alaska, bet they have some regrets as no airbus plane has yet to suffer a blow out of a door
but they got engine problems ik its not Airbus its P&W but f.e. Air New Zealand or Air Baltic with their only A220 jets suffer alot under that engine crisis
at least those engines if they fail, it will not suck out the passengers off the cabin at 20,000 feet.@@tillimcdilli3108
@@tillimcdilli3108 errr, they were using CFM on their neo so yeah, they definitely weren't impacted with the gtf drama.
Not really, considering the airplane couldn't do the same missions that the 737 can do.
Maybe not a door blowout but the engine issues with the PW engines cannot be ignored. It’s a continuous reoccurring issue.
Alaska seems almost OCD about keeping the "Proudly All Boeing" moniker no matter what. No matter anything, its very weird. Keeping your fleet to one type is fine unless your needs outgrow that one type and with Alaska, they have. But for whatever reason, they just wont consider anything else. The Airbus planes they got from VA, especially the A-321 NEO were very obviously well suited to Alaska's longer routes and customers loved them because they are more spacious than the 737s. I'm 100% sure Alaska regrets getting rid of them but they will NEVER admit to that.
It’s probably because Alaska airlines’ hub and Boeing are pretty much in the same area and it probably takes 2 days to get their plane after it’s built.
@@tomicaguyusa4633 Probably less than 2 days. The Renton facility and Sea-Tac airport are like a 2 minute flight apart. It also makes it super easy to get the inside scoop on the manufacturing floor (they now have their own auditors located there), and they obviously get special treatment/discounts for being their most loyal customer.
The Neo A-321 is a wonderful aircraft .... why on earth give that up for something from the 1960s ?
Proximity to the point of aircraft delivery would have nothing to do with anything. And I mean, less than nothing, it would not even be a 1% consideration because it makes no difference where an aircraft is made. But maybe some idiot at Alaska thinks this is very important! Taking delivery of an aircraft takes an afternoon but that plane will be in service for 20-30 years.
Boeing's loyalty discount must be huge
Bet Alaska are really regretting their decision
There's a reason why Boeing can deliver planes more quickly than Airbus: fewer safety checks to hold up production. There's another factor Alaska may have overlooked, I, for one, will never set foot on a Max plane. So some customers will simply go elsewhere.
From down under, it looks like Alaska Airlines all-in-with-Boeing is more ideological than anything else, and when that occurs, a deeper dive is really required.
Its actually almost all financial and business convenience. Alaska's loyalty to Boeing is second to none and Boeing knows this. They get preferential treatment/discounts AND they're located in the same metro so its super easy to make deals, see manufacturing progress, etc. It also reduces training/maintenance costs while making it far easier to shift planes around routes when needed to cover for planes going down for maintenance, delays, etc. It goes into the core philosophy of Alaska to stay as financially stable as possible while maintaining some of the highest reliability ratings in the industry.
@@yaxleader ...in the 1990s Alaska was one of the major operators of the MD80 family as they pretty much replaced their all 727 fleet with the twin jet/twin crew aircraft.
The recent events on the Max family shows at least the risk Alaska has taken and the merge with Hawaiian will give them more and more headaches as their fleet needs was in line with Airbus types. Probably the fact that an all Boeing (or an all Airbus) presents important economies but also big risks. In the case of Alaska (and also Southwest) the future is on the hands of Boeing and their future planes that will present big changes for pilots and fleet management as the 737 cannot evolve!
The A320-321 is a much more comfortable plane
The seats were identical between the Alaska 737 and A321.
But the 320 is wider than the 737
@@erauprcwa noise and ratteling
@@ronparrish6666 By inches... The average passenger doesn't notice the difference. Not to mention Alaska has some of the biggest seats in the US.
Yea I guess some airlines put the same seats in both the 320 and 737 but then they probably end up with a bit wider aisle to get passengers on and off on the 320
Considering how big their fleet is, I think it was just a really poor choice to have only one aircraft type. Maybe they were trying to cut cost but they just shot themselves in the foot instead.
They have two aircraft types 💀
So we're gonna ignore airlines like Southwest, Jetblue (majority routes), Sun Country, Allegiant, Spirit, and others who also have a single fleet type?
I wouldn’t say they’ve shot themselves in the foot when all of their staff are able to work on this plane effectively whereas most of your Airbus staff can’t really work on and with Boeing planes and vice versa. You have to have certified pilots, technicians, licensing, training, etc for EACH aircraft type you fly and all of those things combined together add up to be a large sum.
Ryanair are doing ok with Boeing 737s only. In fact very well.
@richardpentelow5111 Ryanair only had 737's so for them it make sense, Alaska dumped newer Airbus they could have kept a bit longer since the MAX already had issues when the decision was made, they already had the certified personal so it wouldn't cost them a lot.
Fleet commonality is a strategic move which can pay off but can also backfire. I mean, Alaska got hit with the MAX issues but Southwest and Ryanair are also having issues updating their 737 fleets due to the production issues. Likewise if anything happens at Airbus...Spirit, Jetblue and Easyjet would be affected as well. It's a gamble those companies take but the return is increased savings via fleet commonality (same pilot/FA training and the ability to swap any crew to any route, streamlining maintenance operations etc.)
This could have been a one-minute video. Alaska is a Boeing shop; it inherited A32x from its acquisition of Virgin America. Just as Southwest sold off the 717s it inherited from its purchase of AirTran, Alaska dumped its Airbuses.
Big mistake. They should have gone with airbus instead.
Alaska Airlines also retired the Dash 8 Q400 from its regional fleet to keep an all Embraer E175 regional fleet.
These plane are own by Horizons air contracted for alaska
@@Perich29 Yes. Horizon Air (wholly owned by Alaska Air Group) and SkyWest operate regional flights for AS
it seems that Alaska is not only a tough land but also a tough sky 😅
curious to see what's going to happen the next time the MAX is grounded...
😅
Boeing's open door policy was more appealing for getting passengers off the plane faster
Prior to the buyout/merger, we flew a number of times on Virgin’s A320’s, including one trip from SFO to Orlando. Wonderful plane with comfortable seats that had some legroom to them and very attentive staff. We did the 737’s after the merger, pretty much only short haul SFO to Vegas or Seattle. To be fair, they were better than United, but comfort and service wise, they weren’t as good. And for cabin ambience, Virgin was head and shoulders better.
Seeing manufacturer's quality and backlog that can incentivize speed over quality, I would say that its a bigger risk to have a single manufacturer fleet than 2. I dont know the cost of handling 2 fleets and pilots, but hearing the costs of each grounding I doubt they are greater, unless the manufacturer is backing 100% the cost.
You're focusing too much on short term pains and ignoring long term gains. The loyalty Alaska shows to Boeing gives them preferential treatment with the manufacturer (also helps to be located in the same metro area), the single fleet reduces the constant variable costs of training/maintenance, and it makes it so ANY plane they can find can fly ANY route when they need to shift planes around due to delays, aircraft going down for maintenance, etc. It obviously works for them financially as they have never filed for bankruptcy (while all the big airlines have several times).
The 737 predates VHS video tapes......let that sink in.
8 Track tapes were in
The 737 is basically a shortened 707 and pre dates JFK and the Vietnam War!
@@jasoneldridge4738 yeah Boeing really got some excellent mileage from that fuselage. You'd think that at some stage they would have figured out how to put it together properly. Oh wait they did and then decided to outsource it.
It’s not like the first Airbus 320s had computers powered by i80186 CPUs and Motorola 68010 and the total amount of memory could not hold a picture shot with a modern phone. But the Classic came and went, the Enhanced also evolved into the NEO and the aircraft is evolving year after year.
"Slightly Less Proudly All Boeing, since January 2024"
As a person with some insight to ex. Norwegian Airlines, they went with MAX9 purely out of cost. And as i have said, theese "savings" are doomed to be lost within the year.
You forgot to mention that one of the plus of being a singel operator, is that they can use their pilots on ALL planes. That is in 90% of the reason why a company chooses this solution.
Well Alaska, good luck losing some millions ;)
If mere millions where in question than there would not be so much fuss.
Billions are in question here.
Yes! And billions have already been wasted in Europe cuz of Boeing @@sinisatrlin840
As I understand, boeing can’t certify all max plane types because the cockpit isn’t 100% the same in all types. So that can be confusing even for 737 pilots and cause incidents and even crash.
Its not just pilots, though. It is the entire maintenace and ground handling crew - and even the cabin crew. It MASSIVELY cuts training costs.
I have thousands of hours in both the B737 and the Airbus 320 family. There is no question, the Airbus 320 family is a MUCH better aircraft. The cockpit on the 737 is cramped and noisy. The Airbus cockpit is very well designed, roomier and quieter. The crew bag storage is much better. You can always tell a 737 pilot because the sides of his suitcase are always ripped . Of all the aircraft types I flew during my career I like the 737 the least.
Likewise experience wise. 737 noisy cramped and an ergonomic disaster. Flying the Airbus was like working in a library…calm and helpful.
Can I ask what aircrafts that you flew in your career, did you ever get an opportunity to fly widebodies
Always ripped 😂😂
With specialized websites providing a tool to filter out flights operated by the 737 Max, I bet Alaska Airlines is ecstatic, being an Airline that has the "Exclusively Boeing" moniker painted on the fuselage of their planes!
Lmao they're gonna regret this
There regret this all the way to the bank 👍
should have kept the New A321 neo
With all the issues with the Max, a mixed fleet comprised of the newer Airbus planes, and the Max aircraft would have been a more flexible fleet solution. But hindsight is always 20/20
Is it the free door promo with each aircraft convinced them? 😅
😂
Thank you for sharing.
Smaller airlines should have benefits with single fleets, however, Boeing only offers one single isle aircraft right now, and that one is very problematic to say the least, so not only are they forced to one manufacturer, they are forced to one type. Airbus offers a bit more variiety in single isle, so that route would offer a little more versatility.
they definately have variaty in terms of their equipment, from the A220 to the A321XLR, however it does need to be noted, that there is no commonality between the A220 and the A320 whicvh are very different planes, which might be a factor. Nevertheless, Boeing doesnt really have an answer for the A220 with the Max 7 still being larger, and still awaiting approval, and the Max 10, possible competitor to the A321XLR has not yet been approved.
I fully support Alaska Airline to go all Boeing because all factions of supply and maintenance are simplified by only having one brand of parts to be supplied.
In the future they will not only show how to use the seatbelt, mask, … they will add how to use the parachute
Sad about Virgin America going bye-bye thru the M&A. Everyone I knew who frequented Virgin America spoke super highly about the service.
..the nice part is if you were flying Virgin America to connect with a Virgin Atlantic flight the entire itinerary was considered "international" and you didn;t have to pay luggage fees for the domestic portion.
Ty dj!!
I flew on an Airbus after the merger it was really comfortable. It was even equipped with mood lighting.
Alaska Airlines are looking for economies of operation. However this is the same airline that the NTSB found, after the crash of flight 261, had extended the lubrication and inspection intervals on the horizontal stabiliser jack-screws on its MD-83 jet to cut costs. An airline that has a history of skipping on proper maintenance and exclusively flying jets that have a history of being grounded for safety reasons is tempting fate.
This is what i was thinking. Probably Airline and Manufacter thinks alike and get together on the lowest and cheapest as possible...
I feel like Alaska Airlines made a big mistake by getting rid of All the Airbus fleets and Dash 8-400s.
...I had a friend who loved fling on the Q-400s, he said he they were more comfortable than on one of Alaska's jets as there was no middle seat to deal with. I flew back to MIlwaukee from Portland on an EMB 175 in first and it was great, I was on the side with only one seat per row.
As Alaska is right on Boeings doorstep, it makes perfect sense that they want to run an all Boeing fleet. They couldnt have seen that door blow-out coming.
Yes easier to get serviced their planes when they find mistakes. Boeing must expect Alaskan to be on their neck for years to come after all the mistakes they are going to find on Max planes
Maybe Alaska should start sticking "If it's ain't Boeing we ain't going!" on the exterior of the doors.
...I still have that bumper sticker in file cabinet somewhere. Of course it was from the days when the 757/767 were still "new".
Lol... Would be hillarious is airbus refuses to sell Alaska Airlines any aircraft for the next 40 years..
Doesn’t really matter. You can’t get Airbus produced planes from Airbus for the next 10 years anyways and 9 out of every 10 carriers won’t wait that long for new planes anyway.
Won't fly again with Alaska on that killing machine@@02hockeystick19
They should sell airplanes to Alaska if they order, but at higher cost.
There is a huge backlog of orders for 320s and 220s. You can bet that Alaska Airlines would be sent to the far end of the back of the queue - they are grumbling about 737 delays but these would be as nothing compared with the delays Airbus would impose on them.
One factor in the relationship of Alaska and Boeing is they can throw rocks at each other from their respective HQ's.
That can give a headache to Boeing because Alaskan will throw rocks everyday at Boeing for every mistake they find. And it seems to be many mistakes still waiting to be discovered
.,.that will be a long toss between Seattle and Alexandria VA which will be their new HQ (so they can be closer to the Pentagon and Capitol to lobby more effectively). The move to Chicago from Seattle in 2001 was the beginning of the end as it separated Boeing's Admin from the core their engineering staff.
4:09 GLAD IT HELD
Thanks for this information. Did not realise the CFO had so much influence in the decision to standardizing on the MAX series of aircraft. Poor maintenance leading to the elevator jackscrew failure of AKA-261 killing all onboard is related to a bean counter issue. That was over 20 years ago. So if that culture hasn't change in over 20 years, I'm not going to fly with AKA any time soon. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against MBAs per say, but I am against cutting at all cost and intentionally ignoring inputs from safety, customers, regulations, etc. This is criminal.
In addition to frequent flyer miles Alaska also gives out door prizes.
and No purchase required, you only need to live under an Alaska flight path.
Alaska Airlines' maintenance hangar is in Renton near the airport. Boeing support engineers are within a 20min drive to Renton in case they need support. (unless they contact Boeing seal beach)
Bean counters win again!
Ok, let's set the record straight. AS got rid of the A320s since they lacked the capacity to be efficient in the AS network, coupled with absolutely horrific leases signed by the financial basketcase known as VX. Picture a broke waitress buying a new car but financing it at 17% interest. That's essentially what VX did, so that second part applied to the A321neos as well. AS actually really liked the A321neos, but the leases were just too cost-prohibitive so it made more financial sense to buy them out of the lessors and re-sell them than to stick with insane leases. A mixed fleet can work at scale, so AS will definitely keep the HA A321s and leave them flying under the HA brand only.
Alaska is also introducing mid-flight boarding with this change
"Proudly always Boeing." Deserve what they get.
Putting all your chickens in the same basket is a mistake
Good luck with the 737 Max Alaska!
Alaska Airlines, when a door closes a plug opens.
For that I'm not going to fly with Alaska Airlines. Qantas is smart enough to replace their B737NGs with A320/1NEOs.
Airline survival is based upon simplifying your fleet for crew and maintenance purposes. It makes sense to go all in on one manufacturer. It will be very interesting to see what they are going to do with Hawaiian airlines.
...I'm more concerned what they will do, like all west coast to HNL flights being on 737s instead of wide body A330s.. 6 hours on an aircraft where you are pretty much confined to your seat for the entire trip, no thanks (particularly if you are in "steerage class").
If / When I fly to Alaska it won't be via Alaska Airlines since I refuse to step onto a Boeing plane.
Thankfully there's 3 other airlines that have flights into Alaska multiple times a day.
Smart move
Delta has Seattle as a focus city I think
Only 100% 737 Max compatible passengers will be allowed to board Alaska Airlines.
Ignorance is bliss
If you want to explore the actual Alaskan wilderness, Alaska is your ONLY choice as they have specially rated their 737s for the state of Alaska and its climate. This is why Alaska Airlines is usually the last airline to be grounded for weather.
It’s always good branding perspective to have only one brand. Works for less sensitive equipment like phones or vehicles. But from an operational n commercial point perspective it’s freaking dangerous n I think this out weights the so called cost efficiency. Is this decision based on some huge grants?
Don't get me wrong. Those door blowouts are a feature inspired from 2 Fast 2 Furious. EJECTO SEATO CUZ!!!
If they still use Airbus, they will not have the joke of dropping door last month🤣
Embraer 190 would be good add.
How’s the 737 working out for them?
You overlooked something about the Hawaiian purchase. While they are flying Airbus on their international and mainland flights at this time, they were a 767 shop earlier and are switching to 787s now. In other words, Hawaiian wasn't as specifically an Airbus shop as you implied in the video.
Plus Hawaiian is going to have to replace its 717s one of these days. Being a part of Alaska gives bargaining options they wouldn't have had for single aisle or commuter jets. I've flown interisland before on Hawaiian; the commuter jets flown by Horizon (owned by Alaska) would be a good replacement for the 717s on those routes.
...I don't look forward to being cooped up in a 737 for 6 hours from the west coast to Hawai'i. The 787s will primarily be for their international and future long range rutes form the eastern part of The States. Before the A330s, Hawaiian operated 767s and L-1011s. both which have been retired by the airline.
The 767 dates from the same era as the 757 (I saw both prototypes at an air show in Everett back in the 1980s) the latter of which is still being used by some airlines for long range "thin" markets but likely the A321 XLR will end up replacing them. Boeing has no current aircraft in production that matches the the capacity of the A330-300. Both the 777 and 787 are larger and the only smaller aircraft available is the Max series since they cancelled the NMA programme..
At least Airbus is still building A330s.
@@bcshelby4926 Hawaiian have the same seat pitch on their flights from Seattle to Hawaiʻi as Alaska on their 737s. I've flown 6 hours on an Airbus widebody and various Boeing 737 models, including the Max. It doesn't make any difference in terms of comfort or noise.
The only difference is that on the Airbus plane, you only had at most one seat between you and the aisle with the 2-4-2 seating. Alaska, flying 737s, gives you an extra seat in coach if you have a window seat, with 3-3 seating.
Don't ever confuse Alaska with American.
Next time they have an incident the board could have to resign en-mass!
Given their recent experiences with Boing, I wonder if they regret that decision?
When you have more than one aircraft type, you need a whole new set of pilots so unless the pilots are allowed and trained to fly different types, when you run into technical issues with one of the a/c types, then you have a problem making certain you have crews to fly them so by having one type crew availability is so much better and cheaper!
there sometimes is a vcv-gso or one to toronto
Mixed fleet. This is perplexing given the continual troubles with Boeing AND given they're attempting to acquire Hawaiian.
Alaska is too small for a mixed fleet of narrow bodies to make ANY sense with all the complications that come with it. They may get a mixed fleet of narrow and wide bodies in the future, but when you only have 200-300 planes, it doesn't make sense for them to be different models.
@@yaxleader You need diversity for when things like plug doors fall off the plane and the plane, which represents a significant portion of the fleet, gets grounded for extended periods.
Single fleet is risky but makes good £ sense
Alaska Airlines knew that Boeing would keep the door open for them to replace the Airbuses with 737Max.
Alaska Airlines never had any intention to switch to Airbus as it has been a strict Boeing 737 client for over 40 years. The Airbus that it had was from its merger with Virgin America which had an A-320 series fleet. It was a good move because Airbus has an airplane log that permits not to grant any price reduction which is not the case with Boeing.
Alaska Airlines was in the process of moving to a Single Aircraft Type around 2000. The crash of the McDonnell Douglas Flight 261 hit the Company hard on several fronts and clinched their commitment to move to a single A/C type. The 737 was a perfect match and both Alaska & Boeing were Pacific NW based.
Delta was beginning to become a Real Competitor in the West Coast Market for AA and the result was Alaska expanding their Airline to include Virgin America Airlines. They bought VAA mainly for the Routes, which are regulated, so acquiring another Airlines routes was the fastest way to grow the company. Originally, AA tried to maintain the Virgin America logo and paint schemes but Branson wanted too much for the name because he owned the Naming rights.
Alaska then had to repaint every Virgin America A/C which all happened to be Airbus A320's. This didn't fit their plans to go to a single A/C type too well and when Boeing announced the New 737 Max Alaska Air then began to sell off the A320's & replace them w/ the Max.
Boeing got caught by assigning the new flight characteristics of the 737, caused by Modified Engine placements, to a computer known as MCAS without any Pilot overrides. Boeing made a second mistake by designing the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), system without redundant Airspeed Measuring sensors, aka Pitot Tubes. When the single Pitot Tube failed the MCAS system gave Elevator Control inputs beyond Pilot control. The Max was grounded until this was fully understood. The MCAS system now uses redundant sensor inputs & is easily overridden by Pilots that are fully trained to understand the MCAS system.
Now all Boeing's gotta do is explain to the FAA why there is no paperwork trail for the faulted Door Stop installation on several 737's that made it to at least Two carriers. That type of door, even though it was serving as a "plug", should have had an Inspectors signature on the final installation and Boeing hasn't produced it. That is easily one of the Worst Cardinal Sin's an Airline or Manufacturer can make, to have undocumented maintenance performed, especially on a Required Inspection Item.
The Good News is, Boeing's probably going to have the most closely watched Door Rigging & Inspection program in the industry because the FAA's gonna be breathing right down their necks for some time to come and I'm Sure there will be some Very Heavy fines involved.
It seems like the only Boeing customers left are going to be North American-based carriers, USA and Canada.
And RyanAir
@@iseewood oh can’t forget about them 😂😂😂
I'll go a step further I would have gone all Airbus if possible
Why is there no mention of how Virgin was forced to merge with an American airline?
I’m sure they needed planes with even more access…they got them. LOL.
Well some airlines have the choice of whether to have an mono or multi manufacter fleet based on their specific needs and some airlines are forced to buy Airbuses....
Who needs doors on your plane anyway?
Yep, most presenters with a European accent prefer Airbus to Boeing. I imagine there are even a few viewers who are wondering why Alaska Airlines did not consider ordering a few C919's. I'm sure that Comac would be glad to deliver all they need. 😃
Alaska Airlines has proven towards passengers that, comfort is not on the agenda, but that of sqeezing-out as much capital as possible.
...i remember their humorous adverts in the 1980s. Seems they have become the fictitious airline (Sky HIgh") which they poked fun of back then.
Because of the current circumstances with Boeing I would have thought that a mixed fleet would be the more logical choice.
Just a matter of time till the Max gets grounded. Management will be scrambling for turned in Airbuses or order up a fleet of E-195's..
Welcome Down Under.
Be warned. It is addictive.
You should see the East Coast, South Australia Top End, Far North Queensland, and Tassie too. Not to mention Melbourne, Sydney, and Brissie too. 😊
No more Airbus, no more Alaskar ;-) for me.
It’s always risky to put all your eggs in one basket.
Wow, has Alaska gone shopping for the new Chinese 919? Boeing is not in a position to provide aircraft. Embraer does not even want to hear about Alaska as a customer. And, of course, Airbus doesn't want to hear about Alaska either. Big news for Alaska
All manufacturers would love an order from the airline, and the c919 would be the least logical option
Comac 919
Actually Alaska Airlines operates the Embraer E175 on regional flights operated by Horizon Air or SkyWest
A Chinese made aircraft !,what could possibly go wrong ?
@@mohwybar5832 yes but buyer would like to have cheap planes so 919
The decision to only fly Boeing makes sense on paper. There are likely significant cost savings for them as an operator if all of their planes are the same. Unfortunately they decided to standardize on a problematic plane which now faces more delays. Also unfortunate the plane manufacturing industry has very few competitors, so they have no options if they don’t want Airbus.
I like the max designed also dont have confidence with the plane
I fly on Alaska Airlines. I am happy with them not keeping the Airbus pkanes. Alaska also has Embraer jets at their regional subsidiaries.
You didn't mention anything about their fleet of Embraer 175 aircraft; 40+ strong
Those are operated by Horizon Air on behalf of Alaska Airlines, though Horizon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alaska Airlines Group.
_Proudly All Boeing!_
A flying door is less expensive to operate than an Airbus real airplane ;-)
How to spot an airbus: *rear door exists*
A big reason: all those Airbus planes were originally intended for Virgin America, which Alaska Airlines purchased. It will be interesting to see what Alaska Airlines does with the Hawaiian Airlines A321neo fleet once that merger completes. I wouldn't be surprised they are sold off and Alaska Airlines relies on the 737-9 for US West Coast to Hawaii flights.
..don't forget the A330 fleet as well. The 787s they have on order will not be used on their west coast Hawai'i routes so prepare to get stuffed into a 737 for 6 hours unless they keep the A330s.
With no A32x deliveries available until 2030’s, if you want to grow you’re going to have to buy Boeing. Airbus’ production constraints are the biggest reason Boeing still exists at this point.
Alaska definitely should had kept the A320 family planes for a while longer 💯💯💯💯
Can they fly into Juneau, AK?
Why?
I wonder if Hawaiian Airlines would order some ARJ-21s to replace the B717s.
...basically a "clone" of the MD-90/717. in he late 1980s MD-82s and 83s were assembled in China. Better off with an EMB 190 or A220 (once the engine situation is solved).
Unpressurised flight and spare bolts?