Last week I covered Alaska Airlines’ new route additions from San Diego, representing assertive growth in a California airport Alaska sees as underserved. But those new flights did not come out of thin air; they came at the expense of others, especially from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and thereby offer a huge gift to United Airlines.
Alaska Airlines Cuts Seven Routes From SFO And LAX To Free Up Aircraft For New Growth Hubs
Alaska Airlines is planning a significant network shift for 2026. To make room for its 13-route expansion out of San Diego International Airport (SAN) and Portland International Airport (PDX), the airline will cut seven routes from SFO and LAX, as noted by Ishrion Aviation.
From SFO, the cuts include routes to Austin (AUS), Boston (BOS), Burbank (BUR), Newark (EWR), and Orlando (MCO). From LAX, Alaska will end service to Las Vegas (LAS), Reno Tahoe (RNO), and San Jose, CA (SJC). The airline says the changes are driven by “fewer new aircraft entering our fleet in 2026” and the need to stay disciplined with limited capacity.
What’s Behind This Move?
Alaska says it is not abandoning SFO or LAX, which both remain “key markets,” but the airline believes stronger growth and better returns lie elsewhere. SAN will grow by more than 35 percent in spring 2026 compared to spring 2025. Meanwhile, SFO’s capacity is projected to drop by nearly 24 percent in July 2026 compared with this year. That’s music to the ear of United, as I’ll discuss below.
The cuts from LAX are particularly focused on smaller regional jets and low-yield markets where Alaska says seat economics are weak compared to SAN and PDX.
Victory For United Airlines
The logic here is clear: aircraft are finite, and growth must be funded somewhere absent a steady stream of new aircraft deliveries. Expanding in SAN and PDX makes sense if Alaska can dominate these West Coast hubs. But it comes at a cost because passengers and markets at SFO and LAX will feel it and may turn away fully from Alaska, even on routes that remain.
Alaska claims that SFO and LAX remain important. But real commitment is not just a press release reaffirming commitment; it is routes and frequency. When you pull transcontinental and other key routes, you change the calculus for business travelers and premium flyers.
Abandoning Austin, Boston, Burbank, Newark, and Orlando is a huge gift to United Airlines. It serves all of those routes and will now see less competition, which may push fares up. Thankfully, United will still have competition on each route…just a little less when Alaska pulls out.
CONCLUSION
Alaska Airlines is making a bold pivot on the West Coast. New routes from SAN and PDX are logical, but they are funded by cuts elsewhere. For those who fly out of SFO or LAX, the network map is shifting, and loyalty may soon become much harder.
> Read More: Alaska Airlines Expands West Coast Network With 13 New Routes, Two New Cities, And More Hawaii Flights
Pretty unbelievable how much Alaska has pulled out of SFO – especially with their recent lounge investments there. Specifically on lounges, wondering if they see a ton of guests that are AA customer / credit card holders that could help the economics. Otherwise, seems to be super short sighted.
I appreciate them constantly checking for growth opportunity, but how can you be serious about a market when you have zero service to Boston, Chicago, Newark… let alone many more. I guess AA does a lot there but it just seems totally crazy to me. Especially post VX takeover, Alaska has pulled what was probably the final remaining piece of that airline. Just brutal.
Maybe it’s just not worth their while to keep fighting against SFO’s 500 lb gorilla; ie, United; when there are higher yields to be chased elsewhere?
No service from LAX-LAS is crazy.
LAX-LAS might be the most competitive route in the U.S., as eight airlines operate non-stop service. Yield is unlikely be good for any airlines.
Looks like LAX-EWR, while not being dropped, will reduce from 3 to 1 daily.
Wish AS had more lie-flat (other than just the Hawaiian widebodies) because LAX-EWR is a ‘premium’ route without ‘premium’ seats (no, recliners are not good enough, especially for that clientele on a redeye).
Is it really worth bothering if they’re only planning to run one flight in each direction every day?
Starting to look like the Virgin America acquisition might be like Jet America. Paid a lot, got nothing.
Alaska should pick at least one, LAX or SFO, and build beyond VX’s footprint
Alaska did received a number of slots at New York LGA and Washington DCA Airports from the Virgin America acquisition. Alaska leased out the slots to other airlines for now. When Alaska decides to build a mid-west hub, these slots would become useful.
I think the biggest thing got from buying Virgin America was its independence. At that time, there was a real threat of a hostile takeover by Delta. Acquiring Virgin meant AS acquired a lot of routes that completed directly with DL, as well as making AS much bigger, making government approval for a takeover much leas likely. It was a classic poison pill
The 2 airlines that I use most are Alaska and United. Hopefully United fills the gap with the same routes or better new ones!
Just curious, how do you feel about Southwest these days?
You need to provide context about what is going on at LAX. Alaska has 12 gates. Due to taxiway construction they are losing half of those gates for approximately one year, straying in January when the cuts go into effect until year end. They will be back to 12 gates approximately January 2027 (and will need to use them or lose them). This is important context that people keep missing!
AS used to serve SAN, LAX, SFO, SJC, PDX, and SEA out of AUS. Now it’s down to just SAN, PDX, and SEA. LAX overall has seen a huge reduction on all carriers out of AUS, but the Bay Area cuts are clearly directed at tech. UA might own the route now, but I’m not sure if there’s any demand left. I regularly fly AA to SFO with a connection in PHX and it’s always sub-$200. I went in Sept for under $100.
All carriers over expanded in AUS during the pandemic. Not unique to Alaska.
Except for DL, you’re right. But AA cutting JAX/CVG/MEM/NAS is a little different than service to major tech hubs being cut.
The glory days of tech jobs are over, and not coming back. Today, amazon announced tens of thousands of layoffs. Microsoft has been bloodletting for months. And the big AI Bubble has not even burst yet (but it’s coming soon). Alaska has milked the “nerd bird” market between SEA and the Bay Area for years, but that demand has dwindled, and will continue to disappear. They had a lot of excess capacity on that route, cutting back there and looking for other options was long overdue.
SFO is the only major hub on the west coast for any airline, united is not fighting for the short thin routes but for fat connecting pax
if alaska conquers san diego and drives them to oneworld hubs that will be a win against united
after all the biggest san diego market is sfo
The article photo is awesome by the way…
Dr. Güntürk Üstün