Nickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2309 times:
Have read all the posts about CO closing down CLE and moving back into DEN. Am curious as to whether DL would consider beating them to it and moving from SLC to DEN. DL has made noises about not being happy with their SLC hub over high taxes and the like. Any thoughts ...
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2264 times:
Are you trying to tell me exactly about DL wanting move to DEN and I don't think so either for SLC Hub. It's should be remain as same Hub very much long time. I don't want make to be move out from SLC to DEN either. It's should be alright for DL. Well, talk ya later!
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
I doubt it. I think though that as the industry slowly restructures, some of DL hubs are likely to be pared down or de-emphasized entirely. DFW comes to my mind as the obvious one. It is much smaller than AA at DFW and it would make sense to redeploy capacity at other mainline DL hubs like CVG and ATL. I also think the long-term survival of the SLC hub is in question. I read in the paper a while ago that DL's SLC hub is extremely costly to operate, but who knows.
Kramri From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
All of this talk is based on UA shutting down in DEN. United has the lion's share of the airport at around 60 gates, and I think there are only 2 vacant gates at the airport right now (concourse C). So there is no assurances that anyone is making a move to Denver.
Additionally, if DL is not happy with the taxes in SLC, then they should stay as far away from DEN as they can!
I think it would be much more feasible for CO to make the move to DEN and recreate a western hub. With airlines in the economic position they are, DL moving to DEN would make no sense.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
Despite the high costs... DEN has O&D that SLC could never dream of. That could be something DL might be interested in once UAL dies; but hard to say if that could justify relocating their 3rd largest hub. Perhaps they'd rather just move the SLC hub equipment into SFO/LAX once UA kicks the bucket?
Nonrevman From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1302 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
I think that DL will maintain SLC as the hub in the West. DEN is more expensive and besides, DL is not that fond of sharing hubs. If a hub has to be cut, I agree that DFW will be the first. It all depends on what happens in the coming months.
Thomacf From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
I think DL would not close SLC for DEN however the possibility of SFO or LAX I could see in the event of a UA liquidation. If that happened I can't believe no one any any forums I have seen has mentioned DL moving from CVG to ORD if UA goes under. It seems DL has decreased mainline service over the past few years in CVG and would love all the O&D that Chicago has to offer. With AA struggling they would seem like the best fit to absorb all the UA gates at ORD and go head to head with AA. Hubs in ATL, SFO or LAX and ORD would be incredible for them!!!
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7700 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
You know, there is so much talk on here about airlines switching, dropping, swapping, buying, selling, eating, bartering, liquidating, and digesting various hubs. I'll tell you what, most of it is just water under the bridge. Some of these comments have no validity whatsoever.
Stop and think for a minute how difficult it would be to relocated a hub. This is not an easy process at all. There are so many aspects that need to be changed that it cannot be done overnight. You cannot just simply pick up and move hub operations at once. You cannot get out of airport leases that easily. Then new leases at the new airport have to be negotiated. Then there is the whole employee issue. Are you going relocate all the hub employees too? let alone how many would actually like to transfer. Then you have to move aircraft and ground equipment. It would be no easy to task to relocate a couple thousand pieces of ground equipment. Then now you've completely abandoned your customer base in one city, stranding numerous very elite customers. Now you walk into a new city where you have to build up a new customer base. Then you have to deal with your customers at the spoke cities too. Don't forget having suitable maintenance facilities for overnight checks too. What about your regional partners too? Or getting governmental approval to operate international flights. What about the political struggle, bribes, and deals that will be offered to keep the hub in one city versus another.
This is not an easy task to accomplish. I don't know of anytime in the past that such a move has been accomplished. Let alone, the financial state of the industry, such a move would be a grave mistake on any airline's part. You would start to turn a profit from the start. In order to accomplish such a feat, you would have to gradually draw down flights from the one hub and gradually build up operations in the new city. Even when AA closed up BNA, RDU, and SJC (the first time) they didn't just halt operations overnight. Instead it happened over a couple year period. At the same time MIA was being built up. The HP situation at CMH is different, that was barely a hub, if you even wanted to call it that. It was nowhere even close to the magitude of an ORD, DEN, or SLC. Any other airline would call it a focus city.
Right now there is too much capacity in the industry. Its been said that the loss of any one (or even two) hubs would not create a "gaping hole" in the US airline system. The hub city would obviously lose numerous city pairs and flights, but the O&D traffic would have more than enough opportunites to travel to other airline's hubs or on some point-to-point routes. Airlines would operate larger equipment and you might see a few new routes, but the hub would not be necessary right away.
Everyone has been calling for UA's death, well they were all calling for US to fall too....it hasn't.......nor who is to think that UA will or will not. Same goes for the fate of AA.
The only facts are:
1) HP is closing its hub at CMH (not even noticable in the big picture of things)
2) CO has given a warning to CLE
3) US has given a warning to PIT