Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can An Airline Have Too Many Hubs?  
User currently offlineEmSeeEye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 508 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6768 times:

Is it possible that an airline can have too many hubs? I was just reviewing route maps and I noticed CO has 3 major hubs while US Airways has many hubs. I realize these hubs exist due to mergers and acquisitions but when does having too many hubs become counter productive?

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2858 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

Yes. Remember AA's foray into BNA, RDU, etc.? Obviously CO is doing something right with three big hubs, though I'm not saying that that's the universal panacea. I think AA made the mistake in the past and learned, while US never had a great system given the proximity of their hubs to each other, but we'll see what they make of it going forward.

User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Yes, but 3 is not the number.

Much of it has to due with the locations of them. For a truly major airline, CO has a crappy hub layout. With IAH being so far south and EWR being so far northeast, it is not conducive to connections. For example, here in OMA, I am not going to select CO to go anywhere west of the Rockies - especially the Northwest.

Probably one of the best hub arrangements is UA. They can connect in DEN or ORD to get good coverage anywhere. Up and down the east coast, connect at IAD. On the west coast, use SFO or LAX. Really, you can't connect any two points without a convenient UA hub between them.

AA is OK with ORD and DFW in the middle of the country (STL doesn't count anymore). They also have a good east coast presence and a decent west coast one as well.

I think your point is a good question, but wrong approach. Take US, for example. Before the merger and before scaling down their prior bases, it was silly to have PIT and PHL both. As you mentioned, that was due to prior mergers... but they were too slow in shutting them down. (Union pressure anyone?) Now THAT was a case of too many hubs because they were no longer serving a completely functional point.



Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineBDL2DCA From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Well, officially, US has 3 hubs - PHL, CLT and PHX. They consider DCA, PIT and LAS to be "focus cities," which means the flights are aligned more for O&D traffic and less for banks of departures.

US is the airline I know of that does let you build connections in lots of different places, which makes for some interesting connections.



146,319,320,321,333,343,722,732,733,734,735,73G,738,744,752,762,763,772,ARJ,BE1,CRJ,D9S,D10,DH8,ERJ,E70,F100,S80
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6696 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 2):
Much of it has to due with the locations of them. For a truly major airline, CO has a crappy hub layout. With IAH being so far south and EWR being so far northeast, it is not conducive to connections. For example, here in OMA, I am not going to select CO to go anywhere west of the Rockies - especially the Northwest.

I agree with most of what you say, but a couple things I'd point out in response:

1. IAH is only a couple hundred miles south of DFW, which is pretty universally recognized as a good-to-excellent hub situation point. So I'm not sure that this makes IAH that much worse off as a hub for east-west traffic. Worse off, yes, but still good for many routes. And it's particularly well suited to CO's use for it, especially in terms as a gateway to Mexico and Latin America.

2. Similar, EWR is a major asset to CO overall -- it makes a fantastic gateway to Europe, and it's the only true hub in the NYC area. So on the basis of international and O&D traffic alone, it's very, very valuable to CO.

No disagreement, though, that CO is hurting out west (at least before you get to GUM.) Past and present CO leadership has said, in as many words, that they wish they still had a hub at DEN. I've thought long and hard about where CO could set up a western hub that would fit in with their current route structure, and I don't see any easy answers -- which must be part of the reason that many people much smarter and more experienced than myself haven't done something about it  

Edit: Also I want to make it clear that I don't disagree with your statement that CO's route network makes for a lot of crappy connections. I think that's absolutely correct as well. What CO has works for them and their business model, but that may not be true indefinitely. I think there's a lot of growth that CO can achieve using their current hubs, but if their fleet is going to grow appreciably, I think they're going to have to establish a new one sooner rather than later.

[Edited 2007-04-30 05:18:22]


New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineBosWashSprStar From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6661 times:

Clearly, as the example of UA shows, the number isn't really what matters--UA has more hubs than any other airline I can think of, but as mentioned above, their relative geographic locations provides excellent opportunities for convenient connections on nearly any itinerary. UA also has much smaller hubs than most (I believe its ORD operation, UA's largest, is now smaller than AA's ORD operation).

However, I disagree that it was necessarily a disaster for US to have hubs in both PIT and PHL. In *theory*, this could have worked quite well, as the PHL hub could have been higher-priced (for both O&D and connecting trips) in order to encourage connecting passengers to use PIT, thereby leaving more available seats for O&D passengers at PHL, which is a much bigger O&D market. However, I can't think of a situation where an airline was able to make this theory actually work--AA briefly attempted to do something similar with STL and ORD, but never really got it off the ground before STL had to be scaled back.

US's current hub arrangement is actually pretty good for transcon and intracoastal travel--its main weakness is for non-coastal to non-coastal traffic, say Midwest to Texas or northern Great Plains to Mississippi River Valley. That's really not so bad, considering that an airline of US's size can't be all things to all people.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3157 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6590 times:

NW also has 3 hubs.
DL has 4 hubs counting JFK, which they do.
AA considers themselves as still having 8 hubs, according to their corporate information: ORD, DFW, LAX, BOS, MIA, JFK, LGA (?!), and SJU. Still haven't seen bankruptcy.
WN has a number of hub-like cities, not banked like a traditional hub, but certainly similar in flight volume and opportunites for connections. Doesn't hurt them much.

-Rampart


User currently offlineArticulatexpat From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2006, 156 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6515 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 4):

No disagreement, though, that CO is hurting out west (at least before you get to GUM.) Past and present CO leadership has said, in as many words, that they wish they still had a hub at DEN. I've thought long and hard about where CO could set up a western hub that would fit in with their current route structure, and I don't see any easy answers -- which must be part of the reason that many people much smarter and more experienced than myself haven't done something about it

Edit: Also I want to make it clear that I don't disagree with your statement that CO's route network makes for a lot of crappy connections. I think that's absolutely correct as well. What CO has works for them and their business model, but that may not be true indefinitely. I think there's a lot of growth that CO can achieve using their current hubs, but if their fleet is going to grow appreciably, I think they're going to have to establish a new one sooner rather than later.

[Edited 2007-04-30 05:18:22]

When I lived (briefly) in Portland, I was surprised to learn that PDX used to be a hub for Delta. Portland is often held to be too small a city in terms of o/d to sustain much international flying, but Delta apparently had flights to several Asian cities in addition to whatever domestic destinations were available. There aren't many West Coast cities left open for significant hub development, if CO should want to do that: San Jose, Sacramento, and Portland are the largest. PDX is a smaller hub for Alaska, but with all the codeshare opportunities and the much better airport facilities, it wouldn't be the worst of the choices.


User currently offlineFjnovak1 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

I've often wondered why an airline hasn't tried to start a PIT or CLE sizxd hub in SMF... its the state capital of the fifth-largest economy in the world (California)...and its located in a region that geographically will just keep growing...I would think that, given the right selection of destinations, an operation that used 40 or so RJ's (145/145XR types or EMB-170's), a couple of turboprops of some kind (maybe 10 or so Q400's) and some 737's for east coast destinations perhaps would be quite successful. Sacramento would be an easy place to connect to go just about anywhere within CA, AZ, and NV to other western destinations, including the rockies and pacific northwest...


Go Blue!!
User currently offlineAbrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5130 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6466 times:

Just look at AZ and their twin-hub "strategy". Too many can start as low as 2  Smile.

-A.



Live, and let live.
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6434 times:

Quoting BosWashSprStar (Reply 5):
However, I disagree that it was necessarily a disaster for US to have hubs in both PIT and PHL. In *theory*, this could have worked quite well, as the PHL hub could have been higher-priced (for both O&D and connecting trips) in order to encourage connecting passengers to use PIT, thereby leaving more available seats for O&D passengers at PHL, which is a much bigger O&D market. However, I can't think of a situation where an airline was able to make this theory actually work--AA briefly attempted to do something similar with STL and ORD, but never really got it off the ground before STL had to be scaled back.

True, but I guess things that work "in theory" just don't seem to want to work in real life, or at least that's what seems to be the airlines' logic anyway...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6234 times:

Quoting Rampart (Reply 6):
WN has a number of hub-like cities, not banked like a traditional hub, but certainly similar in flight volume and opportunites for connections. Doesn't hurt them much.

Actually, since many typical major hubs have started shifting to rolling hubs rather than banked hubs, something like WN's MDW doesn't stick out as much. It truly is a connecting hub. It all comes back to the point that it is mathematically prohibitive (if not impossible) to serve a significant number of city pairs without some sort of connecting system like a hub or 3. As much as WN claimed to be P2P in the early days - avoiding OTHER airline's hubs, they are very much a hubbed system themselves.



Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7743 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 6122 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 2):
Much of it has to due with the locations of them. For a truly major airline, CO has a crappy hub layout. With IAH being so far south and EWR being so far northeast, it is not conducive to connections.

But IAH is great if your final destination is in South or Latin America or the southern Pacific region and EWR is ideally situated fur travel to Europe, the Middle East and even Africa and the Indian sub-continent. I guess it depends where you want to fly to!


User currently offlineFlyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 999 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 2):
Probably one of the best hub arrangements is UA. They can connect in DEN or ORD to get good coverage anywhere. Up and down the east coast, connect at IAD. On the west coast, use SFO or LAX. Really, you can't connect any two points without a convenient UA hub between them.

What about SLC-BOI? Actually I am just joking, UA does do a good job of offering a hub to transfer in.

But I think that DL has a great hub network, ATL for the south, SLC, and LAX for the west, JFK and CVG for the east.
And if you include skyteam..........

Skyteam together has every direction everywhere in the us covered.



"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 13):
But I think that DL has a great hub network, ATL for the south, SLC, and LAX for the west, JFK and CVG for the east.
And if you include skyteam..........

Best locations period. While other hubs are focused on large O&D demand, DL started their structure by focusing on connections. SLC is in a better location than DEN to serve the west due to the gap east of the rockies. CVG could be better utilized with the advent of the 787 as could SLC taking presure off of Mecca (ATL). LAX and JFK make nice jump points for those living east of CVG and west of SLC.


User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5997 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 2):
For a truly major airline, CO has a crappy hub layout. With IAH being so far south and EWR being so far northeast, it is not conducive to connections.

I agree here. I think CO could better optimize their western traffic if they had some sort of western hub.

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 2):
Probably one of the best hub arrangements is UA. They can connect in DEN or ORD to get good coverage anywhere. Up and down the east coast, connect at IAD. On the west coast, use SFO or LAX. Really, you can't connect any two points without a convenient UA hub between them.

That is true! UA has a wonderful setup with their hubs.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
SLC is in a better location than DEN to serve the west due to the gap east of the rockies.

I agree. SLC is positioned better to serve California, and the pacific Northwest. It is also in a position where you aren't backtracking at all if you're coming out of somewhere like Montana and heading to California.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3157 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5950 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 11):
As much as WN claimed to be P2P in the early days - avoiding OTHER airline's hubs, they are very much a hubbed system themselves.

I agree entirely. Others here on A.net seem to deny that, though I estimate about 2/3 of my flying on WN involved changing a plane in PHX, LAS, MCI, OAK, or MDW, and it wasn't difficult. So, there you have a very successful airline with perhaps a dozen hubs.

-Rampart


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

The question, in my opinion, is not "can an airline have too many hubs?", but more a matter of "are the hubs profitable?".

The key for an airline's hub operations is a strong O&D passenger count. EWR is a cash cow for CO, and with the fuel-efficient 757, smaller airports in Europe can be served that might not have the demand that PHL, BOS, ATL, or even ORD might have. The same is very true for UA and SFO - the Asia market is enormous.

Airlines may have multiple hubs, but they are free to close them down if they are not working - AA at BNA and RDU, CO at DEN, DL at DFW, US at BWI, and so on. The hubs that the United States has now, with the possible exception of MEM for NW (I'm not sure of its status it is so small!), are working quite well for the airlines.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5210 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 2):
you can't connect any two points without a convenient UA hub between them.

UA is weak in the southeast though...I guess thats where the US codeshare comes in. In terms of east west traffic IAH is fine--its really those folks in the midcontinent that want to go west that would bypass CO. If you think about it COs hubs connect east west well in terms of large population centers. DEN is pretty much the only place CO could set up an effective hub out west--I hate they let that one go.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offline787EWR From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5887 times:

Quoting Rampart (Reply 6):
WN has a number of hub-like cities, not banked like a traditional hub, but certainly similar in flight volume and opportunites for connections. Doesn't hurt them much.

I didn't read every entry, but looking at WN, wouldn't you say that their hubs are as follows:

KPHX
KMDW
KBWI

"Focus Cities"

KLAX
KOAK
KPHL

I don't mention DAL only due to the fact that they are limited as to where they can fly.


User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5870 times:

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 19):
I didn't read every entry, but looking at WN, wouldn't you say that their hubs are as follows:

KPHX
KMDW
KBWI

I would definitely add LAS to that list, and add DAL to the focus city list. Even thought there are a lot of cities with much much more service than DAL, it is a very important part of the Southwest system, and I believe it is or was in their list of top destinations in terms of departures.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineTwa@FRA From China, joined Nov 2000, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5870 times:

" While other hubs are focused on large O&D demand,"

IMO this is also a key point by considering if a HUB strategy is o.k.
As for CO EWR should be quite good as it have a lot of O&D traffic, while compared to e.g. AA (or former TWA) @ STL which should be perfect HUB geographically do not have sufficient O&D traffic and at least not high yield. So the most City’s with high Yield traffic are at the US Coast’s and leaving more or less ORD as the "only" high yield inland HUB. This might be one reason that many HUB layouts do not look logical at the first sight (and that ORD have two major Airlines).


User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5210 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5847 times:

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 19):
I didn't read every entry, but looking at WN, wouldn't you say that their hubs are as follows:

KPHX
KMDW
KBWI

"Focus Cities"

KLAX
KOAK
KPHL

I don't mention DAL only due to the fact that they are limited as to where they can fly.

All you can really say about WN is what their largest stations are- I think this listing will change by the end of the summer though with HOU possibly sliding on top of OAK. Daily Departures/Number of Gates/Nonstop destinations
Las Vegas 225 21 53
Chicago Midway 218 29 47
Phoenix 207 24 42
Baltimore/Washington 173 26 38
Oakland 142 11 20
Houston Hobby 141 17 28
Dallas (Love Field) 127 14 14
Los Angeles (LAX) 118 11 19
Orlando 100 12 32
San Diego 92 10 15



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

Quoting Twa@FRA (Reply 21):
the most City’s with high Yield traffic are at the US Coast’s and leaving more or less ORD as the "only" high yield inland HUB.

True, but you don't have to have a top-5 market hub to still make it work. There are midland hubs that do quite well for their airlines, MSP being a good example. The O&D market and connecting traffic from the west do a nice turn for NW from the western states. It's not ORD, but it doesn't have to be...



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offline787EWR From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

Quoting Fjnovak1 (Reply 8):
I've often wondered why an airline hasn't tried to start a PIT or CLE sizxd hub in SMF... its the state capital of the fifth-largest economy in the world (California)...and its located in a region that geographically will just keep growing...I would think that, given the right selection of destinations, an operation that used 40 or so RJ's (145/145XR types or EMB-170's), a couple of turboprops of some kind (maybe 10 or so Q400's) and some 737's for east coast destinations perhaps would be quite successful. Sacramento would be an easy place to connect to go just about anywhere within CA, AZ, and NV to other western destinations, including the rockies and pacific northwest

Unfortunately, it may be the fact that SMF is not seen as a commercially viable destination. By this, I mean their commercial productivity is not as high as Los Angeles or San Francisco which are traditional hubs and also major American(USA) cities.

I think what attracts airline hubs is the ability to generate passengers. American tried it at San Jose, which was a hot spot to be in during the Silicon ValleyInternet boom days. Once that all went away, the hub suffered and was eventually down graded.

I would further agree with a post in the thread that said that PIT was difficult to maintain. Pittsburgh has strong commercial value, but not as strong as Philadelphia which now has technology, textile and some financials, plus a very strong shipping port.

The fact that Charlotte has now attracted Bank of America, Wachovia and several other financial giants, makes it a great hub location. Kudos to US Air for creating and developing that location. highfive 


25 SLCUT2777 : The folks in the Pacific Time Zone hate it however if they are going like GEG-LAX etc (DEN would be much worse in such a scenario though). But you're
26 787EWR : You are absolutely correct. My mistake. I neglected to include LAS which I think has WN's largest volume of flights. Cheers.
27 787EWR : Thanks for the information.
28 AADC10 : Going back to the original question, several analysts claimed that the U.S. overall is overhubbed. If you can maintain a fortress hub, you own the mar
29 Logos : Actually, those were both USAir (pre-Piedmont merger) hubs. I agree, though, it didn't make a whole lot of sense to have both in the scale that they
30 Vega : There is really a significant difference between the CLT and PHL hubs - both for US and other airlines. These are the rounded stats for both: CLT (12
31 Rampart : I don't know where I would divide "hub" vs "focus city", because a lower end city on WN's network with, say, 6 non-stop cities, practically qualifies
32 Alias1024 : Two networks built for two different purposes. CO has a great hub setup if you are trying to get to Europe (EWR) or Central and South America (IAH).
33 Post contains links CIDflyer : actually I think UA is still larger than AA there, I think UA runs about 630 daily flts (mainline and express) compared to AA's 500 daily (mainline a
34 Post contains images InnocuousFox : Absolutely. If you were to do a statistical analysis (which I do) of the "weight" of O&D traffic to the rest of the system (not to ATL) on various si
35 Walter747 : Don't forget BOS. Actually US considers PIT a secondary hub.
36 Kalakaua : Would anyone care to explain the pros and cons of the macroeconomics of the hub and spoke?
37 InnocuousFox : I can, but it's a whopper. Do you really want me to?
38 LHStarAlliance : weren´t the too many hubs one of the reason for PanAms bankruptcy ??
39 SESGDL : UA is indeed larger at ORD, with about 300 mainline and 330+ Express flights. AA is down to about 230 mainline flights at ORD and more than 270 Eagle
40 Steeler83 : Well, I can think of quite a few pros as well as some cons... Well, let me begin with a general reason for the whole hub and spoke system. You/we all
41 MPDPilot : Thats what CVG is for. I think the only weak area would be the North-South in the central US. East to west though and even on the western US they are
42 FL370 : i think UA has the best hub locations!! one of the fastes airlines i mean you can fly into 5different hubs and go anywhere in the country!!! fl370
43 Donder10 : The main pro of a hub is that results in ''economies of density" at the hub because more traffic is routed through it allowing the hub operator to us
44 Rafabozzolla : Not if you want to go from Florida and Georgia to Texas or New Mexico.
45 Kalakaua : I'd love to hear it anyway!
46 InnocuousFox : With a simple mathematical example... Let's say you have 10 cities (non-hub) and one hub. Let's assume that you have a demand of 10 pax/day between ea
47 TWA1985 : Lets not forget the classic Republic Airlines story. They were rapidly losing money in 1984 and when the new CEO came onboard later that year he devis
48 MasseyBrown : This thought is echoed in several replies. Why then is UA so desperate for a merger? Their proliferation of hubs is oriented to over-support a profit
49 OzarkD9S : There were many many reasons for the downfall of Pan Am, but too many hubs was not one of them. After the National acquisition PA tried to build IAH
50 InnocuousFox : Or... there is more to being profitable than positioning your hubs? Geographically, their hub setup is the best possible arrangement. The rest of the
51 Post contains links and images Rampart : " target=_blank>http://www.aa.com/content/aboutUs/wh...jhtml It would be 8 if you counted San Juan, and maybe we shouldn't because it's sort of "overs
52 MasseyBrown : The DL, NW, and UA bankruptcy proceedings lead me to conclude that it's probably easier to change hubs than to change management. Specific to UA, the
53 DiscoverCSG : PIT does not fit this definition of "focus city." Rather, it is a small hub with only a few banks. Many of the flights are to smaller regional market
54 Post contains images InnocuousFox : Good point. WN did the same in DEN that they did in PHL... swoop in and take advantage of a struggling carrier that is looking to cut back on things.
55 OzarkD9S : Not so weird. STL is a hub for American Connection, not Eagle.
56 Post contains images MasseyBrown : What they lose on each and every passenger, they make up in volume.
57 Mattnrsa : UA did not get pounded by WN in SFO. It has always been one of their most important hubs. WN ended up leaving SFO, although they are coming back as t
58 FreequentFlier : There's no choice to be made. LAX provides a great local O&D base, so much that LAX doesn't necessarily have to be considered a hub, and in fact it i
59 DiscoverCSG : Agreed, FreequentFlier! LAX could not function as SFO does for Asia-bound traffic. It's, what, an hour farther away from most Asian airports? Flying
60 RB211 : Can an airline have too many hubs? The only airline who I can think of that has had a pretty crazy hub pattern is US. Does anyone know why American ab
61 MasseyBrown : The defense of UA's hubs reminds me of the pre-bankruptcy defense of US's route structure. The argument went: each hub and flight was so valuable to t
62 DiscoverCSG : Why does this remind me so much of my own finances?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Can An Airline Qualify For An Alliance posted Fri Sep 17 2004 23:15:08 by A300AA
Can An Airline Overexpaned posted Sat Aug 9 2003 02:46:27 by Funflyer
Can An Airline Employee Sell Its Emp. Disc. Tiks?! posted Thu Jun 7 2001 23:50:28 by Wolfy
Can An Airline Fly Non-stop posted Thu Jan 20 2000 09:15:38 by QF747
Would Some Airline Have Died W/o An Alliance? posted Tue Apr 10 2007 13:04:38 by RootsAir
Have You Recently Interned For An Airline? posted Wed Jan 24 2007 22:13:41 by ConjureMe
Independence Air - How Great An Airline Can Be? posted Fri Feb 10 2006 02:22:02 by Malaysia
Any Way To Have An Airline Sponsor Me? posted Tue Jan 17 2006 04:41:43 by Wdleiser
Why Can't Some Countries Keep An Airline? posted Wed Dec 7 2005 02:47:36 by RootsAir
Most Flights Between An Airline's Hubs posted Tue Jan 18 2005 20:24:45 by Boeing757/767