Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CAL/DAL Hub Structure  
User currently offlineSeasonedflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Just wanted to work this topic directly instead of part of another thread.

My read on a possible hub structure would be:

HUBS/GATEWAYS:

ATL - Regional Jet hub, domestic, Caribbean, International
BOS - Regional Jet hub, Shuttle, transcon, International
CVG - Regional Jet hub, domestic, International
EWR - domestic, International
IAH - Regional Jet hub, domestic, Latin America, International
JFK - transcon, International
LAX - transcon, International
LGA - Regional Jet hub, domestic
SLC - Regional Jet hub, domestic

The NYC conundrum:

EWR:
- NJ, West Manhattan catchment areas
- Very limited growth potential (can't add Int'l without deleting domestic feed)
LGA:
- East Manhattan, CT, LI catchment areas
- No growth potential
JFK:
- East Manhattan, LI catchment areas
- Good growth potential for both domestic and Int'l flights

My argument is that CAL/DAL will have significant presence at all three NYC airports after any merger. Most probably you would put any Int'l flights that rely heavily on non-transcontinental connecting traffic in EWR. All Int'l flights that are largely NYC O&D or transcon connections (LAX/SFO/SEA) would move to JFK. JFK would basically be a widebody airport and EWR would be a narrow body / widebody mix. LGA would remain an RJ, shuttle, high O&D domestic market type operation.

Any thoughts?

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2896 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think that if this were to happen, DOJ would want some restructuring in NYC to allow more entrants at Newark. JFK is fairly diverse, LGA is bursting at the seams, but I believe that EWR can be called a fortress hub for CO...

DOJ would, from my view, want slots/gates given to someone (other than people in Skyteam) to open more space up for competitors.


User currently offlineSeasonedflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1326 times:

I'm a little surprised at the lack of response on this thread. There seem to be a lot of opinions on this issue....but then maybe my idea is difficult to counter?

User currently offlineCleCo From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 569 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

What about Cleveland? Will they just service them from there hubs or will Hopkins become a concentration city (correct term?).


EMBRY-RIDDLE BABY
User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

...but here goes. Hubs retained are IAH, ATL and SLC. CVG will likely be retained and CLE scaled back, but retained. In New York, both JFK and EWR are retained, EWR because of CO's presence and JFK because it's JFK. The DFW gates become a prime target of opportunity for AA, giving them the whole east side of the airport and eliminating a competitive threat and an operational thorn in the side.

Question is how much respect Houston will get as a hub afterward. That may depend on whether Bethune or Mullin runs the company.


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Don't be so surprised at the lack of interest. Continental/Delta is simply a study right now, not even under serious consideration.

Here's my proposal:

CLE (supposing we finish our little runway project): RJ hub for Midwest and Appalachian regions.

EWR: RJ hub for the Washington-New York-Boston corridor. Internationals to Europe.

ATL: RJ hub for Southeast. Internationals to Latin America.

IAH: RJ hub for Desert West and Plains states. RJs and MD-80s to Mexican resorts, Mexico City.

SLC: RJ hub for Northern Mountain and Pac Northwest.

LAX: RJ hub for Cal. Internationals to Japan and Asia.

Leave DFW to American. Leave BOS to US/UA. Leave LGA to everyone else. Leave JFK to the international arrivals. (That's a whole 'nother idea I have.) I always prefer CLE to CVG, personal choice.

redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

Figure ATL, IAH and EWR will retain all of their current service. ATL gets more destinations in Mexico and IAH gets direct or codeshare service to Southern Europe, additional cities in Brazil, Argentina and Chile, plus service to Korea. EWR and JFK are pretty well covered.

Corporate HQ - Houston, where Bethune and company are, or ATL, which has been home to DL since the airline first started all those years ago?


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Delta was founded as "Huff-DeLand Crop Dusters" in Louisiana, not in Atlanta. It was also renamed Delta Air Lines before moving to Atlanta.

redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

OK, OK try adding domestic flight structures between the hubs, too. I meant to put that in. Let's see...

RJ flights from the aforementioned hubs to all of the following, from closest RJ hub...

Domestic flight hubs:
ATL (Eastern US, hub-hub flights to EWR and IAH)
IAH (Middle US, hub-hub flights to LAX, ATL, SLC)
SLC (Western US, hub-hub flights to LAX, IAH)

Transcon flight hubs:
EWR (hub-hub flights to ATL, CLE, LAX)
LAX (hub-hub flights to SLC, IAH, EWR)

Does that suit your tastes more?
redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

Ah yes, I should have remembered. Regardless, they still have more history in Atlanta than Continental has in Houston. But CO has a downtown office building, and Bethune may like it where he is...

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1258 times:

I think this is pretty obvious:

First:
IAH and ATL stay at current levels,with perhaps some CO 737s and new 757-300s moving to ATL and some DL domestic 767s move to IAH (to spread things out and rationalize things a bit).

IAH has more room to grow with CAL's new International Terminal E in the works (2002),and a new runway under construction.I would look for continued expansion South from there and new European flights like Frankfurt,Madrid,Rome and Amsterdam.Partner airlines like Alitalia can add new services like Milan.

ATL has more room to grow South into Mexico and the Carribean.

As for NY,EWR and LGA will be the focus with JFK being divested to perhaps NW or even AA.CAL is in the middle of a huge capital expansion at EWR.DL proposed a new Terminal project at JFK but never approved it.

JFK might have more room to grow but EWR is all ready to go,and many arguments can be made that EWR is just much more conveinent than JFK.Thats one of the big reasons for a CAL/DAL link up,to maximise EWR's potential.

CAL has the big international routes already set up at EWR (NRT,HKG,GRU,EZE,LONDON! etc..) and the domestic feed,while DAL has the secondary European cities like Lyon,Nice,Barcelona,Venice,Istanbul and so on to add.Plus DAL has the widebodies CAL desparetly needs for international and trans-con flights.

The EU and the DOJ will not let CAL/DL control EWR,JFK and LGA with all those international flights.

To get this approved they would have to divest JFK to perhaps NW who already has a NRT flight from JFK and partner KLM to work with.They (CAL/DAL) can divest the JFK routes that overlap with EWR's like Frankfurt,Rome,Milan Paris and so on and keep the ones that don't like Istanbul,Athens etc.Plus they can add CAL's DC-10s to the deal so NW can operate the JFK hub while waiting for their A330s to arrive.

EWR would not be a RJ hub,all RJ flights would be moved to LGA.The smallest aircraft based at EWR would be a 737-500,this would mean less frequencies to places like Rochester but more seats and the comfort of larger aircraft.

LGA would compliment EWR with short - Medium range flights.

SLC would remain at current levels,but CAL/DAL would have to develop a West coast presence,which they can with all the RJs they both have on order.

In Ohio thats the tricky part,if the DOJ will let them they can run both,of course CVG will be bigger but CLE has a decent business market which warrants alot of O&D flights.They can intergrate Comairs CVG ops with COEX at CLE,thus providing a nice Mid-West RJ network that makes sense.Plus CAL/DAL can continue main line jet flights to BOS,LGA,DCA,MCO,LAS,LAX,SFO and where there's demand.And the CLE-LGW route is another business route for the City.

If the DOJ will not allow a CLE and CVG hub than HP or someone else would love to get into either hubs.

DFW is another toss up with regards to the DOJ,but I think with the new longer range ERJs CAL has on order which can fly 1500 Mi +,and DFW being a strong business market I think they too can continue to operate a small business oriented hub with main line flights to BOS,LGA,DCA,LAX etc. and RJs to AUS,SAN,OKC and so on.

And with the demise of Legend,DAL (Love field) could see some business oriented RJ growth.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

I don't see CO/DL switching RJ's for the larger aircraft already flying those routes out of DFW. They will either fish or cut bait (and AA would make it might worthwhile for CO/DL to cut bait). I also don't see CO/DL shutting down JFK unless they can get some money for it (they'd have debt service to worry about if they merge). But the rest makes sense.

Now would Wings and SkyTeam merge?


User currently offlineDeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1255 times:

Close, Redngold, but not quite.

We started as Huff-Daland Dusters in 1926. Moved to Atlanta in 1941.

DeltaSFO



It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
User currently offlineCeilidh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1233 times:

The name Delta refers to the Mississippi delta, apparently - which is where the airline was born.

As for hubs: I'd see them dropping both LGA and JFK in favour of EWR, where CO has a very nice terminal already in place; the Delta terminals at both EWR and JFK are pretty awful (especially the old Pan Am Worldport at JFK).

This merger would also give a strong presence on the West Coast (LAX); and if NW is brought into the equation it gives them a global network that would be a strong competitor to both AA/TW and UA/US.

IAH, of course, would be the site of the corporate headquarters.



User currently offlineSeasonedflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Great comments, but as I suspected NYC is very misunderstood by the general public:

EWR can't be grown anymore. Period. Only two runways and they are already at maximum on arrivals and departures. You can't "grow" EWR without cutting frequencies....this means you can't add Int'l destinations without eliminating the feed that makes them profitable. EWR can be tweaked, but it is near it's limits, both operational and profitability wise.

LGA. Abandon LGA? Again Ceilidh, you got to get a new supplier, the stuff you're smoking is junk. LGA is the MOST profitable O&D market for Delta (and thus, any American airline). With no room to grow at EWR, you just want to give all that money to the other airlines? Where are you going to put all the planes you pull out of LGA (and JFK)?

As far as JFK goes, there is a $1.5 Billion terminal project underway for Delta which will allow them to have the nicest facility at any of the three NYC airports. With the light rail nearly complete, this means that NYC business men can have rail service from Manhattan to Jamaica, walk across the platform and take rail direct to Delta's new terminal. Much easier for many of them than the rail to EWR.

With JFK's acknowledged room to grow, it must be kept by any merged operation to allow for future revenue growth. The airport at biggest risk for divesture would be EWR anyway, as it is the most dominated by a single airline (CAL). A DAL/CAL combination could reasonably claim that there is sufficient competition at LGA and JFK that nothing should be done to the operations there. Unfortunately that can't be said for EWR and the DOJ would be far easier to convince that divesting some slots at EWR is better for competition than even abandoning LGA or JFK.

It's all about the money. You can run a screwy operation, but if it makes the most money, that's what you're going to run.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

Wait hold on a second Seasoned flyer:

The (porposed) Delta Terminal at JFK was only proposed it has not even gone to the Port Authority commisioners for approval.There is no work being done for this Terminal right now,or most likely ever.

And even if Delta's board approves the plan (which to my knowledge they have not) and then it goes to the Port Authority board (which took almost two years for AA and CAL to get their plans appoved) delta would then have to get approval from the Governor of NY George Pataki and the (acting Governor) of NJ Donald Difrancesco (both Governors are co chaiman of the Port Authority which is a bi-State agency.

So even if Delta were to get things moving with the Terminal tommorow it would probably be late 2002 or Early 2003 before ground can be broken.

And I don't know if you saw the project plan that was in the NY times Metro section a couple of months back,so I'll give you the run down on it.

First it involves tearing down Terminal 3 and turning that space into a hard stand parking area.They would then rehab Terminal 2 (which is the worst Terminal anywhere) to handle more RJs.They would extend the West concourse of the new Terminal three by 20 or so gates.

NO new Terminal!..

The plan is very modest and is no where near the scale of CAL's at EWR which is a year from completion,CAl's plans at EWR also include a new 175,000sqf cargo building (almost done) and new maintenance hangars).

Delta's cargo building at JFK is small and about forty years old,and they don't even have one hangar at JFK.CAL has three and is building a forth (two narrowbody,two wide body).

The EWR airport monorail link to NJ Transit trains and Amtrak is a couple of months away from opening.And I don't know what youn know about tri-State transit systems but NJ Transit and Amtrak are far superior to NYC Subway and LIRR.

The EWR airport train station is one stop and one mile from Terminal C on Amtrak's NEC,trains will depart there directly for NYC Penn Station on NJ Transit and Amtrak,CAL is working with Amtrak to feed CAL's flights at EWR from cities such as PHL and New Haven.When there is weather problems stranded passengers can be put on trains (which they do now at Newark Penn Station).

Also the Port Authority is planning on extending PATH service from Newark Penn Station South to the EWR airport Station.If you don't know PATH stands for (Port Authority trans Hudson),its mass transit RR serving lines from NJ to NYC.The First line is from Newark and Hoboken to the World Trade Center,the Second line is From Jersey City/Hoboken to Manhattan's (Greenwich village,Tri-beca,So Ho,and up to 33rd stret next to Penn Station).

http://www.panynj.gov/path/pathmaplinks2.html

Lower Manhattan and the PATH are very popular with tourists and especially business travelers,the PATH station at the World Trade Center is below the Twin Towers and down some escalators from Wall Street.

EWR is much more conveinent to NYC than JFK and everybody in the industry and who flies alot to and from NYC knows this.

I'll qoute the OAG here,travel times by car to the three NYC airports from Mid-Town Manhattan(LGA 60 min,JFK 75min,EWR 45 min).EWR is more conveinent by car and rail than LGA or JFK thanks to Amtrak's NEC and the NJ Turnpike.

There are many more reasons to keep a hub at EWR over JFK but I think I made my point.But I do agree LGA will be kept at all costs along with EWR.

JFK won't be abandoned,it will be divested to most likely NW.







Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRiceRocket From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1167 times:


Ceilidh,

I've never publicly doubted your sanity before, but DAL/CAL getting out of LGA? That'll happen the same day BA leave LHR for Stansted.

RR.



User currently offlineSeasonedflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

STT757,

I commend your comments, but I've seen the plans for the new terminal at JFK and P&F at Delta seems to be steaming right along for no one to have approved the plan.

And the plan I've seen shows gate construction all the way from Terminal 2 to the IAT (which I guess is about 20 gates) but still qualifies as a new terminal (that's more gates than terminal 3 currently has). And because it's just the extension of an existing terminal, it will get done with a lot less paperwork and in a shorter time period than AA's new terminal.

I still don't understand the argument of 'abandoning' JFK. Delta makes a lot of money out of JFK and has over 50 mainline departures.....you certainly aren't going to move all of those flights to EWR, particularly the evening European departures, there just isn't the room at EWR. It makes no sense to me to abandon the only airport with any growth opportunity at all in the NYC.

And the transportation arguments aside, there is a considerable population on Long Island that will always prefer to fly out of JFK over EWR. To delete their ability to fly where they want (Int'l) from JFK is to just give their money to another carrier (because they aren't going to EWR to go to London).


User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1153 times:

It's an interesting delimma.

On the one hand, if they were to abandon JFK, we can only assume that AA, owning TW's extensive European rights, would move into JFK in a big way. I would assume that AA is evaluating the JFK market anyway.

On the other hand, I can't believe that maintaining hubs at both JFK and EWR is politically or economically wise. Regardless how clearly CO were to define its EWR and JFK operation, there would always be a significant level of overlap in markets served.


User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1134 times:

We have some huge plans at EWR, and if going through with a merger means divesting EWR, then it's not going to happen. Out of all the NYC airports, EWR is the most developed, easiest to navigate, and most comfortable. Terminal C is undoubtedly a world-class facility, especially with the new additions, and Terminals A and B will definitely benefit from the presence of the BAA (the same guys who run Heathrow). Newark is the easiest to get to from the major business centers of the tri-state area, and has the benefit of being the only airport with a real hub carrier.

Don't believe me?

American (JFK)
- Few international flights
- Underdeveloped domestic structure
- Undeveloped feeder links

Delta (LGA, JFK)
- Many international flights
- Medium to large-market domestic flights only
- Feeder links at LGA mostly, almost nonexistent at JFK

United (JFK)
- Some international flights
- Large domestic markets only
- Some feed from ACA, centered on Dulles

USAirways (LGA)
- No international flights
- Many domestic markets
- Large feeder network

TWA (JFK)
- Downsized international structure
- Top-market domestic service only
- Small feeder system

Now, Continental (EWR, LGA)
- Large international network
- Full domestic network
- Large feeder operations at both airports



User currently offlineSeasonedflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1128 times:

CODC10,

To quote from my opening post....

My argument is that CAL/DAL will have significant presence at all three NYC airports after any merger. Most probably you would put any Int'l flights that rely heavily on non-transcontinental connecting traffic in EWR. All Int'l flights that are largely NYC O&D or transcon connections (LAX/SFO/SEA) would move to JFK. JFK would basically be a widebody airport and EWR would be a narrow body / widebody mix. LGA would remain an RJ, shuttle, high O&D domestic market type operation.

I think we're in agreement.

EWR, JFK and LGA all are large money makers for their respective airlines. The idea would be to streamline each operation to the areas that make sense with regards to catchment area, destinations and connecting market requirements.

Unfortunately, because of competition, LGA and JFK would probably be under less pressure to be divested than would EWR as the DAL/CAL combination presence at LGA/JFK is less monopolistic than the DAL/CAL presence at EWR...


User currently offlineLadevale From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

CODC10 - I think you misrepresent the nature of both AA's and UA's operations at JFK...

First of all, AA and UA do not use JFK like Continental uses Newark.

For American, it is their major gateway to LHR. They run more flights to LHR out of JFK than they do out of Chicago. When I last looked, they ran as many flights to LHR from JFK as British Airways. You are right - AA's international flights to other European destinations, except Paris, are very limited. But, AA prefers to run flights to "lessor" European markets out of Chicago rather than JFK, largely because the greater domestic feed at Chicago makes those lower-yielding destinations more profitable.

One of the reasons AA is building its 59-gate mega-terminal at JFK is to be able to develop its domestic structure there, both in terms of mainline and American Eagle. The purchase of TWA's assets gives that development a big boost, because it gives AA additional slots at peak times to play with. Moreover, American Eagle will get something like 10-15 gates of its own in the new terminal.

In the meantime, AA is quite content to use JFK as the terminus for its quite lucrative transcon routes from LAX/SFO. Even after acquiring certain assets from US Airways, AA will remain focused on its east-west business. The transcons are a major part of that business. Only UA has the marketing power and flights to compete with AA in this market segment.

That brings us to UA... UA uses JFK primarily as the terminus point for its own transcon operations from LAX and SFO. Even after it shifted most of its international flights to Dulles in the early 90's, UA maintained its transcon slots at JFK. While AA runs more flights to JFK from LAX, UA almost evens up the score by flying more transcon flights from SFO.

UA also operates some LHR flights at JFK. I think at least 3 daily frequencies, about the same number as it has at Dulles. This is a far too lucrative JFK market to leave it to BA and AA.

In short, neither UA or AA currently use JFK as a hub airport. Both have always considered JFK a gateway, and not a hub. AA's strategic view of JFK, however, has already changed. The new terminal and the acquisition of TWA's assets is a measure of how much that view has changed.

I also found it curious that you say that "Newark is the easiest to get to from the major business centers of the tri-state area." From this, one is supposed to infer that the preference of most New York-originating traffic and those traveling to New York, especially those on business, is to fly from/to Newark.

When I was going to college in New Haven, CT, my preference was to fly from JFK to LAX. Back then, Newark had the reputation as offering lower fares to and from the West Coast than JFK. Hence, one tended to see a larger number of business travelers at JFK, and more students and leisure travelers at Newark.

Even today that fare difference is still intact, partly because the two airlines that fly most of the transcons to JFK recognize that there is a greater demand among their most elite and high yielding passengers to fly out of/to New York via JFK, than to fly out of/to New York via Newark.


User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

I would have thought AA was putting 60 gates at JFK to allow their OneWorld partners to be consolidated under one roof. Given its delays, JFK will not function like a traditional domestic hub, and most of the local O&D will find EWR and LGA more convenient. I'm not sure lifting the slot restrictions will change that equation much. however, the new train might...

User currently offlineCOexERJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

What?

User currently offlineToxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

JFK is supposed to get a new regional rail connection. I think it's PATH, but I'm not sure...

25 COexERJ : I'm not sure where you get your fare information, from my experience, EWR and NYC (JFK & LGA) are the same price. I think it's dishonorable to imply t
26 Seasonedflyer : Well, it seems a lot of people are thinking that where people fly out of NYC is all about those who work in Manhattan. That I think is to ignore that
27 Alpha 1 : Ok, I might as well add my 2 cents to this one-how I missed this one, I have no clue! EWR/JFK? No brainer. EWR. Here's why: 1. The $1 billion Global G
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...
CAL's CLE Hub To Be On The Disovery Chl posted Mon Mar 27 2006 17:41:20 by CLE757
Your Vote For The Best Hub Structure In The World? posted Sun Dec 21 2003 04:37:58 by ORBITJFK
Best/Worst Hub Structure posted Sun Nov 30 2003 03:54:09 by PHXMKEflyer
Ual And Dal Or Cal posted Fri Aug 25 2006 19:21:35 by Nuggetsyl
NWA Not Happy With DAL New Fare Structure posted Tue Jan 4 2005 23:00:37 by Rumorboy
CAL Ownership Structure - A Cause Of Accidents? posted Mon Apr 14 2003 18:51:23 by Kaitak
CAL Hub In CLE posted Fri Dec 7 2001 14:32:22 by Rohan737
CAL Isn't Buying DAL Anytime Soon... posted Tue Jan 16 2001 19:37:08 by Seasonedflyer
UA/US Hub, Route Structure posted Thu May 25 2000 05:13:44 by Capt.Fantastic
UA / Southeast Hub? posted Wed May 23 2012 08:04:52 by mogandoCI