Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airways & Others Now Opposed To PHL Expansion  
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9702 times:

The PHL-CEP Expansion has now taken an unexpected turn with US (and other carriers) now being opposed to PHL's CEP Expansion project (which includes constructing a new parallel runway and a relocation of UPS' facilities). Higher fuel costs and the economy are the listed reasons for US' opposition; several years ago, US, pre-HP merger, was supportive of the long-term initiative.

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...xpansion_plan.html?cmpid=125219969

Article exerpt:

US Airways and Southwest Airlines Co. wrote the airport in summer 2010, expressing concerns about the costs they would bear and what they called premature construction of a runway that alone would not greatly alleviate delays in takeoffs and landings because the airspace here, shared with New York, is the most congested in the world.

Tensions have surfaced because the city wants airlines to sign a 15-year lease that includes paying for the runway, which the city estimates would cost $1.8 billion and which the airlines say would cost $3 billion.


It subliminally sounds like US wants to have a greater say in WHAT actually gets built in PHL.


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9511 times:

They do have a point. I'm not really sure that building an additional runway will be cost-effective when taking into consideration that aircraft will still be sitting on the tarmac due to ATC holds. US has a lot of eggs in the PHL basket, so if PHL lost a chunk of its profitability it would of course affect US the most.

User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9345 times:

Sounds a lot like opposition to O'Hare expansion. When times were good the airlines clamored for it. Now they would like expansion to move forward as long as they don't have to kick in to help pay for it! They can't have it both ways!

User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9328 times:

Given the reality of building a new runway, 3 billion does sound closer to the actual cost.

User currently onlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9328 times:

I think there are a number of points to made here:

As pointed out an additional runway does not immediately solve all delays. The FAA has to continue to work to improve the airspace over Philly and the redesign needs to consider taxiway redesign. During busy times you have 20+ aircraft lined up on a myriad of taxi ways, some of which require taxing to one end of the airport only to work you way back to the end you started at.

The article only refers to the new runway. I thought a large portion of this project is a redesign of B/C that would create one larger terminal and essentially result in larger alleys. The only small alley that will remain would be between the current D and E. This will directly benefit US, however I don't see any mention of it.

It is tough to measure the UPS Drama. PHL is already pretty weak when it comes to cargo traffic (not considering UPS) so it would be a big hit to lose UPS. WIth no UPS, PHL will likely be reduced to single digit cargo flights each day.

Part of the article lists passenger or movement numbers. These are relatively low and well below what they were a few years ago. Which means in the long term these are only likely to rise. US makes a big deal when they receive favorable on time percentages in PHL, but everyone forgets that they are off their peak number of flights and these delays may very well come back if more flights are added.

The article makes a comparison to PIT. While PHL is no PIT and I don't think it will ever end up like PIT but you always seem to have to wonder about PHL. A few years ago you had to worry US would go BK and leave PHL and now you have to worry that a potential merger with AA (pure speculation by us) will result in a smaller US presence in PHL.

I completely disagree with the economy agruments. The same can be said for the debacle that was the 2nd rail tunnel under the Hudson. These things aren't built in a few months. Let's say the delay for a few years, the economy picks up, you spend 12 years of horrendous airport movement conditions with greater flight numbers in the midst of construction and then when its finally complete the economy tanks again. Tying these public work projects to the economy makes no sense because the economy is so cyclical and its anyone's guess which way it is going to go.

I wonder how much WN is involved anymore. When they first opposed the project they were still the clear # 2 carrier. After the cuts this spring they will probably be second by a much smaller margin.

Quoting PHLBOS (Thread starter):
It subliminally sounds like US wants to have a greater say in WHAT actually gets built in PHL.

I think this actually makes sense, however I just wish US and city were more constructive in accomplishing this.

[Edited 2012-01-09 09:17:48]

User currently onlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2482 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9217 times:

US was stupid in de-hubbing PIT.

PHL is a mess. Bad airport and runway layout. Not much can be done with PHL even if they wanted to. Stuck between the city to the north and the delaware river to the south.

They should dump PHL, and make PIT their primary hub, along with CLT. At least PIT has the adequate runway system to handle 500,000+ movements with very few delays. It also has all the room in the world to do a proper expansion, be it a 4th parallel or more terminal space.

In doing so, you also remove the congested NY airspace out of the equation, resulting in even smoother operations in untapped Western Pennsylvania.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-01-09 09:16:01]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7173 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9148 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Thread starter):
The PHL-CEP Expansion has now taken an unexpected turn with US (and other carriers) now being opposed to PHL's CEP Expansion project
Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 2):
Sounds a lot like opposition to O'Hare expansion. When times were good the airlines clamored for it.

What has really changed is that in the past airlines wanted a vast array of runways and gates and no delays. Now they realize that they make much more money at airports that have few gates and little space. The more expensive space that is built the more of it is used by the competition. Right now US basically owns PHL and even WN has had to shrink. US doesn't want to change anything and certainly doesn't want to pay their own money to change anything. Terminal or runways, same thing. Airlines want their hubs locked down so there is no room for competition. It is a sad reality. The economics of building a new runway may or may not be good, but even if it cost $1, US Airways would have the same opinion.


User currently onlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9045 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 6):
US doesn't want to change anything and certainly doesn't want to pay their own money to change anything. Terminal or runways, same thing. Airlines want their hubs locked down so there is no room for competition. It is a sad reality. The economics of building a new runway may or may not be good, but even if it cost $1, US Airways would have the same opinion.

That argument makes sense but I think US is too short sighted because PHL is by no means a world class gateway. The B/C corridor is nothing to write home about anymore, the D hammerhead is way too packed and I imagine E is the same, the B/C piers are as pax UNfriendly as you can get, US has outgrown A-west and now relies on A-east for international flts. I believe A-east is the 2nd newest terminal after A-west and F and yet it already shows its age. So while it may make US money now they are likely hurting their imagine in the long run because they insist on using out dated facilities.

And it's not like all airlines have the same mentality, AA built the new, albiet smaller than originally designed, terminal in JFK, DL is building a new one in JFK, DL is building a new one in ATL, DL built a new one BOS, CO/UA is building a new one in IAH, AA built a new one in MIA.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6762 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8974 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 4):
Part of the article lists passenger or movement numbers. These are relatively low and well below what they were a few years ago. Which means in the long term these are only likely to rise.

Passenger numbers at PHL are unlikely to rise due to US's approach to pricing. US keeps capacity down in uncompetitive markets in order to push yields up. With WN drastically reducing their presence at PHL, that will only serve to intensify the downward pressure on passenger counts.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 4):
As pointed out an additional runway does not immediately solve all delays. The FAA has to continue to work to improve the airspace over Philly

Agreed. But it takes a very long time to get a new runway built, and it may makes sense to proceed while the FAA does have funding to pick up part of the tab. I suppose one question to ask is whether the delays in poor weather are more due to airspace congestion or runway configuration.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 5):
US was stupid in de-hubbing PIT.

They should dump PHL, and make PIT their primary hub, along with CLT.

A PIT hub is unworkable with US's cost structure and LCC penetration into large- & medium-sized markets in the Northeast, combined with the competition from the hubs of larger carriers in more robust markets (i.e. EWR/DTW/IAD/ORD).


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5459 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 5):
They should dump PHL, and make PIT their primary hub, along with CLT.

It's just too small and isolated a market to serve as a major airline's primary hub. You need O&D to make a hub work.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8892 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 5):
US was stupid in de-hubbing PIT.

They should dump PHL, and make PIT their primary hub, along with CLT. At least PIT has the adequate runway system to handle 500,000 movements with very few delays. It also has all the room in the world to do a proper expansion, be it a 4th parallel or more terminal space.

While this is old and beating a dead horse, I will respond.

The problem with PIT (at least when it was a US hub) was that the majority of traffic was strictly connecting w/little O&D. Conversely and for all its faults, PHL has a significantly higher O&D traffic.

IMHO, the countdown to Judgment Day for US' PIT hub began when they were first comptemplating a merger w/UA back in 2000/2001. Such a merger would've meant having 3 hubs (PHL, PIT & IAD) located within 300 miles of each other. Even in the best of economic times, a large airline sustaining hub operations at 3 airports located that close together would've been economically unsustainable long term.

Had that merger gone through, 9/11/01 or no 9/11/01; the PIT hub would've been reduced to a spoke city and PHL would've likely become a focus city similar to US' current BOS operations and IAD (where there's a lot more land for expansion) would've remained a full-blown hub and international gateway. US' CLT hub would've survived unscathed.

Anyway, after 2 trips to Chapter 11 and possibly facing Chapter 7; US needed to make themselves more attractive for a possible merger partner w/another carrier (which ultimately turned out to be HP) and cut costs where they could. Had they kept the PIT hub following the HP merger; it would've likely been cut ANYWAY but at a greater/higher cost.

Long story short: While PIT's facilities and airfields are more (mostly) modern and better laid out than PHL; the passenger traffic just isn't there in comparison. Greater Philadelphia has a much higher population than Greater Pittsburgh to tap into passengerwise, that's just a fact.

Even if US were to shut down (or at least close its PHL hub) tomorrow; there's enough pasenger demand for other carrier(s) to eventually pick up the traffic; note the optional plural I placed there for air carrier(s). Granted, the case for an expansion (the topic of this thread) would diminish.

Again, remember, it's the AIRPORT that's planning this expansion NOT the AIRLINE(S).

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 4):
I thought a large portion of this project is a redesign of B/C that would create one larger terminal and essentially result in larger alleys.

That's only a piece/component of the overall CEP puzzle. The primary meat of the overall plan involves the runway inprovements.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 4):
I completely disagree with the economy agruments.

I think the 15-year lease part of the whole deal is what triggered the airlines' opposition. Given the way the aviation market keeps changing, no carrier wants to make long-term commitments/promises anymore. US is basically applying Lessons Learned from its PIT deal nearly 2 decades earlier.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 8):
I suppose one question to ask is whether the delays in poor weather are more due to airspace congestion or runway configuration.

The correct answer is a combination of both.

[Edited 2012-01-09 10:20:33]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8779 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 4):
I completely disagree with the economy agruments. The same can be said for the debacle that was the 2nd rail tunnel under the Hudson. These things aren't built in a few months. Let's say the delay for a few years, the economy picks up, you spend 12 years of horrendous airport movement conditions with greater flight numbers in the midst of construction and then when its finally complete the economy tanks again. Tying these public work projects to the economy makes no sense because the economy is so cyclical and its anyone's guess which way it is going to go.

Agreed -- the whole purpose of having a government to provide infrastructure is so that (at least if the government is GOOD) there's the ability to look at the long and very long-term. Whether rails, roads, seaports, or airports, the development or addition of infrastructure usually RESULTS in growth.

When today's (7) train in NYC was built, on a huge concrete and steel viaduct, most of the parts of Queens it passed through were rural farmland... which certainly had no need for mass transit. Within just two decades of its completion, the population of the area had surged to become almost the Queens we know today, one of the most populous areas of the whole US.

The trick, however, with airports, is that the demands imposed by o/d traffic are much different than those imposed by connecting traffic. A connecting hub can be placed almost anywhere -- and then MOVED from there -- with little to no consequence for an airline. When PIT was built, it provided WAY more capacity than was needed for o/d traffic anytime in the forseeable future and after... so that it could be used as a connecting hub for US.

By contrast, almost ANY increase in capacity in NYC will be sucked up in an instant. They could add a runway to JFK and EWR, completely re-do LGA, THEN DL could eliminate its entire operation there, and within a year or two, usage would be just as high, because there's o/d business that other airlines want to get their hands on.

PHL may be making the calculation that even IF US drew down business there, or reduced PHL to a focus city, there's still enough o/d demand that the capacity would be picked up by other carriers... in which case investing in a new runway, regardless of how US feels, is still a smart long-term investment in the area economy.

If, on the other hand, you feel that without a connecting hub at PHL, most of today's capacity would be unused and unwanted, even if the region was in boom times... well, then it'd be a dumb investment.

Quoting enilria (Reply 6):
Terminal or runways, same thing. Airlines want their hubs locked down so there is no room for competition. It is a sad reality.

Well, that's all dependent on the economy. In boom times, they want more capacity, and don't care if the competition gets some as long as they're getting enough to maintain their position.


User currently onlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8472 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 8):

Passenger numbers at PHL are unlikely to rise due to US's approach to pricing. US keeps capacity down in uncompetitive markets in order to push yields up. With WN drastically reducing their presence at PHL, that will only serve to intensify the downward pressure on passenger counts.

This comment was directed more towards long term growth. Aren't air travelers supposed to increase by some double digit percentage over the next 5, 10, 20 years? I think this construction is estimated at 10-15 years so while US may suppress capacity now they likely won't be able to maintain this approach for another 15 years.

Most airlines have cut capacity to maintain a high LF, however I doubt they will be able to do this forever and there will be some time in the future that airlines will have to add capacity.


User currently offlineUnited777ORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 262 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8400 times:

PHL needs a set of parallel runways and I hope the new runway project continues to move forward. The NY/NJ/PHL airspace congestion can be addressed while the runway is being constructed. PHL is fortunate to have the opportunity to build another runway because other airports such as EWR and LGA need a set of parallel runways but I highly doubt that those two airports would be capable of building a new runway anytime soon. If US Airways doesn't want the project to proceed then they should move back to Pittsburgh. PIT has plenty of gate space and runways!!

User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8215 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 1):
I'm not really sure that building an additional runway will be cost-effective when taking into consideration that aircraft will still be sitting on the tarmac due to ATC holds. US has a lot of eggs in the PHL basket, so if PHL lost a chunk of its profitability it would of course affect US the most.

Very true - once again (although it's pointless), we see the folly of US abandoning a more modern, efficient PIT in favor of the bedlam at PHL. So very sad.



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8180 times:

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 14):
Very true - once again (although it's pointless), we see the folly of US abandoning a more modern, efficient PIT in favor of the bedlam at PHL. So very sad.

Once again, it's the O&D; something that PIT lacked. For US, PHL is still more of a cash cow for them despite its problems.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineb757capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7965 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 5):
US was stupid in de-hubbing PIT.

Stupid? I don't think you thought this one through. How about Allegheny county was stupid in thinking they could charge those kinds of rates.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 8):
A PIT hub is unworkable with US's cost structure and LCC penetration into large- & medium-sized markets in the Northeast, combined with the competition from the hubs of larger carriers in more robust markets (i.e. EWR/DTW/IAD/ORD).

BINGO!



The views written by this user are in no manner the views of my employer and should not be thought as such.
User currently offlineCIDFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2301 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7810 times:

While its a shame PIT with all its modern terminals and space had US de-hub there and keep congested PHL, its all about the money. PHL makes more money and its where more passengers want to go and thats the bottom line. Its pretty much the same thing AA did to STL. STL had plenty of terminal space and air space (especially with that new runway) but chose to close shop and keep ORD as its main midwest hub despite being more corwded and congested.

User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1274 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7703 times:

PIT would no longer be viable even if it did have have more O&D due to LCC penetration in most of the key markets as stated above. A significant part of the debt created building the terminal there has been paid down. When that is fully accomplished, from a cost of operation standpoint PIT will be competitive again with most airports. The market dynamics however will remain what they are. US isnt exactly highly thought of in the region anyway. Can't see any incentives being rolled that way.
On the other hand, we would happily take the UPS hub operation if PHL is no longer suitable for them. The land and all of the other infrastructure is either in place or ready to be put in. No doubt the red carpet would be rolled out for them. UPS already has a massive presence in the market so who knows. Makes for interesting thought though.


User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

Talk about a lose-lose scenario!!


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineUSAIRWAYS321 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7635 times:

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 13):
If US Airways doesn't want the project to proceed then they should move back to Pittsburgh. PIT has plenty of gate space and runways!!

If US Airways doesn't want more gate space and runways, they should move to an airport with...more gate space and runways? Huh???


User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 933 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7609 times:

If as rumored on this board many times a US/AA merger happens I would think PHL would be downgraded to a regional hub with AA's JFK hub surving due to NYC's larger O&D market (especially for international routes). Under that scenario I could see why U.S. would not want to foot the bill for any expansions at PHL.

User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7494 times:

I have to say, on an sort of unrelated topic, PHL isn't as bad as it used to be IMHO. CLT has gotten much worse in the fact that with all of the US/Airport expansion going on at CLT, within the past couples months, more flights of mine have had longer/more frequent ground delays in CLT than in PHL.


E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently onlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7268 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 22):
I have to say, on an sort of unrelated topic, PHL isn't as bad as it used to be IMHO. CLT has gotten much worse in the fact that with all of the US/Airport expansion going on at CLT, within the past couples months, more flights of mine have had longer/more frequent ground delays in CLT than in PHL.



Yes, I think right now PHL is probably right at where it should be for a relatively smooth operation (yes there are still delays). Coincidentally I think PHL has seen a drop in total flts over the years, albeit they have shifted a large amount of flts from mainline to Express, while CLT has grown.

I connected through CLT in the Fall and there were 3-5 flts departing from the end of either B or C within ~30 minutes and it was a complete mess. I found it no more convenient than PHL.

Quoting klkla (Reply 21):
If as rumored on this board many times a US/AA merger happens I would think PHL would be downgraded to a regional hub with AA's JFK hub surving due to NYC's larger O&D market (especially for international routes). Under that scenario I could see why U.S. would not want to foot the bill for any expansions at PHL.



PHL would no doubt see a decrease in service. Without getting into the specifics that are probably covered in the other thread I think it is conceivable that PHL still maintains a 200-300 flt/day hub.


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7110 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 23):
I connected through CLT in the Fall and there were 3-5 flts departing from the end of either B or C within ~30 minutes and it was a complete mess. I found it no more convenient than PHL.

The only really good thing about CLT, from a connecting travelers prespective, is that there are no shuttles/trams/busses. There is just one terminal. I mean sure, you do have walk in a long corridor/tunnel and go down stairs to access the E Concourse, but at least you don't have to take a shuttle. That will change it the future, sadly.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
25 Post contains links dumbell2424 : Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the CASE program? http://www.pitairport.com/UserFiles/File/pdf/Case_Program.pdf
26 Post contains links flightsimer : *I dont see O/D as an issue though. Just throwing it out there, but IIRC for 2010, PIT was in the 80-95% range for O/d traffic with over 8 million pa
27 PITrules : Great idea on the surface, but UPS will never want a hub in PIT, as much as I would like them to. In fact, they don't even want what they have in PHL
28 PHLBOS : If UPS were indeed to pull out of PHL; ACY's a lot closer for an alternative.
29 usairways85 : Yes, I think service in PHL has dwindled. The article states that UPS averages ~45 flts a day however outside of the holiday season I think it is mor
30 enilria : LGA is a %^&*-hole, but is going to be one of DL's most profitable hubs when the dust settles. The facility means very little if there is a lot o
31 commavia : I think that is very much an open question. Delta will likely be able to drive a revenue and yield premium in many markets out of LaGuardia based on
32 steeler83 : Um, no. I agree I don't see PHL becomming another PIT. PHL is WAAY to big of a market to lose a hub. Should US' presence shrink at all at PHL, I thin
33 PHLBOS : The overall master plan of the CEP essentially calls for the elimination of Concourses B & C and replacing it with a larger, more centrally locat
34 usairways85 : You're missing A-east in there. And with AA set to potentially move down to E that would give US pretty much all of A-east to use, potentially off se
35 HPRamper : I think CAE is still open. They still run transcons to ONT, OAK etc and total quite a few flights a day.
36 DCA-ROCguy : And many of those flights are going to be on 50-seaters that don't offer first class. They will have higher CASM than Dash-8's, without the service i
37 PHLBOS : An abbreviated version of my earlier post on the matter: 1. Proposed merger w/UA (2000/2001) that never took place; while US did not pull down its PI
38 DCA-ROCguy : Fair enough. Those of us who used the PIT hub numerous times remember its superiority to PHL as a facility well. Re UA-US, had that merger gone throu
39 PITrules : Allegheny County begged and pleaded with USAir for decades to get the terminal underway. USAir only agreed in 1985 when the former terminal was liter
40 luckyone : Building a shiny new facility doesn't equate profitability. Delta's $1billion construction and abandonment project at Boston contributed to their Cha
41 USAIRWAYS321 : Rightfully so.
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...
CO Express And US Airways Exp Now Serve PHL-EWR posted Fri Apr 11 2003 05:33:04 by Usairways85
US Airways Bringing Back A319 To LGB 02/01/12 posted Wed Dec 7 2011 15:05:55 by jetMARC
US Airways Express Emergency Landing At PHL posted Fri Sep 30 2011 14:32:05 by PHLJJS
US Airways A330-200 On CLT-PHL Starting In May posted Wed Feb 24 2010 08:42:46 by RyeFly
US Airways From London (Changes) - LGW-PHL No More posted Thu Jul 9 2009 16:01:13 by Gilesdavies
US Airways Temporarily Reduces Flights To Mexico posted Fri May 1 2009 18:19:33 by Fokkerf28
US Airways Flt 753 Diversion To SLC? posted Fri Sep 28 2007 07:44:50 by 3wheelbogey
US Airways Get Green Light To Athens posted Fri Nov 3 2006 20:42:06 by Jimyvr
No CRJ900's For US Airways - For Now At Least posted Mon Aug 14 2006 21:19:33 by Planemaker
Us Airways Will Discontinue Service To KIN And SDQ posted Thu Jun 8 2006 20:02:27 by M180up