Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US/AA Potential Merger: Potential Hubs/Networks?  
User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7321 posts, RR: 24
Posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17198 times:

Hello all,

Should US and AA merge in some form or fashion, how would their hubs be different? Or would they? Whenever you have a merger of this magnitude, inevitably there will be some network casualties. There will also gains from some of the hubs no doubt. The hubs are below:

DFW
ORD
MIA
LAX
JFK
PHL
CLT
PHX

What do each look like after a merger should it happen?


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
155 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17193 times:

I'd say goodbye to LAX, and JFK. The current US team is very fond of fortress hubs - if they aren't clear #1, they don't want to compete. ORD will have to stick around simply because there is no other viable option in the midwest.

In the end, I'd expect:

PHL
PHX
CLT
MIA
DFW
ORD

Adding in AS to cover the Northwest with PDX/SEA/ANC or even HA covering HNL wouldn't be a bad idea either...



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineavi8 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days ago) and read 17121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think JFK would stick around because of their European connections. If they remove JFK, where would those flights go? The O/D that goes from PHL to Europe is nothing compared to JFK. Therefore yields are higher at JFK. PHL would be more connecing traffic than anything resulting in very minimum, if any, profits.


avi8
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8091 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days ago) and read 17076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 1):
I'd say goodbye to LAX, and JFK. The current US team is very fond of fortress hubs - if they aren't clear #1, they don't want to compete. ORD will have to stick around simply because there is no other viable option in the midwest.

In the end, I'd expect:

PHL
PHX
CLT
MIA
DFW
ORD

Call JFK a hub or not, it will be a very large part of a US/AA because of the presence AA has had in NYC. JFK generates lots of international traffic for AA to many destinations, this is part of the value in AA. Kill JFK and why bother buying AA.


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days ago) and read 17059 times:

Quoting avi8 (Reply 2):
I think JFK would stick around because of their European connections. If they remove JFK, where would those flights go? The O/D that goes from PHL to Europe is nothing compared to JFK. Therefore yields are higher at JFK. PHL would be more connecing traffic than anything resulting in very minimum, if any, profits.

US's European network from PHL is already bigger than AA's from JFK.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):

Call JFK a hub or not, it will be a very large part of a US/AA because of the presence AA has had in NYC. JFK generates lots of international traffic for AA to many destinations, this is part of the value in AA. Kill JFK and why bother buying AA.

I imagine JFK like PIT or BOS - some leftover legacy routes to cater to O&D. But connections would be routed through PHL, and a lot of flights would be cut.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days ago) and read 17004 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
Call JFK a hub or not, it will be a very large part of a US/AA because of the presence AA has had in NYC. JFK generates lots of international traffic for AA to many destinations, this is part of the value in AA. Kill JFK and why bother buying AA.

Completely agree. JFK isn't going anywhere.

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 4):
US's European network from PHL is already bigger than AA's from JFK.

PHL doesn't bring in the premium that JFK does!

Also, another thought. With an expanded presence in Washington D.C., would AA consider building some international flights at IAD?


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2311 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days ago) and read 16890 times:

Ignoring aeroblogger's nonsense.

Anyone with common sense knows all the AA hubs will stay.
DFW - No change
JFK - Will gain at PHL's expense
LAX - Won't gain many routes as T4 is limited in space. Hopefully Dougie will continue to expand asia.
MIA - Will gain some Caribbean routes at CLT's expense.
ORD - Very little change initially.


CLT - Remains as a southeast hub to challenge DL, but will lose Caribbean and possibly GIG.
PHL - Mostly for connecting domestic northeast traffic. Will retain O&D transatlantic traffic.
PHX - Draws down some. Will remain for intra-west routes west of DFW and East of LAX.

Quoting seatback (Reply 5):
Also, another thought. With an expanded presence in Washington D.C., would AA consider building some international flights at IAD?

The problem is that the expanded presence is at DCA and not IAD. AA would only fly to its hubs from IAD. That however may be enough to tempt IB to restart MAD-IAD again.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineplateman From United States of America, joined May 2007, 919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 16701 times:

According to an AP article --- Parker says no hubs would be closed in a US/AA merger


"Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
User currently offlinebrandonfsu05 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 151 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 16666 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 6):
CLT - Remains as a southeast hub to challenge DL, but will lose Caribbean and possibly GIG

lol US Airways runs twice as many total flights out of CLT than MIA. US Airways Caribbean flights are serving different markets at different frequencies than Miami. Miami is drawing a lot on O&D with connecting traffic coming from major cities. CLT draws traffic from major areas all across the United States and Canada as well as more regional markets. It's not like US Airways is serving PAP from CLT or something. Aside from Saturday only services, US Airways serves the Caribbean trunk routes out of CLT. I think CLT and MIA are complementary in that respect.

It's very possible that GIG will leave. However, if US/AA continued to grow CLT hub its very possible that CLT could get some additional South American service. I think overtime Brazil traffic will become less Miami/New York centric. Maybe later down the road you could see Brazil service again at CLT. CLT would pretty much be in the same situation it is in with PHL right now. CLT doesn't get any European routes first, PHL does. However, once PHL is established it brings the risk down in running a seasonal service/new route from CLT (MAD, DUB, CDG, 2nd FRA).

But I still don't think this merger is going to happen.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16693 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 16581 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 5):
Also, another thought. With an expanded presence in Washington D.C., would AA consider building some international flights at IAD?

No more so than US's former hub at LGA encouraged them to expand from JFK or EWR. DCA is a nice, lucrative niche for the combined carrier. The best they could hope for is further liberalization of the perimeter rules to allow for additional trans-Cons. If there were full liberalization I could see the combined AA pulling up stakes at IAD altogether, however I think what will happen will not be full liberalization but rather piece meal, as has been done already, based solely on the strength of various Congressional delegations.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 6):
JFK - Will gain at PHL's expense

I can see some A330s going to JFK, but without additional slots any hope of building up JFK to challenge DL is really unrealistic.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 6):
MIA - Will gain some Caribbean routes at CLT's expense.

I think CLT will continue as a Caribbean connecting point, when AA had their RDU hub they also had a nice sized Caribbean network from their to compliment what they had at MIA and SJU. CLT is a better connecting point for the Caribbean, less crowded, and much more diverse network of domestic connections opportunities.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 6):
ORD - Very little change initially.

I think with ORD they are either going to fight or flight, either refocus on rebuilding their competitive position or cut back to a focus city.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 16544 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 6):
Ignoring aeroblogger's nonsense.

Why? What's nonsense about it.

AA/US will be 4th in NYC - B6, UA, and DL all are serious competition. I'm not saying that they are going to close JFK down or turn it into a 2x daily per hub spoke or something, but I certainly expect them to scale down JFK in favor of PHL.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinemdtrunner From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16474 times:

Quoting plateman (Reply 7):
According to an AP article --- Parker says no hubs would be closed in a US/AA merger

Of course.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11121 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16472 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
Should US and AA merge in some form or fashion, how would their hubs be different? Or would they?

From an airport/terminal/facility standpoint, this would actually be a rather seamless and effortless combination/integration, with just a few notable exceptions. In each of the hub stations, combining operations would be very straightforward, as one airline is substantially larger than the other in each one. And in most of the spoke stations - including larger combined stations like BOS, EWR, RDU, MCO, AUS, SFO, SEA, and even DEN - where both carriers now operate, it should be fairly easy to combine operations into one facility footprint without much trouble. In some cases, like EWR, the two airlines already actually operate from the same terminal, basically next to each other, and in others, like BOS, they operate from terminals adjacent to each other (in BOS I suspect AA would move to the current USAirways side of B).

There are only a few places where I could see a combined carrier having challenges. The most obvious ones that leap to mind are LAX and LGA. Both airlines are already relatively large in both airports, and both already have relative large terminal footprints that are completely separate from each other. In both cases, I guess they could go on operating two separate operations, but that is so vastly suboptimal.

At LGA, I don't know what a viable solution would look like - too bad USAirways gave most of their terminal to Delta, as that would have been a perfect location for the combined operation. At LAX, the challenge is also big: I don't know how they would go about combining that. I could see everything from the minimal/bad (continuous T1-T4 busing), to the interim/half-measure (shift T1 ops to closer-to-T4/TBIT T3), to the radical change (work out a grand bargain and combine ops in T1/T2) - I have no idea how LAX would ultimately shake out.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
Whenever you have a merger of this magnitude, inevitably there will be some network casualties.

I think there would be some shifting among the hubs to optimize traffic flows. For example, some of traffic that USAirways presently flows over PHL to reach the west coast could more quickly and efficiently be moved over ORD, so I see some added capacity - with the right aircraft - in some northeast-Chicago markets. There could also be some shifts with some of the connections USAirways now routes out of the Pacific Northwest through PHX which could be far more directly served over ORD/DFW, etc. Same with PHX and LAX: PHX is a better connection point (in terms of geography and facilities) for domestic connections, particularly coming out of California, while LAX is obviously a better connection point for international and longhaul traffic (since PHX doesn't really have much of either).

Finally, I could also see some shifting of several PHL/CLT-Europe flights, with JFK benefiting. AA today uses many peak-hour slots at JFK for domestic flights, many on RJs, to feed Europe flights. With a huge hub down I-95 in PHL, many of those domestic connections, particularly to smaller U.S. markets, could be shifted there, freeing up JFK slots to be used for international flights and/or expanded connections to larger domestic stations. Specifically, I could see the combined company shifting VCE, TLV and GLA from PHL up to JFK, and I could see CLT-DUB also potentially moving up to JFK. I think it's also logical to expect a reduced schedule to Germany with the loss of Lufthansa, which I think would come in the form of PHL-FRA going to down to 1 daily (with the second frequency, perhaps reduced to a 752, possibly also shifted to JFK) and PHL-MUC eliminated entirely.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
There will also gains from some of the hubs no doubt.

Yep - particularly domestically. Over time, there would be a lot of gap-filling and dot-connecting, I suspect. There are various domestic routes that would instantly make much more sense given combined scale, and new markets, that each individual network would bring to the combined airline. As a few examples, I could see plenty of new markets easily working - such as ORD-PVD, ORD-PDX, DFW-BUF, PHL-AUS, LAX-PIT, BOS-STL, RDU-BOS, and on and on. Plus, I could actually see a combined airline getting back into some transcon markets like BOS-SFO - a market AA should be able to make work - and even growing the stable of DCA transcons (depending on how difficult it would be to shift DCA-PHX slots). If AA could move some of the PHX slots to other airports, I could see AA going 2x daily DCA-LAX, and possibly even making a go of DCA-SFO. A DCA network including LAX, SAN, SFO, LAS and PHX would be impressive.

Plus, there would of course be hub-to-hub additions - more flights DFW-CLT and DFW-PHL, more frequency and all-mainline ORD-DCA, definitely a shift to all-mainline ORD-PHL and MIA-CLT, and on and on. Internationally, I think it is logical to expect that CLT-LGW would quickly be shifted to CLT-LHR, and that PHL-LHR might get a second frequency, making a total of 4 AA/BA on the route, and that at least one of AA's PHL-LHR flights gets upgraded to a 777.

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 1):
I'd say goodbye to LAX, and JFK.

I wouldn't.

Quoting plateman (Reply 7):
According to an AP article --- Parker says no hubs would be closed in a US/AA merger

In this case, I actually do think all of a combined airline's hubs would be 'safe' - at least in the short- to medium-term, but nonetheless pronouncements from airline CEOs about how all the hubs are safe are rather meaningless. Literally every airline merger since 2000 has seen definitive guarantees like that and in every case they have ultimately been meaningless - airlines do whatever makes economic sense, whether that means growing or shrinking hubs, or closing them altogether.

Quoting brandonfsu05 (Reply 8):
lol US Airways runs twice as many total flights out of CLT than MIA. US Airways Caribbean flights are serving different markets at different frequencies than Miami. Miami is drawing a lot on O&D with connecting traffic coming from major cities. CLT draws traffic from major areas all across the United States and Canada as well as more regional markets. It's not like US Airways is serving PAP from CLT or something. Aside from Saturday only services, US Airways serves the Caribbean trunk routes out of CLT. I think CLT and MIA are complementary in that respect.

I generally agree that CLT and MIA are complimentary, but I would still expect some shifting of Caribbean capacity from CLT to MIA, which has vastly more O&D and which also can cater to connections from just about all the major U.S./Canadian markets that generate the vast majority of traffic to/from the Caribbean.

Quoting brandonfsu05 (Reply 8):
However, if US/AA continued to grow CLT hub its very possible that CLT could get some additional South American service.

I doubt it. Charlotte is still - even now - a primarily domestic hub, and I don't foresee that changing, particularly when it comes to South America. In a merger scenario, I do not foresee CLT retaining any South America service, but especially not GIG - South America connections can easily and efficiently be handled through MIA which, unlike CLT, actually has some real O&D to the region.

When it comes to CLT-GIG specifically, what I want to know is the status of the USAirways-Delta transaction regarding the GIG-for-GRU route authority swap. If that is still in force, and is not precluded by some contractual language anticipating a merger such as this, then I think the more interesting question is what will AA do with another GRU opportunity? GIG is now effectively open, GRU is not. If AA was able to get its hands on seven more frequencies to GRU, I could see them potentially going for ORD-GRU.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
I can see some A330s going to JFK, but without additional slots any hope of building up JFK to challenge DL is really unrealistic.

Agreed. I think some of the A330s could make sense at JFK for markets like FCO, BCN, etc. But I don't think slots would be an issue at all - an impediment - to AA growing their JFK-Europe schedule a bit. Again - AA warehouses many of their peak-hour JFK slots on domestic connecting flights that could now easily be served over PHL, freeing up those slots to be used for international flying. And as for parity with DL out of JFK/NYC - this merger wouldn't bring it, nor would it need to. AA would now have a huge, far-less-competitive, connecting hub just down the road from NYC that could handle most of the connections, freeing AA's JFK (and LGA) operation to be more tailored and focused on O&D. AA has tons of JFK slots that could be very smartly deployed for this purpose, obviously with an emphasis on longhaul and transcon, and the combined AA also has tons of LGA slots that could be very smartly deployed for this same purpose on domestic flights. Unlike in the last few years, AA actually no longer needs a New York hub - the purpose it would have served is largely filled by PHL. What AA is now free to do in New York is return to its natural role as a strong O&D presence.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
I think with ORD they are either going to fight or flight, either refocus on rebuilding their competitive position or cut back to a focus city.

I don't expect ORD to go anywhere. This merger would give AA the opportunity - finally - to be freed of contractual restrictions that limited the ability to effectively serve the ORD market. Namely, I see plenty of A319s and 70-90-seat capacity flowing into ORD to 'rightsize' the hub, plus actually some additions in some markets where AA severely cut back (or ended altogether) service since 9/11 but where the 'new AA' would be a big player (markets like BUF, ALB, BDL, PVD, etc.). Plus, again, lots more capacity on ORD-DCA and ORD-PHL.

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 10):
AA/US will be 4th in NYC - B6, UA, and DL all are serious competition.

Actually, AA is already - and still would be - #3 in New York metro, which is perfectly acceptable. Again - United and Delta need to be huge in New York because they need it as a hub. Both have other upper midwest alternatives (ORD, DTW, CLE), and United has IAD, but in both cases they are now using one or multiple New York airports as a prime connecting point in and out of the northeast, and across the Atlantic. AA no longer needs that - they've got it at PHL (and frankly, as operationally challenging as PHL is, it's certainly no worse than EWR/LGA/JFK, and I think it could be argued that in some ways it's actually better). So AA would now happily be able to focus their JFK/LGA schedules more towards O&D, and less towards connections, and let Delta and United duke it out for dominance.

[Edited 2012-04-21 07:51:34]

User currently onlinedelta2ual From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16331 times:

Quoting plateman (Reply 7):
According to an AP article --- Parker says no hubs would be closed in a US/AA merger

Famous last words repeated in every airline merger.



From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16693 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16239 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 10):
AA/US will be 4th in NYC - B6, UA, and DL all are serious competition. I'm not saying that they are going to close JFK down or turn it into a 2x daily per hub spoke or something, but I certainly expect them to scale down JFK in favor of PHL.
Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
At LGA, I don't know what a viable solution would look like - too bad USAirways gave most of their terminal to Delta, as that would have been a perfect location for the combined operation.

Sometime within the next ten years the Port Authority will have finally replaced the CTB at LGA, they are currently soliciting bids, at which point the combined AA would have the most space in the nicest Terminal at the airport.

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
I generally agree that CLT and MIA are complimentary, but I would still expect some shifting of Caribbean capacity from CLT to MIA, which has vastly more O&D and which also can cater to connections from just about all the major U.S./Canadian markets that generate the vast majority of traffic to/from the Caribbean.

MIA has two things going against it, high emplanement costs per passenger (highest in the Country?) and notorious Customs and Immigration processing. For leisure destinations like the Caribbean I definetly see CLT continuing it's prominent role. CLT's costs per passenger are significantly lower than MIA thus allowing to compete on price with the likes of B6, NK and eventually WN. Also the Customs and Immigration situation is a more "tranquil" experience than MIA.

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
I doubt it. Charlotte is still - even now - a primarily domestic hub, and I don't foresee that changing, particularly when it comes to South America. In a merger scenario, I do not foresee CLT retaining any South America service, but especially not GIG - South America connections can easily and efficiently be handled through MIA which, unlike CLT, actually has some real O&D to the region.

I can see the CLT-GIG flight changed to CLT-GRU, and Central America flights continuing from CLT for the same reasons as I mentioned about the Caribbean.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11121 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16039 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 14):
Sometime within the next ten years the Port Authority will have finally replaced the CTB at LGA, they are currently soliciting bids, at which point the combined AA would have the most space in the nicest Terminal at the airport.

Seeing as it's New York, I am not holding my breath. Certainly - yes, if that were to occur, it would be great for all involved (most of all the passengers), but ten years is a loooooooong time in New York.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 14):
MIA has two things going against it, high emplanement costs per passenger (highest in the Country?) and notorious Customs and Immigration processing. For leisure destinations like the Caribbean I definetly see CLT continuing it's prominent role. CLT's costs per passenger are significantly lower than MIA thus allowing to compete on price with the likes of B6, NK and eventually WN. Also the Customs and Immigration situation is a more "tranquil" experience than MIA.

I agree that CLT won't lose all or even most of its Caribbean service (much of which consists of weekend flying, anyway). There is a balance - no question. CLT is much lower-cost - no question. But, there is a countervailing argument that works to MIA's favor: MIA has dramatically more O&D, and, somewhat as a result, it also has substantially higher yields. So, what I think may occur - as you suggest - MIA is focused on O&D and higher-yielding connections, while CLT remains a lower-cost, but lower-yielding, connecting point primarily tailored to leisure travelers going to the islands. This should sound familiar - this is essentially the exact arrangement AA had with SJU and MIA, respectively, up until about five years ago.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 14):
I can see the CLT-GIG flight changed to CLT-GRU, and Central America flights continuing from CLT for the same reasons as I mentioned about the Caribbean.

I just don't see CLT staying a gateway to South America when there are other hubs with far more O&D and when MIA can replicate probably 3/4 or more of the connections CLT handles to/from GIG today - the vast majority of which are almost certainly coming from a short list of probably 15-20 big markets, all of which are likely served by AA over MIA.


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15983 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
(in BOS I suspect AA would move to the current USAirways side of B).

In BOS, the plan was to build a connector between the 2 parts last time I checked...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 14):

Sometime within the next ten years the Port Authority will have finally replaced the CTB at LGA, they are currently soliciting bids, at which point the combined AA would have the most space in the nicest Terminal at the airport.

Indeed. But there is more that goes into route planning decisions than how nice the terminal is.

Quoting plateman (Reply 7):
According to an AP article --- Parker says no hubs would be closed in a US/AA merger

The announcement generally comes after all parties have agreed and all approvals have been granted.

And I don't forsee a complete shutdown of any hub - just some serious scaling back. Even the cities that get dehubbed will have a significant amount of service from the combined carrier.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8868 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15842 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
I generally agree that CLT and MIA are complimentary, but I would still expect some shifting of Caribbean capacity from CLT to MIA, which has vastly more O&D and which also can cater to connections from just about all the major U.S./Canadian markets that generate the vast majority of traffic to/from the Caribbean.

Agree completely. Your major markets to the Caribbean (SJU, STT, AUA, MBJ, CUN) will all stay in some way, shape or form. The cities that would most likely lose are the once-a-week flights, which US offers quite a few of out of CLT - it might make sense to run a couple of those for a few months out of the year, but I don't see them all sticking around. Most of the major markets can be run over Miami as it stands.

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
I doubt it. Charlotte is still - even now - a primarily domestic hub, and I don't foresee that changing, particularly when it comes to South America. In a merger scenario, I do not foresee CLT retaining any South America service, but especially not GIG - South America connections can easily and efficiently be handled through MIA which, unlike CLT, actually has some real O&D to the region.
Quoting STT757 (Reply 14):
I can see the CLT-GIG flight changed to CLT-GRU, and Central America flights continuing from CLT for the same reasons as I mentioned about the Caribbean.

I just can't see Charlotte keeping South America service out of this. As it stands, US has a lot of connections to Orlando on that flight to help make it work - you can just as easily route those passengers over Miami in a combined carrier and save yourself from backhauling 1100 miles each way. If US gets a GRU authority, I agree with the post upthread saying you'd likely see it placed on ORD first.

As for other network, I'd bet heavily that the Republic E-170/175s would be in ORD very quickly, and you'd see a lot of those US stations in the Northeast having a second carrier to ORD now. AA doesn't serve MHT, PWM, BTV, PVD, etc., and has a token presence to ORD from cities such as BDL. All these cities are well represented by US Airways, and United has pulled back pretty significantly in many of these cities out of ORD. It'd be a very logical fit to quickly strengthen ORD's place in the network, as they will now have the right planes for it and the well-established stations out East.

LAX, I don't expect much to change. US isn't that big of a player there - something like 18 flights a day (5x PHL, 5x CLT, 8x PHX). I'm not sure how they'll fit them into Terminal 4 but I expect a pretty as-is situation there.

PHX will likely see some cuts, but not a ton - it's a convenient way to get into several smaller west coast communities that would be too long of a hop from DFW, and too hard to get into congested LAX. Cuts you'd see might be some pruning of east coast flying that could be done over DFW (and ORD).

DFW would stay mostly as-is. I wouldn't be shocked to see some cities get dropped (FAT is probably a better choice to put through PHX than DFW) but nothing drastic.


User currently offlineIADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15794 times:

If US leaves Star Alliance and joins Onewrold, how long will it take for US to extricate itself from Star and join Oneworld?

What is the procedure for this? Will US have to pay Star some fee?

For other reasons, I just dont see this US/AA merger happening. It is just my gut feeling.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16693 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15747 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 15):
but ten years is a loooooooong time in New York.

Probably closer to five.

Quoting IADLHR (Reply 18):
If US leaves Star Alliance and joins Onewrold, how long will it take for US to extricate itself from Star and join Oneworld?

It took CO about a year to leave Skyteam, and it didn't cost them anything.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15665 times:

I don't see PHL surviving as a hub. Every single time I've booked a flight to the East Coast from Europe US always has the cheapest fare. And this has been ongoing for some years now. JFK is a yield cash cow and I don't think that is going to change. JFK is indeed zero practical as a hub airport but there's only two ways of getting to NYC from the other side of the Atlantic and you just have to put up with it.

PHX might have a shot, but DFW is much more powerful and essentially does the same job. I wouldn't be on the operating being anything bigger than LAX (in terms of hubbing) in 2-3 years.

CLT is the only one I see surviving - and that's just because there's space to grow.

Since US Airways is going to get absorbed into the OW sphere, I'm not expecting any major changes to OW's strategy - only add ons. Overall the number of seats being offered on Europe-NA should come down.

It will be interesting where those 330s will end up though. I'm betting AA will swiftly move their 757s from European routes as soon as they have the chance and put 330s on them.


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1804 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15615 times:

I assume the combined airline would create a short term and long term plan for their hub / network structure.

Short term they will work on integration of ops at each hub and probably not make any significant changes. Longer term, they will look at how each hub performs and determine which stays and which goes. I do not believe they have will have a firm answer at the time of merger, but will wait to see how the combined network performs before making any changes.

With this said, the slot limitations of JFK during peak times severely hampers AA's ability to develop a full fledged hub at JFK. Slots may be available during other times of the day, but they are available for a reason - they are not optimal times.

Similarly, LAX's terminal constraints also limit LAX's ability to develop into a full fledged hub. Furthermore, it is an airport fragmented by 4 carriers.

It will be difficult for AA to become the dominant carrier at either LAX or JFK. Therefore, I can see both JFK & LAX reduced to just O&D focused travel with a few connections to provide feed for international routes.

The dominance of the carrier in DFW, MIA, CLT, PHL, DCA would mean that these hubs are secure and should remain profitable.

The wild cards are ORD and PHX. I still believe that a combined AA/US in PHX (combined market share approaching 50% w/ regionals) would reach the critical tipping point that would cause WN to reduce ops in PHX in favor of LAS & DEN.

I think AA will ultimately keep the ORD hub. However, I think the true question becomes how large of a hub it will be.

Quoting seatback (Reply 5):
Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 4):
US's European network from PHL is already bigger than AA's from JFK.

PHL doesn't bring in the premium that JFK does!

But it brings in much more domestic and international connecting traffic than JFK.


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15411 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 20):
I don't see PHL surviving as a hub. Every single time I've booked a flight to the East Coast from Europe US always has the cheapest fare. And this has been ongoing for some years now.

That is because they are left out of the JVs across the pond, and therefore have to charge lower rates than the cartels.

Quoting EricR (Reply 21):
I assume the combined airline would create a short term and long term plan for their hub / network structure.

Short term they will work on integration of ops at each hub and probably not make any significant changes. Longer term, they will look at how each hub performs and determine which stays and which goes. I do not believe they have will have a firm answer at the time of merger, but will wait to see how the combined network performs before making any changes.

With this said, the slot limitations of JFK during peak times severely hampers AA's ability to develop a full fledged hub at JFK. Slots may be available during other times of the day, but they are available for a reason - they are not optimal times.

Similarly, LAX's terminal constraints also limit LAX's ability to develop into a full fledged hub. Furthermore, it is an airport fragmented by 4 carriers.

It will be difficult for AA to become the dominant carrier at either LAX or JFK. Therefore, I can see both JFK & LAX reduced to just O&D focused travel with a few connections to provide feed for international routes.

The dominance of the carrier in DFW, MIA, CLT, PHL, DCA would mean that these hubs are secure and should remain profitable.

The wild cards are ORD and PHX. I still believe that a combined AA/US in PHX (combined market share approaching 50% w/ regionals) would reach the critical tipping point that would cause WN to reduce ops in PHX in favor of LAS & DEN.

I think AA will ultimately keep the ORD hub. However, I think the true question becomes how large of a hub it will be.

I pretty much agree completely. LAX and JFK are just not markets which US/AA can "win" - their resources would be better utilized elsewhere. I expect ORD to stick around simply because there isn't another choice in the midwest, but it will probably be scaled down. PHX will probably grow, simply because that west coast capacity from LAX has to be moved somewhere...



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15261 times:

This is fun, so I will throw in my two cents.

Unlike the Delta/NWA merger, and the United/Continental merger, I don't think there will be as much shifting of the combined AA/US merger as far as the network goes. This is what I see happening over the first 24 months.

(1) JFK will still play a very important role because of British Airways and other One World partners. Because of PHL, JFK will focus more on O&D. I can see JFK staying pretty much the way it is right now, however I can see AA investing heavily in their trans-cons to increase their service in-flight as well as frequencies in order to recapture market share lost to Delta and United. The new management team may even keep 767's on the route rather than shift to 737's and A321's like AA is currently planning sense many of their high paying customers prefer wide-body's over small narrow bodies. AA will use mostly 777's and 787's out of JFK and may even launch flights to Asia with the new 787's as they come on-line.

(2) PHL - I can see a major investment over time into PHL with remodeling in order to make PHL competitive with EWR and Delta at JFK. I think AA will turn PHL into their major European gateway, launching many additional routes out of PHL, whereas JFK will focus on London. JFK will fly more 777's Trans-Atlantic, but PHL will get more 767's, 757's and the A330's. I don't believe they will fly to Asia out of PHL, or even much South America service leaving that to JFK and MIA.

(3) ORD will undergo a major expansion which will be supported by the additional cities that AA will gain from the US merger around the North East and South East. The new management team will double down on ORD and bring a fight to United. I also think that ORD may even get some additional Europe flying and possibly Asia flying when the 787's come on-line.

(4) MIA will continue to do what it is doing, which is primarily a Caribbean and Central/South American gateway. Because of CLT, MIA may have many banks re-timed to focus more on these connections and shift domestic connections through CLT.

(5) CLT will get a haircut similar to what Delta did to MSP. They may hang onto a London and Paris flight, but most passengers will be routed through PHL and JFK to Europe. Also many cities that are served with main-line flights will go to 70 seat regional AC. CLT will pay an important role, but mostly as a domestic connecting hub and provide feed into the AA network from the Southeast where AA really doesn't have much presence right now.

(6) DFW will GROW!!! And the new management team will focus on Mexico and Central America launching many new routes. The DFW metro-plex economy is on fire and the new management team is going to reassert themselves and push out Spirit.

(7) LAX will probably grow some. It's an important market, and I think that the US management team sees the bigger picture when it comes to AA's current Asia presence. because AA, unlike Delta and United, does not have a large network or an Asia hub in NRT or HKG, they will re-trench in LA in order to launch many new non-stop Trans-Pacific and South-Pacific flights with 787's to major markets.

(8) PHX will be the major looser in this merger. I think AA will keep a small hub/focus city there utilizing regional jets to small markets in the southwest that will then feed into main-line AA flights into PHX and then connect into other AA hubs. I think they will keep a few mainline non-hub flights to places like SFO, LAS, SEA and DIA, but for the most part, the mainline flights will be into LAX, DFW, PHL, JFK, and ORD. I do not believe PHX will get any international service other than to maybe a few Mexico destinations because O&D is vital. If AA makes a serious play for Asia, it will be through LAX, ORD, and JFK.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11121 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 14976 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 16):
In BOS, the plan was to build a connector between the 2 parts last time I checked...

With the new American in oneworld, there is really no need to connect the two sides of B, nor for United to build out the AA side of B. I believe that with some creative shifting around the combined AA operations in BOS could all fit into the USAirways terminal. Given that, Massport's ongoing airline-terminal merry-go-round problems have just been solved: A is Delta, B-West is American, B-East is United, and C is JetBlue. Done and done.

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 17):
I just can't see Charlotte keeping South America service out of this. As it stands, US has a lot of connections to Orlando on that flight to help make it work - you can just as easily route those passengers over Miami in a combined carrier and save yourself from backhauling 1100 miles each way.

  

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 17):
As for other network, I'd bet heavily that the Republic E-170/175s would be in ORD very quickly, and you'd see a lot of those US stations in the Northeast having a second carrier to ORD now. AA doesn't serve MHT, PWM, BTV, PVD, etc., and has a token presence to ORD from cities such as BDL. All these cities are well represented by US Airways, and United has pulled back pretty significantly in many of these cities out of ORD. It'd be a very logical fit to quickly strengthen ORD's place in the network, as they will now have the right planes for it and the well-established stations out East.

Exactly.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 20):
I don't see PHL surviving as a hub. Every single time I've booked a flight to the East Coast from Europe US always has the cheapest fare. And this has been ongoing for some years now.

I don't see why not. PHL is a very large population center, with a lot of O&D and business demand, and in a perfectly fine location to serve as a viable northeast hub. Is PHL as big a market as New York? No. But it's also not nearly as competitive, as USAirways today dominates the PHL market. Plus, there is only one airport in New York that can really ever serve as a true omnidirectional, domestic-and-international, multi-bank hub, and that's EWR. With that obviously taken, PHL is actually probably the next best bet for a northeast hub - better than any "split hub" concept between JFK/LGA, and probably just as good as IAD could ever be (IAD is less congested, but also serves a smaller/split market).

Quoting Talaier (Reply 20):
JFK is a yield cash cow and I don't think that is going to change. JFK is indeed zero practical as a hub airport but there's only two ways of getting to NYC from the other side of the Atlantic and you just have to put up with it.

Agreed - AA's operations in New York in general (and at JFK) generate some great yields and revenue, and that need not change. JFK and PHL can coexist together - it need not be one or the other.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 20):
It will be interesting where those 330s will end up though. I'm betting AA will swiftly move their 757s from European routes as soon as they have the chance and put 330s on them.

I could envision a reshuffling where some of those A330s make their way onto denser Europe routes (JFK-FCO, MIA-BCN) and some of the South America flights (MIA-SCL, MIA-CNF, etc.).

Quoting EricR (Reply 21):
It will be difficult for AA to become the dominant carrier at either LAX or JFK. Therefore, I can see both JFK & LAX reduced to just O&D focused travel with a few connections to provide feed for international routes.

Well what you've just described - "O&D focused travel with a few connections to provide feed for international routes" - is basically what AA has now at both LAX and JFK. And I agree that is perfectly fine. Continue to optimize both LAX and JFK primarily for O&D and international/longhaul and use alternative hubs to handle more of the connections.

Quoting EricR (Reply 21):
The dominance of the carrier in DFW, MIA, CLT, PHL, DCA would mean that these hubs are secure and should remain profitable.

Agreed.

Quoting EricR (Reply 21):
The wild cards are ORD and PHX. I still believe that a combined AA/US in PHX (combined market share approaching 50% w/ regionals) would reach the critical tipping point that would cause WN to reduce ops in PHX in favor of LAS & DEN.

Isn't USAirways already at that "tipping point" in PHX? It doesn't appear to have slowed Southwest down. I think with the right CASM PHX makes sense, but I doubt the mere fact of AA (which is today basically a bit player in PHX) and USAirways merging is going to lead Southwest to reduce operations in PHX. I can understand a prediction for future growth to be more focused on LAS and DEN, but I don't think Southwest is going anywhere in PHX.

Quoting EricR (Reply 21):
I think AA will ultimately keep the ORD hub. However, I think the true question becomes how large of a hub it will be.

Again - I think that ORD will likely remain basically exactly the same size it is today - and actually grow somewhat - in terms of frequencies. Where ORD will change will be in terms of capacity. AA has for years been hamstrung by a pilot contract that prevented it from economically operating the right aircraft to compete in the 3-way Chicago battle. Now, with access to the trove of large RJs that USAirways operates, AA finally would have an opportunity to right-size ORD capacity, and also grow into some new markets where the 'new American' has more critical mass than AA has today.

Quoting Squid (Reply 23):
I can see AA investing heavily in their trans-cons to increase their service in-flight as well as frequencies in order to recapture market share lost to Delta and United.

I don't disagree, except that AA hasn't really lose market share to Delta and United. AA (and Delta and United) have all lost market share to JetBlue and Virgin America.

Quoting Squid (Reply 23):
PHL - I can see a major investment over time into PHL with remodeling in order to make PHL competitive with EWR and Delta at JFK.

Agree. PHL is a viable hub, and AA has traditionally (may change, but I doubt it) prided itself on having fairly solid, high-quality facilities at its main hubs. PHL needs work - A-West is nice, but the rest of the terminal could use some refurbishment and optimization.

Quoting Squid (Reply 23):
I don't believe they will fly to Asia out of PHL

It may seem far-fetched, but down the line, I honestly don't think a JAL 787 PHL-NRT would be out of the picture. With BOS hours away from getting a NRT flight, PHL has got to now be one of the largest U.S. metro areas and air markets without a nonstop flight to Asia. USAirways failed multiple times, but with a oneworld hub at both ends, a joint AA/JL NRT flight could work.


25 United777ORD : AA+US Hubs: DFW- Largest hub with 750+ daily flights CLT- 2nd largest hub with 475 flights ORD- 3rd largest hub with 450 flights PHL- 4th largest hub
26 MAV88 : I wonder if there is a chance that a merged US and AA will lead to more European flying out of MIA. I am sure there are some holes to file in the MIA-
27 MAH4546 : AA is already larger than B6 in NYC based on FEB11-JAN12. So combining them will only build that lead stronger. To say that AA/US will leave it's num
28 Post contains images commavia : A combined 'new AA' would be a solid #3 in the New York market, which is perfectly fine, and just where it would need to be, since it would no longer
29 Post contains images PHX787 : Here we go.....again -_- I agree. Bye-bye to LAX. AA/US can never hold up to the UA and DL presence there. Sure, there will be some international rout
30 MAH4546 : What on earth are you talking about?!? A combined AA+US will be the single largest airline at LAX! AA as it stands alone is not much smaller than UA+
31 USAirALB : The problem with CLT is that it would probably a unwise decision to give up the Piedmont Atlantic area all to DL. A lot of people are saying all of t
32 kamboi : What name will survive AA or US? Will they have new livery or use one or the other depending on combined name?
33 ckfred : [quote=kamboi,reply=32]What name will survive AA or US? Will they have new livery or use one or the other depending on combined name? According to the
34 CIDFlyer : AA 100% for sure, as for the livery while I still love AA's current classic one, it might be time to refreshen it with a new image, plus with the air
35 flyguy89 : No one is saying that. Obviously the major trunk routes would remain, but the fact is that there would now be another connecting complex better-suite
36 stlgph : As reported on Friday, Philadelphia will take the largest hit. Charlotte will also be affected some. The "hub" situation on the east coast will be dep
37 commavia : This combined airline would always have been branded 'American' - regardless of the circumstances - as the AA brand is substantially larger, older, a
38 MAH4546 : London is Charlotte's largest local market by far to Europe. And Munich is also a larger local market than Frankfurt from Charlotte. Charlotte would
39 DeltAirlines : What are you basing this on aside from hometown optimism and other types of thoughts? Look at Phoenix to cities up and down the West Coast and Rockie
40 bobloblaw : CLT has more connecting passengers than MIA does. It is about higher yielding connecting passengers from small and midsized communities that can flow
41 PHX787 : I hope post-merger the livery changes. It's too 70s and I don't like old-fashion. Just personal opinions
42 Beeski : American Airlines will be the name, no idea on livery. Our foreign armchair CEO's need to understand the huge O&D at JFK, LAX and MIA.....those h
43 MAH4546 : You mean communities like Norfolk, Richmond, Charleston, Birmingham and Louisville? They all have non-stop service to MIA already. Tiny communities l
44 Post contains images Byrdluvs747 : It seems as though a number of people here are spouting nonsense about LAX going away, not knowing the role LAX truly serves. LAX isn't just a hub for
45 USAirALB : Well, US must disagree with you because from May 24th to October 26th, there will be two daily flights on CLT-FRA. -US flight 704(A333) CLT-FRA depar
46 flyguy89 : Geez...why don't you just bite his head off That they're adding a second flight is no real surprise, both CLT and FRA are large Star hubs. I've seen
47 USAirALB : I don't know what the PDEW is and frankly, could care less. I was just stating the fact that US is adding a second flight, and I believe that the car
48 flyguy89 : Well then yes, I completely agree
49 jfk777 : PHL and JFK do different fuctions and the 2 will continue to do what they currently do in a US/AA merger. PHL will be the major gateway to Europe and
50 USAirALB : Should the merger go through, and LH decide to leave CLT, I wonder if BA would resume CLT..Highly unlikely IMHO.
51 flyguy89 : Oh I wouldn't say it's all that unlikely. Give it a year or two after the merger settles and I'm sure you'll see a BA tail in CLT. What FRA is for US
52 southwest737500 : Do you guys see IB or BA coming to CLT because of the OW
53 USAirALB : The next year or two at CLT will sure be interesting. A BA 763 is probably ideal for CLT. With the new airline, won't MAD serve the same purpose as F
54 EricR : Well, yes & no. With respect to JFK - yes. However, AA has clearly developed LAX as a domestic and international connecting hub. I think this is
55 FLALEFTY : Very simply, the hubs in trouble if this merger goes down are PHX, CLT and ORD. First, with a stronger western-to-eastern feed DFW will overcome the n
56 USAirALB : What are you talking about? PHL and MIA are too close? CLT to become a PIT?
57 FLALEFTY : Okay, PHL is the established US hub to Europe. It has more flights than CLT and serves the northeast and middle west with significant connecting traf
58 southwest737500 : CLT will be fine, PHL will not be.
59 DeltAirlines : But it's not when you look at the domestic route network. There are only two real hubs in the Southeast United States - Atlanta and Charlotte. A pass
60 tommy767 : I echo the responses that PHL will be OK. PHL is the alternate to UA at EWR -- an all in one TATL mega hub in the mid Atlantic. As said, only UA's se
61 Post contains images LordMontenegro : In a perfect world, and in my own uninformed and mathematically challenged little mind, I could see all of the hubs working together and complementing
62 kcrwflyer : So..PHX will become a strong hub at some point in the future? Interesting. I think you're discounting the importance of feed from smaller cities, whi
63 FLALEFTY : Excellent point. But I think the day of the big domestic hub is declining. Many of these hubs were established during the Big 80's when $20-per-bbl o
64 nomorerjs : Parker knows AA and the network US will acquire. CLT will lose focus to the Caribbean and SA in favor of MIA, but remain a strong hub (unlike failed a
65 MAH4546 : No, I'm not discounting, those cities have absolutely tiny, insignificant Caribbean markets, even when taken cumulatively - I can look up the O&D
66 flyguy89 : Not at all, especially considering the combined carrier would be able to use larger, more economical RJ's. The MIA flights from the cities you've men
67 USAirALB : Looking at CLT's current Caribbean network, I'd expecting the following to stay: BDA,AUA,GCM,MBJ,NAS,PUJ,STT,SXM,SJU. PLS and FPO may stay. ANU,BGI,ST
68 AVLAirlineFreq : Agreed. CLT will keep some frequencies to the larger Caribbean/Central America/Mexican markets, if only because MIA doesn't have the regional feed CL
69 brandonfsu05 : Yes, but at what frequencies? No one is saying your precious MIA isn't a super amazing hub. But, MIA is so far south that it can't pick up on some of
70 chepos : If the meger goes through we would see CLT-MUC dropped in a heartbeat. LH would loose it's feed on the CLT end as the star partner would no longer be
71 MAH4546 : Twice daily for most of the entire Eagle network from MIA to small Southeast markets. There will be no need for the secondary Charlotte-Caribbean fli
72 Squid : Anyone that believes that PHX will be the winner over LAX is not living in reality. And that goes for people that believe CLT will close too. MIA is N
73 CIDFlyer : sorry, but totally have to disagree on this one...First off, CLT is US's largest hub with about 650 flights a day, I think PHL has something like 450
74 2travel2know2 : Isn't AA "in de-hubing stage" STL located in the midwest? AA moving its hub to STL leaving ORD with its more profitable O/D routes would be a very dr
75 USAirALB : I look at it like this...LH has been flying the route for around 9 years now. The flight has stimulated the local market and CLTMUC is the largest O/
76 AAIL86 : The whole point of these mergers is to be aggressive. Delta has been über-aggressive as we all know. I suspect UA will grow increasingly so as its me
77 southwest737500 : LH has been flying this route for 9 years, there not going anywhere no matter what happens
78 flyguy89 : No need to get petty about all this. For North/South international traffic flows it absolutely can. Sure you won't see MIA with 600 plus daily flight
79 MAH4546 : I am not picking a prom group. I am looking at what spokes the Rome market is best-served with a combined US-AA network while still keeping capacity
80 Post contains images Mcoov : I say: Keep JFK for what it has, but strengthen PHL as a potential successor. Also, get friendly with Amtrak. Since PHL is roughly equidistant from bo
81 HPRamper : Maybe not after AA moves lower-yielding connecting traffic away from LAX to PHX, as they should if they want to properly utilize LAX with an O&D
82 Post contains images PHX787 : I don't really know why US is going for this merger if 2 of their 3 key hubs are going to be shut down, according to all of you. If CLT and PHX meant
83 crAAzy : Here's an interesting thought .... Is it possible that pre-merger US could decide to work out another slot swap? Only this time DCA-JFK and/or LGA-JFK
84 jamake1 : Disagree with you there buddy. PHX likely will be the biggest loser in a AA-US tie-up. Also, the OP omitted DCA. With that said, my take is the follo
85 jamake1 : My bad PHX787, I meant to quote HPRamper.
86 kcrwflyer : I don't think anyone that knows how CLT performs has said it will be shut down or scaled down. PHX, however, would appear to be the weakest US hub an
87 EricR : How are you defining stronger? DCA is slot controlled so the combined airline could not increase its presence at DCA w/o acquiring additional slots.
88 NYCAAer : I am amazed by how many people think JFK/LGA would just become a focus city for O & D traffic. Currently at AA, we sell more seats in the premium
89 aeroblogger : Upgauging aircraft is an option - lots of RJs in US' DCA operation.
90 commavia : It's really only 1 out of 3 (or 3.5 depending on how you 'count' DCA). I don't agree with those who suggest that if this is to happen, CLT and PHL wi
91 EricR : Speaking for myself, and myself only, I will say that AA will retain some type of hub presence for international flights, but it is extremely difficu
92 RyeFly : If Jerry Orr (CLT's airport director) is willing to spend $1 Billion to upgrade CLT by adding a new international terminal , 4th parellel runway, etc,
93 iFlyLOTs : Could we see US/AA trying to open up a hub somewhere in Asia? Like what DL has with NRT or UA with GUM? They would definitely need more coverage in As
94 PHXA340 : Where do you propose the new AA funnels west coast and mountain west traffic through ? LAX is out of gates.
95 flyguy89 : Master plans mean nothing in the grand scheme of things and are absolutely no indication of any 'insider' knowledge concerning US/AA plans for CLT. Y
96 Squid : This is highly unlikely. United and Delta's hubs in NRT are assets that were acquired from Pan Am and Northwest, which were developed in a bygone era
97 Post contains images AWACSooner :
98 brandonfsu05 : When you look at the time blocks Not agreeing/disagreeing...just pointing out that your logic is flawed. Let's not assume what may have been true for
99 kgaiflyer : Maybe hand LAX Terminal 1 over FL-WN ? Perhaps concentrate on AA-QF Terminal 4 which has underutilized mainline gates.
100 HPRamper : Those don't contradict one another. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of those premium seats are bought by O&D passengers. I don't t
101 CIDFlyer : No way CLT goes, its the only other viable hub in the southeast. That's akin to saying DL should have closed DTW and MSP. CLT brings the southeast to
102 HONDAH35 : PHX might indeed become a net loser in this whole thing, but it would certainly have more to do with overall industry strength than anything else. DF
103 flyguy89 : Exactly...only just now, after having merged with NW and capitalizing on their Midwest market share is DL returning/expanding ATL service to these ma
104 southwest737500 : Are you kidding me, CLT will stay as a hub, It might loss GIG but CLT is not going anywhere, it's cheap to operate out of, CLT is the most profitable
105 Post contains images caliboy78 : OK here are my two cents..... LAX is in the process of spending $20 million in renewing the Eagle terminal to make it bigger and more comfortable for
106 southwest737500 : I don't think CLT will loose any European routes, they preform really well,
107 Post contains images flyguy89 : I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Did you not read the post that you quoted from me where I said: The 'Preview The Post' button is there for
108 southwest737500 : Oops my bad, I clicked on the wrong user, sorry about that
109 Post contains images kgaiflyer : I wonder what will happen to the timber-and-drywall, rat infested American Eagle terminal east of LAX Terminal 8? Keep the infrastructure? Send the r
110 msp747 : I think this is a point that people are missing, ignoring, or overlooking when they say Phoenix will be dropped as a hub. I mean how much room does L
111 laca773 : Those 734s won't be around for too much longer. They are being replaced with A319/A320/A321s. How does PHX do so poorly? Do their hub flights to ORD,
112 Post contains images kgaiflyer : Also, will it be a ten-minute, ultra-slow-speed bus ride (away from terminal 4) be replaced? Will the far less than-top tier concessions in the AE te
113 AAIL86 : MUC-CLT will certainly be toast. CLT-FCO could be on the bubble as well. Otherwise, I generally agree - can't see a complete drawdown of CLT's Europe
114 caliboy78 : The eagle terminal will stay where it is right now.... the investment is to try to make it bigger and more confortable for the passengers and a bit b
115 HPRamper : It doesn't do poorly. That is pure conjecture on the part of A.netters. It might not be the highest-yielding US hub - in fact, it may have the lowest
116 LAXdude1023 : Ill go ahead and give my take on it (listed in order from hubs I see changing the least to the most): DFW: Stays primarily the same, however I could s
117 Nutsaboutplanes : Does anybody know what the total flight count is for DL at SLC? PHX for US is at about 190 mainline departures per day and about 100 express departur
118 Sydscott : Re DCA - surely a combined US and AA will have to divest a hefty number of slots at DCA given that US starts the process with around 50% of total dep
119 HPRamper : Why...since the airline would inherit the already-existing AA DCA-LAX?
120 Sydscott : SAN isn't a hub. LAX is. Having multiple dailies from one focus city to another hub/focus city could be a better option network wise for the combined
121 United777ORD : AA+US Hubs: DFW- Largest hub with 750+ daily flights CLT- 2nd largest hub with 475 flights ORD- 3rd largest hub with 450 flights PHL- 4th largest hub
122 MAH4546 : And lose the defense an aerospace traffic that prefers Dulles? I don't think so. Dulles itself serves a very important not easily replaced by Reagan.
123 EricR : Is this even possible? Not only would these flights be moved to JFK during the peak travel time of the day when additional flight operations at JFK a
124 CIDFlyer : I wanna say between 260-280 daily flights....I dont think they have reached 300 dailies yet but could be close to it.
125 RWA380 : Of course he said this, he wanted the support of the AA unions. Parker is not an idiot, if he's willing to lay his cards down already in regards to U
126 washingtonian : Will be very interesting to see what happens at DCA. US already is the dominant carrier here, but when you throw in AA's multiple daily frequencies to
127 United777ORD : Yes, this includes mainline at PHX. Currently, US flies 274 daily flights out of PHX. After the merger, some of those flights are going to be transfe
128 bobnwa :
129 HPRamper : JFK can't handle all the international traffic at PHL. The O&D might be stronger but JFK has much less feed from the network. As a slot-restricte
130 laca773 : That's what I thought, HPRamper. Where in the world would these so called flights being transferred to LAX fly from? Any suggestions, United777ORD? R
131 PHX787 : Here's the upside I see for PHX: If AA/US does go to OW, we might see more expansion from BA to PHX (maybe an A-380 flight, if such warrants?) As I m
132 apodino : Funny you mention this....if this merger actually happened, it would actually allow massport to kill a number of birds with one stone. One is that AA
133 apodino : Also not to be forgotten in a merger is the regional lift. Currently American has Eagle, and I believe a limited amount of lift on Chautaqua for regio
134 LAXdude1023 : DFW-SNA is an absolutely huge local market (think 1200 passengers a day). Nothing will happen to it. DFW-ONT is another market that has enough O&
135 HPRamper : Something to look at here is how much much international feed US gets from the NYC area connecting at PHL. I would suspect that most of the high-yiel
136 RyeFly : CLT-LGW would likely be replaced with CLT-LHR, using the RDU-LHR slot using A333 or 777 aircraft. It wouldn't surprise me to see Delta or British Airw
137 kgaiflyer : Way before the CO/UA merger was ever consummated, dozens of a.netters had tried their hand at photo-shopped, proposed post-merger liveries. I'm surpri
138 mogandoCI : Maybe because neither US or AA's livery really inspires a "wow" out of someone's mind. I see that exposed metal and the only positive word that comes
139 apodino : Actually it has...check other threads for that. SNA is one I thought of, but I agree that that flight is going nowhere. The one other interesting thi
140 Post contains links and images kgaiflyer : You're absolutely right. I found this at What Would A Merged AA And US Look Like? (by cjpmaestro Nov 20 2011 in Civil Aviation)
141 PHXA340 : That would be awesome but BA has a TON of cities they would send a A380 to before PHX. I think that CLT, DFW, DCA , LAX, MIA are all perfectly safe.
142 LAXdude1023 : DFW-ONT is between 350 and 400 PDEW. Its large enough.
143 Byrdluvs747 : It has been and they've all been shot down as abominations, juvenile, or downright ugly. Proves my point. And yet its a livery that's recognized glob
144 PHX787 : With many airlines drawing down the use of these RJs, I highly doubt this new airline would increase them into PHX. I expect to see more Airbus flyin
145 Post contains images kgaiflyer : Same in the pre-merger CO / UA threads. Everyone tried their hands at it -- advertising professionals, beginning photoshoppers, etc. and it seemed to
146 Post contains images caliboy78 : I really like this one for some weird reason.... I also think that the eagle should be bigger like the one above it.....
147 chepos : The first one on the 772 is awsome, not to rain on anyones parade but I heard the creditors comittee sided with AA. So does this not mean all this cra
148 MAH4546 : Anybody with common business sense (i.e. the remaining six creditors) will side with AA. This union takeover is probably not going to happen. Will US
149 apodino : Which if you read my post correctly my point was because PHX has the least exposure to 50 seat flying, it is not likely to be pulled down as much as
150 Byrdluvs747 : Maybe I'm just too hard to please, but none of those say "Professional" or "Global Carrier". The emphasis on swooshing lines seems like an appeal to
151 Boeing773ER : Can someone please tell me why the new AA would give up PHL/CLT/PHX/DCA? I've read numerous times from all of the arm chair CEO's in this thread that
152 HPRamper : Even if US can't pull this off, AA is not in a very enviable position as far as union relations go. If the contracts are indeed thrown out, things cou
153 PHX787 : Which is what NWAROOSTER appears to have been saying this whole discussion which has been going on for ages. (correct me if I'm wrong)
154 HPRamper : No, that's exactly right. This was a great move on Parker's part whether or not he can pull the deal off. If he gets it approved, US wins. If not, th
155 Post contains images Byrdluvs747 : So in other words, another regular day at AA. The sensible posts here never suggested that pmAA would give them up. However, there are those insane p
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...
AA & US 2012 Potential Merger posted Tue Jan 3 2012 15:31:33 by eastern023
US Airways Strikes Merger Deal With AA Unions posted Fri Apr 20 2012 07:07:11 by washingtonian
AA US & B6 Combined Merger Possible? posted Wed Nov 30 2011 18:51:11 by Metrojet732
How Long Before We See A US-AA Merger? posted Wed Nov 10 2010 23:49:17 by USAA2012
Merger: Reuters: US And AA In Merger Talks posted Fri Apr 25 2008 12:32:44 by NYC777
Potential AA/NW Merger (Financial Times) posted Thu Jan 31 2008 13:28:25 by QQflyboy
AA/BA Merger Potential posted Thu Oct 18 2007 01:31:06 by Asuflyer05
US/DL/UA/CO/AA/NW Merger posted Thu Nov 16 2006 22:25:36 by JBo
Potential 717 Setback In AA/TWA Merger posted Tue Jan 9 2001 18:48:50 by PANAM_DC10
Merger Rumors? UA&US AA&NW posted Fri Aug 18 2000 03:27:00 by Ripcordd