Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United States Network Question?  
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4548 times:

I know P2P is 'en vogue' at the moment but considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?

I know this could spark fierce debate on where and which airports they should be but with improved ground transportation and a more 'insightful' domestic network could this be a better way forward ?

Better economies of scale, the ability to economically use VLA's etc

I'd love to see some A380's and 748i's in the American fleets..........

Is it too far fetched to consider a complete restructuring of the airport system in the USA that withdraws the right of some airports to operate long-haul services ? (for all airlines not just American carriers obviously)

[Edited 2012-07-12 01:26:43]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/arti...ries/doc4ffc958000f98474541085.txt

Interesting....

“No economy can grow faster than its transportation network allows,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement applauding the legislative vote. “With highways between California cities congested and airspace at a premium, Californians desperately need an alternative.”

Ain't that the truth......

“No economy can grow faster than its transportation network allows,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said

Take note UK politicians !!



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22925 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
Is it too far fetched to consider a complete restructuring of the airport system in the USA that withdraws the right of some airports to operate long-haul services ?

Isn't that basically happened decades ago? DCA and LGA don't have, as you say, the "right to operate long-haul services." The motivations were different but the end result is the same.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4094 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
I know P2P is 'en vogue' at the moment but considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?


P2P was en vogue. Most all U.S. based legacy carriers have reduced their P2P flying in favor of routing flights almost exclusively over their hubs.

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?

I know this could spark fierce debate on where and which airports they should be but with improved ground transportation and a more 'insightful' domestic network could this be a better way forward ?


I think you are looking at this collectively instead of by individual airline. When you look at each individual carrier, the number of international gateways is reasonable. Keep in mind that the size of the U.S. domestic market is quite large and warrants multiple hubs just to funnel domestic traffic itself. Domestic focused hubs often have some international routes because the shear volume of feed into the hub helps support some international routes.

Also, having multiple hubs reduces risk of total system paralysis in the event of bad weather.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think you are looking at this collectively instead of by individual airline. When you look at each individual carrier, the number of international gateways is reasonable. Keep in mind that the size of the U.S. domestic market is quite large and warrants multiple hubs just to funnel domestic traffic itself. Domestic focused hubs often have some international routes because the shear volume of feed into the hub helps support some international routes.

Also, having multiple hubs reduces risk of total system paralysis in the event of bad weather.

You raise a very important point there. I think we need to emphasize that much of the int'l traffic at some hubs is "synthetic" in that it is derived from the feed rather than pure local O&D, e.g., MSP, DEN. In an ideal world, perhaps there would just be mega-gateways used by all in Chicago/NYC/LA/MIA/DFW with umpteen gates and 10 runways. But that's a pipe dream so we have the current system where airlines have to build up fiefdoms where they can.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3947 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......

How so?


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9612 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3823 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
I know P2P is 'en vogue' at the moment but considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?

In the end it is all about RASM (Revenue per Available Seat Mile) and CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile). Your proposal exclusively focuses on CASM. Fewer point to point routes with larger planes is a way to reduce CASM. However, the inconvenience factor and increased competition lowers RASM. Profit is the difference between RASM and CASM. A well managed airline is going to be minimizing CASM and maximizing RASM, but in reality those two are tied together and each airline has a different strategy.

Point to point nonstop routes are higher yielding than connecting traffic. That’s why airlines chase point to point routes. With connecting traffic, there are more airlines competing in a single market which drives fares down.

Here’s an example. I live in Seattle and need to go to Paris next month. I prefer a nonstop flight because it saves me time and is more convenient and comfortable. I have one choice to go nonstop, and that is on Delta. Because I have a preference to fly nonstop, Delta can turn that preference into a higher yield since I am likely to pay more to fly nonstop because there is no competition. If Delta did not fly SEA-CDG nonstop, I would then be cross shopping Delta with every other airline. Delta in order to win my business has to offer a better product or a lower price. If they want to compete on price then they have to compete with BA, LH, UA, AA, US and FI who all offer me one stop service to Paris. More competition means lower fares. In order to offer lower fares, Delta has to find efficiency somewhere. Using the A380 on JFK-CDG might earn them that efficiency. Airlines like Emirates are based on that efficiency principle.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):

Point taken.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):

I don't know I guess I just miss the good old days...Tri-Stars, DC-10's, 747's etc

Do you know how many 4 engined passenger aircraft there are in the entire wide-bodied fleets of UA, DL, AA and US combined.........?

40

40 !!!



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3629 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 7):
Do you know how many 4 engined passenger aircraft there are in the entire wide-bodied fleets of UA, DL, AA and US combined.........?

40

With fuel prices unlikely to do anything but increase in the long term, 2 engines make much more sense than 4.


User currently offlinerogercamel From Singapore, joined Feb 2012, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 4):
In an ideal world, perhaps there would just be mega-gateways

Not in my ideal world.

I will always go P2P if possible and like the that there are several secondary cities that I can fly to nonstop from major gateways in Europe and vice-versa.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):
Reply 6,

   far better explanation than I could manage!


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 9):
far better explanation than I could manage!

Yes he did a great job



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 9):
Not in my ideal world.

I will always go P2P if possible and like the that there are several secondary cities that I can fly to nonstop from major gateways in Europe and vice-versa.

I was referring to efficiency - it would be much more efficient to do it like package shippers where everything (mostly) goes through a few massive gateways a la MEM, Worldport, etc. Those would obviously be in NYC, LA, Chicago, and a couple others, and you wouldn't have things like CVG-CDG, RDU-LHR, MSP-CDG, etc. But yes from a pax perspective it's preferable to have options, particularly to Europe like we have today.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22925 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
Those would obviously be in NYC, LA, Chicago, and a couple others

How is that obvious? LAX isn't a good hub to much of anywhere in the Untied States.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinerogercamel From Singapore, joined Feb 2012, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
it would be much more efficient to do it like package shippers where everything (mostly) goes through a few massive gateways

Ok - I understand where you're coming from.
But - is it really more efficient for an airline that can fill a plane P2P to force people to connect? The airlines would double the baggage and people handling requirements & costs, and increase the risk relating to delays.

Air freight also makes very extensive use of passenger airlines - and from what I understand, if they can send things P2P using a passenger airliner's hold, they try to do that rather than routing it through their gateway.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2907 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):

How is that obvious? LAX isn't a good hub to much of anywhere in the Untied States.

Obvious because those are the biggest population centers to support them.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22925 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 14):
Obvious because those are the biggest population centers to support them.

Sure, but O&D is only half the story. All the O&D in the world can't make up for a lousy location. That's why MIA isn't much of a domestic hub despite having a large and dynamic local market.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9612 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 9):
   far better explanation than I could manage!

Thanks. It's a debate that will always live on in airlines. The a380 brought great opportunities to lower casm while the 787 brings opportunities to raise rasm so the debate isn't going away any time soon.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
Sure, but O&D is only half the story. All the O&D in the world can't make up for a lousy location. That's why MIA isn't much of a domestic hub despite having a large and dynamic local market.

True, but for the kind of hubs these would be, you'd have to have that massive population to underwrite it. MCI in it's original concept would still never work, because there just isn't enough market to support it. However, with these global mega cities, it works, because everyone needs to get to LA, NYC, Chicago at some point domestically, and internationally they will be able to offer the most 1-stop connections onward in the U.S. That's why I made the analogy to package freight - it's more efficient to funnel everyone through a few places where you can enjoy the largest economies of scale and scope, and then ship off to their final destination from there. In addition, you gain the ability to deploy many more VLA's on trunk routes which in turn drives down your CASM further.

Put another way, if you live in say OMA, life wouldn't change that much insasfar as you'd still have to connect to get most places, but it would be through fewer mega hubs rather than a choice of ORD, MSP, DTW, ATL, DFW, DEN, IAH, PHX, SLC, JFK, EWR, IAD, etc. The crux of my initial point was simply that it's not efficient for airlines to have hubs in all these places.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22925 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 17):
The crux of my initial point was simply that it's not efficient for airlines to have hubs in all these places.

But it seems like that's an assertion without any support. Why is it more efficient for DL to route me BNA-MSP-SAN instead of BNA-SLC-SAN?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2560 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 7):
Do you know how many 4 engined passenger aircraft there are in the entire wide-bodied fleets of UA, DL, AA and US combined.........?

40

You answered your own question here: The 4-engine aircraft are vanishing because their CASM outstrips the increase in RASM. Sure, you'd love to see A380's and 748's flying domestically in the US. But until the airspace is so filled that the airlines can't add another flight, they will use four 737's leaving an hour apart, catering to the various needs of the traveling public instead of putting them all on a single quad-jet and making the next departure 5 hours later.

Despite the general attitude here on A.net, airlines aren't stupid. They have offices of people who spend their entire careers trying to figure out how to maximize revenue while minimizing cost. If having large quad-jets flying domestically were part of that answer, they'd be doing it. The wishes of the passengers are included in those calculations, because happy passengers come back more often, making for better RASM. Those wishes have to be balanced against the cost, otherwise CASM overtakes all, and the airline sinks. The balanced equation today equals hub-and-spoke flying for most airlines, using smaller planes with more frequency.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 18):
But it seems like that's an assertion without any support. Why is it more efficient for DL to route me BNA-MSP-SAN instead of BNA-SLC-SAN?

It's not really. What IS more efficient is to consolidate from places like SLC and MSP into the mega markets and then force everyone to connect in those rather than maintaining all of these other hubs. What's INEFFICIENT is having all these hubs scattered around, a decent portion of the routes duplicating each other in terms of getting you from aaa-ccc via bbb, xxx, or yyy. That's why I qualified it as a pure conceptual scenario, because it would require new and/or massively expanded airports in these aforementioned markets to work at all, not to mention dedicated HSR links from city centers, etc..


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
Those would obviously be in NYC, LA, Chicago, and a couple others, and you wouldn't have things like CVG-CDG, RDU-LHR, MSP-CDG, etc

If you can fly a planeload of people from MSP-CDG, why would you fly the planeload somewhere (ORD?) first? Besides, with just a few megahubs, the airlines would have to have as many A380's as Emirates, many for domestic routes.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 21):
If you can fly a planeload of people from MSP-CDG, why would you fly the planeload somewhere (ORD?) first? Besides, with just a few megahubs, the airlines would have to have as many A380's as Emirates, many for domestic routes.

That's the idea - it's much easier, cheaper, and better for the environment to throw everyone on A380's out of say, JFK, ORD, and ATL than it is to fly smaller planes from SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, JFK, CVG, PIT, etc. It's not even so much that a place like MSP per se would lose service, but that flights like PIT-CDG, CVG-CDG, RDU-LHR, MEM-AMS, and some others are inefficient to run. That doesn't mean they don't serve a good purpose, or that they are bad, but if you had a magic wand and a couple trillion bucks to remake the national air travel system, you'd set it up differently than it is now.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22925 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
That's the idea - it's much easier, cheaper, and better for the environment to throw everyone on A380's out of say, JFK, ORD, and ATL than it is to fly smaller planes from SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, JFK, CVG, PIT, etc.

How do you know that? If I have to fly 500 or 1,000 miles out of my way to get to one of the "megahubs," that burns gas and isn't good for the environment. It may even burn more gas than I save by flying on a larger, more efficient aircraft ex-megahub.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemodernart From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
a couple trillion bucks to remake the national air travel system, you'd set it up differently than it is now.

Not really. A more modern air traffic control system, more runways and perhaps better ground transport. Why devolve back the 1950s when only a half dozen or so airports hosted international flights?

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
...and some others are inefficient to run.

Based on....?


25 HAL : I'm still getting lost in the thread... If we had just a few mega hubs, why would we need huge quad-jets as opposed to today? From what I can see, the
26 DocLightning : Exactly. The issue now is that, for example, there are 27 daily flights between SFO and ORD (and that doesn't include MDW and OAK). Most of these fli
27 mayor : Of course it does, less handling makes for less cargo claims and more on time deliveries AND it doesn't cost any more to go nonstop with your cargo t
28 DocLightning : Most of us think that because we're nerds. But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to fly 27 737/A320/757 between SFO and ORD eve
29 mayor : It does if that's what the market calls for.
30 mhkansan : American thinks its a good idea to route almost all traffic over hubs, and per unit revenues are higher now than any other legacy. Could be on to this
31 mikey72 : Oh if only. Believe me I have probably been sat on an aircraft more times than I have looked up and seen or even heard one in the sky. I am very inte
32 LHCVG : I wasn't saying any authorithy per se gets to dictate which hubs survive and which ones don't. Any airline is welcome to keep any hub it wants. The i
33 Beardown91737 : It is pretty much all the legacies with UA being ~100% hub routing, US having 1 focus city, and DL being the main one to venture into a small amount
34 mikey72 : Latest reviews on Skytrax (I know, I know) by 'American' customers....... American Airlines - The customer service provided by American Airlines was
35 mariner : I just flew Air New Zealand Economy AKL-PER and PER-MEL Economy with Virgin Australia and neither flight was "purgatory" in any way. They were rather
36 spink : But here's the thing. If the traffic doesn't need to 752's, then one of them can fly another route. You cannot split a 777/747/380 in half and have i
37 burnsie28 : If you are the only one flying that makes sense, but you going 500 miles "out of the way" may reduce the other passengers flying MSP-CDG. So in whole
38 mayor : Why were they even talking about DL and *A in the same sentence? Obviously, this person had not flown the other U.S. carriers in Star because DL's se
39 mikey72 : Melbourne to Perth !!! What's that ? 4 hours ? Try JFK/HKG with your ankles up around your ears and report back to me. (i'm no giant at 6'1) Anything
40 Cubsrule : Not likely for a hub like LAX, which isn't on the way to very many places - that's why no one operates a large hub in LAX despite the wonderful O&
41 mariner : Work harder, make more money or win the Lottery. Or - if you dislike it so much - don't fly. mariner
42 ABQopsHP : [quote=HAL,reply=25] I'm still getting lost in the thread... If we had just a few mega hubs, why would we need huge quad-jets as opposed to today? Fro
43 poLOT : I think HAL is arguing that there wouldn't be fewer a/c at a given hub. There would be fewer hubs, but if bad weather occurs at them things will stil
44 DocLightning : Yes, but from the standpoint of that route, it makes no sense to use two gates, two flight crews, two airframes, two loadsheets, two groundcrew, etc.
45 mayor : Not if that destination airport isn't equipped to handle that "one large airplane". Jetways, extra people, etc. are all needed to support that partic
46 Beardown91737 : I said that in the USA, the private airlines offer what we will pay for. All of the above comments are true at times. It doesn't disprove that we wil
47 ridgid727 : Unless weather in February shuts down, JFK and MSP simulatenously. Or DEN and ORD simultaneoulsy. Then what?
48 LHCVG : Then you'll obviously have to divert somewhere. Just as now, hubs in various regions will still provide the redundancy as much as is possible - JFK,
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...
Airbus Exporting To The United States posted Sat Apr 28 2012 11:15:16 by Ewrkid
United Flight Number Question posted Tue May 25 2010 10:33:51 by phishphan70
United States-AMS December 2008 Traffic posted Sun Jun 14 2009 10:00:41 by Hardiwv
United Airlines Ticket Question posted Tue Jan 13 2009 11:38:27 by TurkishWings
Emirates Plans A380 Tour Of United States posted Mon Jul 14 2008 09:57:46 by Ronerone
RJA A342 Network Question . posted Sun Mar 16 2008 04:15:28 by Dennys
Passport To United States Virgin Islands? posted Sat Feb 23 2008 12:47:41 by Copa737DFW
United: SFO-KIX Question posted Sun Nov 11 2007 12:42:28 by AS739X
Comair To Sue The United States Government posted Tue Aug 14 2007 00:20:22 by KarlB737
Trans States Crew Question posted Wed Jun 6 2007 03:57:15 by AA777LVR