Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Too Many Airlines In The US  
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17051 times:

Given the current talk about AA merging with (insert airline of the day here), I was wondering if the current and foreseeable future market is too small for the number of airlines all vying for passengers and what the right number of airlines would be if you could have the right number?


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
171 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17007 times:

There is room for 3 legacies, 3 large LCCs, a couple of specialized regionals like HA and AS, then some commuters.

There are always too many competitors in the USA market, because there are some irrational investors who think that owning an airline is "cool"


User currently offlineyegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1732 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 16892 times:

Compare the US market with that of Europe...and you will get your answer.

IMO, the US could easily have more airlines.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16821 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
There are always too many competitors in the USA market, because there are some irrational investors who think that owning an airline is "cool"

Indeed! How does that old saw go, "the best way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start out a billionaire"?


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16800 times:

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 2):
Compare the US market with that of Europe...and you will get your answer.

IMO, the US could easily have more airlines.

You didn't notice the consolidation that has been going on in Europe? How many of their carriers are now losing lots of money and/or going bankrupt?

Europe is just a few years behind the USA in the rationalization of the commercial airline market.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16753 times:

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 2):
Compare the US market with that of Europe

Hm ...

Europe has a much bigger population than the USA ... I would have regarded Europe to be a much bigger market ?


User currently offlineyegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1732 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16711 times:

Not really....There are no high speed trains in the US that compete with airlines on a large scale

User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16715 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 3):
Indeed! How does that old saw go, "the best way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start out a billionaire"?

Your very own Bob Crandall once said....

"A lot of people came into the airline business. Most of them promptly exited, minus their money"



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16689 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
There is room for 3 legacies, 3 large LCCs, a couple of specialized regionals like HA and AS, then some commuters.

So, are you saying basically what there is now (assuming US and AA merge)?

I don't know that you can put a number and say there should be XX number of airlines for XX size market. There are so many factors involved such as airline efficiencies and business models. If you would have asked the same question twenty years ago, who would have guessed that TW, NW, CO, HP and others would be gone now, and that we'd have B6, VX in the mix?



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16659 times:

I think the root question is specious. The issue isn't if there are too many or too few US carriers. The issue is whether they can all profitably and reasonably co-exist, no matter the number.

History hasn't really given us an answer to that one yet, but it would seem as if domestically, they've found religion in capacity restraint and pricing discipline (as well as cost discipline by and large).


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7649 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16624 times:

I think the issue in the USA is why consolidation is taking place, namely to reduce competition allowing increase yields and revenue, providing service to the customer is way down the list.
Since the market is open and the merged carriers have not been able to get laws passed to limit competition, a continuous cycle will exist. As the massive carriers make their money and do not provide service to a number of areas, business options are presented and savy and dumb investors will jump in to the market creating new airlines.
The savy ones will create airlines like NK, B6, AS etc. and eventually in the next cycle after their growth period will become candidates for mergers, the dumb ones will get crushed by the majors and their nefarious activities.

When customers around the country are complaining about monopoly service and high prices its hard to pick a number and say 3 legacies, 3 LCC's etc. My opinion is the USA from a pax perspective needs more commuter airlines who operate like WN or NK, no alliance, just charge pax for travel from A to B, in some cases combining all services into one creates more system problems than it solves, let pax find their own way to hubs, share the business versus trying to control everything from curb to curb.
Just a thought.


User currently offlineItalianFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1099 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16616 times:

I love this kind of topic..because I am a contrarian to the B-school, hedge-fund driven mantra that consolidation will solve everything. The mathematic and statistical models say that consolidating the US marketplace into 2 or 3 network mega carriers with 1 or 2 LCCs will give the industry pricing traction to sustain profits and a return on capital. In a vaccuume I'm sure it does...but the airline industry is not the utility or railroad industries. The aforementioned are not subject to external shocks that impact airlines: geopolitics, plague/disease and economic flux in far away places.

When we put our national transportation system in a few baskets, we get into a 'too big to fail' scenario.....and that is counter intuitive to the free market mechanism. (see the financial industry in 2008 as exhibit A) Second, domestic capacity is already tight. If AA (or DL,US, UA) were to fail and close today, there is no way the surviving carriers could absorb the demand. Imagine face to face business meetings being put off because there are no seats available from SFO to ORD until next Thursday. Extrapolate that scenario a few thousand times and you are looking at serious national economic consequences.

Finally....global network carriers cannot be all things to all people. It has been done several times and failed (PS>UA>Ted, DL>DLExpress>Song,CO>COLite, everybody>regional partners). I personally think that there is no magic number, per se, that will lead to industry stability. I believe the key is capacity discipline, finding your market niche, sticking to it and serving it well.

Just my .2....Im sure some will tear it apart...just keep it respectful lol
 


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16585 times:

Not too many airlines. Too many seats being flown below cost.


I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16531 times:

IMO, there are way too FEW airlines. Not enough choice for consumers. Too much control of the industry locked up in the hands of a few companies. As a consumer, who are you going to threaten to take your business to when an airline screws you over if there's only 1 or 2 alternatives that treat you the same way? Our government has failed us in allowing these mergers to continue to occur and letting airlines become too big - all the while allowing the environment for competition to dry up.

It's not surprising, though - it's a reflection of what our government has allowed over the past 10 years with corporations in general. Our landscape is dominated by a few mega-players in most industries who have little incentive to serve the consumer well now that they've eaten up all the competition. While the corporations profit and the politicians get fat off corporate dollars, the American people are the only ones that lose out - in the airline industry or otherwise.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16520 times:

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 2):
Compare the US market with that of Europe...and you will get your answer.

IMO, the US could easily have more airlines.

Difference is that in Europe, all the large carriers are 100% fortress hubs. BA/IB vs. AF/KL vs. LH/LX don't overlap a single core hub. Intra-Euro fares are extreme - the Big 3 gouge you on the upfront fare, while Ryanair trap you on fees.

In the US, we have all airlines fighting to death over limited space. LAX has 3 airline hubs (UA, AA, WN), 1 focus city by DL, and another focus city/hub down the road at LGB. Chicagoland has 3 (if you exclude MKE). NYC has 4 airlines hubbing. Even freaking DEN has 3 airline hubs. The consumer wins, but all the airlines price war into Chapter 11.


User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6371 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16516 times:

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 2):
Compare the US market with that of Europe...and you will get your answer.

IMO, the US could easily have more airlines.

Yep, if there's one thing to look at Europe for, it's how to succeed financially in 2012  

I kid, I kid...but only slightly.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16483 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 7):
Your very own Bob Crandall once said....

"A lot of people came into the airline business. Most of them promptly exited, minus their money"

I forgot about that one, but it is very true. It certainly corroborates the following too:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 12):
Not too many airlines. Too many seats being flown below cost.

It's not as if the U.S. industry suffers a want of creative ideas and solutions, it's just that so many faily disastrously. It seems like every cute new idea ends up failing that basic test of somehow trying to rationalize (on the books) being able to fly too many seats below cost.


User currently offlineItalianFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1099 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16418 times:

Europe also has an efficient and comprehensive rail system and a much smaller land mass with shorter distance between population and economic centers. Despite what the high speed rail fanboys say..connecting ATL to NYC/ DC or CHI to NY or DAL via rail will never happen. Rail makes sense in a handful of places in the US.

User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2097 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16418 times:

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 8):
If you would have asked the same question twenty years ago, who would have guessed that TW, NW, CO, HP and others would be gone now,

Actually 20 years ago most of the above carriers were in big trouble: CO and TW were operating under bankruptcy protection, and maybe HP also. A consolidation of the industry was coming, and everybody knew it. In 1992, some of my friends at CO were predicting they were going to merge into NW, since NW had a stake in CO. PA and EA had recently vanished.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 8):
and that we'd have B6, VX in the mix?

True, but since deregulation carriers have come and gone. No one ever predicted no new airlines would be created.

I vividly recall the industry 20 years ago. Then it was considered novel and strange to be an airline in bankruptcy, and the general thinking was no airlines every successfully survived a chapter 11 filing. Therefore I think the biggest surprise would have been that CO would still be around as an independent carrier for 20 more years.

It is hard to say the ideal number of airlines. Airlines that are loosing money hand over fist can hang on for a long time.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16311 times:

Quoting brilondon (Thread starter):
Given the current talk about AA merging with (insert airline of the day here), I was wondering if the current and foreseeable future market is too small for the number of airlines all vying for passengers and what the right number of airlines would be if you could have the right number?

Depends how you look at it. It very well be there were too many Legacy carriers, which is why consolidation has been moving fast and furious for the past five years, with DL/NW, UA/CO and, AA and most likely US.

But there is obviously room for regional, mostly LCC carriers. Aircraft are going out very full this summer on everyone, so there certainly aren't too many seats to handle the demand.

And even as you have consolidation, there's no doubt that, in the future, you well see new start up carriers. Some may last a very short time, and some may make it. But in the U.S., I don't think there's too many carriers.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16259 times:

Quoting ItalianFlyer (Reply 11):
Second, domestic capacity is already tight. If AA (or DL,US, UA) were to fail and close today, there is no way the surviving carriers could absorb the demand. Imagine face to face business meetings being put off because there are no seats available from SFO to ORD until next Thursday.

But that's not what would happen.

If a major shut down today, the surviving carriers would immediately hike their prices up to restore supply/demand balance. You'd still be able to go SFO-ORD when you wanted to...it would just cost you more. As it should.

Tom.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6931 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 16174 times:

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 6):
Not really....There are no high speed trains in the US that compete with airlines on a large scale

They compete on some routes, complement each other on others. But I'd say the difference between the US and EU is that in EU you'll tend to use airlines available at the nearest hub of your country, not changing planes at a hub in another part of the EU, when in the US changing planes at a hub is very common. So, the US airlines compete on the same market whereas the EU airlines are more side by side.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15984 times:

Fewer airlines will mean fewer delays... and fewer RJs.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15872 times:

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 2):

Compare the US market with that of Europe...and you will get your answer.

IMO, the US could easily have more airlines.

Yup. The issue isn't how many airlines, but how many ASM's and how many aircraft.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
They compete on some routes, complement each other on others.

The only US route system that has any "HSR" competition (and I use the term "HSR" very loosely) is the North-East Corridor. Boston-NYC-DC. Even then, the average line speed of Amtrak's Acela is only about 80MPH. The Acela takes 3.5 hours from Penn Station to Boston, while the normal train takes just under 4. Really, the only advantage to Acela over regular train is the nicer interior. That said, I always used the train on those routes even though door-to-door time was a bit longer than a flight because the overall experience was just so much less stressful.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
But I'd say the difference between the US and EU is that in EU you'll tend to use airlines available at the nearest hub of your country, not changing planes at a hub in another part of the EU, when in the US changing planes at a hub is very common.

To some degree, yes. But probably not as much as you think. Most major US cities have a hub. If you live near that hub, you will tend to use the hub airline(s) available there. Of course, there might not be a non-stop to where you are going (say you want to fly DTW-RNO), in which case you will choose any airline that can get you there in one stop. It is far less common for someone living in Detroit to insist on flying UA or AA and connecting through ORD.

The difference, I think, is with national identity. If you live in Grand Rapids, MI, and want to get to SFO, you won't necessarily fly DL through DTW. You could go US or AA through Chicago, or you could fly DL through MSP. If you live in Lyon, France and want to get to GLA (assume ML is off-season), you could choose AF, KL, BA, or LH among the majors. But most Frenchmen would probably choose AF. That said, on an individual level, and leaving FF programs aside, my guess is that a Frenchman is just as likely as an American to go with the cheapest and most convenient itinerary.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15641 times:

Quoting ItalianFlyer (Reply 17):
much smaller land mass

Europe: Area 10,180,000 km2 (3,930,000 sq mi) - Pop. density 72.5/km2

USA: Area - Total 9,826,675 km2 ( 3,794,101 sq mi ) - - Density 33.7/km2 ( 87.4/sq mi )


25 comair25 : I highly doubt it...
26 planemaker : With fewer airlines you have fewer aircraft carrying the same number of pax (+ growth) and that means larger aircraft.
27 MountainFlyer : That doesn't correlate. Fewer airlines does not necessarily = fewer aircraft. Also, the number of passengers is not necessarily static, either. As ai
28 par13del : The key is the density not the landmass, the greater population spread in the USA makes mass transit difficult, not impossible, but difficult.
29 planemaker : It does correlate... you just have to look at the upgauge trend across the board. Furthermore, if airlines merge they are obviously going to "merge"
30 mayor : Is this just the lower 48 or does it include Alaska?
31 Post contains links Mortyman : Apparently it includes Alaska: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
32 DeltaMD90 : I don't think there really are/were too many airlines... I think there was too much capacity. You can have the 3 mega carriers and 3 LCCs be healthy a
33 jporterfi : IMO, there will always be a market for different types of airlines in the U.S.: legacies, LCCs, and regionals. We already have consolidation among the
34 crj900lr : Airlines need to get back to flying mainline aircraft on alot of these routes that the regionals are flying. If you are looking to eliminate airlines
35 USPIT10L : NWA did not buy the golden share in CO until 1998. In 1992, everybody was too worried about matching Crandall's Value Plan at AA to worry about conso
36 Post contains images commavia : As others have said, I think the question really should be related to capacity in the aggregate, not necessarily airlines per se. And the answer depe
37 mayor : But we know that high load factors don't necessarily mean profitable, right?
38 Asiaflyer : Totally agree with that. Current legislation with Ch11 also keeps unprofitable airlines alive and prevents a fair competition.
39 Lufthansa : This is the exact situation we faced when Ansett failed. It didn't last long. There were short term interruptions and a very massive expansion of QF
40 carpethead : Forget cheap fares or number of airlines, I just wish the days back when ORD-CLE/SFO/LAX was operated on DC10 or similar aircraft and ORD-ALB on 727 o
41 mayor : Not on $80+ a barrel oil, you don't.
42 Lufthansa : I beg to differ. I lighter weight widebody should give very good CASM on 4 or 5 hr routes. It's the competitive issue of frequency that is the proble
43 boeingorbust : Population is much larger in Europe and the demographics differ greatly also. I believe this to a point but airlines are a business and act like a lu
44 mayor : ORD-CLE and ORD-ALB are certainly not 4-5 hr trips (examples from reply #40).
45 Post contains images AirlineCritic : Hasn't it? I would argue it has, very clearly. How many legacies we have again that have not gone through a bankruptcy?
46 StarAC17 : You make a very important point and this just doesn't apply to airlines. It is whether the end result of free market capitalism will create a more co
47 mikey72 : I don't why the U.S.A can't just have 'one' big international carrier like everyone else ? What makes you lot so special ? (I mean that in a nice way
48 carpethead : Agreed, a DC10 would certainly not be competitive regardless of price of oil, but what I meant was current-day A330, 767 or 777-size aircraft on thes
49 par13del : Simplistic answer, because all of us other lot who have such airlines were initially created by the government of the land, which meant that they mad
50 Goldenshield : For the most part, the airlines that are hubbed at those cities ARE flying large widebodies on those runs. There's the occasional narrowbody at off-p
51 mikey72 : That's not an answer though is it. Not even a simplistic one. (in fact you are making it all way too complicated) One does not make decisions about t
52 klwright69 : It seems since deregulation, dying airlines have always been around.. In the late 80s and early 90's PA, TW, CO, and HP were dying. The situation you
53 par13del : Yes it is, it explains why things are the way they are now. Correct, one stands on the results of the decisions made in the past while attempting to
54 poLOT : Why don't the EU have 'one' big international carrier like everyone else? The US is geography too large and spread out for one mega carrier to profit
55 mikey72 : . ? Different languages, different cultures, pride etc Totally different scenario. KLM is not called Air France and and Swiss is not called Lufthansa
56 par13del : The political and legal environment at the state and federal level would not allow it, changes in constitutions would be required.
57 airbazar : I agree, especially when you factor the distances and the lack of any reasonable public transportation between urban centers. IMO, the problem here i
58 poLOT : So it is okay for France and the UK, for example, to have two different large national airlines, despite the fact that together they are much smaller
59 mikey72 : You left out the most important reason. They are two different countries. The 'should' part is just my opinion the 'could' part is fact. As for 'supp
60 KDAYflyer : I dont think it's too many airlines. I think it is too many seats and too much frequency thats killing the airlines that are still around. If they pul
61 Jonathanxxxx : IMO The problem with that is, that many Transatlantic routes would go away. If the mega airline had their main international hubs in JFK, MIA, LAX an
62 KGRB : I can understand not including the 767 as a "long haul jet" (though I beg to differ), but not including the A330 is preposterous. At a range of 7,250
63 poLOT : So? The UK alone has two long haul carriers. As does Germany. Very few airlines currently have even close to that number of long haul planes, not eve
64 Post contains images enilria : I'd say it is definitely more than now. We do not any longer have a large LCC. You can say WN is an LCC, but with the defining characteristic being "
65 mikey72 : Well I guess so...we could include them in the 180 if you like...there aren't that many of them to make a difference. Does the relatively small numbe
66 Post contains links and images par13del : Ahh, so now that you have one explanation for your comment below we can move on Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that in aviation the
67 mikey72 : You can't compare the EU to the USA. No one gives a toss if US becomes AA or NW becomes DL or CO becomes UA. People in Europe give a toss if KL becom
68 cmf : We never will. There are many different interests in play and each will pull as much as they can in their direction. That is how it should be. It is
69 ElPistolero : Trust a Canadian to start a topic about too many airlines. The question itself is questionable. How does one define too many airlines? Shouldn't it be
70 par13del : That most routes from within the USA can be flown with 767 size a/c, since they have multiple airports capable of international travel spread through
71 Post contains images Markam : While I agree with your point about fortress hubs (which IMHO is caused by later deregulation of the common air market in Europe than in the U.S., bu
72 mikey72 : Surely though you are speaking of a double edged sword ? In other words what was once the right decision would be a mistake now or in the future. Som
73 superjeff : Are you for real? Nobody has "propped up dying airlines" , at least in the United States, since the early 2000's." Or even to the beginning of deregu
74 ElPistolero : Not necessarily true. The free market has no end state - its perpetually dynamic, responding to changing economic conditions. Where has a free market
75 Markam : Well, a free, friction-free market should not lead to a monopoly (and there is no reason why a friction free market should not be free), but apart fr
76 Post contains images mikey72 : Eastern, Pan Am and TWA were just the beginning of a long slow and massive re-shuffle that we are still witnessing to this day. I feel sorry for thes
77 DCA-ROCguy : No time today to read every post of one of our usual slugfests about airline capacity and fares. I'll just second everything ElPistolero says in Repl
78 ytz : IT. Microsoft.
79 cmf : No double edge at all. Knowing what happened before means we can take the good and avoid the bad. It doesn't mean we should repeat what was done befo
80 NorthStarDC4M : Untrue, Apple still holds a good chunk of the workstation software market, and there is still a small (ok very small) UNIX/Linux workstation wedge of
81 ElPistolero : Huh? Ever heard of Apple, Oracle or SAP? All of them have a presence in Canada. What does Microsoft monopolize? I don't know if I d compare diamonds
82 Post contains images poLOT : They most certainty can. Marketing has lead you to believe otherwise to make you pay more though But this is all off topic. The US aviation market is
83 cmf : Desktop OS. Very close on server OS in small businesses. Also very close with word processing, spreadsheet and presentations. The competition in thos
84 ElPistolero : They dominate. They don't monopolize. There are also acceptable substitutes if everyone wants one. There is competition. It hasn't gone away. That sa
85 mikey72 : Hang on. From a customer perspective the US hasn't got a comparatively decent airline running out of the lot of them. Been the case for a long time.
86 ElPistolero : Southwest. Virgin America. Jet Blue. You might want to expand your horizon to beyond the legacy carriers. Who hasn't? BA's record is hardly stellar.
87 mikey72 : I know sorry. To say 'decent' was a bit harsh I just find it frustrating. Oh yes totally agree was thinking more of the legacies.
88 Post contains images cmf : Of course the will. That is how they get revenue. With better competition we would have windows computers booting much faster and less vulnerable to
89 ElPistolero : This is going way off track. Its all too hypothetical and non-aviation related, so its best saved for another day/forum. Its easy to look at an airli
90 cmf : Not at all. It is very much on topic. You can't avoid the root causes..
91 mayor : Lets see...........of all the legacies, NW has been in BK, once.......DL, once..........UA, once...........AA, once.........US, once........only CO h
92 poLOT : US entered bankruptcy twice (in 2002 and again in 2004), but other than that I agree with your post.
93 StarAC17 : Look at the history in Canada there is only a few players that can make the market sustainable and the government isn't stopping others from starting
94 mayor : Thanks for the correction........I thought it might have been two, but took the safe route and said 1.
95 XJetflyer : I think the problem is quality airlines in America. If someone builds a strong simple airline they will do great in the United States. If you do it wi
96 aa757first : Why? To an extent, but there was also horrific mismanagement. Realistically, "heritage" in the airline industry is probably almost worthless, not pri
97 mayor : Unless I'm mistaken, the legacies that are left, plus CO and NW, all started approximately the same time. So, why does that make EA, PA and TW "the f
98 Post contains links ElPistolero : Our brilliant (and utterly risk-averse) banks don't like investing in anything involving the oligopolies, be it telecoms or airlines. Where are Canad
99 cmf : Every segment have reasons why it will go down to just a few number of suppliers. Not heading in that direction? Look at the consolidation and bankru
100 mikey72 : Oh well....that makes it alright then. ? Look, I have every respect for the American airline industy and its airlines. What they accomplish is no mea
101 StarAC17 : Well airlines give piss poor returns globally, so if banks and venture capitalists want to invest in something that gives concrete returns they will
102 brilondon : We have money and you don't? I am being facetious of course. In North America we seem to think that we are free to do what we want, but that is just
103 Post contains images mikey72 : Well I still think you should funnel more long-haul passengers through fewer hubs via an upgraded domestic network. LAX and SFO long-haul could be com
104 poLOT : They are both large enough markets to have their own separate service. That is like saying LHR and CDG (which are closer together than SFO and LAX) s
105 mikey72 : SFO and LAX combined handle nowhere near the longhaul traffic that CDG and LHR do. In total SFO and LAX offer 337,000 seats a week compared to 1,500,
106 mayor : What in hell do you think the hubs are all about? All the complaints on here about consolidation stifling competition and you propose to stifle it, e
107 mikey72 : I'm backing away from this one. The current is starting to drag me out to sea. (tends to happen to me on here) Was just trying to think outside the b
108 mayor : No new ideas, here..........I think it was done before.......the old Soviet Union comes to mind.
109 poLOT : Yes. They can barely handle the traffic they have now. Domestic traffic is just as important as international because it helps fill those internation
110 mayor : Then you'd be wrong........EWR and IAD are both long-haul hubs for UA. Maybe do a little research next time.
111 ElPistolero : Oh, for sure. Except for the fact that we don't really have VCs in Canada. Oh and banks aren't willing to loan out money for anything other than mort
112 Post contains images mikey72 : Well we all know where to build the first Mega Hub in the United States for long-haul.
113 poLOT : We will then also know where the world's newest ghost airport well be. It will be Mid America all over again.[Edited 2012-07-14 08:51:13]
114 Post contains images KGRB : You must not read Flyertalk very much, then. Except that you need good O&D to drive long-haul demand. NYC, LAX, ORD, DFW, SFO etc. all have this.
115 mikey72 : Nobody knows what the future may bring. There may be a very high speed mode of ground transportation connecting the country 'and' its airports. I'm s
116 poLOT : There may be. They won't be using it to go to Ohio though, they would be connecting the major cities.
117 Post contains images mikey72 : May be not but you never know. Anyway I'm going to get told off for going off topic so i'll let you all get on with it.
118 par13del : My question would be how would the USA Federal and State government enforce this long haul hub restriction, you would have to ensure that foreign car
119 Post contains images mayor : Well, gosh, maybe Peotone* isn't such a bad idea, after all........ *and Mid-America for a reliever hub[Edited 2012-07-14 10:53:33]
120 mikey72 : So it's ok to stop say in DXB on your way to BOM rather than change and get on a non-stop flight in your own country ?
121 SuperCaravelle : What's the obsession with a mega-hub? Aside from the fact that there are multiple cities that can sustain long-haul traffic on their own, it would be
122 ElPistolero : What's wrong with it? Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to decide what works for him? If a consumer is willing to take a one-stop option, he must se
123 mikey72 : You're missing the point. What difference does it make whether you stop in the States and then board a non-stop flight or stop outside of the States
124 mayor : I thought this was about too many airlines in the U.S.? Are you talking about the entire U.S. being a transfer point or what? The airline system, as
125 SuperCaravelle : One stop is worse than no stops, for a lot of people. If people can fly to Frankfurt from both Miami and New York, it's better than only from Kansas
126 LHCVG : DL used to market CVG to that effect (in terms of time and distance to x percent of the U.S. population) back in the hub days.
127 par13del : Since 9/11, security and air travel in general in the USA has become a pain, so if you are doing the one stop you still have to go through the securi
128 enilria : Umm...it creates less competition. I'd say a lot of people care.
129 dfambro : It can make a big difference. Having once made the mistake of flying Icelandair and having my one stop occur in Reykjavik in the middle of the night,
130 Spacepope : Indeed. Let's build a long haul airport in Detroit! Oh wait...
131 spink : Both SFO and LAX have enough O&D to support their long haul. If the airlines tried to shift the long haul to one or the other, some other airline
132 spink : I used to fly back and forth to India all the time. Right now I can wake up, drive 15-25 min to the airport, board a plane and make a stop either in
133 mikey72 : So basically what you are all saying is that in the future there will never be any non-stop services by U.S carriers using VLA's bar what we have now.
134 IndianicWorld : Simply put, yes there are. The fact that most US carriers struggle to be profitable on an ongoing basis points to the fact that the current situation
135 spink : There may or there may not be, it depends on what customers want and what makes business sense. Both Delta and UA run 747s on hub to partner hub trun
136 par13del : The airline industry is not about competition, it is about making money while serving a customers needs / desires. Competition keeps the market place
137 mikey72 : Is the American legacy airline industry in its current guise making enough money to re-invest and become high quality so it can meet its customer nee
138 mikey72 : MIA in itself would remain a hub. It is just an idea to be explored and tinkered with nothing more. No. I'm saying that in a few years time you will
139 SuperCaravelle : Why would they if QF is doing it for them? Airlines, like any sensible business, are profit-seeking. If one airline does what you propose and create
140 mayor : Probably nothing except for the fact that, if, they have ATI with QF, the flight is metal neutral........doesn't make a difference who flies it......
141 mikey72 : Excuse me but I must have missed the moment the balls were cut off the American airline industry. DocLightning said... But that doesn't change the fa
142 Post contains images par13del : Well according to A.net they are meeting the needs of their customers which is to provide basic transportation from point A to point B at the lowest
143 mayor : It goes both ways, tho. The foreign partner might not operate the flight because their American partner already does. So, how does that equate with t
144 mikey72 : Seems though that in more cases it's the foreign partner ? I just don't know about having the 3 alliances operating hubs in 'one' country ? Does that
145 mikey72 : Yes I do agree with and understand that. As long as the American legacies don't end up as solely domestic operators feeding their foreign alliance pa
146 OOer : Here's how it should be: Legacy airlines - 1. United 2. Delta 3. American (merged with UsAir) Other airlines - 1. Southwest 2. Alaska 3. Hawaiian 4. J
147 par13del : I thought of this after my last post, which your questions triggered, if USA legacies carriers can sign / join an alliance with foreign carriers to p
148 mikey72 : Oh god don't ask me....I'm out of my depth........i'm sure someone will have some answers though.
149 spink : ATI is, as far as I understand, only available between carriers of different countries. Without ATI, it becomes hard to due a domestic to internation
150 poLOT : Not really. Look at AF/KL. You have DL operating EWR-AMS instead of KL, AF giving DL SEA-CDG, PHL-CDG and ORD-CDG (in the winter). None of those US a
151 par13del : I'm not thinking of an airline witihin an airline but an expansion of the current joint ventures that AA has with B6 for example. Lets say the agreem
152 rjm777ual : Agreed. The US is huge, with over 2000 miles of land between coastlines, plenty or room for different airline alliances and their hubs.
153 DLPMMM : Mikey72, Your background is clearly not economics or business. An airline does not have to fly A380s to compete and there is a point where economies
154 brilondon : This would be like combining LHR, LGW, AMS, and CDG to be one hub airport and then saying CPH, DUS, and FRA could be one hub. Seriously, come on, tha
155 mayor : Seems that there is alot more rationality in fleet purchases, now, compared to what it was in the 70s. There were airlines (DL among them) that reall
156 Post contains images cmf : It isn't up to just the passenger. Airlines are not required to fly everywhere. Nor should they. Airports are not required to make every flight possi
157 mikey72 : Europe's top 5 airports by weekly seat capacity = 3.2M U.S.A top 5 airports by weekly seat capacity = 1.1M With respect.....Pan Am-bankrupt, TWA-bank
158 poLOT : With respect, if you are going to start including Pan Am or Continental's bankruptcies, which happened over 20 years ago, then you also have to remem
159 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : So........ not having A380s bankrupts the US airlines? Someone better warn WN! Most of your posts puzzle me. Artificial hubs with little O/D hardly e
160 Post contains images mayor : You forgot US, EA & BN You keep bringing this up, as though it's a millstone around the U.S. airlines neck. That list of airlines went into BK fo
161 skipness1E : Not true in UK to Europe, it's never been (much) cheaper, even on BA! We can discount the Ryanair penny fares as a useful comparison. Pan Am wasn't r
162 DeltaMD90 : I'm curious, if US (the first carrier to go into Ch 11 after 9/11 IIRC) went under, would that have allowed the other carriers to pick up slack with
163 par13del : The market works in conjunction with Chpt.11, where exactly does the money come from to re-float the carrier, it is coming from private investors not
164 mikey72 : Yes that's fine. It was just something I wanted to discuss and I did say a few posts ago that after hearing what you all have to say it probably isn'
165 mikey72 : After some analysis I have identified a couple of examples where a single instead of 2 or more American carriers could operate larger than current air
166 Post contains images delta2ual : Exactly. As much as people like to complain about the US BK laws, I would love to know how much money European governments have given their airlines
167 DeltaMD90 : Again, that's implying that frequency is not desirable. Sure, you could have Delta Shuttle be 2 or 3 A380s per day instead of the hourly flights on s
168 united319 : LAX isn't a hub for WN, just a focus city. Also add VX to the list of Focus City Carriers from LAX. I also beleive AA considers LAX just a focus city
169 cmf : Missed context. Please delete.[Edited 2012-07-16 16:09:03]
170 usscvr : The market will determine the number of US airlines that survive.
171 brilondon : You forgot about all the other bankruptcies in the airline business i.e. People express, Eastern, Braniff a few times, Freddy Laker's sojourn into th
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...
Too Many Airlines In The United States? posted Sat Jun 19 2004 19:41:44 by Yanksn4
Employees Of Foreign Airlines In The US. posted Thu Sep 9 2010 16:42:45 by Yflyer
Why Gates Assigned To Specific Airlines In The US? posted Fri Mar 2 2007 05:59:17 by Haggis79
Good Climate For New Start Up Airlines In The US? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 15:29:53 by Keesje
Status For The Top Airlines In The US posted Fri Sep 16 2005 02:12:17 by UAcosCS
Who Are The Top 10 Airlines In The US? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 03:27:00 by Future757
Regional Airlines In The US posted Wed Mar 24 2004 00:08:41 by Saab2000
POLL.. Which Airlines In The US Will Exist In 5yrs posted Wed Feb 11 2004 02:33:58 by Jayspilot
What Major Orders Do Airlines In The US Have? posted Wed Dec 31 2003 06:42:08 by Flyf15
Foreign Airlines In The US posted Fri Nov 21 2003 22:03:21 by KaiGywer