Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA/US Merger Impact: Hubs (Part 1)  
User currently offlineModerators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 27695 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Dear All,

in order to consolidate the AA/US merger threads (and after input from users, which we highly appreciate) the moderators decided to start separate threads each discussing one aspect of the AA/US merger and its impact to both the industry and the two airlines involved.

Please continue discussing this hot news in their individual official threads:

AA/US Merger Impact: Fleet
AA/US Merger Impact: Hubs (THIS THREAD ONLY)
AA/US Merger Impact: Employees
AA/US Merger Impact: HQ
AA/US Merger Impact: Livery
AA/US Merger Impact: Unions
AA/US Merger Impact: Routes
AA/US Merger Impact: Inflight Service

Enjoy & have a nice weekend!

The Airliners.net Moderator crew


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
274 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineapjung From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 27740 times:

Well, since PHX is a US hub that is about to be absorbed into AA, I hope AA would have the foresight to add the PHX-MSY route that HP abruptly canceled just before Hurricane Katrina made landfall and never resumed when they merged with US.


Andy P. Jung
User currently offlinesouthwest737500 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27416 times:

I'm pretty sure BA will come back to CLT. That will be nice to see.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27396 times:

The Wall Street Journal has an article discussing AA/US's post merger hub network. They surmise that, unlike DL and UA who used their mergers to trim capacity, AA/US would keep their network intact. And that the purpose of the merger is to make AA bigger, again, and not to remove capacity. I tend to agree with their analysis.

To read the article type in "AMR stands to gain vast network" to Google news.

In the other merger discussion threads everyone keeps speculating the three US hubs, CLT, PHL and especially PHX would be slashed. I disagree, I think CLT will perhaps be reduced a little with the removal of some of the smaller regional flights but overall will continue to grow to the Caribbean and Latin America. PHL I took see getting a trim to some smaller communities but overall growing by adding routes like AUS, SAT and perhaps NRT long term on AA or JAL via a 787. And PHX keeps getting compared to CVG, STL, PIT, MEM etc.. It's not, PHX is a booming sunbelt city. It doesn't have the biggest business community, but it has tons of O&D. PHX might get realigned, but it's not going the way of PIT, CVG or STL. The local market is just too big, and unlike the rust belt hubs PHX is growing.

As for AA hubs, I don't see anything changing in ORD. I see MIA continue to grow and as for JFK/LGA, there's not going to be any to really spark any renewed growth. US doesn't have that large of a slot portfolio anymore, what I see is US A330s replacing AA 763s on routes from JFK.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27312 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
And PHX keeps getting compared to CVG, STL, PIT, MEM etc.. It's not, PHX is a booming sunbelt city.

What your link says:

Quote:
There also are questions over whether the combined carrier could support eight hubs and, if not, which U.S. city might be on the chopping block. In most recent airline mergers, at least one hub has suffered deep cuts to its service, such as Cincinnati following the 2008 merger of Delta and Northwest Airlines.

In the expected American tie-up, analysts point to Phoenix as the likely target, partly because it is sandwiched between American hubs Los Angeles and Dallas.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 27171 times:

Since we're treating this as if it's already happened, my predictions on the hubs ...

I suspect the higher costs (relative to either independent, post-bankruptcy AA or US) will lead to inevitable optimization and capacity rationalization in the domestic network. For the markets below specifically the (#, #) represents my approximate prediction for the overall net % change in departures followed by overall net % change in seats over a period of 2-3 years following the merger (all estimates pro forma to each carrier’s independent operations today):

CLT (-5, -10): reduction in both departures and capacity simply driven by higher costs of combined entity; CLT remains the prime north-south connecting hub for the eastern U.S., and the key gateway into the southeastern U.S.; loses some longhaul flying to MIA but otherwise retains key international linkages

DFW (+2, +3): relatively minor overall growth driven primarily by picking up some connections previously handled by PHX, and some current PHX-exclusive US (and former AA) destinations such as LGB and OAK; offset by somewhat reduced capacity to the southeastern U.S. where connections are shifted over CLT and DFW sees markets like SAV, CHS, CAE, GSO, etc. lose some frequency in favor of larger, 2-class RJs

LAX (unchanged, +1): little change as a result of the merger, with a potential for some targeted domestic additions (e.g., PIT) to take advantage of combined strength, increased capacity on hub routes (e.g. 767 on 1 LAX-PHL rotation), and rationalization on overlapping routes (e.g., ending current Eagle schedule LAX-PHX)

MIA (+2, +2): continual growth, with MIA picking up some international connections from CLT (Caribbean, South America, CLT-FCO shifting to MIA-MXP); MIA continues to add new domestic and international markets (e.g., AUS, MCI, SAN, MKE)

NYC (JFK/LGA) (unchanged, +2): with domestic and some international connections shifted to PHL, NYC (both JFK and LGA) operations freed to focus on utilizing slots more effectively for local O&D, taking advantage of stronger combined AA presence to expand AA NYC links to major domestic (MCI, IND, IAH, MSY, CVG, DEN 1-3x daily each) and international (FRA, TLV 1x daily each) O&D markets

ORD (+7, -5): increase in departures but decrease in seats driven by shifting more mainline flying to large regional jets; in addition, ORD gains back connectivity to markets in northeastern U.S. where it had either shrunk or lost AA connections entirely in the last decade (BDL, PVD, ROC, BUF, ALB, etc.) and in select western markets (PDX, possibly SMF) where it is a more convenient connecting point than PHX for some city-pairs/itineraries

PHL (-5, -3): relatively small reduction in capacity and seats, but nothing major as PHL becomes the singular AA hub for handling connections to/from the northeastern U.S., as well as AA’s primary gateway to continental Europe

PHX (-40, -50): gradual but substantial reduction, with PHX shifted to focus on the large PHX outbound/inbound O&D market; PHX retains connections to 40-50 major U.S. markets (including HNL and probably OGG) plus YYC and YVR in Canada and the major Mexican beach markets, but with a substantial amount of the intra-west flying either eliminated or shifted to smaller (likely non-mainline) aircraft; of the 50% of capacity eliminated, approximately 35% is simply exited altogether, with 10% shifted over DFW and 5% over ORD and/or other hubs

WAS (DCA) (-2, -1): slight reduction in both departures and seats driven largely by forced slot divestitures at DCA (focused primarily on overlapping RDU/BNA routes), but offset by expanded presence in key hub markets (near-hourly shuttle to ORD, increased capacity to DFW, etc.)

Other Markets/Point-to-Point: combined strength of AA supports (re)introduction of nonstop flying in select O&D markets (e.g., BOS-RDU, BOB-SFO, etc.)


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 27053 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):

PHL (-5, -3): relatively small reduction in capacity and seats, but nothing major as PHL becomes the singular AA hub for handling connections to/from the northeastern U.S., as well as AA’s primary gateway to continental Europe

Do you really think AA is going to give up JFK in favor of PHL, as the primary gateway to Europe? I don't think so. PHL's problems are well known and documented and I'm certain that PHL will be the biggest loser in this deal. JFK will grow as a TATL hub, CLT will grow as a North-South hub, MIA will grow as a Caribbean/Americas hub and PHL will slowly shrink into a "focus city", over time.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26996 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
JFK will grow as a TATL hub

With what slots?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26927 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
Do you really think AA is going to give up JFK in favor of PHL, as the primary gateway to Europe?

It's not a matter of "giving up" one in favor of the other. It's the sheer reality of slots and competition. PHL has no slots, and virtually no competition. JFK has onerous slot constraints, and tons of competition. In that environment, and given that US already has a bigger transatlantic operation out of PHL than AA does out of JFK, why would they cut one in favor of the other? Both serve a viable purpose, and can nicely compliment each other.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
PHL's problems are well known and documented

True, although the "problems" one could ascribe to PHL could essentially be said of virtually every hub in the northeast.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
I'm certain that PHL will be the biggest loser in this deal.

I'm near certain you're wrong. If this merger happens, the biggest loser - from a hub standpoint - is almost certain to be PHX. Nearly everyone seems to be in agreement on that.

I still don't understand why people think PHL is due for massive cuts. It's a huge hub, serving a huge market, with little meaningful competition, and in a relatively good location. JFK would also be a great asset for a combined airline - great terminal, huge local market, (relatively) large holding of slots, etc. But JFK cannot ever be a hub for AA the way PHL is for US and may soon be for AA. It's simply not possible.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26913 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
PHL becomes the singular AA hub for handling connections to/from the northeastern U.S., as well as AA’s primary gateway to continental Europe



JFK relies on O&D, whereas PHL would serve as the primary "connecting" hub to Europe.

I wouldn't expect AA to diminish the NYC market more than it already has.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 26841 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):

If AA could have all the slots and gates they wanted at JFK, I might agree. But they can't really grow at JFK at all.

Shutting down PHL is a the equivalent of telling DL and UA, "Hey guys, we're not interested in making any money in the Northeast outside of NYC". Simply put, JFK cannot serve the same purpose PHL can. JFK cannot be the Northeast connector that PHL is. Not to mention, PHL itself is a very large market. Why give that up?

PHL probably will lose secondary destinations in Europe like ATH, GLA, and LIS. But I see PHL-NRT becoming a reality since that market can support it with connections on both ends.

Also disagree about CLT. It will be a key hub for the combined airline for sure, but it isn't going to grow.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 26631 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
It's not a matter of "giving up" one in favor of the other. It's the sheer reality of slots and competition. PHL has no slots, and virtually no competition.

PHL has no competition because no one wants to go to PHL  Sorry that's the reality. If you think people in NYC are going to chose AA and fly NYC-PHL-Europe you are out of your mind. The reality is that NYC is the single biggest market to/from Europe and to leave NYC in favor of PHL is ludicrous. JFK's slot restrictions are artificial. No one has ever been denied access to JFK. A truely slot restricted airport wouldn't be able to close a runway for 4 months for repaving. B6 hasn't had any problems growing at JFK. They're even expanding their terminal. And So is DL. So the idea that AA can't grow at JFK doesn't pass the sniff test.

Quoting seatback (Reply 9):
JFK relies on O&D, whereas PHL would serve as the primary "connecting" hub to Europe.

Fair enough but why not do that thru CLT which is already US's biggest hub and it's a better airport than PHL in every category? To/From Europe, the northeast can connect via JFK while the southeast can connect via CLT. PHL is the third wheel in my opinion   For domestic connections, I can see PHL's usefulness because CLT is too far south but there's also DCA. So I really don't see PHL growing at all.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26531 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
Sorry that's the reality. If you think people in NYC are going to chose AA and fly NYC-PHL-Europe you are out of your mind. The reality is that NYC is the single biggest market to/from Europe and to leave NYC in favor of PHL is ludicrous.

Nobody is suggesting that.

AA will retain NYC-Europe service. It will also retain PHL-Europe service for the majority of the country who will not be connecting at JFK.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26474 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
Sorry that's the reality.

Reality according to who?

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
If you think people in NYC are going to chose AA and fly NYC-PHL-Europe you are out of your mind. The reality is that NYC is the single biggest market to/from Europe and to leave NYC in favor of PHL is ludicrous.

Nobody said that. I'm not suggesting AA just leave NYC and route everything through PHL. I'm suggesting AA keep their already-robust JFK-Europe schedule - and actually expand it somewhat - alongside the already-robust PHL-Europe schedule. I continue to be fascinated that many - apparently including you - seem to think the two cannot coexist.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
JFK's slot restrictions are artificial. No one has ever been denied access to JFK.

  

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
So the idea that AA can't grow at JFK doesn't pass the sniff test.

Well I don't know what it is you're "sniffing."

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 12):
Nobody is suggesting that.

AA will retain NYC-Europe service. It will also retain PHL-Europe service for the majority of the country who will not be connecting at JFK.

  

Thank you.


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26463 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
PHL has no competition because no one wants to go to PHL  Sorry that's the reality. If you think people in NYC are going to chose AA and fly NYC-PHL-Europe you are out of your mind. The reality is that NYC is the single biggest market to/from Europe and to leave NYC in favor of PHL is ludicrous. JFK's slot restrictions are artificial. No one has ever been denied access to JFK. A truely slot restricted airport wouldn't be able to close a runway for 4 months for repaving. B6 hasn't had any problems growing at JFK. They're even expanding their terminal. And So is DL. So the idea that AA can't grow at JFK doesn't pass the sniff test.

And even though PHL has no slots (although it probably should since it's always had delay issues), it's still a very, very congested airport with little room to grow. Can that airport handle more traffic with it's horrible runway configuration? Not really. And didn't US say they'd de-hub PHL if that new runway proposal goes through? Surprised nobody has mentioned that.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26408 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 14):
And even though PHL has no slots (although it probably should since it's always had delay issues), it's still a very, very congested airport with little room to grow.

Welcome to doing business as an airline in the northeast U.S. Just about every northeast airport is congested, crowded, overtaxed, run down, etc. PHL is hardly unique.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 14):
Can that airport handle more traffic with it's horrible runway configuration? Not really.

I don't think "more traffic" is really realistic. I think the PHL hub will shrink somewhat, both in terms of flights and capacity.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 14):
And didn't US say they'd de-hub PHL if that new runway proposal goes through?

There's plenty of money involved. I suspect they'll work something out.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26369 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
PHX (-40, -50): gradual but substantial reduction,

You realize you are implying that AA will drop their west coast market share significantly? While DFW and ORD could be up some of that traffic, cutting PHX that much means a retreat Eastward that would cost AA revenue. It might be what has to happen... But I would not suspect that level of cuts. Not unless DFW cuts their costs more than I anticipate.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3404 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26374 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 14):
And even though PHL has no slots (although it probably should since it's always had delay issues), it's still a very, very congested airport with little room to grow. Can that airport handle more traffic with it's horrible runway configuration? Not really. And didn't US say they'd de-hub PHL if that new runway proposal goes through? Surprised nobody has mentioned that.

It's a combination of a few things
-Poor terminal design with tight alley ways between terminals
-Average to Poor airport design that impedes aircraft movement
-Tight airspace stuck in between NYC and WAS

US is just throwing around some weight to negotiate the deal and I imagine the combined carrier will do the same. It is in the best interest of both US (AA) and PHL to improve (expand) the airport. That is why US and PHL just came to a short term agreement for improvements.

[Edited 2013-02-08 06:37:32]

User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26366 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):

Pretty good overall. Not sure that NYC loses anything though.

Will AA retain props? Props are very important to CLT and to a lesser degree PHL.

This tie up benefits ORD the most. Larger RJs, 319s and E90s for ORD are needed badly. Helps AA in the east as well.


User currently offlineDolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26289 times:

How big is AA at DCA? That will certainly affect how many slots AA/US has to give up at DCA.

BOB-SFO-you mean BOS-SFO, right? A flight to Bora Bora woukd be awesome... 


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26243 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 17):
It's a combination of a few things
-Poor terminal design with tight alley ways between terminals
-Average to Poor airport design that impedes aircraft movement

The main parallel runways are just too close together and they can’t be used independently. Even the proposed new runway will be too close to allow for simultaneous independent operations. Won’t increase capacity all that much, as US Air said. Not even with NextGen. Very big cost considering limited to no operational improvement.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 17):
-Tight airspace stuck in between NYC and WAS

Even with the tight airspace, PHL always had more operations than any of the NYC or DC airports. Just too many scheduled flights there.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26229 times:

Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 2):

I'm pretty sure BA will come back to CLT. That will be nice to see.

No, they will be less likely to come back to CLT because of the relationship that AA has with BA outside of their alliance tie up. Now, in the future I think that may be say in 10 years if AA survives that long, you may see AA flying directly to LHR, but I doubt that.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3404 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26121 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 20):
Even with the tight airspace, PHL always had more operations than any of the NYC or DC airports. Just too many scheduled flights there.

I don't have specific numbers so anyone feel free to provide them but I suspect EWR has more movements than PHL and I suspect NYC (EWR/JFK/LGA/TEB) has almost triple the number of movements as PHL.

I suspect PHL does have more than the WAS airports individually but once again BWI/DCA/IAD probably have over double the number of movements than PHL. Don't forget about Dover AFB, Andrews AFB, Mcquire AFB, ACY, IST, etc.


User currently offlinejfidler From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26130 times:

Didn't CLT recently announce plans for a large expansion of the airport? I wonder if this will affect their plans.

User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26391 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
Do you really think AA is going to give up JFK in favor of PHL, as the primary gateway to Europe? I don't think so. PHL's problems are well known and documented and I'm certain that PHL will be the biggest loser in this deal. JFK will grow as a TATL hub, CLT will grow as a North-South hub, MIA will grow as a Caribbean/Americas hub and PHL will slowly shrink into a "focus city", over time.

I totally agree. I think PHL will be one of the most affected hubs. It is extremely close to NYC and Philadelphia is not an economic powerhouse or booming city in the States today... with little to absolutely no appeal for Europeans (which are most if not all of its long-haul routes). Also, for congestion and weather, PHL is not even a good airport to be as alternative to JFK, and even its layout can be annoying (for instance the connection for the international side to I think it is T5). If AA+US wants to keep an alternative airport to the West Coast, Midwest, they could keep CLT, which has no congestion or weather issues, and can probably compete more with the likes of ATL in terms of geography (of course I am not saying CLT is or is going to be ATL, but they can target some same secondary markets). For me PHL was an oddity that US Airways used to have access to the Northeast, and conveniently located between New York and Washington, keeping also a monopoly in Philadelphia.

I have even flown myself a couple of times Europe-PHL-LGA (since it was much cheaper than direct Europe-NYC) and every other person in the PHL-LGA seemed to be connecting from Europe (including half of my flight). Of course it doesn't mean PHL can retain some major hubs like LHR (like BA flies to BWI in addition to IAD).

Just look at who flies in addition to US to Europe: BA to LHR and LH to FRA... that is all.



[Edited 2013-02-08 07:08:43]

User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26762 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 23):
I don't have specific numbers so anyone feel free to provide them but I suspect EWR has more movements than PHL and I suspect NYC (EWR/JFK/LGA/TEB) has almost triple the number of movements as PHL.

Individually, PHL has more movements than any airport in the Northeast. This has been the case for many years. Even before EWR got slotted, PHL still had more movements. I don’t know the exact stats, but PHL handled something like 450K movements last year and EWR around 430K. PHL's operational traffic has been in decline for a few years and I remember when it handled over 500K in movements per year. You can find them on Airports.org, but I can’t check it out from my office.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26819 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 25):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):

What do you realistically propose the combined airline do in the Northeast? Keep in mind, as most of us learned from 2nd grade geography, North Carolina is not in the Northeast.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinebizjet From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27177 times:

I think the Philadelphia naysayers are forgetting that the metro area is the 6th largest in the country. Plenty of traffic that wants to move. I think its hub status is very safe.

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27100 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16):
You realize you are implying that AA will drop their west coast market share significantly?

Not sure how "significantly" net-net, but yes. The west is generally the lowest-yielding part of the U.S. AA - at a post-merged cost level - will not be able to make money in many of the PHX-west markets.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16):
cutting PHX that much means a retreat Eastward that would cost AA revenue.

Wouldn't really mean a "retreat Eastward" at all. PHX today serves very little intra-west connections - it's mostly used for connections between the west and somewhere else. And for the vast majority of traffic PHX now handles, DFW and/or ORD can handle those some connections just as well, and in some cases even better.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 18):
Not sure that NYC loses anything though.

I see some shifting between the two, but net-net, I agree, NYC would not lose much if anything at all.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 18):
Will AA retain props? Props are very important to CLT and to a lesser degree PHL.

Yes. Props make lots of sense for many of the markets served out of CLT/PHL, and out of DFW/ORD/MIA. I think AMR post-merger would have the potential to do with props just what AA did with the 737/A320 - use the lure of a huge volume buy to get a great deal from either Bombardier or ATR.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 18):
This tie up benefits ORD the most. Larger RJs, 319s and E90s for ORD are needed badly.

Absolutely. ORD would stand to gain a lot, strategically, in a merger.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 21):
No, they will be less likely to come back to CLT because of the relationship that AA has with BA outside of their alliance tie up. Now, in the future I think that may be say in 10 years if AA survives that long, you may see AA flying directly to LHR, but I doubt that.

Huh? US was already planning on flying CLT-LHR this summer. AA, with a merger, would be flying it instantly. And I could definitely see BA coming back to CLT with a second daily CLT-LHR flight. The halo effect of the alliance would drive lots of traffic on CLT-LHR, which is part of why CLT-FRA would likely get cut back (my guess is to 1x daily 763).


User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27079 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 12):
AA will retain NYC-Europe service. It will also retain PHL-Europe service for the majority of the country who will not be connecting at JFK.
Quoting commavia (Reply 13):
Nobody said that. I'm not suggesting AA just leave NYC and route everything through PHL. I'm suggesting AA keep their already-robust JFK-Europe schedule - and actually expand it somewhat - alongside the already-robust PHL-Europe schedule. I continue to be fascinated that many - apparently including you - seem to think the two cannot coexist.

So... let me see if I understand you...

The combined AA/US will have two TATL hubs within 150 miles of each other, and they will STILL operate as TATL hubs?

JFK TATL ops will be enough just based on the local O&D, while PHL will need to rely on connecting passengers from a relatively small area of the US to justify a robust TATL ops.

Sorry but I just don't see it that way...

Anything south or west of PHL, passengers will connect via DFW or MIA to go to Europe or S. America. Anything north/west of PHL will connect via ORD or JFK. ORD, MIA, JFK and DFW have enough local O&D traffic to justify a robust international hub, and AA/US will add more passengers to those hubs... Where PHL will mostly rely on connecting traffic, the cost of maintaining two TATL/International hubs within that close proximity is not cost effective.

I can see PHL maintaining some TATL routes to cities such as LHR and CDG, and maybe 757/788 service to cities such as MAD, other than that, PHL's TATL ops will be absorbed by JFK or MIA.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27085 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 13):
Reality according to who?

According to the Europe-PHL O&D numbers and the fact that US has the cheapest TATL fares around. The market is relatively small and low yield.

Quoting commavia (Reply 13):
Nobody said that. I'm not suggesting AA just leave NYC and route everything through PHL. I'm suggesting AA keep their already-robust JFK-Europe schedule - and actually expand it somewhat - alongside the already-robust PHL-Europe schedule. I continue to be fascinated that many - apparently including you - seem to think the two cannot coexist.

JFK isn't any worse than PHL as far as congestion. How can you suggest that JFK can't grow but PHL can?
More importantly, PHL and NYC airspace overlap and both are affected equally in bad weather because they are so close together. Operating your 2 TATL hubs less than 100miles apart in the most congested air space region of the country just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 14):
And even though PHL has no slots (although it probably should since it's always had delay issues), it's still a very, very congested airport with little room to grow. Can that airport handle more traffic with it's horrible runway configuration? Not really. And didn't US say they'd de-hub PHL if that new runway proposal goes through? Surprised nobody has mentioned that.

  
Thank you.


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26980 times:

Quoting bizjet (Reply 28):
I think the Philadelphia naysayers are forgetting that the metro area is the 6th largest in the country. Plenty of traffic that wants to move. I think its hub status is very safe.

I know some Philly yaysayer would come with that. PHL is the 7th in terms of GDP in 2010 according to the US Department of Commerce (I wouldn't be surprised it is now the 8th or 9th since San Francisco and Boston were very near behind).

The issue with Philadelphia is that is has no interest for anyone in Europe other than the business traffic they might have... you might forget that places like Miami, New York, San Francisco... or even Boston or Los Angeles have a huge amount of leisure traffic from Europe, in addition to businesses.

Another issue is that PHL is very close to New York and Washington metro areas, so passengers in their metro area easily go to EWR or IAD by train/car... that will hardly happen in other comparable metro areas like BOS, SFO or MIA (even if San Francisco or Miami have SJC, OAK or FLL... they don't have long-haul services to Europe).


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26921 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
As for AA hubs, I don't see anything changing in ORD.
Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
ORD (+7, -5): increase in departures but decrease in seats driven by shifting more mainline flying to large regional jets; in addition, ORD gains back connectivity to markets in northeastern U.S. where it had either shrunk or lost AA connections entirely in the last decade (BDL, PVD, ROC, BUF, ALB, etc.) and in select western markets (PDX, possibly SMF) where it is a more convenient connecting point than PHX for some city-pairs/itineraries

Apparently, there has been talk from US directed towards the employees at the ORD hub. Parker feels that management has downsized ORD too much, considering the amount of O&D traffic in the Chicago metro area, as well as the amount of traffic in and out of the upper Midwest.

AA has simply let too much business in Chicago and the upper Midwest slip to UA at ORD, WN at MDW, and to a lesser extent, DL at MSP and DTW.

Chicago is still a very, very large destination for business travelers. Chicago is trying to regain convention business that has been lost to Las Vegas and Orlando.

Further, it seems to me that AA would be shifting some of the RJ flying from the Embrear 135/140/145 and CRJ 700 to either larger Embrears and/or A319s. People have been saying for years that AA shot itself in the foot at ORD, when it returned the 717s and retired the F100s. Rather than fly half empty MD-80s and 738s, AA was running the RJs, often against UA and WN mainline aircraft. That just drove more people away from AA.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26869 times:

What will happen at LGA? Who will go where? Who will trade gates with who?


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3404 posts, RR: 7
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26909 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 30):
Anything south or west of PHL, passengers will connect via DFW or MIA to go to Europe or S. America. Anything north/west of PHL will connect via ORD or JFK. ORD, MIA, JFK and DFW have enough local O&D traffic to justify a robust international hub, and AA/US will add more passengers to those hubs... Where PHL will mostly rely on connecting traffic, the cost of maintaining two TATL/International hubs within that close proximity is not cost effective.

I can see PHL maintaining some TATL routes to cities such as LHR and CDG, and maybe 757/788 service to cities such as MAD, other than that, PHL's TATL ops will be absorbed by JFK or MIA.

First the JFK AA domestic network is a shell of the PHL US domestic network and I think the consensus is AA/US do not have the slots to build JFK into a "megahub". They won't have the domestic network to use JFK as a European connection point.

Second UA makes IAD and EWR work and they are what ~225 miles away from each other. JFK and PHL will serve two different purposes. JFK focusing on the O&D markets, while PHL will focus on key markets and will serve as a connecting hub.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 26):
Individually, PHL has more movements than any airport in the Northeast. This has been the case for many years. Even before EWR got slotted, PHL still had more movements. I don’t know the exact stats, but PHL handled something like 450K movements last year and EWR around 430K. PHL's operational traffic has been in decline for a few years and I remember when it handled over 500K in movements per year. You can find them on Airports.org, but I can’t check it out from my office.

Ok, I was wrong

2010
EWR: 403K movements
PHL: 460K movements
JFK: 399K movements


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26914 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 30):
So... let me see if I understand you...

The combined AA/US will have two TATL hubs within 150 miles of each other, and they will STILL operate as TATL hubs?

JFK TATL ops will be enough just based on the local O&D, while PHL will need to rely on connecting passengers from a relatively small area of the US to justify a robust TATL ops.

No. You don't understand me.

The two transatlantic operations - at JFK and PHL - already coexist now, just for two different airlines. In a merger, I could see some shifting of capacity, with each market gaining or losing a limited number of flights. I don't think that's inconceivable. Beyond that, I did not say the JFK operation would be "just based on the local O&D." JFK would still handle connections, it just wouldn't be optimize for them quite as much as now, and as PHL would be.

What I'm suggesting is hardly unprecedented. This is to some extent what UA has done with EWR/IAD.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 31):
How can you suggest that JFK can't grow but PHL can?

I'm not suggesting either airport substantially grow. I think JFK will probably be about flat and PHL actually slightly down in a merger. No growth - just optimization.


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26876 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):
Second UA makes IAD and EWR work and they are what ~225 miles away from each other. JFK and PHL will serve two different purposes. JFK focusing on the O&D markets, while PHL will focus on key markets and will serve as a connecting hub.

You cannot compare New York and Washington DC (which btw are already much further apart) with New York and Philadelphia in terms of traffic and I bet yields. It is like apples and oranges.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1394 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26856 times:

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 19):
How big is AA at DCA?

50 daily departures.

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 19):
That will certainly affect how many slots AA/US has to give up at DCA.

I am thinking 20-30 daily departures.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 34):
Who will trade gates with who?

I think it is a solid guess that AA/US will consolidate at Terminal B concourses C&D but there are so many options for who to put where at the other gates that its too much to guess.

[Edited 2013-02-08 08:09:03]


You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26696 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):
Second UA makes IAD and EWR work and they are what ~225 miles away from each other. JFK and PHL will serve two different purposes. JFK focusing on the O&D markets, while PHL will focus on key markets and will serve as a connecting hub.

EWR gets a lot of international traffic from local passengers. Same goes for IAD, so funneling passengers to those hubs makes sense and is cost effective.

I'd be interested to see what international traffic is generated from the PHL area. I suspect it is a fraction of JFK/EWR/IAD.

Say a flight out of JFK on a 77W to LHR is generally 75% full, do you think AA wouldn't want to funnel some traffic to JFK so that flight leaves with 90% capacity? Or would they rather funnel those connecting passengers to PHL and fly a 75% full A332 to LHR? (And that A332 is 75% full only because US funnels passengers to PHL from the rest of the country)

If they funnel international passengers from Mid West/North East to ORD/JFK, and SE to MIA/DFW, there wouldn't be enough passengers in the PHL area to justify maintaining an international hub at PHL.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26709 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 14):
And even though PHL has no slots (although it probably should since it's always had delay issues), it's still a very, very congested airport with little room to grow. Can that airport handle more traffic with it's horrible runway configuration? Not really. And didn't US say they'd de-hub PHL if that new runway proposal goes through? Surprised nobody has mentioned that.

Many if not most delay issues at PHL are caused by airspace congestion, not ground congestion. PHL has undergone major improvements and according to several pilots for US I've talked to, and one or two express pilots, they prefer PHL to CLT these days.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 30):
The combined AA/US will have two TATL hubs within 150 miles of each other, and they will STILL operate as TATL hubs?

JFK TATL ops will be enough just based on the local O&D, while PHL will need to rely on connecting passengers from a relatively small area of the US to justify a robust TATL ops.

Sorry but I just don't see it that way..

I wouldn't call the majority of the country minus NYC a relatively small area. Even taking into the consideration the (smaller number of) connections into JFK from elsewhere.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 30):
Where PHL will mostly rely on connecting traffic, the cost of maintaining two TATL/International hubs within that close proximity is not cost effective.

If they can both fill planes with a positive yield, then it's cost effective.


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26727 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 36):
What I'm suggesting is hardly unprecedented. This is to some extent what UA has done with EWR/IAD.

This was probably UAL's intention, but it hasn't turned out that way. EWR is roughly split in half between O&D and connecting traffic. According to the Port, it is a connecting hub...unless those stats are wrong.

EWR.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/NOV2012_EWR.pdf

Not sure what IAD's numbers are, though, or where to find them.


User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26634 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 40):
I wouldn't call the majority of the country minus NYC a relatively small area. Even taking into the consideration the (smaller number of) connections into JFK from elsewhere.

I wish I have a map that I can draw here...

If there are already well established hubs in JFK, MIA and CLT on the east cost, ORD, DFW in the middle, where do you think PHL will draw international traffic from that would justify keeping PHL as a major international hub? Remember IAD for UA is just an hour down the interstate, and EWR is just 90 minutes north.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26564 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 42):
If there are already well established hubs in JFK

But that's the key - JFK isn't a "well established hub" now. It's a limited hub because of slot constraints and because it splits its local market with other airports that are, in some ways, more convenient and more popular. As such, JFK can never serve as a hub in the way PHL or EWR can. PHL and EWR are 2 of a kind in the Northeast, and cannot be replicated at JFK.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 42):
Remember IAD for UA is just an hour down the interstate, and EWR is just 90 minutes north.

Yes - and yet PHL manages to coexist with both of them, including being a larger hub than IAD, now.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3404 posts, RR: 7
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26606 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 39):
Say a flight out of JFK on a 77W to LHR is generally 75% full, do you think AA wouldn't want to funnel some traffic to JFK so that flight leaves with 90% capacity? Or would they rather funnel those connecting passengers to PHL and fly a 75% full A332 to LHR? (And that A332 is 75% full only because US funnels passengers to PHL from the rest of the country)

If they funnel international passengers from Mid West/North East to ORD/JFK, and SE to MIA/DFW, there wouldn't be enough passengers in the PHL area to justify maintaining an international hub at PHL.

I think they would rather fly a 75% full 777 JFK-LHR made up predominantly of O&D and have the space for any last minute paxs that they will charge a high premium that only JFK-LHR can demand. Then route the connections through PHL to supplement the O&D that is high but not at the level of JFK.

You are proposing to turn JFK into a EWR type hub so they get the extra 15% capacity. Not only are there slot issues but JFK is a blood bath with B6 and DL already there as well as countless Foreign carriers that typically offer better products and service than the US carriers. And if you add the 200 flts to make it that type of hub JFK likely becomes just as bad as PHL is wrt delays.

I don't contest the NYC market is much larger than PHL and certainly commands a higher yeild but PHL can hold its own.


User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26414 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 43):
Yes - and yet PHL manages to coexist with both of them, including being a larger hub than IAD, now.

I partially agree. My argument all along is that PHL will continue to be a hub, but not for international flights. Most of the international flights out of PHL will be absorbed by JFK/ORD/MIA and maybe CLT.


Quoting usairways85 (Reply 44):
You are proposing to turn JFK into a EWR type hub so they get the extra 15% capacity. Not only are there slot issues but JFK is a blood bath with B6 and DL already there as well as countless Foreign carriers that typically offer better products and service than the US carriers. And if you add the 200 flts to make it that type of hub JFK likely becomes just as bad as PHL is wrt delays.

JFK is just a hub out of many that AA has already. It doesn't need to absorb that many flights.

If flying out of SYR to LHR, the merged AA/US will route that passenger to ORD, not PHL. Same goes for passenger out of PIT. Passenger flying out of MSY to Europe would route to DFW/MIA, and if CLT does not fly to NRT, they will fly connect via JFK or DFW. AA/US can route passengers outside of the immediate PHL to not only JFK, but MIA, ORD, DFW, so JFK will not absorb all of the connections that's currently made to PHL.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3480 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26347 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):
They won't have the domestic network to use JFK as a European connection point.

But AA connects people everyday. And the flights do fine with O and D...no need for huge numbers of connectors.

I think that there will be a teething period where this all gets sorted out.

But much like Delta found out in the ATL, JFK tug of war that went on for most of the 90s, it is easier to serve one flight a day Euro cities, with strong ethnic ties to NYC from a place like NY then ATL. I suspect we will see a lot of that with PHL/JFK.

Also, no airline has successfully had 2 hubs this close in the past. They are always miserable failures.

B6 is trying it now with JFK and BOS. I guess AA will try it with PHL, JFK.

My thinking is, something will have to give down the road. It will likely be PHL focusing on domestic connections and JFK focusing on 1 to 2 banks of flights feeding international stuff. (Much like exists now)


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26372 times:

Comparing WAS VS PHL

Foreign carriers serving Washington DC: Aeroflot, Aeromexico, Air Canada, Air France, ANA, Austrian, Avianca, BA, Brussels, Cayman Islands, Copa, Emirates, Ethiopian, Etihad, Icelandair, KLM, Korean, Lufthansa, Porter, Qatar, Saudia, SAS, South African, Swiss, TACA, Turkish, Virgin Atlantic.

Foreign carriers serving Philadelphia: Air Canada, BA, Lufthansa.

The difference is appealing. DC is served by 27 foreign carriers, and PHL by only 3. That might give an idea of which is a more important international market (and the US Airways hub excuse is not valid, since United has a hub at IAD themselves with a lot of international routes too).

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 46):
B6 is trying it now with JFK and BOS. I guess AA will try it with PHL, JFK.

My thinking is, something will have to give down the road. It will likely be PHL focusing on domestic connections and JFK focusing on 1 to 2 banks of flights feeding international stuff. (Much like exists now)

BOS and JFK have little to no overlap... not the case for JFK/EWR and PHL. Also Boston is a more important international destination than Philadelphia hands down with a larger and wealthier catchment area that is not a hub for any major carrier (and probably B6 has lower costs than US, making routes profitable easier).

[Edited 2013-02-08 08:36:39]

User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26344 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 42):
Remember IAD for UA is just an hour down the interstate

No way - more like two to three hours, depending on time of day, EZ-Pass, and good weather. If it's raining/snowing, IAD is more than an hour from Washington.

Edit: I was thinking the merger makes the DL/US slot swap seem like a much better deal for US than it seemed at the time. Essentially they got an unassailable position at DCA and a bunch of cash; and now the merger restores their position at LGA, assuming they want it. DoT willl probably force them to shed some slots at both airports, but they still come out in good shape at both airports.

[Edited 2013-02-08 08:38:26]


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3404 posts, RR: 7
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26290 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 45):
If flying out of SYR to LHR, the merged AA/US will route that passenger to ORD, not PHL. Same goes for passenger out of PIT. Passenger flying out of MSY to Europe would route to DFW/MIA, and if CLT does not fly to NRT, they will fly connect via JFK or DFW. AA/US can route passengers outside of the immediate PHL to not only JFK, but MIA, ORD, DFW, so JFK will not absorb all of the connections that's currently made to PHL.

You are proposing a ton of "backtracking" connections there. AA/US will have to drop fares otherwise many of those paxs will all go to DL/UA through ATL/IAD/EWR.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26300 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 39):
Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 37):

PHL isnt NYC or BOS or DC. Im not going to pretend that it is. That doesnt mean there isnt a market and a sizable one at that. Below are the largest city pair from PHL to Europe in passengers per day:

Total PHL-Europe PDEW: 1,125

London: 209
Paris: 93
Rome: 91
Frankfurt: 89
Tel Aviv: 56
Dublin: 50
Manchester: 49
Madrid: 45
Barcelona: 40
Amsterdam: 36
Munich: 35

This is relatively smaller compared to NYC or BOS, but its still a pretty big European O&D base. Its about the same ATL-Europe and much larger than CLT-Europe.

Now, what I (and many others) are arguing is not that PHL will grow nor that PHL will keep all of its current European destinations. I think we can agree it wont. Right now, PHL has 12 daily departures to Europe all year and that number is 18 in the summer. That number will decrease for sure. What I am arguing is the notion that PHL will somehow be shut down. When you take the local markets listed below and couple them with connections, the market definately works. What is likely is that the number of European departures per day will probably go down to 7-8 year round and 12 during the summer. The destinations served from PHL will probably be limited to LHR, CDG, FCO, FRA, TLV, MAD, DUB (seasonal), and MAN. The rest will be moved to JFK or be terminated.

Remember, there are lots of midsized markets in the Northeast that offer lots of O&D to Europe that AA cannot feed through JFK. PHL will serve as the connector to Europe and JFK will served the O&D in NYC.

Now if we look at PHL-Asia, the current local market size is about 210 PDEW. That is not very large, however it is pretty well documented that the PHL area bleeds a lot of Asia traffic to EWR. I do not see PHL being able to support multiple flights to Asia, but with connections, a daily flight to NRT is well within reason. I suspect that local market size will jump from 210 to around 325-400.

Looking at PHL-Latin America, its almost all leisure. I dont see any need for flights to Latin America.

Now, lets look at PHL's domestic market. Below are the largest domestic markets to PHL by daily passengers:

Orlando: 3059
Chicago: 2412
Atlanta: 2061
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 2015
Los Angeles: 1751
Boston: 1569
San Francisco: 1546
Las Vegas: 1264
Denver: 1212
Dallas: 1156
Tampa: 958
Raleigh: 941
Houston: 925
Pittsburgh: 844
Minneapolis: 752
Seattle: 675
San Diego: 610
Charlotte: 601
Nashville: 583
Detroit: 545
Jacksonville: 493
Manchester, NH: 493
Indianapolis: 413
Fort Meyers: 389
Kansas City: 383
New Orleans: 381
Salt Lake City: 330

Bottom line, PHL is a viable hub. It is able to capture all the connecting traffic that JFK cannot and PHL is a decent sized local market. Will it shrink some? It probably will in the form of losing some smaller destinations in Europe. I cannot imagine that AA/US is dumb enough to get rid of it completely.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 26134 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 49):
You are proposing a ton of "backtracking" connections there. AA/US will have to drop fares otherwise many of those paxs will all go to DL/UA through ATL/IAD/EWR.

AA (and many other airlines) do this today for some cities.... why wouldn't it work after the merger? If cities such as Syracuse has enough demand for European destinations, AA will establish a flight that connect them via JFK to better serve existing US passengers. But that's for another thread.


User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 25987 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 50):
Total PHL-Europe PDEW: 1,125

London: 209
Paris: 93
Rome: 91
Frankfurt: 89
Tel Aviv: 56
Dublin: 50
Manchester: 49
Madrid: 45
Barcelona: 40
Amsterdam: 36
Munich: 35

How many of those passengers are connecting from other US flights? Or are they all O&D?

Even if they're all O&D, I can only see LHR justifying a daily flight, maybe CDG/FRA and FCO during the summer. The rest can easily be routed to JFK or MIA. I'm sure after AA/US merges, they will lose some passengers to UA.

I wonder what would the numbers look like if you remove connecting passengers...

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 50):
Bottom line, PHL is a viable hub. It is able to capture all the connecting traffic that JFK cannot and PHL is a decent sized local market. Will it shrink some? It probably will in the form of losing some smaller destinations in Europe. I cannot imagine that AA/US is dumb enough to get rid of it completely.

That is what I've been saying all along. I challenge the notion that PHL will take some connecting traffic from JFK, in fact, it will be the opposite.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 50):
What is likely is that the number of European departures per day will probably go down to 7-8 year round and 12 during the summer. The destinations served from PHL will probably be limited to LHR, CDG, FCO, FRA, TLV, MAD, DUB (seasonal), and MAN. The rest will be moved to JFK or be terminated.

I agree 110%


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 25769 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 50):
The destinations served from PHL will probably be limited to LHR, CDG, FCO, FRA, TLV, MAD, DUB (seasonal), and MAN. The rest will be moved to JFK or be terminated.

I would add several more to your list.

Given the oneworld connections, I definitely see BCN staying from PHL - at least seasonally - along with DUB. I also think PHL-LIS may still stick around, at least seasonally, as I've heard it actually does fairly well.

Additionally, I think AMS and BRU are sufficiently large and important European business markets that AA needs to have a presence in them. With AA's current hubs, that is a challenge, but PHL provides a gateway with little or no competition. I think PHL-AMS/BRU could both stick around with 757s.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 50):
Now if we look at PHL-Asia, the current local market size is about 210 PDEW. That is not very large, however it is pretty well documented that the PHL area bleeds a lot of Asia traffic to EWR. I do not see PHL being able to support multiple flights to Asia, but with connections, a daily flight to NRT is well within reason. I suspect that local market size will jump from 210 to around 325-400.

  

To me, PHL-NRT seems like a perfect market for a JL 787.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25518 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 52):
I wonder what would the numbers look like if you remove connecting passengers...

Those are the numbers without connecting passengers. Those numbers are what the local PHL market generates in O&D. The numbers are per direction, so for London thats 209 passengers going from PHL to London and 209 passengers to go from London to PHL.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 52):
Even if they're all O&D, I can only see LHR justifying a daily flight, maybe CDG/FRA and FCO during the summer. The rest can easily be routed to JFK or MIA. I'm sure after AA/US merges, they will lose some passengers to UA.

Based on the O&D and connections:

LHR will be at least 3x daily year round between US and BA
CDG, FRA, MAN, and FCO will be year round. FCO may not be daily in the winter, but CDG and FRA will be daily year round. MAN will be daily year round, but probably with a smaller aircraft. A 757 in winter and a 763 in summer would be perfect.
TLV will stick. Ive heard multiple places and from reliable sources that this flight does very well. I dont see a reason to move it to NYC to compete with 3 other carriers.
MAD will be daily in summer and maybe 4-5x a week in winter. If the 757 can make PHL-MAD in winter, I see it used then and the 763 will work well in summer.
DUB makes a good seasonal route with the 757. The local market is decent and its not hard to make DUB work in summer.

By the way, if you guys are interested in having me do analysis on the other hubs in question, I will be happy to. Just ask.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25447 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 54):
TLV will stick. Ive heard multiple places and from reliable sources that this flight does very well. I dont see a reason to move it to NYC to compete with 3 other carriers.

While I have heard that it does do very well, wouldn't the combined company assume all debts of both the previous ones? Which would keep AA (the new new one) from operating there without paying for it ($20mil I think?) or having their plane seized, correct?



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25465 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 54):
TLV will stick. Ive heard multiple places and from reliable sources that this flight does very well. I dont see a reason to move it to NYC to compete with 3 other carriers.



It doesn't matter how well the route does for US, AA cannot operate flights to Israel unless they:

A.) Pay a huge fine which they have refused for the past 13 years
B.) Send a plane and it gets confiscated.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3480 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25423 times:

Here's a thought outside the box...

Can BA or IB operate JFK/PHL-TLV for AA?

Just code it as an AA flight?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25437 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 56):
A.) Pay a huge fine which they have refused for the past 13 years

Anyone want to take a stab at how long it would take AA to earn $30 mil in profits on flights to TLV in order to recoup this debt if it was paid?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25404 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 56):

It doesn't matter how well the route does for US, AA cannot operate flights to Israel unless they:

A.) Pay a huge fine which they have refused for the past 13 years
B.) Send a plane and it gets confiscated.
Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 55):
While I have heard that it does do very well, wouldn't the combined company assume all debts of both the previous ones? Which would keep AA (the new new one) from operating there without paying for it ($20mil I think?) or having their plane seized, correct?

I should have clarified that assuming they are allowed to fly it, it will stick.

Yes, I assume the combined airline will be forced to settle up or leave.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25391 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 54):
By the way, if you guys are interested in having me do analysis on the other hubs in question, I will be happy to. Just ask.

How do you get these stats? I was actually going top start a thread asking where I could find them. Is it public knowledge or you can only get them from an access-restricted site?


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25251 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 53):
I would add several more to your list.

Given the oneworld connections, I definitely see BCN staying from PHL - at least seasonally - along with DUB. I also think PHL-LIS may still stick around, at least seasonally, as I've heard it actually does fairly well.

BCN is not a OW hub... VY is not in OW. Even DL cannot make ATL year round anymore.

Quoting commavia (Reply 53):
Additionally, I think AMS and BRU are sufficiently large and important European business markets that AA needs to have a presence in them. With AA's current hubs, that is a challenge, but PHL provides a gateway with little or no competition. I think PHL-AMS/BRU could both stick around with 757s.

Two perfect candidates to be dropped (specially BRU). Little O&D and plenty of options to and from NYC and WAS. AA even cancelled JFK-BRU from this winter and is not flying to Belgium anymore. So they don't even fly to hubs which arguely a far greater O&D base (JFK or MIA) and they are going to keep Philadelphia of all places...


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25201 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 60):
How do you get these stats? I was actually going top start a thread asking where I could find them. Is it public knowledge or you can only get them from an access-restricted site?

Its MIDT data. The international portion is restricted, but occasionally public website post pieces of it.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25191 times:

All this talk of "easily" routing current PHL connections to other hubs has me giggling. As the point has been made, it is not so easy to route connecting traffic to JFK, especially from a lot of the close in cities that currently feed PHL. There are two reasons for this. One is obviously the slot situation and the near gridlock that would result from adding too much more lift to JFK. The other is a little airport called LaGuardia. The O and D traffic from these types of airports is much more likely to go to LGA for reasons that have been discussed to death in other threads. What this leaves is a bunch of RJ's operating flights to feed international flights with almost no O and D value. This doesn't seem economical in JFK to me.

Ok....so people have suggested Euro traffic can be routed to ORD. So you are telling me that people in places like BTV, SYR, ROC, BUF, SCE, PIT, ORF, RIC, etc are really going to fly all the way back to ORD to backtrack to Europe? Unless you are a budget traveler with a lot of time looking to get somewhere cheaply, this isn't going to fly with the people that make money for the airlines internationally. Not to mention that T5 is nearly saturated as it is, and with the amount of European destinations from PHL that is gained in a US merger, there is no way ORD can absorb all that without some infastructure changes.

Then people have suggested MIA. Same issues with ORD apply to MIA for european connections. For LA though, MIA is a no brainer. And don't forget that CLT can also take some people from the south to a few of the bigger European destinations as well.

PHL is the fifth largest O and D market in the country. If US was going to walk away from this, they would have done so a few years ago and built up PIT instead. There is no way they are going to walk away from what they have in PHL. The amount of connections and destinations served domestically is just not something that they can replicate at JFK. Granted there will be rightsizing of flights, especially when the 787's come online. But to say that everything will be shifted to JFK is hogwash. JFK will still be a very important station though, and you will see a couple of stations served by US that will likely get a frequency. AMS would be a strong possibilty.

Over on the other side of the pond. I was wondering, would BAA make them keep a split operation in LHR between T1 and T3, or are they just going to eventually combine in T3, which would finally give UA room to combine under one roof?


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 25169 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 61):
Two perfect candidates to be dropped (specially BRU). Little O&D and plenty of options to and from NYC and WAS. AA even cancelled JFK-BRU from this winter and is not flying to Belgium anymore. So they don't even fly to hubs which arguely a far greater O&D base (JFK or MIA) and they are going to keep Philadelphia of all places...

That I agree with. I dont see BRU or AMS maintining PHL service because the markets are so small.

PHL will have LHR, CDG, FCO, FRA, MAD, and MAN for sure. I think DUB will be seasonal and if they can get things straightend with Israel, TLV.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24973 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 64):
I dont see BRU or AMS maintining PHL service because the markets are so small.

I've never understood why AA has neglected the fourth-largest economic area within Europe, the The Randstad.

AA's new ORD-DUS flight has been retimed on its return from the announced schedule of around noon to around 10am to connect to the morning bank of flights into DUS on AB, making it inconvenient for connections via rail that the later departure time worked well with.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 24563 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting apodino (Reply 63):
Over on the other side of the pond. I was wondering, would BAA make them keep a split operation in LHR between T1 and T3, or are they just going to eventually combine in T3, which would finally give UA room to combine under one roof?

Are US's slots even theirs to keep in the event of a merger or are they leasing them from another Star carrier?


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 24231 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
Fair enough but why not do that thru CLT which is already US's biggest hub and it's a better airport than PHL in every category?

But CLT's O/D is a fraction of what PHL's is.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 24217 times:

With more than 60 percent of market share at DCA, would it be a good idea for AA to try some Europe out IAD (LHR) and maybe S. America?

I'm sure AA customers in the area would prefer a nonstop vs. connecting.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23853 times:

I don't think PHL will lose in a merger. It's a large city that would be absolutely dominated by the combined carrier, and as others have said, JFK is too constrained to ever move a significant portion of the operations. Besides, why mess with a good thing? PHL reminds me quite a bit of MSP, in that one airline totally dominates and can pretty much do whatever they want since there's fairly limited competition to keep them in check. That's a recipe for minting money. Why change it?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 56):
It doesn't matter how well the route does for US, AA cannot operate flights to Israel unless they:

A.) Pay a huge fine which they have refused for the past 13 years
B.) Send a plane and it gets confiscated.

I suppose that depends on how the merger is executed and the exact wording of the ruling. If it is found beneficial for US to be the acquiring carrier (but keeping the AA name) and the ruling does not apply to any successors, then it might get AA completely out paying the fine. Even if that isn't possible, there could always be some behind the scenes talks that greatly reduce or completely forgive the fine. I doubt TLV wants to lose the route and the revenue it brings, so I think there would be efforts on both sides to come to an agreement that preserves the route, and maybe even adds additional TLV service by the combined airline.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seatback (Reply 68):
With more than 60 percent of market share at DCA, would it be a good idea for AA to try some Europe out IAD (LHR) and maybe S. America?

I'm sure AA customers in the area would prefer a nonstop vs. connecting.

BA already serves LHR out of IAD. But it will be interesting to see how OW as a whole decides to play the DC/N. Virginia market.

Maybe an IB return ? LAN/TAM or AB entry? JAL or CX?


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23650 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 38):
I am thinking 20-30 daily departures.

How many did Delta give up in the slot transaction with US? I would say that is the benchmark. Could be even lower if a smaller number of slots are involved.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3404 posts, RR: 7
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23359 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 54):
LHR will be at least 3x daily year round between US and BA
CDG, FRA, MAN, and FCO will be year round. FCO may not be daily in the winter, but CDG and FRA will be daily year round. MAN will be daily year round, but probably with a smaller aircraft. A 757 in winter and a 763 in summer would be perfect.
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 54):
MAD will be daily in summer and maybe 4-5x a week in winter. If the 757 can make PHL-MAD in winter, I see it used then and the 763 will work well in summer.

I'm pretty sure US has several contracts above and below the wing on PHL-MAN which is why it sees such a large aircraft daily year round. Many airlines can't maintain this service from their respective hubs so there has to be a reason why US can. Assuming US/AA keep the contracts I don't see this dropping to a 752.

FCO likely less than daily in the winter.

But I digress because this is "Routes" talk.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23178 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 49):
You are proposing a ton of "backtracking" connections there. AA/US will have to drop fares otherwise many of those paxs will all go to DL/UA through ATL/IAD/EWR.

Youre correct. The idea of sending people from SYR-ORD-LHR is absurd.

What people are missing here is PHL yields to Europe are probably better than JFK, especially to nonbusiness destinations other than FRA, LHR and CDG. LIS will do better from PHL than from JFK and can be flown with a 757.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23101 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 58):
Anyone want to take a stab at how long it would take AA to earn $30 mil in profits on flights to TLV in order to recoup this debt if it was paid?

Well it's been what 12-13 years since they dropped the route. So obviously AA feels it was not worth the cost, 13 years later.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 69):
I suppose that depends on how the merger is executed and the exact wording of the ruling. If it is found beneficial for US to be the acquiring carrier (but keeping the AA name) and the ruling does not apply to any successors, then it might get AA completely out paying the fine.

Obviously it applies to the successors, the debt is TWA's not AA's. So even if it's US that takes AA over, and the name is US etc.. they are now stuck with the debt. Just as AA was stuck with it from TWA.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 69):
Even if that isn't possible, there could always be some behind the scenes talks that greatly reduce or completely forgive the fine.

Perhaps if it were possible wouldn't AA have tried in the past 13 years?

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 69):
I doubt TLV wants to lose the route and the revenue it brings, so I think there would be efforts on both sides to come to an agreement that preserves the route, and maybe even adds additional TLV service by the combined airline.

They had no problem losing TWA/AA, this was when Tower went belly up too. Leaving only El Al and CO in the market.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineUnited777ORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 262 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23223 times:

American Airlines
Hub Airports Daily Departure Projections

Pre Merger / Post Merger

DFW: 764 / 790
CLT: 610 / 510
ORD: 501 / 525
PHL: 440 / 420
MIA: 294 / 340
PHX: 260 / 220
DCA: 220 / 250
LAX: 159 / 180
LGA: 102 / 170
JFK: 86 / 125


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23048 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 74):
Well it's been what 12-13 years since they dropped the route. So obviously AA feels it was not worth the cost, 13 years later.

Yes, understood. I'm just trying to get a feel for how long it might take AA to recoup the expense from TLV flight profits if it decided to pay the old TWA employees to get this obligation off the books. Obviously other airlines have been reaping the rewards.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinedoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23049 times:

MIA is at 348 now has been since November you are using old stats

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23034 times:

Here's a previous discussion regarding AA and TLV, it includes discussion about the judgement against AA which was originally around $20 Million upon which you have to add about 10 years worth of penalties and interest.

AA+TLV#ID5447121" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...earchid=5447121&s=AA+TLV#ID5447121



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinesouthwest737500 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23012 times:

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 75):

Really 100 flight reduction from CLT?!? That's crazy where do you pull that number


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22872 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 78):
Here's a previous discussion regarding AA and TLV

Yes, I'm aware of the reasons behind the debt. That wasn't what I was asking about. Since my question has obviously been misunderstood, it's okay, we can drop it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAv8tor From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22877 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):
First the JFK AA domestic network is a shell of the PHL US domestic network and I think the consensus is AA/US do not have the slots to build JFK into a "megahub". They won't have the domestic network to use JFK as a European connection point.

That's where B6 will come into play. Codeshare at first. Purchase will come later. Buy lots of B6 stock over the next year, it will pay big dividends later.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22876 times:

Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 79):
Really 100 flight reduction from CLT?!? That's crazy where do you pull that number

I think thats too generous.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22886 times:

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 75):
CLT: 610 / 510
Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 79):
Really 100 flight reduction from CLT?!? That's crazy where do you pull that number

Not really wanting to be cynical or the likes here, but if CLT remains with 510 daily flights here...... I think that would be fantastic. My thinking is that flights could drop to around 400 daily and even with around 400 daily flights CLT is very well served considering the O&D. 510 daily flights is heaven-sent here.


 


User currently offlinedoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22653 times:

Also if all (AA and US) current hubs stay the same as is Miami will be the number 2 hub for number of daily mainline flights.

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22550 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):
2010
EWR: 403K movements
PHL: 460K movements
JFK: 399K movements

Proof enough that JFK's slot restrictions are artificial.

Quoting commavia (Reply 36):
The two transatlantic operations - at JFK and PHL - already coexist now, just for two different airlines.

But when they're the same airline it's called redundancy  
Quoting commavia (Reply 36):
I'm not suggesting either airport substantially grow. I think JFK will probably be about flat and PHL actually slightly down in a merger. No growth - just optimization.

Then we both share the same basic opinion  
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 40):
If they can both fill planes with a positive yield, then it's cost effective.

There's something to be said about reducing the offer in order to increase yields.

Quoting commavia (Reply 53):
I also think PHL-LIS may still stick around, at least seasonally, as I've heard it actually does fairly well.

That all depends on how much connecting traffic US is doing at LIS. I suspect that on the PHL side they attract a lot of VFR traffic from southern New Jersey but that's never very profitable. It's also true that US's route to LIS was subsidized by the Portuguese tourism board. I don't know if/when that subsidy will end.

Quoting seatback (Reply 67):
But CLT's O/D is a fraction of what PHL's is.

They're both equally poor but CLT has more feed. If you look at the numbers provided in reply 50, it's blatantly obvious that most European flights from PHL are possible only thanks to connections because there's simply not enough O&D traffic to sustain those flights. 35 PDEW to MUC, 36 to AMS, 40 to BCN, 45 to MAD?


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 85, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22516 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 85):
They're both equally poor but CLT has more feed.

They are NOT both equally poor. Not even close. CLT-Europe is much, much smaller than PHL-Europe.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22483 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 83):
Not really wanting to be cynical or the likes here, but if CLT remains with 510 daily flights here...... I think that would be fantastic. My thinking is that flights could drop to around 400 daily and even with around 400 daily flights CLT is very well served considering the O&D. 510 daily flights is heaven-sent here.

If you think CLT will drop by 1/3, please start listing the cuts. Markets and frequencies.

Quoting doug (Reply 84):
Also if all (AA and US) current hubs stay the same as is Miami will be the number 2 hub for number of daily mainline flights.

Really??? More than CLT? What is CLT mainline?


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22434 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 86):
They are NOT both equally poor. Not even close. CLT-Europe is much, much smaller than PHL-Europe.

What are CLT's numbers to Europe?


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 75):
American Airlines
Hub Airports Daily Departure Projections

Pre Merger / Post Merger

DFW: 764 / 790
CLT: 610 / 510
ORD: 501 / 525
PHL: 440 / 420
MIA: 294 / 340
PHX: 260 / 220
DCA: 220 / 250
LAX: 159 / 180
LGA: 102 / 170
JFK: 86 / 125

Nice ... I'll throw in my projections.

DFW: 764 / 1080
CLT: 610 / 425
ORD: 501 / 625
PHL: 440 / 520
MIA: 294 / 450
PHX: 260 / 120
DCA: 220 / 240
LAX: 159 / 220
LGA: 102 / 170
JFK: 86 / 145


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 89, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22358 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 54):
MAD will be daily in summer and maybe 4-5x a week in winter. If the 757 can make PHL-MAD in winter, I see it used then and the 763 will work well in summer.

I expect far more than that. US today - without the benefit of a huge partner hub on the Europe end - manages to fly PHL-MAD year-round with a daily A330. Sure, a combined airline would certainly have higher costs than US has now, but on the flip side revenue in these types of longhaul hub-hub markets would also surely improve. My guess is that PHL-MAD would be a minimum of a daily 767 in the winter, and a daily A330 in the summer.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 61):
BCN is not a OW hub... VY is not in OW.

No, BCN is not a oneworld hub, but oneworld does have a strong presence in BCN with IB and VY, both of which are part of the Avios FF program.

Quoting seatback (Reply 68):
With more than 60 percent of market share at DCA, would it be a good idea for AA to try some Europe out IAD (LHR) and maybe S. America?

I'm sure AA customers in the area would prefer a nonstop vs. connecting.

I have had the same thought. If AA and US merge, AA is overnight going to gain tons of new business and government FFs in the D.C. area, many of whom want to fly overseas and would love the opportunity to use their upgrades to Europe. While I don't necessarily expect it per se, I don't think it's totally unfathomable to think that AA/BA might shift one of the daily IAD-LHR flights to AA, and that AA might one day be flying a 757 - at least during the summer - IAD-MAD.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 85):
But when they're the same airline it's called redundancy

Or complementarity. It all depends on your perspective. When it comes to JFK and PHL, you seem to think it has to be either-or; I don't.


User currently offlineBOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22270 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 62):
Its MIDT data. The international portion is restricted, but occasionally public website post pieces of it.

Specifically where do you get that? Can you provide a link? I'd pay if it was a reasonable price for it.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 31):
JFK isn't any worse than PHL as far as congestion. How can you suggest that JFK can't grow but PHL can?More importantly, PHL and NYC airspace overlap and both are affected equally in bad weather because they are so close together. Operating your 2 TATL hubs less than 100miles apart in the most congested air space region of the country just doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's also worth noting that AA has a new terminal at JFK and it appears to have plenty of room to expand east towards the JFK Expressway. That will help with AA's domestic flights. I think PHL will be reduced to a focus city over time, similar to what BOS was for AA, DL, and US before B6 took over. I have trouble seeing hubs at both JFK and PHL also.



2013 World Series Champions!
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 91, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22249 times:

Since we have people throwing around claims with nothing to back it up, Im going to break down CLT like I did PHL.

Below is the passengers per day per direction for CLT:

Total PDEW on CLT-Europe: 433

London: 82
Frankfurt: 43
Munich: 30
Paris: 29
Rome: 23
Dublin: 16
Manchester: 9

So as you can see CLT-Europe is 1/3 the size of PHL-Europe. Kudos to CLT in that it hits way above its weight on international O&D considering its a metro of only 1.8 million, but lets not go overboard.

CLT-Asia is out of the question and I dont see the need for there to be expansion on CLT-South/Central America.

Domestically, CLT looks like this:

New York: 2678
Boston: 1239
Washington DC: 1106
Chicago: 957
Los Angeles: 732
Dallas: 655
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 654
Orlando: 612
Philadelphia: 601
San Francisco: 557
Las Vegas: 542
Minneapolis: 475
Detroit: 392
Seattle: 383
Atlanta: 375
Tampa: 370
Houston: 359
Providence: 340
Phoenix: 300

I do not want this post to be taken incorrectly. I have said over and over I think CLT will play a valuable role in the combined airline. But comparing international O&D to Europe from Philly to Charlotte is moronic.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 92, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22241 times:

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 91):
I think PHL will be reduced to a focus city over time, similar to what BOS was for AA, DL, and US before B6 took over. I have trouble seeing hubs at both JFK and PHL also.

I just do not understand this logic.

How do people think AA is going to serve the northeast without a hub in PHL? There is no alternative - JFK is not a viable northeast hub, and never can be. What it is, however, is a great airport to cater to the enormous longhaul demand from one of the largest local travel markets in the world.

Besides, United has hubs at EWR and IAD that seem to coexist just fine, and those two hubs are far closer in size to each other than JFK and PHL would be for AA.


User currently offlinefutureorthopod From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21982 times:

I lived in Philly for four years and regularly made the decision to fly out of BWI, IAD, EWR, and JFK b/c they were readily accessible by public transportation

User currently offlineBOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22016 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 93):
How do people think AA is going to serve the northeast without a hub in PHL? There is no alternative - JFK is not a viable northeast hub, and never can be. What it is, however, is a great airport to cater to the enormous longhaul demand from one of the largest local travel markets in the world.

That's where DCA comes in. Anyone in the northeast going to Europe can go to JFK. PHL will retain a few European flights. Back in the mid-2000s, BOS had AA service to LHR, CDG, SNN, and MAN and even today it gets a few flights from small cities like SYR, ROC, and MDT. PHL would probably be a little bigger than that.

[Edited 2013-02-08 14:53:54]


2013 World Series Champions!
User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 93):
How do people think AA is going to serve the northeast without a hub in PHL? There is no alternative - JFK is not a viable northeast hub, and never can be. What it is, however, is a great airport to cater to the enormous longhaul demand from one of the largest local travel markets in the world.

Agreed !

Logistically and location wise, I think PHL is probably the second best hub for the Northeast US (behind EWR).

Quoting commavia (Reply 90):
I have had the same thought. If AA and US merge, AA is overnight going to gain tons of new business and government FFs in the D.C. area, many of whom want to fly overseas and would love the opportunity to use their upgrades to Europe. While I don't necessarily expect it per se, I don't think it's totally unfathomable to think that AA/BA might shift one of the daily IAD-LHR flights to AA, and that AA might one day be flying a 757 - at least during the summer - IAD-MAD.

BA would probably have to give AA a flight if they really wanted to compete with UA out of IAD. I've heard that some government employees are requried to use American carriers on international routes if there's a choice on the route.

IAD-MAD is now screaming for an AA 757.

JAL could add a 787 flight to compete with United and ANA.

LAN/TAM into GRU/LIM would be nice additions.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 96, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21917 times:

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 95):
That's where DCA comes in. Anyone in the northeast going to Europe can go to JFK. PHL will retain a few European flights. Back in the mid-2000s, BOS had AA service to LHR, CDG, SNN, and MAN and even today it gets a few flights from small cities like SYR, ROC, and MDT. PHL would probably be a little bigger than that.

Frankly, I think that's highly unrealistic. A mix of JFK and DCA is not going to cut it - those two together will not be able to replicate the strenght of a single, unified, omni-directional, domestic-and-international, throughout-the-day hub. It just cannot happen. PHL is one of only two airports in the northeast (the other being EWR) that can serve that type of megahub role - I doubt AA would be stupid enough to throw that away.


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21787 times:

I think this argument about how important is the Philadelphia market is tiring.

If PHL would be such an important market with no overlap with New York and Washington area airports, there would be more foreign carriers flying there, other than British and Lufthansa only. No connections to Asia, Latin America... no intentions from TK or Gulf carriers to start PHL. Just compare the number of foreign carriers in PHL with Houston, Dallas, Miami, Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, DC... the difference is appealing (I know that some samples like BOS are not "fair" because there is no hubbed airline). Something does not add to the "PHL is the fifth largest O and D market in the country", whether these are low yields, passengers lost to EWR or IAD, etc. PHL is the way US Airways has to access the Northeast... with AA and JFK this is no fundamental anymore.


User currently onlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21782 times:

This thread looks really familiar to what was posted on this site when CO and UA merged. Many of you though IAD would be reduced in favor of EWR but United has managed to keep them both open and didn't cut any flights. In fact IAD gain a few flights to some smaller European cities as a result of the merger. I don't really know what will happen with JFK and PHL but I don't see PHL being reduce by much because that would leave a hole a very important market.

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8675 posts, RR: 15
Reply 99, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21813 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 92):

I agree. I see CLT growing and PHL scaling down. However, I see JFK growing with flights coming from PHL being redeployed to JFK or CLT. Also, I see more of the upstate NY express route flights going to ORD.

KH



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21807 times:

It's been proven for US that CLT, DCA, and PHL make lots of cash. I'd say (for connection hub patterns) CLT might take a slight hit, but keep in mind that other than ATL, it's the second largest hub in the southeast and the 2nd biggest financial center aside NYC. Also keep in mind that you know AA execs have been envious of losing track of their S.E. pax over the years to US and DL. MIA is the best Latam gateway in the country, but AA hasn't been able to gauge the domestic flow properly as for the longest time fleet utilization out of MIA has been restricted to ATR, ERJ, 738, 757, 763, and 777. You wonder why routes like BUF-MIA, PVD-MIA, AUS-MIA, MCI-MIA, PWM-MIA have never started. The answer is AA never had the right aircraft for the smaller markets that warrant it. With a merger, you might see AA grow even more at MIA if/when E170, 319, and E190 make it there.


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 101, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21642 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 100):
I agree. I see CLT growing and PHL scaling down. However, I see JFK growing with flights coming from PHL being redeployed to JFK or CLT. Also, I see more of the upstate NY express route flights going to ORD.

Then you dont agree with me. I dont feel like going through my position again, but its on this thread in more than one place.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 98):
I think this argument about how important is the Philadelphia market is tiring.

Ive already presented data that shows what PHL is capable of and what it isnt. The whole "lets shut PHL down" notion has been shot down with data. No one is saying PHL wont lose 3 or 4 European destinations.

You dont have to argue anymore.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21561 times:

DFW - Little/No Change. AA runs that place, and will continue to.

CLT - Little/No Change. Maybe some minor capacity shifts to places like MIA or DFW, but US has a well established Southeastern hub there, and AA doesn't serve smaller Southeastern markets well. DFW is too far west for connections between the Southeast and anywhere West of the Mississippi. MIA is too far South, but great for connections to the Caribbean/South America. ORD is better for connections to the Northeast/Midwest, but many markets like GSP have lost AA flights to ORD. (Not many Southeastern markets like GSP, CAE, etc. have AA service to anywhere but DFW.) Also, Charlotte is a major financial hub (second largest in the U.S. after NYC, If I remember correctly,) so there is a fair amount of premium demand to CLT.

DCA - Minor cuts if they are required to give up slots, but can probably be made up with less frequency/larger equipment on routes that AA and US both operate.

JFK - Little/No change. Huge O&D market to Europe.

PHL - Increased frequency or larger equipment used to OW hubs in Europe like LHR, MAD, as PHL has something JFK doesnt: A large domestic network to feed the international flights, and little/no competition on it's European routes.

PHX - Probably a decent reduction in capacity, being between LAX and DFW, but it could have a place in their network if it is "right sized."

ORD - There's not much overlap in US and AA's midwest network, so I can't see much happening, other than equipment changes.

MIA - Possibly adding more to the Southeast, to take advantage of the customer base that US has.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 21136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 4):

United is currently supporting 10 Hubs, I'm SURE American can find use for the 8 hubs it currently has and in my opinion they should be looking at a Pacific/Asian Hub to Build, KIX/NRT/HND etc. since it's unlikely anyone else is going to sell THEIRS anytime soon.


User currently offlinefutureorthopod From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 21086 times:

How will this impact slots/terminal space available at other airports, particularly LAX? Will Southwest have a little more breathing room in terminal 1

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 105, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 21004 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 103):
United is currently supporting 10 Hubs, I'm SURE American can find use for the 8 hubs it currently has

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see UA supporting a hub that is as far out of the way in relation to the major population centers of the region it's useful to serve as PHX is in the grand scheme of things. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20977 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 96):
Frankly, I think that's highly unrealistic. A mix of JFK and DCA is not going to cut it - those two together will not be able to replicate the strenght of a single, unified, omni-directional, domestic-and-international, throughout-the-day hub. It just cannot happen. PHL is one of only two airports in the northeast (the other being EWR) that can serve that type of megahub role - I doubt AA would be stupid enough to throw that away.
Quoting jayunited (Reply 98):
This thread looks really familiar to what was posted on this site when CO and UA merged. Many of you though IAD would be reduced in favor of EWR but United has managed to keep them both open and didn't cut any flights. In fact IAD gain a few flights to some smaller European cities as a result of the merger. I don't really know what will happen with JFK and PHL but I don't see PHL being reduce by much because that would leave a hole a very important market.

The problem with PHL is that it's not just against JFK, but DCA and to lesser extents CLT and ORD as well. Philadelphia is a large market in its own right, but it isn't as big or important as New York and Washington are. I think we can all agree that PHL will not be reduced to a spoke, but having three hubs within 250 miles of each other is unprecedented. It might work, but it's risky.



2013 World Series Champions!
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 107, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20754 times:

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 106):
The problem with PHL is that it's not just against JFK, but DCA and to lesser extents CLT and ORD as well. Philadelphia is a large market in its own right, but it isn't as big or important as New York and Washington are. I think we can all agree that PHL will not be reduced to a spoke, but having three hubs within 250 miles of each other is unprecedented. It might work, but it's risky.

Well, again, I guess where we fundamentally disagree is the realistic appraisal of these three "hubs." I think your appraisal is just unrealistic. AA would, indeed, operate "hubs" at three northeast airports - JFK, PHL and DCA - but those three are all very different operations.

While it is true that both JFK and DCA ultimatly serve larger local population centers than PHL does, both have severe limitations that limit their capacity to replicate the hub that PHL is. For starters, both are severely capacity-constrained, both with slots and in the case of DCA also with gates. Both also compete heavily with other airports - DCA cannot handle any longhaul traffic, preventing it from being a domestic-to-international hub, while JFK competes with LGA and EWR across town, both of which are more conveniently-located to the urban core and preferred for high-yielding domestic traffic. And finally, the markets that JFK and DCA serve are both larger, but also far more competitive, with full-fledged network airline megahubs in the same market (UA at EWR in the case of JFK, UA at IAD in the case of DCA).

All of this is the long way of saying that JFK and DCA - either alone or together - can still not ever serve the same market that PHL does. PHL combines everything - omni-directional (north, south, east and westbound flows), domestic and international traffic, and steady demand throughout the day (not heavily peaked like at JFK) - into a single hub operation. JFK and DCA cannot, and never will be able to, do that. The only other northeast U.S. hub that can is EWR.

That is why - again - this is not the "either-or" choice that you and some others seem to be making it. It's an "all of the above." NYC, PHL and DCA can all coexist as huge operations in a combined AA network, catering to the different competitive and market realities of each of the different markets.



[Edited 2013-02-08 17:43:23]

User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20695 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 103):
United is currently supporting 10 Hubs, I'm SURE American can find use for the 8 hubs it currently has and in my opinion they should be looking at a Pacific/Asian Hub to Build, KIX/NRT/HND etc. since it's unlikely anyone else is going to sell THEIRS anytime soon.



Yes, but to compare apples to apples, UA only has 8 hubs in the continental U.S. This would be the same number of hubs as AA/US.

Furthermore, UA is still young in their integrations process. It has only been slightly over a year since UA/CO merged and less than a year since they've merged reservation systems. They've cut a little from LAX and the fate of CLE is quite clear as soon as the retirement of their gas guzzling ERJs (which is the vast majority of the CLE flights) begins and their commitment to Ohio ends.

[Edited 2013-02-08 18:02:01]

User currently onlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20591 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 95):
BA would probably have to give AA a flight if they really wanted to compete with UA out of IAD. I've heard that some government employees are requried to use American carriers on international routes if there's a choice on the route.

IAD-MAD is now screaming for an AA 757.

JAL could add a 787 flight to compete with United and ANA.


Where are the aircraft coming from to operate these international flights on your wish list seeing that US Airways does not operate any international flight over the Atlantic out of the DC metro area? And why would BA need to give up a flight to AA just so AA can tap into government contracts and operate an international flight from IAD-LHR? If AA or US wanted to operate a flight from IAD-LHR they would be operating it already especially AA because they are the dominate U.S. airline in the LHR market from the U.S. so your assertion that now because of this merger the new AA will now operate international flights out of IAD is crazy and it would totally cannibalize their flights from CLT, JFK, and PHL.


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20466 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 107):
, while JFK competes with LGA and EWR across town, both of which are more conveniently-located to the urban core and preferred for high-yielding domestic traffic.

OK, can you qualify this statement? Do you even live in the Tri-state? I work in Midtown and I fly out of all three airports a lot. How is EWR better situated and more convenient to the "urban core" than JFK? I am scratching my head over that one. Both airports are about 15 miles from Midtown. Maybe EWR is closer to Lower Manhattan, but unless you are driving there, you will have to trek up to Penn Station to take the train and the distance from Penn to EWR is the same as to JFK. If anything, JFK is more convenient because the LIRR goes to Jamaica station more often than Jersey Transit goes to EWR. Oh, and even driving to EWR from the "urban core" of Manhattan is a pain in the ass. Jersey traffic is much worse than going through Brooklyn or Queens. Not to mention that cabs and car services are much more expensive to go cross state lines. And more people use the JFK airtrain than the EWR monorail. I guess that means they find it more convenient to get to.

And JFK handled about 49 million passengers last year, compared to 35 million for EWR and 25 million for LGA. More than 80% of those 49 million passengers were O&D passengers, vs 85+% for LGA and about half for EWR. For such an inconvenient airport, it isn't too shabby at attracting the locals!


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 111, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20431 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 109):
Where are the aircraft coming from to operate these international flights on your wish list seeing that US Airways does not operate any international flight over the Atlantic out of the DC metro area?

I suspect there would definitely be substantial slack in the combined carrier's widebody fleet, particularly considering that both carriers are in the process of, or soon will be, taking delivery of new widebodies.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 109):
And why would BA need to give up a flight to AA just so AA can tap into government contracts and operate an international flight from IAD-LHR?

BA wouldn't need to give up a flight "so AA can tap into government contracts." BA can already carry U.S. government traffic on its IAD-LHR flights because they carry the AA code. The reason it was suggested that BA might - theoretically - hand one flight to AA is so they don't dump extra capacity into the market. Replace, say, 1 BA 777 with 1 AA 777 for only a marginal net change in the overall number of joint seats offered in the market.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 109):
If AA or US wanted to operate a flight from IAD-LHR they would be operating it already especially AA because they are the dominate U.S. airline in the LHR market from the U.S. so your assertion that now because of this merger the new AA will now operate international flights out of IAD is crazy

Not necessarily. AA today is not a particularly large player in the WAS market compared to UA and US (who both, not incidentally, are in the same alliance these days). If AA and US merge, AA will instantly become a very strong #2 in the metro WAS market, and in that case the AA-BA JV may - I stress may - find it commercially advantageous with regards to attracting corporate contracts in the area, etc. to give WAS-area AAdvantage members the ability to use their free upgrades when heading to Europe, which today is not possible.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 109):
it would totally cannibalize their flights from CLT, JFK, and PHL.

No it wouldn't, especially if AA simpy replaced a BA flight with an AA flight.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 112, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20390 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 110):
How is EWR better situated and more convenient to the "urban core" than JFK? I am scratching my head over that one. Both airports are about 15 miles from Midtown. Maybe EWR is closer to Lower Manhattan, but unless you are driving there, you will have to trek up to Penn Station to take the train and the distance from Penn to EWR is the same as to JFK. If anything, JFK is more convenient because the LIRR goes to Jamaica station more often than Jersey Transit goes to EWR. Oh, and even driving to EWR from the "urban core" of Manhattan is a pain in the ass. Jersey traffic is much worse than going through Brooklyn or Queens. Not to mention that cabs and car services are much more expensive to go cross state lines. And more people use the JFK airtrain than the EWR monorail. I guess that means they find it more convenient to get to.

EWR is closer to downtown, and roughly equidistant to much of midtown. Although in my experience, if driving, the LIE to the Van Wyck to JFK is rarely if ever faster than the tunnels and highway to EWR. JFK is great if you're in Queens, or even Brooklyn, and certainly for the Island, but in my experience not as much so from the City. Sure, the LIRR is somewhat convenient, if suboptimal with the connection in Jamaica. Either way, the larger point I was making was not about JFK vs EWR - it was about JFK vs EWR and LGA. And generally speaking, for most domestic markets, EWR and/or LGA are the preferred airports for high-yielding business traffic from the city, not JFK. The prime exceptions are probably LAX/SFO, but I believe those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 110):
For such an inconvenient airport, it isn't too shabby at attracting the locals!

I didn't say it was "inconvenient." I said that EWR and LGA were considered more convenient - from a particular location. Big difference. And, furthermore, I never debated that JFK can attract locals (locals being defined as people from the city and the 4 outer buroughs, but also largely Nassau/Suffolk and even Westchester). But the type of local traffic JFK attracts is generally lower-yielding than comparable traffic out of EWr or LGA. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all else being equal, when it comes specifically domestic markets, a flight out of JFK generally tends to be lower-yielding than a flight out of EWR or LGA to the same destination. That was the key point I was making.


User currently offlinecapitalflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20265 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
(DCA) (-2, -1): slight reduction in both departures and seats driven largely by forced slot divestitures at DCA

In addition, I would expect some of the regional flying/connections that happen at DCA to shift to PHL/CLT. DCA sucks if you have to connect. Focus should shift to maintaining profitable point to point routes, including state capitals (or whatever congressperson needs a nonstop flight).

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 19):
How big is AA at DCA? That will certainly affect how many slots AA/US has to give up at DCA

AA isn't huge, but they are probably #2 or 3 now behind US and maybe UA, especially since DL pulled out to a large extent. So the combined carrier will have to definitely get rid of some slots. My guess is a couple dozen. Especially slots with no service restrictions (like ESA airports, small cities, etc.). DOT would probably not mind getting a few more LCC flights in the mix, let WN and B6 duke it out. I don't see F9 getting in the fray as they have been noticeably absent from the last couple slot proceedings. (WN to MDW and Florida, B6 to SAN and Florida)


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20016 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 112):
EWR is closer to downtown, and roughly equidistant to much of midtown. Although in my experience, if driving, the LIE to the Van Wyck to JFK is rarely if ever faster than the tunnels and highway to EWR. JFK is great if you're in Queens, or even Brooklyn, and certainly for the Island, but in my experience not as much so from the City. Sure, the LIRR is somewhat conversatrsationient, if suboptimal with the connection in Jamaica. Either way, the larger point I was making was not about JFK vs EWR - it was about JFK vs EWR and LGA. And generally speaking, for most domestic markets, EWR and/or LGA are the preferred airports for high-yielding business traffic from the city, not JFK. The prime exceptions are probably LAX/SFO, but I believe those are the exceptions, not the rule

Maybe you had some pretty bad luck because as a local who goes to all three airports very frequently on many modes of transportation, I can't see how EWR is easier to get to from Manhattan. Traffic in Jersey is worse than traffic in Queens and Brooklyn, even when taking the LIE, which sucks, into account. I drive these roads often, so I experience this. And it's going to get worse in NJ once the Pulaski Skyway is closed for repairs for a year and a half in a few months, limiting the driving options in NJ even more.

And how is the Airtrain at Jamaica Station sub-optimal? It isn't that much if any further to walk from Jamaica Station to the JFK Airtrain than it is from Newark Airport Station to the Monorail. Aside from the Port Washington line, pretty much all LIRR trains go through Jamiaca station and stop there. Not every Jersey Transit train from Penn goes through Newark. Again, how is Jamaica Station is sub-optimal?

I don't know, if you're aware of some shortcuts to EWR from Manhattan that I am not aware of, let me know!

If you look at the Port's website, you will see that the average income of passengers going through JFK is about the same as those going through EWR. LGA attracts more higher income passengers for sure, but EWR and JFK aren't all that much different. And which airport attracts the higher yielding international passengers? Probably JFK.


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 103):

United is currently supporting 10 Hubs, I'm SURE American can find use for the 8 hubs it currently has and in my opinion they should be looking at a Pacific/Asian Hub to Build, KIX/NRT/HND etc. since it's unlikely anyone else is going to sell THEIRS anytime soon.

United is still posting losses. They are hardly the poster child for airline mergers at this point in time.


User currently offlineSWALUV From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 19537 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 102):
DCA - Minor cuts if they are required to give up slots, but can probably be made up with less frequency/larger equipment on routes that AA and US both operate.

Just a random question but does this mean we could hope to see some more AA/US 757's going out of DCA      


User currently onlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 117, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 19331 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 111):
I suspect there would definitely be substantial slack in the combined carrier's widebody fleet, particularly considering that both carriers are in the process of, or soon will be, taking delivery of new widebodies.
Quoting commavia (Reply 111):
BA wouldn't need to give up a flight "so AA can tap into government contracts." BA can already carry U.S. government traffic on its IAD-LHR flights because they carry the AA code. The reason it was suggested that BA might - theoretically - hand one flight to AA is so they don't dump extra capacity into the market. Replace, say, 1 BA 777 with 1 AA 777 for only a marginal net change in the overall number of joint seats offered in the market.

US Airways last A330-200 will be delivered sometime this year and they are not scheduled to take delivery of their A350's till 2016 and most of US Airways wide bodies are already being fully utilized they do not have a whole lot of slack. American will start taking delivery of 789 next year but most of those frames will serve as replacements for their aging 763 fleet. The only fleet that will see some slack is AA's 777 fleet with AA deploying some 773 on LHR and GRU routes this frees up some of their 772 that are currently flying those routes. But instead of duplicating routes over to Europe I think AA should use those freed up 772 to increase their presence in Asia or other parts of the world where AA is weak and US has nothing to offer in those regions.

For AA to take over one of BA routes on the IAD-LHR-IAD route would be a complete waste of AA metal especially since they are in a JV with BA and if BA can in fact carry U.S. government traffic due to the JV then it would be ridiculous for AA to waste its metal on this route when they could let BA operate it and still reap some of the profits. It is my opinion that any extra slack in the wide body fleet in the new combined AA should be use to expand either in Asia or, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Istanbul, there are a lot of places in the world where the new AA could use those spare aircraft and it is not replacing a BA flight on the IAD-LHR-IAD.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 118, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18550 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 114):
Maybe you had some pretty bad luck

Well then I've been having pretty bad luck consistently for pretty much my entire life. Coming from pretty much anywhere in the city, I've generally always found EWR or LGA easier to get to/from than JFK.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 117):
US Airways wide bodies are already being fully utilized they do not have a whole lot of slack.

Today. After a merger, and after network optimization and hub rationalization? Maybe not.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 117):
instead of duplicating routes over to Europe I think AA should use those freed up 772 to increase their presence in Asia or other parts of the world where AA is weak and US has nothing to offer in those regions.

AA should put the planes wherever they make the most money, whther it's IAD-LHR or somewhere else.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 117):
For AA to take over one of BA routes on the IAD-LHR-IAD route would be a complete waste of AA metal especially since they are in a JV with BA and if BA can in fact carry U.S. government traffic due to the JV then it would be ridiculous for AA to waste its metal on this route when they could let BA operate it and still reap some of the profits.

Well, it may not be a "complete waste." As I said, I could see it happening because while it's true that BA can carry U.S. government traffic under Fly America due to the codeshare, the inability for DC-area FFs to use their free upgrades on those flights might be somewhat less attractive compared to UA's FF offering in the area.

If this merger happens, AA will instantly become a very strong presence in the local WAS market, with the second best network out of DC and by far the most daily departures out of DC's preferred airport. Given that, I suggested that it might - might - make sense at some point down the road to switch one of the IAD-LHR flights to AA metal so that the huge AA FF base in DC had a means to use their free upgrades to Europe. The point I was trying to make was that doing that might help them attract new DC-area FFs.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 117):
any extra slack in the wide body fleet in the new combined AA should be use to expand either in Asia or, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Istanbul, there are a lot of places in the world where the new AA could use those spare aircraft

I just don't realistically see too many more longhaul opportunities for AA given its network and hub structure. AA's longhaul network is already strong, and the addition of the US Europe network would only enhance that.

With or without a merger, there really aren't too many more places in Asia that I think AA could grow, realistically, from where they are now. And that's largely fine - AA's network today is approaching where it needs to be to be competitive. The key Asia market missing is now HKG. I think it is plausible that AA could fly to HKG, and possibly expand somewhat in China somewhat if/when that market warrants. But beyond that, AA isn't likely to be flying its own metal to TPE, MNL, SIN or BKK anytime soon, nor does it need to be. Some have suggested AA - as part of the QANTAS JV - fly to Australia and/or New Zealand. Eh. Maybe, but maybe not.

As for the Mid East, too, I don't really see where AA could fly profitably. IST is low-yielding and dominated by an extremely strong competitor in TK who has low costs and a good product. DXB and AUH are dominated by their local carriers who, again, have lower costs and a great product (and, not incidentally, are both - at least as of now - AA's partners). India is notoriously low-yielding and very cost-intensive due to the stage length, and realistically probably only could work nonstop from the U.S. out of NYC. To me, that only leaves TLV, where I do think AA can and should expand - I could definitely see a JFK-TLV added alongside PHL-TLV.

Beyond Asia and the Mid East, Africa is a market AA should be in. With the 77Ws, I think MIA-JNB should happen. MIA-LOS and/or MIA-ACC might also work. But beyond that? There isn't much else, and as both DL and UA have proven, the market is no panacea.

And finally, South America. I think that one speaks for itself. AA is already so dominant there that at this point it's simply filling in the few remaining major cities on the continent it doesn't already serve with at least 1 if not more than 1 daily flight. There is some more growth potential left there for sure.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 119, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 118):
Beyond Asia and the Mid East, Africa is a market AA should be in. With the 77Ws, I think MIA-JNB should happen. MIA-LOS and/or MIA-ACC might also work. But beyond that? There isn't much else, and as both DL and UA have proven, the market is no panacea.

With AA finally finishing their Miami hub, its time to expand eyond Latin America and do something in the South Atlantic. With AA now having extra 777 available for new destinations, some will find new cities in Asia, Johannesburg would be a great start. Lagos culd be interesting too, but with no petroluim industry in Miami it may not work from there. DFW - Lagos could work, Continental flies Houston to Lagos.


User currently offlinecjpmaestro From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18349 times:

There is so much speculation on here about cuts and reductions, particularly to US hubs, and while I do see cuts at PHX I think it's proven the operations at PHL, CLT and DCA and profitable and have been. I'm not sure the same can be said at ORD, LAX and JFK (and really I don't know but US has been profitable for many quarters now and AA went into bankruptcy). I think AA's corner stone strategy looks good on paper but was it fiscally? I don't see cuts at DFW and MIA but what about the others?

Lastly, all the speculation on PHL is very interesting. This is an important hub in thee northeast and while it's 150 miles from NYC they are also all three hours from 60% of the US population. I think this is an interesting situation as with the other mega mergers I don't think there have been two hubs this close and this close to so much population. I think they both serve two different purposes and may have some slight right sizing but they will most certainly exist as hubs. Also the comments on here about Philadelphia are hysterical. This is a major US city with a diverse and relatively good economy.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 121, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18242 times:

With this merger AA will be in possession of much of the former Eastern air lines assets, except ATL:

Latin America routes
Northeast shuttle (via Trump)
Philadelphia hub assets (via Midway)
DCA (via NWA)
Eastern used to have a hub in CLT that complimented ATL up until the mid '80s.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1046 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18149 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 102):
Also, Charlotte is a major financial hub (second largest in the U.S. after NYC, If I remember correctly

While it doesn't necessarily diminish its importance as a destination, I think Charlotte lost this ranking to San Francisco after the financial industry collapse.


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18107 times:

Quoting cjpmaestro (Reply 120):
Also the comments on here about Philadelphia are hysterical. This is a major US city with a diverse and relatively good economy.

I made some of those "histerical" comments. Never said Philadelphia was Duluth or Juneau... I just pointed that PHL is not such a major market as some (I assume) locals like to think.

Good economy? Philadelphia has one of the highest unemployment, poverty rates and lowest incomes among the major US urban areas:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-2...usehold-income-census-figures-show

Now you can talk me about a few Fortune 500 or universities we all know in the area... but I wouldn't expect less for a city its size (I mean, even Detroit has GM). Yet PHL is and has been in a downward trend. Now compare it to cities its size (or even smaller) like Boston (biotech, research, universities) or San Francisco and the Bay Area. Neither PHL has appeal to domestic or foreign tourists (how important is tourism for MIA or NYC?).

On top of that, access to EWR and IAD (with FAR more international options) is quite easy; hardly any other metro area its size has so many nearby international gateways. Again, then I assume that major European or Asian carriers like Air France, KLM, Swiss, JAL, Korean, Emirates, Qatar...many of whom serve similar sized markets in the US (even competing with local airlines with long-haul), are completely blind not having any intention to serve PHL and leaving that market to US Airways alone (along with BA and LH).


User currently offlineRyefly From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17999 times:

I suppose anything is possible with this industry, but its doubtful there will be many if any cuts to CLT. I think its more likely CLT will continue to grow. Their construction plans sure indicate that will be the case.

Sure CLT doesn't have the O&D that some of the other hubs do, but who cares if its profitable? CLT is one of if not the lowest cost major hub in the country. Eliminating efficient low cost service for more O&D in a congested high cost area doesn't make much sense to me. All it takes is a low fare airline or two with a better cost structure to start service on the same routes to erode any O&D advantage those hubs have. As long as CLT has a lot of traffic feeding into it, the O&D is the icing on the cake. Also, once the merger is complete, any major reduction is a huge win for Delta in ATL.


User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17966 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 118):
Well then I've been having pretty bad luck consistently for pretty much my entire life. Coming from pretty much anywhere in the city, I've generally always found EWR or LGA easier to get to/from than JFK.

Well, like I said, I have lived in NYC for the last 13 years and you obviously don't live here. I most definitely use all three airports a lot more than you do. If you know a very quick secret way for me to get to EWR from Manhattan, I'm all ears. Until then, you really shouldn't make blanket statements like that unless you can back it up.


User currently offlineAA787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 12
Reply 126, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17874 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 118):
Quoting corinthians (Reply 114):
Maybe you had some pretty bad luck

Well then I've been having pretty bad luck consistently for pretty much my entire life. Coming from pretty much anywhere in the city, I've generally always found EWR or LGA easier to get to/from than JFK.
Quoting corinthians (Reply 125):
Well, like I said, I have lived in NYC for the last 13 years and you obviously don't live here. I most definitely use all three airports a lot more than you do. If you know a very quick secret way for me to get to EWR from Manhattan, I'm all ears. Until then, you really shouldn't make blanket statements like that unless you can back it up.

I think there might be a difference between how people get to the airport. From a mass transit perspective, EWR is far more convenient than JFK, particularly for those who live on the west side with easy access to the 1,2,3/ A,C,E. If you are driving, Van Wyck included, I do think JFK is still easier to get to than EWR (not to mention cheaper).

LGA is still the easiest one of all to get to from Manhattan based purely on how close it is. That is why the Shuttle has always been based out of LGA.

I think this conversation about convenience of airports in NYC is counterproductive to the discussion of AA/US hubs in the future.

Regarding JFK, I think that save one or two flights to PHX all US legacy flights will be cancelled in favor of more O&D traffic. AA has always had a strategy in Europe that when expanding they try to serve a foreign station from multiple hubs (compare AA's route network in Europe to say.... Continental). I think going forward you will see a flight to JFK coupled with a flight to another hub that offers connectiing opportunities (PHL, ORD, even MIA) for new destinations.



ET In NYC
User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17844 times:

Quoting AA787 (Reply 126):
I think there might be a difference between how people get to the airport. From a mass transit perspective, EWR is far more convenient than JFK, particularly for those who live on the west side with easy access to the 1,2,3/ A,C,E. If you are driving, Van Wyck included, I do think JFK is still easier to get to than EWR (not to mention cheaper).

Working in Midtown West, I am curious how is it easier to get to EWR from there with the 1,2,3 and A,C,E. I take the E Train to and from Penn Station every day. To the best of my knowledge, the best mass transit option from Manhattan to EWR is via Jersey Transit to Newark Airport Station. You take that from Penn Station, same as taking the LIRR to Jamaica and then hopping on the Air Train to JFK. Sounds like they're the same. The train to Jamaica is actually quicker than the train to Newark since it's often direct where as the Newark train usually stops in Secaucus. Yes, I know you can take the PATH Downtown to Newark Penn Station, but how do you get to the airport from there? Cab? Bus? Transfer to a NJ Transit train?

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 123):
made some of those "histerical" comments. Never said Philadelphia was Duluth or Juneau... I just pointed that PHL is not such a major market as some (I assume) locals like to think.

Good economy? Philadelphia has one of the highest unemployment, poverty rates and lowest incomes among the major US urban areas:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-2...usehold-income-census-figures-show

Now you can talk me about a few Fortune 500 or universities we all know in the area... but I wouldn't expect less for a city its size (I mean, even Detroit has GM). Yet PHL is and has been in a downward trend. Now compare it to cities its size (or even smaller) like Boston (biotech, research, universities) or San Francisco and the Bay Area. Neither PHL has appeal to domestic or foreign tourists (how important is tourism for MIA or NYC?).

On top of that, access to EWR and IAD (with FAR more international options) is quite easy; hardly any other metro area its size has so many nearby international gateways. Again, then I assume that major European or Asian carriers like Air France, KLM, Swiss, JAL, Korean, Emirates, Qatar...many of whom serve similar sized markets in the US (even competing with local airlines with long-haul), are completely blind not having any intention to serve PHL and leaving that market to US Airways alone (along with BA and LH).

Good comments. I don't see foreign carriers rushing to go there.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 128, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17840 times:

The fastest option is Amtrak from NY Penn station to EWR, 21 minutes cost $33. That's pretty darn good. Also the most comfortable.

[Edited 2013-02-09 08:40:13]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 129, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 17605 times:

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 106):
having three hubs within 250 miles of each other is unprecedented.


Lufthansa, directly or through subsidiaries, operates BRU, FRA, MUC, ZHR, and VIE. AirFrance has AMS, ORY, and CDG (and may be in danger of adding MXP).

If the hubs have a big enough O&D market, capturing that O&D matters more than self-diversion of feed.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 130, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 17592 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 119):
With AA finally finishing their Miami hub, its time to expand eyond Latin America and do something in the South Atlantic.

Agreed.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 119):
With AA now having extra 777 available for new destinations, some will find new cities in Asia, Johannesburg would be a great start.

JNB is a good start - it's a market I think AA could absolutely make work.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 119):
Lagos culd be interesting too, but with no petroluim industry in Miami it may not work from there. DFW - Lagos could work, Continental flies Houston to Lagos.

I think AA might be able to make LOS work, but probably with just a 767. I doubt DFW-LOS would ever work - IAH-LOS works largely because of the oil traffic, which is heavily concentrated in IAH.

Quoting cjpmaestro (Reply 120):
There is so much speculation on here about cuts and reductions, particularly to US hubs, and while I do see cuts at PHX I think it's proven the operations at PHL, CLT and DCA and profitable and have been. I'm not sure the same can be said at ORD, LAX and JFK (and really I don't know but US has been profitable for many quarters now and AA went into bankruptcy). I think AA's corner stone strategy looks good on paper but was it fiscally? I don't see cuts at DFW and MIA but what about the others?

The key is to stop comparing the two airlines as they independently exist and have performed up to now, and instead look at how a combined network would perform for a single unified airline in the future.

Sure, some of AA's hubs have been less profitable or unprofitable in the past, but that's because AA was structurally limited by a pre-bankruptcy cost structure and labor union restrictions that prohibited it from being competitive with its post-bankruptcy peers. Similarly, some of US hubs have been relatively more profitable up to now, but that's largely a function of the fact that most of US' employees are still working pretty much at bankruptcy-era compensation levels from 5+ years ago.

All of that will go away in a merger. The combined airline's costs will probably be slightly lower than AA's were pre-bankruptcy, and will absolutely be not-inconsequentially higher than US' costs are now. As such, all the old calculus of how profitable US hubs previously were is rendered somewhat meaningless. Thus why there is more of a focus on, and expectation of, dispraportionally more of the cuts coming from the pre-merger US network than the pre-merger AA network.

At the substantially higher cost levels - both labor costs and other costs - of a combined entity, much of the flying US previously did profitably will now become unprofitable, and likely be exited. This will likely be seen most vividly in CLT and PHX, with CLT seeing a fair reduction in flying/capacity and PHX seeing a drastic reduction in flying/capacity.

On the other hand, the relative change from the pre-merger (or no merger) to post-merger state is far less dramatic on the AA side simply because AA's hubs are generally higher-yielding, have already been progressively culled of some of their lowest-margin flying, and because many of the benefits of bankruptcy that those hubs needed in order to be (more) profitable - such as more competitive union contracts and more 70-100-seat jets - are still going to happen whether there is a merger or not.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 125):
Well, like I said, I have lived in NYC for the last 13 years and you obviously don't live here. I most definitely use all three airports a lot more than you do. If you know a very quick secret way for me to get to EWR from Manhattan, I'm all ears. Until then, you really shouldn't make blanket statements like that unless you can back it up.

I don't live in New York now, but I have before. You have your experiences, I have mine.


User currently onlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 131, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17327 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 118):
Given that, I suggested that it might - might - make sense at some point down the road to switch one of the IAD-LHR flights to AA metal so that the huge AA FF base in DC had a means to use their free upgrades to Europe. The point I was trying to make was that doing that might help them attract new DC-area FFs.

This has to be one of the worst reasons I have ever heard for a airline to add a flight on its own metal, AA would not make any money. Switching a flight to ones own metal so that their FF base can use their free upgrades would cost AA money because if the percentage of people upgrading into business class from a coach class ticket is greater than the number of people who actually buy a business class ticket then AA is going to loss money on the route. Although this is the norm on flights from LAX-HNL-LAX there is no way AA would start a flight to LHR from IAD for this reason. If AA puts this route on their own metal it will be because they want to tap into their customer base and attract new customers who would actually buy a business class or first class ticket. I can't speak about BA but I to know a lot about UA and depending on the time of year it is nearly impossible for any one less than a GS passenger to get upgraded into first class and in some cases we can't even upgrade the GS passenger because first class is full and in business there may be 1 or 2 seats available for upgrades the rest are filled with passengers who actually bought a business class ticket. If AA starts this route it won't be because AA wants to award their huge FF base with free upgrades to business class on flights to LHR.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11639 posts, RR: 61
Reply 132, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17269 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 131):
This has to be one of the worst reasons I have ever heard for a airline to add a flight on its own metal, AA would not make any money. Switching a flight to ones own metal so that their FF base can use their free upgrades would cost AA money because if the percentage of people upgrading into business class from a coach class ticket is greater than the number of people who actually buy a business class ticket then AA is going to loss money on the route.

First suggestion: take a deep breath.

Second suggestion: re-read my comments.

I never suggested AA start a flight simply to give free upgrades to people. A hypothetical AA flight IAD-LHR would be just like every single other flight AA operates, meaning revenue and yield management would attempt to maximize profit and sell as many revenue seats - in all cabins - as possible at the highest possible price. However, the benefit of one single AA flight IAD-LHR as opposed to three all on BA is that AAdvantage members don't have the chance of using free upgrades on BA. They do have that chance on AA. As such, the ability to offer top-tier AAdvantage members in the D.C. area the change - not the guarantee - of using their free upgrade might help AA attract those high-yielding, fare-paying frequent flyers to the AA/oneworld (as opposed to UA/Star) network.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 131):
If AA puts this route on their own metal it will be because they want to tap into their customer base and attract new customers who would actually buy a business class or first class ticket.

Obviously. Nobody was ever suggesting otherwise. Again, all I was suggesting is that giving U.S.-based frequent flyers the chance to use their free upgrades when headed to Europe might help with attracting those "new customers who would actually buy a business class or first class ticket."


User currently offlinebagoldex From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17152 times:

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 122):

While it doesn't necessarily diminish its importance as a destination, I think Charlotte lost this ranking to San Francisco after the financial industry collapse.

Not even close. Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Miami, DC, Houston, Los Angeles, Atlanta ...


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 134, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 16783 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 86):
If you think CLT will drop by 1/3, please start listing the cuts. Markets and frequencies.

At first I though - oy vey, really - but then, I thought that if I could get a timetable that I could easily copy and paste onto my spreadsheet, I thought - why not, and spend a few minutes on this. Well, once I started it took me more than a few minutes, but once I started..... I kept going. Here is the link to the timetable that I used

http://www.trvlink.com/download/us/usschedules.pdf

With that..... I noticed that a lot of these destinations near CLT have about 8 or 9 frequencies with the 50 seat CRJs or props. Way too much considering the local O&D, which I posted from Q3 12 where I could. There's also some international O&D if I could find it, and posted both domestic and international O&D where I though applicable.

After looking at everything, I think CLT will be in for a huge massacre if this merger happens. I really don't think the new AA/US is going to be having 8 banks at CLT, and I reduced CLT to 3 banks, where in many cases it's still far too generous. Also, my total of current daily flights at CLT is around 665, and that may be because I included as daily a lot of frequencies that may not be available on week-ends, or other times. Nonetheless, I don't disagree that maybe there are a few too many flights that I listed..... fine.... but I also listed what I think a new CLT will look like with an AA/US merger. So here it is....... first the destination from CLT with miles, then the current number of flights, then what I would think will happen, and then any local passengers per day if relevant.....


Akron OH US (CAK) 394 miles …….. 5 ……… 3 …….
Albany NY US (ALB) 645 miles ……. 3 ……. 2 ……. 160 ppd
Allentown PA US (ABE) 480 miles ……. 3 ……. 2 ……. 64 ppd
Antigua AG (ANU) 1717 miles ……. 0.2 ……. 0.2 …….
Aruba AW (AUA) 1706 miles ……. 1 ……. 1 ……. 89 ppd
Asheville NC US (AVL) 92 miles ……. 10 ……. 3 ……. >10 ppd
Atlanta GA US (ATL) 227 miles ……. 9 ……. 6 …….
Augusta (Bush) GA US (AGS) 141 miles ……. 7 ……. 3 …….
Austin TX US (AUS) 1033 miles …….