Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA/US Merger Impact: Airside Ops (non-hubs)  
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6001 times:

All of this merger talk got me to thinking about airport operations and BOS was the first one to come to mind. Both AA and US have substantial terminal operations in B at Logan, my question is which side will win out? B West with US or B East with AA?

US has more gates which I would think both airlines could consolidate OPS into, leaving B East free for UA, WN or someone else looking to expand in the BOS market.

In STL, US recently moved to Concourse C near AA, are there any other airports which come to mind where OPS could be a potential problem or blessing?

Please keep this discussion to the non-hubs of the combined airline. Thanks to all for your replies

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11145 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5890 times:

From an airport operations integration perspective, this merger appears pretty effortless - certainly far less challenging that United-Continental.

At least for the hubs, the integration is obvious. AA will move into the more-than-sufficient space US already has at its hubs (PHL, CLT, PHX), and US will move into the more-than-sufficient space AA already has its hubs (DFW, ORD, MIA, JFK). And at DCA, the two are already essentially right next to each other. The only hub where it may be a problem is LAX.

For the non-hubs, this should also be rather straightforward. There are only 3 major airports around the system where I see airport integration presenting any real issues:

LGA - both airlines have reasonably large operations, and are currently located in 2 completely different spots; long-term the solution is obviously the new CTB that the PANYNJ wants to build, but in the interim, I suspect the only viable solution is to cut some kind of a deal with UA and the CTB to consolidate in the existing CTB Concourses C/D and move UA somewhere else

BOS - I think this will only really present "issues" because of the logistics, but not necessarily the path forward; I think AA will likely consolidate on the current US side of B, but I'm just not sure about how that would or when that would happen; one thing is for sure, though: Massport is probably about the happiest of everyone today about this merger, as their whole terminal merry-go-round problem was just solved

ATL - AA has an enviable position with its 4 prime gates on T, but the combined airline could not fit into that space; UA has a similar problem as its combined operation cannot fit into its 3 gates on T; the obvious long-term solution is that one of them will likely get all 7 of the T north gates and the other will move somewhere else, but both will surely want those T gates as they're so convenient

Beyond those two, all of the other major combined non-hub airport operations are already either right next to each other, or should be able to easily be consolidated into a single bloc of gates. In places like SFO, SEA, STL, MCO, AUS, etc., the two carriers should have no problem combining airport operations.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5787 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
In places like SFO, SEA, STL, MCO, AUS, etc., the two carriers should have no problem combining airport operations.

There may be some unknowns in SFO, but with VX going nowhere quickly as far as growth, UA eventually moving back out of Terminal 1 and neither carrier that large, I don't see a long-term problem there.

At BNA, I'm not sure that US can easily fit in to AA's current space, but cutting some DCA frequencies, which will inevitably happen, and perhaps adding a jet bridge or two to space AA already leases should fix that.

One thing that's different with this merger is that the previous mergers (DL/NW, UA/CO, WN/FL) have already resulted in consolidation and vacant gates at a lot of airports. So at a place like MCO that had some questions about the prior mergers, this one is easy; I expect AA will just move in to Airside 3 which IIRC has plenty of available gates.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11145 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5738 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
There may be some unknowns in SFO

Maybe, although I suspect the US operation could fit into AA's 7 preferential use T2 gates alright with some creative scheduling.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
At BNA, I'm not sure that US can easily fit in to AA's current space

I don't think it should be all that much trouble - are AA's gates exceedingly highly utilized? It's never seemed so to me.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
One thing that's different with this merger is that the previous mergers (DL/NW, UA/CO, WN/FL) have already resulted in consolidation and vacant gates at a lot of airports.

Agreed.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8094 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BHMNONREV (Thread starter):
Quoting BHMNONREV (Thread starter):
All of this merger talk got me to thinking about airport operations and BOS was the first one to come to mind. Both AA and US have substantial terminal operations in B at Logan, my question is which side will win out? B West with US or B East with AA?

Now with a bigger presence in Boston I hope AA will expand to Europe, no 757 please. BOS to GRU would be a great rout too.


User currently offlineBDL757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5671 times:

In BDL it's perfect because AA and US are right next to each other!

User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5678 times:

Have a question that I wasn't sure would be correct for the other threads..

RDU (of course)

Clubhouse: US and AA both have a pretty decent size club at RDU. Who will win the club space. Could they possibly turn one of them into a Flagship lounge for the internation flight and the other a domestic lounge?

Airport location: Currently AA is pretty much surrounded in Terminal 2 Concourse C for their current location. US is on the opposite end with 4 or 5 gates available. New AA could consolidate everything into the Concourse D side but that would mean the LHR flight would arrive and depart on the complete opposite end of the airport from their other ops.

Routes: LHR and DCA. I personally think New AA would be crazy to cut the LHR route but to be honest, US wasn't necessarily the smartest cookies in the Keebler pack. Is it possible they would try to move the RDU slot to CLT to give them 2 LHR flights and eliminate the RDU route? (Please take note that if that would happen, DL or the DL JV with VS would annouce RDU pretty soon afterwards I completely believe).. DCA is another story with AA and US each having between 7-8 flights a piece. Could this push RDU-DCA into 7-8 total on E70/E75 or would one of their flights just get dropped? (Again, I believe DL and potentially WN would pick up the route with the divesture of the flights as would probably be required)...

Thoughts?



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2953 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5652 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

YYZ is another question... US moved to T1, AA is in T3... US will probably move back to T3 but I don't know that gates are sufficient after the WestJet US expansion in the part couple years.


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5646 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 3):
I don't think it should be all that much trouble - are AA's gates exceedingly highly utilized? It's never seemed so to me.

The trouble is that they use Eagle gates for Eagle (and QK and K5) and mainline gates for mainline, and US flies a lot of Express aircraft to PHL and DCA. I bet DCA goes E-jet and uses mainline gates along with some frequency cuts, and the four jet bridges (C2/3/5/8) should be enough for mainline. Given the frequent delays to Eagle destinations (ORD, LGA, PHL), they probably need to add a jet bridge to C13 and/or C15.

[Edited 2013-02-14 07:10:41]


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32213 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
into a Flagship lounge for the internation flight and the other a domestic lounge?
DFW and (temporarily; it's being built) MIA don't have Flagship Lounges. I assure you, RDU won't either.

AA will become the largest airline at RDU (again) and I think RDULHR is definitley safe.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
Now with a bigger presence in Boston I hope AA will expand to Europe, no 757 please. BOS to GRU would be a great rout too.

Doubt it. Though the combined AA/US will be virtually tied with B6 for Logan's largest carrier.

[Edited 2013-02-14 10:23:48]


a.
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5429 times:

Quoting BDL757 (Reply 5):

ditto @ TPA



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4133 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

The hubs along with DCA are obvious. As for key outstations

BOS - The question is, what is Terminal B going to look like Post Merger. They already started construction on the B project and I see it being finished. But that may create a surplus of gates. What I suspect may happen is for AA and US to combine in the B South portion, which would include some of the new construction, allowing UA to relocate into B south. With the Star Alliance angle being thrown in, I also look for VX and AC to swap locations, though I think AC needs three gates for their BOS operation, and where VX is currently only offers two.

ATL - Like the UA-US merger, this has split operation written all over it. The only long term solution I see would be for WN to completely take over the South D gates, for DL to take the exisiting C gates being used by WN, and then for the T gates to be UA and AA. I don't think DL will like this very much which is why it will be difficult to implement, but C offers DL more gates than they have on T.

MCO - US is in Airside 3 and AA is on Airside 1. You know B6 will want some growing room on Airside 1. There was space freed up on Airside 3 following the NW/DL merger, but then UA/CO combined on 3 themselves. Not sure how much space is available, and if can handle a combined operation.

EWR - Easiest one in the book, both will end up in A.

MKE - AA is on C, and US just moved to D, which makes this one harder than it would have been a few months ago. Because WN is looking to consolidate to C, I suspect AA will end up joining US on D. The question is, after DL moves, how much room is left on D?

LAS - Both airlines are in T1, but US Is still on A and AA on D. Everything is common use, and common sense would dictate that the carriers end up on D. I don't see the check in being moved to T3 though.

CLE - Real easy, the two airlines are the only ones on the A concourse, which the combined carrier will enjoy to themselves now.

LHR - The combined carrier is going to end up in T3, but the question is, how long are the US flights going to stay in T1 before merging? UA/CO hasn't even been able to consolidate ops there yet.

YYZ - US moves back to T3 now that there is no longer a need for them to share with the Star Alliance.

IAD - US uses the Z gates in the Main Terminal, where AA is out on Concourse A. I think Z has room to accommodate the combined ops.

SFO - AA is in T2, and US in T1, now is there enough room in T2 to handle the operation without VX being screwed over in the process?


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3971 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5280 times:

At PDX, US and AA are close (on the same concourse) but separated by I believe two or three WN gates. AA only has a few flights a day, US a couple more than that, and while AA is a bit closer to the ticket counter, the US area is more spacious. Remains to be seen who moves where.

User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5253 times:

In Indiana:

At IND, US and AA are both on Concourse B and (I think) right next to each other. FWA and EVV are both AA (Eagle)-only, so don't expect any changes. And SBN doesn't have service from either AA or US.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineadtall From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 70 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 11):
ATL - Like the UA-US merger, this has split operation written all over it. The only long term solution I see would be for WN to completely take over the South D gates, for DL to take the exisiting C gates being used by WN, and then for the T gates to be UA and AA. I don't think DL will like this very much which is why it will be difficult to implement, but C offers DL more gates than they have on T.

DL isn't giving up their T gates. They run DCA, LGA and other high frequency flights out of T and they market that quick accessibility, plus they would be losing 6 widebody gates and lots of office space. It just isn't happening. One of UA and AA will end up on T and one on D, unless they both want to continue split ops. WN also couldn't fit entirely on D south unless they pared their ops back drastically; they would lose a bunch of gates as FL already uses a lot of the CUTE gates.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5210 times:

In SAN, US is in T2W and AA is in T2E. Both cx use different "assigned" gates.

I could see the new operation settling in the western end of T2 where the Green Build is nearing completion and there will be lots of CUTE gates and tons of ticket counter space. However, AA's current location in T2E is near BA and JL's gates (the FIS facilities) so to keep the Alliance together, maybe the new AA will stay there... (I don't think there are many connections here in SAN between AA, BA, and JL so their proximity may not be important.)

And what used to be AA's Admiral's Club is being moved and changed into a common-use club operated by ALD, open to pax of any cx; the new club WILL remain in T2E. That fact would, I guess, tend to favor AA remaining in T2E. (And there is certainly enough gate space to handle the combined -- pre-shrinkage -- operations of AA and US.)

It's unclear (to me anyway) due to the opening of the new terminal area which SAN airlines will be moving into and out of which terminals (except for UA which is definitely moving soon into the new area.) And perhaps this AA-US consolidation will now alter the planned moves even more!

bb


User currently offlineDLX737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1891 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5193 times:

For ATL, as mentioned, UA/CO is still split up in T and D and AA/US will also be split in T and D. I think Delta should trade 3 of the old Northwest gates for US' D North gates. Then UA can take over these three former Northwest gates and give up the 3 T gates to AA. US/AA could fill in T North and UA/CO could have several gates in D South. They may not be side by side but at least all be in the same terminal and near the UA (formerly CO) lounge. T North also already has the AA club.

At my former airport, OMA, AA is in A Concourse and US in B Concourse. AA uses gate 7 and US uses gate 11. US could either move to gate 6 or AA could move to B and the two airlines could either use gates 18/19 or maybe 19/20. 20 might have some aircraft size limitations, not sure...



The public: They always know better, even though they often know nothing
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 11):

EWR - Easiest one in the book, both will end up in A.

They would also have A-3 to themselves. Virgin America would operate a handful of flights. Take bets that EWR-DCA could be added back?



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
move UA somewhere else

UAs 757s to LGA won't fit at terminal C.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5082 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
ATL - AA has an enviable position with its 4 prime gates on T, but the combined airline could not fit into that space; UA has a similar problem as its combined operation cannot fit into its 3 gates on T; the obvious long-term solution is that one of them will likely get all 7 of the T north gates and the other will move somewhere else, but both will surely want those T gates as they're so convenient

ATL was one that I figured could present a problem. I can't see either AA or UA giving up T gates unless the other wants to pony up some serious cash. If I had to place a wager on who of the two would move it would be UA. AA has their baggage claim in the old international arrivals area, I'm thinking they like the exclusivity.

Quoting apodino (Reply 11):
IAD - US uses the Z gates in the Main Terminal, where AA is out on Concourse A. I think Z has room to accommodate the combined ops

I had forgotten about those, I believe there are 5-6 Z gates there. I would think the combined ops could easily fit there, but the gates seem to be better confiured for regional jets vs mainline.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5047 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Routes: LHR and DCA. I personally think New AA would be crazy to cut the LHR route but to be honest, US wasn't necessarily the smartest cookies in the Keebler pack. Is it possible they would try to move the RDU slot to CLT to give them 2 LHR flights and eliminate the RDU route? (Please take note that if that would happen, DL or the DL JV with VS would annouce RDU pretty soon afterwards I completely believe)

Don't forget about the possibility of AA just handing RDU-LHR to their JV partner BA (the most likely scenario, IMO) and moving the spare LHR slot to another AA hub (most likely PHL).



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days ago) and read 4970 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 19):
If I had to place a wager on who of the two would move it would be UA.

Absolutely, UA would be better off in D as there is a United Club there. However much they may "like" the T gates, it makes a lot more sense for them to move to their Club, than AA (unless they pick up an Admirals Club in the process!)


And they must be popping champagne corks up in Boston   

Consolidating AA/US in the US gates (plus some spillover into the connector), AC and VX in the connector and UA in the AA gates has solved all of their problems. And it will allow some spare gates for non-B6 growth.


As said, EWR is easy.


US only has a limited presence in SFO, and could probably be shoehorned into the AA gates with clever scheduling.


At RDU, I think that AA will move down to US. AA are choked by DL and B6, whereas there is lots of empty space in the US/UA pier.


LAX could be interesting. While it looks like a nightmare, I think that with some scheduling acrobatics that they could get everything into T4 and TBIT. After all, TBIT is like a mini-JFK: completely deserted for large swathes of the day.


A few more that no-one has mentioned yet:

TPA: both are at Airside F and are ticketed in the "blue" zone. No real problems here. Just a bit of shuffling to co-locate gates.

ORF: AA are on B and US are on A, but there are some empty gates opposite the US gates so they will be able to easily consolidate on A.

RIC: Really easy, AA and US already have A to themselves (+AC)

GSO: Another easy one, the two have Pier B to themselves (with G6 making an occasional appearance). There's loads of empty room, so AA could move down next to US (which is closer to the ticket counters and the Club). On that note, what will become of the Greensboro US Airways Club?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2640 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days ago) and read 4967 times:

DEN looks like it's going to maybe be into some complications to get AA and US together.

Presently US, being a *A member, is pretty much bundled up with UA here, and US shares a couple of gates in UA's Concourse B, while AA has its couple of DEN gates in Terminal A, and AA/US are even on opposites sides of the concourses. IIRC, UA was happy to give up these couple of gates to its alliance partner a few years back.

Meanwhile, in Jeppesen Terminal where the counter space is, US is near UA on the West Side, while AA is on the East Side.

There are gripes that DEN doesn't have enough gates, yet the concourses presently are so easily and relatively inexpensively to expand for more gates. And it seems that everyone just likes to grumble about it, but really have done nothing about adding more gates for the last few years.


And just from the looks of the DEN map, it looks like there will have to be some reshuffling if UA is going to want to keep all of its Concourse B gates to either itself or to *A partners.

I have a feeling that this may be one of the funner airports to be fun to watch with this merger.........

edit added: AA has about 19 daily flights, while US has some 15 daily flights, for about 36 in total. They each presently have 2 gates. I could think that the merged AA/US could manage here with 3 gates if they cut a handful of flights, but that could even make things more complicated.......

 

[Edited 2013-02-17 17:30:42]

User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days ago) and read 4962 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 21):
LAX could be interesting. While it looks like a nightmare, I think that with some scheduling acrobatics that they could get everything into T4 and TBIT. After all, TBIT is like a mini-JFK: completely deserted for large swathes of the day.

Spot on. Before the merger announcement, AA planned on using TBIT for some flights (with preferential use access at 3-4 gates) and sharing the new oneworld lounge in TBIT.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
Now with a bigger presence in Boston I hope AA will expand to Europe, no 757 please.

Some seasonal summer "niche" routes would work good in BOS. The first city that comes to mind is Cork, although there are a few others......those kinds of secondary European cities......

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 12):
At PDX, US and AA are close (on the same concourse) but separated by I believe two or three WN gates. AA only has a few flights a day, US a couple more than that, and while AA is a bit closer to the ticket counter, the US area is more spacious. Remains to be seen who moves where.
AA and US are close together in the A concourse in SEA. UA will be moving to A later on......and the pieces will start to fit togther in the near future......AS relocation into N gates is also part of the puzzle, too....

[Edited 2013-02-17 18:07:33]

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11145 posts, RR: 62
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5119 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Could they possibly turn one of them into a Flagship lounge for the internation flight and the other a domestic lounge?

No Flagship Lounge at RDU, but there will certainly be an Admirals Club there.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
I personally think New AA would be crazy to cut the LHR route

I don't think there has been any suggestion as such. As has been well-discussed, strategic corporate contracts have kept RDU-LHR going long after AA cut its hub, and then pulled own another buildup in the last decade. I don't see RDU-LHR going anywhere.

And RDU-DCA is certainly not going anywhere - it will almost certainly see reduced frequency given the AA/US overlap and the inevitable regulatory demand for slot concessions at DCA, but that will probably be offset by upgrading the flights to larger, 2-class RJs.

In addition, I would also not be surprised to see RDU-BOS come back with a few daily 2-class RJs.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 17):
They would also have A-3 to themselves. Virgin America would operate a handful of flights. Take bets that EWR-DCA could be added back?

VX will still have a gate or two in A-3, right? I thought that was part of the deal AA made with VX?

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 18):
UAs 757s to LGA won't fit at terminal C.

I suspect they could all figure something out. The current US location would be a perfect place for UA, freeing up CTB-C/D completely for AA, and leaving the smaller CTB-A/B concourses for everyone else (WN, B6, F9, AC, NK).

Either way, the LGA CTB reconstruction cannot come soon enough. That terminal is simply sub-optimal for air travel in 2013.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 20):
Don't forget about the possibility of AA just handing RDU-LHR to their JV partner BA (the most likely scenario, IMO) and moving the spare LHR slot to another AA hub (most likely PHL).

It's the same pool of slots between AA and BA, so "handing" the flight to BA would simply move 1 slot from the combined AA-BA pool from an AA jet to a BA jet - the net change would be zero.

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 19):
If I had to place a wager on who of the two would move it would be UA.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 21):
Absolutely, UA would be better off in D as there is a United Club there.

Agreed - given the infrastructure on D, it probably makes more sense for UA to move there, although they may try to resist that as T is so convenient.

Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 24):
AA and US are close together in the A concourse in SEA. UA will be moving to A later on......and the pieces will start to fit togther in the near future......AS relocation into N gates is also part of the puzzle, too.

I suppose US will now move over to D to consolidate with AA's new home?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

Here are a few more with physical separation that no one has yet mentioned. I think most of these have enough vacant gates that consolidation will not be a problem:

JAN: AA is on the East Concourse, US on the West. I think East is less busy, so they'll likely consolidate there.

PBI: AA is on C, US is on B. With DL and B6 - PBI's two biggest tenants IIRC - on C, I expect AA will move to the US space. B has plenty of gates.

PIT: AA is out on the end of D, US is on B. Given that US still controls 10 or so gates, I expect AA will move in with them.

SAN: AA is in Terminal 2 East, US is in Terminal 2 West. I don't know the airport well enough to be able to figure this one out.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 25):
I suppose US will now move over to D to consolidate with AA's new home?

Looks like that's probably the plan. UA, incidentally, will also be getting the former AA Admiral's club, which has been vacant the past few years.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5220 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
BOS to GRU would be a great rout too.

If by great you mean burn money....then yes.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
I hope AA will expand to Europe, no 757 please.

.....Good idea. Maybe they should buy 20 A380s and fly them all across the Atlantic. Who cares how much money they lose, they simply need to try to be like Pan Am and TWA.  
Quoting apodino (Reply 11):
I don't think DL will like this very much which is why it will be difficult to implement, but C offers DL more gates than they have on T.

Delta won't do it. Why would they? You expect them to lose gates, lose office space and most importantly lose 6 widebody gates? AA/UA will have to fit around Delta. Sorry, thats how it works. (just like Delta would have to fit around AMR in Dallas or CLT)

Quoting adtall (Reply 14):
DL isn't giving up their T gates. They run DCA, LGA and other high frequency flights out of T and they market that quick accessibility, plus they would be losing 6 widebody gates and lots of office space. It just isn't happening. One of UA and AA will end up on T and one on D, unless they both want to continue split ops. WN also couldn't fit entirely on D south unless they pared their ops back drastically; they would lose a bunch of gates as FL already uses a lot of the CUTE gates.

This. i don't know why this keeps getting tossed around. Delta has some of the highest gate usage in the country in ATL and its already a complete cluster when WX happens. No way is Delta going to give up gates to help AA, UA, or WN. (and no way the city of Atlanta is stupid enough to even ask)

Quoting DLX737200 (Reply 16):
I think Delta should trade 3 of the old Northwest gates

Why should Delta give up some of the best gates on D? Only way I see Delta giving up those gates is if they get gates on T in return.

Quoting commavia (Reply 25):

Agreed - given the infrastructure on D, it probably makes more sense for UA to move there, although they may try to resist that as T is so convenient.

Both would work just as well. If AA moved to D they would likely move right into where UA is going to end up.

With FL down flights in Atlanta I see UA taking over a CUTE gate or two(they already use one every now and then) and AA moving into UA's T gates. I bet Delta gets the pick of what left over US gates they want.



yep.
User currently offlinephatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1343 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 10):
ditto @ TPA
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 21):
TPA: both are at Airside F and are ticketed in the "blue" zone. No real problems here. Just a bit of shuffling to co-locate gates.

Note that this will mean the return of what will be former US at gates F79-F82, which were longtime US gates until they were given up to AA in the early 2000's.

Also, ticket counter consolidation will be interesting. Both AA & US have one block of ticket counters to themselves, which are never fully utilized.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 21):
LAX could be interesting. While it looks like a nightmare, I think that with some scheduling acrobatics that they could get everything into T4 and TBIT. After all, TBIT is like a mini-JFK: completely deserted for large swathes of the day.

I've read on here that US is moving to T3 after WN gained full access to T1. Does AA/US want to hang on to T3?

SJU: US moving to Terminal D from Terminal B should help lighten up Terminal B.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4724 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5164 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 25):
And RDU-DCA is certainly not going anywhere - it will almost certainly see reduced frequency given the AA/US overlap and the inevitable regulatory demand for slot concessions at DCA, but that will probably be offset by upgrading the flights to larger, 2-class RJs.

DCA-RDU certainly isn't going anywhere. Both carriers operate 7 50 seaters per day, so the obvious thing to do would offer 7x E75/CR9/E90. No loss of frequency, and there are 7 DCA slots that they can surrender without cutting anything.

Quoting commavia (Reply 25):
I would also not be surprised to see RDU-BOS come back with a few daily 2-class RJs.

I agree.

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 29):
Does AA/US want to hang on to T3?

I doubt it. T3 and T4 aren't exactly convenient to each other. Given that AA was already going to expand into TBIT, which is much more convenient to T4, then I think they will just stick to that plan, and possibly make use of a couple of CUTE gates in TBIT.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11145 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5137 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
I doubt it. T3 and T4 aren't exactly convenient to each other. Given that AA was already going to expand into TBIT, which is much more convenient to T4, then I think they will just stick to that plan, and possibly make use of a couple of CUTE gates in TBIT.

I tend to agree - if at all possible, I am sure AA would prefer to have all of their operations consolidated into T4 (at least when it comes to ticketing). If I remember correctly, the new T4-TBIT connection being designed not only includes a secure connection between T4 and TBIT, but also an additional security checkpoint that will relieve pressure on the existing T4 checkpoint.

Creative gate scheduling is nothing new for AA at LAX - T4 has been among the most intensively utilized terminals at LAX for years. I suspect that with creative scheduling, AA could fit the ~20 US flights into T4. But, this would certainly require AA to shift a not-insignificant amount of departures over to TBIT, likely including not only all the international arrivals/departures, but likely also domestic flights as well. And, of course, the volume throughput that would be added to T4 by US CLT/PHL/PHX flights would be slightly offset by the end of the Eagle flights to PHX.


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 25):
VX will still have a gate or two in A-3, right? I thought that was part of the deal AA made with VX?

Likely a gate or two unless they have VX move to A-1 with WN, B6, and the other LCCs. It would match up nicely then:

EWR TERM A:
A-1: WN, B6, VX
A-2: UAEX ops.
A-3: AA



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinephatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1343 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5063 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
And, of course, the volume throughput that would be added to T4 by US CLT/PHL/PHX flights would be slightly offset by the end of the Eagle flights to PHX.

Except the Eagle flights leave from the West satellite, and US operates mostly mainline into LAX.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11145 posts, RR: 62
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5008 times:

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 33):
Except the Eagle flights leave from the West satellite, and US operates mostly mainline into LAX.

Thus why I specifically referred to "volume throughput" (meaning passenger volume) rather than "aircraft throughput" or "gate utilization." Sorry if I wasn't clear. Those existing AA LAX-PHX flights may operate out of the T4S, but check-in and security are all in T4.


User currently offlinejustplanenutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 492 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 29):
I've read on here that US is moving to T3 after WN gained full access to T1. Does AA/US want to hang on to T3?
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
I doubt it. T3 and T4 aren't exactly convenient to each other.
Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
I tend to agree - if at all possible, I am sure AA would prefer to have all of their operations consolidated into T4

Once the connectors to TBIT are built, would the walk from T3 -T4 be much different than T6-T8 on UA? Seems to me if NewAA really wanted to swing for the fences at LAX, it would:

* Grab as many former AS gates at T3 as it could as part of the US T1 relo deal
* Push LAWA to add the T3 connector to the current T4 project (which I believe LAWA is to act on shortly)
* Move international/widebody ops to the 4 TBIT gates (LAWA needs to build 1 more TBIT gate to trigger this)
* Add a few more narrowbody gates at T4 once the bus gate and widebodies go away
* Convert 4-5 T3 gates into 8-10 RJ gates and move Eagle there

That would mean 14-16 mainline gates at T4, 4 widebody gates at TBIT (plus overflow use at non-peak hours) and 8-10 regional gates at T3--all connected behind security.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

At IAH I'd expect the "new" AA to grow a bit in A south. It would be nice to see a lounge built as well.

In the IAH thread, an AA employee mentioned there was still space for it in A.

I'd be curious to see if HOU gets anything more than DFW from the merged AA. MIA would be nice from HOU but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11145 posts, RR: 62
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 35):
* Grab as many former AS gates at T3 as it could as part of the US T1 relo deal
* Push LAWA to add the T3 connector to the current T4 project (which I believe LAWA is to act on shortly)
* Move international/widebody ops to the 4 TBIT gates (LAWA needs to build 1 more TBIT gate to trigger this)
* Add a few more narrowbody gates at T4 once the bus gate and widebodies go away
* Convert 4-5 T3 gates into 8-10 RJ gates and move Eagle there

I suspect AA's desire would be to shift sufficient flying to TBIT gates (mostly international and widebody, likely) and reconfigure T4 for more gates - perhaps even including getting the end of T4 reconfigured with a bunch of hardstands for Eagle and getting out of the Satellite.

Assuming AA does get gate space on TBIT, could that even be done? Would there be enough space? I'm not sure.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 36):
At IAH I'd expect the "new" AA to grow a bit in A south. It would be nice to see a lounge built as well.

I don't think an Admirals Club returning to IAH is totally out of the question.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 36):
I'd be curious to see if HOU gets anything more than DFW from the merged AA. MIA would be nice from HOU but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

I remember back in the late 1990s/early 2000s when AA had mainline MD80s from HOU to LGA, DCA, AUS, SAT and LAX from HOU, plus Eagle to DFW. HOU is more convenient or much of central Houston, but unfortunately it's largely Southwest country.


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 743 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting apodino (Reply 11):

MKE - AA is on C, and US just moved to D, which makes this one harder than it would have been a few months ago. Because WN is looking to consolidate to C, I suspect AA will end up joining US on D. The question is, after DL moves, how much room is left on D?

There will still be plenty of gates "available" in the D concourse in MKE after DL moves. I say "available" because according to our local expert knope2001 all of the D gates, except D52/56 are still being leased by F9 so they would ultimately have to be willing to give up those gates. When DL does move to the D concourse taking 6 gates, F9 will assume the leases for the 6 gates in the E concourse from DL.

AA and US used to be right next to each other in C. However, SW and US just swapped gates so you are correct that US is using 2 gates in the D concourse now. Again according to knoope2001 MKE is converting D54/D55, which were ground ground-boarding gates used by Skyway, to be conventional upper level gates like the adjacent ones.

Here's MKE terminal map for a visual. Just zoom in on the D concourse.

So if I were a betting man I think AA will be moving from their long time home in the C concourse into the D concourse picking up the newly converted gates 54/56 for a total of 4 gates.

Combined flights starting this spring: AA 9 (4xORD,5xDFW) and US 12 (5xPHL,5xCLT,2xPHX). So with 21 daily flights 4 gates should be more than enough and even allow for some expansion; however morning departures could be a little sticky and planes would definitely have to be parked remotely overnight.

If they felt really ambitious they might even have the option of picking up another gate or two (53/51) but let's face it. This is MKE ... LOL.

[Edited 2013-02-18 10:49:55]

User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4133 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 28):
Quoting apodino (Reply 11):
I don't think DL will like this very much which is why it will be difficult to implement, but C offers DL more gates than they have on T.

Delta won't do it. Why would they? You expect them to lose gates, lose office space and most importantly lose 6 widebody gates? AA/UA will have to fit around Delta. Sorry, thats how it works. (just like Delta would have to fit around AMR in Dallas or CLT)

Quoting adtall (Reply 14):
DL isn't giving up their T gates. They run DCA, LGA and other high frequency flights out of T and they market that quick accessibility, plus they would be losing 6 widebody gates and lots of office space. It just isn't happening. One of UA and AA will end up on T and one on D, unless they both want to continue split ops. WN also couldn't fit entirely on D south unless they pared their ops back drastically; they would lose a bunch of gates as FL already uses a lot of the CUTE gates.

This. i don't know why this keeps getting tossed around. Delta has some of the highest gate usage in the country in ATL and its already a complete cluster when WX happens. No way is Delta going to give up gates to help AA, UA, or WN. (and no way the city of Atlanta is stupid enough to even ask)

This sounds like it is going to be a repeat of what just happened in BOS, where you had one dominant carrier (B6) who the airport authority is going to go out of their way to handle at the expense of other carriers (UA). As for responses to my suggestion a few points. First of all, how many domestic widebody flights besides HNL does DL actually operate where you would operate the flight outside of E or F? Secondly, since they opened new gates in Terminal F which are widebody capable, is DL going to really lack the capability to handle widebody aircraft even if they lose the T gates. Thirdly, in the proposal I stated, DL actually gains more gates than they already have. And fourthly, just because an airline has a mega hub in a city, why does the airport feel the need to cater to that airline. DL is in no danger of dehubbing ATL at all despite what happens. The best thing the airport can do is try to make sure that all the other carriers are happy, so that you have adequate competition preserved, which is in the best interest of the airport and the traveling public, who the airport is there to really serve.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 36):
I'd be curious to see if HOU gets anything more than DFW from the merged AA. MIA would be nice from HOU but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Well, WN has a big operation there, but it is closer to central Houston, and it is also close to a lot of important government locations (e.g. Johnson Space Center). IAH is so far from the city that a few frequencies out of HOU could steer some high yielding travelers there, though these would have to be largely O and D on the other end to compete with UA at IAH. I could see AA maybe trying some 170's from ORD and CLT, perhaps even JFK. They would need a beyond perimeter exemption for DCA, and I don't see them getting that.


User currently offlineadtall From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 70 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 39):
This sounds like it is going to be a repeat of what just happened in BOS, where you had one dominant carrier (B6) who the airport authority is going to go out of their way to handle at the expense of other carriers (UA). As for responses to my suggestion a few points. First of all, how many domestic widebody flights besides HNL does DL actually operate where you would operate the flight outside of E or F? Secondly, since they opened new gates in Terminal F which are widebody capable, is DL going to really lack the capability to handle widebody aircraft even if they lose the T gates. Thirdly, in the proposal I stated, DL actually gains more gates than they already have. And fourthly, just because an airline has a mega hub in a city, why does the airport feel the need to cater to that airline. DL is in no danger of dehubbing ATL at all despite what happens. The best thing the airport can do is try to make sure that all the other carriers are happy, so that you have adequate competition preserved, which is in the best interest of the airport and the traveling public, who the airport is there to really serve.



First, and actually a WN point, is that WN/FL would go from ~30 gates that they use at the moment to 20 gates. That isn't something I'd think they'd like to do unless they seriously slash their ops, and I doubt they slash that much. I'd assume they wouldn't want to go to LAX-style gate usage unless they had to, and they don't. ATL will take care of WN too, they have a large pull as well as DL.

Dl would gain some gates under your proposal, but gates aren't always equivalent, as I suspect you realize by trying to put UA and AA both on T. The WN point above argues against DL screwing WN, and repeating my point from before, look at what T is used for by DL now - high frequency flights to business destinations, primarily LGA and DCA but also BOS, ORD, and some LAX. The convenience factor that they are going for with this isn't replicable on another concourse (F not so much due to rental car center location). The LAX flights dovetail into some need for T widebody gates, since it's convenient to the business guys again. A few of your west coast flights like SFO and SEA also depart from there, again with some widebody usage.

T also has a lot of office space and other support areas that cannot go anywhere else, it's the largest amount of back-office space DL has on the domestic side. Getting rid of that would be problematic.

There aren't as many widebody flights as say 2003 sure, but those that exist are somewhat grouped together at the same time, leaving in the AM push and arriving back around 7-9. All F did for DL was give it a tiny bit of slack on domestic gate space due to the int'l flights moving from T to E or F. E and F are very busy in the timeframe that the domestic widebodies return, so domestic widebody space is needed, and T helps with that demand. E and F also cost more to use for DL than T due to E and F having all CUTE gates, so it's a revenue disadvantage for DL.

Finally, why wouldn't an airport authority take care of hub carriers, sometimes at a perceived expense to other carriers? I say perceived because UA and AA can't moan about not getting something they never had in the T-South gates to preserve their convenience at the expense of the carrier who butters the airport's bread, and also the second hub carrier too. UA and AA will have to suck it up and one go to D, that's just the way it's gonna be. DL isn't going to give up T voluntarily, the airport won't ask, and really UA and AA won't either, just like DL wouldn't bother asking a hub for UA or AA. Sorry some will lose the convenience they're used to at ATL, but hey.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Quoting adtall (Reply 40):
look at what T is used for by DL now - high frequency flights to business destinations, primarily LGA and DCA but also BOS, ORD, and some LAX.

But, again, with the possible exception of ORD, they really don't need to run those flights from T for any competitive reason. Most people who fly those routes regularly have no choice but to fly Delta. That's not to say that DL will leave T (I think UA will wind up on D since they have a club there and AA has the "private" baggage claim), but this isn't a good reason for DL to keep T.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5230 posts, RR: 14
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 26):
Here are a few more with physical separation that no one has yet mentioned...

...SAN: AA is in Terminal 2 East, US is in Terminal 2 West. I don't know the airport well enough to be able to figure this one out.

Well, ummm, except for post 15.  

(As Father Mulcahy once said, "I'm often mistaken for being absent.")

bb


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 39):
First of all, how many domestic widebody flights besides HNL does DL actually operate where you would operate the flight outside of E or F?

nearly all of the 15ish domestic 767 fleet is based in Atlanta. A few LAX turns to other hubs but thats about it. Not only that but in the summer they could never fit those opps into the A gates. Also T will still see the odd international flight every now and then.

Quoting apodino (Reply 39):
Secondly, since they opened new gates in Terminal F which are widebody capable, is DL going to really lack the capability to handle widebody aircraft even if they lose the T gates.

Yes. LAX/SFO/SEA/LAX/PHX/JFK see wide body flying and it is cheaper to use Delta gates on T/A than it is to use city FIS gates on E/F

Quoting apodino (Reply 39):
Thirdly, in the proposal I stated, DL actually gains more gates than they already have.

if they do its not that many. (and as someone said, completely screws WN)

Quoting apodino (Reply 39):
And fourthly, just because an airline has a mega hub in a city, why does the airport feel the need to cater to that airline.

..... Because without the super hub ATL would be nothing.

Quoting apodino (Reply 39):
The best thing the airport can do is try to make sure that all the other carriers are happy, so that you have adequate competition preserved, which is in the best interest of the airport and the traveling public, who the airport is there to really serve.

No hub airport is going to piss of 1,000 flight a day super carrier for a 20 flight a day no body. Sorry wont happen.

Quoting adtall (Reply 40):
ATL will take care of WN too, they have a large pull as well as DL.

DL then WN then everyone else. Delta's lease agreement pretty much says Delta gets first dibs on everything and Delta has to green light basically anything the city does at ATL.

Quoting adtall (Reply 40):
I say perceived because UA and AA can't moan about not getting something they never had in the T-South gates to preserve their convenience at the expense of the carrier who butters the airport's bread, and also the second hub carrier too

this. Delta then Southwest come first. ATL doesn't want to lose AA or UA but they darn sure don't want to lose DL or WN. (and after both carriers had to deal with the cluster that was F, The city is already on thin ice from both the airlines and The State of Georgia.)

Quoting adtall (Reply 40):
DL isn't going to give up T voluntarily, the airport won't ask, and really UA and AA won't either, just like DL wouldn't bother asking a hub for UA or AA

pretty much.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 41):
But, again, with the possible exception of ORD, they really don't need to run those flights from T for any competitive reason. Most people who fly those routes regularly have no choice but to fly Delta. That's not to say that DL will leave T (I think UA will wind up on D since they have a club there and AA has the "private" baggage claim), but this isn't a good reason for DL to keep T.

Running the high O/D cities from the closest to the curb gates is a selling point. Not much of one, but a little of one. Most airlines does this at their hub airports.

and its doesn't matter why/what Delta uses the T gates for, The City of Atlanta is simply not stupid enough to even ask them to give up the space. You have a better chance of having UA and AA move to D and DL taking all the of than Delta leaving T-south.



yep.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3702 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 43):
Running the high O/D cities from the closest to the curb gates is a selling point. Not much of one, but a little of one. Most airlines does this at their hub airports.

. . . and it's equally silly for all of them.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1457 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 44):
. . . and it's equally silly for all of them.

There might be some value to them, just with a rather low price/accomodations threshold for consolidating elsewhere. It's worth holding on to, but not something you'll likely see them start WWIII over.


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3554 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
I tend to agree - if at all possible, I am sure AA would prefer to have all of their operations consolidated into T4 (at least when it comes to ticketing). If I remember correctly, the new T4-TBIT connection being designed not only includes a secure connection between T4 and TBIT, but also an additional security checkpoint that will relieve pressure on the existing T4 checkpoint.

Creative gate scheduling is nothing new for AA at LAX - T4 has been among the most intensively utilized terminals at LAX for years. I suspect that with creative scheduling, AA could fit the ~20 US flights into T4. But, this would certainly require AA to shift a not-insignificant amount of departures over to TBIT, likely including not only all the international arrivals/departures, but likely also domestic flights as well. And, of course, the volume throughput that would be added to T4 by US CLT/PHL/PHX flights would be slightly offset by the end of the Eagle flights to PHX.

LAX currently has the highest per gate utilization in the AA system, it is somewhat maxed at this point. Not too much more AA can add in T4. The original plan was for AA to move most widebody flights to TBIT once it opens later this year, AA could then construct and additional three gates in T4. Not sure if that has changed or not.

AA was been trying to get additional real estate in LAX for years, a couple of years back they were offered two gates (shared non peak times) in T2 but did not excercise that offer due to the logistics involved.

On a separate not AA will go back to far remote west later this year for approx 4-6 months when G41-49A closes due to the final phase of the TBIT construction and the alley way will be closed.


User currently offlineblueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

JFK US just goes to T8 but will ther remainder of that terminal be built like originally planned


B6 T5 JFK DL T2/3 JFK
User currently offlineantoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1531 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
At BNA, I'm not sure that US can easily fit in to AA's current space, but cutting some DCA frequencies, which will inevitably happen, and perhaps adding a jet bridge or two to space AA already leases should fix that.

Plenty of room on C if they need it.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
Given the frequent delays to Eagle destinations (ORD, LGA, PHL), they probably need to add a jet bridge to C13 and/or C15.

C8 also currently lacks a jet bridge and could be utilized... in a pinch, they could redraw some of the lines and put C1 back in, too...

I've always wondered what drunken monkey came up with the numbering arrangement for BNA's gates... (probably the same drunken monkey who put the doors on the side of D when (at the time it was used) the planes had to park down at the end)...

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 38):
I say "available" because according to our local expert knope2001 all of the D gates, except D52/56 are still being leased by F9 so they would ultimately have to be willing to give up those gates.

Given their desire to cut costs as much as possible and the fact that they've pretty much abandoned any hope of being a major carrier in MKE, why wouldn't they?



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinecessna2 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 2820 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Routes: LHR and DCA. I personally think New AA would be crazy to cut the LHR route but to be honest, US wasn't necessarily the smartest cookies in the Keebler pack. Is it possible they would try to move the RDU slot to CLT to give them 2 LHR flights and eliminate the RDU route? (Please take note that if that would happen, DL or the DL JV with VS would annouce RDU pretty soon afterwards I completely believe).. DCA is another story with AA and US each having between 7-8 flights a piece. Could this push RDU-DCA into 7-8 total on E70/E75 or would one of their flights just get dropped? (Again, I believe DL and potentially WN would pick up the route with the divesture of the flights as would probably be required)...

I agree. AA would be crazy to cut the route. Here's the market share breakdown for 2012 released by RDU today.

DL-26.9%
WN-21.7%
AA-17.0%
AWE-15.6%
UA-10.5%
B6-5.0%
FL-2.5%
AC-1.2%

After all is said and Done, AA will retain a 32.6% market share. thats almost 10% greater than DL. If they abandoned RDU after the merger all together (again) and DL continues to strengthen its ties in Europe (Particularly LHR), we may see the LHR flight go to CLT and DL takeover the RDU-LHR route of which its been trying to get its hands on for years. THat would also bring the very likely scenario that the RDU-CDG flight would be started, as there would be no AA to block it this time. Just my two cents.


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 743 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 49):

After all is said and Done, AA will retain a 32.6% market share. thats almost 10% greater than DL.

Technically, it's 5.7% not almost 10%. After AA/US combine there will certainly be some rationalization of RDU routes and maybe even a few routes added AA will still be one of the top 3 carriers - maybe not #1 but much closer to DL than today.

As far as RDU-LHR goes, I'm not quite sure why people think AA would give up a route that is so heavily subsidized. In fact, a combined US/AA likely makes this route even more appealing when it comes to renewing this corporate contract. I'm also guessing this is one of the first routes to get a newly configured 772 with the J,W,Y cabin.

[Edited 2013-02-22 11:43:17]

User currently offlineSJOtoLIR From Costa Rica, joined Jul 2007, 4339 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2117 times:

Speaking about the Central American landscape, San Jose Costa Rica will receive six routes out from the USA, once the AA-US merger would come into force:

Miami
Dallas / Ft. Worth
New York JFK
Charlotte
Phoenix
Philadelphia

Regards.



"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 46):

AA was been trying to get additional real estate in LAX for years, a couple of years back they were offered two gates (shared non peak times) in T2 but did not excercise that offer due to the logistics involved.

I never understood why they never tried for gates in T6. As I understand it, T6 still isn't being used to its max capacity.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA/US Merger Impact: Hubs posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:30:25 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: FFP posted Wed Feb 13 2013 19:32:16 by tonytifao
AA/US Merger Impact Frequent: Flyer Programs posted Wed Feb 13 2013 08:50:53 by ckfred
AA/US Merger Impact: Employees posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:33:33 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: HQ posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:33:23 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: Livery posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:33:21 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: Unions posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:33:18 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: Inflight Service posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:33:18 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: Routes posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:33:17 by Moderators
AA/US Merger Impact: Fleet posted Fri Feb 8 2013 01:30:06 by Moderators