Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA/US Merger Impact: Hubs (Part 2)  
User currently offlinemoderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 514 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22881 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

This is a continuation thread from part 1 (merger impact: hubs) which can be found here: AA/US Merger Impact: Hubs (Part 1)


Please feel free to continue your discussion here. On behalf of the moderators, please continue to enjoy the forums.


The Moderators


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
220 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16909 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22872 times:

Local business report on WCBS 880 in New York stated that AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that?


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22627 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that?

Fewer ERJs and more international flying, I'd expect.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22610 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
Love to know how they're going to do that?

Maybe less short haul domestic (shift that to PHL), more transcon and international?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22606 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Fewer ERJs and more international flying, I'd expect.

That's what I'm thinking too. I see them utilizing some of the 762s on more tatl flights.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16909 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22594 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):

That's what I'm thinking too. I see them utilizing some of the 762s on more tatl flights

Those are going to be retired, soon.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33289 posts, RR: 71
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22405 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):

Local business report on WCBS 880 in New York stated that AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that.

1) Expand flying outside of peak departure times, where slots are plentiful and not an issue (e.g. slots around noon are easy to grab; noon is prime departure to Asia. I know AA is in fact considering JFKPVG).

2) Trim ERJ flying and replace with long-haul flying. Those once dai.y ERJs to CVG, ORF, BWI, etc. are not necessary now that AA has a hub in PHL.

3) Pre-anticipate that DOT/DOJ will force AA to give up Reagan slots, and arrange another slot swap with JetBlue to acquire, say, a dozen prime departure slots for 12-18 Reagan slots. With an operation still focused on trans-cons, Carribean departures and Florida, the 4-8P primary departure times aren't important for JetBlue, and B6 might be more than willing to shift its JFK departures around in order to gain an expanded footprint at Reagan.



a.
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22337 times:

I was looking at documentation that US/AA provided on the merger website. One thing I found is there are a few western cities that US serves from PHX that are not served at all by AA. The question is, are these cities still going to be served from PHX post merger, or is AA going to pull out entirely, or shift the service to other hubs? Something to think about.

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22255 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
Love to know how they're going to do that?

As others have also suggested, my guess is that AA plans to replace peak slots now used by RJs with mainline (primarily transcon and/or longhaul flights). AA already has a strong network at JFK, but I think it could benefit from some strategic additions in key New York O&D markets (both domestic and international) not already served.

AA forces transfers through JFK onto international flights because in many cases AA has little alternative to JFK for handling those connections. Now, with PHL, connections to Europe from places like CVG, BWI, CLE, etc. can be routed over the far larger PHL hub, freeing up JFK slots and capacity to be allocated in a more optimized way for the local O&D market.

Quoting apodino (Reply 7):
I was looking at documentation that US/AA provided on the merger website. One thing I found is there are a few western cities that US serves from PHX that are not served at all by AA. The question is, are these cities still going to be served from PHX post merger, or is AA going to pull out entirely, or shift the service to other hubs? Something to think about.

There are several - around 10, I think - markets in the western U.S. that are served by US through PHX but not AA at all (although many of them are markets AA used to serve within the last decade, such as LGB, OAK, SBP, BOI, BFL, etc.). My guess is that some of them may well transition to either DFW or a DFW/PHX mix, as DFW provides greater connectivity than PHX ever can.


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22219 times:

Btw I don't know why some people insist in keeping flights to BCN just because it is a "Oneworld hub". Vueling is not a OW partner airline, so BCN is not a OW hub.

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
AA forces transfers through JFK onto international flights because in many cases AA has little alternative to JFK for handling those connections. Now, with PHL, connections to Europe from places like CVG, BWI, CLE, etc. can be routed over the far larger PHL hub, freeing up JFK slots and capacity to be allocated in a more optimized way for the local O&D market.

This has been discussed to extenuation in the previous thread. The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable... specially from Europe from where many secondary cities would only make viable a flight to New York (largest O&D in the US by far to most of those destinations) and good connectivity opportunities. That is what BA does in overcrowded Heathrow (why don't they split it between LHR and BHX for instance) or AF in CDG. Sure both BA and AF use LGW and ORY, but both London and Paris play in a very different league (comparable only to New York) and both airports serve roughly the same O&D market (same as DL does from JFK and LGA).

I feel that some people here might give the impression that transiting through an airport in a smaller city with less O&D would be more convenient. Particularly in PHL I don't think it is the case... the airport is not bad but either amazing (I prefer AA's terminal at JFK for transiting) and it shares the same crowded airspace and likely the same issues as JFK if there is a windstorm, for instance.

However for some reason many ppl insist here that "splitting" O&D with JFK and transfer with PHL makes sense. We will see.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:09:02]

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22161 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):
The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable... specially from Europe from where many secondary cities would only make viable a flight to New York (largest O&D in the US by far to most of those destinations) and good connectivity opportunities.

That may be true in Europe, as you posit, but how do we explain the relative sizes of ATL versus JFK or SFO versus LAX? In each case, the hub in the more "world class" city is significantly smaller.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:26:58]


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, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22131 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):
Btw I don't know why some people insist in keeping flights to BCN just because it is a "Oneworld hub". Vueling is not a OW partner airline, so BCN is not a OW hub.

True - BCN is not a oneworld hub, but it is a market where oneworld has a relatively strong market penetration given the local presence of Iberia, and Vueling, which is a partner in Iberia's frequent flyer program.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):
The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable

True - most carriers would prefer that. But the reality in the northeastern U.S. is that there is only one hub that can effectively combing both a huge O&D base and also be a huge connecting hub catering to all types of connecting flows - domestic and international, longhaul and shorthaul, throughout the day. That hub is EWR, and that hub is obviously taken. Given that, PHL is the only other hub in the reason capable of even coming close.

JFK and LGA are both limited by the fact that while they obviously both cater to a massive local market, they also compete with each other - and EWR - and the overall NYC market is now highly competitive, with (soon) four airlines each having 15-20%+ of the market share. PHL, while a smaller O&D market, true, is still a very large O&D market by national standards, and yet it competes with no other major connecting hub in the same metro area, and it's handily dominated by the hub airline. Given that, it's a great "silver medal" as hubs go in the northeast.

However, all that being said, AA is now in the strong position of being able to enjoy - to some extent - the best (or at least the "better") of both worlds: AA will continue to maintain a huge local presence in the New York market, with ~300 daily flights to dozens of cities catering (primarily) to the local O&D demand, while also having a huge, 400+ flight hub just down I-95 to handle not only the PHL market's O&D (relatively smaller than NYC's), but also connections. That is a lot of network breadth and depth in both markets, and the two should compliment each other well.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):
I feel that some people here might give the impression that transiting through an airport in a smaller city with less O&D would be more convenient. Particularly in PHL I don't think it is the case... the airport is not bad but either amazing (I prefer AA's terminal at JFK for transiting) and it shares the same crowded airspace and likely the same issues as JFK if there is a windstorm, for instance.

No question. AA's JFK terminal is overall vastly superior to the PHL terminal facilities, but PHL is at least functional. It's overcrowded, outdated, and in need of investment. But, then again, that could describe part or all of many airport terminals in the northeast.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:26:34]

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22129 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
No question. AA's JFK terminal is overall vastly superior to the PHL terminal facilities, but PHL is at least functional. It's overcrowded, outdated, and in need of investment. But, then again, that could describe part or all of many airport terminals in the northeast.

PHL has a fair amount of cosmetic and functional work done or planned, including a people mover that would make connections work a whole lot better. This recent press release has a somewhat complete list.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8777 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22098 times:

I am not sure how profitable AA growth at JFK would be. It is definitely attractive looking on a map. But JFK is competitive. AA apparently has a good facility at JFK. But getting a high RASM at JFK isn't just trivially easy.

User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22029 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10):
That may be true in Europe, as you posit, but how do we explain the relative sizes of ATL versus JFK or SFO versus LAX? In each case, the hub in the more "world class" city is significantly smaller.

You are right... Europe is different to the US in many senses. I am not talking only about "world cities" but the necessity of tapping any market. My comment about "world cities" was mostly regarding the fact that for AF, BA or DL, keeping two hubs in the same city (when they are such major economic and tourism centers) probably makes more sense than for AA keeping both JFK and PHL... two nearby distinctive markets.

ATL's success is due to different factors as we all know:

- Location, no other major or medium airport in many many miles away (not the case for PHL). And certainly DL has not another hub 150 miles away  ... and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.
- Convenience and expansion... sure ATL is not "nice" or state of the art but it is a very efficient machine to transfer (the airport itself and the paralel runways system). Also, the airspace is not crowded. Not the case for PHL either.
- Good weather. Not the case for PHL.
- Very good location to transfer from Europe to Florida, Texas, West Coast... not the case for PHL (AND it doesn't have any geographic advantage to NYC). Even if as some ppl say here, PHL can serve a bunch of secondary markets that probably NYC can't... is it worth to keep an intercontinental hub just for the sake of 8 or 10 PVD and the likes? BA concentrated operations in London (I know that BA is the dominant player in London, not the case for AA in NYC) so some UK markets like MAN or BHX have been more and more "lost" to foreign carriers... but would it be worth for them to have kept hubs in those places just to get more share of those markets? Probably not.

On top of that, whether PHL can still be a major market, current economy, demographics (and their prospects) are really grim and I assume (this has been pointed in this thread) yields are not really that high. Again, just look at how little to none interest Philadelphia Airport gets from foreign carriers and then compare it to similar +- metro areas like Boston, Miami, DC, San Francisco, Dallas... it is like night and day. I would see a point to keep PHL even if it is so close to NYC if Philadelphia would be a kind of booming powerhouse with high yields and economic growth, like San Jose or Houston, but this is certainly not the case.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7823 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22019 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):

True the discussion over PHL has been had at length in the previous thread. However, the arguement clearly favors a significan usage of the PHL airport even if a few transatlantic destinations shift to JFK. That has been supported by data whereas the arguement for shutting down PHL is predominantly anecdotal and rhetorical.

Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would. Can they create JFK into a hub that serves the same function as PHL as a domestic and international connector serving all cities big and small on the east coast and Eastern Midwest? Absolutely not. AA has neither the gates or slots at JFK to create that. Unless the new AA is prepared to give those markets to DL and UA, the need PHL and won't be dumb enough to shut it down. Not to mention the PHL transatlantic market is only small compared to NYC and Boston. When you compare it with other markets across the US, it's quite sizable.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21993 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
Those are going to be retired, soon.

True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21988 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
I am not sure how profitable AA growth at JFK would be. It is definitely attractive looking on a map. But JFK is competitive. AA apparently has a good facility at JFK. But getting a high RASM at JFK isn't just trivially easy.

It might get better once more small-spoke routes are cut in favor of either transcontinental or high-revenue transcon flights.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):
Even if as some ppl say here, PHL can serve a bunch of secondary markets that probably NYC can't... is it worth to keep an intercontinental hub just for the sake of 8 or 10 PVD and the likes?

This is basically arguing against the hub system itself in favor of high volume P2P.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21961 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):
Location, no other major or medium airport in many many miles away (not the case for PHL). And certainly DL has not another hub 150 miles away ... and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.

The population density is much higher in the northeast, though. There aren't other major airports near ATL because there aren't other major cities near Atlanta. The next closest MSAs over, say, 1.5 million are Nashville and Charlotte, and those are about 250 miles away.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):
ery good location to transfer from Europe to Florida, Texas, West Coast... not the case for PHL (AND it doesn't have any geographic advantage to NYC

Europe-Flords/Texas/West Coast are all shorter via PHL than via ATL.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):
On top of that, whether PHL can still be a major market, current economy, demographics (and their prospects) are really grim

Philadelphia is surely a more mature market than, say, Atlanta or Houston, but which economic fundamentals are poor?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 21784 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
1) Expand flying outside of peak departure times, where slots are plentiful and not an issue (e.g. slots around noon are easy to grab; noon is prime departure to Asia. I know AA is in fact considering JFKPVG).

I'm sure AA will consider this option but this still doesn't create an all day 400+ flts hub

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):
However for some reason many ppl insist here that "splitting" O&D with JFK and transfer with PHL makes sense. We will see.

The comment below addresses this perfectly. If it it were a perfect world for AA/US they would certainly choose JFK over PHL for a Northeast mega hub (400+ flts). Problem is that it's not a perfect world and the best they can do is what MAH suggested and optimize JFK and add flts where they can.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15):

Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would. Can they create JFK into a hub that serves the same function as PHL as a domestic and international connector serving all cities big and small on the east coast and Eastern Midwest? Absolutely not. AA has neither the gates or slots at JFK to create that.


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 21697 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15):
True the discussion over PHL has been had at length in the previous thread. However, the arguement clearly favors a significan usage of the PHL airport even if a few transatlantic destinations shift to JFK. That has been supported by data whereas the arguement for shutting down PHL is predominantly anecdotal and rhetorical.

And I haven't said either that PHL would be closed... my point is that AA would carry whatever they can from PHL to JFK.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15):
Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would.

So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 21674 times:

Would be nice to see some former AE routes from JFK flown on US 319/320 metal: JFK-ALB/BTV/PWM/SYR/BUF/MHT etc.


"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineblueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 21650 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):

Local business report on WCBS 880 in New York stated that AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that?

LEave the short Hual at LGA and more International at JFK shift the slots they have



B6 T5 JFK DL T2/3 JFK
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 21616 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):
So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

Well in all defense I think you'd be hard pressed to find a major carrier (past or present) that would not bite at the opportunity to turn JFK, or EWR for that matter, into a 400+ hub with connections to the US, Europe, South America, and Asia. I don't think that means PHL is not relevant.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7823 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 21508 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):
So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

There is not one market in the US that is more important as NYC. Comparing it to any city in the US is not apples to apples.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineAA767LOVER From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2007, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 22088 times:

PHL's ability to expand is quite limited given their current location. However, if they were to move deeper into the suburbs such as a IAD case, would that help any? Or is it the city's corporate image that needs to be changed? This is more an issue of airport management/planning as well as city politics.

Get down to the HUB issue: PHL should be kept.

PHL itself has gone through renovations and I'm quite impressed by what I've seen by the newer international concourse,the F regionals concourse is quite nice too. However, C, D, E are not so nice. Too antiquated. AA will move from its current location and take over the whole terminal, but where will ALL its planes go?

I don't think that PHL will become redundant. It's market is quite unique. Why did WN or VX choose to go to PHL? There has to be a reason.

No one is going to allow America's birthplace to go unnoticed, I'm sure of that.
By circumstance and history, the four major centres of the eastern seaboard, BOS, NYC, PHL and WAS just happened to be populated as such.
Why should PHL be given lower priority or lower relevance as a hub? I would hate to see it downgraded. JFK's strength is international. PHL's strength is domestic/Caribbean/Europe. Keep it as such.

BOS? New England's premier hub . . . don't downgrade.

I want to protect PHL as a hub in the final analysis.



J.I. Tsui, American Advantage Member, United Mileage Plus (Premier)
User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 510 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 21746 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL

US gets more A330's this year and next to replace most if not all remaining 762's and AA has a lot of 787's on order. This combined with some schedule rationalization (movement of some TATL flying CLT?) may free up some needed WB metal. Also, are all of the 77W's net new? If they are, that is a lot of new WB's to find a home for.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22063 times:

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25):
PHL's ability to expand is quite limited given their current location. However, if they were to move deeper into the suburbs such as a IAD case, would that help any? Or is it the city's corporate image that needs to be changed? This is more an issue of airport management/planning as well as city politics.

Are you referencing PHL's physical ability to expand? Essentially they can't.
The options are (20+ year plan):
-put a new runway partially in the river
-redesign the terminals to alleviate the "alleyway" congestion
-knock down some of the airport hotels by long term parking and put a build a regional terminal and build a new mainline terminal over the current F terminal


User currently offlineCIDFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 21603 times:

Im hoping we could see some CLT flights into the heartland, like what DL has from ATL. Places like PIA, CMI, CID, MSN, GRR etc.

User currently offlineuncgso From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 21305 times:

wonder what chance GSO has of seeing mainline jets back... maybe lower the 9+ flights a day to CLT and upgrade DFW to mainline ... or how about relaunching GSO-ORD to compete with UA ... hopefully the US Club will stay open long enough to be an Admirals Club  

User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21114 times:

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25):
PHL itself has gone through renovations and I'm quite impressed by what I've seen by the newer international concourse,the F regionals concourse is quite nice too. However, C, D, E are not so nice. Too antiquated. AA will move from its current location and take over the whole terminal, but where will ALL its planes go?

I am not sure what you are saying here. D and E are used by DL, UA, and WN primarily and this is still going to be true post merger. American is currently in A East, and given the face that US uses most of the non AA gates in A East for some international stuff, they aren't moving anywhere, and in fact their gates can be easily converted into International Arrival gates which will give them more capacity in that regard. AA isn't moving, they are just expanding big time with the merger.

As for JFK being a 400 flights per day hub...forget about it. You would be talking about 20 arrivals an hour in that situation, which is nearly half of what JFK ATC can actually handle in an hour. Throw in the DL and B6 operations, and you are at gridlock in JFK. And that is before you account for any international carriers, of which there are plenty. I think somewhere in the ballpark of 150-200 would be optimal for AA in JFK, though I do think it is going to be more like 100-150 in the early phases of this merger. Given that US is at 450 or so flights per day in PHL right now, I can't see much happening here, except for some key markets adding in LGA/JFK. But I think PHL is safe at 400 flights or so.

Here is an interesting list, this is the number of departures that the combined carrier currently has in each hub.

JFK - 100
LGA - 161
PHL - 459
DCA - 272
CLT - 653
MIA - 319
ORD - 478
DFW - 786
PHX - 288
LAX - 168

One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

PHX is the one that people have been worried about. Well, there are a few cities like I have mentioned where only US serves from PHX (and in some cases AA on DFW pulled out from). Stations like BUR, LGB, BFL are places where PHX makes more sense than DFW. Also, US serves OAK from PHX, which is another route AA pulled out from. US has been able to make these routes work from PHX, while AA has not been able to from existing hubs. This is one aspect of the merger to keep an eye on. Not to mention the O and D traffic in PHX, and given what is happening, yields in PHX are going up.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 20449 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 30):
One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

That comparison is somewhat skewed because average aircraft size is quite a bit higher at MIA.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 20321 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 30):
Here is an interesting list, this is the number of departures that the combined carrier currently has in each hub.

JFK - 100
LGA - 161
PHL - 459
DCA - 272
CLT - 653
MIA - 319
ORD - 478
DFW - 786
PHX - 288
LAX - 168

One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

It's also interesting the impact the AA/BA ATI will have on the hubs as I expect that US will leave Star and join oneworld (and the AA/BA ATI) before the merger of AA/US at a ground level (full fleet/crew integration). Flights from the AA/US hubs to LHR currently stand at: -

JFK - 8x Daily BA (772/744) + 5x Daily AA (772/77W)
PHL - 2x Daily BA (772/763) + 1x Daily US (333)
CLT - 1x Daily US (333)
MIA - 2x Daily AA (772) + 2x Daily BA (744)
ORD - 4x Daily AA (763/772) + 2x Daily BA (744)
DFW - 3x Daily AA (772/77W) + 1x Daily BA (744)
PHX - 1x Daily BA (744)
LAX - 3x Daily BA (744) + 1x Daily AA (772)

The fact that PHL can support three flights already, when BA and US effectively have a hub at one end only each, wuld suggest that - IMHO - LHR-PHL could easily increase to 4x or 5x Daily when the ATI deal can exploit hubs at PHL and LHR for all flights.

CLT-LHR would, I suspect, regain a BA flight to complement the US flight given the markets that what becomes a hub-to-hub route can exploit.

The interesting one for me is the LHR-PHX route, that BA can curently sustain entirely on O&D traffic at the LHR end. I'm not saying this flight would go 2x Daily, but if the new AA maintains a sizeable presence in PHX then in a couple of years moving from say 1x Daily BA 744 to 2x Daily BA 772 (or AA 332/BA 772).

Again, I think that the US hubs offer a real opportunity for AA's partners to exploit greater access to the US market through joint ventures, and seeing AA or JL 788s operating PHX-NRT and PHL-NRT aren't outside the realm of possibilities.

I know a lot of this is speculation, but once US transitions to oneworld and starts beuilding links with those carriers as the merger progresses, then I think the international flights that operate from (and get added to) PHX, CLT and PHL will indicate the importance of these hubs to new combined carrier.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 20294 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32):

I wonder if LH will keep the CLT-MUC (and US the CLT-FRA) once there is no Star feed at the US end. Maybe it will make more sense for LH to cancel MUC and start CLT-FRA just focusing on Charlotte's O&D transiting to Europe/Asia.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20206 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32):
The interesting one for me is the LHR-PHX route, that BA can curently sustain entirely on O&D traffic at the LHR end. I'm not saying this flight would go 2x Daily, but if the new AA maintains a sizeable presence in PHX then in a couple of years moving from say 1x Daily BA 744 to 2x Daily BA 772 (or AA 332/BA 772).

The BA744 is always an interesting flight here on our end. A few years back someone was speculating that they would send the A380 here, which we know won't happen for quite some time. What a few of us are thinking, if the O&D continues to grow, is that BA will send a 772 to compliment the daily 744 about 3 times a week, and eventually that will grow to probably 2x (daily) 772 or 1x773 1x772....maybe eventually 1x744 1x773 if things really begin to pick up again. All speculation for now.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20146 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32):
CLT-LHR would, I suspect, regain a BA flight to complement the US flight given the markets that what becomes a hub-to-hub route can exploit.

One thing though is with the ATI it may not necessarily make sense for AA/US and BA to each operate 1 flt. I think CLT may be a candidate for AA/US to just operate 2 daily

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 33):
I wonder if LH will keep the CLT-MUC (and US the CLT-FRA) once there is no Star feed at the US end. Maybe it will make more sense for LH to cancel MUC and start CLT-FRA just focusing on Charlotte's O&D transiting to Europe/Asia.

This one will be interesting. I think if anything stays LH will knock it down to a 330/343 because the 346 is way too much aircraft without the feed.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 20001 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35):
One thing though is with the ATI it may not necessarily make sense for AA/US and BA to each operate 1 flt. I think CLT may be a candidate for AA/US to just operate 2 daily

It's hard to say. I think BA could come in with a daily flight so that it's frequent fliers who want to fly on BA can do so. I know the ATI between AA/BA is meant to be metal neutral, but there are differences in the product offerings, and as CLT will be a hub-to-hub flight I could see both carriers operating a flight.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19286 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 28):
Im hoping we could see some CLT flights into the heartland, like what DL has from ATL. Places like PIA, CMI, CID, MSN, GRR etc.

I can see a GRR-PHL trip, though, especially with the AMS trip out of PHL. It would be a nice connection. Lots of people from GRR go to the Netherlands...........Would be competitive with the connections on DL(DTW, JFK) and UA(ORD, EWR).


User currently offlinecapitalflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18639 times:

Per American "New American" website, no hubs are closing

Maintaining all hubs* currently served by both airlines, bringing you more travel options through more than 6,700 daily flights to 336 destinations in 56 countries.

*Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Phoenix and Charlotte.

http://www.aa.com/arriving


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18553 times:

Quoting capitalflyer (Reply 38):
Per American "New American" website, no hubs are closing.



DL said the same thing when going through their merger with NW. It is all PR fodder to get the merger approved.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/14/news...ompanies/delta_northwest/index.htm

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/...ses-memphis-says-congressman-cohe/


User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18185 times:

Any thoughts on AA/US re-hubbing BOS? Or will Parker continue the cozy relationship with B6?


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3462 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 18158 times:

I would expect that we see some domestic hub to hub flying, especially if both hubs have International services. Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's as this transition takes place. How many other domestic widebody flying may we see from the combined AA?


AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 17747 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14):
and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.

Its hundreds of miles - its not like people in the catchment area think about one vs the other.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL
Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 26):
US gets more A330's this year and next to replace most if not all remaining 762's and AA has a lot of 787's on order.

They don't fly the AA 762s internationally anyway.

NS


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8777 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 17734 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 41):
Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's

Well, that's less than a hundred miles. US just started the route in 2012 IIRC with E-jets. That's about right.

Costs too much to put widebodies on such a short route. But other H2H, yes. PHL-DFW will be active.


User currently offlineMarkam From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 445 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 17094 times:

Very interesting thread, two sets of questions come to mind:

- I agree with many that given the current availability of slots at JFK, the new AA will have to keep PHL and use it to serve smaller Northeast connection markets for which there would be no space at JFK. However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK? That would allow them to de-hub Philadelphia or turn it into a focus city and to run a single hub at JFK, plus to re-hub Boston if they would like to. Would this make sense in economic terms? Would the DOJ allow it, and if so, what would be the likely conditions on such an acquisition?

- About PHX, I am not familia with the Western U.S. market, but just by looking at the map, it looks like for some destinations West of DFW connecting there would mean a lot of backtracking, and also to a extent for some destinations East of LAX connecting there. Isn't Phoenix quite a good hub to route traffic to Mexico and Central America from the Western U.S., at least to an extent, with enough O&D to support a connecting hub? Wouldn't people prefer to transfer at PHX if that means an easier, more direct connection? Isn't this a somehow similar situation to the JFK-PHL one? I imagine that DFW is not a problem, but how much could AA increase their operation at LAX?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 17045 times:

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25):
Why did WN or VX choose to go to PHL? There has to be a reason.

The main reason why WN chose to come to PHL was because US (pre-HP merger) was in Chapter 11 and was heading for Chapter 7. Given those conditions, WN was not going to sit idle and let FL continue to expand (which they were doing at the time) nor allow B6 (they weren't at BOS yet) to come in.

The reason for VX coming was likely due to WN cutting some of their PHL-West Coast nonstops.

In a couple of months, B6 will finally be coming to PHL offering service to their BOS hub; since WN abandoned all their PHL-New England routes over a year ago.

Quoting Markam (Reply 44):
However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK?
*Groans* Oh for the love of...  
How about waiting to see whether or not DOJ approves this AA/US merger first. If they ultimately approve it (most do not see any reason why they won't) and barring a carrier heading towards Chapter 7, I don't see any mergers w/the remaining legacy carriers happening anytime soon.

And what the heck do you (and others) have against B6 that you keep talking about them merging with any of the legacy carriers. B6 merging w/any legacy carrier would ultimately kill every element of the B6 brand that curerntly makes them unique. The only surviving entities of such would be likely be the aircraft and routes the larger carrier doesn't yet serve. For B6, or any other LFC for that matter, such a move would be suicidal.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16846 times:

With the new flights AA added last year and the new ones this year Mia will continue
to grow. Especially with more 773 comming into the fleet. With the 787 comming into the
fleet eventually (without any more problems or delays) possibilities are endless.

Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax
there is the possibility of new flights but not much. Phx will stay a strong focus city.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5755 posts, RR: 6
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16720 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 41):
Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's as this transition takes place.

Not a chance. Way too short of a route for a large airplane.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 46):
Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax

I doubt you'll see LAX stealing any PHX routes... their operating costs are ridiculous.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16750 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20):
So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

PHL is an incredibly important market. You don't just dehub the number 6 (5 by some measurements) metro area in the country for, pardon the expression, shits and giggles. So it's not as important as NYC...neither is anywhere else. Should DL dehub ATL and try to build up JFK just because JFK is more important? Certainly not. Not everyone needs a fortress hub in New York City to be successful.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 46):
Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax
there is the possibility of new flights but not much. Phx will stay a strong focus city.

That's contradictory. A hub is not a focus city. I personally believe PHX will end up a focus city, not a true hub. It seems you would agree.

Quoting Markam (Reply 44):
However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK? That would allow them to de-hub Philadelphia or turn it into a focus city and to run a single hub at JFK, plus to re-hub Boston if they would like to.

"Goes for"? I'm assuming you don't mean a takeover since it would never be approved by the powers that be. Otherwise you mean a blanket codeshare, and even if they did, still doesn't justify dehubbing PHL. PHL is still a much larger market than BOS. US closed the BOS focus city about the same time as PIT (within a year or so of it) and kept PHL for good reason.


User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16658 times:

Thats what I meant to say thanx for correcting me HPRamper. Phx will be
a strong focus city. But as I mentioned above Mia will continue to grow


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16603 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 48):
Should DL dehub ATL and try to build up JFK just because JFK is more important? Certainly not. Not everyone needs a fortress hub in New York City to be successful.

Apples & oranges comparison. The main issue regarding the JFK & PHL hubs is their relatively close proximity to each other. JFK & ATL much further apart distancewise.

Past history has shown that when two hubs are located in close proximity to each other (as a result of an airline merger); one of them eventually gets downgraded... especially when things get tough econmically. If there were no slot restrictions over at JFK, this merger would've definitely lead to PHL being downgraded to a focus city. A few years after its merger w/PI and before WN came on the scene; US gradually downsized its BWI hub in favor of its PHL hub.

If EWR had no restrictions, UA would eventually would have had to chose between there or IAD if one of those hubs had to be let go for econmic reasons.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineMarkam From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 445 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16535 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 45):
How about waiting to see whether or not DOJ approves this AA/US merger first. If they ultimately approve it (most do not see any reason why they won't) and barring a carrier heading towards Chapter 7, I don't see any mergers w/the remaining legacy carriers happening anytime soon.
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 48):
"Goes for"? I'm assuming you don't mean a takeover since it would never be approved by the powers that be. Otherwise you mean a blanket codeshare, and even if they did, still doesn't justify dehubbing PHL. PHL is still a much larger market than BOS. US closed the BOS focus city about the same time as PIT (within a year or so of it) and kept PHL for good reason.


Well, that was my question, whether an after-merger take-over of JetBlue would have any chances of being approved by the DOJ, if it overcame all the other obstacles. Given your replies, I will take that the answer is NO...  
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 45):
And what the heck do you (and others) have against B6 that you keep talking about them merging with any of the legacy carriers.


Hey, I do not have anything against B6, and as far back as I can remember, I haven't talked about them merging with or being acquired by anyone else. I think that B6 is a great airline and can do perfectly well by itself, but it cannot be ignored that from the point of view of AA (and others), B6 would be a succulent bite to swallow if they could/were allowed to, if only for the slots that B6 holds at JFK.  

[Edited 2013-03-06 13:36:47]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16532 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 47):
I doubt you'll see LAX stealing any PHX routes... their operating costs are ridiculous.

Not to mention it's completely out of the way for connections.



neeeeedle on the record, folks.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinesouthwest737500 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16466 times:

I fully believe BA will come to CLT, 777 in the summer and 763 in the winter. I also think LH will stay they have alot of business contracts in the area, has to be enough to sustain a daily A333. From the OAG schedule looks like US is testing DUB and MAD because I believe they will be extended an extra month. Maybe they can survive in the merger. I honestly thing this merger is a benefit and I think this will help CLT

User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 492 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16361 times:

My view on PHX is that what will happen here is what happened at SJU with AA a few years ago. I think it'll still be a large regional hub and then all that traffic will be routed onto mainline flights to the various hubs. Maybe A few mainline flights will stay, like the Hawaiian ones, but as far as mainline flying is concerned it'll just be a large spoke.


"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16299 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 47):
I doubt you'll see LAX stealing any PHX routes... their operating costs are ridiculous.

Well that's only half the equation, though. On the other side of cost is revenue. LAX may have higher cost per enplanement (although I doubt LAX is all that outrageously expensive compared to some of AA's other hubs), but I would also bet that LAX has substantially higher revenue.

LAX may not "steal" any "routes" from PHX, although I would not at all be surprised to see some relatively small portion of PHX capacity shifted to LAX. Nonetheless, I agree with the general sentiment that most of any capacity shifted out of PHX likely won't be shifted to LAX. Most of any capacity shifted to other hubs will likely be shifted to DFW.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 50):
Past history has shown that when two hubs are located in close proximity to each other (as a result of an airline merger); one of them eventually gets downgraded

Every situation is different. UA doesn't seem to have any trouble making EWR and IAD work, and those are quite close.

The key is that JFK and PHL will serve two very different, and complimentary, purposes in the combined network.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 50):
If there were no slot restrictions over at JFK, this merger would've definitely lead to PHL being downgraded to a focus city.

No. I disagree. Even if there were no slot limitations at JFK, JFK could still never be the kind of hub PHL is. JFK splits its catchment area too dramatically with other airports that are preferred by business travelers in shorthaul markets and generally better-situated for large portions of the local market. PHL does not suffer that problem - it caters to a smaller local market, but it also has that market all to itself. And, the hub airline in PHL (now US, soon AA) also pretty much owns the market - something else that could never be said for the NYC metro market.


User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 16206 times:

There's no way Phx will shrink the way Sju has. Right now Sju has 16 daily flights,
no way Phx will be like that. As I mentioned in the above post it will shrink
but be a strong focus city.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15750 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 55):
Every situation is different. UA doesn't seem to have any trouble making EWR and IAD work, and those are quite close.

You missed my later quote in the same reply, reposted below:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 50):
If EWR had no restrictions, UA would eventually would have had to chose between there or IAD if one of those hubs had to be let go for economic reasons.

Again, the majority of the recent airline mergers are by and large consolidation driven regardless of any spin airline execs. throw out there as means of getting people on board. While two nearby hubs for two separate carriers has economic relevance for each individual carrier, that notion goes completely out the window when the two carriers merge/combine their operations. While not right away, one of those overlapped hubs eventually gets reduced or right-sized. How long and how soon are subject the economic conditions of the time.

And I will still stand by my claim (and I will take it to eternity) that if no slot restrictions existed at the NYC-area airports; any carrier w/a hub in the NYC-area along with another nearby hub, the latter hub will eventually take a hit.

For US alone, their PHL hub is definitely a cash cow for them no doubt about it; but when combined w/another carrier that has a hub close by, it may not be as big of a cash cow when compared w/another nearby hub in the combined carrier's network.

Fortunately for PHL, unlike PIT, there's enough O&D demand out there that I don't believe that a combined AA/US will ever turn PHL into just a spoke city. And even if they did, if demand for airline service exists for that airport; other carrier(s) *note the plural* will come in to fill in any voids. I've stated this before and I'll state it again; not every airport serving a major metropolitan city is or has to be a hub for a particular carrier. A hub is not a birthright.

Bottom line here, and I believe everybody will agree w/this; let's wait and see what happens and revisit this roughly 5 years from now and we'll see by then whose prediction comes the closest to reality.

[Edited 2013-03-07 07:54:34]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15604 times:

I just can't possibly see AA reducing PHL hub status. They need some kind of northeast hub since they don't use NYC, and DCA is too crowded.
We need some connecting flights up here in New England with AA.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 17):



I think you guys are overreaching, PHL can take as many trans cons for TATL as American can feed trough it. Because the OD market pf PHL is smaller than NYC is of little or NO consequence. If flights to Europe are connected via PHL??
They can make JUST as much as any OTHER Hub. UAL has the big hub at EWR,, BUT ! IAD is Just as important as a hub in as much as it's prestigious in Govt,Military, Diplomatic and Intelligence. and Wash. DC is not as large as PHL. It's going to remain a major hub for UAL as PHL should remain for AMR. Not everything should be measured in OD.
American can't GET the gates and terminal space at JFK to replace PHL. if trans cons are routed to PHL to connect with originating TATL flights the same as UAL routes trans cons to feed our Pacific/ Asian service out of both SFO and LAX
And?? Were AMR to reduce service TO PHL then they might be well served by building up their western resources and increase Pacific/Asian service as they should be doing as a PREMIER USA In Airline. IMHO of course


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15309 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 57):
Again, the majority of the recent airline mergers are by and large consolidation driven regardless of any spin airline execs. throw out there as means of getting people on board. While two nearby hubs for two separate carriers has economic relevance for each individual carrier, that notion goes completely out the window when the two carriers merge/combine their operations. While not right away, one of those overlapped hubs eventually gets reduced or right-sized. How long and how soon are subject the economic conditions of the time.

And I simply do not agree with any such hard and fast rules. Every situation is different.

So, for example, I agree that no airline could support two close, overlapping hubs in a low-yielding region like the southwest. Having hubs in, say, PHX and SLC would never work. But he northeast is a whole different animal. It has a huge concentration of premium demand, a huge concentration of population, and severe and intractable capacity constraints. Throwing out hypotheticals as if these realities don't exist is rather meaningless.

In the case of PHL and JFK, the two operations serve two fundamentally different purpose, and one could never replace the purpose of the other. JFK, which AA calls a "cornerstone," is optimized primarily for the massive New York O&D market, and for connections between international (primarily European) markets and the largest U.S. O&D centers that can support nonstops to JFK. PHL is completely different. PHL can never draw on that large a local market - it's a big metro area, but small compared to NYC. It is a "hub" - in the truest sense of the word - with lots and lots of flights, spaced throughout the day, heading to destinations in every direction, both big and small. JFK could never be that - even without a single slot restriction - because JFK has to compete with EWR and LGA. Period.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 57):
And I will still stand by my claim (and I will take it to eternity) that if no slot restrictions existed at the NYC-area airports; any carrier w/a hub in the NYC-area along with another nearby hub, the latter hub will eventually take a hit.

Well, again, these hypotheticals are rather meaningless, as not only do slot restrictions exist at all three NYC metro airports, but all three airports exist! And they compete with each other. Vigorously. As such, and given the geographic location of the three airports and the inherent capacity limitations of the size of each airfield, the only NYC metro airport that can ever truly function as a hub in the same way PHL does is EWR. That's it. LGA never can - it cannot be an international gateway. JFK never can - it is relatively preferred for shorthaul the way LGA and EWR are.

Thus, I will stand by my claim that regardless of slot restrictions, the inherent economic, demographic, geographica nd competitive realities of the NYC metro airports means that only EWR can ever be a true, omni-directional, throughout-the-day, domestic-and-international hub. Short of that, the next closest hub in the northeast capable of functioning in that role is PHL. And as such, in the case of AA, it won't matter that PHL and JFK are so close - they will serve two entirely different purposes for the combined airline.


User currently offlineN737AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15083 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 56):
Right now Sju has 16 daily flights

Mainline, if you include Eagle its around 45. But that is changing in April when the Eagle operation ceases.

N737AA


User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 14477 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 42):

They don't fly the AA 762s internationally anyway.

The US 762s do though and need to be replaced.


It's interesting to see with BOS-LHR going all BA you would think there would need to be a corresponding increase in AA metal TATL somewhere else or AA will get a smaller share of the total revenue pie. Or maybe the addition of the US flights from CLT and PHL will compensate.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14376 times:

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):
The US 762s do though and need to be replaced.

I suspect AA 763s (and maybe some international-configured 757s) will do the trick perfectly.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):
It's interesting to see with BOS-LHR going all BA you would think there would need to be a corresponding increase in AA metal TATL somewhere else or AA will get a smaller share of the total revenue pie. Or maybe the addition of the US flights from CLT and PHL will compensate.

Not sure how much smaller AA's piece of the pie will be. They split revenue with BA across the Atlantic.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 14272 times:

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 62):
The US 762s do though and need to be replaced.

Both the US and AA 762s will be rapidly retired. AA has plans to replace the 762s with the transcon A321s. Additionally with the extra AA widebodies they'll likely retire the US 762s pretty quickly.


User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 14074 times:

Won't the 5 A332s for this year arrive faster than the merger, more or less? I would expect that to be the first aircraft that replaces the US 762s, just as the A321Ts replace the AA ones. Next year the fleets can be rationalized, but the aircraft replacements are going faster than that.

As far as revenue pie, I thought it was split based on share of ASMs across the pond. So if AA reduces their flying, they might be 38% instead of 40% of ASMs (or whatever) and so get less of the revenue.


User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 14098 times:

MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT. CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14076 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):
CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.

LOL, what? I'd like to hear your business case for this happening while I go get the popcorn.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 492 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14032 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):
MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 67):
I'd like to hear your business case for this happening while I go get the popcorn.

As would I, MIA is a cash cow for AA, and its the best hub for Latin America.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14050 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):

I will have what you are smoking....Nothing can replace MIA ask DL at ATL they have a large operation but not nearly as large as MIA all due to the location of MIA. CLT will loose some flying to MIA not gain


User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6236 posts, RR: 11
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14061 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):

MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT. CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.


I got a good laugh out of this. Are you serious?



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlinemiaskies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1348 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13940 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):

Yet another ridiculous statement by this member, a.net should really monitor membership and leave it to the 21 and over set. MIA will be hurt by the merger and lose Latin American traffic to CLT....I've heard it all.



Nothing better than making love at 35K Feet!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13903 times:

Aviation Daily Published an airline profile of AA.

Some interesting charts.

Top Airports in revenue.
1. DFW
2. MIA
3. ORD
4. JFK
5. LAX
6. LGA
7. LHR
8. BOS
9. SFO
10. LAS
11. GRU
12. NRT
13. LAS
14. DCA
15. CDG
16. SJU
17. HNL
18. GIG
19. MCO
20. FLL

Top Airports by weekly departures
1. DFW - 5125
2. ORD - 2945
3. MIA - 2205
4. LAX - 1009
5. LGA - 699
7. JFK - 655
8. DCA - 327
9. SJU - 245
10. BOS - 198


ASMs by region
USA - 79.7%
Latin - 11.4%
Europe - 5.4%
Asia - 2.6%
Canada - 0.9%

=

[Edited 2013-03-13 11:04:34]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13821 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 73):
Top Airports in revenue.
1. DFW
2. MIA
3. ORD
4. JFK
5. LAX
6. LGA
7. LHR
8. BOS
9. SFO
10. LAS
11. GRU
12. NRT
13. LAS
14. DCA
15. CDG
16. SJU
17. HNL
18. GIG
19. SEA
20. MCO

LAS is on the list twice (10 & 13).


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13803 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 74):
LAS is on the list twice (10 & 13).

They did a double-down.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13828 times:

Yes typo. Going cross eyed.

Is corrected list. I skipped our Argentine friends by accident.

1. DFW
2. MIA
3. ORD
4. JFK
5. LAX
6. LGA
7. LHR
8. BOS
9. SFO
10. LAS
11. GRU
12. NRT
13. EZE
14. DCA
15. CDG
16. SJU
17. HNL
18. GIG
19. MCO
20. FLL

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13760 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 73):
8. BOS
9. SFO

It will be interesting to see whether AA brings back N/S service between SFO-BOS after the merger. Both are strong revenue markets for AA and AA will be a big player in the BOS market again after the merger.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13705 times:

Even with the cutbacks in Boston, I think it gets a bit of a artificial boost thanks to the London flight and longer distance flights generating higher total revenue for AA there.
Compare this to DCA which is lower on the AA revenue list, but has higher flight activity count compared to BOS, albeit more shorter ones.

But ultimately with neither BOS or SFO being corner stones I'm am not sure the carrier would look to link them still.


Other interesting imo how strong MIA is. Less than half the flights of DFW, almost 50% less than ORD but it sits at the #2 spot revenue wise.

Also with AA focusing so much capacity into small number of international markets I guess no surprise we see likes of LHR, GRU, NRT, EZE, GIG and CDG make the top-20.

I'd be curious to see if Aviation Daily makes a similar profile chart for US.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13551 times:

MIA does more passengers than ORD does on a daily basis which is why its #2

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13349 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 76):
It will be interesting to see whether AA brings back N/S service between SFO-BOS after the merger. Both are strong revenue markets for AA and AA will be a big player in the BOS market again after the merger.

I have long been of the opinion that BOS-SFO is the single biggest gaping "point-to-point" gap in the AA network. AA is reasonably strong (as non-hub carriers go) at both ends, and will be even moreso post-merger. I realize the competition is intense - particularly with B6 and VX - but this seems, at least to me, to be precisely the type of market that AA should be able to excel in with the right cost structure and the right fleet, both of which AA now has or soon will have. I could see ~0730 and 1730 westbound departures, and 0800 and 2200 eastbound departures, with A319s.


User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3108 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13191 times:

I know that AA has it's own flights to South America, but wondering why LAN doesn't serve DFW?


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 663 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13148 times:

With a new cost structure and a merger, the new AA will be able to face new challenges, and this means that if they want to become stronger where they are now weaker, they will need to focus not only in DFW or MIA, but also in other places with direct competition. ORD, LAX and JFK are obvious, and a lot has been talked about them, but what about Washington, D.C.?

1) International expansion

Oneworld only has one international flight from Washington D.C.: LON (BA) (and AA codeshares with EY's AUH flight).

When AA and US merge, their presence in Washington D.C. will be considerable thanks to the focus city that US has at DCA (US is the nº1 carrier and AA the nº2). It is clear that UA has a fortress hub at IAD, and that US/AA will never have any kind of hub nor focus city at IAD, but the question is whether you think that AA/US could launch some key international flights from IAD to other Oneworld hubs. Could the local FF base together with the feed from the other end make some key international flights work? (Just like DL's flights to NRT and AMS from non-hub airports).

I'm thinking about routes like IAD-GRU, IAD-MAD or even IAD-NRT.

2) Domestic expansion

On the domestic side, the largest Metro Areas (within the perimeter restriction) without non-stop service from DCA are IAH, ATL, CLE, MKE, OKC and RIC (too short). In fact, AA/US will fly to the largest 10 MSA from all of their hubs except DCA-HOU, DCA-ATL and LAX-ATL. I know these routes are hard, but if AA wants to serve all the key business routes from their hubs, they should launch them with some large regional jets, just like DL has entered in other routes that nobody thought they would, like LGA-ORD/DFW, or like AA resuming service from LGA to ATL or CLT.

Current service on these routes:

DCA-ATL: 15x DL, 6x WN.
DCA-IAH: 8x UA.
DCA-CLE: 5x UA (Express)
DCA-MKE: 4x WN
DCA-OKC: No service. Pending a slot award.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13067 times:

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):
IAD-MAD

Unserved route to a OW hub, from a major city. Not a bad idea.

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):
IAH, ATL, CLE, MKE, OKC

Hmm. If they keep price down, IAH or ATL could work. Both of those are flying straight into the fortress. Add in the WN presence in those cities and it gets hard. They should do a study and launch at least one of these cities, but need to choose carefully.

DL and US fly LGA-DCA. I see no reason to up the schedule on that route. Just keep the US Airways (and shuttle) flights. Preferably under a cool new name.


User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12876 times:

Why fly DCA-IAH when you can fly DCA-HOU? I realize the airports are pretty far apart, but flying into IAH is a really tough proposition.

I think service to MAD will depend on how IB works out, which we should find out well before the merger finalizes. In addition to the BA flights to IAD, another option would be to boost service to BWI. Or if you want to be really innovative, codeshare on Amtrak DCUnion->PHL->Europe.


User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12858 times:

Mia isn't going any where for AA. As mentioned before its a cash cow.
Mia has made more money for AA than any of its other hubs.

AA has has spent money, time & effort into building Mia!
Doug Parker knows this he's not going throw it away & reduce it to
a focus city!

I'll bet my bottom dollar on that!


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12784 times:

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):
I'm thinking about routes like IAD-GRU, IAD-MAD or even IAD-NRT.

While I do like the idea of intl flights from IAD (MAD & GRU have the best chance), I think AA needs to aggressively focus on LAX, and JFK before attempting an invasion of IAD. New destinations like Africa, HKG, SYD, and a return to DEL would bring more value to AA's overall network.

We will soon have LAX-GRU, and hopefully LAX will see more Asian/pacific routes in the near future.

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):
...DCA-ATL and LAX-ATL

ATL is definitely a hole in the AA network out of LAX, but it will be a tough fight. I'd love to see the AA/US numbers for the LAX-ATL traffic that flows through DFW and PHX.

I have no doubt AA can draw traffic on the LAX side, I'm just not sure how they will lure pax in ATL. Maybe those fed up with DL?



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12550 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 80):

Quoting EricR (Reply 76):
It will be interesting to see whether AA brings back N/S service between SFO-BOS after the merger. Both are strong revenue markets for AA and AA will be a big player in the BOS market again after the merger.

I have long been of the opinion that BOS-SFO is the single biggest gaping "point-to-point" gap in the AA network. AA is reasonably strong (as non-hub carriers go) at both ends, and will be even moreso post-merger. I realize the competition is intense - particularly with B6 and VX - but this seems, at least to me, to be precisely the type of market that AA should be able to excel in with the right cost structure and the right fleet, both of which AA now has or soon will have. I could see ~0730 and 1730 westbound departures, and 0800 and 2200 eastbound departures, with A319s.

IMO it was a big mistake they exited this market - but then we could say that about many markets under the old AA regime. From Calif to Boston, the loads are LAXBOS but the higher yield is SFOBOS.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12533 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 39):
DL said the same thing when going through their merger with NW. It is all PR fodder to get the merger approved.

Except DL had been shrinking CVG long before the merger, and NW was doing the same with MEM before the merger. Yes, the statement was PR fodder. But, people had been expecting further downsizing at both CVG and MEM before the merger was announced.

So, it made no sense for DL to keep CVG, when DTW is less than 300 miles away. And, it made no sense for DL to keep MEM, with ATL, the largest hub in the world, relatively close.

AA hasn't been shrinking any hubs (although ORD has seen a number of routes shift from mainline to Eagle). STL was closed about 2 years ago.

US hasn't done any shrinking of hubs since it closed the PIT hub several years ago.

I certainly expect some shifting of flying, but I don't see AA closing any of the current AA/US hubs in the next few years.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12532 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):
Except DL had been shrinking CVG long before the merger, and NW was doing the same with MEM before the merger.

How much did MEM shrink between 2005 and 2009? Of that shrinkage, how much was attributable to Avro and DC-9 retirement?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12493 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):
Except DL had been shrinking CVG long before the merger, and NW was doing the same with MEM before the merger.


But I do not think they would not have made nearly the same amount of cuts had they not merged. For example, do you think DL would have reduced CVG to levels they are today had DL not merged with NW? Keep in mind, DL only had hubs at ATL, JFK, CVG, and SLC at the time. CVG served a valuable role pre-NW merger.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):
So, it made no sense for DL to keep CVG, when DTW is less than 300 miles away. And, it made no sense for DL to keep MEM, with ATL, the largest hub in the world, relatively close.

AA hasn't been shrinking any hubs (although ORD has seen a number of routes shift from mainline to Eagle). STL was closed about 2 years ago.



Isn't AA/US faced with this exact same issue post merger? They too will have hubs in very close proximity to each other and will need to make similar decisions.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12492 times:

Quoting realsim (Reply 83):
but the question is whether you think that AA/US could launch some key international flights from IAD to other Oneworld hubs. Could the local FF base together with the feed from the other end make some key international flights work? (Just like DL's flights to NRT and AMS from non-hub airports).



I've mentioned this before in other threads. With the new large AA customer base in the DC area, I would expect to see some international growth. Although, technically, AA does operate IAD-LHR albeit on BA metal.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12415 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 92):
But I do not think they would not have made nearly the same amount of cuts had they not merged. For example, do you think DL would have reduced CVG to levels they are today had DL not merged with NW? Keep in mind, DL only had hubs at ATL, JFK, CVG, and SLC at the time. CVG served a valuable role pre-NW merger.

The only reason we were being shrink a bit was because of the economy driving demand to the ground over here. Now that things are picking up business leaders are getting pissed...I can't tell you how many people stood up and cheered when they announded F9 was beginning service to CVG.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12431 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):
US hasn't done any shrinking of hubs since it closed the PIT hub several years ago.

IIRC, US shrank and dropped its LAS hub (courtesy of the 2005 merger w/HP) a few years ago.

Quoting EricR (Reply 92):
Isn't AA/US faced with this exact same issue post merger? They too will have hubs in very close proximity to each other and will need to make similar decisions.

  



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12363 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 92):
Isn't AA/US faced with this exact same issue post merger? They too will have hubs in very close proximity to each other and will need to make similar decisions.

True, but then, EWR and IAD are fairly close, and United doesn't seem to be in any hurry to close either one of those. Considering that JFK still has slots, there is some limit to what AA/US can do. Sending traffic out of the Northeast to PHL, rather than JFK, makes sense.

By the same token, LAX probably skews more towards O&D, with the connecting traffic going to Asia and the Pacifi Rim. I can see PHX losing some flights to LAX and/or DFW, but the operation 5 years from now isn't going to be service solely to the remaining hubs.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 96):
IIRC, US shrank and dropped its LAS hub (courtesy of the 2005 merger w/HP) a few years ago.

I think LAS was closed before PIT became a spoke.


User currently offlinewn676 From Djibouti, joined Jun 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 4
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12235 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 97):
I think LAS was closed before PIT became a spoke

Other way around. LAS became a spoke at the end of 2011, long after PIT was dehubbed.



Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12001 times:

JFK will see probably 15-20 more departures than what exists today. Most of those will be international and domestic long-haul. You will see significant aircraft upgauging there. Some cities with 1 ERJ flight per day, will be eliminated and replaced with a mainline flight to a larger market that feeds into the international flights there. JFK's focus will be on O&D traffic, not hub traffic. Obviously, the upgauging of flights will allow for more passenger traffic passing through there to complement the O&D traffic. But the cities served from JFK will be larger markets. You will not see a SDF or DAY-JFK flight.

PHL will remain a hub focused on the East Coast. It will lose flights (mainly to ORD), but still have flights to Europe and the major markets in the West. CLT will lose some Carribean destinations but probably pick up some new domestic ones. In fact, I believe that CLT will be the second largest hub in the system after DFW. DCA will most likely have to give up some slots. But RDU/BNA/STL are served by both carriers. Plus, with ORD and DFW becoming transfer options, there will be less need for flights to PHL. With hourly flights to LGA, fewer flights to JFK would be necessary (mainly to connect to JFK's intl flights).

ORD will probably gain flights. Taking some of them away from PHL (Northeast to Midwest traffic). As well as adding flights to cyphon away some business from United. MIA and DFW will remain as is.

LAX will gain flights. US is moving to T-3 and AA will be getting 4 gates at TBIT. Plus, AA slaps its codeshare on a lot of AS flights there. That gives plenty of possibilities for AA to increase service and destinations from one of the largest O&D markets in the country.

PHX will no longer be a hub. Almost every flight US has flying into there comes from a destination served by AA from LAX and/or DFW. The only exceptions I believe are Long Beach, Burbank, Yuma, Flagstaff, and San Luis Obispo. What will remain is service to the hubs, point-to-point destinations with high O&D levels, maybe a few cities in Mexico. I'm not sure if flights to Hawaii would remain.

What remains unclear is BOS. The merger picks up a large US FF base there, particularly from the LGA/DCA shuttles. I wonder if the new airline will capitalize on that. With a large portion of Europe within the range of a 757 from BOS, I wonder if they might take a risk and start service to a few more European cities from there.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11880 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 99):

There are a few more US destinations in the west not served by ORD or DFW. GEG and BOI.

I can't see PHX being reduced to nothing other than existing AA/US hubs. PHX will be right sized more than any other hub but look how long its taking Delta to completely de hub CVG and MEM.

I am also doubtful that CLT will lose carribbean flights. It will depend on how easily that traffic can be recaptured over MIA. If CLT has a significant amount of unique traffic flows, then cancellation makes no sense. Plus I am betting CLT to carribbean is profitable and canceling wont give AA any additional pricing power.

I agree that MIA and DFW are likely to be unchanged. ORD will see significant gauge changes. Fewer 50 seaters. Markets like BDL might go back to mainline but certainly large RJ. The E75s, 319s and E90s will be a huge benefit for ORD.

I'd like to see more flying from CLT to the Midwest such as GRR, PIA, MSN and MLI, FWA. I think some if the long RJ flights to the SE from DFW might have to upgraded to larger RJ or cut. Makes no sense to fly a 50 seater 750 miles or longer.

I think there could be some gauge swaps between MIA and PHL with 763s in PHL and A330s in MIA. The A321s might a good plane for MIA as well.


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11763 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 100):
There are a few more US destinations in the west not served by ORD or DFW. GEG and BOI..


There are a total of 13 destinations. Below is the list. The major domestic cities on this list were served by AA up until recently. The remainder are small cities that can easily be served via LAX or DFW or will be dropped entirely. You can draw your own conclusions, but it does not present a strong case for PHX.

DOMESTIC:
YUM
FLG
BUR - recently dropped by AA
BFL - former AA / Eagle station
OAK - recently dropped by AA
BOI - recently dropped Eagle
GEG
TEX
LGB - recently dropped by AA
SBP - former Eagle station

INTERNATIONAL:
HMO
ZLO
YEG - AA code share with WS

[Edited 2013-03-15 08:02:37]

User currently offlinePHXFlyer16 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11732 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 100):
I can't see PHX being reduced to nothing other than existing AA/US hubs. PHX will be right sized more than any other hub but look how long its taking Delta to completely de hub CVG and MEM.

Yet another clueless comment. You cannot compare CVG and MEM to PHX. The PHX metro area added 140,000 people in the last two years and climbed from the #14 metro area in the US to the #13 metro area with 4.3M people.

PHX trails only Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Atlanta, Miami, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, LA, New York. All of these cities are hubs for legacy carriers, with the exception of Boston which has Jet Blue.

And I don't want to hear anyone bring up Las Vegas, which has only 2M people and ranks #31. It doesn't compare.

What you look for in a stagnant economy is growth. And you won't find much better growth than what Phoenix metro is experiencing. Will some flight move, sure. But you can't tell me I'd have to go through LAX or DFW to get to LAS, SNA, SJC, RNO, SEA, JFK, BOS etc. Not happening.


User currently offlinewnflyguy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11706 times:

I think PHX and CLT will fill a big pinch with this merger.
AA has 190 OLD Mad Dogs it's ready to shed to same money.
I can see the new management shift a lot of Airbus flying from PHX and CLT to other AA hubs to retire MD-80's.
This will save a lot of money saved on fuel and you can just stream line connections to other Hubs.
To pick up some slack I can see some PHX and CLT flying move more to RJ's.
If I were RJET I would seriously try and work out a a better Deal with the new AA.
RJET is trying to unload F9. Why not unload F9's 59 Airbuses to AA in trade for more RJ flying with the New AA.
I think this would be a win win for all 3. F9 staff would just fold into RJET and AA could just convert F9 planes to AA.
That's another 50 OLD MD's that can be put out to scrap or sold to Allegiant air.
wnfg 



my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11588 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 99):
PHX will no longer be a hub. Almost every flight US has flying into there comes from a destination served by AA from LAX and/or DFW. The only exceptions I believe are Long Beach, Burbank, Yuma, Flagstaff, and San Luis Obispo. What will remain is service to the hubs, point-to-point destinations with high O&D levels, maybe a few cities in Mexico. I'm not sure if flights to Hawaii would remain.

I was talking to a friend of mine who flies for AA. He thinks that PHX will have to stay around. AA's terminal at LAX isn't that big, and doesn't have a tremendous amout of space to expand. Even if you shifted some international flights to the TBIT, you still have to shift the US flights from T1 to T4. Based on the amount of flights to PHL, CLT, and PHX that US flies, that just doesn't leave a lot of room.

By the same token, AA's operation at DFW is going to be partially constrained by the renovation project. When Gates A1 through A16 open, then the airport authority will start on the next block of gates.

Further, Phoenix is a larger metro area than St. Louis, with a lot more business traffic. That isn't to say that the number of flights won't be reduced over time, but it probably won't be dehubbed.


User currently offlineAustwin From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11345 times:

I'm starting to laugh at the dehub Phx posts. All the facts appear to be ignored in place of arguing it will be so because LA and DFW are bigger. Let's not forget that PHX was the only US hub mentioned by name in the press announcement as maintaining hub status and corporate presence. Will things change with flights/destinations being adjusted? Yes. Welcome to the airline business. It happens all the time.

User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33289 posts, RR: 71
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11379 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 90):
US hasn't done any shrinking of hubs since it closed the PIT hub several years ago.

Closed LAS, too, and PHX has lost 22 destinations and ~60 daily flights.



a.
User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11235 times:

I think ORD will do well with E's and 319's coming on board.

User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11164 times:

Quoting PHXFlyer16 (Reply 102):
Yet another clueless comment. You cannot compare CVG and MEM to PHX. The PHX metro area added 140,000 people in the last two years and climbed from the #14 metro area in the US to the #13 metro area with 4.3M people.

Do MEM and CVG have a strong WN presence there? But look at what those two hubs have become in the new DL: breeding grounds for regional jets.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11186 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 104):
I was talking to a friend of mine who flies for AA. He thinks that PHX will have to stay around. AA's terminal at LAX isn't that big, and doesn't have a tremendous amout of space to expand. Even if you shifted some international flights to the TBIT, you still have to shift the US flights from T1 to T4. Based on the amount of flights to PHL, CLT, and PHX that US flies, that just doesn't leave a lot of room.

US is moving to T3 at LAX. AA is gaining 4 gates at TBIT. So the new AA will have gates at T4, TBIT, T3, and the "eagle's nest". Not to mention the AS codeshares out of T6 (which include GEG and BOI among others).

Quoting ckfred (Reply 104):
Let's not forget that PHX was the only US hub mentioned by name in the press announcement as maintaining hub status and corporate presence

I kind of remember similar words being said about PIT when the HP/US merger was transpiring.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11112 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 110):

US is moving to T3 at LAX. AA is gaining 4 gates at TBIT. So the new AA will have gates at T4, TBIT, T3, and the "eagle's nest". Not to mention the AS codeshares out of T6 (which include GEG and BOI among others).

Unless something has changed, I think you are incorrect about AA in T3.

Quoting wnflyguy:
Usairways, LAWA and WN reached a short term agreement on T1. Usairways will use gates 8,10 and gate 6 between 9pm and 7am and give up 50% of their ticket counter and baggage claim space. Usairways is now going to relocate to terminal 2 once all international Ops are moved to the new TBIT in 2yrs.wnfg
Should AA-US Merge: Consolidation Or Split Ops @ LAX? (by Byrdluvs747 Apr 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineaaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1561 posts, RR: 18
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11075 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 111):
Unless something has changed, I think you are incorrect about AA in T3.

Something has changed...

Terminal Renovations:
The proposed Lease requires Southwest to make renovations in Terminal 1 as outlined in Schedule
1, Attachment A of the Lease, including but not limited to (i) relocating US Airways Inc., from
Terminal 1 to Terminal 3 to enable renovations to Terminal 1


http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/bo...114x1330_specialmeetingreports.pdf

January 14th, 2013 LAWA BoAC report.



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11082 times:

More details here also:

Southwest To Take Over LAX T-1; US Air Moves (by LAXintl Jan 15 2013 in Civil Aviation)

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1119 posts, RR: 5
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10983 times:

Quoting aaway (Reply 112):
Something has changed...

Terminal Renovations:
The proposed Lease requires Southwest to make renovations in Terminal 1 as outlined in Schedule
1, Attachment A of the Lease, including but not limited to (i) relocating US Airways Inc., from
Terminal 1 to Terminal 3 to enable renovations to Terminal 1

Perhaps, aaway can answer these questions:

Is Qantas planning to move all of its T4 flights to the new TBIT? (I think they we will be the ones running the oneworld lounge in the new TBIT.)

I've heard that AA also wants to move its international flights to TBIT. When could that realistically happen? (The T4 connector, which was approved by LAWA on Monday, will take 3 years to build.)

If AA and Qantas vacated gates 41 and 43 at T4, could AA convert those two gates into three domestic gates?

Could AA reasonably absorb US flights at T4 with three more domestic gates?

[Edited 2013-03-15 19:00:27]

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10974 times:

Quoting Austwin (Reply 105):
Let's not forget that PHX was the only US hub mentioned by name in the press announcement as maintaining hub status and corporate presence.

I wouldn't read too much into that - PHX was mentioned my name merely because it's losing the HQ, which is a rather symbolic loss.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 114):
I've heard that AA also wants to move its international flights to TBIT. When could that realistically happen? (The T4 connector, which was approved by LAWA on Monday, will take 3 years to build.)

If AA and Qantas vacated gates 41 and 43 at T4, could AA convert those two gates into three domestic gates?

Could AA reasonably absorb US flights at T4 with three more domestic gates?

If/when several key changes take place:

* AA gets preferential/improved access to several gates at TBIT
* QF moves its last remaining T4 (non-380) departure (QF16/BNE) over to TBIT
* JFK flights move from widebodies (762) to narrowbodies (321)

I think AA has an opportunity to reconfigure T4 and consolidate all of the post-merger operations (at least mainline) there.

Specifically, if AA had the opportunity to move all of its international arrivals/departures and all widebody arrivals/departures (whether domestic or international) over to TBIT, that alone would free up a not-insignificant amount of capacity in T4. And that's before AA reconfigured gate space at T4 for all narrowbodies instead of widebodies, which could likely buy them another 1-2 gates. With 1-2 more gates, I think AA could consolidate the PHL/CLT/PHX departures into T4. It would be tight, with little margin for error in OSO, but of course that's basically how AA's been at T4 for years.


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10960 times:

Quoting aaway (Reply 112):
Something has changed...

Wow, I can't believe I missed that.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 114):
Could AA reasonably absorb US flights at T4 with three more domestic gates?

Thats been well discussed here.

Should AA-US Merge: Consolidation Or Split Ops @ LAX? (by Byrdluvs747 Apr 3 2012 in Civil Aviation)



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10963 times:

Holy crap every week a new breed of anti-PHX comments sprouts, with people ignoring the big picture:

PHX is a huge draw from all over the region. The primary airport for a state which is growing at an exponential rate, the 6th largest city in the USA (depending on numbers), after PHL (so PHL based off this shouldn't be dehubbed either!)

I know DFW is larger but it serves that market. PHX has its own market. PHX is needed for AA because LAX is not good enough for AA. LAX has its own purpose. PHX may lose a flight here or there, but almost every analyst I've talked to and gotten emails from in the PHX area say this merger is good for them. People are already preparing for an Asian flight which PHX has been begging for for quite some time. The Airport, Mayor Stanton, and the County, and even Jan Brewer received contractual and verbal commitment from Doug that the hub will never become a hub similar to MEM or CVG. We are not like those cities. I know for a fact, I am in CVG right now as we speak (well, a ways away from there, in my house, but you know my point.) CVG is a city going downhill, losing population. The generation which I represent in Cincinnati is up and ready to leave as soon as they get out of college. Of the 300 or so people I associated with regularly in high school, about 20 are all that's left here, and 10 of them are actually up in Oxford at Miami University, 30 miles away.

PHX on the other hand is growing like no other. Construction is picking up again, people are doing everything they can to move into PHX. Businesses included, fleeing the harsh taxes that California places on the wealthy and on businesses. Governor Brewer is probably the only gov in this country who is welcoming these bigwigs with open arms, and with that comes demand at the airport.

Some can probably recall when HP was a leisure based airline, and when they merged with US that element went away. WN does somewhat of a job with leisure stuff but those who can't necessarily afford the leisure aspect use G4 out of AZA. That airport serves its role. PHX serves connecting travelers, business people from all over the globe, and people like me who call PHX their second home. (or the excessively rich who like the resorts up in Scottsdale.)


PHX is not going anywhere. And if AA decided to pull an axe on PHX, well, let's just say F9, UA, DL, WN, and many others will swoop right in with flight additions left and right and make themselves comfy at PHX.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10915 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
PHX is a huge draw from all over the region.

Nobody ever debated that lots of people want to fly into or out of Phoenix. The problem is the fare said people are paying, and the operating costs of the airline carrying them.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
The primary airport for a state which is growing at an exponential rate

2.5% since 2010 isn't exponential. In the same period, Texas has grown 3.6%.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
the 6th largest city in the USA (depending on numbers), after PHL (so PHL based off this shouldn't be dehubbed either!)

Raw city size is rather unimportant. Metropolitan area and catchment area is what's critical. And by that measure, PHX is far from 6th.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
PHX is needed for AA because LAX is not good enough for AA. LAX has its own purpose.

Still stuck on LAX. As many have repeated over and over, it's not about LAX. It's mostly about DFW. And most of all it's about PHX itself.

Perhaps repeating it over and over may seem to make it so, but no, PHX is not "needed" by AA. Perhaps it's a "nice to have" for a combined airline, but it certainly isn't a "need to have" at all.

There is virtually no network role the PHX hub now serves that is not already served as well or better by another AA hub. The single only network role I can think of would be offering connections between small California communities and points east. That's it. And given the substantially higher costs of a merged airline compared with USAirways' existing costs, I doubt that will be enough to support a hub of the scale USAirways now operates there.

I just don't see how it's economically possible. I doubt the combined AA will ever have the pricing power in PHX to raise fares commensurate with the higher costs. That means reduced capacity. Not a mere spoke with flights to the hubs perhaps, but a "hub" with 250+ daily flights of which 2/3 are mainline seems totally inconceivable.

At least for me, personally, I've yet to hear anything that has convinced me otherwise on the above calculus.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
almost every analyst I've talked to and gotten emails from in the PHX area say this merger is good for them.

"Analysts" have sent emails. Okay.   

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
The Airport, Mayor Stanton, and the County, and even Jan Brewer received contractual and verbal commitment from Doug that the hub will never become a hub similar to MEM or CVG.

I'm intrigued. Please elaborate.

Doug Parker has made a "contractual" commitment that the hub will "never" become [insert alleged commitment here]?

I doubt that quite highly, but if that is the case, his this been reported anywhere other than here on A.net? A standard, non-binding promise made to politicians powerless to stop anything doesn't count as a "contractual" commitment. It merely counts as a nice quote for the local paper. Just ask Memphis, Cincinnati, St Louis and Pittsburgh.

And if, somehow, Doug Parker has managed to sign a legally-enforceable contract with the state, county and/or city that does bind a merged airline to something, does said contract have a specifically enumerated period of performance? Are there permissible "off ramps" like the contract United signed with CLE? Does this contract mandate capacity, departures, leaseholds on gates and facilities?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
And if AA decided to pull an axe on PHX, well, let's just say F9, UA, DL, WN, and many others will swoop right in with flight additions left and right and make themselves comfy at PHX.

It will be Southwest, mostly.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10894 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
And if AA decided to pull an axe on PHX, well, let's just say F9, UA, DL, WN, and many others will swoop right in with flight additions left and right and make themselves comfy at PHX.

How many legacy flights were added at STL after AA dehubbed it?

How many legacy flights have been added at PIT in the past 10 years?

How many legacy flights have been added at CVG in the past 5 years?

How many legacy flights have been added at MEM in the past 5 years?

Besides for that it is "big," why would PHX be different?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1119 posts, RR: 5
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10883 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 116):
Thats been well discussed here.

Yes.

But, with all due respect, I was looking for a reply from aaway. Let's just say. He hears things. He knows things.

I was wondering what his take was on things, now that the construction of the connector has been formally approved.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10858 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118):
How many legacy flights have been added at CVG in the past 5 years?

I can vouch for this, US with service to DCA, AC to YYZ, and UA adding to existing DEN and increasing capacity to ORD. F9 arriving, and other airlines with proposed routes, such as US to PHX (according to one source, which is purely insider info, it's still in the works from Cincy business leaders.)

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118):
Besides for that it is "big," why would PHX be different?

You answered your own question with a question. it's because PHX has the demand. While CVG has some demand, it has no where near as much as PHX.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10853 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 116):
PHX is not going anywhere.

Right now, US files 6x/day nonstop in the PDX-PHX market. In addition, AS flies 2x/day and WN flies 3x/day.

In the merged AA/US network, which cities with any traffic volume would be better served by AA via PHX vs. LAX or DFW or ORD (which it was announced today will have its 2x/day service on PDX-ORD by AA restored shortly)?

Honestly, I don't see many. AS, AA's codeshare partner, offers nonstop and connecting service to any destination of value in the PNW, Nevada and California. WN has begun moving passengers over DEN in the past couple of years at the expense of flights to SLC from here.

Where will all of these passengers be heading which will make PHX a viable transit point for AA passengers from PDX in the post-merger era? I'd make a bet that between the 11 nonstop services plus connecting opportunities, the current service overserves the local PDEW between PDX and PHX, so there's got to be either vital and efficient connections, or AA will pull some of the 6 flights down in the PDX-PHX market post-merger. Many other west coast cities are in the very same position.

Check the fares between PDX and WAS for tomorrow (Saturday). Except for one connection on VX, US via PHX is at lease around $200 cheaper than the competition for a one-way ticket. US fills planes to/from/via PHX because of low fares that will be unsustainable post-merger. That demand will vanish and route via more convenient hubs.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10824 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
PHX is a huge draw from all over the region.

Yes, but at what yield? That is the important question here.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
I know DFW is larger but it serves that market.

It doesn't simply serve "that" market, it's a hub that does probably 90% of what PHX does, and this is a real threat to the PHX hub. IMHO I don't think AA will set out to de-hub PHX, but PHX will simply have to hold it's own as with CLE and United...and whatever it isn't able to sustain will go away.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
CVG is a city going downhill, losing population.

Oh c'mon man, I don't want to hijack the thread but how many times have we hashed this out? The Cincinnati area is doing perfectly fine, it's the largest metropolitan area in the tri-state and the population has grown by 6% in the last ten years making it one of the top growing areas in the US. Yes the city government of Cincinnati proper is crazy and thus the only county in the metro area to lose population was Hamilton County/Cincinnati, but basically no one lives in Cincinnati, it's a commuter town, everyone lives in the suburbs and commutes to downtown. The area has a stable, diverse economy with low unemployment, is essentially the consumer packaged goods center of the world and has a budding banking sector (5/3, First Financial, Fidelity, Citigroup...etc). I know you're simply trying to make a point about Phoenix, but since the Cincinnati region is in fact healthy and growing, it's a falsity to try and foil Phoenix with Cincinnati.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 117):
The generation which I represent in Cincinnati is up and ready to leave as soon as they get out of college.

Different patterns for different parts of the area. I could also point out that most of the people I went to high school with went "away" to college (i.e. UK, UofL, OU), and 90%+ are returning to the area. It's all anecdotal in the end though as the numbers don't lie...6% population growth, and a not-so-insignificant amount are of the younger generation owing to the fact that Cincinnati is a growing marketing/market research and tech hub.


User currently offlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10819 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 119):
Besides for that it is "big," why would PHX be different?

For as big as it is, it's also getting even larger over the years. Not to mention, but what about the economy in Phoenix? Isn't it pretty strong? (i.e. strong O&D business travel). I don't know about MEM, but with the exception of PIT (growing economy and population) STL and CVG are rather stagnant...

MIA will be dehubbed... Right. I'm black and Irish, and I have purple hair!



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlinewnflyguy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10772 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 110):

WN,US and LAWA over the last 5 years have had many proposals on were to relocate US airways.
I think US finally agreed to move to terminal 3 only because they knew a deal AA was coming.
Personally I don't think Us Airways will stay long term or relocate into terminal 3 at ALL.
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's.
PHL and CLT drop to 3 flights each making it easier to slot them into terminal 4.
wnfg 



my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10711 times:

I'm not clear on the reaction to the list of airports only served by PHX now. Is the idea that those markets are going to be completely abandoned, or that they will be served via DFW with the consolidated market?

User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10709 times:

PHX will have to prove itself in the new airline. And do a god job of doing so. Just about every city pair served by US via PHX can be done in the new carrier via DFW, LAX, and even ORD. The only excptions are a few small airports in CA and AZ. Spokane and Boise are now code-shared with AS out of LAX. OAK? Is it really a money-maker for US that it needs to stay? Or can those flights be shifted over to DFW and LAX? Right now, PHX works as a hub for US because that is the only hub it operates west of the eastern time zone. Now there will be ORD, DFW, and LAX added into the mix. The new airline will take a hard lokk at PHX's numbers. Service to markets that have high O&D traffic will most likely stay, but most likely with fewer daily frequencies. But there are some routes out of PHX that only exist because they feed into there for connecting purposes. Buh-Bye!! As for LAX and the notion by some that it doesn't fit with AA... then why has AA made an aggressive push to increase service and add destinations out of there over the past couple of years? Unlike PHX, LAX has the potential to increase frequencies to new destinations. AA has put in a request to start GRU service, and many expect ICN to be added in a couple of years. Can PHX say the same? No. And if DP made a contractual agreement with AZ not to de-hub PHX, then AA's shareholders and creditors should replace him with a new CEO. No one running an airline should make an agreement like that unless it adds value (i.e. profit) to the company. AZ officials have no deciding factor as to whether or not this merger gets approved.


fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10710 times:

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 124):
I think US finally agreed to move to terminal 3 only because they knew a deal AA was coming.
Personally I don't think Us Airways will stay long term or relocate into terminal 3 at ALL.

Gate space at LAX is a treasured commodity. I doubt that the new airline would abandon those T3 gates so easily. That would be throwing away potential. Just look at UA there, they use gates in T6, T7, and T8. Yes, they are all connected airside. But AA has a shuttlebus service in place that goes to TBIT, T6, and the Eagle's Nest from T4. In fact, it also used to go to T3 when AS was located there.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10665 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 127):
I doubt that the new airline would abandon those T3 gates so easily. That would be throwing away potential.

Given AA's rich history of strategic blunders, I would seriously hope that the new AA will take advantage of any additional gates whether by operating flights or subleasing/trading. AA would have to convince VX or B6 to move to T2 in order to significantly increase operations in T3.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 124):
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ'

Sorry but that would be a horrific decision, with the immediate result of surrendering the route to WN. While I dont have much faith in Doug Parker's strategic planning ability, I do feel safe that he would laugh if such a recommendation came to his desk.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8862 posts, RR: 5
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10632 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 66):
MIA is going to be hurt bad by this merger. MIA will loose most of its Latin American traffic to CLT. CLT will basically become what MIA is today with regards to Latin America, and MIA will be relegated to merely a focus city for AA.

What a ridiculous assumption! AA plans to continue increasing flights to Latin America from the MIA hub.  Plus, AA will code-share with LATAM Airlines; which is the third largest carrier operating into MIA.  LATAM operates flights into MIA from BOG, BSB, CCS, CNF, EZE, GIG, GRU, GYE, LIM, MAO, PUJ, SCL and UIO!

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 87):
While I do like the idea of intl flights from IAD (MAD & GRU have the best chance)

Also, LA has ATI with AA and is very interested in launching LIM-IAD in order to increase competition with both AV and CM.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 126):
AA has put in a request to start GRU service, and many expect ICN to be added in a couple of years.

IMO, AA will eventually launch LAX-PEK...


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10594 times:

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 129):
Also, LA has ATI with AA and is very interested in launching LIM-IAD in order to increase competition with both AV and CM.

Launching IAD to OW hubs would be the safest way to build a presence in DC. Even if AA is the number two carrier, it would add immense value to the airline/alliance if they could grab some capital-to-capital market share.

Quote:
IMO, AA will eventually launch LAX-PEK...

This is a much needed addition to the LAX operation. I can only hope AA considers HKG as well.

[Edited 2013-03-16 03:13:08]


The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10528 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 105):
US is moving to T3 at LAX. AA is gaining 4 gates at TBIT. So the new AA will have gates at T4, TBIT, T3, and the "eagle's nest". Not to mention the AS codeshares out of T6 (which include GEG and BOI among others)..



Besides the 4 preferential TBIT gates, does AA have the ability to utilize other TBIT gates during the parts of the day when operations by international carriers are at a minimum?

[Edited 2013-03-16 08:32:12]

User currently offlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10399 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 116):
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118):
How many legacy flights have been added at CVG in the past 5 years?

I can vouch for this, US with service to DCA, AC to YYZ, and UA adding to existing DEN and increasing capacity to ORD. F9 arriving, and other airlines with proposed routes, such as US to PHX (according to one source, which is purely insider info, it's still in the works from Cincy business leaders.)

So, DL pulls about 400 daily flights out of CVG over ten years and you cite what, ten flights added by other carriers? Cubsrule's point is valid: when carriers drawn down overserved tertiary hubs, other carriers don't rush in to fill them.


User currently offlinenwcoflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 694 posts, RR: 13
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10387 times:

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 120):
WN,US and LAWA over the last 5 years have had many proposals on were to relocate US airways.
I think US finally agreed to move to terminal 3 only because they knew a deal AA was coming.
Personally I don't think Us Airways will stay long term or relocate into terminal 3 at ALL.
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's.
PHL and CLT drop to 3 flights each making it easier to slot them into terminal 4.

You really think US would drop PHL to 3 daily?? Even CLT for that matter?

I hardly believe that US will let PHX go all RJ... If PHX goes all RJ they may as well just close the PHX hub. LAX is one of the largest O&D Markets from PHX. Though definitely a saturated market, it would be suicide to do that. US actually will be moving their club to terminal 3. If anything, it says that they are committed to T3. Who knows... if VX goes bust eventually they may try to take over most of the terminal. Gate space in LAX is indeed valuable.



The New American is arriving.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10350 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 128):
So, DL pulls about 400 daily flights out of CVG over ten years and you cite what, ten flights added by other carriers? Cubsrule's point is valid: when carriers drawn down overserved tertiary hubs, other carriers don't rush in to fill them.

When other carriers try they are spooked out of the market by DL's predatory pricing, which for whatever reason some people think doesn't deserve an anti-trust lawsuit, which I know is currently in the preliminary stage amongst attorneys right now.

If F9 pulls out of CVG citing DL, expect this lawsuit to happen.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10244 times:

Quoting nwcoflyer (Reply 129):
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's.

Wont happen. Even if AA cloesd PHX completely, they would still dominate the LAX-PHX market due to residual loyalty in PHX. Does AA fly RJs only on STL-LGA? No.

While I expect PHX to see the most total capacity changes, people here are acting like PHX is some type of LAS with only leisure traffic. PHX is over 4m people and has numerous business HDQ. AA might cut back on the margins, but Id be surprised if PHX ever fell below 200+ flights per day.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10190 times:

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 119):
Not to mention, but what about the economy in Phoenix? Isn't it pretty strong?

Hardly. PHX took a bath in the real estate bust. If we look at unemployment and compare to some of the other cities being discussed here, PHX is right in the middle of CVG, PIT and STL, and unemployment seems to be inching upwards.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10139 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 132):
PHX took a bath in the real estate bust. If we look at unemployment and compare to some of the other cities being discussed here, PHX is right in the middle of CVG, PIT and STL, and unemployment seems to be inching upwards.

Oh, right. Sorry, I forgot about how hard some of those rust belt cities were hit by the recession and the housing market collapse.

With all due respect, I don't think I'd lump PHX with PIT in that regard. PIT's economy is actually pretty strong. Real estate values are climbing, unemployment is relatively low (still below the nat'l average IIRC), and for the first time in 40 years the region's population is increasing.

What is the local O&D like at PHX, and how much of it is high-yielding O&D?



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10125 times:

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 133):
With all due respect, I don't think I'd lump PHX with PIT in that regard. PIT's economy is actually pretty strong. Real estate values are climbing, unemployment is relatively low (still below the nat'l average IIRC), and for the first time in 40 years the region's population is increasing.

Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both have fairly strong economies that are probably more diverse than ever before. The narrative that the dehubbings had something to do with the local economies there (or in Saint Louis, for that matter) is convenient but wrong, as is the narrative that Phoenix's economy is somehow much stronger than those economies. The economies are very different, but I struggle to find objective measures by which Phoenix consistently comes out ahead.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5755 posts, RR: 6
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10099 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 122):
Just about every city pair served by US via PHX can be done in the new carrier via DFW, LAX, and even ORD.

DFW could pick up flights, but good luck finding gate space at LAX or more slots at ORD, which has GDPs more often than not. Besides, LAX probably has double the cost of PHX.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 120):
I can see Us Airways drop all main line LAX-PHX flying to RJ's.

Not a chance. US flies 985 seats in each direction per day (3 A321s, 2 A320s, 1 A319), and I rarely see them go out less than 85% full, with the LAX-PHX segments running oversold most days, especially in the afternoon when all the TPAC flights come in. Dropping them all to even CR9s would eliminate over half of those seats.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1119 posts, RR: 5
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10077 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 123):
Gate space at LAX is a treasured commodity. I doubt that the new airline would abandon those T3 gates so easily. That would be throwing away potential. Just look at UA there, they use gates in T6, T7, and T8. Yes, they are all connected airside. But AA has a shuttlebus service in place that goes to TBIT, T6, and the Eagle's Nest from T4. In fact, it also used to go to T3 when AS was located there.

A number of factors to consider:

(1) LAWA plans to redevelop T3. That might mean a complete rebuild, resulting in fewer gates I think. Fewer gates and service disruptions due to construction might be enough to drive the new AA out of there.

(2) With that pending, LAWA has decided not to build the T3 connector to the new TBIT.

(3) One program element of the T4 connector building will be a busport by means of which passengers arriving at TBIT can connect to flights at T5, T6, and T7. This begs the question of what will happen to AA's own bus service. Will it be merged with the new bus service? If that happens, could AA still restart bus service to T3? LAWA wants the buses to stay on the south side.

(4) More gates are coming to the South side and to the new TBIT itself. The midfield concourse, which is in the planning and coordination phase, will be built in stages, beginning if I remember correctly with the section on the South side. The new LAX plan includes an extension of the north concourse of the new TBIT.

If either one of these two things happens in the near future, AA would be better off staying where it is and laying claim to as many gates as it can in the south concourses of TBIT. The T4 connector will effectively merge T4 with TBIT, as it will be bi-directional and have an AA (oneworld) branded lounge at both ends.


User currently offlinecapitalflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9945 times:

Comparing IAD to PHL is a bit apples to oranges given their locations. PHL is totally built out with no room for expansion without relocating I-95 (not likely). IAD still has room to build at least one additional runway and plenty of land for new concourses. So the potential for IAD as a NE connecting hub is pretty unlimited, while PHL has physical limits.

That said, PHL will be essential to connections working in tandem with DCA and CLT in the near term since they do not have one or two large airports they can focus their connecting traffic to like UA with EWR and IAD. But after CLT finishes their expansion, I could see PHL relegated to connecting traffic only destined to locations close to the NE. Connections from the NE to midwest and west would go through ORD or CLT and to the south and west would go through DFW and CLT.


The New AA flying internationally from IAD is an intriguing idea. But I would think this would be far down on the list of new ideas since DCA is a quick flight to both PHL and CLT and would never amount to much given strong UA and international airline presence already entrenched. Perhaps to LHR or Latin America, but not much else.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6733 posts, RR: 24
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9898 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 135):
DFW could pick up flights, but good luck finding gate space at LAX or more slots at ORD, which has GDPs more often than not.

ORD isn't slot controlled and really isn't that congested anymore.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9781 times:

Quoting capitalflyer (Reply 137):
Comparing IAD to PHL is a bit apples to oranges given their locations. PHL is totally built out with no room for expansion without relocating I-95 (not likely). IAD still has room to build at least one additional runway and plenty of land for new concourses. So the potential for IAD as a NE connecting hub is pretty unlimited, while PHL has physical limits.

I'd actually argue that comparing IAD to PHL is apples to oranges because IAD largely benefits as the International gateway to the US capital with a large number of gov't employees/contractors flying to DC and NoVa.

But yes, IAD has a ton of land to grow.


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9676 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):
(1) LAWA plans to redevelop T3. That might mean a complete rebuild, resulting in fewer gates I think. Fewer gates and service disruptions due to construction might be enough to drive the new AA out of there.

Well if LAWA does cause any disruptions, there will have to be compensation to AA. Holding on to any T3 gates would constitute an investment, especially if LAWA absorbs the costs of refurbishing/rebuilding the terminal. If VX does fold, as many here speculate, AA will be in a prime position to assume those gates as well.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):
With that pending, LAWA has decided not to build the T3 connector to the new TBIT.

Are you saying that LAWA wont pay for a connector or they wont allow a connector altogether?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):
If either one of these two things happens in the near future, AA would be better off staying where it is and laying claim to as many gates as it can in the south concourses of TBIT. The T4 connector will effectively merge T4 with TBIT, as it will be bi-directional and have an AA (oneworld) branded lounge at both ends.

How will gates in TBIT, allow for expansion of domestic operations? I cant imagine LAWA will be too happy with AA dumpnig domestic flights into TBIT.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 136):
The midfield concourse, which is in the planning and coordination phase, will be built in stages, beginning if I remember correctly with the section on the South side.

Will the midfield concourse won't have an airside connection to TBIT? Otherwise it wont be any more convenient than T3.