Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Star Alliance Without CLT  
User currently offlinedalca From Netherlands, joined Aug 2006, 536 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16311 times:

With the US/AA merger and the upcoming news that US will leave Star Alliance and join Oneworld, is Star Allaince then not very badly represented in the South-eastern US?
IAD is the hub closest by to the north and IAH way to the west.

Is there an airport Star Alliance might want to start a mini-hub at in the area?


Zanair flight, please hold on finals as we have to clear rhino's off the runway. Next flight KUL-FRA-AMS Flown in A319,A
125 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16295 times:

I just think they will live without a hub in the area. I cant really see many options for them. In 2013 they are not going to create a new hub I just cant see that happening.

User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16220 times:

IAD (Europe), IAH (Latin Am.) and even ORD (Asia) aren't bad for providing international connections to the Southeastern states, nor are they bad for routing traffic to other areas of North America. The real issue is for routing traffic within the region. I think that is UA's problem more than *A's.


Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15982 times:

CLT is the MEM of AA/US slow de-hubbing. For * alliance IAD is better positioned for a hub for(yield wise) for South-Easter US, and please not IAD is classed as in the South-eastern US...

User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15961 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 3):
CLT is the MEM of AA/US slow de-hubbing.

No it isnt. This argument is so incorrect on every level. Only someone clueless about geography, national economics and airline economics would make such a claim.


User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15792 times:

One thing is sure: LH will continue to fly MUC-CLT. There is a lot of German investment in the area and they have some very lucrative corporate contracts that allow the route to perform well.


Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15767 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 5):
One thing is sure: LH will continue to fly MUC-CLT. There is a lot of German investment in the area and they have some very lucrative corporate contracts that allow the route to perform well.

How can you be so sure? I've been thinking a lot about this route lately ever since the merger announcement. I understand the ties between CLT and Germany, and the route does have a lot of contracts (BMW, Siemens, Continental AG, Daimler come to mind) but is it enough to sustain a nonstop flight? Surely the summer A346 will go away. I've also considered LH switching the MUC flight to FRA.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineunityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15632 times:

It's a big loss. It seems like Star has been going backwards in recent years while Skyteam and Oneworld have been adding members. When I started collecting CO miles in 2008 I didn't expect the alliance weakening in this fashion...

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15564 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 6):
I understand the ties between CLT and Germany, and the route does have a lot of contracts (BMW, Siemens, Continental AG, Daimler come to mind) but is it enough to sustain a nonstop flight?

The trouble is that demand to Germany is spread out over all of Germany. Siemens and BMW, obviously, have Munich connections, but Continental is in HAJ and Daimler is in STR. As between FRA and MUC, it's obviously easiest to get to HAJ from FRA, but STR is a closer question. With AA/US in Oneworld, though, I wonder whether CLT-LHR-STR is the easiest way to get to Stuttgart from Charlotte.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15513 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 5):
One thing is sure: LH will continue to fly MUC-CLT. There is a lot of German investment in the area and they have some very lucrative corporate contracts that allow the route to perform well.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 6):
How can you be so sure? I've been thinking a lot about this route lately ever since the merger announcement. I understand the ties between CLT and Germany, and the route does have a lot of contracts (BMW, Siemens, Continental AG, Daimler come to mind) but is it enough to sustain a nonstop flight? Surely the summer A346 will go away. I've also considered LH switching the MUC flight to FRA.

This route has been oft-discussed during the run up to the merger announcement. Is it possible that if LH leaves the route after the merger, US/AA would begin flying it? Or, as Cubsrule points out, could the German interests best be served via LHR?


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2240 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15502 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 3):

CLT is the MEM of AA/US slow de-hubbing. For * alliance IAD is better positioned for a hub for(yield wise) for South-Easter US, and please not IAD is classed as in the South-eastern US...

Far from it. CLT is a high-yielding hub with a large amount of O&D traffic. MEM, on the other hand, was a hub inherited from DL purely due to the NW merger and initially was supposed to play a smaller "reliever" hub role in the DL network. Of course, everyone knew that the long-term practicality of this was unsustainable, and there were broader implications that as older, 50-seat RJs gradually retired, MEM's purpose in the DL hub network would diminish considerably. CLT is not even remotely near being filed in that same category.

As far as the impacts on Star, I'd argue that it will hurt, yes, but not to a huge scale. IAD and IAH can hopefully fill in some steps in the SE, and truthfully, I don't think that Star has much to worry about in terms of losing CLT's TATL and Latin American/Caribbean networks.

Truthfully, I think the bigger loss for Star overall will be losing JJ to OneWorld in a few months, as that presence in Brasil is key.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3185 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15391 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 5):
One thing is sure: LH will continue to fly MUC-CLT. There is a lot of German investment in the area and they have some very lucrative corporate contracts that allow the route to perform well.

It's still not certain IMO. These corporate contracts might fill say, 30 seats per flight? If these are sold at premium fares, they can be a very good reason to fly the route. But then even for the smallest 333, 187 seats to fill. Seats easy to fill with virtually unlimited USA connections from CLT, but harder when you only have the MUC network.

And for Daimler/Mercedes-Benz, based in STR, are probably more fond of using DLs STR-ATL-BHM connection.

If corporate contracts could fill such a route, wouldn't there be a non-stop OSL-IAH? (Even a route with hubs on both ends...)


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15350 times:

Quoting joost (Reply 11):
And for Daimler/Mercedes-Benz, based in STR, are probably more fond of using DLs STR-ATL-BHM connection.

Daimler Trucks (formerly Freightliner) has significant operations near Charlotte.

[Edited 2013-02-18 13:39:59]


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15299 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 9):

I think LH is probably going to sit back and see how the new AA handles Germany. Traffic from CLT-Germany is larger than traffic from CLT-LON. CLT-Germany will continue to be served, but the questions remains on who will do the flying. CLT-FRA can easily support a year-round flight, but I can see either LH or AA operating it. I believe LH can make CLT-FRA work without the US codeshare feed. As for MUC, there is a sizeable amount of O/D between the two cities, so it's really anyone's guess if LH continues to fly it.

Another big question is will/when will BA resume the CLT market.

Quoting joost (Reply 11):
And for Daimler/Mercedes-Benz, based in STR, are probably more fond of using DLs STR-ATL-BHM connection.

Daimler Trucks North America is based in Ft. Mill, SC, less than 16 miles south of CLT.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15198 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 13):
Daimler Trucks North America is based in Ft. Mill, SC, less than 16 miles south of CLT.


(Ticky tacky alert): I believe their headquarters is actually in PDX, but Freightliner is in Fort Mill and Statesville, Freightliner Custom Chassis is in Gaffney and Thomas Built Buses is in High Point. There's almost certainly more Daimler Trucks traffic to CLT than to PDX.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2240 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15106 times:

Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 7):
It's a big loss. It seems like Star has been going backwards in recent years while Skyteam and Oneworld have been adding members. When I started collecting CO miles in 2008 I didn't expect the alliance weakening in this fashion...

I don't think that's truly a fair/accurate assessment. Each alliance has its superior strengths and weaknesses. While each would ideally love to have as much market share dominance in as many regions as possible, that is nearly impossible to achieve. Airlines still need to be able to compete against each other in order to stay in the business, and as more members are added to the alliance, conflicts of interest start to rise. That has what has led to the recent game-changers that have spurred new tie-ups involving the Middle East carriers.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3185 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15104 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 13):
Daimler Trucks North America is based in Ft. Mill, SC, less than 16 miles south of CLT.

But on the German side, Daimler is still in Stuttgart, and their truck division (manufacturing) is in Worth, even further from MUC and closer to FRA. It doesn't make MUC very attractive. For intercontinental hubs from STR, FRA is closer than MUC.


User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14982 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 6):
How can you be so sure? I've been thinking a lot about this route lately ever since the merger announcement. I understand the ties between CLT and Germany, and the route does have a lot of contracts (BMW, Siemens, Continental AG, Daimler come to mind) but is it enough to sustain a nonstop flight? Surely the summer A346 will go away. I've also considered LH switching the MUC flight to FRA.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
The trouble is that demand to Germany is spread out over all of Germany. Siemens and BMW, obviously, have Munich connections, but Continental is in HAJ and Daimler is in STR. As between FRA and MUC, it's obviously easiest to get to HAJ from FRA, but STR is a closer question. With AA/US in Oneworld, though, I wonder whether CLT-LHR-STR is the easiest way to get to Stuttgart from Charlotte.
Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 9):
This route has been oft-discussed during the run up to the merger announcement. Is it possible that if LH leaves the route after the merger, US/AA would begin flying it? Or, as Cubsrule points out, could the German interests best be served via LHR?
Quoting joost (Reply 11):
It's still not certain IMO. These corporate contracts might fill say, 30 seats per flight? If these are sold at premium fares, they can be a very good reason to fly the route. But then even for the smallest 333, 187 seats to fill. Seats easy to fill with virtually unlimited USA connections from CLT, but harder when you only have the MUC network.

And for Daimler/Mercedes-Benz, based in STR, are probably more fond of using DLs STR-ATL-BHM connection.

If corporate contracts could fill such a route, wouldn't there be a non-stop OSL-IAH? (Even a route with hubs on both ends...)

One thing you're all forgetting is the strength of the Munich hub, especially for intra-European connections. Yes, MUC does not have as much longhaul as Frankfurt does, but LH serves more European destinations from MUC than they do from FRA. There are frequent domestic connections, even to airports like STR or NUE which are relatively close by.

MUC is a wonderful airport to connect at - fast, easy, efficient. The place just works. It's a lot more pleasant than connecting at FRA, easier than connecting at Heathrow's Terminal 5 and streets ahead of the T3 T5 shuffle if connecting between AA and BA.

Then you need to consider that large corporate contracts with Lufthansa (BMW, Siemens, Daimler, etc.) are usually not route-based deals but more of a volume discount across the whole network. The company might have 15-20 longhaul destinations that they regularly book people to, and they're not going to negotiate something separate for each destination. It's usually better to concentrate on a few carriers that can offer a wide reach, and to make sure that the booking volume remains high. The higher your volume, the bigger your discount.

One other thing that LH has going for it: Miles & More has a very large number of members (and even a few fans) within the German corporate world. Those people with some influence over their travel plans will follow the miles.

MUC-CLT is going to stay, I am sure of it. And I think there is a reasonable chance that LH will start FRA-CLT, especially if US reduces their own services to Germany post-merger.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14971 times:

Quoting dalca (Thread starter):
Is there an airport Star Alliance might want to start a mini-hub at in the area?

Maybe MEM as an east-west hub (as DL continues to pull it down) or BNA/BHM as an alternative to CLT. RDU is too close to IAD.

The LH flight will now become an O&D flight without *A and was once a 747 without an alliance. If the cargo demand is sufficient, it could possibly make it on it's own with something smaller than the A346, but certainly not the end of the world for CLT as US/AA will more than likely continue a presence in the CLT-Germany market.


User currently offlineintermodal64 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14941 times:

Would a Private Air type of operation have the range for CLT from either FRA or MUC? I remember they used to fly ORD-DUS for either LH or UA with an A-319. I just don't see filling 170 economy seats every day to CLT without a giant connecting bank in CLT to support those seats.

User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14938 times:

Quoting joost (Reply 16):
But on the German side, Daimler is still in Stuttgart, and their truck division (manufacturing) is in Worth, even further from MUC and closer to FRA. It doesn't make MUC very attractive. For intercontinental hubs from STR, FRA is closer than MUC.

See my earlier post. MUC is very attractive.

If I have a choice between, for example, STR-FRA-LAX and STR-MUC-LAX, I would go via MUC every time.

And STR-MUC-xxx (where xxx is a longhaul destination) is going to be faster than driving or taking the train to FRA and then flying nonstop from there as long as the connection time is reasonable.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14911 times:

Quoting intermodal64 (Reply 19):
I just don't see filling 170 economy seats every day to CLT without a giant connecting bank in CLT to support those seats.

That's because you're forgetting the giant connecting bank at the MUC end.

Quoting intermodal64 (Reply 19):
Would a Private Air type of operation have the range for CLT from either FRA or MUC? I remember they used to fly ORD-DUS for either LH or UA with an A-319.

That was for LH. Privatair have also flown AMS-IAH for KLM, so the range is not an issue. It would certainly be a possibility, but I think LH can make CLT work on their own metal.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3836 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14864 times:

I don't have much of a clue about United's history, but didn't MIA use to be some sort of a United hub at some point? I remember flying from JFK to SCL in 2002 and it was via MIA. So MIA must have been a hub for LatAm traffic at one point.
Or what about MCO, could that be built into a Star Alliance hub? Or too much leisure traffic?

Soren   



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1098 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14736 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 10):
Truthfully, I think the bigger loss for Star overall will be losing JJ to OneWorld in a few months, as that presence in Brasil is key.

But star is still the biggest alliance in the world, and with things like avicana and taca in south america...... can they not sort of hold their position?

of coz i cannot tell for sure, i have never been there and never understood how things work, but just thought i bring it up for discussion...



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14666 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 18):

MEM is too close to IAH. We have one group of A.netters who think CLT should be closed and another think MEM should be a hub for another airline other than DL. Neither will happen.


User currently offlinemartinrpo1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15242 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 4):
No it isnt. This argument is so incorrect on every level. Only someone clueless about geography, national economics and airline economics would make such a claim.

I agree 100%. CLT is a valuable asset for the new AA, specially if they want to compete with DL's ATL.


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15340 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 10):
Far from it. CLT is a high-yielding hub with a large amount of O&D traffic. MEM, on the other hand, was a hub inherited from DL purely due to the NW merger

CLT is a hub for US and is an inherited hub purely due to merging with US (AA as a couple of destinations out of CLT). Like with DL/NW AA/US will have limited resources, and need to decide which hubs to concentrateon . CLT is not viable to be an international hub with JFK, PHL, ORD and DFW being better positioned as international hubs. O&D can served with the regional airlines that currently serve the majority of domestic destinations. So in other words being de-hubbed and evolving as a focus city.


User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4615 posts, RR: 23
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15537 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 26):
CLT is a hub for US and is an inherited hub purely due to merging with US (AA as a couple of destinations out of CLT). Like with DL/NW AA/US will have limited resources, and need to decide which hubs to concentrateon . CLT is not viable to be an international hub with JFK, PHL, ORD and DFW being better positioned as international hubs. O&D can served with the regional airlines that currently serve the majority of domestic destinations. So in other words being de-hubbed and evolving as a focus city.

I really don't think you quite understand how well CLT has performed and how much of a factor it is. Who said anything about being a strong international hub? CLT has always been about being a monster domestic hub and the only competitor to ATL in the Southeast. Now CLT is a large international port for US when it comes to going south, but much of that is expected to go to MIA. Even with that shift, it isn't going to reduce capacity all that much.

Comparing it to MEM just highlights of lack of education on the dynamics of CLT and what it actually is.


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15381 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 27):
Quoting WAC (Reply 26):
CLT is a hub for US and is an inherited hub purely due to merging with US (AA as a couple of destinations out of CLT). Like with DL/NW AA/US will have limited resources, and need to decide which hubs to concentrateon . CLT is not viable to be an international hub with JFK, PHL, ORD and DFW being better positioned as international hubs. O&D can served with the regional airlines that currently serve the majority of domestic destinations. So in other words being de-hubbed and evolving as a focus city.


I really don't think you quite understand how well CLT has performed and how much of a factor it is. Who said anything about being a strong international hub? CLT has always been about being a monster domestic hub and the only competitor to ATL in the Southeast. Now CLT is a large international port for US when it comes to going south, but much of that is expected to go to MIA. Even with that shift, it isn't going to reduce capacity all that much.

  

Parker said that the flights would increase....even if not, AA is not going to let DL have the whole pie. MIA doesn't cut it for domestic connectivity.


User currently offlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15436 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 4):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 4):
Quoting WAC (Reply 3):
CLT is the MEM of AA/US slow de-hubbing.

No it isnt. This argument is so incorrect on every level. Only someone clueless about geography, national economics and airline economics would make such a claim.

Actually, CLT isn't particularly big as U.S. (the country, not airline) hubs go.

In domestic O&D passenger counts it ranks #31, below Kansas City and Sacramento, which don't have hubs, down with SLC.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/programs...vel_price_index/html/table_07.html

In international arrivals, CLT ranked 17th (between Detroit and Seattle) for 12 months ending 9/2011, with less than 1/7 the count of JFK. (For the people arguing that PHL or CLT are going to be the new AA's premier gateway TATL, I just don't see it.)

The big threat in the area is ATL, ranking 3rd in domestic O&D and 6th in international arrivals, with far more flights and far more destinations served than CLT.

Rather than getting MEM'd, CLT is a candidate to be MSP'd: it could lose a few dozen flights and be forced to justify its high flight count regularly in big, mega-network hub traffic simulation scenarios.


User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15241 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 26):
Like with DL/NW AA/US will have limited resources, and need to decide which hubs to concentrateon . CLT is not viable to be an international hub with JFK, PHL, ORD and DFW being better positioned as international hubs. O&D can served with the regional airlines that currently serve the majority of domestic destinations. So in other words being de-hubbed and evolving as a focus city.

It will have even fewer resources if it de-hubs CLT.


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days ago) and read 15140 times:

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 30):
It will have even fewer resources if it de-hubs CLT.

Well it will have more aircraft if it de-hubs CLT to concentrate on other larger international hubs

What I am saying is that CLT is like MEM where regionals play and will play a bigger role in the new AA. CLT US ops is widely done by regionals, and thus easier to de-hub than an airport which has considerable more mainline flying, (job relocation/redundancies vs contracts with regionals)

This was the strategy with DL and MEM.

With reduced capacity, you have more pricing power and better yields.

By de-hubbing CLT and making it a focus city the new AA will be able to that. Also CLT being a finance center can cope with higher fares. By downsizing they will only match O&D and not cater to connecting flight at CLT.

Is MEM and CLT the same? No. CLT has a greater economy and catchment area than that of MEM but it is similar to MEM in the context of a combined DL/NW and a combined AA/US, it has a great amount of regional airlines flying from it, which mean it is easier to downsize and contract out to regionals.

In my opinion both CLT and MEM are good opportunites for hubs, but their respective hub-airlines being merged their positions are likely to (or in the case of MEM already) change from hub airport to focus cities. CLT will be a larger DCA/LGA, and by larger cos it does not have air traffic/capacity restrictions

AA pioneered modern day RM and RM systems, and the whole basis of these airline consolidations is to cut costs, optimize revenues and increase efficiency. In order to do this it is essential that some downsizing somewhere will happen and I think CLT is on top of AA/US list as it has so much regional flying out, and the least mainline flying, so easier to de-hub.
I think CLT will become a focus city with regionals doing more domestic flying with reduced capacity, with a daily link (or two) to LHR and who knows maybe even mad thought of MAD one day.


User currently offlineintermodal64 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days ago) and read 15078 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 21):
That's because you're forgetting the giant connecting bank at the MUC end.

Actually, I'm thinking German and surrounding European points of origin, with some degree of loyalty to STAR. (FRA and MUC are indeed my preferred connecting hubs!) But these folks will arrive CLT with no place to go, really. You can bet that today the traffic in back of those planes depends heavily on connections at both ends, especially for a metropolitan area of fewer than 2 million people. If LH can protect the business traffic on Private Air, one would think that there are lower-risk (or perhaps more strategic) opportunities for a large Airbus somewhere else in the world.


User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days ago) and read 15110 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 31):
CLT US ops is widely done by regionals, and thus easier to de-hub than an airport which has considerable more mainline flying, (job relocation/redundancies vs contracts with regionals)

CLT has 255 daily mainline flights plus another 200 70/90-seater flights. That is more than every other hub except for DFW. It is a well established, profitable 600+ flights a day megahub. It is what gives US its massive North-South East Coast presence (something AA does not have at all) It cannot be compared to MEM and is not going anywhere.


User currently offlineAVLAirlineFreq From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14977 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 31):
What I am saying is that CLT is like MEM where regionals play and will play a bigger role in the new AA. CLT US ops is widely done by regionals, and thus easier to de-hub than an airport which has considerable more mainline flying, (job relocation/redundancies vs contracts with regionals)

This was the strategy with DL and MEM.
Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 33):
It is what gives US its massive North-South East Coast presence (something AA does not have at all) It cannot be compared to MEM and is not going anywhere.

And the other major difference between DL and MEM and US/AA and CLT is that the role of MEM as a hub was largely duplicated by other hubs in the DL network, especially ATL. With some exceptions (most notably MIA to the Caribbean and Latin America), the role of CLT as a hub is largely not duplicated by other hub cities in the combined US/AA network.


User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2434 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14854 times:

Maybe instead of starting a southeastern focus city in another city, how about UA try to muscle out US/AA from CLT?

[Edited 2013-02-18 18:47:18]


A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14723 times:

Yes, there will be a bit lost for the current *A with CLT eventually converting to OW.

But the question going forward is how much does OW really need CLT?

And yes, CLT currently competes with ATL as a Southeastern hub. However, ATL is the WORLD to DL....... and I think that we can agree that DL will most certainly move heaven and earth in interest of their ATL hub. But now with US going to AA and OW, the metrics are drastically different for CLT, and does the newly merged AA/US really want to spend valuable resources fighting with DL and ATL in the Southeast?

Parker really was limited in what he could do with US, and with that, he is to be commended for what accomplished with what he had and he really did a remarkable job with US and CLT. Now another question is does Parker really want to continue battling with DL and ATL in the Southeast, when now he has a whole new world network to contend with? Charlotte suddenly may not meet with the likes of NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Miami, along with Philadelphia and Phoenix even, all domestically, and then maybe with LHR, MAD and NRT internationally thrown into the mix.

Another question is how importantly will the airlines value O&D traffic? And when (not if) fuel costs increase, focusing on the O&D becomes especially important. Carriers will set a minimum (let's say at least 50%, I think that this is a good number at present) and if flights aren't performing to the set O&D standard, they will be axed. CLT has probably one of the highest connect percentages of domestic airports.

From reviewing the scheduling at CLT...... there currently seems to be about 7-8 banks. I think CLT could easily cut down to 3-4 banks, which would be more than sufficient for its O&D, and still be a viable hub for the new AA/US. From some 650 flights cut to 350 flights could easily be done.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 17):
One other thing that LH has going for it: Miles & More has a very large number of members (and even a few fans) within the German corporate world. Those people with some influence over their travel plans will follow the miles.

MUC-CLT is going to stay, I am sure of it. And I think there is a reasonable chance that LH will start FRA-CLT, especially if US reduces their own services to Germany post-merger.

There is more than likely the need for a CLT-Germany flight. At present, CLT has a US daily to FRA, and an LH daily to MUC. I think that the new AA/US will keep the FRA flight initially. But without the *A feed both to and from, LH will drop the CLT-MUC flight and move it to FRA. Then only time will tell if CLT can support two dailies into Germany with *A feed. I would think that AA doesn't have any luck with FRA, and will give LHR to CLT while taking away FRA, and LH will be the carrier with CLT-FRA.

 

[Edited 2013-02-18 19:12:13]

User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 14040 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 17):
MUC-CLT is going to stay, I am sure of it. And I think there is a reasonable chance that LH will start FRA-CLT, especially if US reduces their own services to Germany post-merger.

CLT-MUC has about 35 PDEW, not enough to support a daily flight on LH's smallest a/c, the A333 even with the MUC hub to support it, the flight needs feed from CLT just as much as feed from MUC...and that's even assuming those 35 passengers remain loyal to LH or *A when in fact most will probably switch to AA.

As for LH starting CLT-FRA, you're dreaming. I seriously doubt AA would forfeit the route to LH and don't think LH is really interested in an expensive battle with AA in a relatively small market.


User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13810 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 37):
I seriously doubt AA would forfeit the route to LH

Maybe, but if you look at AA's track record in Germany you can't be so sure.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 37):
CLT-MUC has about 35 PDEW, not enough to support a daily flight on LH's smallest a/c

I still think there is enough demand on CLT-MUC to support a nonstop flight, although I'm sure it won't be daily. If LH drops it, I'm willing to bet AA would pick it up.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13631 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 38):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 37):
I seriously doubt AA would forfeit the route to LH

Maybe, but if you look at AA's track record in Germany you can't be so sure.

Their recent track record is all the more reason for them not to forfeit it if they hope regain some scope in the German market.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 38):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 37):
CLT-MUC has about 35 PDEW, not enough to support a daily flight on LH's smallest a/c

I still think there is enough demand on CLT-MUC to support a nonstop flight, although I'm sure it won't be daily. If LH drops it, I'm willing to bet AA would pick it up.

AA picking up the route is certainly a possibility, but it's all too early to tell at this point with many new variables to consider, namely the amount of traffic LHR will siphon off as, as cubsrule pointed out, CLT-Germany is pretty spread out. In either case though, with many of the high-yielding O&D contracts likely going to AA, it's very doubtful LH will stay on the route.


User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13231 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 40):
Isnt CLT the 4th largest hub in terms of daily departures.

Yes, but it's also something like 80% connecting traffic.


User currently offlinejmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3312 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12918 times:

Quoting dalca (Thread starter):
Is there an airport Star Alliance might want to start a mini-hub at in the area?

In the 21st Century, airlines don't just start mini-hubs hubs for kicks & giggles as they did in the 1990s (ie. HP in CMH or CO Lite in GSO). Any consideration would take place if any of the existing Star Alliance markets could not be served profitably via IAD, IAH, EWR or ORD on UA metal.



.......
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12374 times:

Quoting dalca (Thread starter):
Is there an airport Star Alliance might want to start a mini-hub at in the area?

With US' departure, the only domestic Star carrier in the USA will be UA. I doubt that UA will try to establish a hub just to connect points within the southeast. Those markets are dominated by DL and WN/FL, with US and AA minor players at CLT and MIA. UA can capture some of the transcon and international passengers from the region but there is probably not a suitable available hub city in the region. UA wants to close CLE as a hub and will probably wait until there is enough demand to warrant moving into the deep south.


User currently offlineLH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 422 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 12153 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 20):
And STR-MUC-xxx (where xxx is a longhaul destination) is going to be faster than driving or taking the train to FRA and then flying nonstop from there as long as the connection time is reasonable.

From the airport, maybe, but not from downtown Stuttgart. The train from Stuttgart main station to Frankfurt airport takes 72 minutes. That's only 45 minutes less than it takes to get to Stuttgart airport. Plus, the train runs every 30 minutes without any checkin delay, whereas there are only five flights STR-MUC per day (except Thursdays, where there is a DE (!) flight). Only in rare cases will that get you to your destination quicker.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1037 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9536 times:

It seems like a lot of people think that UA needs a hub in the either the deep south or Florida my questions are where would this hub be located and why do so many of you believe that the mid atlantic hub IAD in inadequate and UA now needs a hub in the deep south? What major city in the deep south or Florida has a growing population which is underserved air traffic wise and has a growing economy with economic and business ties to either Europe, Asia or South America that could even support a UA mini hub operation?

I'm all for the idea of expanding UA however, I ask these questions because I don't see where United will find a place to fit in in down there. AA, DL, and US will vigorously defend their turf in MIA, ATL, and CLT, most other airports especially in Florida are fractured meaning there is no one dominate airline but they are dominated mostly by low cost carriers. So what state and city could UA get into start a mini hub and make that station profitable in lets say 3-5 years after opening?


User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 998 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9444 times:

From my point of view (living near YYZ), CLT is a huge asset: in that it provides great conenctions from BUF (which sees more than a few cross-border travellers) to Sun destinations (FLA or the Carribean). US had by far the best schedule out of BUF for my family. I hope that doesn't change (even if it means no *A points).

User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 47):
It seems like a lot of people think that UA needs a hub in the either the deep south or Florida my questions are where would this hub be located and why do so many of you believe that the mid atlantic hub IAD in inadequate and UA now needs a hub in the deep south? What major city in the deep south or Florida has a growing population which is underserved air traffic wise and has a growing economy with economic and business ties to either Europe, Asia or South America that could even support a UA mini hub operation?

I think that's a pretty solid take on things. As was pointed out in a previous thread, the only real weakenss for Star is intra-SE/South, which US and DL have pretty well locked up. Star/UA is just fine where they are, connecting the SE to the rest of the U.S. and the world as needed, which they they do pretty well through their existing hubs.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8807 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 42):

Tell me where AA isnt getting their QSI fair share of O&D traffic and where they will be able to by shutting down CLT? So cut profitable service to CLT and add marginal flights in NYC or LAX. As for 50 seaters going away , CLT and every other hub would see a reduction in departures but that has nothing to do with the merger. Still no one has answered where the lost CLT traffic will be recaptured.


It's amazing that we have two simultaneous incorrect arguments on this thread. One is CLT will shut down or shink by 50%, the other is UAL will have to have a hub in the SE. This web site is enough to give anyone a migraine.


User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 17):

MUC-CLT is going to stay, I am sure of it. And I think there is a reasonable chance that LH will start FRA-CLT, especially if US reduces their own services to Germany post-merger.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 5):
One thing is sure: LH will continue to fly MUC-CLT. There is a lot of German investment in the area and they have some very lucrative corporate contracts that allow the route to perform well.

As much as it it would be great for my relatives in the CLT area to keep LH, I wonder about MUC-CLT. Contracts or not, the loss of a Star hub on the other end will be a blow to the route. I do see US keeping CLT-FRA, though, mainy because AA HAS to grow in Germany post merger.

Quoting intermodal64 (Reply 32):
Actually, I'm thinking German and surrounding European points of origin, with some degree of loyalty to STAR. (FRA and MUC are indeed my preferred connecting hubs!) But these folks will arrive CLT with no place to go, really. You can bet that today the traffic in back of those planes depends heavily on connections at both ends, especially for a metropolitan area of fewer than 2 million people.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Losing that feed to the US SE will be trouble.



Next
User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 3):
CLT is the MEM of AA/US

Wrong, it is the MSP of the new company

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 10):
CLT is the MEM of AA/US

CLT is no longer the crown jewel of a SE US hub. You are right though, it has a lot of corporate contracts and O&D. You are going to experience what MSP did during this merger. A high O&D and lots of corporate traffic. You just will see the aircraft change to mostly A319 and ERJ170/145 and your international routes will be to main OW hubs. Will you keep a lot of routes? yes. Will the size of the aircraft get smaller? Yes. Will the hub go away? No. Just won't have the same influence it currently carries.

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7657 times:

Quoting LOWS (Reply 40):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 40):
Isnt CLT the 4th largest hub in terms of daily departures.

Yes, but it's also something like 80% connecting traffic.

So what's Your point? ATL is about 75% connecting traffic.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7628 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 50):
Quoting LOWS (Reply 40):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 40):
Isnt CLT the 4th largest hub in terms of daily departures.

Yes, but it's also something like 80% connecting traffic.

So what's Your point? ATL is about 75% connecting traffic.

Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

Total BS in some respects. SLC's O&D is much higher, due to the fact that it's the only major airport within hundreds of miles. RDU's O&D is much higher than ATL's, so should we move the ATL hub to RDU? O&D has some relevance, but You are comparing CLT's O&D with others that have no surrounding competition. CLT is a connecting hub, the same as ATL, just on a smaller scale. The major airports in the Carolinas are so close together that locals frequently drive to the airport where they can get a better fare, which in itself distorts the O&D. If CLT were the only airport in a 100 mi radius, the O&D would be much higher, but it has CAE/GSP/AVL/GSO/FAY to compete with as well as RDU a little further out.


User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7159 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
Total BS in some respects. SLC's O&D is much higher, due to the fact that it's the only major airport within hundreds of miles. RDU's O&D is much higher than ATL's, so should we move the ATL hub to RDU?

        

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

This is a classic case of how looking at the statistics alone can be tricky - remember the phase atrubuted to Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.



Next
User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7085 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.

Exactly. My intermediate family lives off of I-77 on Lake Norman, roughly 30 minutes or so north of CLT. To put it in perspective, they can make it to GSO in about an 1:15, to GSP in about 1:45, to CAE in just under 2:00, and to AVL in about 2:00. My parents have driven to both AVL and GSP on numerous occasions to get a lower fare.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

Total BS in some respects.

It's not. I don't really care about the leakage to other airports because, even if that was factored in, the Charlotte market is still very small compared to ORD, ATL, EWR, IAH, DFW...etc. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here as the OP was originally referring to the size of the markets of airline hubs and how Charlotte compares.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

This is a classic case of how looking at the statistics alone can be tricky - remember the phase atrubuted to Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.

Again, this is all irrelevant, the original claim was that Charlotte is a comparatively small market among other major hubs, this is true on every metric even counting leakage, not sure why this is an issue for some people or why they feel they need to justify it. CLT has a strong role as a domestic hub, but yes, it's a small market when compared to other large airline hubs.


User currently offlineSJUSXM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6956 times:

And yet the costs of the CLT operation are going to rise significantly with all of the US employees getting significant raises. Does that change the margins in CLT from positive to negative? It's something that hasn't been discussed in this thread so far, yet this probably plays a more significant impact than a 5% difference in O&D traffic compared to ATL.

IMO, I agree with wingnutmn, CLT is likely to look more like MSP than MEM. CLT fills a large gap in the AA network and doesnt really overlap much. However, does it need 4 CLT-SJU flights? Makes sense when you only have PHL and CLT to connect the east coast, but when you add JFK, PHL, MIA, DFW and ORD to that mix maybe 2 flights are more appropriate. There are more cities like this. It won't make the hub go away, just maybe a loss of a few cities and flights.

I think PHX is in a much more precarious position.


As for *A, what does CLT really bring that UA can't do at IAD?



AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6952 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
SLC's O&D is much higher, due to the fact that it's the only major airport within hundreds of miles.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 54):
Exactly. My intermediate family lives off of I-77 on Lake Norman, roughly 30 minutes or so north of CLT. To put it in perspective, they can make it to GSO in about an 1:15, to GSP in about 1:45, to CAE in just under 2:00, and to AVL in about 2:00. My parents have driven to both AVL and GSP on numerous occasions to get a lower fare.

SLC is particularly interesting, as it is both a fortress hub and the place that you drive to get a lower fare in the Intermountain area. I've met people from as far away as WYS (West Yellowstone, MT) who routinely drive to SLC (about 325 miles/5+ hours away) to get better fares. Of course WYS has very limted service, but they are also bypassing BZN (90 miles), IDA (110 miles) and PIH (165 miles) to get there. SLC is often considered a high-fare fortress hub, but people will still drive 5 hours and bypass 4 other airports to get there from places that cost even more. That's why DL loves it. The only competition is from expensive RJ outstations. [/tangent]

Anyway, I think CLT will be just fine.



Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6942 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 45):
With US' departure, the only domestic Star carrier in the USA will be UA. I doubt that UA will try to establish a hub just to connect points within the southeast.

With this new triage of legacy carriers remaining in the U.S., I don't think now that it is possible for any of the three legacies to be strong in every region in the county. WN may be considered as strong in just about every region of the country, but they don't do smaller airports. Each of the three legacies will have strengths in different areas, and be weak in different areas.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 44):
I was talking about the CLT-FRA which, at ~43 PDEW, is small beans when compared to LH's other TATL destinations. And why are you sure LH would be the carrier for such a route when, by your logic, BA should be the carrier serving LHR-DTW/MSP? The trend has almost always been that either the home carrier dominating these fortress mid-size market hubs or their alliance partners serve the international routes, I see no reason to believe CLT is any different.

Okay, so now do you want to say that there really isn't any need for a CLT-Germany nonstop flight? With a whole 86 O&D pax daily on CLT-FRA, and then another whole 60 some O&D pax daily on CLT-MUC, and then another whole 64 some in total O&D pax to about 7 other German cities for a total of about 105 O&D PDEW.... is this even enough to support even 1 daily CLT-Germany flight? Maybe, if the O&D of at least 50% purchase Business Class or better seating. And who will those premium pax rather be purchasing from..... AA or LH?

As for DL LHR-DTW/MSP, I guess one can look at it any way they want. Different markets, I would say, and it's also curious here that MSP-Germany (173 O&D pax daily) does not have any nonstops into Germany, while DTW-Germany (390 O&D pax daily) has one daily with LH to FRA, and not on DL.



Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):
It's amazing that we have two simultaneous incorrect arguments on this thread. One is CLT will shut down or shink by 50%, the other is UAL will have to have a hub in the SE. This web site is enough to give anyone a migraine.

Oy vey.... I think that we're all having a discussion here and just have different points of view. And as for your migraine headaches here, you can't tell me that you don't look forward to them as much as you look forward to going your neighborhood dominatrix (or dominator, I don't care and I don't judge) and having her tie you up, get out that thick leather paddle, and then pulling down your trousers.......

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):
Tell me where AA isnt getting their QSI fair share of O&D traffic and where they will be able to by shutting down CLT? So cut profitable service to CLT and add marginal flights in NYC or LAX. As for 50 seaters going away , CLT and every other hub would see a reduction in departures but that has nothing to do with the merger. Still no one has answered where the lost CLT traffic will be recaptured.

Can we look at it this way? I think that we can all agree that the new merged AA/US will have higher costs. If we can’t agree here, that’s another discussion. So now assuming increased costs, fares will have to increase in order for the new AA/UA to profit. And I think that we all know the basic economic rule of demand….. as price falls, people will buy more….. and as price rises, people will buy less. I think that we can agree on this as well. Now…. as to where will all this traffic go? This traffic will now just not be there because price increase will have created less demand. Some may drive, some may take a bus, some may not go on a trip at all, and now as demand drops, so will flights since there is no demand for them. Lost traffic will happen because of fare increase. Yes, CLT can get a premium, it has that in its favor. And the new AA/US will not shut down or cede the Southeast; having between 300-400 daily flights at CLT is more than enough to keep DL and ATL honest down there.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.

The more that folks in the CLT area drive to CLT and use it as their O&D airport, the better the chances of CLT keeping up a higher number of flights.

Now.... I'll say this again. It's wonderful that the airline execs are now singing the tune of praising how many opportunities there will be with this merger..... and the civic officials joining them in harmony. But what tune is going to be sung when the price of jet fuel spikes for some reason, or jet fuel just continues in its upward cost to some point? I'm sure that a completely different tune is going to be sung, and the latter one not so happy as this current one. And it won't be just CLT that will see traffic decline, but ATL, DFW, etc, etc., and easiest cutting is where O&D doesn't match demand.

And even without jet fuel spiking too quickly, I think that soon we'll be seeing lots of system-wide capacity cuts to utilize scarce resources to compliment O&D. WN is already doing this at ATL, where reductions are going to be increasing the local percentage of O&D sometime soon.

And lastly, Parker is smart and knew that his miracle will be ending. I think that everyone here agree that Parker would have just about traded in his left testicle (ouch) for this merger to happen. And he finally got it, and with that, is probably turning cartwheels that CLT isn't the center of his universe anymore.

And for now, that's all folks.......


 







[Edited 2013-02-19 15:22:47]

User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
And lastly, Parker is smart and knew that his miracle will be ending. I think that everyone here agree that Parker would have just about traded in his left testicle (ouch) for this merger to happen. And he finally got it, and with that, is probably turning cartwheels that CLT isn't the center of his universe anymore.

Please don't give Parker credit for something that He didn't do. It was done by acquisition of Piedmont by US and now by AA.


User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days ago) and read 6715 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
As for DL LHR-DTW/MSP, I guess one can look at it any way they want. Different markets, I would say, and it's also curious here that MSP-Germany (173 O&D pax daily) does not have any nonstops into Germany, while DTW-Germany (390 O&D pax daily) has one daily with LH to FRA, and not on DL.

Kinda surprised there isn't a MSP-Germany nonstop. And DL also flies DTW-FRA with a 764.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days ago) and read 6675 times:

CLT is a great hub - it is without a doubt the "silver medal" among hubs in the southeast U.S.

Losing the connectivity it affords (via the extensive US codeshare) will certainly impact UA, but not enough for UA to try and build a new hub - mini or otherwise - in the region. Thankfully for UA, its hub structure is relatively well-situated to handle traffic flows in and out of the region (IAD/EWR north, ORD/IAH west) - not as good as what DL and now AA will have, but fine nonetheless.

We will now have the three big network carriers all large around the U.S., with a few weak spots. For UA it will be the southeast. For DL it will be the west coast and south-central. For AA it will be the west coast and Rockies. No airline can win everywhere. UA will be just fine without a hub in the southeast U.S.


User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days ago) and read 6639 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):

Here is where your lost traffic is...CLT keeps domestic flights and internationals to LHR, BCN or MAD, and probably FRA. You lose most others because you now transfer those pax to JFK, PHL, ORD, or DFW and MIA to Latin America. It doesn't matter that 25% of traffic is O&D. That 75% can connect elsewhere. It would be an absolute pipe dream to think CLT stays as large or grows in size in this merger.

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6609 times:

Regarding LH, this has been discussed at length in the other thread. It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay. I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT. AA's can't even make FRA work today other than a single flig from DFW so I very much doubt the will keep CLT.
There are dozens of German companies HQ'd or with significant presence around CLT and in NC, all of which rely on LH for their travel and cargo needs. None of these companies are going to put their employees on an one other than LH.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6594 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 44):
I was talking about the CLT-FRA which, at ~43 PDEW, is small beans when compared to LH's other TATL destinations. And why are you sure LH would be the carrier for such a route when, by your logic, BA should be the carrier serving LHR-DTW/MSP? The trend has almost always been that either the home carrier dominating these fortress mid-size market hubs or their alliance partners serve the international routes, I see no reason to believe CLT is any different.

Okay, so now do you want to say that there really isn't any need for a CLT-Germany nonstop flight?

Where did I say that? There's most definitely a market, I'm just saying IMO it's 99% certain AA will be the one serving it.

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
And who will those premium pax rather be purchasing from..... AA or LH?

And I'm saying 99% will continue with US, which will then be AA. Even if that traffic does get split between AA or LH, AA still wins out as CLT is a larger hub than FRA and AA will have the whole CLT network to pull from, additionally pax that would normally connect in FRA or MUC to get to CLT can now be routed through LHR on BA.

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
As for DL LHR-DTW/MSP, I guess one can look at it any way they want. Different markets

The only difference is that they're larger markets, so why is it that you don't have BA in any of these much larger markets yet you seem so sure that LH will remain in the far smaller FRA/MUC-CLT market absent all the feed from US? The answer is simple: DTW and MSP are fortress hubs where DL dominates the market as US/AA does in CLT, so I'm failing to see why you think the situation will be different in CLT than any other fortress hub.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT.

You're talking about the two like they're two competing airlines which isn't the case. They're both in *A and code-share on each others' flights to Germany, thus it's a wash as to whether pax choose LH or US at CLT. After the merger though, all those CLT-based corporate contracts go to AA and OW and BA thus probably replaces LH.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
AA's can't even make FRA work today other than a single flig from DFW so I very much doubt the will keep CLT.

With the CLT fortress hub and the massive feed it provide what makes you think they won't? Sorry, but LH has neither the plane nor the fortitude to operate such a long, thin and what would be a competitive route with AA still on it. CLT will continue to be a fortress hub and AA will defend it from competitors as such.

[Edited 2013-02-19 18:10:16]

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 62
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6607 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
Regarding LH, this has been discussed at length in the other thread. It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay. I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT. AA's can't even make FRA work today other than a single flig from DFW so I very much doubt the will keep CLT.
There are dozens of German companies HQ'd or with significant presence around CLT and in NC, all of which rely on LH for their travel and cargo needs. None of these companies are going to put their employees on an one other than LH.

I doubt it - I fully expect AA will maintain a daily CLT-FRA (probably as a 763). There is a healthy local market between Germany and the southeast U.S. and it should be enough to support at least 1 daily AA flight CLT-FRA.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6575 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 60):
And DL also flies DTW-FRA with a 764.

You are correct, and oooops on me that I missed that.

Anyways.... I would wonder if there is any substantive difference between the yields of the two carriers on this route.

Quoting cv880 (Reply 59):
Please don't give Parker credit for something that He didn't do.

I wouldn't give Parker any credit for anything that he didn't do.

However, being at the helm of a large domestic airline (a money losing proposition to begin with many would say) that recently went through BK twice, and then basically picked through second tier cities (no offense Charlotte, Phoenix and Philadelphia, but NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Miami, Chicago, and maybe a few other larger population centers you aren't) to have to transform their airports as best he can into fortress hubs, while basically battling DL and ATL (the world's largest airline for a while at the world's largest airport) in the Southeast and WN (an 800 pound gorilla) at both PHL and PHX, and knowing to dehub LAS, all the while not having parts of his own work groups unite behind him, and then somehow being able to generate profits for quite a few years from all of this, well....... I do think that it's practically a miracle what he accomplished.

And as clever as he is at the helm being able to churn out these profits, all the while I can't help but thinking that he's thinking how long can I keep this going on......???


 


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3473 posts, RR: 7
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

In getting back to the topic of Star without CLT, I think IAD will obsorb some of the Northeast/Midwest-Southeast traffic. IAD may also absorb some Southeast-Europe traffic that CLT if paxs want to remain loyal to Star.

All in all I think Star can get along fine with out CLT. It may hurt a bit but CLT is not a IAD with a variety of international Star carriers that funnel paxs to/from UA.


User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
RDU's O&D is much higher than ATL's, so should we move the ATL hub to RDU?

What? RDU's O&D is nowhere near the size of ATL's O&D, which is one of the largest O&D airports in the country.

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 63):
Here is where your lost traffic is...CLT keeps domestic flights and internationals to LHR, BCN or MAD, and probably FRA. You lose most others because you now transfer those pax to JFK, PHL, ORD, or DFW and MIA to Latin America. It doesn't matter that 25% of traffic is O&D. That 75% can connect elsewhere. It would be an absolute pipe dream to think CLT stays as large or grows in size in this merger.

CLT's main function as a hub is not as an international connecting point, but as a massive North-South and Southeast regional hub. CLT's economies of scale, much in the same way as ATL, help to make most routes work in the absence of a large O&D base (though CLT is a decent sized, and growing market). The Southeast is the most populous region of the country and CLT is one of just two hubs that are reasonably developed to handle the traffic in the region. While ATL will likely always be the premier Southeast airline hub, CLT sits comfortably in 2nd place as it has for decades. DFW, ORD, MIA, PHL, and JFK can't replicate the traffic flows that CLT handles, and AA/US would be insane to abandon the hub and, in turn, the region. While CLT will undoubtedly be rightsized, as will all hubs in the merger, CLT will continue to operate as a large hub in the new AA network. I foresee CLT maintaining its position as the 2nd largest hub in the AA network and don't envision any scenarios that would cause this to change; AA having a strong hub in the Southeast is too important strategically for the airline.

Jeremy


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6431 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 69):
What? RDU's O&D is nowhere near the size of ATL's O&D, which is one of the largest O&D airports in the country.

In terms of percentage of total traffic, it is way above ATL's as are most of the top 50, and that was what was being discussed. (I thought)


User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6368 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay. I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT.

US ran CLT-FRA alone for 13 years before it had any type of relationship with LH. LH's feed traffic was an added bonus but US does not need LH to make CLT-FRA work. In the meantime, both BA and LH have attempted flights to CLT and none have made it work without some sort of relationship with US....


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 68):
The Southeast is the most populous region of the country and CLT is one of just two hubs that are reasonably developed to handle the traffic in the region.

Er, no, the Northeast still has the Southeast beat handily, even if one includes Kentucky and Virginia in the Southeast region. But you are right about CLT and ATL - even MEM was a bit too far west to efficiently serve the entire region as well as the other two can.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

To those who think CLT will be closed or cut substantially. Do you think AA will to the same to PHX? That is close or substantially cut? If so, you think AA is getting together with US for the purpose of one hub PHL and one large focus city DCA and will close probably domething close to 50% of US's current revenue stream and magically recapture thru other hubs all if which are running close to capacity.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 71):
[/
Beat handily???? PA, NJ, NY and the six New England states are handily larger than VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN?


As for CLT-FRA, it will be tough for AA but German auto presence in the SE might help.


[quote=wingnutmn,reply=62]

CLT will not lose international traffic to ORD or DFW because it is too far a backtrack. JFK doesn't have the domestic presence for AA that it does for DL. PHL can flow traffic away from CLT now, they don't need AA to do it. As for MIA I could see the Brazil flights being moved to MIA but not much else. We've had the ad nausim discussion and CLT will not
lose carribbean traffic to MIA. There is simply not the capacity in MIA to recapture even a small fraction of list CLT traffic.


User currently offlinedoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 72):
As for MIA I could see the Brazil flights being moved to MIA but not much else. We've had the ad nausim discussion and CLT will not
lose carribbean traffic to MIA. There is simply not the capacity in MIA to recapture even a small fraction of list CLT traffic.

Miami does not have a capacity issue and CLT will lose more than some Brazil flights to Miami.

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 68):
CLT sits comfortably in 2nd place as it has for decades. DFW, ORD, MIA, PHL, and JFK can't replicate the traffic flows that CLT handles,

Time will tell


User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day ago) and read 5523 times:

Quoting doug (Reply 73):
Miami does not have a capacity issue and CLT will lose more than some Brazil flights to Miami.

You are right, MIA does not have a capacity issue but it does have a domestic feed issue (largely thanks to its airport costs). For the strong MIA O/D VFR markets like KIN and BOG this is not a big deal but for the beach markets that depend upon vacationers from Omaha and Richmond to fill the planes, moving the flights to MIA and requiring double connections would not be competitive.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day ago) and read 5486 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
And I'm saying 99% will continue with US, which will then be AA. Even if that traffic does get split between AA or LH, AA still wins out as CLT is a larger hub than FRA and AA will have the whole CLT network to pull from, additionally pax that would normally connect in FRA or MUC to get to CLT can now be routed through LHR on BA.

flyguy my friend..... if you are 99% certain that CLT-FRA will remain with the new AA/US, then I guess that it's going to be that. I'll agree with you for now..... but tomorrow is another day, eh? In the meantime...... just to offer a bit of wisdom that I've experienced in my longer years of life here and that is sometimes the more certain one is of something..... well.......

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 72):
To those who think CLT will be closed or cut substantially. Do you think AA will to the same to PHX? That is close or substantially cut? If so, you think AA is getting together with US for the purpose of one hub PHL and one large focus city DCA and will close probably domething close to 50% of US's current revenue stream and magically recapture thru other hubs all if which are running close to capacity.

As all of us (I think) are just basically offering our guesses here (and those in the know at AA/US as to what will be happening maybe don't even know anything themselves yet, and if they did, they'd be kinda not so wise to post anything here before the company announces it) and my guess is just that ALL carriers are going to start optimizing their routes and frequencies to capture the largest amount of O&D traffic that they can. This is where the premium dollars. There's a thread here about NK's recent profits, and many are at awe as to how low at a cost that they operate. However, my thinking is that the CEO of NK stated that NK has a 90% O&D rate. And that is what I see as to why they are printing $$$$$, as well as just about every carrier CEO drolling over this. And WN, well, it's no secret that they took over FL, and now are maximizing O&D at ATL (and probably their other points) to maximize O&D. Gee...... I wonder why WN's doing that, eh?

At any rate, we will still see hubs. And CLT will still be an important hub in the new AA/US. And I don't know if, or if so how much, CLT will be cut for a fact. But all I see is that CLT is very high in terms of connect pax, and when jet fuel goes up, or maybe any number of events happen that requires airlines cutting schedules, routes and/or frequencies that aren't supporting O&D are easiest to let go. And at this point, personally all I am really looking at is O&D traffic and that is how I'm basing my guesstimations going forward.

And other than probably Brazil, and then maybe minor/seasonal European routes, I can see CLT keeping most of their dailies, or once-twice weeklies into the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America. It just isn't that much traffic, as say.... the 8 or so banks that CLT has with the domestic schedule.

Now with PHX, it's another matter..... because of some 200+ flights that the new AA/US will have there...... PHX is pretty good with O&D..... some 60% or so. Yes..... it's lower yielding.... however, I do believe that AA/US can still take some premium out of there. So even with the new set of metrics that involved with the new AA/US, since I'm using O&D as a guide, and PHX has good O&D...... I just don't think that PHX will be hurt that much.

In the meantime, despite my direness in some cases..... I would want all the best for the new AA/US, along with all of their hubs, and especially for the employees, who I'm keeping both my fingers and toes crossed that whatever happens will be as painless as possible for them



 


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day ago) and read 5459 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
You're talking about the two like they're two competing airlines which isn't the case. They're both in *A and code-share on each others' flights to Germany, thus it's a wash as to whether pax choose LH or US at CLT. After the merger though, all those CLT-based corporate contracts go to AA and OW and BA thus probably replaces LH.

The contracts are German based companies, therefore they will stay with LH and *A.
http://charlotteusa.com/business-info/international-business/germany/

Quoting commavia (Reply 65):
I doubt it - I fully expect AA will maintain a daily CLT-FRA (probably as a 763). There is a healthy local market between Germany and the southeast U.S. and it should be enough to support at least 1 daily AA flight CLT-FRA.

A single 763 is a significant reduction from an A333 or 2xA330 in the Summer. You're pretty much agreeing with me. I don't see AA/US mainitaining a 2xA330 in Summer to FRA as they do now.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 70):

US ran CLT-FRA alone for 13 years before it had any type of relationship with LH

Yes, with a 762 not 2xA330, and there were 300,000 US troops staged near FRA, and fuel was cheaper than peanuts. A lot has changed since then.

[Edited 2013-02-20 17:32:20]

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day ago) and read 5426 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
You're pretty much agreeing with me.

Agreeing the CLT-FRA capacity will be reduced, not that the CLT-FRA flight will be ended entirely.


User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):

The contracts are German based companies, therefore they will stay with LH and *A.

No, it is their US subsidiaries which will remain with US/AA. Are they going to fly around the US doing their sales calls and product presentations on LH?

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
A single 763 is a significant reduction from an A333 or 2xA330 in the Summer. You're pretty much agreeing with me. I don't see AA/US mainitaining a 2xA330 in Summer to FRA as they do now.

Nobody said that AA was going to keep flying 2x A330 to FRA. We just said that AA would maintain the route would you said they would drop it completely. It is more like you are agreeing with US  
Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
Yes, with a 762 not 2xA330, and there were 300,000 US troops staged near FRA, and fuel was cheaper than peanuts. A lot has changed since then.

SE USA - Germany traffic has only grown since then so I really don't see why US/AA would give up on it now....


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 75):
and when jet fuel goes up, or maybe any number of events happen that requires airlines cutting schedules, routes and/or frequencies that aren't supporting O&D are easiest to let go. And at this point, personally all I am really looking at is O&D traffic and that is how I'm basing my guesstimations going forward.

Obviously on a pt to pt route system, what You say is true, but the hub & spoke system was developed for the same reason--a cost saving measure or a gathering place to get from point A to B via point C at an economical cost. NK's route system leaves out much of America as opposed to the Big 3 Carriers. Try getting to Asia or Europe on NK. As for PHX, the O&D of that Airport really has no relevance to the US flight schedule in it's present form. Most of the O&D traffic from PHX is probably on WN.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33272 posts, RR: 71
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 74):
MIA does not have a capacity issue but it does have a domestic feed issue (largely thanks to its airport costs).



MIA doesn't have a domestic feed issue. AA runs an extensive domestic network out of MIA. There are some gaps to the smaller Northeast markets and MCI/MKE/SAT/AUS/SAN. But AA will take care of that with its new fleet. Having nothing between an ERJ-145 and a 737-800 meant AA has been unable to fill that gap until now. AA not serving those markets have absolutely zilch to do with airport costs. A RIC-SXM passenger is a very high fare premium passenger; the extra $5-7 it cost is irrelevant.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 74):
but for the beach markets that depend upon vacationers from Omaha and Richmond to fill the planes,



There is not one single beach market that relies on Richmond or Omaha. MIA can connect one-stop to more than 90% of the U.S.-Caribbean market. AA serves pretty much every decent sized metro in the South from Miami - Richmond, Norfolk, Louisville, Birmingham, etc. The only somewhat important feeder markets missing are smaller Northeast markets - ROC, SYR, BUF, PVD - but, again, AA will soon have the planes to finally serve those markets, and specifically used MIA-BUF as an example of a market it will open during a presentation on its turn around plan.



a.
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3473 posts, RR: 7
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 72):
PHL can flow traffic away from CLT now, they don't need AA to do it.

CLT's role in new AA/US will be different than it is now with US. US needs a reliever for PHL in terms of TA growth as well as additional options to Europe. With ORD, DFW, and JFK added CLT does not need to play this role as much as US has built it up to be. CLT will likely retain TA service but not to the extent it has today.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 75):
just to offer a bit of wisdom that I've experienced in my longer years of life here and that is sometimes the more certain one is of something..... well.......

Oh I absolutely agree with you, I've always said that in this industry, never say never, perhaps a better way to phrase it would have been that I'm as certain as one can be in this business.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
You're talking about the two like they're two competing airlines which isn't the case. They're both in *A and code-share on each others' flights to Germany, thus it's a wash as to whether pax choose LH or US at CLT. After the merger though, all those CLT-based corporate contracts go to AA and OW and BA thus probably replaces LH.

The contracts are German based companies, therefore they will stay with LH and *A.
http://charlotteusa.com/business-inf...many/

As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT. Do you think Haier USA contracts exclusively with Air China?


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 78):
Nobody said that AA was going to keep flying 2x A330 to FRA. We just said that AA would maintain the route would you said they would drop it completely. It is more like you are agreeing with US

Hummm...let me quote what i said:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 63):
It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay.
Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 78):
No, it is their US subsidiaries which will remain with US/AA. Are they going to fly around the US doing their sales calls and product presentations on LH?

Nonesense. If that was true they would be flying on AA today but they're not. They're flying on LH. LH's MUC-CLT a.k.a the BMW Express, exists because of the German companies located in and around Charlotte. You guys are severely underestimating German pride.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT.

Sure, for domestic travel but not for international travel. My company has contracts with different airlines for domestic and international travel.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT. Do you think Haier USA contracts exclusively with Air China?

I think there is some confusion here. Based on airbazar's post after yours, I think the point was that LH to MUC is likely to stay, even if FRA on AA/US metal goes. From the sound of things the current US CLT-FRA service is in more danger because they probably rely more heavily on Star connections (at both ends, but connections nonetheless) than the LH MUC flight. That's not to say there may not be respectable O&D traffic on CLT-FRA, but of the two it frankly is seems a bit weaker.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 5124 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 63):
It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay.
Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 78):
No, it is their US subsidiaries which will remain with US/AA. Are they going to fly around the US doing their sales calls and product presentations on LH?

Nonesense. If that was true they would be flying on AA today but they're not. They're flying on LH.

They're flying on LH because LH codeshares with US, they're both in *A and they can earn Dividend Miles. It doesn't really matter which airline the employees want to fly as it's the employers who sign the contracts and pay for the travel, it just so happens right now with the relationship between LH and US that they can fly the two interchangeably, if that interchangeability goes away (i.e. codesharing and *A), they stop flying LH unless LH nabs the contract.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
LH's MUC-CLT a.k.a the BMW Express, exists because of the German companies located in and around Charlotte.

It exists because both LH and US codeshare, are in *A and US has a massive hub in CLT. The BMW biz travelers are great and certainly make the flight profitable, but take away the CLT feed and it's gone, 35 PDEW is not enough to sustain A333 service on LH.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
You guys are severely underestimating German pride.

German pride isn't going to keep LH in CLT, especially considering that most of the people employed by these CLT-based German subsidiaries are American.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT.

Sure, for domestic travel but not for international travel. My company has contracts with different airlines for domestic and international travel.

Are you based in a fortress hub dominated by one single airline who are the only ones offering international service?

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 84):
From the sound of things the current US CLT-FRA service is in more danger because they probably rely more heavily on Star connections (at both ends, but connections nonetheless) than the LH MUC flight. That's not to say there may not be respectable O&D traffic on CLT-FRA, but of the two it frankly is seems a bit weaker.


FRA is definitely the stronger market between the two with 43 PDEW compared to MUC's 35 PDEW, yield-wise it could balance out. But in either case, the new AA will dominate the Charlotte market and I doubt they will allow a large international competitor such as LH to remain without a fight, and I doubt LH would really care to put up a fight over what would be a long, thin route for them absent any US feed at CLT.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):

I think the kicker here is that LH holds the high cards in terms of the major contracts and money underwriting the route. With that giving the route a nice baseline, LH can leverage MUC connections to fill the back. While FRA is a big destination in it's own right, and a merged AA/US may look at keeping some of the FRA service beyond what AA offers now (just DFW I believe), I just don't see CLT as a major cornerstone for them. With their lucrative and valued (loyalty/pride) contracts here, LH has some vested interest with CLT-MUC. OTOH, AA has all but left Germany, and even the merged carrier in OW may not have all that much stake in CLT-FRA. My thinking here is that FRA in the merged carrier is likely to go to ORD and/or JFK (or stay at PHL), and those would be quite sufficient for the combined network sans Star connections. AB though might pick up the slack if they get their ball rolling.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 4884 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):
It exists because both LH and US codeshare, are in *A and US has a massive hub in CLT. The BMW biz travelers are great and certainly make the flight profitable, but take away the CLT feed and it's gone, 35 PDEW is not enough to sustain A333 service on LH.

But where's the point of sale for the rest of the passengers? Is it in the US or is it in Europe?
LH has an equally massive hub in MUC and that's how they fill the plane. CLT will be competing with PHL, MIA, JFK, ORD, DFW, for those very valuable FRA slots. I would be very surprised if AA does not move the flight to a bigger market like JFK.
Also of importance here is that a lot of those companies are not in Frankfurt. FRA was just the connecting airport to get to different cities in Germany. Without the connections via LH, passengers will be using LHR as their connecting point, thus undermining AA/US's own CLT-FRA route.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):

Well said, I think that is precisely the issue for CLT. Just like domestically, there are lots of other options when you're leaving (or entering) the SE/South U.S., so this is ultimately just one more option for pax. And it's an option that is probably more valuable, maybe even consolidated onto larger equipment, at one of the other hubs. DFW and MIA are both good candidates as well, given AA strength there.


User currently offlinecoairman From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 4790 times:

I think overall star could build up UA's IAD hub to increase frequencies, add new markets and upgauge aircraft to accommodate the loss of the CLT hub. Building up markets in the SE could help sway that region to UA and feed into UA's broad worldwide markets.


Patience Can Be A Virtue.
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 90, posted (1 year 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 86):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):

I think the kicker here is that LH holds the high cards in terms of the major contracts and money underwriting the route.

They don't though, they're US contracts, but because of *A and the codesharing, it doesn't make a difference whether they fly LH or US. Even in a best-case scenario for LH, let's say they get 50% of the contracts for the route, it further undermines the case for LH serving CLT (17 PDEW now?). AA is going to have the right-sized plane for the route and the better leverage with the hub in CLT to make it work.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 86):
LH can leverage MUC connections to fill the back.

I doubt LH is able to profitably serve a route where 90+% percent of the passengers would be connections. AA/US on the other hand have lower costs, better-sized aircraft and have long tuned their operation at CLT to operate profitably with that high percentage of connections. I doubt there's a single long-haul route that LH flies that carries anywhere near 90% connections.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 86):
OTOH, AA has all but left Germany, and even the merged carrier in OW may not have all that much stake in CLT-FRA.

Again, this is all the more reason for them to remain in the market. As someone pointed out previously, CLT-FRA ran for years without LH feed, it's a long-established route for US and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue serving it post-merger.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):
It exists because both LH and US codeshare, are in *A and US has a massive hub in CLT. The BMW biz travelers are great and certainly make the flight profitable, but take away the CLT feed and it's gone, 35 PDEW is not enough to sustain A333 service on LH.

But where's the point of sale for the rest of the passengers? Is it in the US or is it in Europe?

Ok, let's say, as I said above, that LH does happen to contractually lock-in half the business traffic on the route, they've essentially just cut their O&D traffic on the route in half, a severe blow to LH in such a small market. So LH would be going up against AA in the market with bigger, expensive aircraft, higher costs and filling up the plane with 90% connections. AA/US meanwhile have more long-haul aircraft options to better fit the route, lower costs and an operation better tuned to be profitably with such a high percentage of connections.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
LH has an equally massive hub in MUC and that's how they fill the plane.

Name me a single long-haul route LH operates that would rely as heavily on lower-yielding connections to fill up the plane as CLT would. LH's operating costs are too high to profitably operate a route that is almost all connecting traffic.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
CLT will be competing with PHL, MIA, JFK, ORD, DFW,

Sure, but CLT would the largest hub of all of those listed and FRA is a major European market. I agree that CLT would see TATL service scaled back with the merger, but FRA is a large, important market, one of the few that would remain, otherwise it would be a pretty major hole in the network not to have your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
Also of importance here is that a lot of those companies are not in Frankfurt. FRA was just the connecting airport to get to different cities in Germany.

Sure, but MUC is in the same boat where LHR would be poaching many of the connecting pax. 43 PDEW to FRA is enough for a daily 763 service with the CLT connections to back it up.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 88):
Just like domestically, there are lots of other options when you're leaving (or entering) the SE/South U.S., so this is ultimately just one more option for pax. And it's an option that is probably more valuable, maybe even consolidated onto larger equipment, at one of the other hubs.

I agree with the argument and that CLT will see some right-sizing, but not to the extent of having LHR as the only TATL flight. CLT will likely remain the second-largest hub in AA's network after the merger, having it connected to FRA or Germany would still be an imperative for the carrier.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):
They don't though, they're US contracts, but because of *A and the codesharing, it doesn't make a difference whether they fly LH or US. Even in a best-case scenario for LH, let's say they get 50% of the contracts for the route, it further undermines the case for LH serving CLT (17 PDEW now?). AA is going to have the right-sized plane for the route and the better leverage with the hub in CLT to make it work.

As mentioned above, I wouldn't be so sure. Obviously I can't speak for them, but the German HQ folks may well have loyalty to LH, and then have their US division hop LH back home when they need to be in Germany for whatever. There are many instances where companies have domestic contracts and foreign contracts with different carriers in different alliances. The other issue is that a combined US/AA is not in a position to fight LH tooth and nail for a route that LH holds the high cards on -- it just wouldn't make sense because LH has that locked up.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):

I doubt LH is able to profitably serve a route where 90+% percent of the passengers would be connections. AA/US on the other hand have lower costs, better-sized aircraft and have long tuned their operation at CLT to operate profitably with that high percentage of connections. I doubt there's a single long-haul route that LH flies that carries anywhere near 90% connections.

With the contracts they have, it's possible. It all depends obviously, but there is no reason they can't. One thing here is that LH only has two connecting hubs to worry about, whereas AA/US has multiple in the U.S., so it's much easier to consolidate all the traffic going to CLT from wherever in the LH network than it is for AA/US to consolidate it at CLT.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):
Again, this is all the more reason for them to remain in the market. As someone pointed out previously, CLT-FRA ran for years without LH feed, it's a long-established route for US and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue serving it post-merger.

No argument about US's history on CLT-FRA. My only point there was to note that AA is not too excited about Germany so far in terms of spreading the love beyond DFW, so I'd think ORD or JFK would be a higher priority than CLT. Who knows they may do both, but in the scheme of things, it's a notch down from where else I'd be worried about offering FRA service for the aforementioned O&D reason.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 92, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
but the German HQ folks may well have loyalty to LH

Certainly true, but then again how many will stay with AA, especially the ones that connect on to other German cities where they could just as easily connect in LHR? There may well be companies that will remain in *A and LH, but there will also be many that remain with AA/US, in such a scenario, that small segment of profitable O&D traffic from CLT is further fragmented, a scenario which LH can't afford on such a long, thin route.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
The other issue is that a combined US/AA is not in a position to fight LH tooth and nail for a route that LH holds the high cards on -- it just wouldn't make sense because LH has that locked up.

At best they may lock-in 50% of the contracts, a generous assumption, I wouldn't call that holding the high cards in such a small market.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
It all depends obviously, but there is no reason they can't.

There are numerous reasons to believe that they can't that I discussed above. LH would be at a cost disadvantage compared to AA/US and they would be forced to use a comparatively large and thirsty A333 where AA could use better-sized 762's or 763's. Factor in the fact that the amount of high-yield travelers LH/US are currently carrying on the route would, at best, be fragmented 50/50, and you're looking at a very challenging outlook, one that I just don't think LH really cares to face considering they have bigger fish to fry.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
One thing here is that LH only has two connecting hubs to worry about, whereas AA/US has multiple in the U.S.,

I understand that, but as I said earlier, CLT will in all likelihood remain the second-largest hub for AA/US, and you can't say that having your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe wouldn't be important for the combined airline with the massive feed available and the somewhat appreciative amount of O&D in the markets.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
My only point there was to note that AA is not too excited about Germany so far in terms of spreading the love beyond DFW,

I don't think it has anything to do with them being "excited" about Germany or not so much as it was the fact that, pre-BK, they just couldn't effectively go up against LH/UA in ORD or JFK, I have no doubt they're anxious to expand their scope in the Germany market which would be an easy thing to do from CLT.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
At best they may lock-in 50% of the contracts, a generous assumption, I wouldn't call that holding the high cards in such a small market.

Maybe it is only that much as a percentage of seats/contracts, but those are most of the big players who make frequent use of CLT-Germany and CLT-MUC specifically.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I understand that, but as I said earlier, CLT will in all likelihood remain the second-largest hub for AA/US, and you can't say that having your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe wouldn't be important for the combined airline with the massive feed available and the somewhat appreciative amount of O&D in the markets.

I'd like for AA/US to keep that up, but based on AA's and OW's seeming priorities (lock up TATL to LHR then serve the other stuff more or less sparingly), my fear is that CLT will be become another DEN or MSP - lots of domestic connectivity but barebones intercontinental. If I prove to be wrong in the long run great, but given the overall emphasis and network of the airline, I don't see CLT remaining a major TATL gateway.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I don't think it has anything to do with them being "excited" about Germany or not so much as it was the fact that, pre-BK, they just couldn't effectively go up against LH/UA in ORD or JFK, I have no doubt they're anxious to expand their scope in the Germany market which would be an easy thing to do from CLT.

I'd bet they are too, but given the aforementioned weak O&D from CLT, it seems to me that you'd be better served by getting your foot in the larger pool of ORD or JFK where there is both substantial O&D and good connectivity. Maybe I should have rephrased it to say that out of their available slots to FRA, CLT may be high-yielding in isolation but they may be better served going with larger TATL markets in Chicago or NY or even MIA. Just my two cents though. Another thing I see playing in is how AB gets rolling - do they start to be the OW key to Germany and more on the continent in general? If so I'd guess cities like CLT would be viable for them.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6729 posts, RR: 24
Reply 94, posted (1 year 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

Quoting coairman (Reply 89):
I think overall star could build up UA's IAD hub to increase frequencies, add new markets and upgauge aircraft to accommodate the loss of the CLT hub

Problem with that is that IAD is not the preferred O&D airport for domestic travelers in the WAS market. IAD loses a lot of it's domestic traffic to DCA and to a lesser extent BWI. Because of this, UA can't maintain high frequency domestic service to many markets from IAD except to hubs and some of the beyond perimeter markets. Plus, the LCC's are now getting into DCA and will likely get even more flights at DCA when US/AA divest slots.

Domestic traffic at IAD today is now below 1999 levels and still declining. International traffic on the other hand is booming and setting new records every year.

IAD simply can't replace CLT. It's too far north to make most of the secondary southern markets work. Routes like MOB, VPS, TLH, MGM, JAN, etc don't work from IAD.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 95, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
At best they may lock-in 50% of the contracts, a generous assumption, I wouldn't call that holding the high cards in such a small market.

Maybe it is only that much as a percentage of seats/contracts, but those are most of the big players who make frequent use of CLT-Germany and CLT-MUC specifically.

  50/50 is an even split, they wouldn't have most of anything under such a scenario.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I understand that, but as I said earlier, CLT will in all likelihood remain the second-largest hub for AA/US, and you can't say that having your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe wouldn't be important for the combined airline with the massive feed available and the somewhat appreciative amount of O&D in the markets.

I'd like for AA/US to keep that up, but based on AA's and OW's seeming priorities (lock up TATL to LHR then serve the other stuff more or less sparingly), my fear is that CLT will be become another DEN or MSP

If we were having this conversation 3-4 years ago I would agree with you, but AA has been moving beyond that strategy as of late, and post-BK and post-merger, AA won't be at all following the defensive, shrinking strategy they had been pursuing previously. And I don't honestly see anything wrong with MSP (services to LHR, CDG, AMS and NRT) or DEN (LHR, FRA and NRT), not bad line-ups in those cities. I see AA serving LHR, FRA and CDG or MAD from CLT after all is said and done.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
I'd bet they are too, but given the aforementioned weak O&D from CLT

It's not awful O&D for a city it's size, just not large enough to be served by both AA and LH, and my argument is that AA isn't just going to forfeit that traffic, they'd be crazy to do so. Additionally, what CLT may lack in O&D it makes up for in network connectivity.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
it seems to me that you'd be better served by getting your foot in the larger pool of ORD or JFK where there is both substantial O&D and good connectivity.

Right, but those are also very competitive markets and there's even more connectivity at CLT. I do think we'll see AA service to FRA return to those markets, but not at the expense of CLT. I agree with you that TATL from CLT will be scaled back, but FRA is one of the major markets AA will retain out CLT in my view.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 95):
50/50 is an even split, they wouldn't have most of anything under such a scenario.

It's not if those are more lucrative ones...let's say US and LH split all the CLT-Germany down the middle, 50/50, and connections are a wash. Even so, I'd bet those that LH holds are more valuable (more premium, more frequency and higher fares, etc.) -- BMW alone has to be a good chunk of that.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 97, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 96):
Even so, I'd bet those that LH holds are more valuable (more premium, more frequency and higher fares, etc.)

Why should that be the case? I see no reason why AA/US also wouldn't get some of those contracts, especially considering their more extensive flight offerings from CLT. Even if that were the case, again, it just further fragments the traffic on an already long, thin route that LH doesn't really have the right aircraft for. We don't see LH serving any other TATL routes that small, I'm just failing to see the exceptionalism or the economic case for it here.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 97):

It's not about should or won't, it's that LH currently has the contracts for a handful of German companies with U.S. divisions or HQs in the CLT area. These companies, I would wager, are the ones with the most overall travel to Germany from CLT, and those with the most premium traffic between them. I don't see many other companies with a frequent demand for travel to MUC specifically and/or Germany writ large - the financial sector may have a few for FRA but I'd bet LHR is at least as good on that front, for instance.

I wasn't attempting to point out exceptionalism, just an economic case based a group of companies who have highly specific demand between CLT and central/southern Germany specifically. That is a very specific confluence of factors.


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 99, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4283 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 97):
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 96):
Even so, I'd bet those that LH holds are more valuable (more premium, more frequency and higher fares, etc.)

Why should that be the case? I see no reason why AA/US also wouldn't get some of those contracts, especially considering their more extensive flight offerings from CLT. Even if that were the case, again, it just further fragments the traffic on an already long, thin route that LH doesn't really have the right aircraft for. We don't see LH serving any other TATL routes that small, I'm just failing to see the exceptionalism or the economic case for it here.

A component of LH's decision may be the cargo yields with industrial import/exports concerning BMW, Siemens(Westinghouse) & Freightliner. Would not be surprised to see LH continue the service for at least awhile after the merger just to see if continuation of the flight is worthwhile. The 333 is less expensive to operate than the 747 used in the '90s.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 61):

This is probably as is Should be. We all Knew that US Air was going to eventually leave Star after the UCAL merger United Senior Management will have to get off of their Duffs and build a hub at ether Tampa , Orlando or my favorite FLL !!


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 101, posted (1 year 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4257 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 98):
It's not about should or won't,

Well that's pretty much what we're doing here lol, it's all speculative as we don't know who holds which contracts or the clauses of those contracts.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 98):
These companies, I would wager, are the ones with the most overall travel to Germany from CLT, and those with the most premium traffic between them.

But is ~15-18 PDEW really enough to support daily A333 service year round? This is what I seriously doubt. Without the CLT feed the route becomes marginally profitable at best, and marginally profitable just doesn't cut it in today's airline industry.

Quoting cv880 (Reply 99):
A component of LH's decision may be the cargo yields with industrial import/exports concerning BMW, Siemens(Westinghouse) & Freightliner.

This is an important point, but if AA maintains non-stop service (which I believe they will), they could just as easily take up the cargo on 763's.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 10 months ago) and read 4222 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 101):
But is ~15-18 PDEW really enough to support daily A333 service year round? This is what I seriously doubt. Without the CLT feed the route becomes marginally profitable at best, and marginally profitable just doesn't cut it in today's airline industry.

Quoting cv880 (Reply 99):A component of LH's decision may be the cargo yields with industrial import/exports concerning BMW, Siemens(Westinghouse) & Freightliner.
This is an important point, but if AA maintains non-stop service (which I believe they will), they could just as easily take up the cargo on 763's.

Cargo is another plus here, although AA would have to use either A330s or 777s because the 767 wouldn't carry enough cargo for what the cargo loads likely are (thinking about who the customers for said cargo are, and what they make). If AA can pry away the cargo contracts they may have an angle, but that's another if.


User currently offlineSligo From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 10 months ago) and read 4184 times:

I havent followed it closely, is DCA going to move security back to allow for connectivity between US' terminals at DCA?

If so, upgauging DCA out of many of its RJs seems in the cards to capture more N/S flow where the base is more profitable (which would take some from CLT) and to bring the product up for the large O&D base- ...dont think the premium flyers at DCA are oblivious to the trade-off they have to make when flying US at DCA; they give up product quality in exchange for the bene of n/s and US hears about it.

The relevance to this thread is that CLT is no match for DCA if DCA can connect as efficiently; albeit the catchment overlap is far from complete...but enough to make a difference.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4041 times:

Quoting Sligo (Reply 103):

Very unlikely from anything I've seen or heard - I haven't seen any whiff that MWAA is interested in re-aligning the security arrangement for the piers yet. The shuttle between B/C and C does serve to get people between the two so it works, but DCA is just not well-suited to large connecting ops between concourses. There was some wondering aloud recently about a tunnel or some such but that sounds like it would be stillborn for cost and hassle reasons - until the next terminal construction in a few decades this is probably about as good as it's going to get.

Caveat: if what they say about airport security being cut in a Sequester scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if they consolidate security at a couple of the walkways into National Hall and just make the whole thing sterile. That obviously would be a mess itself, but in a pinch might solve the staffing problem for them if things really go down the tubes.


User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4011 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 100):
This is probably as is Should be. We all Knew that US Air was going to eventually leave Star after the UCAL merger United Senior Management will have to get off of their Duffs and build a hub at ether Tampa , Orlando or my favorite FLL !!

I agree. UA and CO getting together reduced US's importance to *A, and USAirways was never part of the A++ transatlantic venture. In a way US is going back twenty years, when, IIRC, they were partners with AA and BA. Funny how things come around!

I could see UA building up FLL -- let's see what it looks like in five years!  


  

Regarding Star (basically UA) in CLT without US on the team, it might be useful to see how things stand now. Here is a list of the daily UA and US departures from CLT to all UA hubs on Monday 1 July, gathered from the airlines' websites, and showing the numbers of mainline and express flights for sale. Please forgive any errors:

DEST . . . . UAL . UAX . . . . . US . USX

LAX . . . . . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 5 . . . 0
SFO. . . . . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 5 . . . 0
DEN. . . . . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . .6. . . 0
ORD . . . . . .1 . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 8 . . . 0
CLE . . . . . . 0 . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 2 . . . 5
EWR . . . . . 0 . . . . .6 . . . . . . . 9 . . . 0
IAD . . . . . . 0 . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 0 . . . 8
IAH . . . . . . .0 . . . . 6 . . . . . . . 8 . . . 0

total . . . . . .1 . . . . 25 . . . . . . 43 . . .13

As can be seen, UA doesn't even serve LAX, SFO, or DEN, and of their 26 daily flights to the other hubs, only one is mainline, to ORD. This situation was probably okay while US was in *A, but I can definitely see UA adding service from the hubs that don't see it now, and also upguaging other aircraft to mainline.

Flipside is, will US/AA continue sending 9 mainlines a day to EWR and 8 to IAH? I doubt it.

Scottie


User currently offlineLH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 422 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3954 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
And I'm saying 99% will continue with US, which will then be AA. Even if that traffic does get split between AA or LH, AA still wins out as CLT is a larger hub than FRA and AA will have the whole CLT network to pull from, additionally pax that would normally connect in FRA or MUC to get to CLT can now be routed through LHR on BA.

I'm wondering in which aspect CLT might be a larger hub than FRA.

Another idea: Might we see one of the AA flights move to the OW hubs DUS or BER?


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 81):

DFW and ORD aren't much in the way of relievers for PHL due to location and JFK isn't due to the lack of a good domestic network.

Someone has pointed out that both US and LH served the route before US was in STAR. The two airlines do not compete on the same ODs unless there is cooperation. In many markets there is more beyond FRA connections from the USA city than there are from the rest of the USA going to FRA only.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3644 times:

Quoting LH422 (Reply 106):

Another idea: Might we see one of the AA flights move to the OW hubs DUS or BER?

That's exactly what I'm thinking, leverage the new AB connectivity. Since O&D is fairly low anyway, might as well go to where you can get good OW connections.


User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 301 posts, RR: 3
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

Star Alliance is a marketing association, not an airline. If one of the member airlines wanted to start a hub, it would be up to the airline to determine if the resource allocation and profit potential was worth it.

Quoting dalca (Thread starter):
Is there an airport Star Alliance might want to start a mini-hub at in the area?


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 107):
Quoting usairways85 (Reply 81):

DFW and ORD aren't much in the way of relievers for PHL due to location and JFK isn't due to the lack of a good domestic network.

For East-West traffic flows they absolutely are.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 107):
Someone has pointed out that both US and LH served the route before US was in STAR.

...and LH failed miserably at it.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 108):
Quoting LH422 (Reply 106):

Another idea: Might we see one of the AA flights move to the OW hubs DUS or BER?

That's exactly what I'm thinking, leverage the new AB connectivity. Since O&D is fairly low anyway, might as well go to where you can get good OW connections.

I doubt it, going from a market where O&D is in the 40's to single digits (PDEW) is a pretty challenging obstacle even with connections. Who knows though as AA has decided to go head-to-head with LH on ORD-DUS this summer, anything's possible I suppose.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3513 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 110):
I doubt it, going from a market where O&D is in the 40's to single digits (PDEW) is a pretty challenging obstacle even with connections. Who knows though as AA has decided to go head-to-head with LH on ORD-DUS this summer, anything's possible I suppose.

True, but the double-ended connectivity might give you the pax to make it work. It would still draw a good bit of CLT TATL traffic since it would get people TATL n/s and then allow full AB/OW connections throughout Europe as needed, just like our hometown CDG flight works for the CVG pax that aren't staying in Paris. Plus DUS is in a very populous region so it has good catchment itself. If you ask me, that's a far better proposition than going at another alliance fortress hub where AA/US can only leverage whatever connections are possible on the CLT end.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 112):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 110):
I doubt it, going from a market where O&D is in the 40's to single digits (PDEW) is a pretty challenging obstacle even with connections. Who knows though as AA has decided to go head-to-head with LH on ORD-DUS this summer, anything's possible I suppose.

True, but the double-ended connectivity might give you the pax to make it work.

Oh I understand the argument and I think it has a lot of merit, it's just that, given AB's recent "stability" issues, I'm not sure if we can reliably call or plan on DUS being a OW hub for very long.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 114):
Oh I understand the argument and I think it has a lot of merit, it's just that, given AB's recent "stability" issues, I'm not sure if we can reliably call or plan on DUS being a OW hub for very long.

Touche, sir, touche!


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 79):
Obviously on a pt to pt route system, what You say is true, but the hub & spoke system was developed for the same reason--a cost saving measure or a gathering place to get from point A to B via point C at an economical cost.

There will have to be hubs.... because there is a lot of the U.S. that simply cannot go from one point to another without a connect somewhere along the way. But the problem is that point-to-point, O&D traffic is where the premium is. I think that we can agree with this? So what do airline planners do with connects while still maximizing the O&D that they can get?

If I may, I’ve worked out an economic model to address this here. I have to say that this model is what I’ve worked out myself, and it uses current data from the Q3-12 T-100, and mathematics, and economic given rules. We also have to remember the economic rule of demand, and that is as price falls, there will be more demand, and as price rises, there will be less demand. I don’t think that anyone can disagree with this.

Also in my model below, I’m just going to focus on the O&D of the connections currently available, and what the T-100 numbers show us, and how I think the airline planner will use this info to make decisions as to how to serve connect pax. Of course considerations of airport costs, aircraft used and costs, airline costs, where seats are available, scheduling, and maybe a few other factors may have residual effect of where to connect pax, but let’s just assume that in this model all other factors are equal, and I think that these other factors are minimal compared to O&D traffic anyway.

To use as an example with real numbers, I picked pax travel to/from BUF and SAT. There are no nonstops here, so connects have to happen. This is as well probably north/south routing, as well as east/west routing.

We find that there are 64 daily pax between BUF and SAT. The journey is listed as 1432 miles, with an average fare of $257.07, which is what the pax will pay here, and the number of pax here paying this fare will total $16,458.00 and will earn a carrier about 18¢ per passenger per mile. And as we’ll see from below, these are relatively crappy numbers from these 64 connect pax.

Now.... there are 5 different segments currently available today for the BUF/SAT pax, DTW, ATL, CLT, MDW and ORD all look like they are good options offering some linearity, with UA, DL WN and the new AA/US all in play here as to where to connect. Let’s also assume that all the seats will available in total on any of the connection options. Economically, airline planners are going to want to funnel this traffic where income is least diluted, or lose the least while gaining the most.

First with DL and DTW, BUF to DTW is 241 miles, and has 37 daily O&D pax, the average fare lists at $282.43. DTW to SAT is 1214 miles, has 219 daily O&D pax, and has a fare of $287.26. The total of these 2 segments here is 1455 miles, and has 256 daily O&D pax, with a total fare of $569.69, and DL will get 39¢ per passenger per mile here. But the problem here is that BUF/SAT pax wouldn’t use this route….. since they will only pay $257.07, and the fare between DTW and both BUF or SAT is higher than that. So DL through DTW is not an option for a BUF/SAT pax in this model.

Also with DL, we can use ATL. BUF to ATL is 874 miles, has 591 daily O&D pax, and a fare of $166.28. ATL to SAT is 712 miles, has 625 daily O&D pax, and has a fare of $160.32. The total of these 2 segments is 1586 miles, with a total of 1216 daily O&D pax, and a total fare of $326.60, and DL will get 21¢ per passenger per mile here. And since both segments of fares between ATL to BUF/SAT is lower than the $257.07, ATL becomes a possible connect point.

With the new AA/US, we can use CLT. BUF to CLT is 564 miles, has 248 daily O&D pax, and a fare of $206.86. CLT to SAT is 1095 miles, has 210 daily O&D pax, and a fare of $218.41. The total of these 2 segments is 1641 miles, and has a 457 total O&D pax, and a total fare of $425.27, and AA/US will get 26¢ per passenger per mile here. And since both segments of fares between CLT to BUF/SAT is lower than the $257.07, CLT becomes a possible connect point.

Now, we consider WN and MDW. BUF to MDW is 468 miles, has 292 daily O&D pax, with a fare of $163.51. MDW to SAT is 1036 miles, has 319 daily O&D pax, and a fare of $214.33. The total of the 2 segments is 1504 miles, has 611 daily O&D pax, and a total fare of $377.84, and WN will get 25¢ per passenger per mile here. And since both segments of fares between MDW to BUF/SAT is lower than the $257.07, MDW becomes a possible connect point.

Lastly, we can consider both UA and AA/US and ORD. BUF to ORD is 473 miles, has 455 daily O&D pax, and a fare of $182.26. ORD to SAT is 1042 miles, has 366 daily O&D pax, and a fare of $265.70. The total of the 2 segments is 1515 miles, has 821 daily O&D pax, and a total fare of $477.96, and UA or the new AA/US will get 30¢ per passenger per mile here. But again the problem here, as with DTW, is that BUF/SAT pax wouldn’t use this route….. since they will only pay $257.07, and the lowest fare between ORD and either BUF or SAT is higher than that at $265.70 on ORD to SAT. So UA or AA/US through ORD is not an option for a BUF/SAT pax.

So at this point, we have DL at ATL, AA/US at CLT, and WN at MDW left as connect options. Now, let’s assume that the BUF/SAT pax will in total be on any one of these routes, so we have to take away to revenue the carrier would earn, and then add back the BUF/SAT revenue that the carrier would get. This would be a diluted total, since the carrier isn’t getting the full amount if would earn on each of the 2 segments. And if we divide what the total sum of what the carrier would get with the BUF/SAT pax by the total sum of what the carrier would get without the BUF/SAT pax, we see a percentage lost. With DL at ATL, the loss is 1.12% and now getting 20¢ per passenger per mile, with AA/US at CLT the loss is 5.53% and now getting 22¢ per passenger per mile, and with WN at MDW, the loss is 3.35% and now getting 22¢ per passenger per mile.

Lastly, let’s say that the new AA/US would lower its segment fare from ORD to SAT for those 64 BUF/SAT pax from $265.70 to the 257.07 so that it could now be in play for the BUF/SAT pax. Remember that economically, lowering the fare will not hurt traffic here, but only gain more pax. Lowering the fare here, and using all of the same calculations above, the new AA/US would only lose 3.23% of its revenue, less than 5.53% with CLT, at the same time be able to gain 27¢ per passenger per mile, 5¢ more than CLT, and even bettering the DL with ATL numbers.

With all of the above, it would seem that if one were a new AA/US planner, it is far more advantageous to now route BUF/SAT traffic through ORD, rather than to CLT. And this will be so on many number of routes, and at many number of hubs. And this is how I believe that carriers now have to be able to maximize what they get out of connects, without diluting what they have with O&D.

 





[Edited 2013-02-22 18:55:21]

User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 110):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 107):Someone has pointed out that both US and LH served the route before US was in STAR.
...and LH failed miserably at it.

Yes, they did. Because it was flown with 747s.....20 something years ago.

CLT was really just used as a stopover point on FRA-IAH. However, it stimulated the market to some extent. CLT-Germany has grown so much in the last 20 years. I'm pretty sure US would fail on CLT-FRA if they flew the route with 747s as well.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 110):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 107):Quoting usairways85 (Reply 81):

DFW and ORD aren't much in the way of relievers for PHL due to location and JFK isn't due to the lack of a good domestic network.
For East-West traffic flows they absolutely are.

This thread has been nothing but bickering. It has gone from a topic about Star carriers at CLT, to a topic about CLT that should be discussed in another thread. Flyguy89, we get your point. We know your an opponent of CLT, I've noticed it in other threads. It's the same point that others from MiAAmi and RDU have. It's not CLT's fault it is a hub. It's not CLT's fault that US is large here. It's not CLT's fault that it is where it is, so enough with the arguing.

On the original topic of Star in CLT, I could see UA resuming DEN or launching SFO. I think the frequency of IAH flights may go down.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 115):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 110):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 107):Someone has pointed out that both US and LH served the route before US was in STAR.
...and LH failed miserably at it.

Yes, they did. Because it was flown with 747s.....20 something years ago.

CLT was really just used as a stopover point on FRA-IAH. However, it stimulated the market to some extent. CLT-Germany has grown so much in the last 20 years. I'm pretty sure US would fail on CLT-FRA if they flew the route with 747s as well.

All valid points, I was simply trying to highlight the irrelevance in trying to make some sort of connection between LH's previous stint in the 90's and the idea of LH continuing TATL ops at CLT even after it becomes a OW hub.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 115):
to a topic about CLT

I think the idea/argument that *A carrier will continue TATL ops from CLT post-merger is definitely relevant to a discussion about *A and CLT.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 115):
Flyguy89, we get your point. We know your an opponent of CLT, I've noticed it in other threads.

Look, I'm not a pro-XXX or fanboy of anything except pragmatism and being realistic, and if that clashes with the rose-colored sunglasses some people never seem to take off, then so be it. I've steadfastly stated multiple times that CLT will continue to be a major hub for AA/US and defended it against the uneducated posts of the few who declare that it will be the next CVG or STL. But at the same time, I make no apologies for stating my opinion and explaining my argument as to why I believe CLT will see some right-sizing in the new network, or why I find it highly unlikely that LH would continue flying to a smaller market that would be a OW fortress hub, that's what this site is for and I don't believe in a level-headed world it makes me an "opponent" of anything.


User currently offlineSligo From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 104):
Very unlikely from anything I've seen or heard - I haven't seen any whiff that MWAA is interested in re-aligning the security arrangement for the piers yet. The shuttle between B/C and C does serve to get people between the two so it works, but DCA is just not well-suited to large connecting ops between concourses. There was some wondering aloud recently about a tunnel or some such but that sounds like it would be stillborn for cost and hassle reasons

That's unfortunate. A TSA re-design at DCA would be expensive yes, but would be more convenient for customers and a fraction of the cost of the cost of tunnel. Connectivity would be pretty easy. the tip to tip walk from A to B cant be longer than 10 minutes.


User currently offlinecv880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2756 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 114):
With all of the above, it would seem that if one were a new AA/US planner, it is far more advantageous to now route BUF/SAT traffic through ORD, rather than to CLT. And this will be so on many number of routes, and at many number of hubs. And this is how I believe that carriers now have to be able to maximize what they get out of connects, without diluting what they have with O&D.

OK, so does any of this factor in the enplanement costs per pax or the weather factor (which CHI is notorious for)? CLT is the lowest of the hubs per pax enplanement costs and mostly a fair-weather hub.


User currently offlineSligo From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting Sligo (Reply 117):
That's unfortunate. A TSA re-design at DCA would be expensive yes, but would be more convenient for customers and a fraction of the cost of the cost of tunnel. Connectivity would be pretty easy. the tip to tip walk from A to B cant be longer than 10 minutes.

I meant the walk from the tip of North C to South C...


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting Sligo (Reply 117):
That's unfortunate. A TSA re-design at DCA would be expensive yes, but would be more convenient for customers and a fraction of the cost of the cost of tunnel. Connectivity would be pretty easy. the tip to tip walk from A to B cant be longer than 10 minutes.

Yes exactly - 10 minutes' walk but with security easily a 30-45min. ordeal! Admittedly this most recent merger may change things though, if the combined carrier ends up with significantly more connectivity at DCA. That said, on balance it may remain status quo because this is essentially no different from when UA was in BC and people would connect from C to either a US/USX flight or a UA flight in BC.

Unfortunately I just don't see a solution other than putting security on those walkways from the check-in areas to the main National Hall in the current terminal. And that might well be worse than the current setup.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

Quoting cv880 (Reply 118):
OK, so does any of this factor in the enplanement costs per pax or the weather factor (which CHI is notorious for)? CLT is the lowest of the hubs per pax enplanement costs and mostly a fair-weather hub.

I mentioned that these are other factors to be considered. However, I don't know how to put a percentage on this, but I can only think that O&D is probably the overriding factor when route planners in this day and age approach making decisions as to where to funnel traffic.

Cost per enplanement is obviously a consideration, but...... I think that there can be some airports that will give away free counter space, not charge landing and take-off fees, and even contribute some of their own $$$ to promote a carrier. And what..... that won't guarantee scheduled commercial airlines service.... will it? Wasn't there some Mid-America airport near St. Louis that wanted to do this? And where are they today.... not even being able to attract G4? Also how counter-intuitive it may seem in an economic sense (but it really isn't), but doesn't it seem like the airports which are charging the most fees seem to getting the most demand?

Since this thread is about CLT and *A, and it has been quite hashed out here, but it does seem to me as if CLT could be now in a bit of a lurch here with this as well..... and I don't know any exact numbers, but in places where US has a monopoly to *A hubs, such as DEN, LAX and SFO..... will UA and *A allow CLT to get any of their traffic? I guess the same could be said of PHL and PHX, but since CLT has such high connects here, these seem most vulnerable. And how much of this will get pax to the Caribbean, or Europe - especially FRA and MUC? If *A, rather than US, contribute any significant percentage to these flights, well......... I'll leave it at that here.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 115):
This thread has been nothing but bickering.

Geeeesh.... I thought that we were all having civil conversations with different points of view. Life would be rather dull if we all thought the same, much less anyone getting a different viewpoint and maybe learning something. I have to say that I just love posters who get on a thread and then start to bicker about the bickering......

 


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3473 posts, RR: 7
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 107):
DFW and ORD aren't much in the way of relievers for PHL due to location and JFK isn't due to the lack of a good domestic network.
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 110):
For East-West traffic flows they absolutely are.

My point was that for US-Europe traffic US has relied more on CLT as a connection point. Whether that is DEN-CLT-Europe, MSY-CLT-Europe, or JAX-CLT-Europe. A combined DFW, ORD, PHL, and JFK as prime European gateways should be able to handle a bulk of the US-Europe connecting traffic for AA/US


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2433 times:

I'm not quite sure about this, but isn't CLT-YYZ also dominated by *A? I don't know to what extent the relationship between US and AC is here, but is this something to consider as well?

Charlotte-Toronto has 172 pax to/from the two points daily, and I believe that Toronto is CLT's biggest ex-boarder city. On 3/2/13, the schedule shows US airways with 4 nonstops, 2 with e175s, and 2 with 50 seat CRJs. AC shows 2 nonstops, both with 50 seat CRJs. The number of seats both ways between the two I believe total to is 700. Does this seem a bit high for O&D traffic that averages 172 pax per day?

Also, to continue with the CLT LH flights....... I don't think that anyone has brought into this discussion the fact that UA/LH (and maybe soon AC) fly metal neutral on these TATL flights? Can we see UA now pressuring (since they legally can have a say here) LH to do something with these CLT flights..... like maybe cut them, and use the metal where their anti-trust will gain them more revenue? Or will LH/UA stay with CLT and decide to battle it out for whatever $$$$ are there?

 


User currently onlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 123):
I'm not quite sure about this, but isn't CLT-YYZ also dominated by *A? I don't know to what extent the relationship between US and AC is here, but is this something to consider as well?

US and AC do not codeshare, they never have. So US leaving star will have little to do with AC in CLT.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 124):
Quoting point2point (Reply 123):
I'm not quite sure about this, but isn't CLT-YYZ also dominated by *A? I don't know to what extent the relationship between US and AC is here, but is this something to consider as well?

US and AC do not codeshare, they never have. So US leaving star will have little to do with AC in CLT.

I agree, 3-4 daily flights sounds about right for AA/US considering the size of the CLT hub, and ~2 daily flights is pretty much what AC offers in most medium-sized American markets.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Would Star Alliance Do Without United? posted Tue Aug 13 2002 01:56:15 by FutureSQPilot
First Star Alliance Lounge In Latin America posted Sat Feb 9 2013 16:36:08 by dcajet
Swiss & Star Alliance Logojets posted Tue Feb 5 2013 14:33:51 by tcx69k
AI To Finally Join The Star Alliance? posted Wed Jan 23 2013 15:52:45 by TWA85
OneWorld/Star Alliance/SkyTeam: Their Strategies posted Mon Jan 21 2013 16:47:09 by martinrpo1
Ethiopian And Star Alliance posted Tue Jan 1 2013 17:33:30 by MSN007
New Germanwings - Star Alliance Member? posted Thu Dec 20 2012 00:56:38 by Setjet
Taca A330 In Star Alliance Colors? posted Wed Dec 19 2012 20:27:03 by spiritair97
New Star Alliance Scheme? posted Wed Nov 7 2012 18:35:54 by MSN007
EVA Air Entry Into Star Alliance posted Wed Oct 31 2012 18:10:33 by AA767LOVER