Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA On The West Coast...  
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 360 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11969 times:

In cities where AA pulled out of like BUR, SBP, OAK and others that they don't service at all like CLD, MFR, FRM, GEG, EUG...are those USExpress routes staying and morphing into AE?

With the signing of EMB175/CR9, could AE bring those to FAT, OAK, SBP, BUR to DFW once they switch from USAirways?

Lastly should PHX remain a hub, will AA keep the flights to HI?

95 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11914 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Lastly should PHX remain a hub, will AA keep the flights to HI?

I probably should run my numbers again, but most of those flights to Hawaii are popular with O and D pax here. It's a pretty large market, especially since G4 just started flights.

Since a lot of people don't like G4's penny pinching and the odd hours of HA, I think at least 1 or two flights should remain with US.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2876 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11900 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
EUG

AA has provided service to EUG in the past.....

http://www.departedflights.com/EUG89p1.html



Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys greed
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17003 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11862 times:

I expect that the current PHX-BUR route will change to DFW. Maybe they could also add a flight to ORD.


Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24320 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11826 times:

Sure some US stations will be back in the AA network, however I believe one of the bigger issues is staffing.

Even under the revised post BK AA contracts a certain level of activity will require mainline staffing, which can change their entire costing profiles.

But yes PHX is a good gateway for secondary Western markets.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 3):
I expect that the current PHX-BUR route will change to DFW.

Why ?

AA just dropped the DFW route. Obviously if there was some hope for it, they would have stuck around knowing under BK they would be reducing their cost.

Like I just mentioned above, PHX is a much better gateway for places like Burbank as they have natural traffic demand and more economic being mere 1-hour flight away, unlike Dallas halfway across the country.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11703 times:

DFW to FAT - 112 pax per day - maybe

DFW to OAK - 94 pax per day - already WN served DAL - OAK - probably not, too long and thin, let WN have it.

DWF to SBP - 21 pax per day - no

DFW to BUR - 41 pax per day - no

DFW to EUG - 25 pax per day - no

DFW to MFR - 21 pax per day - no

DFW to GEG - 156 pax per day - okay chance

DFW to FRM - huh? Fairmont Minnesota?

DFW - CLD - >10 pax per day - no

 

[Edited 2013-02-23 19:25:21]

User currently offlinewhatusaid From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11601 times:

FAT-DFW needs more seats not less. The Ejet might be an option for a 3rd RT off season but that's about it.

User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11602 times:

I wonder if the new AA will continue serving LGB from PHX . AA used to fly LGB-DFW and for a short while LGB-JFK.

As routes get right sized and flying shifts from PHX to DFW, I would think LGB would be on the chopping block. Lets hope that's not the case.

[Edited 2013-02-23 19:42:46]


I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11562 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 5):

CLD wouldn't be served from DFW...it would have to be LAX, LAS, PHX, or SFO. The only two of those I could see happening would be LAX or PHX. But considering the only airline that flies to CLD is Skywest under UAX branding. I don't see a return.



Boiler Up!
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1802 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 11383 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 5):
DFW to FRM - huh? Fairmont Minnesota?.


The OP is referring to Farmington N.M.

Quoting point2point (Reply 5):
DFW to FAT - 112 pax per day - maybe
DFW to OAK - 94 pax per day - already WN served DAL - OAK - probably not, too long and thin, let WN have it.
DWF to SBP - 21 pax per day - no
DFW to BUR - 41 pax per day - no
DFW to EUG - 25 pax per day - no
DFW to MFR - 21 pax per day - no
DFW to GEG - 156 pax per day - okay chance
DFW to FRM - huh? Fairmont Minnesota?
DFW - CLD - >10 pax per day - no
.


Why are you basing your decision on O&D stats? AA has 700+ daily flights out of DFW. If AA decides to fly these routes ex-DFW, it will be based more so on connecting traffic than solely on local O&D just like many routes out of DFW.


User currently offlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 11326 times:

Quoting whatusaid (Reply 6):
FAT-DFW needs more seats not less. The Ejet might be an option for a 3rd RT off season but that's about it.


During the spring/summer/early fall tourist season an Ejet flight to DFW would be great. Timed like the 3rd MD80 was a few years back..about a 9 am departure and then you could move the evening mainline to a 7PM departure and the E to a 9pm DFW departure!


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17003 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11022 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Why ?

AA just dropped the DFW route. Obviously if there was some hope for it, they would have stuck around knowing under BK they would be reducing their cost.

Because many flights will probably switch over to DFW from PHX, and BUR would most likely be such a route. I know that AA cut their BUR-DFW flight just a year or two ago, but I still believe that they could shift over one of the around 10 daily LAX-DFW flights and make it work out of BUR.

And here is another reason;

Quoting EricR (Reply 9):
has 700+ daily flights out of DFW. If AA decides to fly these routes ex-DFW, it will be based more so on connecting traffic than solely on local O&D just like many routes out of DFW.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13254 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B747forever (Reply 11):
many flights will probably switch over to DFW from PHX, and BUR would most likely be such a route.

Doubtful. BUR is a popular destination from PHX, as lots of locals want to avoid LAX. It'll stick around based on local O&D traffic alone.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11117 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10614 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Why ?

AA just dropped the DFW route. Obviously if there was some hope for it, they would have stuck around knowing under BK they would be reducing their cost.

BUR is the main route I could see switching back to DFW, for several reasons. First, DFW is obviously a far larger hub with far higher connectivity. Second, DFW now offers the same traffic flows as PHX does, but AA will now have one less competitor (US) fighting for east-bound customers, which should help. And finally, there is a healthy local market DFW-BUR due to local corporate connections.

I obviously don't know for sure, but I would not at all be surprised to see BUR switch back to DFW from PHX.


User currently offlinePHX Flyer From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10453 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Lastly should PHX remain a hub, will AA keep the flights to HI?

You make it sound as if it was a remote possibility that PHX remains a hub. The fact is that PHX will be THE western hub in the new AA route network, whereas LAX will remain the international gateway - which won't preclude PHX from getting some intercontinental flights to OneWorld hub airports and a couple of others, too. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to scale PHX back, nor are there any plans to do so.


User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1126 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10277 times:

PHX will be scaled back all those people connecting in PHX to the midwest or east will now be flown to DFW better hub cheaper costs in DFW PHX will be scaled down.

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13254 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 15):
PHX will be scaled back

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineWALmsp From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10197 times:

Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 10):

Quoting point2point (Reply 5):
DFW to FRM - huh? Fairmont Minnesota?.


The OP is referring to Farmington N.M.

Darn, I'v got relatives in and around Fairmont...  



In memory of my Dad, Robert "Bob" Fenrich, WAL 1964-1979, MSP ONT LAX
User currently offlineWinginit From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9489 times:

Quoting PHX+Flyer" class="quote" target="_blank">PHX Flyer (Reply 14):
You make it sound as if it was a remote possibility that PHX remains a hub. The fact is that PHX will be THE western hub in the new AA route network, whereas LAX will remain the international gateway - which won't preclude PHX from getting some intercontinental flights to OneWorld hub airports and a couple of others, too. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to scale PHX back, nor are there any plans to do so.

Is that the 'fact'? And how can you be so certain that there are no plans to do so with the merger still in such primitive stages? Is your statement anything outside of speculation? Because it seems quite reasonable that much of the connection and origin activity would be moved from PHX to DFW.



The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent American Airlines' positions, strategies or opinion
User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9255 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):
Quoting ripcordd (Reply 15):
PHX will be scaled back

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

The reason for a scale back is not because combined traffic is diminishing, it's because many cities from PHX are better served through DFW. There is no need for redundancy.

It is cheaper for AA to funnel US passengers through its DFW hub as opposed to having two hubs serving the same purpose.

DFW will see some growth and up-gauging. PHX will see some cuts and down-gauging because of traffic shifting through to DFW.

That being said, I don't see PHX being dismanteled completely. It will still have a role in the network, just not as big.



I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9053 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 9):
The OP is referring to Farmington N.M.

Okay, then that's FMN..... not trying to be picky but........

Quoting EricR (Reply 9):
Why are you basing your decision on O&D stats? AA has 700+ daily flights out of DFW. If AA decides to fly these routes ex-DFW, it will be based more so on connecting traffic than solely on local O&D just like many routes out of DFW.

O&D is where the money is. I think that as carriers go forward, if they don't plan according to what the O&D is, then I predict they will have $$$$ problems. Connects will probably be getting somewhat less attention going forward, and if there isn't $$$$ to be earned from them, carriers shouldn't be catering to them...... And if O&D isn't supporting 700+ daily flights at DWF, then they'll need to cut flights until they do. And this goes for any hub.

There may be some exceptions, which I'll allow for, but I'll even go to say that if at any carrier on its domestic routes, at least 90% of these flights aren't at least 80%+ full and earning a decent local RPM, and then of that 80%+ l/f at least 50% isn't local O&D traffic, then a flight shouldn't be in the schedule.

Just my   

 


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1800 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8965 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

I'm sure the folks at STL said the same thing...

Let's just wait and see, shall we?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8921 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 21):
I'm sure the folks at STL said the same thing...

Difference-

PHX is a large, growing metropolis. STL is in the rust belt.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineAllegiantFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8784 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 21):
I'm sure the folks at STL said the same thing...

Are we serious right now? a;ll you have to do is take 10 minutes out of your day to watch this video.They clearly say that the O&D market is way bigger in PHX than in PIT or STL etc. PHX will remain a hub and the company said so to a board,mayor and congressmen.If your willing to blatantly lie to a congressman and mayor of the 5th largest city in the country,well that just describes yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1-b-b6PHRs


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13254 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 21):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

I'm sure the folks at STL said the same thing...

And they'd have probably been right, had 9/11 and two recessions not occurred.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1446 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Quoting B747forever (Reply 3):

The problem with BUR is yield not volume. While a DFW flight is possible, I wouldn't count on an ORD flight.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 12):

When I see PHX being downsized, it think it will possibly be frequency and some markets east past DFW. WN would pick up any PHX to California cancellations.


Unlike CLT, I do see the possibility to scale back PHX and recapture traffic via DFW. I could see value in PHX but along the size of DL in SLC. There is a local market from California to PHX but fares are low. PHX more than any other hub will see it future decided on how high AA costs go. The ability to raise fares in PHX is less than anywhere else.


User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7464 times:

US sends a lot of people from TUS into PHX for connections. AA runs a sizable operation from TUS to DFW and a couple of flights a day to ORD. PHX will be a beter fit for those traveling to hear-by states North-East and West. DFW will be better for South, Midwest and East Coast connections. The new AA will have to right size the PHX hub.

User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1126 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):

PHX works now for US but a combined AA/US PHX will not work as good as it does now. US puts 70% connecting thru PHX and only around 30% O/D the combined AA/US will have higher costs and to fly people from the west coast to midwest/south it will be cheaper to use DFW. PHX will be down 20% in 2 years and in 5 they will be down 30% in flights.


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6880 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):

In cities where AA pulled out of like BUR, SBP, OAK and others that they don't service at all like CLD, MFR, FRM, GEG, EUG...are those USExpress routes staying and morphing into AE?

It isn't AA restarting service, it is US keeping service. No matter what is going to be painted on the planes, it doesn't mean that Parker and Co will run things the way AMR folks would do it today. Expect to keep seeing service from PHX to BUR, SBP, OAK, GEG, and EUG. This is the advantage of a PHX hub that can serve these markets via a shorter route than DFW could.

US doesn't service MFR. That is probably a codeshare with UA, as are PSC, and other places in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Colorado. FRM is probably on Great Lakes after getting PHX-LAS on US. No idea about Carlsbad.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 11):
I know that AA cut their BUR-DFW flight just a year or two ago, but I still believe that they could shift over one of the around 10 daily LAX-DFW flights and make it work out of BUR.

Not only did AMR-AA keep 10 LAX-DFW while closing BUR, they also kept ONT-DFW intact (3 M83 + 1 M80).

Quoting commavia (Reply 13):
BUR is the main route I could see switching back to DFW, for several reasons. First, DFW is obviously a far larger hub with far higher connectivity.

Assuning everyone who connects in PHX is going east of Dallas, it could make sense. On the other hand, it would be giving away traffic from So Cal to Dallas itself, unless the New Management wants to run DFW-SBA/SBP/BUR etc.

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 15):

PHX will be scaled back all those people connecting in PHX to the midwest or east will now be flown to DFW better hub cheaper costs in DFW PHX will be scaled down.

DFW is not on the way to Chicago, therefore is an inferior hub to the Midwest. Worse even than SLC. Maybe DFW works to the midwest from elsewhere in the state of TX, but that is about it. Between So Cal and Chicago, #1 DEN, #2 LAS, #3 PHX, #4 SLC, #5 MSP, #6 DFW, #7 SFO, #8 IAH. DFW becomes a more tolerable connection for destinations to the east and south of Chicago, and not as well to the north and west.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 21):
I'm sure the folks at STL said the same thing...

Let's just wait and see, shall we?

The folks in STL were dealing with AMR-AA. The folks in PHX are dealing with new AAG management freshly transplanted from Tempe.

Quoting Winginit (Reply 18):
Is that the 'fact'? And how can you be so certain that there are no plans to do so with the merger still in such primitive stages? Is your statement anything outside of speculation?

Let's see.... if Parker says that the carrier will be named "American" and HQ in the DFW area, then AA backers want to believe that, and also extrapolate it to mean that everything formerly AA will continue, including the new controversial livery. If Parker says anything about keeping anything that PMUS does, then according to AA fan.. he must be lying, right?

Can't have it both ways. If anything is a deliberate lie, then how does anyone know that the combined airline won't be named US Airways, or maybe even TWA?



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineN737AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6729 times:

Parker said that PHX will have a large operation post merger....."I owe it to them"

N737AA


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24320 posts, RR: 47
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6674 times:

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
Expect to keep seeing service from PHX to BUR, SBP, OAK, GEG, and EUG. This is the advantage of a PHX hub that can serve these markets via a shorter route than DFW could.

   Many Western secondary markets work out of PHX.

DFW would have totally different cost and revenue picture.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineGRUIAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6612 times:

For those people that think PHX will be a similarly sized hub in 5-10 years should listen to how Parker describes PHX from a yield perspective. I was at a conference he attended and he described it as a "low-yield" hub. In fact, its is a lower yielding hub than DFW. It would be interesting to analyze the US segment fares through PHX versus AA through DFW. So while today he might say nothing will happen to PHX, he is doing this for political reasons. He needs to get the deal approved by regulators and needs the political support of Arizona congressional delegation. It's as simple as that.

User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1800 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6519 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 25):
When I see PHX being downsized, it think it will possibly be frequency and some markets east past DFW. WN would pick up any PHX to California cancellations.

That's what I'm getting at...but the folks who think that PHX won't get touched or will actually INCREASE are flat out dreaming.


User currently offlineWinginit From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6454 times:

Quoting N737AA (Reply 29):
Parker said that PHX will have a large operation post merger....."I owe it to them"

Executive words within the first month following a merger announcement are about as valid and useful as those of campaigning politicians. I bet he said they weren't going to spin off Eagle either.



The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent American Airlines' positions, strategies or opinion
User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 829 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6460 times:

Quoting GRUIAD (Reply 31):
So while today he might say nothing will happen to PHX, he is doing this for political reasons. He needs to get the deal approved by regulators and needs the political support of Arizona congressional delegation.

Parker's promises to the PHX establishment sound like the same song and dance that DL gave to MSP. We'll keep x number of people here, we won't close offices or facilities, etc. How did that work out for MSP?

http://www.startribune.com/business/123460629.html?refer=y
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/149764555.html?refer=y


User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1126 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6288 times:

PHX will never end up like STL but bigger markets connecting in PHX will be over flown and the people will be put thru DFW & ORD smaller markets that make money will stay. PHX will prop even get a NRT flight

User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

While I'd like to see their HI flights stay, I'm not sure it's justifiable with LAX an hour away. Why not just connect them through there?

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 35):

Why would they add NRT when, IIRC, they have LAX-NRT?



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3840 posts, RR: 14
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6101 times:

Quoting N737AA (Reply 29):
a large operation post merger....."I owe it to them"

Large operation does not mean hub. This is not meant as a knock on Phoenix or PHX, or meant to imply that Phoenix resembles Pittsburgh or St. Louis (cities that are now arguably past their prime), but Phoenix will likely get drawn down. It will likely remain a focus city with nonstop flights to important business destinations, designed to cater to the higher yielding traveler and the business community there, but the hub will get drawn down.

I'd argue that Phoenix is a victim of its own success and is in a much better position to absorb a draw down than PIT or STL because of Southwest's huge operation there. The problem is that AA will not be able to compete with WN because of AA's higher costs.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 36):
Quoting ripcordd (Reply 35):


Why would they add NRT when, IIRC, they have LAX-NRT?

And SANNRT under the JAL ATI.

I don't see PHXNRT happening short-term. Long term, just depends on how the hub/focus city shapes itself.

PHL and MIA will get their NRT connections sooner rather than later, however.

Miami is a much larger market to Asia than Phoenix; and Philadelphia, while around the same size as PHX to Asia, probably loses so much Asia traffic to Newark, that in actuality it's much larger than numbers show.

[Edited 2013-02-25 11:15:53]


a.
User currently offlinejc2354 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

One thing not mentioned in this threat so far, is AAdvantage. Frequent flyers have no problem rearranging their schedules and paying slightly more, just for the miles. This must be an important factor, not only for Phoenix, but Charlotte and Philadelphia as well.


If not now, then when?
User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5746 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 37):
The problem is that AA will not be able to compete with WN because of AA's higher costs.

As I understand it, WN has some of the highest costs in the industry. How is it that AA will not be able to compete against WN at PHX when WN is either on par or at a disadvantage with AA on costs?



I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

Quoting N737AA (Reply 29):
Parker said that PHX will have a large operation post merger....."I owe it to them"

Well we are somewhat in debt to him too. Our airport would not be the way it is today if HP hadn't been so successful. As much as some of us think D.P. is a bit eccentric, he's a hell of a businessman. He knows what he is doing.

I think I recall reading some editorials that said post-HP/US merger that PHX was going to get cut too............................
Nyaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha   

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 32):
That's what I'm getting at...but the folks who think that PHX won't get touched or will actually INCREASE are flat out dreaming.

This comes when many city leaders, airport officials, and intel are stating that PHX will see an increase in service. Suuuure we're dreaming  



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5467 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 41):
I think I recall reading some editorials that said post-HP/US merger that PHX was going to get cut too............................

The PHX hub has shrunk since the merger. Less flights and less destinations, especially to the East and Midwest.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 41):
This comes when many city leaders, airport officials, and intel are stating that PHX will see an increase in service.

Sort of like this?

Memphis will be an integral hub in the combined network of Delta and Northwest airlines following a proposed merger between the two companies, Delta CEO Richard Anderson told a packed house Thursday morning at the Holiday Inn-University of Memphis.
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/ArticleEmail.aspx?id=37421



a.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 5354 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 42):
Memphis will be an integral hub in the combined network of Delta and Northwest airlines following a proposed merger between the two companies, Delta CEO Richard Anderson told a packed house Thursday morning at the Holiday Inn-University of Memphis.

Why do people like comparing PHX to MEM? There are huge differences between the two. MEM's leaders were practically talking out of their arse



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1802 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 5362 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 42):
The PHX hub has shrunk since the merger. Less flights and less destinations, especially to the East and Midwest. .


And more telling is the number of destinations in the west from PHX that have been eliminated. Long gone are routes from PHX to EUG, MFR, FCA, BIL, FSD, COS, FMN, etc., etc.,

For a western hub, US did not have much success establishing a broad presence throughout the west.

[Edited 2013-02-25 20:16:47]

User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 5274 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 43):
There are huge differences between the two.

But the one thing that matters most is this: they are the weakest hubs in a merged airline with at least one too many.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 43):
MEM's leaders were practically talking out of their arse

As are the ones in PHX.

Again, US has shrunk the PHX hub since the HP merger, despite no overlap and closing the LAS hub.



a.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11117 posts, RR: 62
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5238 times:

Quoting PHX+Flyer" class="quote" target="_blank">PHX Flyer (Reply 14):
You make it sound as if it was a remote possibility that PHX remains a hub.

Well, I'd at least put it this way: from my perspective, the chances of PHX retaining a hub in its current form is far less than 50/50 - I'd actually say "remote" is pretty accurate.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):
US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D

And that is the key. US needs PHX for both connections and O&D. AA does not. The connections PHX now handles are there in large part because US has had no choice - it was either PHX or nothing. AA has various options that are as good or better - largely DFW, and to some extent ORD and LAX - can all handle portions of the connections PHX now does.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):
The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

With respect, I think that is naive to put it mildly.

These two facts are, to me, beyond argument:

1. The combined unit costs of the new AA will be materially higher than US' independent unit costs are today.
2. The network of the new AA will be far less reliant on PHX to handle connecting flows than the US network today.

To me, both of those facts point to a "noticeable" pull down in capacity in PHX. I'm not saying PHX will turn into just a spoke, but to think that PHX is going to retain a 250+ daily departure hub with 2/3 of those departures being mainline seems to fly in the face of inescapable economic reality.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 19):
The reason for a scale back is not because combined traffic is diminishing, it's because many cities from PHX are better served through DFW.

  

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 22):
PHX is a large, growing metropolis.

So is Las Vegas. That doesn't mean its an ideal hub for a network airline.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
DFW is not on the way to Chicago, therefore is an inferior hub to the Midwest. Worse even than SLC. Maybe DFW works to the midwest from elsewhere in the state of TX, but that is about it. Between So Cal and Chicago, #1 DEN, #2 LAS, #3 PHX, #4 SLC, #5 MSP, #6 DFW, #7 SFO, #8 IAH. DFW becomes a more tolerable connection for destinations to the east and south of Chicago, and not as well to the north and west.

That logic is wrong for multiple reasons.

First, with regard specifically to Chicago, many of the largest western U.S. markets (LAX, SFO, SJC, SAN, RNO, LAS, SNA, SEA, TUS, etc.) in question that US now connects through PHX already have nonstop flights to ORD on AA today.

Second, concluding that DFW is "an inferior hub to the Midwest" purely on the basis that it is "not on the way to Chicago" is meaningless. Even notwithstanding the first logical failure, purely comparing the geographic location of DFW in relation to any given city misses a large part of the point. The question is not how "out of the way" DFW is, but if it is too far out of the way for AA to still retain connecting flows absent PHX connections. And in almost all cases, the answer is - at least to me - likely yes. Most of the connections PHX now handles from the west to the midwest can likely be handled just fine over DFW (or LAX). Indeed, AA already has a substantial presence in the west-midwest market today, and that's with competition from various competing hubs including PHX.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 34):
Parker's promises to the PHX establishment sound like the same song and dance that DL gave to MSP.

And that DL gave to CVG and MEM, and that UA gave to CLE, and that US gave to PIT, and that AA gave to STL, and on and on. Businesses are businesses, and their in business to make money. As such, they will tell idiot politicians whatever they want to hear, and then they'll ultimately do whatever makes economic sense for the enterprise. Doug Parker's alleged commitments to the PHX hub will ultimately amount to little compared to his legally-binding fiduciary responsibility to shareholders - that latter "commitment" will win every time.

So if - as I and many others predict - AA in a few years determines that its shareholders would be better served by reducing AA's exposure to the low yields, intense competition, and network duplication of a PHX hub and shrink that operation, Doug Parker's "promises" today will not matter, just as they haven't at the other airlines whose CEOs have made basically the exact same promises.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 36):
While I'd like to see their HI flights stay, I'm not sure it's justifiable with LAX an hour away. Why not just connect them through there?

My understanding is the local market is substantial. I could definitely see PHX retaining at a minimum 1 daily HNL flight, and depending on the ultimate size of AA's PHX operation, also possibly a 2nd HNL flight and 1 daily OGG flight.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 41):
city leaders, airport officials, and intel

  

"City leaders" and "airport officials" are hardly realistc, unbiased, dispassionate sources of "intel" when it comes to airlines' plans. So whatever "intel" Doug Parker has been sharing with them, the Arizona Republic, or anyone else today is based solely on the economic realities as they exist today. In a few years, those economic realities will al be different - only then will we know where the PHX hub ultimately stands.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5171 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 41):
I think I recall reading some editorials that said post-HP/US merger that PHX was going to get cut too............................
Nyaaaaahaha

When Parker said, "PHX will have a large operation post merger," he didn't say that PHX wouldn't receive any cuts. While I agree there are some connections which can be done better via PHX than through other hubs, there are a whole lot of connections which are done worse through PHX, especially to/from the Pacific NW, as has been stated in the other hub threads.

The major reason why I've consistently said that I didn't feel ORD would be de-emphasized in this merger, is that I believe cities such as PDX will see ORD service again, and cities like RNO will see ORD service increased, since AA could handle many connections to midwest and eastern points better at ORD than either via DFW or PHX.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

LAX to Hawaii is fine, but AA is touting that the world will be "one connection away." How's that going to be possible if they have to make a double connection out of smaller, airports in CO, AZ, UT and NM? The fact that AE flies or used to fly LAX-PHX, TUS, ABQ, ELP, BOI, RNO may be a clear indication that that they are going to scrap PHX because they have tested the waters from both LAX and PHX... both cannot work and it would be a lot cheaper padding in some extra cities in LAX than keep PHX a hub. All AE needs to do is add a few cities that will not be overflown to DFW from LAX and PHX will be a relic of the past. Like OMA and MSP... go back into COS, OAK, SBP, EUG, GEG, MFR, YVR (AA flew to all of these places when SJC was first their hub). It also begs the question, if PHX does get scrapped, will LAX see new service to AK and a large build-up to MX? I see the EMB175/CR9 being a huge player in the LAX market to longer, thinner, Midwest routes. What are the legs on those planes, can they make MSP or OMA from LAX.

PHX is my old stomping ground and I love it to pieces, but it would not be that hard to move 6-7 cities to LAX with larger Eagle service to make it palpable. People who say PHX will never die, we also said that about PanAm, TWA, EASTERN, WESTEN, NORTHWEST, CONTINENTAL, TEXASAIR, USAIR, PEIDMONT, PSA, AIRCAL, REPUBLIC, OZARK, PSA, NATIONAL AIRLINES, ALOHA, PEOPLE'S EXPRESS, CPAIR, CANADIAN AIRLINES, WARDAIR, MEXICANA (yes there are smaller ones too like RENOAIR, NEWYORK AIR, AIR FLORIDA, EASTWIND, WESTERN PACIFIC, JET AMERICA, HUGHES AIRWEST)...these airlines were all staples and molded our commercial aviation in North America to what it is today. Now we have WN/FL, UA, DL, VX, AA, AS, B6, HA, F9...which we all know F9 is on borrowed time. Much different outlook. I also predict AS to purchase another carrier in the next 5 years to stay competitive, or be purchased.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5112 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 48):
The fact that AE flies or used to fly LAX-PHX, TUS, ABQ, ELP, BOI, RNO

AA flies all of those today sans BOI.



a.
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2876 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

The main point being, there has not been an airline merger, takeover, or whatever you wish to call it, that has happened, where the combined carrier didn't start chopping routes, cities and yes, hubs. it's all to be expected, it is not a matter of if, but where and when. The list of abandoned hubs is plentiful, those cities did not expect it to happen to them either, and neither will the next casualties in this merger.


Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys greed
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

very true RWA... lets ask CMH, CVG, MEM, DFW (DL dehub) MCI (dehub of EA and BN), LAS from N7 and HP, SJC, RDU, BNA from AA

User currently offlineCactus742 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 44):

Don't forget many routes to eastern cities also that have disappeared from PHX since the HP/US merger: MSY, IAD, MIA, CLE, BDL, RDU...



Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3963 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4820 times:

Quoting Cactus742 (Reply 52):
Don't forget many routes to eastern cities also that have disappeared from PHX since the HP/US merger: MSY, IAD, MIA, CLE, BDL, RDU...

Woah, is that routes or frequencies?


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1802 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 53):
Quoting Cactus742 (Reply 52):
Don't forget many routes to eastern cities also that have disappeared from PHX since the HP/US merger: MSY, IAD, MIA, CLE, BDL, RDU...

Woah, is that routes or frequencies?

MSY, MIA, BDL, RDU, IAD, CLE are actual discontinued routes from PHX. In addition, you can also add OKC, ICT, and YYZ to this list.


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 53):
Quoting Cactus742 (Reply 52):
Don't forget many routes to eastern cities also that have disappeared from PHX since the HP/US merger: MSY, IAD, MIA, CLE, BDL, RDU...

Woah, is that routes or frequencies?

Routes. The number of routes that US has cut from PHX since the merger, I'd guess, is probably around two dozen or so. Meanwhile all that was added was Hawai'i, Montego Bay and San Jose, and I think one city in Mexico.



a.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7320 posts, RR: 24
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 5):
DFW to FAT - 112 pax per day - maybe

AA already flies DFW-FAT. I would imagine it will keep at least once a day.

Quoting point2point (Reply 5):
DFW to GEG - 156 pax per day - okay chance

This (along with BOI) are missing from DFW. Those are great 319 routes.

Quoting point2point (Reply 20):
O&D is where the money is. I think that as carriers go forward, if they don't plan according to what the O&D is, then I predict they will have $$$$ problems. Connects will probably be getting somewhat less attention going forward, and if there isn't $$$$ to be earned from them, carriers shouldn't be catering to them...... And if O&D isn't supporting 700+ daily flights at DWF, then they'll need to cut flights until they do. And this goes for any hub.

There may be some exceptions, which I'll allow for, but I'll even go to say that if at any carrier on its domestic routes, at least 90% of these flights aren't at least 80%+ full and earning a decent local RPM, and then of that 80%+ l/f at least 50% isn't local O&D traffic, then a flight shouldn't be in the schedule.

Youre pretty much arguing that the hub and spoke system shouldnt work, however it does. If we went by the logic above, DEN, DFW, IAH, ATL, ORD, and even MIA would be a fraction of their current size. ATL wouldnt have 1/3 of its current international portfolio, yet its possibly the most profitable single airline operation in the US. DFW wouldnt have any destination in South America except GRU and IAH would lose its NRT flight. Even the ever-popular and ever-profitale ORD-HKG doesnt fill half the plane on O&D with two carriers in the market.

Im sorry to say, if your ideas on the matter were practiced, every airline would be a smaller version of Southwest.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
SBP

I would think that AA/US would want to stick with 2x CR2 on the PHX-SBP route rather than decrease frequency to 1x CR9/EMB175. I doubt the route can support more than 100 seats per day on AA/US, particularly with the competition UA provides on its LAX/SFO-SBP routes, which are operated with multiple daily E120s.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 56):
Youre pretty much arguing that the hub and spoke system shouldnt work, however it does. If we went by the logic above, DEN, DFW, IAH, ATL, ORD, and even MIA would be a fraction of their current size. ATL wouldnt have 1/3 of its current international portfolio, yet its possibly the most profitable single airline operation in the US. DFW wouldnt have any destination in South America except GRU and IAH would lose its NRT flight. Even the ever-popular and ever-profitale ORD-HKG doesnt fill half the plane on O&D with two carriers in the market.


There will have to be hubs. A good portion of our nation is not able to fly nonstop to another good portion of our nation. The concern becomes as to how best to funnel connect traffic.

At least domestically, I do believe that sometime soon, if any hub isn't contributing at some point at least 50% O&D, then routes/frequencies will be reduced until such. International is a different animal here, but just maybe by a lower minimum set point being implemented for O&D.

It's about economics....... and I think that we all know that universal saying - "Follow the $$$$$$"..... and in the commercially scheduled airline biz - the O&D is the $$$$$$.

NK is a model that is currently especially successful. Yes, management has done quite a good job at reducing costs to bare minumum. However, what floored me was the fact that their CEO stated recently that NK has a 90% O&D rate. With that percentage that high, they can just about print $$$$$$, and probably has every other airline CEO drooling in envy over this. And NK's quarterly financials sure have been telling quite a story........

Now..... there will have to be hubs. A good portion of our nation does not have nonstop air service to another good portion of the nation, so there will have to be connects. But how connects are done will be the challenge. If interested, I've posted a rough model in this thread here

Star Alliance Without CLT (by dalca Feb 18 2013 in Civil Aviation)

post #114 as to basic economics and numbers with regards to connects. I don't want to repost here (quite long), but the info there I believe will support that O&D is probably the biggest factor as to how airlines will make connects.

Now, I'm not claiming this as anything absolute, but I've used the 50% number because it's just something that currently feels intuitively correct to me at this point at this point and many times I just like to play around with published numbers and data. This percentage may have to be even higher as costs, especially jet fuel rise. And from current data, both ORD and DEN are showing over 50% O&D traffic. I'm currently unfamiliar with the situation at IAH is, but at least with DWF and ATL, they most likely are below 50% O&D, but I believe that will be changing soon. At ATL, after WN gets through doing what they intend (and I think that there is a plan there) well, ATL's O&D percentage will be rising. WN is cutting a lot of the FL connects. And there, once finished, I don't think that WN will care that DL is running 6-7 RJ flights/banks to places where O&D is some 20 pax per day, while WN will be getting +50% in markets where there is demand, such as MDW, DEN, LGA, EWR, BOS, FLL, HOU, LAS, PHX, LAX, etc....... And over at DWF, although still small in comparison, NK is certainly doing its part to raise the DWF O&D percentage rate, and likely, NK (or maybe anyone else) will care that the new AA/US is still going with 6-7 flights/banks where local O&D is minimal.

Of course, currently ex-boarder routes/frequencies may be different with regard to planning, but maybe in a sense that the O&D rate is probably a lower percentage.

I also think that commercially scheduled air carriers have logistics/operational requirements/challenges that are probably more difficult that rocket science. And most likely...... traffic will be focused on O&D. I have to think that these days it's just easier to put a man on the moon that it is to get profit from an airline.

Lastly here, of course this is just all my   

All the best

 





[Edited 2013-02-26 14:38:13]

User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 44):
And more telling is the number of destinations in the west from PHX that have been eliminated. Long gone are routes from PHX to EUG, MFR, FCA, BIL, FSD, COS, FMN, etc., etc.,

For a western hub, US did not have much success establishing a broad presence throughout the west.

EUG, MFR, BIL, FSD, COS, PSC, and others are UA codeshares, but US has access to them... for now.

Western presence: SAN, SNA, PSP, LGB, LAX, ONT, BUR, SBA, SBP, BFL, FAT, SJC, OAK, SFO, SMF, PDX, GEG, SEA, YVR, ANC, BOI, SLC, DEN, GJC, DGO, RNO, LAS, FLG, YUM, TUS, ABQ, ELP, plus 11 other cities accessible through DEN on the UA codeshare. All 6 mainline to LAX (all other legacies fly RJs), 80% Mainline to ONT (in competition with WN). 5x RJ to FAT (yeah RJ, but 5x!). I think US has a solid Western presence.

Quoting commavia (Reply 46):
First, with regard specifically to Chicago, many of the largest western U.S. markets (LAX, SFO, SJC, SAN, RNO, LAS, SNA, SEA, TUS, etc.) in question that US now connects through PHX already have nonstop flights to ORD on AA today.

1. That is only part of the picture. ONT, BUR (both bigger than RNO and TUS), FAT, SBA, etc, all connect nicely through PHX to ORD.
2. TUS probably doesn't have enough frequencies to get everyone on a N/S.
3. There won't be enough planes to add frequencies as the oldest planes are retired.

Quoting commavia (Reply 46):
Second, concluding that DFW is "an inferior hub to the Midwest" purely on the basis that it is "not on the way to Chicago" is meaningless.

No it isn't. I lived in Chicago for 33 years. More importantly, if a place like DFW, IAH, or SFO isn't on the way to Chicago, it also isn't on the way to MKE, GRR, MSP, DSM, SBN, MLI, OMA, and all those other airports peppered around the Midwest.

Quoting commavia (Reply 46):
Even notwithstanding the first logical failure, purely comparing the geographic location of DFW in relation to any given city misses a large part of the point. The question is not how "out of the way" DFW is, but if it is too far out of the way for AA to still retain connecting flows absent PHX connections. And in almost all cases, the answer is - at least to me - likely yes. Most of the connections PHX now handles from the west to the midwest can likely be handled just fine over DFW (or LAX).

Well, it is too far out of the way, but the other part of the equation is how much fuel is spent carrying connecting pax over longer routes. No matter how great the yields are in DFW, an ONT-DFW-ORD passenger is worth their weight in bricks at DFW. So is their $25 bag which flies free from DFW to ORD.

DFW being too far out of the way matters to me, not AA. The obvious answers for me and others that fly from smaller western airports are UA, DL, and maybe WN.

Running excessively long routes from DFW and spending the fuel is The New Managements problem to solve and my a.net advice for them is to route through PHX instead.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently onlinewn676 From Djibouti, joined Jun 2005, 992 posts, RR: 5
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 55):
I'd guess, is probably around two dozen or so. Meanwhile all that was added was Hawai'i, Montego Bay and San Jose, and I think one city in Mexico.

Pretty good guess, I count 22 not including MBJ and LGA which were added (and subsequently cut) post-merger. SJO has been flown since 2003 by the way.

In terms of frequency, PHX is down about 50 departures compared to February 2006. That's split roughly even between Mainline and Express.

[Edited 2013-02-26 23:09:28]


Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11117 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
ONT, BUR (both bigger than RNO and TUS)

Bigger markets to ORD specifically?

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
ONT, BUR (both bigger than RNO and TUS), FAT, SBA, etc, all connect nicely through PHX to ORD.

And they all could (and have, and/or currently do) connect nicely over LAX and/or DFW, as well.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
TUS probably doesn't have enough frequencies to get everyone on a N/S.

Define "enough." Plus, post-PHX-"right-sizing," I'm sure plenty of these markets in question will be getting new and/or additional capacity to DFW and/or ORD.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
There won't be enough planes to add frequencies as the oldest planes are retired.

Sure there will be.

Considering this combined airline has hundreds upon hundreds of new widebodies on order. That, plus the planes freed up from the right-sizing of PHX, should be more than enough to add incremental frequency and/or capacity in select West-DFW/ORD markets.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
it also isn't on the way to MKE, GRR, MSP, DSM, SBN, MLI, OMA, and all those other airports peppered around the Midwest.

And again, "on the way" is meaningless. DFW doesn't have to be on a straight line from SAN to MLI to get SAN-MLI passengers. DFW is "on the way" enough - it has been for decades, as evidenced by the fact that it's the largest single airline hub in the central U.S., so obviously plenty of people don't seem to mind connecting there to get to/from the midwest.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
it is too far out of the way

No, it's not.

DFW is in a fine location to capture the portion of west-midwest traffic now handled by US in PHX that will still be profitable at a post-merger airline's higher costs.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
but the other part of the equation is how much fuel is spent carrying connecting pax over longer routes. No matter how great the yields are in DFW, an ONT-DFW-ORD passenger is worth their weight in bricks at DFW

You don't know that. Sure, all else being equal, it takes more fuel to fly someone through DFW vs PHX in some of these case. But all isn't equal here. The marginal cost of that someone might well be lower, as DFW already has so much capacity moving through the hub, dramatically larger economies of scale, and almost certainly higher yields.

And, of course, all of that ignores the fact that there are lots of other markets connecting over PHX for which this entire argument is entirely moot - i.e., where PHX is clearly an inferior location. Rerouting those markets on precisely the same basis as what you're saying would only further undermine the logic of the PHX hub as it now exists.

The bottom line is that the west-midwest market is not enough to justify keeping a hub in PHX as it exists today. I suspect the market is not large nor profitable enough, especially given that DFW is more than "good enough" to handle much the same traffic. With regards to the midwest specifically, PHX may keep limited nonstop flying to some of the larger local markets, for which connections are just gravy, but I expect cuts.

Again, it all comes down to this:

1. The combined unit costs of the new AA will be materially higher than US' independent unit costs are today.

2. The network of the new AA will be far less reliant on PHX to handle connecting flows than the US network today.

I have yet to here anyone actually argue that either of the above is false, or that either of those doesn't bode poorly for the hub in its current form. To me, the economics speak for themselves.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 59):
DFW being too far out of the way matters to me, not AA. The obvious answers for me and others that fly from smaller western airports are UA, DL, and maybe WN.

And that's fine. AA is going to give up market share in the west. It's inevitable.

UA, DL and WN all have better hubs in the western U.S. than AA, anyway, with or without PHX.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3935 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 61):
Considering this combined airline has hundreds upon hundreds of new widebodies on order.

AA has orders for 42 787s plus 58 options. Then there are the 20 77Ws, a few already delivered. US has 22 A350s on order, plus 8 A330s left to be delivered from a previous order.

That's 150 frames to cover retirements and expansion, if I'm reading the corporate fleet plans and wiki pages on airplane orders correctly. What am I missing on the books that makes it "hundreds upon hundreds" of new widebodies on order? Some options somewhere?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11117 posts, RR: 62
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):
AA has orders for 42 787s plus 58 options. Then there are the 20 77Ws, a few already delivered. US has 22 A350s on order, plus 8 A330s left to be delivered from a previous order.

That's 150 frames to cover retirements and expansion, if I'm reading the corporate fleet plans and wiki pages on airplane orders correctly. What am I missing on the books that makes it "hundreds upon hundreds" of new widebodies on order? Some options somewhere?

Typo on my part - sorry. I meant "narrowbodies."

AA alone has several hundred new 737s and A319s/A321s on order, and US has several dozen more.

[Edited 2013-02-27 06:10:53]

User currently offlineN737AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
but at least with DWF and ATL, they most likely are below 50% O&D

AA at DFW is on average 30% O&D and 70% connect.

N737AA


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7320 posts, RR: 24
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
Now, I'm not claiming this as anything absolute, but I've used the 50% number because it's just something that currently feels intuitively correct to me at this point at this point and many times I just like to play around with published numbers and data. This percentage may have to be even higher as costs, especially jet fuel rise. And from current data, both ORD and DEN are showing over 50% O&D traffic. I'm currently unfamiliar with the situation at IAH is, but at least with DWF and ATL, they most likely are below 50% O&D, but I believe that will be changing soon. At ATL, after WN gets through doing what they intend (and I think that there is a plan there) well, ATL's O&D percentage will be rising. WN is cutting a lot of the FL connects. And there, once finished, I don't think that WN will care that DL is running 6-7 RJ flights/banks to places where O&D is some 20 pax per day, while WN will be getting 50% in markets where there is demand, such as MDW, DEN, LGA, EWR, BOS, FLL, HOU, LAS, PHX, LAX, etc....... And over at DWF, although still small in comparison, NK is certainly doing its part to raise the DWF O&D percentage rate, and likely, NK (or maybe anyone else) will care that the new AA/US is still going with 6-7 flights/banks where local O&D is minimal.

Thats way too simplistic. For example, DEN is going to need a higher percentage of O&D to make its flights work because the international O&D is much lower than ATL, DFW, IAH, and especially ORD. On top of that, DEN is the lowest yielding market on that were comparing. Lets look at some data for the cities in question. Since the arguement you make is for domestic travel, lets focus on that:

ORD - Domestic O&D: 39.3 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 6,726 million
DFW - Domestic O&D: 26.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 4,773 million
ATL - Domestic O&D: 26.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 4,649 million
DEN - Domestic O&D: 24.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 3,712 million
PHX - Domestic O&D: 22.1 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 3,288 million
IAH - Domestic O&D: 21.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 4,241 million

Now for some average paid fares:

IAH: $445
DFW: $414
ORD: $370
ATL: $346
PHX: $342
DEN: $324

As you can see, IAH is definately the highest yielding of the bunch and PHX and DEN are definately the lowest yielding on a per passenger basis. Because of this, you need a higher percentage of O&D in a market like DEN or PHX. In markets like IAH, ATL, DFW, and ORD, you dont need as high a percentage of O&D to really make it work.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1802 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 65):
Now for some average paid fares:

IAH: $445
DFW: $414
ORD: $370
ATL: $346
PHX: $342
DEN: $324

As you can see, IAH is definately the highest yielding of the bunch and PHX and DEN are definately the lowest yielding on a per passenger basis. Because of this, you need a higher percentage of O&D in a market like DEN or PHX. In markets like IAH, ATL, DFW, and ORD, you dont need as high a percentage of O&D to really make it work.

It is important to note that the airfares sited above is for the entire airport and not by specific carrier.

In the case of the top 3 airports listed, there is a low fare alternative airport (DAL, MDW, HOU). In the case of ATL/PHX/ DEN airfares are diluted due to the WN effect. If you were to strip out the WN fares out of ATL/PHX/DEN to make it an apples to apples comparison to IAH/DFW/ORD, you would notice a much closer airfare comparison.

For example, the average ORD fare is $370, but stripping out WN average fares out of ATL or PHX could lead to an average fare greater than ORD. Therefore, using the average airport fares in this case could lead to a false conclusion. Airlines such as DL will definitely receive a fare premium to WN out of ATL as would US out of PHX.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

How substatial is US's PHX-Mexico presence? Will the combined carrier cut those routes in favor of LAX? I thought I read on here that the LAX-Mexico market isn't as popular as one would think.

With the absence of Mexicana, how will AA/US compete in the Mexican market? I know AA has an extensive presence in LatAm, but can the same be said for Mexico?



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 61):

Ok dude I don't know what your deal is with PHX bashing but you haven;t presented a reasonable argument YET about why PHX should be de-hubbed, especially when you have at least 10 people from PHX giving the best reasons possible, and even LAXintl providing his expert analysis. PHX is NEEDED in this new merger to be able to handle routes that are not profitable enough to be flown through DFW. DFW is also too large to be able to sustain extra service from PHX.
PHX is one of the most efficient airports in the nation too, and for the umteenth time, they received both vocal and written commitment from AA and Doug Parker about their commitment to PHX, and even expanding internationally. This is something that many business leaders in the valley have also confirmed, either to me, to the mayor of phoenix, to another airliners user, to someone affiliated with PHXSpotters, or better yet- the news, either here in the valley or internationally.

We are not going to end up like CVG or MEM. Those two have barely any draw anymore and I do not recall any commitment given by DL to keeping those airport hubs open. Hell i remember many business leaders in Cincinnati PROTESTING the merger between DL and NW because they were concerned about diminishing flights.

That is not the case here in PHX.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 65):
PHX: $342

That number is going to go up after the merger is completed, confirmed by news reports. (google it i have no time to write it.)



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3612 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
Those two have barely any draw anymore and I do not recall any commitment given by DL to keeping those airport hubs open.

Let me requote what I typed earlier:

Memphis will be an integral hub in the combined network of Delta and Northwest airlines following a proposed merger between the two companies, Delta CEO Richard Anderson told a packed house Thursday morning at the Holiday Inn-University of Memphis.
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/ArticleEmail.aspx?id=3742

And here's this gem from Cincinnati officials:
Moormann, in a transcript of his testimony, talked about the jobs and economic development spurred by Delta's hub at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and the community's hope that a merger wouldn't negatively affect it.
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/04/21/daily44.html

And from the merger announcement:
The deal will combine Delta's strong Atlanta hub and its trans-Atlantic route network with Northwest's extensive Asian presence, including a hub in Tokyo. There will be no hub closures, Delta said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/15/delta-idUSN1441080320080415

There's little argument that Phoenix is more important within the US network alone than within the combined US+AA network. Yet, then, why has US Airways slashed Phoenix service approximately 18-20% while also ending service to 22 destinations over the past five years? What about the merger suddenly changes an already shrinking hub that loses it's geographic importance when sandwiched between Dallas, Los Angeles and Chicago?

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 67):
I know AA has an extensive presence in LatAm, but can the same be said for Mexico?

AA is the single largest U.S. airline to Mexico in terms of passengers carried; second largest in destinations after UA (I believe 15 cities).



a.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7320 posts, RR: 24
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3581 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
That number is going to go up after the merger is completed, confirmed by news reports. (google it i have no time to write it.)

Of course it will, but that is in no way specific to PHX. Airfare is going to go up in every single market in the US.

Quoting EricR (Reply 66):
It is important to note that the airfares sited above is for the entire airport and not by specific carrier.

In the case of the top 3 airports listed, there is a low fare alternative airport (DAL, MDW, HOU). In the case of ATL/PHX/ DEN airfares are diluted due to the WN effect. If you were to strip out the WN fares out of ATL/PHX/DEN to make it an apples to apples comparison to IAH/DFW/ORD, you would notice a much closer airfare comparison.

For example, the average ORD fare is $370, but stripping out WN average fares out of ATL or PHX could lead to an average fare greater than ORD. Therefore, using the average airport fares in this case could lead to a false conclusion. Airlines such as DL will definitely receive a fare premium to WN out of ATL as would US out of PHX.

Those are the fares and O&D for all the market. I should have clarified that. The numbers include DFW/DAL, IAH/HOU, ORD/MDW. So it is an apples to apples comparrison.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11117 posts, RR: 62
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
Ok dude I don't know what your deal is with PHX bashing

As I've said before, I recognize that you clearly have a great deal personally invested in the outcome here, as do many in PHX, but with all due respect, I think you have trouble differentiating between PHX "bashing" and simple logic. I'm not "bashing" PHX - it's just that there are multiple economic factors in play that, again, I have yet to hear anyone seriously refute, that all seem to me to be working against PHX.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
you haven;t presented a reasonable argument YET about why PHX should be de-hubbed

I (and many others besides me) haven't presented them, or you haven't accepted them because you don't want to?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
especially when you have at least 10 people from PHX giving the best reasons possible

Well, I haven't counted the "people from PHX," but it's hardly surprising that - as I said - some there who are emotionally involved in the outcome would of course being making arguments favorable to their preferred outcome. That doesn't, however, necessarily mean those arguments are realistic or accurate.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
PHX is NEEDED in this new merger to be able to handle routes that are not profitable enough to be flown through DFW

And it is my position that no, PHX is not "needed," at least not in its present form. The role PHX now plays in the US network is almost entirely superfluous in a combined network where the merged airline's higher costs deteriorate the economics of the lower-yielding PHX hub, and where other AA hubs are as good or better at handling large portions of the traffic flows PHX now handles.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
DFW is also too large to be able to sustain extra service from PHX

Huh?

I've never heard that argument before. A hub is so large that it's incapable of getting larger?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
PHX is one of the most efficient airports in the nation too

Define "efficient."

Good weather? Yeah. Little congestion? Yep. Gate space? Sure.

But PHX is also highly competitive, low-yielding, and in a very limiting geographic location.

Pros and cons.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
and for the umteenth time, they received both vocal and written commitment from AA and Doug Parker about their commitment to PHX

And for the "umteenth time," other airline CEOs in other mergers said essentially the exact same thing (almost verbatim). It means very little. Unless there is a legally-enforceable contract, airlines can and do do whatever makes sense for shareholders. Economics will win in the long-run, one way or another. And I continue to believe that economics are stacked against PHX surviving as a hub, at least in its current form and/or at its present size.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
This is something that many business leaders in the valley have also confirmed, either to me, to the mayor of phoenix, to another airliners user, to someone affiliated with PHXSpotters, or better yet- the news, either here in the valley or internationally.

I'm glad people who have no clue about the outcome have "confirmed" to you something for which they have no control over the outcome. Again, all of these "confirmations" from clueless politicians and even-more-clueless "journalists" are largely meaningless. Sorry, but that's reality.

The only people who will ultimately make this decision are those within the airline, and not for several years, and only then based on proprietary economic information that (a) does not yet exist, and (b) is unlikely to be shared with you or other members of Airliners.net.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting N737AA (Reply 64):
AA at DFW is on average 30% O&D and 70% connect.

t/y for this. I personally don't think that this is good for any carrier to be with such low O&D anywhere. If big picture-wise this is so..... OUCH and the double OUCH. I think CLT with US probably has a lower connect rate...... Their may be big cuts at DFW for the new AA/US, or they may take some flying away from CLT (where the US connect rate is also very high) and move to DFW if they can. At any rate...... I see something probably has to be giving.......

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 65):
Thats way too simplistic.

Okay...... doing the best to avoid getting into semantics here, my numbers model simply attempts to show (as a rule of economics) that following the highest amount of O&D (at least domestically for now) between Points A & B, and then Points B & C, is going to most likely be the best place for a carrier to route connect traffic between Points A & C, if Point B is somewhere along a path from A to C, and will be a better option for the carrier if also Points D, E, F, (etc.) can also be used as connect points, but have lower O&D between them and Points A and C. I think that this is understandable. I will agree that there are probably other factors involved, including yield: my model attempted to only isolate one factor, and that is the O&D. And I think that O&D will be by far the most important factor as to where traffic connects, because O&D traffic almost always generates the highest yield.

Quoting EricR (Reply 66):
It is important to note that the airfares sited above is for the entire airport and not by specific carrier.

In the case of the top 3 airports listed, there is a low fare alternative airport (DAL, MDW, HOU). In the case of ATL/PHX/ DEN airfares are diluted due to the WN effect. If you were to strip out the WN fares out of ATL/PHX/DEN to make it an apples to apples comparison to IAH/DFW/ORD, you would notice a much closer airfare comparison.

For example, the average ORD fare is $370, but stripping out WN average fares out of ATL or PHX could lead to an average fare greater than ORD. Therefore, using the average airport fares in this case could lead to a false conclusion. Airlines such as DL will definitely receive a fare premium to WN out of ATL as would US out of PHX.

Thank you for this. And not just by specific carrier, but where another airport is involved in an area, couldn't the combined yield of both airports be considered? Since both airports in an area, (MDW, DAL, and HOU) could be considered for the most part full service domestic (okay, maybe DAL not yet, but soon) then couldn't yields be combined and give a better picture of domestic competition between DAL/DFW, ORD/MDW, IAH/HOU and DEN, ATL and PHX?

And now digging into the above with that, I believe that DAL yields are actually higher than DFW, IAH and HOU seem to have about the same yields, and only in Chicago would MDW have some effect in pulling down the yields at ORD.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 65):
ORD - Domestic O&D: 39.3 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 6,726 million
DFW - Domestic O&D: 26.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 4,773 million
ATL - Domestic O&D: 26.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 4,649 million
DEN - Domestic O&D: 24.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 3,712 million
PHX - Domestic O&D: 22.1 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 3,288 million
IAH - Domestic O&D: 21.4 million. Total travel spend for domestic airfare: 4,241 million

Now for some average paid fares:

IAH: $445
DFW: $414
ORD: $370
ATL: $346
PHX: $342
DEN: $324

I believe that we are having a good discussion here. If possible, could you please give the source of your info above? I'm a bit puzzled..... and here is why. The top set of numbers is a total O&D pax, and then the total spent on domestic travel. I would think that if I divided the total spent by the number of pax, that I could get an average price per pax, For example, ORD would be $6,726M and divided by 39.3M pax would get us an average of $171.15. So doing the following for all, we have

ORD...$171.15
DFW...$180.80
ATL...$176.10
DEN...$152.13
PHX...$148.78
IAH...$198.22

and then below them is a different set of numbers, which are identified as some average fares paid.

Could there maybe be a source please, or explanation as to why the difference? Then I believe that we can continue with this, and would like to......

 



[Edited 2013-02-27 12:10:22]

User currently offlinePDX88 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):

Your expectations for PHX aren't based on anything either. The reason PHX is so important to US today is because that is all US has west of the Mississippi, it has no other (or extremely limited) west-east connection options. Post merger, when the combined airline has LAX, PHX, DFW, and ORD to do the same job US only had PHX to do, there will be some major shifting of flights that don't make sense to use PHX for anymore.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24320 posts, RR: 47
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3448 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 67):
How substatial is US's PHX-Mexico presence?

Rather good sized.

America West built up a strong Mexico franchise, both to beach markets, and to ethnic ones.
Under US Air, and with the recent decline of travel between the countries some markets have been dropped or become seasonal, but today for example they serve CUN, DGO, GDL, HMO, MEX, MZT, PVR, SJD, ZIH, ZLO

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 67):
Will the combined carrier cut those routes in favor of LAX? I thought I read on here that the LAX-Mexico market isn't as popular as one would think.

First LAX-Mexico is a huge market. It actually the #1 US O&D air market to/from Mexico. Alas much of it in the hands of Mexican carriers. (for example MX had something like 18-22 daily flights at LAX).

Second shifting authorities to LAX is not something that can even be done in some cases.
Many city pairs already have the maximum allowed airlines operating from LAX under the bilateral. AA would be locked out of some of the biggest markets such as GDL and MEX for example.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3963 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 61):
DFW is in a fine location to capture the portion of west-midwest traffic now handled by US in PHX that will still be profitable at a post-merger airline's higher costs.

Anything Southern California-to-Midwest or further east - whose feed to be quite honest is the only reason a hub at PHX could survive in the first place - can be just as efficiently routed through DFW. The Pacific Northwest was always a weak spot for US because of its necessarily out-of-the-way routings - the good thing about the new AA is that ORD provides a clear alternative to PHX (and DFW for that matter) for connecting eastward efficiently. Intra-west will continue to be weak for AA, although if utilized properly, PHX can help in the Southwest region at least.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
PHX is one of the most efficient airports in the nation too, and for the umteenth time, they received both vocal and written commitment from AA and Doug Parker about their commitment to PHX, and even expanding internationally. This is something that many business leaders in the valley have also confirmed, either to me, to the mayor of phoenix, to another airliners user, to someone affiliated with PHXSpotters, or better yet- the news, either here in the valley or internationally.

Those commitments are for show. It happens with every merger. DL said MSP would keep most of its infrastructure - and while flights are more or less at the same level, a lot of the corporate facilities and jobs have been moved to ATL.

Quoting commavia (Reply 71):
And it is my position that no, PHX is not "needed," at least not in its present form. The role PHX now plays in the US network is almost entirely superfluous in a combined network where the merged airline's higher costs deteriorate the economics of the lower-yielding PHX hub, and where other AA hubs are as good or better at handling large portions of the traffic flows PHX now handles.

I completely have to agree with you. I think PHX will keep service to the largest markets on a purely O&D basis - places like BOS, MCO, STL etc - and a limited selection of nearby connecting flights. PHX will cater to the SAN-DEN and OAK-ABQ passenger but will be losing what is currently its bread and butter - the Los Angeles basin. Take away even that feed alone and PHX is suddenly a fraction of its current operation. In no more than a few years I believe PHX will closely resemble CLE or DCA (minus slot or perimeter restrictions), maybe even CVG.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7320 posts, RR: 24
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 72):
Okay...... doing the best to avoid getting into semantics here, my numbers model simply attempts to show (as a rule of economics) that following the highest amount of O&D (at least domestically for now) between Points A & B, and then Points B & C, is going to most likely be the best place for a carrier to route connect traffic between Points A & C, if Point B is somewhere along a path from A to C, and will be a better option for the carrier if also Points D, E, F, (etc.) can also be used as connect points, but have lower O&D between them and Points A and C. I think that this is understandable. I will agree that there are probably other factors involved, including yield: my model attempted to only isolate one factor, and that is the O&D. And I think that O&D will be by far the most important factor as to where traffic connects, because O&D traffic almost always generates the highest yield.

Im not denying that O&D generates the highest yield more times than not. Thats not what Im arguing at all. What I am saying is that it cant be looked at simply that way. You have to take in the yields and paid fares in a local market. In a market like PHX or (to a lesser degree) DEN, you need a higher percentage of O&D.

For whats its worth, it is true that UA (for example) has a lower connect percentage at DEN (which last I checked was around 52%-the airport is around 50% local) vs. AA at DFW (which is around 64%) and DL at ATL (which is around 66%). If that were all that mattered, it wouldnt make much sense to have so many connections at ATL and DFW. However, here is what is not being factored in:

1) DFW and ATL have a lot more international O&D than do DEN or PHX and its higher yielding to boot. PHX's international O&D is almost half Canada alone.
2) DL at ATL and AA at DFW are the first and second largest single airline hubs in the world.
3) UA at DEN and US at PHX are devoid of international service outside Canada and Mexico. DFW and especially ATL have very extensive international service. International markets are smaller in size and need more connections to feed them.
4) The average paid fare at ATL and DFW is much higher than PHX or DEN.

There is a reason mega-hubs exist in favor of point to point. There is also a reason that all the legacies have all but cut out point to point. It is indeed much more economical to feed them through the big hubs than fly the point to point itself.

Quoting point2point (Reply 72):
I believe that we are having a good discussion here. If possible, could you please give the source of your info above? I'm a bit puzzled..... and here is why. The top set of numbers is a total O&D pax, and then the total spent on domestic travel. I would think that if I divided the total spent by the number of pax, that I could get an average price per pax, For example, ORD would be $6,726M and divided by 39.3M pax would get us an average of $171.15. So doing the following for all, we have

Sure:

http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-p...stic-airline-fares-consumer-report

Top US O&D Markets (by LAXintl Aug 20 2010 in Civil Aviation)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...rports-have-the-most-unfair-fares/



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinetan flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3269 times:

I'd like to throw a question out there for some of you that may have access to the data.

What is the difference in the average contract price for JET-A at JFK vs PHL? CLT vs DFW vs PHX and at LAX?

When looking at cost driving decisions of where to place flights to route/ direct connecting traffic, where does fuel come into play? Gate Rents? Landing fees? how do all these compare?


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 69):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 74):

Thanks for the enlightenment guys!   

If AA has the most extensive market of any U.S. carrier, where are most of the flights from? MIA, JFK, ORD...?



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3840 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
DFW is also too large to be able to sustain extra service from PHX.

How can a hub be too large to sustain extra service? The bigger the hub, the more service it can sustain--ATL's the perfect example of that.

DFW is far from maxed out. There's plenty of space available to build extra terminals to handle increased passenger load, and there's plenty of runways to handle landing and takeoffs from increased traffic.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 69):
The deal will combine Delta's strong Atlanta hub and its trans-Atlantic route network with Northwest's extensive Asian presence, including a hub in Tokyo. There will be no hub closures, Delta said.
Quoting mah4546 (Reply 69):
Moormann, in a transcript of his testimony, talked about the jobs and economic development spurred by Delta's hub at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and the community's hope that a merger wouldn't negatively affect it.
Quoting mah4546 (Reply 69):
Memphis will be an integral hub in the combined network of Delta and Northwest airlines following a proposed merger between the two companies, Delta CEO Richard Anderson told a packed house Thursday morning at the Holiday Inn-University of Memphis.
Quoting mah4546 (Reply 69):
Yet, then, why has US Airways slashed Phoenix service approximately 18-20% while also ending service to 22 destinations over the past five years? What about the merger suddenly changes an already shrinking hub that loses it's geographic importance when sandwiched between Dallas, Los Angeles and Chicago?
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 75):
Those commitments are for show. It happens with every merger. DL said MSP would keep most of its infrastructure - and while flights are more or less at the same level, a lot of the corporate facilities and jobs have been moved to ATL.

I wonder how legally-binding these are in general. If they have all of this in writing, then I say there's grounds for a lawsuit. When you say you're gonna keep the hubs open, then shut down the hubs, that's like a huge punch in the face to the customer, who remained LOYAL to you during the merger, and to the city which worked its ass off to provide the best possible facilities, and for the businesses who rely on these flights to get where they needed to go. There is no excuse to violating their promises, and that's why, especially if they have it in writing, this is grounds for a lawsuit.

Especially since these days there are only 3 major carriers anymore   Pathetic.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 70):
Of course it will, but that is in no way specific to PHX. Airfare is going to go up in every single market in the US.

Which should cover at least part of the low-yields part of this whole thing.

Quoting tan flyr (Reply 77):
What is the difference in the average contract price for JET-A at JFK vs PHL? CLT vs DFW vs PHX and at LAX?

I'm pretty sure it's cheaper at the airports where demand is less  



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24320 posts, RR: 47
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Quoting tan flyr (Reply 77):
What is the difference in the average contract price for JET-A at JFK vs PHL? CLT vs DFW vs PHX and at LAX?

I can give you actuals however they will vary day to day, but as general rule West Coast tends to be the most expensive with Southern US the cheapest. Northern US can swing quite a bit depending on whats happening with weather and heating oil demand.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3085 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
I wonder how legally-binding these are in general. If they have all of this in writing, then I say there's grounds for a lawsuit. When you say you're gonna keep the hubs open, then shut down the hubs, that's like a huge punch in the face to the customer, who remained LOYAL to you during the merger, and to the city which worked its ass off to provide the best possible facilities, and for the businesses who rely on these flights to get where they needed to go. There is no excuse to violating their promises, and that's why, especially if they have it in writing, this is grounds for a lawsuit.

I assure you there is nothing legally binding about these comments and grounds for a lawsuit.



a.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

Quoting AllegiantFlyer (Reply 23):
Are we serious right now? a;ll you have to do is take 10 minutes out of your day to watch this video.They clearly say that the O&D market is way bigger in PHX than in PIT or STL etc. PHX will remain a hub and the company said so to a board,mayor and congressmen.If your willing to blatantly lie to a congressman and mayor of the 5th largest city in the country,well that just describes yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1-b-b6PHRs

No bias here though, right? I am certain that AA will rationalize the hubs. Whether that is to reduce the dependency on one over the other, only time will tell although once the renovations are complete at DFW PHX may not see a whole lot of expansion.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetan flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 81):
I can give you actuals however they will vary day to day, but as general rule West Coast tends to be the most expensive with Southern US the cheapest. Northern US can swing quite a bit depending on whats happening with weather and heating oil demand.

I presumed the west coast would be higher..heck we pay the highest Gasoline prices due to CARB and a host of other factors. Naturally Texas will probabaly be the cheapest. So, how does that compare to Chicago where more and more North Dakota and Canadian Crude is going, vs the NE, where as you say inn the winter fuel oil demand has a role. A significant portion of crudes there are still imported from Africa, North Sea and Middle east.

Actual price comparisons would be interesting (contract prices, not spot retail) to compare. Thanks!


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3963 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
I wonder how legally-binding these are in general. If they have all of this in writing, then I say there's grounds for a lawsuit. When you say you're gonna keep the hubs open, then shut down the hubs, that's like a huge punch in the face to the customer, who remained LOYAL to you during the merger, and to the city which worked its ass off to provide the best possible facilities, and for the businesses who rely on these flights to get where they needed to go. There is no excuse to violating their promises, and that's why, especially if they have it in writing, this is grounds for a lawsuit.

It always seems to be open ended statements. There is never a "airport X will ALWAYS be a hub" or "hub X will permanently remain as it is." It's merely "we plan on keeping X a hub." Which could mean five years or five weeks after the merger.


User currently offlineprost From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Any idea if the combined AA/US will have much of an impact on the AA-US codeshare? I've never heard what Mr. Parker feels about this codeshare in the grand scheme of things.

User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3963 posts, RR: 8
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2840 times:

I was unaware AA was currently codesharing with US.

User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
I wonder how legally-binding these are in general. If they have all of this in writing, then I say there's grounds for a lawsuit. When you say you're gonna keep the hubs open, then shut down the hubs, that's like a huge punch in the face to the customer, who remained LOYAL to you during the merger, and to the city which worked its ass off to provide the best possible facilities, and for the businesses who rely on these flights to get where they needed to go. There is no excuse to violating their promises, and that's why, especially if they have it in writing, this is grounds for a lawsuit.

You have to remember that airlines too are businesses, and they will do what is best for profits. You also hear people complaining about outsourcing production to China, but it doesn't stop companies from doing it. If it boosts the bottom line, then they're going to do it, no matter what public opinion is.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineprost From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2797 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 87):

I was unaware AA was currently codesharing with US.


What I meant was the merged AA/US and the codeshare with AS. I haven't heard if there would be any changes to the AA - AS code share, as I've never seen it mentioned in any of the reports I've read. Sorry for any confusion that I may have caused.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3840 posts, RR: 14
Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
wonder how legally-binding these are in general. If they have all of this in writing, then I say there's grounds for a lawsuit
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
There is no excuse to violating their promises, and that's why, especially if they have it in writing, this is grounds for a lawsuit

Just because something is in writing doesn't mean it is a legally binding instrument--if it's a quote transcribed by a journalist, then the airline itself didn't write the statement, the journalist did. There are no grounds for a lawsuit here because these are standard PR statements.


User currently offlineN737AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
Quoting commavia (Reply 61):


Ok dude I don't know what your deal is with PHX bashing but you haven;t presented a reasonable argument YET about why PHX should be de-hubbed, especially when you have at least 10 people from PHX giving the best reasons possible, and even LAXintl providing his expert analysis.

His statements are based on numbers and yours are based on emotion. PHX will be overflown for DFW in most cases. Parker has said that there will be a large operation in PHX, but really he has to say that. Anything else would be suicide. As others have shown, each merger has had similar statements made about hubs (MEM/CLE/CVG etc) that in the end were false. They have to say that stuff to get the approvals from regulators and employees (i.e. unions). I remember when Carty said that STL would remain the same and even grow. Never happened. Doesn't matter the reason.

Quoting us330 (Reply 79):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
DFW is also too large to be able to sustain extra service from PHX.
Quoting us330 (Reply 79):
How can a hub be too large to sustain extra service? The bigger the hub, the more service it can sustain--ATL's the perfect example of that.

DFW is far from maxed out. There's plenty of space available to build extra terminals to handle increased passenger load, and there's plenty of runways to handle landing and takeoffs from increased traffic.

Exactly, I guess he has never actually been to DFW and seen the parking lot that will eventually be terminal F. The way the Arrival/Departure corridors (STARs/SIDs) and runway configuration is designed congestion is non-existant. DFW could grow by 50% very easily and not miss a beat. It is probably the most efficient airspace/airport in the US system.

N737AA


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 56):
Im sorry to say, if your ideas on the matter were practiced, every airline would be a smaller version of Southwest.

I meant to say this earlier, but no one has to be sorry to me for stating an opinion. If correct, then no worries, and if incorrect, then an apology won't keep me quiet, so........

 
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 76):


Sure:

And thank you for this info. Nate Silver's analysis provided a different approach as to how to crunch published government data, and as it's Nate Silver (Commander in Data) it slightly differs from already crunched data, but not that much different.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 76):
There is a reason mega-hubs exist in favor of point to point. There is also a reason that all the legacies have all but cut out point to point. It is indeed much more economical to feed them through the big hubs than fly the point to point itself.

I don't think that we're that far from a meeting of minds here. Yes, post airline deregulation, those airlines that went hub-and-spoke survived over those going point-to-point. But how many airlines and how many hubs were there along the way? And over time, as the industry shook itself out, we have easy empirical evidence that those hubs that did not support the O&D, well...... where are they today? Two prominent examples are PIT and STL, and to an extent CVG and MEM .... no O&D really there, eh? And although every airline did BK at this point, the major population/economic areas of our nation (O&D feed) seem to be the remaining hubs, eh?

And as stated earlier, I just have to wonder how long carriers will be able to carry connects through hubs that don't support O&D, regardless of how high an average ticket yield is for that hub, or how low the hub's cost of operation is to the carrier, even though these two I consider play minor influence with connects? At some point (and probably more linked to rising cost of jet fuel more than anything else, unless some inexpensive substitute can be developed) I have to wonder how long DFW can go on with some 30% O&D for the new AA/US, or even CLT with a slightly higher connect rate? Or really, I have to wonder how long ATL will have 9 some banks of DL CRJ flights to/from some destination where it has an average of 30 some O&D pax? And any other airport that isn't pulling at least half of its pax O&D?

Where we've been, I have to agree with you about mega-hubs. And going forward, there will have to be hubs. I just have to think our meeting of the minds here is only different in what percentage of O&D a carrier will need in order to utilize its resources most efficiently.

 

[Edited 2013-02-28 14:59:32]

User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

Quoting N737AA (Reply 91):

Quoting us330 (Reply 79):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
DFW is also too large to be able to sustain extra service from PHX.
Quoting us330 (Reply 79):
How can a hub be too large to sustain extra service? The bigger the hub, the more service it can sustain--ATL's the perfect example of that.

DFW is far from maxed out. There's plenty of space available to build extra terminals to handle increased passenger load, and there's plenty of runways to handle landing and takeoffs from increased traffic.

Exactly, I guess he has never actually been to DFW and seen the parking lot that will eventually be terminal F. The way the Arrival/Departure corridors (STARs/SIDs) and runway configuration is designed congestion is non-existant. DFW could grow by 50% very easily and not miss a beat. It is probably the most efficient airspace/airport in the US system.

N737AA

I agree, and with the renovations going on at DFW to Terminal A and I believe that they are adding to Terminal E as well. I don't believe for a minute that PHX is going to expand especially international flights. I won't be drinking the Koolaid that they served at the press conference to say that PHX will not be downsized.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineN737AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 93):
Quoting N737AA (Reply 91):

Quoting us330 (Reply 79):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 68):
DFW is also too large to be able to sustain extra service from PHX.
Quoting us330 (Reply 79):
How can a hub be too large to sustain extra service? The bigger the hub, the more service it can sustain--ATL's the perfect example of that.

DFW is far from maxed out. There's plenty of space available to build extra terminals to handle increased passenger load, and there's plenty of runways to handle landing and takeoffs from increased traffic.

Exactly, I guess he has never actually been to DFW and seen the parking lot that will eventually be terminal F. The way the Arrival/Departure corridors (STARs/SIDs) and runway configuration is designed congestion is non-existant. DFW could grow by 50% very easily and not miss a beat. It is probably the most efficient airspace/airport in the US system.

N737AA

I agree, and with the renovations going on at DFW to Terminal A and I believe that they are adding to Terminal E as well. I don't believe for a minute that PHX is going to expand especially international flights. I won't be drinking the Koolaid that they served at the press conference to say that PHX will not be downsized.

Terminal B is also getting an additional 10 or so gates to handle the additional RJ flying AA will be doing under the new agreement with APA. LOTS of room at DFW. PHX is boxed in by the river on the south and industrial on the north. I suspect you will see PHX to remain a small hub. I wouldn't count on any intl service and even the Hawaii stuff will move over to LAX eventually. The only things I can see staying is some of the stuff to Mexico, but thats about it (internationally). BA will probably handle the London traffic.

N737AA


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1802 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting N737AA (Reply 94):
PHX is boxed in by the river on the south and industrial on the north.

The industrial land north of PHX is slowly being acquired by the City of Phoenix. It has always been the long term plan to has always been to acquire this land for the buildout of a 4th parallel runway. However, based on current traffic demand, a 4th runway is not needed in the near or mid term.


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...
WN Flying 735's On The West Coast Again? posted Sun May 25 2008 22:05:58 by Wedgetail737
F9 E170 On The West Coast posted Tue Mar 13 2007 23:41:26 by FutureFO
Skywest UX, And DLC Monopoly On The West Coast? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 00:47:12 by Flyboy80
Big Storm On The West Coast posted Sat Dec 31 2005 18:36:38 by Freedomtofly
DC9's On The West Coast posted Thu Jan 13 2005 18:38:09 by MDW22L31C
Cargo Hub On The West Coast posted Fri Apr 16 2004 22:11:46 by Leneld
America West Metal On The East Coast posted Fri Aug 15 2008 12:45:23 by Bkircher
AA Eagle CR7 Running The West Coast posted Wed Apr 9 2008 21:35:21 by AS739X
AA's Plans For SJC And The West Coast? posted Tue Jan 28 2003 04:49:34 by United777
FL Logo Aircraft To The West Coast? posted Wed Nov 7 2012 22:15:46 by olddominion727