Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2434 times:
I personally do not see what the point of them keeping the STL hub is. This is because they already have hubs in Chicago and Dallas and one in St. Louis which is just inbetween them just does not make too much sense for me.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5401 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
The plan is to use STL for connecting traffic which is lower yield. This will free up capacity in ORD and DFW which have a larger percentage of high yield O&D
traffic. By moving transfer pax thru STL, the hubs at ORD and DFW will maximize revenue and in effect subsidize STL. There also exists the possibility of
running continuous hubs at all three, giving passengers
the most choices of travel times. For instance if someone in ABQ wants to go to LGA, they have many
choices of connections thru the 3 hubs, more than any
other competitor, which appeals to the high yield business traveler.
TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
I think its easy to say that all transfer passengers will be routed through STL while O&D will go to DFW and ORD, but I think thats going to be very complex and unattainable. One of those easier said than done things.
Boeingfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
Run the lower yield competative revenue through STL, use DFW and ORD for business O & D.
Believe it or not, (fares do not make sense as they are market based) it is cheaper to fly to Fla destinations through STL from Texas then, ATL or non stop.
The staff at STL (ex TW) are very nice and seem to go the extra yard too (guess thankful for their jobs?), which is good for AA customer relations.
Fares are finally on the increase for all airline domestic US routes, so this is good news. However most the increase will only cover the increasing insurance, fuel, labor, maintenance and security cost.
The goal, return to profitablity for all hubs by 2003.
Tan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2244 times:
I believe that STL has the potential to help AA achieve profitability faster in 2002 or 3 than anything else. By tweaking schedules for many cities, adding more connections , more opportunities for customers to stick with or choose AA. I would hope that eventually some of the CRJ700's would be assigned to STL for some thinner routes like at STL-FAT, STL-PSP(seasonal)perhaps open some new cites for AA where the cost of the slot at ORD or DFW is not worth it, but from STL it makes sense, like maybe GEG, or BOI as examples.
If I were an employee of UA, I'd be quite concerned with such a 900 Lb gorilla in both my front and back yards!
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
I am not trying to shift the subject but as far as I know, DFW isn't slotted- yet. Keep in mind I could be wrong though. It is getting more congested, but not bad due to the amount of runways and 24 hr. operations.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
A lot of you suggest that STL will be used as a low yield connection point while DFW and ORD will be used primarily for O&D. Can anyone give better specifics for that? For example, once the dust settles, lets say I want to fly from LAX to PHL on American. Will it be set up so that when I go online, it will only allow me access to flights originating from LAX to STL? Will it also be set up so that if I can get around that the flights going to DFW and ORD will not arrive in any definable bank to the east coast, therefore rendering them useless?
Business wise, this makes enormous sense to have STL be a transfer point and exploit ORD and DFW as a high revenue O&D center. But logistically, how are they going to pull that off? My above suggestions seem the only possible way, but not at the risk of putting off and frustrating people in the spoke cities who have no clue why.
Purdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
In practice, the way that they would set up having one hub cater to lower-yield traffic would be to make more seats available in the lower fare classes on flights connecting at STL, and making a higher percentage of the seats through DFW or ORD in the higher fare buckets. Thus, when a passenger chose to search flights by price, he would find more options through STL than through the other hubs. In other words, if there was a promotional sale of, say, $100 each way from SAN to IND, they could funnel lower yield traffic through STL by offering, for example, 100 seats a day at that fare for SAN-STL-IND, and only 50 seats a day at that fare on flights routed SAN-ORD/DFW-IND.
Bear in mind that, in writing this, I'm not saying that I think this is their plan... simply that this would be the logical way to have one hub focus on lower yield traffic than the other two.
TWA@FRA From China, joined Nov 2000, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2149 times:
I think it could be dangerous for STL if AA only will use it for low yield traffic. Because in future economics downs it will be the first HUB which will be closed and they could focus again on their "old"HUB`s. They couldn't done it at the present down, because they just bought it and it wouldn't let the Management looks so good. But in the future when AMR Management have to increase their shareholder value, they will close the low yield market first. Also geographical the STL HUB only makes sense when you have a lot of PAX.
Scottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 7087 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (13 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
I don't think there's any doubt that AA will keep the hub at STL. Having an additional hub at STL allows AA to offer more choices to its passengers and helps take pressure off the more congested hubs at ORD and DFW. It also gives them an opportunity to grow the system as air traffic recovers post-recession. STL is quite well-situated geographically as a connecting hub and, moreover, is a good O&D market.
If AA were to pull down their hub at STL, however, there's always Southwest in the East Terminal. You could expect their STL operation to double in size within a few years in that event.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2097 times:
AA absolutely will keep the STL hub. This is one of the main reasons, if not THE main reason AA saw value in TW when looking at it as an acquisition opportunity. STL is a very efficient hub operation, and will only improve once the third parallel runway and midfield terminal are built. They would NOT have gone to all the trouble and expense of switching everything over to AA in STL if they weren't planning on keeping it as a hub. Additionally, there is substantial O&D traffic at STL. TWA wouldn't have survived there as long as it did if there weren't.
It's alreadly happening. If you go to AA.com or Orbitz and put in certain itineraries, certain routings will pop up first. Depending on yields, loads, etc., AA will try to entice you through the hub they want to direct traffic through by pricing tickets accordingly. Same happens with Delta and other airlines. If I want to fly from Minneapolis to Florida, a lot of times it will be much cheaper to connect in either CVG or ATL, depending (obviously) on what the loads are or which hub they want to direct traffic through.