mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:57 am

I know P2P is 'en vogue' at the moment but considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?

I know this could spark fierce debate on where and which airports they should be but with improved ground transportation and a more 'insightful' domestic network could this be a better way forward ?

Better economies of scale, the ability to economically use VLA's etc

I'd love to see some A380's and 748i's in the American fleets..........

Is it too far fetched to consider a complete restructuring of the airport system in the USA that withdraws the right of some airports to operate long-haul services ? (for all airlines not just American carriers obviously)

[Edited 2012-07-12 01:26:43]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:43 am

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/arti...ries/doc4ffc958000f98474541085.txt

Interesting....

“No economy can grow faster than its transportation network allows,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement applauding the legislative vote. “With highways between California cities congested and airspace at a premium, Californians desperately need an alternative.”

Ain't that the truth......

“No economy can grow faster than its transportation network allows,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said

Take note UK politicians !!
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11416
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:10 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
Is it too far fetched to consider a complete restructuring of the airport system in the USA that withdraws the right of some airports to operate long-haul services ?

Isn't that basically happened decades ago? DCA and LGA don't have, as you say, the "right to operate long-haul services." The motivations were different but the end result is the same.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:11 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
I know P2P is 'en vogue' at the moment but considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?


P2P was en vogue. Most all U.S. based legacy carriers have reduced their P2P flying in favor of routing flights almost exclusively over their hubs.

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?

I know this could spark fierce debate on where and which airports they should be but with improved ground transportation and a more 'insightful' domestic network could this be a better way forward ?


I think you are looking at this collectively instead of by individual airline. When you look at each individual carrier, the number of international gateways is reasonable. Keep in mind that the size of the U.S. domestic market is quite large and warrants multiple hubs just to funnel domestic traffic itself. Domestic focused hubs often have some international routes because the shear volume of feed into the hub helps support some international routes.

Also, having multiple hubs reduces risk of total system paralysis in the event of bad weather.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:42 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think you are looking at this collectively instead of by individual airline. When you look at each individual carrier, the number of international gateways is reasonable. Keep in mind that the size of the U.S. domestic market is quite large and warrants multiple hubs just to funnel domestic traffic itself. Domestic focused hubs often have some international routes because the shear volume of feed into the hub helps support some international routes.

Also, having multiple hubs reduces risk of total system paralysis in the event of bad weather.

You raise a very important point there. I think we need to emphasize that much of the int'l traffic at some hubs is "synthetic" in that it is derived from the feed rather than pure local O&D, e.g., MSP, DEN. In an ideal world, perhaps there would just be mega-gateways used by all in Chicago/NYC/LA/MIA/DFW with umpteen gates and 10 runways. But that's a pipe dream so we have the current system where airlines have to build up fiefdoms where they can.
 
catiii
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:49 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......

How so?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:18 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
I know P2P is 'en vogue' at the moment but considering how increasingly thinly the legacies are spreading themselves in order to meet the inter-continental needs of the country......wouldn't it be better to focus these needs on fewer airports ?

In the end it is all about RASM (Revenue per Available Seat Mile) and CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile). Your proposal exclusively focuses on CASM. Fewer point to point routes with larger planes is a way to reduce CASM. However, the inconvenience factor and increased competition lowers RASM. Profit is the difference between RASM and CASM. A well managed airline is going to be minimizing CASM and maximizing RASM, but in reality those two are tied together and each airline has a different strategy.

Point to point nonstop routes are higher yielding than connecting traffic. That’s why airlines chase point to point routes. With connecting traffic, there are more airlines competing in a single market which drives fares down.

Here’s an example. I live in Seattle and need to go to Paris next month. I prefer a nonstop flight because it saves me time and is more convenient and comfortable. I have one choice to go nonstop, and that is on Delta. Because I have a preference to fly nonstop, Delta can turn that preference into a higher yield since I am likely to pay more to fly nonstop because there is no competition. If Delta did not fly SEA-CDG nonstop, I would then be cross shopping Delta with every other airline. Delta in order to win my business has to offer a better product or a lower price. If they want to compete on price then they have to compete with BA, LH, UA, AA, US and FI who all offer me one stop service to Paris. More competition means lower fares. In order to offer lower fares, Delta has to find efficiency somewhere. Using the A380 on JFK-CDG might earn them that efficiency. Airlines like Emirates are based on that efficiency principle.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:47 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):

Point taken.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):

I don't know I guess I just miss the good old days...Tri-Stars, DC-10's, 747's etc

Do you know how many 4 engined passenger aircraft there are in the entire wide-bodied fleets of UA, DL, AA and US combined.........?

40

40 !!!
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18971
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:19 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 7):
Do you know how many 4 engined passenger aircraft there are in the entire wide-bodied fleets of UA, DL, AA and US combined.........?

40

With fuel prices unlikely to do anything but increase in the long term, 2 engines make much more sense than 4.
 
rogercamel
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:41 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:42 am

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 4):
In an ideal world, perhaps there would just be mega-gateways

Not in my ideal world.

I will always go P2P if possible and like the that there are several secondary cities that I can fly to nonstop from major gateways in Europe and vice-versa.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):
Reply 6,

   far better explanation than I could manage!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:51 am

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 9):
far better explanation than I could manage!

Yes he did a great job
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:35 pm

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 9):
Not in my ideal world.

I will always go P2P if possible and like the that there are several secondary cities that I can fly to nonstop from major gateways in Europe and vice-versa.

I was referring to efficiency - it would be much more efficient to do it like package shippers where everything (mostly) goes through a few massive gateways a la MEM, Worldport, etc. Those would obviously be in NYC, LA, Chicago, and a couple others, and you wouldn't have things like CVG-CDG, RDU-LHR, MSP-CDG, etc. But yes from a pax perspective it's preferable to have options, particularly to Europe like we have today.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11416
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:40 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
Those would obviously be in NYC, LA, Chicago, and a couple others

How is that obvious? LAX isn't a good hub to much of anywhere in the Untied States.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
rogercamel
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:41 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:13 am

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
it would be much more efficient to do it like package shippers where everything (mostly) goes through a few massive gateways

Ok - I understand where you're coming from.
But - is it really more efficient for an airline that can fill a plane P2P to force people to connect? The airlines would double the baggage and people handling requirements & costs, and increase the risk relating to delays.

Air freight also makes very extensive use of passenger airlines - and from what I understand, if they can send things P2P using a passenger airliner's hold, they try to do that rather than routing it through their gateway.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:54 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):

How is that obvious? LAX isn't a good hub to much of anywhere in the Untied States.

Obvious because those are the biggest population centers to support them.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11416
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:47 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 14):
Obvious because those are the biggest population centers to support them.

Sure, but O&D is only half the story. All the O&D in the world can't make up for a lousy location. That's why MIA isn't much of a domestic hub despite having a large and dynamic local market.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:41 pm

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 9):
   far better explanation than I could manage!

Thanks. It's a debate that will always live on in airlines. The a380 brought great opportunities to lower casm while the 787 brings opportunities to raise rasm so the debate isn't going away any time soon.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:15 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
Sure, but O&D is only half the story. All the O&D in the world can't make up for a lousy location. That's why MIA isn't much of a domestic hub despite having a large and dynamic local market.

True, but for the kind of hubs these would be, you'd have to have that massive population to underwrite it. MCI in it's original concept would still never work, because there just isn't enough market to support it. However, with these global mega cities, it works, because everyone needs to get to LA, NYC, Chicago at some point domestically, and internationally they will be able to offer the most 1-stop connections onward in the U.S. That's why I made the analogy to package freight - it's more efficient to funnel everyone through a few places where you can enjoy the largest economies of scale and scope, and then ship off to their final destination from there. In addition, you gain the ability to deploy many more VLA's on trunk routes which in turn drives down your CASM further.

Put another way, if you live in say OMA, life wouldn't change that much insasfar as you'd still have to connect to get most places, but it would be through fewer mega hubs rather than a choice of ORD, MSP, DTW, ATL, DFW, DEN, IAH, PHX, SLC, JFK, EWR, IAD, etc. The crux of my initial point was simply that it's not efficient for airlines to have hubs in all these places.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11416
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 17):
The crux of my initial point was simply that it's not efficient for airlines to have hubs in all these places.

But it seems like that's an assertion without any support. Why is it more efficient for DL to route me BNA-MSP-SAN instead of BNA-SLC-SAN?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
HAL
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 7):
Do you know how many 4 engined passenger aircraft there are in the entire wide-bodied fleets of UA, DL, AA and US combined.........?

40

You answered your own question here: The 4-engine aircraft are vanishing because their CASM outstrips the increase in RASM. Sure, you'd love to see A380's and 748's flying domestically in the US. But until the airspace is so filled that the airlines can't add another flight, they will use four 737's leaving an hour apart, catering to the various needs of the traveling public instead of putting them all on a single quad-jet and making the next departure 5 hours later.

Despite the general attitude here on A.net, airlines aren't stupid. They have offices of people who spend their entire careers trying to figure out how to maximize revenue while minimizing cost. If having large quad-jets flying domestically were part of that answer, they'd be doing it. The wishes of the passengers are included in those calculations, because happy passengers come back more often, making for better RASM. Those wishes have to be balanced against the cost, otherwise CASM overtakes all, and the airline sinks. The balanced equation today equals hub-and-spoke flying for most airlines, using smaller planes with more frequency.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:26 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 18):
But it seems like that's an assertion without any support. Why is it more efficient for DL to route me BNA-MSP-SAN instead of BNA-SLC-SAN?

It's not really. What IS more efficient is to consolidate from places like SLC and MSP into the mega markets and then force everyone to connect in those rather than maintaining all of these other hubs. What's INEFFICIENT is having all these hubs scattered around, a decent portion of the routes duplicating each other in terms of getting you from aaa-ccc via bbb, xxx, or yyy. That's why I qualified it as a pure conceptual scenario, because it would require new and/or massively expanded airports in these aforementioned markets to work at all, not to mention dedicated HSR links from city centers, etc..
 
johns624
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:58 am

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 11):
Those would obviously be in NYC, LA, Chicago, and a couple others, and you wouldn't have things like CVG-CDG, RDU-LHR, MSP-CDG, etc

If you can fly a planeload of people from MSP-CDG, why would you fly the planeload somewhere (ORD?) first? Besides, with just a few megahubs, the airlines would have to have as many A380's as Emirates, many for domestic routes.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:24 am

Quoting johns624 (Reply 21):
If you can fly a planeload of people from MSP-CDG, why would you fly the planeload somewhere (ORD?) first? Besides, with just a few megahubs, the airlines would have to have as many A380's as Emirates, many for domestic routes.

That's the idea - it's much easier, cheaper, and better for the environment to throw everyone on A380's out of say, JFK, ORD, and ATL than it is to fly smaller planes from SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, JFK, CVG, PIT, etc. It's not even so much that a place like MSP per se would lose service, but that flights like PIT-CDG, CVG-CDG, RDU-LHR, MEM-AMS, and some others are inefficient to run. That doesn't mean they don't serve a good purpose, or that they are bad, but if you had a magic wand and a couple trillion bucks to remake the national air travel system, you'd set it up differently than it is now.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11416
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:37 am

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
That's the idea - it's much easier, cheaper, and better for the environment to throw everyone on A380's out of say, JFK, ORD, and ATL than it is to fly smaller planes from SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, JFK, CVG, PIT, etc.

How do you know that? If I have to fly 500 or 1,000 miles out of my way to get to one of the "megahubs," that burns gas and isn't good for the environment. It may even burn more gas than I save by flying on a larger, more efficient aircraft ex-megahub.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
modernArt
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:23 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:44 am

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
a couple trillion bucks to remake the national air travel system, you'd set it up differently than it is now.

Not really. A more modern air traffic control system, more runways and perhaps better ground transport. Why devolve back the 1950s when only a half dozen or so airports hosted international flights?

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
...and some others are inefficient to run.

Based on....?
 
HAL
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:27 am

I'm still getting lost in the thread...

If we had just a few mega hubs, why would we need huge quad-jets as opposed to today? From what I can see, there would still be smaller planes flying most of the routes, because you wouldn't be filling a 747 or 380 to Boise, or Jacksonville, or Manchester, or San Diego becuae (1), there just aren't that many people going to/from those cities each day, and (2), most of those cities couldn't handle the big planes.

And having all those smaller planes concentrated into a fewer number of hubs would overwhelm the airspace, causing irreperable damage to the efficiency of the system.

So what would all those domestic VLA's be doing?

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19750
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:45 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
P2P was en vogue. Most all U.S. based legacy carriers have reduced their P2P flying in favor of routing flights almost exclusively over their hubs.

Exactly. The issue now is that, for example, there are 27 daily flights between SFO and ORD (and that doesn't include MDW and OAK). Most of these flights are on 752 and smaller aircraft (there are two 763's). Many of them leave within minutes of each-other, even on the same carrier.

There doesn't need to be this many flights. You can't tell me that frequency is that important when there are two UA 752's departing on the same route within ten minutes of each-other.

It comes down to 1) fleet on-hand 2) flexibility 3) competition for frequency.

There needs to be some way to change the rules of the game to reduce this sort of redundancy. It uses more fuel, increases congestion (and general load on the entire system), requires more employees, and costs more.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:58 am

Quoting rogercamel (Reply 13):
Air freight also makes very extensive use of passenger airlines - and from what I understand, if they can send things P2P using a passenger airliner's hold, they try to do that rather than routing it through their gateway.

Of course it does, less handling makes for less cargo claims and more on time deliveries AND it doesn't cost any more to go nonstop with your cargo than it does if it's routed via a hub, etc. Rates are the same.

Quoting modernart (Reply 24):
Not really. A more modern air traffic control system, more runways and perhaps better ground transport. Why devolve back the 1950s when only a half dozen or so airports hosted international flights?

Not only those costs but, according to mikey72, he'd like to see more domestic widebodies in the U.S.........sounds nice but some of the cities where he would replace narrowbodies with widebodies couldn't handle those a/c.



Methinks that mikey72 is a spotter who thinks that the airlines and airports should operate the system, just so they can see more than twinjet widebodies into their airport. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
That's the idea - it's much easier, cheaper, and better for the environment to throw everyone on A380's out of say, JFK, ORD, and ATL than it is to fly smaller planes from SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, JFK, CVG, PIT, etc.

So, who decides which airline's hub gets to survive in your system? Of course each airline wants to keep their own hub..........the gov't? I think I'd just as soon leave their "expertise" in these matters out of this.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19750
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:15 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 27):
Methinks that mikey72 is a spotter who thinks that the airlines and airports should operate the system, just so they can see more than twinjet widebodies into their airport. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Most of us think that because we're nerds. But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to fly 27 737/A320/757 between SFO and ORD every day.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:18 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense to fly 27 737/A320/757 between SFO and ORD every day.

It does if that's what the market calls for.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
mhkansan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:02 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:49 am

American thinks its a good idea to route almost all traffic over hubs, and per unit revenues are higher now than any other legacy. Could be on to this "mega hub" idea.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:10 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 27):
Methinks that mikey72 is a spotter

Oh if only.

Believe me I have probably been sat on an aircraft more times than I have looked up and seen or even heard one in the sky.

I am very interested in and hugely fascinated by the airline industry but I try and observe from afar as much as I can these days.

In my eyes even a private jet would still equate to being 'out of your own bed' for a night.

No thanks.

I'm sure that anyone here that has been or is a flight attendant would agree with me.

I guess that's why i'm not so impressed with all the frills these days.

When I 'must' fly I'd quite happily sit in a business class seat (when I can afford it) on any airline whether they offered me a cheese sandwich or filet mignon.

Economy is purgatory on any airline but for most of us a necessary evil.

I once had the misfortune of being forced to dead head in economy from Singapore to London.

All 13.75 hours of it.

It is an experience that (through choice anyway) I have no desire to repeat again.

[Edited 2012-07-15 00:55:26]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:38 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 27):
So, who decides which airline's hub gets to survive in your system? Of course each airline wants to keep their own hub..........the gov't? I think I'd just as soon leave their "expertise" in these matters out of this.

I wasn't saying any authorithy per se gets to dictate which hubs survive and which ones don't. Any airline is welcome to keep any hub it wants. The issue is that only a handful of markets have enough organic demand to support a truly global hub; all the others simply ride the coattails of that airline's network by relying on connections.
 
Beardown91737
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:56 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:28 am

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 30):

American thinks its a good idea to route almost all traffic over hubs, and per unit revenues are higher now than any other legacy. Could be on to this "mega hub" idea.

It is pretty much all the legacies with UA being ~100% hub routing, US having 1 focus city, and DL being the main one to venture into a small amount of P2P.

If we in the US were willing to give government control of the airlines again, then they could decide what is good for us and tell us which cities are allowed as international gateways. This would lead to customer dissatisfaction in places that lose service, and loss of jobs at those places as well. The way US political works, influential politicians could save some of their service with the (you vote for this bill, and I will get your Intl service exempted) from floor leaders.

Instead what we have is private companies trying to make money be offering something that we have shown we will pay for. That is... convenient service on aircraft that board and clear out faster than the extra time it takes to get on and off a VLA. Take that away and there will be an expectable uproar.
135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:09 am

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 33):
Instead what we have is private companies trying to make money be offering something that we have shown we will pay for.

Latest reviews on Skytrax (I know, I know) by 'American' customers.......

American Airlines -

The customer service provided by American Airlines was so unsatisfactory that I feel forced to express my dissatisfaction.

Delta Airlines -

This airline should not be part of Star alliance as it does not provide similar benefits to nor have the same quality of service as other major airlines that are part of this network.

US Airways -

It was miserable. Next time I will pay extra to fly to another city to take a different airline.

United Airlines -

I fly often and this experience was a clear reminder as to why I don't usually fly with United.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18168
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:13 am

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 31):
Economy is purgatory on any airline but for most of us a necessary evil.

I just flew Air New Zealand Economy AKL-PER and PER-MEL Economy with Virgin Australia and neither flight was "purgatory" in any way. They were rather pleasant experiences - and very good value for money.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:22 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
Exactly. The issue now is that, for example, there are 27 daily flights between SFO and ORD (and that doesn't include MDW and OAK). Most of these flights are on 752 and smaller aircraft (there are two 763's). Many of them leave within minutes of each-other, even on the same carrier.

There doesn't need to be this many flights. You can't tell me that frequency is that important when there are two UA 752's departing on the same route within ten minutes of each-other.

But here's the thing. If the traffic doesn't need to 752's, then one of them can fly another route. You cannot split a 777/747/380 in half and have it run two routes. This also factors into when a plane goes mechanical. It is a lot either to put a 752/320 load of passengers on other planes/routes than a domestic config 777.

And being local to SFO, I certainly appreciate the flexibility that I have multiple time options via ORD to connect to other flights.

Granted I would love to be on an international config 777 from SFO to ORD.

Another thing to consider as it relates to this debate is the cost of planes themselves. Generally 2 smaller planes adding up to the same capacity cost much less than 1 bigger plane. Esp when you factor volume into it. You can get 4 738s for the price of 1 773/77W, and that is at list price.
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:56 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 23):
How do you know that? If I have to fly 500 or 1,000 miles out of my way to get to one of the "megahubs," that burns gas and isn't good for the environment. It may even burn more gas than I save by flying on a larger, more efficient aircraft ex-megahub.

If you are the only one flying that makes sense, but you going 500 miles "out of the way" may reduce the other passengers flying MSP-CDG. So in whole hubs are better for the environment.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:32 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 34):
This airline should not be part of Star alliance as it does not provide similar benefits to nor have the same quality of service as other major airlines that are part of this network.

Why were they even talking about DL and *A in the same sentence? Obviously, this person had not flown the other U.S. carriers in Star because DL's service is at least equal to or better than UA, CO &US, in my opinion.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
There doesn't need to be this many flights. You can't tell me that frequency is that important when there are two UA 752's departing on the same route within ten minutes of each-other.

Don't know how the other legacies figure it, but at DL, in some cases, when you have two flights leaving within minutes each other to the same destination, it's because, it's been shown, historically, that there is enough traffic to warrant it, no matter the size of the a/c.



It's funny how WN is praised for it's system and methods (and, in fact they advertise that they have multiple flights to the same destination thruout the day) and the legacies are criticized for the same thing.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:40 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 35):
I just flew Air New Zealand Economy AKL-PER and PER-MEL Economy with Virgin Australia and neither flight was "purgatory" in any way. They were rather pleasant experiences - and very good value for money.

Melbourne to Perth !!!

What's that ? 4 hours ?

Try JFK/HKG with your ankles up around your ears and report back to me.

(i'm no giant at 6'1)

Anything over 6 hours 7 maximum and I've had a gut full in economy.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11416
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 37):
If you are the only one flying that makes sense, but you going 500 miles "out of the way" may reduce the other passengers flying MSP-CDG.

Not likely for a hub like LAX, which isn't on the way to very many places - that's why no one operates a large hub in LAX despite the wonderful O&D demand.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18168
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 39):
Melbourne to Perth !!!

What's that ? 4 hours ?

Try JFK/HKG with your ankles up around your ears and report back to me.

(i'm no giant at 6'1)

Anything over 6 hours 7 maximum and I've had a gut full in economy.

Work harder, make more money or win the Lottery. Or - if you dislike it so much - don't fly.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ABQopsHP
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:47 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:11 pm

[quote=HAL,reply=25]
I'm still getting lost in the thread...

If we had just a few mega hubs, why would we need huge quad-jets as opposed to today? From what I can see, there would still be smaller planes flying most of the routes, because you wouldn't be filling a 747 or 380 to Boise, or Jacksonville, or Manchester, or San Diego becuae (1), there just aren't that many people going to/from those cities each day, and (2), most of those cities couldn't handle the big planes.

And having all those smaller planes concentrated into a fewer number of hubs would overwhelm the airspace, causing irreperable damage to the efficiency of the system.

So what would all those domestic VLA's be doing?

HAL


Me too HAL. This thread came at a good time. I got to thinking about this the past few days with the WX issues at IAH all week. We have had continuous issues with ATC flow, GDP programs, Ground Stops, because the airspace is so saturated with a/c everything gets tied up the minute thunderstorms erupt, in the area. I would think that with fewer a/c at a given HUB, and these quad-jets used in P2P or HUB2HUB markets would alleviate some of the issues. Would it not? I do see some improvement since DL is looking to reduce the fleet of 50 seat a/c being used at Exjet and other regionals. Just my thought tho.

JD CRP Exjet
ABQ ops, Cactus 202 requesting you order 5 Green Chile Chicken stew for us to p/u on arrival. ;)
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4775
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:30 pm

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 42):
I would think that with fewer a/c at a given HUB, and these quad-jets used in P2P or HUB2HUB markets would alleviate some of the issues. Would it not? I do see some improvement since DL is looking to reduce the fleet of 50 seat a/c being used at Exjet and other regionals. Just my thought tho.

I think HAL is arguing that there wouldn't be fewer a/c at a given hub. There would be fewer hubs, but if bad weather occurs at them things will still get screwed up, there really is no way around that. Depending on the situation it could get somewhat worse during particularly bad storms as there will be fewer options and airplanes to route passengers through.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19750
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:31 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 38):
Don't know how the other legacies figure it, but at DL, in some cases, when you have two flights leaving within minutes each other to the same destination, it's because, it's been shown, historically, that there is enough traffic to warrant it, no matter the size of the a/c.

Yes, but from the standpoint of that route, it makes no sense to use two gates, two flight crews, two airframes, two loadsheets, two groundcrew, etc. when one large airplane could do the job.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:41 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
Yes, but from the standpoint of that route, it makes no sense to use two gates, two flight crews, two airframes, two loadsheets, two groundcrew, etc. when one large airplane could do the job.

Not if that destination airport isn't equipped to handle that "one large airplane". Jetways, extra people, etc. are all needed to support that particular flight. At a smaller airport you CAN work two flights with reduced manpower, but it would be difficult to work a VLA with that same manpower. I depends on what the airport (and airline) wants to do.......awful lot of infrastructure to be upgraded for one flight.

Besides, two flights on smaller a/c give you more flexibility than one flight on a VLA. If that VLA breaks, you've inconvenienced an awful lot of pax........if one of the two breaks, it might be easier to replace that one, smaller a/c than it will a VLA (of which there probably alot just sitting around).
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
Beardown91737
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:56 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:44 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 34):
Latest reviews on Skytrax (I know, I know) by 'American' customers.......

American Airlines -

The customer service provided by American Airlines was so unsatisfactory that I feel forced to express my dissatisfaction.

Delta Airlines -

This airline should not be part of Star alliance as it does not provide similar benefits to nor have the same quality of service as other major airlines that are part of this network.

US Airways -

It was miserable. Next time I will pay extra to fly to another city to take a different airline.

United Airlines -

I fly often and this experience was a clear reminder as to why I don't usually fly with United.

I said that in the USA, the private airlines offer what we will pay for. All of the above comments are true at times. It doesn't disprove that we will pay for that kind of experience/abuse.

The market does say it wants to have international flights from all the domestic hubs. What we don't want is some kind of rationing in which the government says all Asia traffic leaves the US through SEA and all TATL goes through JFK because these are the closest to the destination.

The way our government works, they would probably put all the rationed LATAM traffic through MSY in order to aid with post-Katrina recovery. Should we put up with that kind of funneling? No LATAM from DFW, LAX, MIA, or EWR/JFK, just to fill VLAs?
135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
 
ridgid727
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: United States Network Question?

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:18 am

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 20):
It's not really. What IS more efficient is to consolidate from places like SLC and MSP into the mega markets and then force everyone to connect in those rather than maintaining all of these other hubs. What's INEFFICIENT is having all these hubs scattered around, a decent portion of the routes duplicating each other in terms of getting you from aaa-ccc via bbb, xxx, or yyy. That's why I qualified it as a pure conceptual scenario, because it would require new and/or massively expanded airports in these aforementioned markets to work at all, not to mention dedicated HSR links from city centers, etc..

Unless weather in February shuts down, JFK and MSP simulatenously. Or DEN and ORD simultaneoulsy. Then what?
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: United States Network Question?

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:50 am

Quoting ridgid727 (Reply 47):
Unless weather in February shuts down, JFK and MSP simulatenously. Or DEN and ORD simultaneoulsy. Then what?

Then you'll obviously have to divert somewhere. Just as now, hubs in various regions will still provide the redundancy as much as is possible - JFK, ORD, IAD, DFW, MIA, LAX will hopefully never all be out at once, but that's no different than crossing your fingers that you don't lose SLC, MSP, and DTW (if you're DL) all at once now. Ultimately wx will always be a factor so you can't ever totally rule it out no matter how things are set up.