allegiantflyer wrote:

While the creation of hubs are rare, I do consider myself a believer in the conspiracy theory that we will see a new hub/focus city in the next 6-8 years.

Heres a couple possibilities:
UA could find a second focus city somewhere

DL built up at RDU. Also I know AUS has been mentioned, which would make sense considering most airlines have a hub or focus city in Texas(even AS has a focus city in TX). DL certainly could do better in TX.

It'd be nice if we'd could agree what defines a "hub" here. I consider a hub to have something north of 125 daily departures and several connecting banks. For anything not meeting that specification, I'm going call it a focus city, not a hub. I realize that DL likes to call it's focus cities "hubs", but I just consider that to be marketing speak. They can choose to call them whatever they want, I'll still call them focus cities, not true hubs.

Why would DL turn RdU in to hub with ATL so close? Can’t think of a single city pair it would advantage over ATL. They have already shown what they think of a CVG and MEM, both redundant with ATL. (Well CVG probably more redundant with DTW).

michman wrote:

It'd be nice if we'd could agree what defines a "hub" here. I consider a hub to have something north of 125 daily departures and several connecting banks. For anything not meeting that specification, I'm going call it a focus city, not a hub. I realize that DL likes to call it's focus cities "hubs", but I just consider that to be marketing speak. They can choose to call them whatever they want, I'll still call them focus cities, not true hubs.

Great, but no one other than you would actually care. Particularly seeing how arbitrary that "definition" is.

The point remains that an operation timed for connecting flights, whether in banks or rolling, is a hub. Regardless of size.

ncflyer wrote:

Why would DL turn RdU in to hub with ATL so close? Can’t think of a single city pair it would advantage over ATL. They have already shown what they think of a CVG and MEM, both redundant with ATL. (Well CVG probably more redundant with DTW).

2 things here... 1. DL called RDU a focus City.. and O&D focus City.. and this; if there isnt the pax for it, it won’t come to pass... there are some connection opportunities but it’s mainly O&D... 2. RDU has stated many times they aren’t looking for hub status again and like the variety of carriers as a outstation...

Things may change on both of those but I doubt if it will AND the point of this threat is the “What If” scenario so to get agitated over the what if’s is pretty bad. I doubt we will see very many more hubs or focus cities. The Airlines just don’t need them... except Alaska if it wants to do more than just the Pacific Northwest.: but as for the other Airlines (AA, UA, WN, B6, DL)... they don’t need anything more.. even AUS I think is not going to happen no matter how much they read into it.. so let the what if’s play but don’t bank on much happening, IMHO

ncflyer wrote:

Why would DL turn RdU in to hub with ATL so close? Can’t think of a single city pair it would advantage over ATL. They have already shown what they think of a CVG and MEM, both redundant with ATL. (Well CVG probably more redundant with DTW).

Not that I believe that is going to happen, but it's more likely than the US3 opening a hub anywhere else...

32andBelow wrote:

Someone should try to use the special customs exemptions at ANC to make an actual US transit hub.

Assuming the North Terminal is still there. Lots of talk within AK DOT&PF about tearing it down to make room for more cargo hardstands

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Here are some facts:

Airlines are reducing hubs, not adding them

A city with 200 weekly departures is not entitled to LHR and NRT nonstops.

DL does not hate the world.

Chicago and Illinois’ incompetent leadership are pushing flights away from the state.

AUS and PDX may be hip millennial cities, but they are not the next JFK / MIA / SFO.

Midwestindy wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Snowball would have a better chance in hell, than THAT happening.

Especially for DL, with a major hub only 300ish miles away.

How about AS?...too many eggs in SEA basket, I feel.


What B6 did in BOS...why not for some other places?

DEN is a great location for a hub, but it has an enormous amount of competition with WN, UA, and F9 all having full-fledged hubs there. I just don't see why any airline would go out of their way to try and add a hub there.

Here are the most likely scenarios IMO:
DL turning RDU into a hub
AS/B6 creating a middle of the country hub
SY creating another hub
WN creating more focus city/hubs (especially for HI flying)
G4 setting up hubs in PIE/SFB (yes I understand that G4 has said they don't want to connect pax, but they may change strategy once they open up int'l flights)

Agree with this.

-DL is doing great at RDU, including their Paris flight. AA gave RDU to DL on a platter.
-AS was looking at a mid country focus City possibility pre VX merger.
-AA has ZERO interest of a hub at DEN. They already lose money at DEN. Why compete with Kirby? It doesn’t offer anything PHX and/or LAX don’t already offer.
-G4 is considering connections at PIE/SFB for Caribbean. PIE needs some upgrades though before they can lure anything substantial.

stlgph wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Over the next 20-30 years the US population is projected to grow to nearly 400,000,000. People are getting wealthier, air travel more affordable, with the air travel market growing along with the population. Seems a bit naive to suggest there won't never ever ever be any more hubs beyond those that exist currently.

Who's getting wealthy? Wages aren't growing and haven't grown for years, hence why everyone who complaints about airlines such as Spirit still flies them -- it's in their budget.

If Delta, United, or American wanted another hub - they'd add one. And unless you're Delta, United, American, or Southwest, no public entity is going to go out and spend the money to build facilities of scale to be an effective air traffic because "New Airline X" doesn't have the credit or proven business model. The current and future structure is built. This is what you have.

20 years ago airlines like B6 and G4 didn't even exist and NK was practically a non-factor. The aviation landscape in the US will continue to shift, grow and evolve in ways we can't know today.

gwrudolph wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Over the next 20-30 years the US population is projected to grow to nearly 400,000,000. People are getting wealthier, air travel more affordable, with the air travel market growing along with the population. Seems a bit naive to suggest there won't never ever ever be any more hubs beyond those that exist currently.

If/when that happens, you'd see increased frequencies to/from the existing hubs to those population growth areas. You might also see hub growth, especially in those smaller hubs where the metro area population is growing rapidly (PHX, SLC, IAD, SEA, DEN).

Sure, that may continue happening for a time, but looking long-term in the future if cities like Raleigh, Nashville, Kansas City, Austin, San Antonio, Cincinnati, Columbus and Indianapolis continue growing as they have been the past 20 or so years, these will all be major cities and very large economies in the decades ahead. It's doubtful today's hub network will be adequate or relevant in this changing context.

FA9295 wrote:

DL: RDU, LAS, PDX, AUS

With the very outside chance of AUS, why on Earth would DL build hubs at any of those cities. RDU? They have a fortress in ATL. LAS or PDX? Why, they’re both on the west coast and don’t facilitate anything other than north/south traffic.

GF

I doubt AUS would become a hub anytime soon. Even after the additional 9 gates open it still wouldn't be big enough to support a hub.

US carriers are over-hubbed. So the the question should be turned around: which current city (next) has the potential to be de-hubbed?

kann123air wrote:

XNA for American Eagle

In all seriousness - our little airport has nonstop service to LAX, DFW, ORD, CLT, DCA, and LGA with Eagle. I know they're operated by different carriers, but that's still impressive. Focus city status would be something.

Needs Miami and Philly

When will El Paso become the global hub for the reincarnation of Pan Am?

You people confuse me. On this website and this website only do I see people put so much weight on cities like Columbus, Austin, Milwaukee, Saint Louis, and Nashville. I don't get it. Why is it always "When will Columbus get LH? Will DL hub Austin?"

I get that the premise of this thread would instigate discussion about cities like the ones mentioned. But the premise of the thread is dumb in the first place and it falls in the same vein as what I'm talking about.

Are there genuinely just a larger proportion of people who live in these cities? Because a disproportionate amount of discussion seems to occur over cities that are otherwise vastly less important to the US aviation network than I think many people here would believe. Does it drive people from larger cities away?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

DL: RDU, LAS, PDX, AUS

With the very outside chance of AUS, why on Earth would DL build hubs at any of those cities. RDU? They have a fortress in ATL. LAS or PDX? Why, they’re both on the west coast and don’t facilitate anything other than north/south traffic.

GF

1. Yes, I agree that AUS wouldn't be a good option for DL. I retract that one.
2. What I meant by RDU is DL would just increase operations to make it from a focus city to a hub.
3. DL presence in LAS and PDX is increasing. Of course these would be much smaller hubs, but the chance is still out there in my opinion.

jubguy3 wrote:

When will El Paso become the global hub for the reincarnation of Pan Am?

You people confuse me. On this website and this website only do I see people put so much weight on cities like Columbus, Austin, Milwaukee, Saint Louis, and Nashville. I don't get it. Why is it always "When will Columbus get LH? Will DL hub Austin?"

I get that the premise of this thread would instigate discussion about cities like the ones mentioned. But the premise of the thread is dumb in the first place and it falls in the same vein as what I'm talking about.

Are there genuinely just a larger proportion of people who live in these cities? Because a disproportionate amount of discussion seems to occur over cities that are otherwise vastly less important to the US aviation network than I think many people here would believe. Does it drive people from larger cities away?

El Paso? Really?

rajincajun01 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

How about AS?...too many eggs in SEA basket, I feel.


What B6 did in BOS...why not for some other places?

DEN is a great location for a hub, but it has an enormous amount of competition with WN, UA, and F9 all having full-fledged hubs there. I just don't see why any airline would go out of their way to try and add a hub there.

Here are the most likely scenarios IMO:
DL turning RDU into a hub
AS/B6 creating a middle of the country hub
SY creating another hub
WN creating more focus city/hubs (especially for HI flying)
G4 setting up hubs in PIE/SFB (yes I understand that G4 has said they don't want to connect pax, but they may change strategy once they open up int'l flights)

Agree with this.

-DL is doing great at RDU, including their Paris flight. AA gave RDU to DL on a platter.
-AS was looking at a mid country focus City possibility pre VX merger.
-AA has ZERO interest of a hub at DEN. They already lose money at DEN. Why compete with Kirby? It doesn’t offer anything PHX and/or LAX don’t already offer.
-G4 is considering connections at PIE/SFB for Caribbean. PIE needs some upgrades though before they can lure anything substantial.

That AS focus city would be DAL.

FA9295 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

When will El Paso become the global hub for the reincarnation of Pan Am?

You people confuse me. On this website and this website only do I see people put so much weight on cities like Columbus, Austin, Milwaukee, Saint Louis, and Nashville. I don't get it. Why is it always "When will Columbus get LH? Will DL hub Austin?"

I get that the premise of this thread would instigate discussion about cities like the ones mentioned. But the premise of the thread is dumb in the first place and it falls in the same vein as what I'm talking about.

Are there genuinely just a larger proportion of people who live in these cities? Because a disproportionate amount of discussion seems to occur over cities that are otherwise vastly less important to the US aviation network than I think many people here would believe. Does it drive people from larger cities away?

El Paso? Really?

I appreciate this comment because I think it correctly evokes the same sort of feeling I get when reading comments like "DL should hub AUS" or "AA should move their PHX hub to DEN". You did the work for me

rajincajun01 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

How about AS?...too many eggs in SEA basket, I feel.


What B6 did in BOS...why not for some other places?

DEN is a great location for a hub, but it has an enormous amount of competition with WN, UA, and F9 all having full-fledged hubs there. I just don't see why any airline would go out of their way to try and add a hub there.

Here are the most likely scenarios IMO:
DL turning RDU into a hub
AS/B6 creating a middle of the country hub
SY creating another hub
WN creating more focus city/hubs (especially for HI flying)
G4 setting up hubs in PIE/SFB (yes I understand that G4 has said they don't want to connect pax, but they may change strategy once they open up int'l flights)

Agree with this.

-DL is doing great at RDU, including their Paris flight. AA gave RDU to DL on a platter.
-AS was looking at a mid country focus City possibility pre VX merger.
-AA has ZERO interest of a hub at DEN. They already lose money at DEN. Why compete with Kirby? It doesn’t offer anything PHX and/or LAX don’t already offer.
-G4 is considering connections at PIE/SFB for Caribbean. PIE needs some upgrades though before they can lure anything substantial.

PIE is a definite for G4, they will be building a new building on the airport. I know they have upgraded their systems with the capability for international booking and soon connection bookings. The upgrades are coming for PIE it just takes time and $$ but the plans are all underway.

MarcoPoloWorld wrote:

US carriers are over-hubbed. So the the question should be turned around: which current city (next) has the potential to be de-hubbed?

By what measure? US industry profit margins certainly don't seem to suggest so.

WN is opening a trial satellite base in AUS and FLL for FA's early next year if everything works out good maybe WN will make it a full base.

Des Moines, IO (DSM). The heartland needs a hub. It's seen very steady growth for a 12 gate airport. IT has 2 9000' strips... There are plans to build a 3rd at 5000' for GA with plans to expand it to 9000' later.

ODwyerPW wrote:

Des Moines, IO (DSM). The heartland needs a hub. It's seen very steady growth for a 12 gate airport. IT has 2 9000' strips... There are plans to build a 3rd at 5000' for GA with plans to expand it to 9000' later.

0% chance of that ever happening with all four having major hubs within 300 miles. Not to mention, 12 gates wouldn't work for a hub.


Youd need something like Kansas City to be able to sustain something small and has they have 42 gates to accommodate.

mike103084 wrote:

WN is opening a trial satellite base in AUS and FLL for FA's early next year if everything works out good maybe WN will make it a full base.

Every single freaking city in this country with the notable exception of ANC seems to be either a hub or focus city for WN, and soon you'll be able to add HNL to that list. AUS and FLL are not hubs "per say" but everyone knows they pretty much already are.

DL has been ramping up operations in BOS. They are planning on taking over 5 gates in terminal A that Southwest currently uses (Southwest is moving to terminal B). With that they'll have 20 gates, and will be a very sizable focus city if not hub for Delta. Although most of the Boston traffic will be origin and destination based, without many connections.

I think overall, especially with airline consolidation, we'll see more airlines focusing on O and D focus cities and less on connecting hubs. The high yield costumer doesn't want to connect, planning hubs for connections only makes sense for service to smaller cities that can't support service on their own.

BigTexFlyer wrote:

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Here are some facts:

Airlines are reducing hubs, not adding them

A city with 200 weekly departures is not entitled to LHR and NRT nonstops.

DL does not hate the world.

Chicago and Illinois’ incompetent leadership are pushing flights away from the state.

AUS and PDX may be hip millennial cities, but they are not the next JFK / MIA / SFO.

Actually from this end it was never said or intimated that AUS would be the next JFK/MIA/SFO. That’s a fact. That said, Focus City as a descriptor is more understandable. AFP (Alternative Flying Program), spoken in flight crew parlance, also fits. Even if the second construction phase starting late next year does spin up to 40-60 more gates, there’s currently not a fluid enough transportation infrastructure here to support it. Nor is there enough runways, taxiways, international flight volume and sheer terminal size to even remotely match a true big city hub of any large global airline, specifically the US3. AUS will always be a Texas shadow of its big brother fortress hubs at DFW and IAH. Us locals are just amused and intrigued at how ABIA has been punching above her weight in the airport expansion & international route attraction arena. It’s unexpected but definitely welcome as a local employee and Av geek

Generally, once we've covered all the existing cities it sounds like airlines should stop expanding and set things up for their next Ch 11.

Midwestindy wrote:

DEN is a great location for a hub, but it has an enormous amount of competition with WN, UA, and F9 all having full-fledged hubs there. I just don't see why any airline would go out of their way to try and add a hub there.

Here are the most likely scenarios IMO:
DL turning RDU into a hub
AS/B6 creating a middle of the country hub
SY creating another hub
WN creating more focus city/hubs (especially for HI flying)
G4 setting up hubs in PIE/SFB (yes I understand that G4 has said they don't want to connect pax, but they may change strategy once they open up int'l flights)

Why would DL have a hub at RDU with ATL relatively close? And I'm not sure what to make of a second hub for SY since their focus appears to be connecting MSP with tourist destinations.

mike103084 wrote:

WN is opening a trial satellite base in AUS and FLL for FA's early next year if everything works out good maybe WN will make it a full base.

The FLL base makes sense considering WN is using FLL as a de-facto hub for their Caribbean services.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DEN is a great location for a hub, but it has an enormous amount of competition with WN, UA, and F9 all having full-fledged hubs there. I just don't see why any airline would go out of their way to try and add a hub there.

Here are the most likely scenarios IMO:
DL turning RDU into a hub
AS/B6 creating a middle of the country hub
SY creating another hub
WN creating more focus city/hubs (especially for HI flying)
G4 setting up hubs in PIE/SFB (yes I understand that G4 has said they don't want to connect pax, but they may change strategy once they open up int'l flights)

Why would DL have a hub at RDU with ATL relatively close? And I'm not sure what to make of a second hub for SY since their focus appears to be connecting MSP with tourist destinations.

If you scroll up someone asked me a similar question, and I responded by saying I don't think it will happen, however, it is more likely that DL will hub RDU than the US3 opening a new hub anywhere else.

Also, I don't know if you have been following SY lately, but they have been very vocal about their intentions to expand their network outside of MSP.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DEN is a great location for a hub, but it has an enormous amount of competition with WN, UA, and F9 all having full-fledged hubs there. I just don't see why any airline would go out of their way to try and add a hub there.

Here are the most likely scenarios IMO:
DL turning RDU into a hub
AS/B6 creating a middle of the country hub
SY creating another hub
WN creating more focus city/hubs (especially for HI flying)
G4 setting up hubs in PIE/SFB (yes I understand that G4 has said they don't want to connect pax, but they may change strategy once they open up int'l flights)

Why would DL have a hub at RDU with ATL relatively close? And I'm not sure what to make of a second hub for SY since their focus appears to be connecting MSP with tourist destinations.

Because Delta is in the business of making money. RDU offers high yields with a rapidly growing O&D market. RDU is a tech and pharmaceutical hub. 20% of travelers through RDU are going international. The whole RDU/ATL (415mi) being too close argument is getting old. If it adds to their bottom line to hub RDU, they will make it happen. AA has DCA and PHL (120mi). B6 has JFK and BOS (215mi). DL has DTW and CVG (260mi). All are making plenty of money.

What about STL? Former TWA Hub, capacity is definitely there, also some room for expansion according to Google Maps. Just not located perfectly for TATL flying.

TPA as a UA hub or mini hub. UA does not have a SE hub now, I know TPA is bit far south, but that is the best city since it has strong O & D and connections would be icing on the cake. Birmingham would be second choice.

Another one is STL as a hub come back for any airline which is interested, may be AS or JetBlue?

From a passenger's point of view a hub is a convenient connecting point to the ultimate destination. And most would like to do it with not more than one stop. This has become increasingly possible throughout the US and the world. The improved 320s/737s have increased the odds of doing this. And the C-series and MOMs will do even more.

From an airline point of view a hub is a lot of connecting passengers, crew basing, more ground staff, maybe a spare plane or two (or at least nearby), more maintenance and repair available. This of course ensures that passengers will be better taken care of when things go amiss.

DLHAM wrote:

What about STL? Former TWA Hub, capacity is definitely there, also some room for expansion according to Google Maps. Just not located perfectly for TATL flying.

STL would not work....because....as I said....in this thread.....the legacy carriers have entrenched themselves enough in airports such as STL where a hub operation could not be operated on a feasible scale. You'd have to kick everyone out of C concourse and back into A. Not happening. The D gates are pretty much off line, as is most of the C concourse. The $200-$250 million to bring it all back online...no one is going to be ponying up that cash.

hohd wrote:

TPA as a UA hub or mini hub. UA does not have a SE hub now, I know TPA is bit far south, but that is the best city since it has strong O & D and connections would be icing on the cake. Birmingham would be second choice.

Another one is STL as a hub come back for any airline which is interested, may be AS or JetBlue?

When people say that UA doesn't have a SE hub, they mean they don't have a hub well suited to connect people within the Southeastern US. TPA doesn't solve that problem anymore than IAD or IAH do.

UA can connect people out of the SE just fine via IAD, IAH, ORD, and EWR. They're going to be weak on the connecting trips within the SE, but that's not the end of the world.

Growing a hub or a focus city anywhere in Florida is a categorically different kind of solution. You can't put a hub in Florida if you want to replicate the functionality of ATL or CLT on a smaller scale - or even what DL does at RDU. A Florida hub could work as a connecting point to the Caribbean, Central and South America (as MIA and FLL do) but that's not a 'SE' hub in any meaningful sense.

BigTexFlyer wrote:

Chicago and Illinois’ incompetent leadership are pushing flights away from the state.

Number of departures is not a worthy metric due to the retirement of the 50 seaters across the majors.

I pulled a myriad of states and departures are down in IL, TX, NY, GA and the list goes on. The offsetting factor is the size of the airplanes.

Since 2012, seats are:

IL +15%
TX +13%
CA +27%
NY +11%
WA +36%
GA +9%

So IL is growing faster than Texas, New York, and Georgia (I just pulled states with major hubs), so would you like to revise your thesis at all?

Amazon HQ2 + AUS = 100 DL departures a day

frmrCapCadet wrote:

From a passenger's point of view a hub is a convenient connecting point to the ultimate destination. And most would like to do it with not more than one stop. This has become increasingly possible throughout the US and the world. The improved 320s/737s have increased the odds of doing this. And the C-series and MOMs will do even more.

From an airline point of view a hub is a lot of connecting passengers, crew basing, more ground staff, maybe a spare plane or two (or at least nearby), more maintenance and repair available. This of course ensures that passengers will be better taken care of when things go amiss.

Thanks for that clarity frmrCaPCadet

lifecomm wrote:

Amazon HQ2 + AUS = 100 DL departures a day

The Austin Business Journal reported today that Austin doesn't even rank in the top 25 for likely cities to land HQ2.

rajincajun01 wrote:

lifecomm wrote:

Amazon HQ2 + AUS = 100 DL departures a day

The Austin Business Journal reported today that Austin doesn't even rank in the top 25 for likely cities to land HQ2.

Frankly, I'm not sure any city without a population base of at least 5+ mil in their CSA could handle that scale of project without serious issues. 50,000 jobs is a huge number.

DLHAM wrote:

What about STL? Former TWA Hub, capacity is definitely there, also some room for expansion according to Google Maps. Just not located perfectly for TATL flying.

Considering AA is closing the STL pilot base, that doesn't seem likely.

Midwestindy wrote:

If you scroll up someone asked me a similar question, and I responded by saying I don't think it will happen, however, it is more likely that DL will hub RDU than the US3 opening a new hub anywhere else.

Also, I don't know if you have been following SY lately, but they have been very vocal about their intentions to expand their network outside of MSP.

I did miss that part of the discussion (which is why these discussion boards can be such a pain in the rear), so that's my bad. As for SY, they've certainly grabbed a lot of college football charter work this season, so at least that's been keeping their fleet and crews active. But, I am curious as to where SY would expand past MSP hub. Would they be thinking of an airport like MKE, CLE or a similar sized airport somewhere else in the Midwest?

AKN will be the next US global hub for the combined AS-UA-DL-B6-AA-F9-NK airline within the next decade.

On to next subject: Which non-TATL market will see service next?

rajincajun01 wrote:

lifecomm wrote:

Amazon HQ2 + AUS = 100 DL departures a day

The Austin Business Journal reported today that Austin doesn't even rank in the top 25 for likely cities to land HQ2.

The Austin Business Journal was merely reporting what some idiot research company, Reis Inc., said. Their top three choices were: New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. Where is said idiot research company located? New York. Also, the Austin Business Journal reported three weeks ago that Austin was the number one choice according to Moody Analytics. If Amazon chooses one of Reis' picks - they're idiots, too.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

If you scroll up someone asked me a similar question, and I responded by saying I don't think it will happen, however, it is more likely that DL will hub RDU than the US3 opening a new hub anywhere else.

Also, I don't know if you have been following SY lately, but they have been very vocal about their intentions to expand their network outside of MSP.

I did miss that part of the discussion (which is why these discussion boards can be such a pain in the rear), so that's my bad. As for SY, they've certainly grabbed a lot of college football charter work this season, so at least that's been keeping their fleet and crews active. But, I am curious as to where SY would expand past MSP hub. Would they be thinking of an airport like MKE, CLE or a similar sized airport somewhere else in the Midwest?

MKE, IND, CVG, Chicago have been mentioned, as well as additional flying from NE-Florida and LAX

RDUDDJI wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

lifecomm wrote:

Amazon HQ2 + AUS = 100 DL departures a day

The Austin Business Journal reported today that Austin doesn't even rank in the top 25 for likely cities to land HQ2.

Frankly, I'm not sure any city without a population base of at least 5+ mil in their CSA could handle that scale of project without serious issues. 50,000 jobs is a huge number.

I think the 50,000 number is over the course of a few years. But no matter what, Austin could fill 50,000 jobs over a long weekend. Have you ever been to Austin? They grew 18% during the period: 2010-2015.

I will throw Cleveland or PITT to be rehubbed. Why: They have the gates and terminals in place to handle the traffic.

stlgph wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

What about STL? Former TWA Hub, capacity is definitely there, also some room for expansion according to Google Maps. Just not located perfectly for TATL flying.

STL would not work....because....as I said....in this thread.....the legacy carriers have entrenched themselves enough in airports such as STL where a hub operation could not be operated on a feasible scale. You'd have to kick everyone out of C concourse and back into A. Not happening. The D gates are pretty much off line, as is most of the C concourse. The $200-$250 million to bring it all back online...no one is going to be ponying up that cash.

STL is basically a Southwest hub these days anyways. I can't see anyone going in there and trying to compete with them.

There is no room in A it only has 1 gate not in use anymore. So they couldn't kick anyone to A.
They are re opening four more gates in C up in the upcoming months, that won't leave a ton of room left in C but in there would be some gates at the end still not in use.
D is slowing coming back online, due to Southwest, from the E side but I doubt it ever all comes back online. There is no way you would want to run a hub out of just D anyways. If they ever got to the the point they needed those gates they probably just have to do a massive rebuild.

Anyways, that was a long way of saying I don't think STL gets rehubbed by anyone besides Southwest (if southwest would ever call a station a hub).

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

I will throw Cleveland or PITT to be rehubbed. Why: They have the gates and terminals in place to handle the traffic.

Granted, but do the have the O&D numbers to warrant such an increase in air service? I'm thinking probably not; even more so with PIT. Cleveland does have a substantially higher population than Pittsburgh (over 3 million CSA to 2.6 million CSA for PIT).

To a degree, yes where Amazon decides to erect their HQ2 will have an impact. People are so quick to dismiss CLE and PIT given that neither place would seem to handle 50k jobs, but at one point CLE did have a population of almost 1 million. At the height of the steel industry, Pittsburgh had roughly 100k people working just for the steel industry. Should Amazon choose either of these two places, then sure we probably would see some build up (maybe not hub status) for PIT, CLE, IND, or wherever they plan to build. That said, I still see greater DC or Philly as having the best potential. Both of which already have ample airline service...