Some random thoughts about the latest traffic stats:
Aug 2018 Intl LF
MU PIT-PVG: 64%
MU PVG-PIT: 54%
DL PIT-CDG: 65%
DL CDG-PIT: 81%
DE PIT-FRA: 77%
DE FRA-PIT: 89%
Regarding PVG it's important to remember the whole point is a point of sale from the China end, which had an almost 100% load factor for their single one week itinerary that was covered over two round trips and explains the split FL's shown.
Last time I started to look at cargo figures, especially on DE which seemed to gain some momentum. Their momentum continued through Aug and Sept, carrying approximately twice as much cargo per flight as DL's CDG-PIT flight. In fact, on a per flight basis the Condor flight carried more than their FRA-BWI flight, which I found surprising considering how much of a larger cargo operation BWI has. FRA-PIT also carried about the same amount of cargo as DL's CDG-IND/CVG routes per flight, which I also found surprising considering both IND and CVG are much larger logistics centers. On the negative side, DL's CDG-PIT flight carried only about half the cargo as our peer cities, and there was nothing going eastbound to Europe from PIT.
It will be interesting to see how BA does.
Nov 2018: 81%
Dec 2018: 84%
Jan 2019: 95% (1 departure)
Nov 2018: 79%
Dec 2018: 79%
Jan 2019: 91% (1 arrival)
Its already been said before, but WTF F9? They dropped two routes that could have been near 100% LF on an A320 (the other being MCO) and they still could have jacked up fares.
The only thing I will miss from the current Landside terminal is the high arched roofs. Other than that, it's a dark, drab dungeon.
Agreed, the arched ceilings are nice.
Lots of great discussions going on here but back to the terminal. Drab concrete for sure, Plus more aesthetic misfires, but the layout/configuration is really excellent for a hub and I’m surprised it was not duplicated anywhere that I’m aware of. This is why I think the former architect probably brings some credibility in his arguments.
I'm not sure how much he had to do with the physical layout. The midfield "X" design idea goes back to the 1970's.
As far as its duplication, there were a few proposals that never came about, such as a previous MEM master plan:
IND was considering an "X" too but went with something more traditional.
HKG had one planned as their satellite terminal but decided on a traditional linear concourse. I think the problem is the "X" is not as efficient for taxiing as linear concourses perpendicular to runways. There's a lot of extra taxiing at PIT.
There is an "X" satellite being built at Shenzhen however:
There may be a few more planned but for the most part I think we will see more hybrid designs where the landside head house is mated to the "X". JED, AUH, BOM, new MEX, PIT, etc etc.
Feb 2019 numbers are out. Only a 0.8% gain. A gain is a gain I guess; I think some others saw a decline for Feb. The next few months are not gonna be pretty with these WN cuts.http://www.flypittsburgh.com/getattachment/Newsroom/Airport-Statistics/February-2019-Short-E-Mail-Report.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US