chonetsao wrote:

LAX will always be a hub. People needs to remember AA has two JV across the pacific, one with JAL and one with Qantas. LAX is an important getaway for above two airlines. LAX as a hub status with AA is safe even if AA will cut its transpacific flight to HKG, TYO and SYD only from LAX. There are still plenty of partners including JL, QF, CX, AS, CZ and even BA will provide feed in the long haul front and leave the higher yield domestic flight to AA.

PHX is different. It is growing but there is a ceiling to how much growth left in this place. I am not saying the ceiling is there. But with WN in town watching AA all over, it is not hard to see things can get bad before it turns good again in today's climate.

I think PHX will keep what it is now. But the aircraft downgrade may be in the cards. PHX may see mostly A319 and RJs in future with a smaller percentage of A321s. Maybe a regional hub instead of transcontinental hub could be more appropriate. Or a relief hub for DFW and LAX. WHo knows? But I have to say, among all AA hubs, PHX has a weaker case than others, except JFK.

The WN argument made sense before WN decided that DEN was going to be their main East - West connecting complex. A lot of the connections that now flow through DEN used to flow through PHX. WN has ignored PHX for the greater part of the last 15 years or so while it grew DEN (and a lesser extent STL and BNA). WN has finally decided that PHX can support flights to PVR and SJD but that was announced within the first week of the COVID outbreak.

Whether or not AA dehubs or not, I don't see much growth in the WN operation (and that was before COVID). WN simply is focused elsewhere.

If AA were to dehub PHX I could see DL and/or AS setting up a focus city operation there (although I doubt AA would fully dehub so I can see it remaining an AA focus city). The airport administration didn't seem to be under the impression that the hub was in jeopardy because I believe the medium term plan was to move WN to a new West terminal and leave T4 as the AA hub + international gateway.

ucdtim17 wrote:

This is a little contradictory. If they're fighting for survival, everything is on the table, including hubs. If everything is hunky dory, as it was 3 months ago, PHX is safe. Now, no one knows.

If airlines are not flying at the moment, what difference does it make to eliminate a hub or keep it? If this slump goes on longer, and AA cuts PHX, how will that help the carrier in the short term and long term? In the short term, it MAY save the airline a bit of cash (though with demand down on the ground, what cash does it really save it?), but long term, what then? If the slump is over, AA loses a hub that was working just fine; if the slump continues, whereto next? If PHX doesn't allow AA to survive, which hub is next on the chopping block?

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think Phoenix is a unique case. As a recent resident of PHX for 4 years, the economy there was booming. If we take a look at the socioeconomics of the region, I think it’s safe to assume Phoenix only looks better in the eyes of the consumer post-pandemic. The city has low taxes, large swaths of real estate, booming tourism, almost no natural disasters, and high quality of life. And thus far it hasn’t been overwhelmed with COVID cases. Given that the economy functions cyclically, it’s safe to assume PHX will come roaring back. ESPECIALLY because so many Phoenicians are transplants - which means a lot of O&D traffic.

Having watched the airport’s transformation and the slow transition from US to AA liveries in Terminal 4 North, AA has really grown into quite the large operation. It would be shortsighted of them to dehub this market. I echo the sentiments of past posters - this debate has raged on for years and despite the discourse the airline has only continued to grow up until now. Phoenix is a unique sleeping giant.

People oftentimes seem to look at PHX as autonomous of other hubs and don’t see the bigger picture. People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix. If AA loosened their grip, another airline would pounce and it would strengthen theirs. Somebody needs to serve the city’s capacity whether it makes sense or not.

It's interesting to see the differing views of people who have lived or live in Phoenix, vs outsiders. While it is a sizable O&D center(thanks in part to inbound visitors) it does lag behind in terms of business, GDP wise it ranks behind MSP & DTW, and has half the GDP of similar sized metros like SFO & BOS.

LGA is not negotiable, airlines have slots at LGA (and JFK), & once you give them up it is extremely hard/expensive to get them back. UA has realized this since they left JFK.

Furthermore, LA & NYC are the most important air markets in the US, there is no two ways around it. Nearly every major corporation does at least some business in either metro, and thus it is imperative for the US3 to maintain sizable operations in both metros. PHX is not on the same tier as those markets, as it does not serve a large corporate base, and is a seasonal market.

Not that it could ever happen, but geographically speaking, it would almost make sense for DL and AA to swap their SLC and PHX hubs.

And yes, I fully realize practically it makes no sense for DL to give up SLC, given the (assumed) higher profits of the fortress hub and the quality of the soon to be opened brand new terminal. Factor in the long-standing relationships each airline has with their respective hub and frequent flyer bases, and I admit businesswise it could never happen.

That all being said, a PHX hub would fill in much of the Texas hole for DL, could still be used as a Mountain-west connection for cities south of I-80, and would leave MSP and SEA to to connect the Mountain-west north of I-80, depending on which direction the pax is going.

The more northern geography of SLC would allow better mountain-west connections for AA as well, as much of the redundancy in the DFW/LAX overlap with PHX would go away. It would never happen, but if there were ever two cities to be swapped as hubs, SLC and PHX make a lot of geographic sense, even if it doesn’t make business sense.

Midwestindy wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think Phoenix is a unique case. As a recent resident of PHX for 4 years, the economy there was booming. If we take a look at the socioeconomics of the region, I think it’s safe to assume Phoenix only looks better in the eyes of the consumer post-pandemic. The city has low taxes, large swaths of real estate, booming tourism, almost no natural disasters, and high quality of life. And thus far it hasn’t been overwhelmed with COVID cases. Given that the economy functions cyclically, it’s safe to assume PHX will come roaring back. ESPECIALLY because so many Phoenicians are transplants - which means a lot of O&D traffic.

Having watched the airport’s transformation and the slow transition from US to AA liveries in Terminal 4 North, AA has really grown into quite the large operation. It would be shortsighted of them to dehub this market. I echo the sentiments of past posters - this debate has raged on for years and despite the discourse the airline has only continued to grow up until now. Phoenix is a unique sleeping giant.

People oftentimes seem to look at PHX as autonomous of other hubs and don’t see the bigger picture. People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix. If AA loosened their grip, another airline would pounce and it would strengthen theirs. Somebody needs to serve the city’s capacity whether it makes sense or not.

It's interesting to see the differing views of people who have lived or live in Phoenix, vs outsiders. While it is a sizable O&D center(thanks in part to inbound visitors) it does lag behind in terms of business, GDP wise it ranks behind MSP & DTW, and has half the GDP of similar sized metros like SFO & BOS.

LGA is not negotiable, airlines have slots at LGA (and JFK), & once you give them up it is extremely hard/expensive to get them back. UA has realized this since they left JFK.

Furthermore, LA & NYC are the most important air markets in the US, there is no two ways around it. Nearly every major corporation does at least some business in either metro, and thus it is imperative for the US3 to maintain sizable operations in both metros. PHX is not on the same tier as those markets, as it does not serve a large corporate base, and is a seasonal market.

Your comparison of GDP to SFO & BOS (Tech & Health centers) is a bit off though as PHX is not the center of a specific industry (other than snowbirds). DEN, SAN and MSP are good comparisons though and PHX is only $10B dollars behind MSP while being $8B ahead of SAN and about $34B ahead of DEN. PHX population wise is bigger, but a larger number of those are retirees so it would make sense that it's production would lag slightly behind.

For contrast, the GDP of PHX is more than twice that of LAS and is about the same as AUS and SAT combined (populations of the combined areas are similar too).

Arizona as a state actually has lower counts of the virus than expected. I would think PHX would rebound as far as traffic goes perhaps quicker than LAX. AA should want to keep a hub there for refuge over the mess that is happening in CA right now.

As a relatively new resident to Austin, TX: Phoenix could be my backup since we have an office there and it make sense to drop in there once my lease is up in July since it's on the way home to CA (and I was planning on heading back there anyway but won't if the virus doesn't clear out.) However, Travis County here in Texas turns out to also have lower than expected counts of the virus so I think I'm also safe out here (just released county by county virus counts late last week.)

alasizon wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think Phoenix is a unique case. As a recent resident of PHX for 4 years, the economy there was booming. If we take a look at the socioeconomics of the region, I think it’s safe to assume Phoenix only looks better in the eyes of the consumer post-pandemic. The city has low taxes, large swaths of real estate, booming tourism, almost no natural disasters, and high quality of life. And thus far it hasn’t been overwhelmed with COVID cases. Given that the economy functions cyclically, it’s safe to assume PHX will come roaring back. ESPECIALLY because so many Phoenicians are transplants - which means a lot of O&D traffic.

Having watched the airport’s transformation and the slow transition from US to AA liveries in Terminal 4 North, AA has really grown into quite the large operation. It would be shortsighted of them to dehub this market. I echo the sentiments of past posters - this debate has raged on for years and despite the discourse the airline has only continued to grow up until now. Phoenix is a unique sleeping giant.

People oftentimes seem to look at PHX as autonomous of other hubs and don’t see the bigger picture. People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix. If AA loosened their grip, another airline would pounce and it would strengthen theirs. Somebody needs to serve the city’s capacity whether it makes sense or not.

It's interesting to see the differing views of people who have lived or live in Phoenix, vs outsiders. While it is a sizable O&D center(thanks in part to inbound visitors) it does lag behind in terms of business, GDP wise it ranks behind MSP & DTW, and has half the GDP of similar sized metros like SFO & BOS.

LGA is not negotiable, airlines have slots at LGA (and JFK), & once you give them up it is extremely hard/expensive to get them back. UA has realized this since they left JFK.

Furthermore, LA & NYC are the most important air markets in the US, there is no two ways around it. Nearly every major corporation does at least some business in either metro, and thus it is imperative for the US3 to maintain sizable operations in both metros. PHX is not on the same tier as those markets, as it does not serve a large corporate base, and is a seasonal market.

Your comparison of GDP to SFO & BOS (Tech & Health centers) is a bit off though as PHX is not the center of a specific industry (other than snowbirds). DEN, SAN and MSP are good comparisons though and PHX is only $10B dollars behind MSP while being $8B ahead of SAN and about $34B ahead of DEN. PHX population wise is bigger, but a larger number of those are retirees so it would make sense that it's production would lag slightly behind.

For contrast, the GDP of PHX is more than twice that of LAS and is about the same as AUS and SAT combined (populations of the combined areas are similar too).

Thanks for expanding!

I think you’ve highlighted something with some of the airports you’ve mentioned. Because of constraints at all the west coast airports, PHX plays a great role in being the connector eastbound. SFO, LAS, SAN come to mind. Time and time again AA FF’s say how much they prefer connecting via PHX rather than LAX. Plus, if you look at destinations served, a large portion of LAX traffic is to Mexico, Hawaii, and to other core hubs. PHX connects everyone in the southwest to almost each and every metropolitan eastbound destination. There’s no room for that at LAX. And no flight connecting to Phoenix from LAS, SAN, SFO, LAX is more than an additional 90ish minutes or so.

And they don’t really have to cut back much international travel either because it was just budding. So that helps PHX’s case too.

Last thing I’ll tack on here: PHX is a great feeder for a lot of the inland empire, BUR, and coastal cities in Southern California like SBA albeit seasonally. It really gives AA the vast expanse of the west coast while sitting comfortably in a mild, delay-free (but hot!) climate.

PHXWRLD wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Anyone want to speculate if AA will keep PHX as hub during this downturn? It's only my opinion, but it seems PHX's connecting traffic could easily be handled over LAX and DFW. I would love to hear what others think (as long as you're civil about it!).

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

alasizon wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think Phoenix is a unique case. As a recent resident of PHX for 4 years, the economy there was booming. If we take a look at the socioeconomics of the region, I think it’s safe to assume Phoenix only looks better in the eyes of the consumer post-pandemic. The city has low taxes, large swaths of real estate, booming tourism, almost no natural disasters, and high quality of life. And thus far it hasn’t been overwhelmed with COVID cases. Given that the economy functions cyclically, it’s safe to assume PHX will come roaring back. ESPECIALLY because so many Phoenicians are transplants - which means a lot of O&D traffic.

Having watched the airport’s transformation and the slow transition from US to AA liveries in Terminal 4 North, AA has really grown into quite the large operation. It would be shortsighted of them to dehub this market. I echo the sentiments of past posters - this debate has raged on for years and despite the discourse the airline has only continued to grow up until now. Phoenix is a unique sleeping giant.

People oftentimes seem to look at PHX as autonomous of other hubs and don’t see the bigger picture. People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix. If AA loosened their grip, another airline would pounce and it would strengthen theirs. Somebody needs to serve the city’s capacity whether it makes sense or not.

It's interesting to see the differing views of people who have lived or live in Phoenix, vs outsiders. While it is a sizable O&D center(thanks in part to inbound visitors) it does lag behind in terms of business, GDP wise it ranks behind MSP & DTW, and has half the GDP of similar sized metros like SFO & BOS.

LGA is not negotiable, airlines have slots at LGA (and JFK), & once you give them up it is extremely hard/expensive to get them back. UA has realized this since they left JFK.

Furthermore, LA & NYC are the most important air markets in the US, there is no two ways around it. Nearly every major corporation does at least some business in either metro, and thus it is imperative for the US3 to maintain sizable operations in both metros. PHX is not on the same tier as those markets, as it does not serve a large corporate base, and is a seasonal market.

Your comparison of GDP to SFO & BOS (Tech & Health centers) is a bit off though as PHX is not the center of a specific industry (other than snowbirds). DEN, SAN and MSP are good comparisons though and PHX is only $10B dollars behind MSP while being $8B ahead of SAN and about $34B ahead of DEN. PHX population wise is bigger, but a larger number of those are retirees so it would make sense that it's production would lag slightly behind.

For contrast, the GDP of PHX is more than twice that of LAS and is about the same as AUS and SAT combined (populations of the combined areas are similar too).

I'm confused what you are trying to say, if you are arguing that the number of retirees brings down the economic output number, then you are essentially arguing it is a less valuable market....especially considering AA splits it with WN. A market you mentioned as a peer, MSP, is essentially a monopoly market

I was responding to this comment initially: "People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix."

What you are saying I think explains why PHX is often not viewed as vital of a hub to AA's network, while PHX is a large area (similar to BOS or SF) its traffic relative to its size is small. Business activity in the area also lags behind similar markets due to population make up, & while it may be larger economically than DEN, DEN is ideally suited for connecting traffic for UA.

I am excluding LAS, SAN, & AUS/SAT as those aren't hubs for the US3, and as a result the hub strategy/network is much different

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think you’ve highlighted something with some of the airports you’ve mentioned. Because of constraints at all the west coast airports, PHX plays a great role in being the connector eastbound. SFO, LAS, SAN come to mind. Time and time again AA FF’s say how much they prefer connecting via PHX rather than LAX. Plus, if you look at destinations served, a large portion of LAX traffic is to Mexico, Hawaii, and to other core hubs. PHX connects everyone in the southwest to almost each and every metropolitan eastbound destination. There’s no room for that at LAX. And no flight connecting to Phoenix from LAS, SAN, SFO, LAX is more than an additional 90ish minutes or so.

And they don’t really have to cut back much international travel either because it was just budding. So that helps PHX’s case too.

Last thing I’ll tack on here: PHX is a great feeder for a lot of the inland empire, BUR, and coastal cities in Southern California like SBA albeit seasonally. It really gives AA the vast expanse of the west coast while sitting comfortably in a mild, delay-free (but hot!) climate.

What significant westbound flows cannot be served through DFW/LAX from SFO that can be from PHX? I went through the connection data to be sure, and of the top 30 markets AA connected through Phoenix from SFO, only 5 were west of Dallas, and of those 5 only FLG didn't have service to LAX on AA.

Same thing holds true for BUR, most traffic departing BUR is terminating east of DFW.

With the new AS partnership those customers in SFO, SAN, e.t.c can fly nonstop to most major western destinations, and anything east could theoretically be connected in DFW or LAX.

Midwestindy wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

It's interesting to see the differing views of people who have lived or live in Phoenix, vs outsiders. While it is a sizable O&D center(thanks in part to inbound visitors) it does lag behind in terms of business, GDP wise it ranks behind MSP & DTW, and has half the GDP of similar sized metros like SFO & BOS.

LGA is not negotiable, airlines have slots at LGA (and JFK), & once you give them up it is extremely hard/expensive to get them back. UA has realized this since they left JFK.

Furthermore, LA & NYC are the most important air markets in the US, there is no two ways around it. Nearly every major corporation does at least some business in either metro, and thus it is imperative for the US3 to maintain sizable operations in both metros. PHX is not on the same tier as those markets, as it does not serve a large corporate base, and is a seasonal market.

Your comparison of GDP to SFO & BOS (Tech & Health centers) is a bit off though as PHX is not the center of a specific industry (other than snowbirds). DEN, SAN and MSP are good comparisons though and PHX is only $10B dollars behind MSP while being $8B ahead of SAN and about $34B ahead of DEN. PHX population wise is bigger, but a larger number of those are retirees so it would make sense that it's production would lag slightly behind.

For contrast, the GDP of PHX is more than twice that of LAS and is about the same as AUS and SAT combined (populations of the combined areas are similar too).

I'm confused what you are trying to say, if you are arguing that the number of retirees brings down the economic output number, then you are essentially arguing it is a less valuable market....especially considering AA splits it with WN. A market you mentioned as a peer, MSP, is essentially a monopoly market

I was responding to this comment initially: "People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix."

What you are saying I think explains why PHX is often not viewed as vital of a hub to AA's network, while PHX is a large area (similar to BOS or SF) its traffic relative to its size is small. Business activity in the area also lags behind similar markets due to population make up, & while it may be larger economically than DEN, DEN is ideally suited for connecting traffic for UA.

I am excluding LAS, SAN, & AUS/SAT as those aren't hubs for the US3, and as a result the hub strategy/network is much different

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think you’ve highlighted something with some of the airports you’ve mentioned. Because of constraints at all the west coast airports, PHX plays a great role in being the connector eastbound. SFO, LAS, SAN come to mind. Time and time again AA FF’s say how much they prefer connecting via PHX rather than LAX. Plus, if you look at destinations served, a large portion of LAX traffic is to Mexico, Hawaii, and to other core hubs. PHX connects everyone in the southwest to almost each and every metropolitan eastbound destination. There’s no room for that at LAX. And no flight connecting to Phoenix from LAS, SAN, SFO, LAX is more than an additional 90ish minutes or so.

And they don’t really have to cut back much international travel either because it was just budding. So that helps PHX’s case too.

Last thing I’ll tack on here: PHX is a great feeder for a lot of the inland empire, BUR, and coastal cities in Southern California like SBA albeit seasonally. It really gives AA the vast expanse of the west coast while sitting comfortably in a mild, delay-free (but hot!) climate.

What significant westbound flows cannot be served through DFW/LAX from SFO that can be from PHX? I went through the connection data to be sure, and of the top 30 markets AA connected through Phoenix from SFO, only 5 were west of Dallas, and of those 5 only FLG didn't have service to LAX on AA.

Same thing holds true for BUR, most traffic departing BUR is terminating east of DFW.

With the new AS partnership those customers in SFO, SAN, e.t.c can fly nonstop to most major western destinations, and anything east could theoretically be connected in DFW or LAX.

All good points. Ultimately, I just want to shed light on the fact that Phoenix is not some limping creature that many other A.netters paint it to be. Even though it ranks in the middle of the pack, nearly 10% profit is nothing to wag a finger at. Not saying you did, but just in general. And that's with WN on the other side of the terminal, too.

Bottom line I just don't see AA retreating. If they can weather this crisis PHX will keep humming along just fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

kavok wrote:

Not that it could ever happen, but geographically speaking, it would almost make sense for DL and AA to swap their SLC and PHX hubs.

And yes, I fully realize practically it makes no sense for DL to give up SLC, given the (assumed) higher profits of the fortress hub and the quality of the soon to be opened brand new terminal. Factor in the long-standing relationships each airline has with their respective hub and frequent flyer bases, and I admit businesswise it could never happen.

That all being said, a PHX hub would fill in much of the Texas hole for DL, could still be used as a Mountain-west connection for cities south of I-80, and would leave MSP and SEA to to connect the Mountain-west north of I-80, depending on which direction the pax is going.

The more northern geography of SLC would allow better mountain-west connections for AA as well, as much of the redundancy in the DFW/LAX overlap with PHX would go away. It would never happen, but if there were ever two cities to be swapped as hubs, SLC and PHX make a lot of geographic sense, even if it doesn’t make business sense.

Not taking into account that I assume SLC is more profitable for DL than PHX is for AA, just from an operational stand point, I think your argument make sense; however I don't see it coming to fruition.

Anyone have a bad engagement with Jon NYC here? I was having a convo on one of his posts with another pilot (about the future fleet types and speculation). That was when I received a DM From Jon saying to “**** Off” and was almost instantaneously blocked.

Somewhat off topic, but I’m afraid Doug Parker will do something stupid throughout this corona ordeal. People give AA a hard time, but with better management, I think they would overtake DL in terms of being the “best” of the big 3.

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Anyone want to speculate if AA will keep PHX as hub during this downturn? It's only my opinion, but it seems PHX's connecting traffic could easily be handled over LAX and DFW. I would love to hear what others think (as long as you're civil about it!).

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

I think you would have to be in PHX in February where hoards of people from ORD, MSP, or OMA are flying in and so happy they escaped the cold. There are tons of Snowbirds in PHX from the Midwest plus you have Scottsdale which is a huge clubbing destination. That and PHX proper is the 6th largest city in America behind PHL.

bfitzflyer wrote:

If covid continues any but the largest hubs will be at risk, so for AA that mean anything outside of DFW, CLT and PHL could be at risk. For DL that means anything outside of ATL, DTW and MSP and for UA ,anything outside of SFO, DEN, ORD and EWR could be at risk.

IAH is at risk? I would think they'll recover from the virus quickly because of the heat. DEN is going to be interesting because the virus is slowing there but demand has fallen off sharply as the mountains are closed.

I would think EWR with all of it's necessary TATL flying is the most at risk of being downsized and the fact the virus is spreading up there like a brush fire. IAD could be a key market for TATL once things get back into place over EWR. My family is up there and it sounds like absolute hell.

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

xcltflyboy wrote:

Anyone want to speculate if AA will keep PHX as hub during this downturn? It's only my opinion, but it seems PHX's connecting traffic could easily be handled over LAX and DFW. I would love to hear what others think (as long as you're civil about it!).

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

What is difficult about that? Your combative attitude is not appreciated.

N649DL wrote:

I think you would have to be in PHX in February where hoards of people from ORD, MSP, or OMA are flying in and so happy they escaped the cold. There are tons of Snowbirds in PHX from the Midwest plus you have Scottsdale which is a huge clubbing destination. That and PHX proper is the 6th largest city in America behind PHL.

PHX is now the 5th largest city as of 2016 (not MSA or CSA)

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Your comparison of GDP to SFO & BOS (Tech & Health centers) is a bit off though as PHX is not the center of a specific industry (other than snowbirds). DEN, SAN and MSP are good comparisons though and PHX is only $10B dollars behind MSP while being $8B ahead of SAN and about $34B ahead of DEN. PHX population wise is bigger, but a larger number of those are retirees so it would make sense that it's production would lag slightly behind.

For contrast, the GDP of PHX is more than twice that of LAS and is about the same as AUS and SAT combined (populations of the combined areas are similar too).

I'm confused what you are trying to say, if you are arguing that the number of retirees brings down the economic output number, then you are essentially arguing it is a less valuable market....especially considering AA splits it with WN. A market you mentioned as a peer, MSP, is essentially a monopoly market

I was responding to this comment initially: "People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix."

What you are saying I think explains why PHX is often not viewed as vital of a hub to AA's network, while PHX is a large area (similar to BOS or SF) its traffic relative to its size is small. Business activity in the area also lags behind similar markets due to population make up, & while it may be larger economically than DEN, DEN is ideally suited for connecting traffic for UA.

I am excluding LAS, SAN, & AUS/SAT as those aren't hubs for the US3, and as a result the hub strategy/network is much different

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I think you’ve highlighted something with some of the airports you’ve mentioned. Because of constraints at all the west coast airports, PHX plays a great role in being the connector eastbound. SFO, LAS, SAN come to mind. Time and time again AA FF’s say how much they prefer connecting via PHX rather than LAX. Plus, if you look at destinations served, a large portion of LAX traffic is to Mexico, Hawaii, and to other core hubs. PHX connects everyone in the southwest to almost each and every metropolitan eastbound destination. There’s no room for that at LAX. And no flight connecting to Phoenix from LAS, SAN, SFO, LAX is more than an additional 90ish minutes or so.

And they don’t really have to cut back much international travel either because it was just budding. So that helps PHX’s case too.

Last thing I’ll tack on here: PHX is a great feeder for a lot of the inland empire, BUR, and coastal cities in Southern California like SBA albeit seasonally. It really gives AA the vast expanse of the west coast while sitting comfortably in a mild, delay-free (but hot!) climate.

What significant westbound flows cannot be served through DFW/LAX from SFO that can be from PHX? I went through the connection data to be sure, and of the top 30 markets AA connected through Phoenix from SFO, only 5 were west of Dallas, and of those 5 only FLG didn't have service to LAX on AA.

Same thing holds true for BUR, most traffic departing BUR is terminating east of DFW.

With the new AS partnership those customers in SFO, SAN, e.t.c can fly nonstop to most major western destinations, and anything east could theoretically be connected in DFW or LAX.

All good points. Ultimately, I just want to shed light on the fact that Phoenix is not some limping creature that many other A.netters paint it to be. Even though it ranks in the middle of the pack, nearly 10% profit is nothing to wag a finger at. Not saying you did, but just in general. And that's with WN on the other side of the terminal, too.

Bottom line I just don't see AA retreating. If they can weather this crisis PHX will keep humming along just fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I think that's fair, I'd also point out that during the winter time Phoenix is a solid asset to have, as its one of the few areas outside of Florida that peak during the winter when many airlines have little demand elsewhere.

N649DL wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

I think you would have to be in PHX in February where hoards of people from ORD, MSP, or OMA are flying in and so happy they escaped the cold. There are tons of Snowbirds in PHX from the Midwest plus you have Scottsdale which is a huge clubbing destination. That and PHX proper is the 6th largest city in America behind PHL.

Looked it up, looks like Arizona is 8th in the country for tourism by state pre-COVID based on this one ranking, though it's behind Virginia/South Carolina which are more drive-orientated.

BA744PHX wrote:

N649DL wrote:

I think you would have to be in PHX in February where hoards of people from ORD, MSP, or OMA are flying in and so happy they escaped the cold. There are tons of Snowbirds in PHX from the Midwest plus you have Scottsdale which is a huge clubbing destination. That and PHX proper is the 6th largest city in America behind PHL.

PHX is now the 5th largest city as of 2016 (not MSA or CSA)

Whoa, I just checked and that's indeed correct. It was 6th only last year.

Now I kind of wonder when Houston will overtake Chicago at this point.

PHXWRLD wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

What is difficult about that? Your combative attitude is not appreciated.

You really might want to do some research before you post.

https://www.bestchoicereviews.org/trave ... cities-us/

PHX is not in the top ten even., it’s 22nd.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Anyone have a bad engagement with Jon NYC here? I was having a convo on one of his posts with another pilot (about the future fleet types and speculation). That was when I received a DM From Jon saying to “**** Off” and was almost instantaneously blocked.

If you call him out and prove him wrong, he will block you.

This has been questioned for ever back to the days of America West.

If anything, PHX has a significantly more O/D traffic. Even if they just run as a rolling hub, there will be opportunities for connecting traffic.

PHXWRLD wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

What is difficult about that? Your combative attitude is not appreciated.

Your lack of knowledge and know it all attitude is not appreciated.

Get your facts right. PHX is not one of AA's most profitable hubs. As a recent retiree from AA Headquarters, I did accounting for them. I cannot give you profit details of course. However, CLT, DFW, DCA, ORD, PHL are all more profitable than PHX. PHX makes a respectable amount of money. It is the 6th largest hub and the traffic is not very high yielding. The most you will likely see as far as Asia and Europe go from PHX is LHR and hopefully later probably Tokyo someday.

Midwestindy wrote:

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I'm confused what you are trying to say, if you are arguing that the number of retirees brings down the economic output number, then you are essentially arguing it is a less valuable market....especially considering AA splits it with WN. A market you mentioned as a peer, MSP, is essentially a monopoly market

I was responding to this comment initially: "People argue about the importance of remaining at airports like LGA and LAX despite its lack of profitability because it paints a bigger picture of the airline’s entire network. Why is Phoenix never viewed the same way? The capacity is there in Phoenix."

What you are saying I think explains why PHX is often not viewed as vital of a hub to AA's network, while PHX is a large area (similar to BOS or SF) its traffic relative to its size is small. Business activity in the area also lags behind similar markets due to population make up, & while it may be larger economically than DEN, DEN is ideally suited for connecting traffic for UA.

I am excluding LAS, SAN, & AUS/SAT as those aren't hubs for the US3, and as a result the hub strategy/network is much different



What significant westbound flows cannot be served through DFW/LAX from SFO that can be from PHX? I went through the connection data to be sure, and of the top 30 markets AA connected through Phoenix from SFO, only 5 were west of Dallas, and of those 5 only FLG didn't have service to LAX on AA.

Same thing holds true for BUR, most traffic departing BUR is terminating east of DFW.

With the new AS partnership those customers in SFO, SAN, e.t.c can fly nonstop to most major western destinations, and anything east could theoretically be connected in DFW or LAX.

All good points. Ultimately, I just want to shed light on the fact that Phoenix is not some limping creature that many other A.netters paint it to be. Even though it ranks in the middle of the pack, nearly 10% profit is nothing to wag a finger at. Not saying you did, but just in general. And that's with WN on the other side of the terminal, too.

Bottom line I just don't see AA retreating. If they can weather this crisis PHX will keep humming along just fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I think that's fair, I'd also point out that during the winter time Phoenix is a solid asset to have, as its one of the few areas outside of Florida that peak during the winter when many airlines have little demand elsewhere.

Not to mention, March is a huge month for PHX with half of the MLB in town for Spring Training. Trying to travel into Phoenix during that month always ends up costing more.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

A.net sure has gone downhill over the years. :-I

[Insert obligatory "Who's going to buy B6" joke here - I swear "AA de-hubbing PHX" has to be the second most annoying recurring thread on A.net from what I've seen.]

No, PHX will not be dehubbed. It may not be the highest yielding market but it huge. Why give up a hub in a large economy with a large O&D base?

None of the hubs are going to be dehubbed from this. All will lose capacity.

I guess the question is probably going to be who gets the worst capacity cuts. PHX might fare better than we think, oddly enough, because of the lack of international traffic compared to LAX or, for that matter, DFW. PHX makes more sense as a connecting domestic hub from the West Coast than LAX, though as has been noted, O&D traffic certainly doesn't hurt PHX's argument. It will, however, be interesting to see how any changes to WN's PHX "focus hub city" ops impacts AA, if at all.

Okay so Phoenix is a big tourist and leisure destination but keep in mind that most of the visitors are snowbirds from other states and Canada and they are seasonal visitors for the most part. Unlike SFO, LAX, MIA...etc Phoenix does not have the attractions that draw visitors from overseas.

I have been to Phoenix a few times and I have been unimpressed to say the least.

Boof02671 wrote:

You really might want to do some research before you post.

https://www.bestchoicereviews.org/trave ... cities-us/

PHX is not in the top ten even., it’s 22nd.

I'm pleasantly surprised PHL is the 7th most visited city.

Anyway to go back on topic I doubt PHX will dehubbed. Just downsized like every other city.

cranky flier has a blog entry up on this.
https://crankyflier.com/2020/03/31/amer ... er-return/

AA is going to come out a lot smaller at LAX imo

PHXWRLD wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

What is difficult about that? Your combative attitude is not appreciated.

It's difficult because it's not true.

[url][/url]

tphuang wrote:

cranky flier has a blog entry up on this.
https://crankyflier.com/2020/03/31/amer ... er-return/

AA is going to come out a lot smaller at LAX imo

Walking away from being the largest carrier at LAX without any other west coast presence sounds like a terrible idea, unless they have some grand plan at SEA/PDX in mind with AS.

onwFan wrote:

[url][/url]

tphuang wrote:

cranky flier has a blog entry up on this.
https://crankyflier.com/2020/03/31/amer ... er-return/

AA is going to come out a lot smaller at LAX imo

Walking away from being the largest carrier at LAX without any other west coast presence sounds like a terrible idea, unless they have some grand plan at SEA/PDX in mind with AS.

I think it has to be the partnership with AS or maybe they will attempt a merger with AS down the road.

NY/LAX have always been huge drains on AA resources. Coming out of this, they need money more than anyone else to make payments on all those new aircraft at a time when margins are going to be down for everyone. They are going to focus on building DFW/CLT/DCA, so those are not downsizing. Their weakest hubs will suffer and those are JFK/LGA/LAX. Do I see them use all their slots at LGA coming out of this? Not really. All the other hubs are going to be somewhere in between.

tphuang wrote:

onwFan wrote:

[url][/url]

tphuang wrote:

cranky flier has a blog entry up on this.
https://crankyflier.com/2020/03/31/amer ... er-return/

AA is going to come out a lot smaller at LAX imo

Walking away from being the largest carrier at LAX without any other west coast presence sounds like a terrible idea, unless they have some grand plan at SEA/PDX in mind with AS.

I think it has to be the partnership with AS or maybe they will attempt a merger with AS down the road.

NY/LAX have always been huge drains on AA resources. Coming out of this, they need money more than anyone else to make payments on all those new aircraft at a time when margins are going to be down for everyone. They are going to focus on building DFW/CLT/DCA, so those are not downsizing. Their weakest hubs will suffer and those are JFK/LGA/LAX. Do I see them use all their slots at LGA coming out of this? Not really. All the other hubs are going to be somewhere in between.

Only new deliveries have to have buying expenses. AA has already deferred 737Ms and A321neo. Newer planes are more fuel efficient and less maintenance costs. And DL has many planes in order, as does WN and UA. AA is ahead of the curve by having the majority of the fleet newer and paid for. And even before the pandemic AA was reducing CAPEX expenses.

Boof02671 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

onwFan wrote:

[url][/url]
Walking away from being the largest carrier at LAX without any other west coast presence sounds like a terrible idea, unless they have some grand plan at SEA/PDX in mind with AS.

I think it has to be the partnership with AS or maybe they will attempt a merger with AS down the road.

NY/LAX have always been huge drains on AA resources. Coming out of this, they need money more than anyone else to make payments on all those new aircraft at a time when margins are going to be down for everyone. They are going to focus on building DFW/CLT/DCA, so those are not downsizing. Their weakest hubs will suffer and those are JFK/LGA/LAX. Do I see them use all their slots at LGA coming out of this? Not really. All the other hubs are going to be somewhere in between.

Only new deliveries have to have buying expenses. AA has already deferred 737Ms and A321neo. Newer planes are more fuel efficient and less maintenance costs. And DL has many planes in order, as does WN and UA. AA is ahead of the curve by having the majority of the fleet newer and paid for. And even before the pandemic AA was reducing CAPEX expenses.

that doesn't change the fact that interest payment on borrowed money for AA is higher than anyone else. I assume a lot of the new deliveries for everyone will be deferred. Who is really going to be growing coming out of this?

And if everyone is basically struggling for cash out of this, the airline that has the highest fixed cost (AA) will be the one that has to make the most painful cuts.

N649DL wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. PHX is also one of AA's most profitable hubs. Cutting PHX would be a terrible idea, even if a recession comes. However, Doug may choose to make the wrong decision, but he will be fired soon hopefully and somebody who understands PHX's potential will replace him.

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

I think you would have to be in PHX in February where hoards of people from ORD, MSP, or OMA are flying in and so happy they escaped the cold. There are tons of Snowbirds in PHX from the Midwest plus you have Scottsdale which is a huge clubbing destination. That and PHX proper is the 6th largest city in America behind PHL.

bfitzflyer wrote:

If covid continues any but the largest hubs will be at risk, so for AA that mean anything outside of DFW, CLT and PHL could be at risk. For DL that means anything outside of ATL, DTW and MSP and for UA ,anything outside of SFO, DEN, ORD and EWR could be at risk.

IAH is at risk? I would think they'll recover from the virus quickly because of the heat. DEN is going to be interesting because the virus is slowing there but demand has fallen off sharply as the mountains are closed.

I would think EWR with all of it's necessary TATL flying is the most at risk of being downsized and the fact the virus is spreading up there like a brush fire. IAD could be a key market for TATL once things get back into place over EWR. My family is up there and it sounds like absolute hell.

Yeah, there is no way IAH is at risk. Its the end all be all of their Latin America network. To give up on IAH is to give up on that entire region which isnt happening.

tphuang wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think it has to be the partnership with AS or maybe they will attempt a merger with AS down the road.

NY/LAX have always been huge drains on AA resources. Coming out of this, they need money more than anyone else to make payments on all those new aircraft at a time when margins are going to be down for everyone. They are going to focus on building DFW/CLT/DCA, so those are not downsizing. Their weakest hubs will suffer and those are JFK/LGA/LAX. Do I see them use all their slots at LGA coming out of this? Not really. All the other hubs are going to be somewhere in between.

Only new deliveries have to have buying expenses. AA has already deferred 737Ms and A321neo. Newer planes are more fuel efficient and less maintenance costs. And DL has many planes in order, as does WN and UA. AA is ahead of the curve by having the majority of the fleet newer and paid for. And even before the pandemic AA was reducing CAPEX expenses.

that doesn't change the fact that interest payment on borrowed money for AA is higher than anyone else. I assume a lot of the new deliveries for everyone will be deferred. Who is really going to be growing coming out of this?

And if everyone is basically struggling for cash out of this, the airline that has the highest fixed cost (AA) will be the one that has to make the most painful cuts.

AA’s interest on debt is very low rates, they’ve refinanced it. Every airline has lease, Pre delivery and delivery and EETC payments on planes, not just AA

And yet Doug island Robert are saying the exact opposite of you. They feel with the additional cash, the grants and loans they will be just fine, unlike UA, DL and WN who are saying otherwise.

Boof02671 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Only new deliveries have to have buying expenses. AA has already deferred 737Ms and A321neo. Newer planes are more fuel efficient and less maintenance costs. And DL has many planes in order, as does WN and UA. AA is ahead of the curve by having the majority of the fleet newer and paid for. And even before the pandemic AA was reducing CAPEX expenses.

that doesn't change the fact that interest payment on borrowed money for AA is higher than anyone else. I assume a lot of the new deliveries for everyone will be deferred. Who is really going to be growing coming out of this?

And if everyone is basically struggling for cash out of this, the airline that has the highest fixed cost (AA) will be the one that has to make the most painful cuts.

AA’s interest on debt is very low rates, they’ve refinanced it. Every airline has lease, Pre delivery and delivery and EETC payments on planes, not just AA

And yet Doug island Robert are saying the exact opposite of you. They feel with the additional cash, the grants and loans they will be just fine, unlike UA, DL and WN who are saying otherwise.

AA has higher fixed cost than any other airline. It also has higher interest payment than everyone else. That's on the earning statements.

What do you expect them to tell investors? We are screwed? This is about what happens a year for now. When every airline is dealing with a lower margin environment and AA has the highest fixed cost/interest payment, what do they need to do to stay afloat as everyone is low on cash.

tphuang wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

that doesn't change the fact that interest payment on borrowed money for AA is higher than anyone else. I assume a lot of the new deliveries for everyone will be deferred. Who is really going to be growing coming out of this?

And if everyone is basically struggling for cash out of this, the airline that has the highest fixed cost (AA) will be the one that has to make the most painful cuts.

AA’s interest on debt is very low rates, they’ve refinanced it. Every airline has lease, Pre delivery and delivery and EETC payments on planes, not just AA

And yet Doug island Robert are saying the exact opposite of you. They feel with the additional cash, the grants and loans they will be just fine, unlike UA, DL and WN who are saying otherwise.

AA has higher fixed cost than any other airline. It also has higher interest payment than everyone else. That's on the earning statements.

What do you expect them to tell investors? We are screwed? This is about what happens a year for now. When every airline is dealing with a lower margin environment and AA has the highest fixed cost/interest payment, what do they need to do to stay afloat as everyone is low on cash.

They are also larger, with more employees and more work done in-house. And they have to be honest with shareholders or they will run afoul of the SEC. and do you know since 2018, DL has added more debt to their balance sheet than AA? And AA only has $90 million in frozen pension funding this year as they overfunded last year.

DL has over $18.7 billion of debt not counting the loans they just took out
UA has over $20 billion in debt not counting the loans they just took out
AA has over $34 billion of debt not counting the loans they just took out
WN has $4.6 billion of debt.

None of them are stellar except WN.

Boof02671 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

AA’s interest on debt is very low rates, they’ve refinanced it. Every airline has lease, Pre delivery and delivery and EETC payments on planes, not just AA

And yet Doug island Robert are saying the exact opposite of you. They feel with the additional cash, the grants and loans they will be just fine, unlike UA, DL and WN who are saying otherwise.

AA has higher fixed cost than any other airline. It also has higher interest payment than everyone else. That's on the earning statements.

What do you expect them to tell investors? We are screwed? This is about what happens a year for now. When every airline is dealing with a lower margin environment and AA has the highest fixed cost/interest payment, what do they need to do to stay afloat as everyone is low on cash.

They are also larger, with more employees and more work done in-house. And they have to be honest with shareholders or they will run afoul of the SEC. and do you know since 2018, DL has added more debt to their balance sheet than AA? And AA only has $90 million in frozen pension funding this year as they overfunded last year.

DL has over $18.7 billion of debt not counting the loans they just took out
UA has over $20 billion in debt not counting the loans they just took out
AA has over $34 billion of debt not counting the loans they just took out
WN has $4.6 billion of debt.

None of them are stellar except WN.

I also expect DL/UA to make similar level of their own cuts. I expect the big 3 to be down up to 30% in Feb 2021 vs Feb 2020. All airlines are going to make cuts. The question is where that's coming from. It's not going to be even across the board.

My point about AA's debt is that they may have the least say in which hub gets the greatest cuts. They will end up retreating from the most competitive places. Which is why I think for them, the cuts are going to be high at NYC and LA.

And this is not just going to be legacies either. WN is probably in the best position, but they will also be conservative for a few years and concentrating on their middle of the country focus cities. AS and B6 are both likely to be smaller in Feb 2021 vs Feb 2020 and retreat to their largest stations in PNW and Northeast. ULCCs will be a mess with all these aircraft and nowhere to fly them to.

If AS is going to retreat to their core markets, now with the new exception of having a large Bay Area focus, perhaps we'll see the opposite. Perhaps it's in AS and AAs collective interest for AS to pull-down much of it's LAX focus outside of PDX, SEA, some SFO and allow AA to fill the gaps. If AA could acquire, sub lease, or share 6 of Alaska's gates, it would certainly give AA a leg up in LAX. I think AA needs LAX and I think Alaska's strategy in SEA points to them needed AA, as long as DL remains a squatter in their backyard. I still believe that It will be United that downsizes the most in LA. AS could continue a medium p2p/ some connecting ops from the SJC and SFO, while pulling back to ultimately focus on its dense PNW network while joining with One World and having access to strong codeshares in SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX.

dfwjim1 wrote:

PHXWRLD wrote:

AA's PHX is in no way in jeopardy, PHX is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and is already one of the largest and and the most tourism in the US outside of Florida and Vegas. ...

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

PHX gets about 22m visitors a year link
That puts it behind New York, Florida (Miami, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale) California (LA, SF, San Diego, Orange County), Vegas, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Denver, Indianapolis, St Louis, Houston and DC in annual visitors.

But it's ahead of Boston, so there's that.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

Finding it difficult to believe that PHX lags only behind Las Vegas and Florida in tourism.

I think you would have to be in PHX in February where hoards of people from ORD, MSP, or OMA are flying in and so happy they escaped the cold. There are tons of Snowbirds in PHX from the Midwest plus you have Scottsdale which is a huge clubbing destination. That and PHX proper is the 6th largest city in America behind PHL.

bfitzflyer wrote:

If covid continues any but the largest hubs will be at risk, so for AA that mean anything outside of DFW, CLT and PHL could be at risk. For DL that means anything outside of ATL, DTW and MSP and for UA ,anything outside of SFO, DEN, ORD and EWR could be at risk.

IAH is at risk? I would think they'll recover from the virus quickly because of the heat. DEN is going to be interesting because the virus is slowing there but demand has fallen off sharply as the mountains are closed.

I would think EWR with all of it's necessary TATL flying is the most at risk of being downsized and the fact the virus is spreading up there like a brush fire. IAD could be a key market for TATL once things get back into place over EWR. My family is up there and it sounds like absolute hell.

Yeah, there is no way IAH is at risk. Its the end all be all of their Latin America network. To give up on IAH is to give up on that entire region which isnt happening.

I don't think IAH is at risk either, but I do think the oil industry will be hit hard by this which could affect IAH depending how that price war plays out long term.

I don't think PHX is at risk of being dehubbed. Some cuts are possible, especially in the short term but I don't see PHX becoming like STL, PIT, etc.

I agree with those who say LAX and NYC are the most vulnerable and could become spokes in AA's network.

Midwestindy wrote:

I'd also point out that during the winter time Phoenix is a solid asset to have, as its one of the few areas outside of Florida that peak during the winter when many airlines have little demand elsewhere.

This is a good point, and a unique benefit of the PHX hub. AA has more flexibility in it's network than either UA or DL, I'd argue, to reallocate assets from the North (ORD and PHL, especially) to the South (PHX and MIA, especially) during the winter months. That allows for more efficient year-round utilization of aircraft assets.

With PHX primarily being a domestic hub I expect it to come back faster than MIA, PHL, LAX and JFK, with everything going on around the globe I expect hubs that are primarily domestic focused like PHX, DEN, SLC, etc. to come back faster than ones that handle large international ops!

LAX is too competitive and too expensive to ever be a true hub for any airline. While the Los Angeles market is large, its primarily O&D and market share domestically is brutally split between all of the majors save F9 and G4. International is a bloodbath.

Expect further drawbacks from all airlines. LAX is best thought of and approached as a focus city for all mainline carriers. Connect LAX to your fortress hubs, along with foreign and domestic destinations that can support the O&D demand.

PHX is safe.

Another thing to keep in mind that most of the American Eagle flying at LAX has been operated by Compass Airlines, which shuts down on April 7th. Cranky Flier noted that not some but all of the American Eagle flying at LAX has been cut thereafter: all service to ABQ, ELP, EUG, FAT, MFR, MZT, OKC, PDX, PVR, RDM, RNO, SAN, SFO, SJC, SLC, SMF, TUS and XNA is gone. I believe LAX-YVR has already been cut as well, and don't forget that LAX-YYZ ended before the pandemic. Other long, thin mainline routes like LAX-ATL/BNA/CMH/IND/MSY/RDU/SDF are gone too. I would be surprised if much, or even any, of these flights come back anytime soon; never mind long haul flying like LAX-CHC/EZE/GRU/PEK that may not have been profitable in the first place. I should imagine LAX's loss will be PHX's gain - and lets be honest, what passengers if given the choice would rather connect via LAX rather than PHX?!?

Hopefully the Eagle's Nest is closed for good. Maybe AS would be interested on throwing some E-175s with AA codeshare on routes like LAX-EUG/SMF/YVR. Isn't the plan to have AA widebody ops from TBIT, narrowbody mainline ops from Terminal 4, and then codeshare partners AS and American Eagle in Terminal 5? At this point it probably doesn't matter whether AA or AS throw an E-175 on short haul routes like LAX-SLC and LAX-SMF. As in the past, AA could also codeshare on AS's well established services to PDX, SEA and SFO rather than putting its own metal on those routes...

SurfandSnow wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind that most of the American Eagle flying at LAX has been operated by Compass Airlines, which shuts down on April 7th. Cranky Flier noted that not some but all of the American Eagle flying at LAX has been cut thereafter: all service to ABQ, ELP, EUG, FAT, MFR, MZT, OKC, PDX, PVR, RDM, RNO, SAN, SFO, SJC, SLC, SMF, TUS and XNA is gone. I believe LAX-YVR has already been cut as well, and don't forget that LAX-YYZ ended before the pandemic. Other long, thin mainline routes like LAX-ATL/BNA/CMH/IND/MSY/RDU/SDF are gone too. I would be surprised if much, or even any, of these flights come back anytime soon; never mind long haul flying like LAX-CHC/EZE/GRU/PEK that may not have been profitable in the first place. I should imagine LAX's loss will be PHX's gain - and lets be honest, what passengers if given the choice would rather connect via LAX rather than PHX?!?

Hopefully the Eagle's Nest is closed for good. Maybe AS would be interested on throwing some E-175s with AA codeshare on routes like LAX-EUG/SMF/YVR. Isn't the plan to have AA widebody ops from TBIT, narrowbody mainline ops from Terminal 4, and then codeshare partners AS and American Eagle in Terminal 5? At this point it probably doesn't matter whether AA or AS throw an E-175 on short haul routes like LAX-SLC and LAX-SMF. As in the past, AA could also codeshare on AS's well established services to PDX, SEA and SFO rather than putting its own metal on those routes...

I also believe that the Eagle’s nest will be closed forever, given that all these dropped secondary destinations can be served one-stop through PHX from throughout the west coast. Plus the satellite terminal is anyway bound to go for development of T9.

We still are yet to hear from AS about their plans for LAX. Completely dehubbing LAX would be extremely unwise of AA unless they are sure that the partnership with AS is sealed, or they think they will be merging in the future. If the partnership with AS is approved, I would expect LAX to still be a big O/D station for AA/AS/oneworld like SFO. Being already the largest in LAX, they’ve got to be nuts to walk away from the advantage...

onwFan wrote:

MrPeanut wrote:

The LAX hub will be gone. If the hub was unprofitable during good economic times, it’s gonna be bloody ugly financially as we come out of this virus mess. The buildup of LA centered around LAX being AA’s TPAC gateway. Considering half of their TPAC routes were to China, where demand won’t be there in the short to mid term, there will be no need for that TPAC gateway anymore. As a domestic hub, PHX is a significantly better than LAX. LAX was mired with problems. Gates were spread across multiple terminals, delays were common, battling market share with 3 other major carriers, and extremely high costs (airport rents and labor costs). Fortunately for PHX, they don’t have these types of issues.

It is 100% true that things will look much different when air travel starts back up again and that means significant changes to all airline networks.

Yeah, ok - so UA and DL can make their LA hubs work even though it is not their TPAC gateway, but AA cannot? And being the largest carrier in LAX, they will just give up their only west coast presence over to UA and DL so they they can expand there?

https://crankyflier.com/2020/03/31/amer ... er-return/


Read more above. Without saying too much, I know the industry very well. LAX won’t be back as an AA hub. It will be JFK II. AA doesn’t need the LAX hub anymore.

LAX and NYC most at risk. The profit margins from previous reply don't support their viability in the future. especially if international travel is slow to return. American will use SEA as new TransPac hub IMO. But we'll see. If traffic patterns shift to more domestic and regional (Mexico, Canada, Carib,...) flying then PHX should be okay. But again that assumes domestic travel returns to previous levels. I think PHX is safe for a while.