Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Alias1024
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:28 pm

mgoose2 wrote:
Alias1024 wrote:
since it will be illuminating for the thread OP I’ll list out those other cities you mention along with RDU.

STL slots in right after CLT at 22nd. MSP is again 55% larger.
CVG sits at 28th with MSP 87% larger.
CLE is 31st and MSP is 100% larger.
BNA is 34th and MSP is 104% larger.
RDU is 44th and MSP 222% larger.
MEM is 48th and MSP is 250% larger.


This seemed off to me, and indeed it is. When evaluating the economy driving RDU's growth, you need to look at the both the Raleigh-Cary MSA and the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA (The "D" in RDU). Why the two metro areas aren't considered one is puzzling. Combined, the two MSAs have a square mileage of roughly 4100 square miles while Minneapolis-St. Paul covers 6364 square miles.

(all figures for 2019, in thousands of dollars)
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (Metropolitan Statistical Area) - 274,191,982
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC (Metropolitan Statistical Area) - 53,748,439
Raleigh-Cary, NC (Metropolitan Statistical Area) - 94,806,039

Combined would put the RDU region ahead of Cleveland and Nashville, but behind Cincy.

source: https://www.bea.gov/


Thanks for the correction. I was in a bit of a rush and didn't notice that Durham-Chapel Hill was a separate MSA.
 
Chuska
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:34 pm

The original Eagle carrier at BNA, Air Midwest, had a very colorful life. Not only were they the first AA* feeder at BNA, they were also the first feeder for Ozark at STL in 1985 and switched to TWExpress a year later with the OZ/TW merger. We talked a lot about the MCI hub earlier in this thread and Air Midwest was also the Eastern Express carrier when EA had a hub in MCI in the mid1980s. When EA de-hubbed MCI in 1988, Air Midwest then became Braniff Express but that only lasted about a year until Braniff failed. Air Midwest then went back to their own ZV code at MCI for awhile then became USAir Express in 1991 which lasted into the 2000s. At BNA, the Air Midwest operation (along with Air Virginia) became Nashville Eagle in 1988.
 
Chuska
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:37 pm

TWFlyGuy wrote:
Chuska wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:

Maybe. AA was late to the RJ party. In 1993/4 when RDU and BNA were pulled down, those hubs were full of J31s, ATR42s, and SF-360s.


SF-360s? Dude, I think you mean SF-340s. AA wasn't really late to the RJ party, it was mostly only DL (Comair and SkyWest) that initiated the RJ era around 1993/94. Most of the other carriers joined in by the late 1990's when they saw it was successful.


Not sure if the "F" is correct but assume he is referring to Shorts 360's which they did operate in RDU & BNA...the flying box car.


Good catch. Along with the Saab Fairchild 340's, there were also Shorts 360's.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 3624
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:39 pm

TWFlyGuy wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
ERJ170 wrote:
RDU was a American Eagle hub/hublet for quite a while after the AA hub pull down. It even had a quasi LGA shuttle.


The RDU hub at its peak served 36 destinations with mainline ops and 18 with Eagle, which at the time, were all turboprops. After the pull down. some mainline remained to non-hub markets for a time, but by 1995, Midway Airlines had essentially replaced AA as the dominant carrier in RDU and I think AA and Midway had some sort of a commercial agreement that extended to code-sharing on some routes, (Midway subleased its gates from AA) including LGA which is where, as I recall, the frequencies came into play and the two ran a quasi shuttle operation with alternating flights on their respective aircraft. I don't think AA categorized RDU as a hub or focus city or "hublet" for an time beyond when it pulled down the hub.

During the hub days, AA operated everything from MD80s to F100s down to RDU from LGA. Midway flew mostly F100s on LGA-RDU with the occasional A320 from 1995.


The Eagle focus city was basically a way to keep all the loyalty they had built with the hub and kept with Midway. It came along when AA had access to RJs.

Also, don't forget the DC-10 that operated LGA-RDU-MCO-RDU-LGA during the hub days. That was always a great way to get back up to LGA.

IIRC, the American Eagle operation closed around the same time as the final cuts were given to STL.

I think towards the end (2007-2008) there was service to MIA/LGA/ORD/DFW/LGA/AUS on mainline, and then service to STL/CMH/BOS/JFK/SDF/JAX/DCA/BDL/EWR/MCI on Eagle. They tried a number of routes towards the end as well IIRC like NAS/MCO on Eagle that didn't last more than a season.
 
rexchase12
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:38 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:14 pm

Chuska wrote:
TWFlyGuy wrote:
Chuska wrote:

SF-360s? Dude, I think you mean SF-340s. AA wasn't really late to the RJ party, it was mostly only DL (Comair and SkyWest) that initiated the RJ era around 1993/94. Most of the other carriers joined in by the late 1990's when they saw it was successful.


Not sure if the "F" is correct but assume he is referring to Shorts 360's which they did operate in RDU & BNA...the flying box car.


Good catch. Along with the Saab Fairchild 340's, there were also Shorts 360's.


No Shorts 360's operated from BNA. They did have SF-340's & EMB-120's which replaced the Metroliners.
 
CV880
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:09 am

UA tried a merger w/US before AA & was denied by the Feds, otherwise CLT would have become UA's southeast hub. As a result, UA still lacks a Southern hub unless one considers IAD in the South.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:13 am

CV880 wrote:
UA tried a merger w/US before AA & was denied by the Feds, otherwise CLT would have become UA's southeast hub. As a result, UA still lacks a Southern hub unless one considers IAD in the South.


It was a complicated, messy attempt to merge UA with US. The deal was first announced in May 2000 where UA was to acquire US for $4.3 billion. The proposal immediately drew push back from labor unions (this all came about at the threshold of what would become UA's summer from hell). The DoJ also took issue with it given UA and US's significant hold at the time on gates at DCA and IAD respectively, which would have triggered a significant divestiture, and at one point, even the funding of a new airline. UA ultimately withdrew from the proposal in July 2001 and ended up paying US $50 million for the privilege of breaking up with it.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:50 pm

Chuska wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
BNA should be happy that AA didn’t continue to try to make BNA to work. AA would have turned it into RJ City, in fact AA was already Eagle heavy in BNA when they decided to dehub the airport. WN is the perfect replacement for AA and better for the City of Nashville in the long run. It’s all 737s going to nearly every major market nonstop from BNA and while there is no First Class cabin, the Coach product is better than AA’s in almost every metric. Overall I would say BNA is in better shape today for overall air service than if AA was still trying to make it work as a hub.


Maybe. AA was late to the RJ party. In 1993/4 when RDU and BNA were pulled down, those hubs were full of J31s, ATR42s, and SF-360s.


SF-360s? Dude, I think you mean SF-340s. AA wasn't really late to the RJ party, it was mostly only DL (Comair and SkyWest) that initiated the RJ era around 1993/94. Most of the other carriers joined in by the late 1990's when they saw it was successful.


No, they were Shorts 360s. Winnebago with a wing.
 
afcjets
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:31 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
RDU and BNA were actually competing with each other for traffic flows


They actually had almost no overlap, with the possible exception of offering more opportunities to get to DFW and ORD where nonstops already existed in most markets.


AVLAirlineFreq wrote:
At the time they were announced in the mid-1980s, AA articulated that the two hubs would serve different roles. RDU would primarily serve north-south traffic and BNA was intended to serve traffic flowing mostly along an "X" shaped route structure.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

I remember the televised press conference where American announced the BNA hub. The AA rep said BNA was the perfect location because XXX amount of domestic traffic traversed the BNA area.



Here is an excerpt from a really long article from 1993 which is really interesting and explains in detail what was going on back then...

"To understand how Robert Crandall triumphed over the airline industry—and how the airline industry might very well triumph over him—requires a little education, and Crandall is ready to provide it. Flight 509 has been aloft for an hour, he has plowed through his paperwork, and the flight attendant has refilled, again, his mug of black coffee. “Let me show you something,” he says, and with a Cheshire smile, he seizes my notebook and begins to scribble furiously: circles with little lines poking out of them (hubs and spokes), small boxes connected to bigger boxes (feeder routes), and a series of small arcs and overarching lines (short- and long-haul flights). By the time he is through, he has traversed the industry’s major ailments: soft demand for air travel, U.S. bankruptcy laws that keep ailing airlines in the air by allowing them to ignore their debts and union contracts, passenger preference for discount airlines on trips of two hours or less, crippling labor agreements, foreign incursions into the U.S. market, and worst of all, overcapacity, or as Crandall puts it, “too many planes flying too often to too many places.”

But isn’t American Airlines to blame for the overcapacity? Wasn’t it Crandall himself who led the industry on a spending spree back in the eighties, ordering hundreds of planes, opening hubs, grabbing new routes, doubling his payroll, building up the very same costly infrastructure that is now dragging him down? He pauses, a cold, inimical look flashes across his face, and the color mounts from his chin to his perfect widow’s peak. “We did not expand too much!” he thunders, slamming both hands, karate style, onto his plastic meal tray. “We did not over-ex-pand!” Chop! Chop! Chop! “That is simply”—chop!—”factually”—chop!—”wrong.” Chop!

Crandall leans across the armrest, until his face is inches away, close enough to count the pores, close enough to smell the coffee on his breath. “We vanquished those guys,” he rumbles, meaning his competitors on Chapter 11 life support. “If they were gone, we wouldn’t be shrinking.”"

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-polit ... he-handle/
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:31 am

BNA and RDU were causalities mostly due to the expanding MIA hub that AA got from EA. Both were established in the Mid-1980s as North & South (RDU) and East & West (BNA) connecting points mixed in with a lot of local corporate traffic (I would think.) The big difference is that RDU semi-returned as a Focus City in the Mid-2000s as a result of the demise of Midway (JI) which AA had a code share with and built up around 2007 only to take down during the recession in 2008. A bit of a shame considering the footing DL has had since then even during the pandemic & servicing the same routes as AA did.

That said, BNA has been and will always been a stronghold for AA. For the longest time they even operated BNA-ATL on J31s into the 2000s.

ContinentalEWR wrote:
CV880 wrote:
UA tried a merger w/US before AA & was denied by the Feds, otherwise CLT would have become UA's southeast hub. As a result, UA still lacks a Southern hub unless one considers IAD in the South.


It was a complicated, messy attempt to merge UA with US. The deal was first announced in May 2000 where UA was to acquire US for $4.3 billion. The proposal immediately drew push back from labor unions (this all came about at the threshold of what would become UA's summer from hell). The DoJ also took issue with it given UA and US's significant hold at the time on gates at DCA and IAD respectively, which would have triggered a significant divestiture, and at one point, even the funding of a new airline. UA ultimately withdrew from the proposal in July 2001 and ended up paying US $50 million for the privilege of breaking up with it.


UA was definitely overly confident about that merger and part of me would've love to see it happen. They would've had to release some serious DC and NYC slots to make it work since both airlines were strong in both places. In the end, I think there was some major bureaucratic backlash from various Senators during hearings and UA basically just gave up. They also went through the "Summer of Hell" in 2000 which bled UA some money out of ORD. Bottom line, UA was damn serious about this merger as they released a revised route map highlighting the merger benefits and committed to a new PIT maintenance hangar as well.
 
Runway765
Topic Author
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:21 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:24 am

N649DL wrote:
BNA and RDU were causalities mostly due to the expanding MIA hub that AA got from EA. Both were established in the Mid-1980s as North & South (RDU) and East & West (BNA) connecting points mixed in with a lot of local corporate traffic (I would think.) The big difference is that RDU semi-returned as a Focus City in the Mid-2000s as a result of the demise of Midway (JI) which AA had a code share with and built up around 2007 only to take down during the recession in 2008. A bit of a shame considering the footing DL has had since then even during the pandemic & servicing the same routes as AA did.

That said, BNA has been and will always been a stronghold for AA. For the longest time they even operated BNA-ATL on J31s into the 2000s.


My guess is BNA would’ve had a similar focus city like operation from AA in the 2000s had it not been for WN.

Amazing how WN has replaced AA has the hub carrier at BNA and will likely one day occupy the entire C concourse as soon as they can move AA elsewhere.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 10195
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:45 am

TWFlyGuy wrote:
Chuska wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:

Maybe. AA was late to the RJ party. In 1993/4 when RDU and BNA were pulled down, those hubs were full of J31s, ATR42s, and SF-360s.


SF-360s? Dude, I think you mean SF-340s. AA wasn't really late to the RJ party, it was mostly only DL (Comair and SkyWest) that initiated the RJ era around 1993/94. Most of the other carriers joined in by the late 1990's when they saw it was successful.


Not sure if the "F" is correct but assume he is referring to Shorts 360's which they did operate in RDU & BNA...the flying box car.


Yeah, it’s an easy mistake to make as they are so similar. SD-360 is the Shorts 360 and SF-340 is the Saab 340.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:54 am

N649DL wrote:
BNA and RDU were causalities mostly due to the expanding MIA hub that AA got from EA. Both were established in the Mid-1980s as North & South (RDU) and East & West (BNA) connecting points mixed in with a lot of local corporate traffic (I would think.) The big difference is that RDU semi-returned as a Focus City in the Mid-2000s as a result of the demise of Midway (JI) which AA had a code share with and built up around 2007 only to take down during the recession in 2008. A bit of a shame considering the footing DL has had since then even during the pandemic & servicing the same routes as AA did.

That said, BNA has been and will always been a stronghold for AA. For the longest time they even operated BNA-ATL on J31s into the 2000s.

ContinentalEWR wrote:
CV880 wrote:
UA tried a merger w/US before AA & was denied by the Feds, otherwise CLT would have become UA's southeast hub. As a result, UA still lacks a Southern hub unless one considers IAD in the South.


It was a complicated, messy attempt to merge UA with US. The deal was first announced in May 2000 where UA was to acquire US for $4.3 billion. The proposal immediately drew push back from labor unions (this all came about at the threshold of what would become UA's summer from hell). The DoJ also took issue with it given UA and US's significant hold at the time on gates at DCA and IAD respectively, which would have triggered a significant divestiture, and at one point, even the funding of a new airline. UA ultimately withdrew from the proposal in July 2001 and ended up paying US $50 million for the privilege of breaking up with it.


UA was definitely overly confident about that merger and part of me would've love to see it happen. They would've had to release some serious DC and NYC slots to make it work since both airlines were strong in both places. In the end, I think there was some major bureaucratic backlash from various Senators during hearings and UA basically just gave up. They also went through the "Summer of Hell" in 2000 which bled UA some money out of ORD. Bottom line, UA was damn serious about this merger as they released a revised route map highlighting the merger benefits and committed to a new PIT maintenance hangar as well.


UA and US merging was complicated largely due to the overlap between the US footprint at DCA and the UA footprint at IAD. That was the focal point of slot divestitures and the Congressionally sanctioned proposal to create some new airline to compete using those slots. UA wasn't strong in NYC at all and neither was US. What US had was a large presence at LGA, which was inefficient and focused on a lot of turboprops flying to smaller cities. All UA had at LGA was what it essentially always had there (ORD, DEN, IAD), at JFK it had LHR, NRT, LAX/SFO, a short lived attempt at HKG, plus a handful of other routes, including GRU, EZE, SEA, weekend service to SJU, ORD, and CCS. At EWR, UA was the #2 airline behind CO, but again, it was a fairly compact operation with DEN, ORD, IAD, MIA, LHR, LAX, and SFO. So, in regards to the NY market, combining US and UA would have made little change to the competitive landscape. UA would have captured a stronger Eastern US footprint for sure, with CLT, PHL, and the DCA operation US had, and some fleet commonality with the A320/A319s but it is probably best that they didn't merge.

You are indeed correct that Summer 2000 was the Summer of Hell for UA. Operational meltdowns and pilot work issues were aplenty. The airline, as I recall, closed 2000 with new contracts which resulted in UA having some of the highest paid pilots in the industry, further complicating its financial situation once 9/11 happened which combined pushed the carrier into bankruptcy fast and furious, where UA remained in Chapter 11 for 4+ years following 9/11.
 
SFOThinker
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:54 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:
There's a reason no one really has a hub in mid country midsize cities anymore. BNA, STL, CVG, MEM, CLE....

Bingo.

In the days when 72Ss, S80s, and early 737s couldn't fly reliable transcons yearround, it made sense to have those kind of mid-country hubs.
In the days where 737s, A32X, and even A220s can cross oceans--- not so much.

Can toss MCI, MKE, and a few others in there too.
The only ones who really survived that era are DEN and SLC, and that's due in dual part to the strength of their local population + general isolation.


ORD, DTW, and MSPare all thriving mid continent hubs
 
Runway765
Topic Author
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:21 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:41 pm

SFOThinker wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:
There's a reason no one really has a hub in mid country midsize cities anymore. BNA, STL, CVG, MEM, CLE....

Bingo.

In the days when 72Ss, S80s, and early 737s couldn't fly reliable transcons yearround, it made sense to have those kind of mid-country hubs.
In the days where 737s, A32X, and even A220s can cross oceans--- not so much.

Can toss MCI, MKE, and a few others in there too.
The only ones who really survived that era are DEN and SLC, and that's due in dual part to the strength of their local population + general isolation.


ORD, DTW, and MSPare all thriving mid continent hubs


Those are large population centers with good O&D/corporate traffic. It's no comparison to the mid-sized cities.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 3624
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:52 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
N649DL wrote:
BNA and RDU were causalities mostly due to the expanding MIA hub that AA got from EA. Both were established in the Mid-1980s as North & South (RDU) and East & West (BNA) connecting points mixed in with a lot of local corporate traffic (I would think.) The big difference is that RDU semi-returned as a Focus City in the Mid-2000s as a result of the demise of Midway (JI) which AA had a code share with and built up around 2007 only to take down during the recession in 2008. A bit of a shame considering the footing DL has had since then even during the pandemic & servicing the same routes as AA did.

That said, BNA has been and will always been a stronghold for AA. For the longest time they even operated BNA-ATL on J31s into the 2000s.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

It was a complicated, messy attempt to merge UA with US. The deal was first announced in May 2000 where UA was to acquire US for $4.3 billion. The proposal immediately drew push back from labor unions (this all came about at the threshold of what would become UA's summer from hell). The DoJ also took issue with it given UA and US's significant hold at the time on gates at DCA and IAD respectively, which would have triggered a significant divestiture, and at one point, even the funding of a new airline. UA ultimately withdrew from the proposal in July 2001 and ended up paying US $50 million for the privilege of breaking up with it.


UA was definitely overly confident about that merger and part of me would've love to see it happen. They would've had to release some serious DC and NYC slots to make it work since both airlines were strong in both places. In the end, I think there was some major bureaucratic backlash from various Senators during hearings and UA basically just gave up. They also went through the "Summer of Hell" in 2000 which bled UA some money out of ORD. Bottom line, UA was damn serious about this merger as they released a revised route map highlighting the merger benefits and committed to a new PIT maintenance hangar as well.


UA and US merging was complicated largely due to the overlap between the US footprint at DCA and the UA footprint at IAD. That was the focal point of slot divestitures and the Congressionally sanctioned proposal to create some new airline to compete using those slots. UA wasn't strong in NYC at all and neither was US. What US had was a large presence at LGA, which was inefficient and focused on a lot of turboprops flying to smaller cities. All UA had at LGA was what it essentially always had there (ORD, DEN, IAD), at JFK it had LHR, NRT, LAX/SFO, a short lived attempt at HKG, plus a handful of other routes, including GRU, EZE, SEA, weekend service to SJU, ORD, and CCS. At EWR, UA was the #2 airline behind CO, but again, it was a fairly compact operation with DEN, ORD, IAD, MIA, LHR, LAX, and SFO. So, in regards to the NY market, combining US and UA would have made little change to the competitive landscape. UA would have captured a stronger Eastern US footprint for sure, with CLT, PHL, and the DCA operation US had, and some fleet commonality with the A320/A319s but it is probably best that they didn't merge.

You are indeed correct that Summer 2000 was the Summer of Hell for UA. Operational meltdowns and pilot work issues were aplenty. The airline, as I recall, closed 2000 with new contracts which resulted in UA having some of the highest paid pilots in the industry, further complicating its financial situation once 9/11 happened which combined pushed the carrier into bankruptcy fast and furious, where UA remained in Chapter 11 for 4+ years following 9/11.

Not to mention the "new airline" would have used UA planes and would have used the combined new carrier's gates/ground handling equipment. The airline "DC Air" would have been a member of the MileagePlus program and UA would have provided "backup services" (according to the Senate hearing on the issue).

There was no way UA/US could have proved the new airline would have been independent from UA.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:26 pm

USAirALB wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
N649DL wrote:
BNA and RDU were causalities mostly due to the expanding MIA hub that AA got from EA. Both were established in the Mid-1980s as North & South (RDU) and East & West (BNA) connecting points mixed in with a lot of local corporate traffic (I would think.) The big difference is that RDU semi-returned as a Focus City in the Mid-2000s as a result of the demise of Midway (JI) which AA had a code share with and built up around 2007 only to take down during the recession in 2008. A bit of a shame considering the footing DL has had since then even during the pandemic & servicing the same routes as AA did.

That said, BNA has been and will always been a stronghold for AA. For the longest time they even operated BNA-ATL on J31s into the 2000s.



UA was definitely overly confident about that merger and part of me would've love to see it happen. They would've had to release some serious DC and NYC slots to make it work since both airlines were strong in both places. In the end, I think there was some major bureaucratic backlash from various Senators during hearings and UA basically just gave up. They also went through the "Summer of Hell" in 2000 which bled UA some money out of ORD. Bottom line, UA was damn serious about this merger as they released a revised route map highlighting the merger benefits and committed to a new PIT maintenance hangar as well.


UA and US merging was complicated largely due to the overlap between the US footprint at DCA and the UA footprint at IAD. That was the focal point of slot divestitures and the Congressionally sanctioned proposal to create some new airline to compete using those slots. UA wasn't strong in NYC at all and neither was US. What US had was a large presence at LGA, which was inefficient and focused on a lot of turboprops flying to smaller cities. All UA had at LGA was what it essentially always had there (ORD, DEN, IAD), at JFK it had LHR, NRT, LAX/SFO, a short lived attempt at HKG, plus a handful of other routes, including GRU, EZE, SEA, weekend service to SJU, ORD, and CCS. At EWR, UA was the #2 airline behind CO, but again, it was a fairly compact operation with DEN, ORD, IAD, MIA, LHR, LAX, and SFO. So, in regards to the NY market, combining US and UA would have made little change to the competitive landscape. UA would have captured a stronger Eastern US footprint for sure, with CLT, PHL, and the DCA operation US had, and some fleet commonality with the A320/A319s but it is probably best that they didn't merge.

You are indeed correct that Summer 2000 was the Summer of Hell for UA. Operational meltdowns and pilot work issues were aplenty. The airline, as I recall, closed 2000 with new contracts which resulted in UA having some of the highest paid pilots in the industry, further complicating its financial situation once 9/11 happened which combined pushed the carrier into bankruptcy fast and furious, where UA remained in Chapter 11 for 4+ years following 9/11.

Not to mention the "new airline" would have used UA planes and would have used the combined new carrier's gates/ground handling equipment. The airline "DC Air" would have been a member of the MileagePlus program and UA would have provided "backup services" (according to the Senate hearing on the issue).

There was no way UA/US could have proved the new airline would have been independent from UA.


Also there was the United Shuttle and MetroJet (the latter apparently had a good reputation.) I'm not sure how they would've fit in either.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 15185
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:22 pm

SFOThinker wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:
There's a reason no one really has a hub in mid country midsize cities anymore. BNA, STL, CVG, MEM, CLE....

Bingo.

ORD, DTW, and MSPare all thriving mid continent hubs

Emphasis added, for your edification. ;)
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:20 pm

N649DL wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

UA and US merging was complicated largely due to the overlap between the US footprint at DCA and the UA footprint at IAD. That was the focal point of slot divestitures and the Congressionally sanctioned proposal to create some new airline to compete using those slots. UA wasn't strong in NYC at all and neither was US. What US had was a large presence at LGA, which was inefficient and focused on a lot of turboprops flying to smaller cities. All UA had at LGA was what it essentially always had there (ORD, DEN, IAD), at JFK it had LHR, NRT, LAX/SFO, a short lived attempt at HKG, plus a handful of other routes, including GRU, EZE, SEA, weekend service to SJU, ORD, and CCS. At EWR, UA was the #2 airline behind CO, but again, it was a fairly compact operation with DEN, ORD, IAD, MIA, LHR, LAX, and SFO. So, in regards to the NY market, combining US and UA would have made little change to the competitive landscape. UA would have captured a stronger Eastern US footprint for sure, with CLT, PHL, and the DCA operation US had, and some fleet commonality with the A320/A319s but it is probably best that they didn't merge.

You are indeed correct that Summer 2000 was the Summer of Hell for UA. Operational meltdowns and pilot work issues were aplenty. The airline, as I recall, closed 2000 with new contracts which resulted in UA having some of the highest paid pilots in the industry, further complicating its financial situation once 9/11 happened which combined pushed the carrier into bankruptcy fast and furious, where UA remained in Chapter 11 for 4+ years following 9/11.

Not to mention the "new airline" would have used UA planes and would have used the combined new carrier's gates/ground handling equipment. The airline "DC Air" would have been a member of the MileagePlus program and UA would have provided "backup services" (according to the Senate hearing on the issue).

There was no way UA/US could have proved the new airline would have been independent from UA.


Also there was the United Shuttle and MetroJet (the latter apparently had a good reputation.) I'm not sure how they would've fit in either.


Shuttle by United (later rebranded United Shuttle) and USAirways' MetroJet, as I recall, didn't really compete. UA's was mainly a West Coast operation and built out in the mid-1990s to compete better with Southwest. Metrojet was USAirways' response to Song. Ted, United's second attempt at an airline within an airline, didn't get underway until 2004 and by then, Shuttle was gone. Metrojet was essentially the same as US mainline and kind of pointless, and was their "me too" effort, but yes, it did achieve for a time better operational reliability than mainline US.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:54 pm

USAirALB wrote:

Not to mention the "new airline" would have used UA planes and would have used the combined new carrier's gates/ground handling equipment. The airline "DC Air" would have been a member of the MileagePlus program and UA would have provided "backup services" (according to the Senate hearing on the issue).

There was no way UA/US could have proved the new airline would have been independent from UA.


Isn't that where AA stepped in offering 49% equity in DCAir and leasing them a batch of F100's with UA and AA sharing 50/50 revenues on the DCA-LGA and maybe LGA-BOS Shuttles? That was a proposed solution to UA/US/DCAir initial proposal in order to appease the feds.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:37 pm

afcjets wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
RDU and BNA were actually competing with each other for traffic flows


They actually had almost no overlap, with the possible exception of offering more opportunities to get to DFW and ORD where nonstops already existed in most markets.

But they did. While the networks were different, the geography wasn't in their favor. Too close to each other in some ways and sandwiched between DFW and ORD.


AVLAirlineFreq wrote:
At the time they were announced in the mid-1980s, AA articulated that the two hubs would serve different roles. RDU would primarily serve north-south traffic and BNA was intended to serve traffic flowing mostly along an "X" shaped route structure.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

I remember the televised press conference where American announced the BNA hub. The AA rep said BNA was the perfect location because XXX amount of domestic traffic traversed the BNA area.



Here is an excerpt from a really long article from 1993 which is really interesting and explains in detail what was going on back then...

"To understand how Robert Crandall triumphed over the airline industry—and how the airline industry might very well triumph over him—requires a little education, and Crandall is ready to provide it. Flight 509 has been aloft for an hour, he has plowed through his paperwork, and the flight attendant has refilled, again, his mug of black coffee. “Let me show you something,” he says, and with a Cheshire smile, he seizes my notebook and begins to scribble furiously: circles with little lines poking out of them (hubs and spokes), small boxes connected to bigger boxes (feeder routes), and a series of small arcs and overarching lines (short- and long-haul flights). By the time he is through, he has traversed the industry’s major ailments: soft demand for air travel, U.S. bankruptcy laws that keep ailing airlines in the air by allowing them to ignore their debts and union contracts, passenger preference for discount airlines on trips of two hours or less, crippling labor agreements, foreign incursions into the U.S. market, and worst of all, overcapacity, or as Crandall puts it, “too many planes flying too often to too many places.”

But isn’t American Airlines to blame for the overcapacity? Wasn’t it Crandall himself who led the industry on a spending spree back in the eighties, ordering hundreds of planes, opening hubs, grabbing new routes, doubling his payroll, building up the very same costly infrastructure that is now dragging him down? He pauses, a cold, inimical look flashes across his face, and the color mounts from his chin to his perfect widow’s peak. “We did not expand too much!” he thunders, slamming both hands, karate style, onto his plastic meal tray. “We did not over-ex-pand!” Chop! Chop! Chop! “That is simply”—chop!—”factually”—chop!—”wrong.” Chop!

Crandall leans across the armrest, until his face is inches away, close enough to count the pores, close enough to smell the coffee on his breath. “We vanquished those guys,” he rumbles, meaning his competitors on Chapter 11 life support. “If they were gone, we wouldn’t be shrinking.”"

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-polit ... he-handle/
 
USAirALB
Posts: 3624
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:51 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
N649DL wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
Not to mention the "new airline" would have used UA planes and would have used the combined new carrier's gates/ground handling equipment. The airline "DC Air" would have been a member of the MileagePlus program and UA would have provided "backup services" (according to the Senate hearing on the issue).

There was no way UA/US could have proved the new airline would have been independent from UA.


Also there was the United Shuttle and MetroJet (the latter apparently had a good reputation.) I'm not sure how they would've fit in either.


Shuttle by United (later rebranded United Shuttle) and USAirways' MetroJet, as I recall, didn't really compete. UA's was mainly a West Coast operation and built out in the mid-1990s to compete better with Southwest. Metrojet was USAirways' response to Song. Ted, United's second attempt at an airline within an airline, didn't get underway until 2004 and by then, Shuttle was gone. Metrojet was essentially the same as US mainline and kind of pointless, and was their "me too" effort, but yes, it did achieve for a time better operational reliability than mainline US.

MetroJet folded almost 2 years prior to Delta introducing Song.

MetroJet was killed by 9/11 and stopped flying December 2001. It was solely created as a last-chance effort to defend BWI against WN’s arrival.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:10 pm

USAirALB wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Also there was the United Shuttle and MetroJet (the latter apparently had a good reputation.) I'm not sure how they would've fit in either.


Shuttle by United (later rebranded United Shuttle) and USAirways' MetroJet, as I recall, didn't really compete. UA's was mainly a West Coast operation and built out in the mid-1990s to compete better with Southwest. Metrojet was USAirways' response to Song. Ted, United's second attempt at an airline within an airline, didn't get underway until 2004 and by then, Shuttle was gone. Metrojet was essentially the same as US mainline and kind of pointless, and was their "me too" effort, but yes, it did achieve for a time better operational reliability than mainline US.

MetroJet folded almost 2 years prior to Delta introducing Song.

MetroJet was killed by 9/11 and stopped flying December 2001. It was solely created as a last-chance effort to defend BWI against WN’s arrival.


My mistake. I meant Delta Express, not Song. But yes, Metrojet was created as a last ditch effort to fight off WN, at BWI. It didn't work and yes, 9/11 ended it. Curiously, it performed well operationally, which was very different from USAirways.
 
ozark1
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:38 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:29 pm

I enjoyed flying in and out of the BNA hub it its prime. But none of the flights i worked were full, ever.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:50 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

Shuttle by United (later rebranded United Shuttle) and USAirways' MetroJet, as I recall, didn't really compete. UA's was mainly a West Coast operation and built out in the mid-1990s to compete better with Southwest. Metrojet was USAirways' response to Song. Ted, United's second attempt at an airline within an airline, didn't get underway until 2004 and by then, Shuttle was gone. Metrojet was essentially the same as US mainline and kind of pointless, and was their "me too" effort, but yes, it did achieve for a time better operational reliability than mainline US.

MetroJet folded almost 2 years prior to Delta introducing Song.

MetroJet was killed by 9/11 and stopped flying December 2001. It was solely created as a last-chance effort to defend BWI against WN’s arrival.


My mistake. I meant Delta Express, not Song. But yes, Metrojet was created as a last ditch effort to fight off WN, at BWI. It didn't work and yes, 9/11 ended it. Curiously, it performed well operationally, which was very different from USAirways.


Here's an interesting video comparing the low cost carriers of the late 1990s. Surprisingly (and I don't remember this) Metrojet's reputation was actually better than USAirways that it basically one upped the brand itself which was another reason why they took it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3SJSonZIs&t=558s
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:43 pm

Y'all are trying to understand why the BNA of 2021 didn't work out as a hub for AA in 1995. It's a simple answer: because it didn't exist. In the past 25+ years, Nashville has emerged as one of the fastest-growing population and business centers in the country. And nobody saw it coming.

In 1998, Metro Nashville was projected to have 1.5M residents by 2020 -- but it eclipsed 2M. Keep in mind that the 1998 projection significantly over projected the country's 2020 population...
https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/s ... tory4.html
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:49 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
Y'all are trying to understand why the BNA of 2021 didn't work out as a hub for AA in 1995. It's a simple answer: because it didn't exist. In the past 25+ years, Nashville has emerged as one of the fastest-growing population and business centers in the country. And nobody saw it coming.

In 1998, Metro Nashville was projected to have 1.5M residents by 2020 -- but it eclipsed 2M. Keep in mind that the 1998 projection significantly over projected the country's 2020 population...
https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/s ... tory4.html


IIRC, AA only relied on a certain catchment of O&D from BNA when it was a hub for them. So metro area size today versus then probably doesn't make too much of a difference (Nashville is still a small metro as is regardless of growth.) Again, it was big on AA managing connection flows more than anything else. And I would imagine AA probably had some serious corporate contracts in the BNA area as well to sustain it: I'm thinking more of the Country Music & Entertainment Industry (EG: William Morris which had dual offices in Nashville and Los Angeles at the time.)
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:14 am

N649DL wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
MetroJet folded almost 2 years prior to Delta introducing Song.

MetroJet was killed by 9/11 and stopped flying December 2001. It was solely created as a last-chance effort to defend BWI against WN’s arrival.


My mistake. I meant Delta Express, not Song. But yes, Metrojet was created as a last ditch effort to fight off WN, at BWI. It didn't work and yes, 9/11 ended it. Curiously, it performed well operationally, which was very different from USAirways.


Here's an interesting video comparing the low cost carriers of the late 1990s. Surprisingly (and I don't remember this) Metrojet's reputation was actually better than USAirways that it basically one upped the brand itself which was another reason why they took it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3SJSonZIs&t=558s


Interesting and not surprising. USAirways never really achieved any type of operational hallmark. It had grand aspirations in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s to be a true national carrier, but it never strayed far from its East Coast routes, select Caribbean markets, and the TATL growth it undertook starting in the mid-1990s to build upon what it had grown organically and on the back of Piedmont. Service on US was neither great nor terrible but none of it memorable. The company nearly went into liquidation in 2004. What saved it was the merger with HP.
 
Bluegrass60
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:32 pm

ScottB wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I'd love to know more of the motive for AA's BNA hub (ditto RDU) but the the first factor I can think of is that AA probably had a lot of corporate contracts in both markets and spun them off into connecting hubs. For BNA that would've been the Entertainment Industry (Country Music) and for RDU it's always been about Tech and Pharma.


You have to understand what the industry and broader economy looked like circa 1985. The airline industry had just been deregulated in the late 1970s and the national economy was booming after stagflation in the late 1970s and a deep, sharp recession at the beginning of the Reagan administration. BNA and RDU were a land grab for AA at a time when new carriers and hubs were popping up all over the place. Piedmont had hubs at SYR and DAY (and opened BWI as well)! CO opened hubs at CLE and GSO. Midway grew rapidly at its eponymous hub airport and also tried a hub at PHL. America West created three hubs from scratch at PHX, LAS, and CMH (and went bankrupt once). And, of course, PeoplExpress started a hub at EWR which evolved through the years (and two mergers) into today's UA hub.

No one really had a good idea what the industry was going to look like once the dust settled post-deregulation, so it made sense to try to be the first mover in markets which looked promising but hadn't already been taken. That's part of why DL added a hub at CVG and why AA also started a hub at SJC.

RDU really didn't have its current reputation for tech and pharma at that time. Sure, RTP had been around for 25 years by then but the real growth in those sectors has come since AA shuttered the RDU hub. I don't think AA had service from RDU to anywhere west of DFW -- in fact, I think that was the only airport they served west of the Mississippi non-stop from RDU. Yes, BNA was the epicenter of the country music business, and that's why BNA-LAX stuck around even after the hub closed -- but in those days, country music was still pretty regional in its appeal, and all but the biggest acts would have been going around the south in tour buses.

Runway765 wrote:
CLT also survived, but that is because of geographical position.


CLT survived because of a combination of factors. Geography is important, of course. But also, the airline which started the CLT hub, Piedmont, needed to make it work as a hub so they did. It helped that both PI and the CLT airport had low costs. By the time US purchased PI, the CLT hub was a key reason to buy PI (the other being the elimination of a competitor which had been growing in US's key market region). And with decades of effort and investment, not to mention a long period of growth in the Sun Belt, CLT became the powerhouse hub it is today -- and that hub airport has bolstered growth in the metro region. It's unlikely Charlotte would have remained a regional banking center without the hub.


"Actually it was Eastern that started a hub at CLT. It's demise bolstered the growth of PI at CLT followed by more growth from the US and AA mergers leading to its' megahub status today.

AA actually pared its list for a SE hub from BHM, BNA and SDF. BNA won because it had parallel runways. That motivated SDF to completely rebuild their airside infrastructure and create parallel runways or they would have lost out on the growth of UPS....which could have gone to BNA.

Herb Kelleher was about to announce growth at BNA before AA announced their hub intentions....WN picked up where it left off when AA dismantled its BNA hub. BNA is better off today than it would have been had AA's hub stayed. Had it stayed it would have been dismantled with the US merger...because of CLT. Similar to what happened when DL/NW merged when DTW replaced CVG and ATL replaced MEM.

CVG itself had been turned into mostly an RJ operation prior to the NW merger. CVG also had to contend with the fact that IND, DAY, CMH, LEX and SDF surrounded it which limited the amount of O&D they could generate."
 
afcjets
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:51 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
Runway765 wrote:

"Actually it was Eastern that started a hub at CLT. It's demise bolstered the growth of PI at CLT followed by more growth from the US and AA mergers leading to its' megahub status today.

AA actually pared its list for a SE hub from BHM, BNA and SDF. BNA won because it had parallel runways. That motivated SDF to completely rebuild their airside infrastructure and create parallel runways or they would have lost out on the growth of UPS....which could have gone to BNA.

Herb Kelleher was about to announce growth at BNA before AA announced their hub intentions....WN picked up where it left off when AA dismantled its BNA hub. BNA is better off today than it would have been had AA's hub stayed. Had it stayed it would have been dismantled with the US merger...because of CLT. Similar to what happened when DL/NW merged when DTW replaced CVG and ATL replaced MEM.

CVG itself had been turned into mostly an RJ operation prior to the NW merger. CVG also had to contend with the fact that IND, DAY, CMH, LEX and SDF surrounded it which limited the amount of O&D they could generate."


CLT was a dual hub for both Eastern and Piedmont for almost 7 years. There wasn't a single market Eastern offered that Piedmont didn't early on. What really helped Piedmont is getting concourse B when Eastern dehubbed in 1986 (except they kept B5 and B7 for their ATL flights and single nonstop to MIA and started their IAH moonlight flight around the same time). Eventually Piedmont expanded B and then Eastern shut down completely, yielding them two more gates.

The interesting thing about Eastern's CLT hub was how stable it was until the end. It was almost the same size in the early 70s as it was in the mid 80s, peaking just around 60 jet flights per day. Eastern would also keep the same flight numbers on the important destinations, but often rotate the tag flight numbers and more importantly thru service from the smaller cities, and often change the equipment type too. 727, 72S, D9S, D95 for the most part, with one or two L10s or A300s (LGA, ATL only) but ironically only up until a few months before the new terminal opened in May, 1982. IIRC they also flew the 757 into CLT too on one ATL flight for awhile but before it was dehubbed.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:29 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
N649DL wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

My mistake. I meant Delta Express, not Song. But yes, Metrojet was created as a last ditch effort to fight off WN, at BWI. It didn't work and yes, 9/11 ended it. Curiously, it performed well operationally, which was very different from USAirways.


Here's an interesting video comparing the low cost carriers of the late 1990s. Surprisingly (and I don't remember this) Metrojet's reputation was actually better than USAirways that it basically one upped the brand itself which was another reason why they took it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3SJSonZIs&t=558s


Interesting and not surprising. USAirways never really achieved any type of operational hallmark. It had grand aspirations in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s to be a true national carrier, but it never strayed far from its East Coast routes, select Caribbean markets, and the TATL growth it undertook starting in the mid-1990s to build upon what it had grown organically and on the back of Piedmont. Service on US was neither great nor terrible but none of it memorable. The company nearly went into liquidation in 2004. What saved it was the merger with HP.


US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.
 
afcjets
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:06 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:
There's a reason no one really has a hub in mid country midsize cities anymore. BNA, STL, CVG, MEM, CLE....

Bingo.

In the days when 72Ss, S80s, and early 737s couldn't fly reliable transcons yearround, it made sense to have those kind of mid-country hubs.
In the days where 737s, A32X, and even A220s can cross oceans--- not so much.

Can toss MCI, MKE, and a few others in there too.
The only ones who really survived that era are DEN and SLC, and that's due in dual part to the strength of their local population + general isolation.


Especially when Southwest has a hub in a mid country midsize city every few hundred miles now, including BNA.
Last edited by afcjets on Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:27 pm

N649DL wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Here's an interesting video comparing the low cost carriers of the late 1990s. Surprisingly (and I don't remember this) Metrojet's reputation was actually better than USAirways that it basically one upped the brand itself which was another reason why they took it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3SJSonZIs&t=558s


Interesting and not surprising. USAirways never really achieved any type of operational hallmark. It had grand aspirations in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s to be a true national carrier, but it never strayed far from its East Coast routes, select Caribbean markets, and the TATL growth it undertook starting in the mid-1990s to build upon what it had grown organically and on the back of Piedmont. Service on US was neither great nor terrible but none of it memorable. The company nearly went into liquidation in 2004. What saved it was the merger with HP.


US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


US Airways struggled financially because its network sucked. In the 1980s, PIT was a prized hub due to its proximity to the US population center. But increased competition (new & larger hubs at DTW, CLE. EWR, MCO & MIA, for example, pressured traffic flows, whereas legacy & lower-cost airlines increasingly chased high-volume sun markets) put pressure on airfares, and advances in technology (first with props, later with RJ) enabled airlines to more efficiently link smaller communities to their largest hubs, creating megahubs and eliminating the utility for smaller hubs. The (comparatively) lack of local traffic at PIT handicap the operation, leading to US to pour its resources into PHL and DCA.

US didn't have much else going on for it. It had a large portfolio at LGA, but couldn't turn a profit. It acquired PSA and thought it'd be competing with UA and AA to maintain market share... but underestimated WN / the market / the ability of WN to take over the legacy PSA demand. And like PIT, CLT lacked sufficient local traffic -- it saw some growth as US found success in building up Caribbean service (a move many industry pundits initially tagged as desperate). But it wasn't until the mid-2000s when US embraced the concept of using larger mainline jets, and the lower costs that came with them (when full) to offer lower fares up and down the coast. And if it weren't for several other airlines dumping capacity, the strategy would've probably failed anyway.

Alas, I don't think US squandered much in the 1990s... it was simply a legacy airline left out in an evolving business market.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:42 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

Interesting and not surprising. USAirways never really achieved any type of operational hallmark. It had grand aspirations in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s to be a true national carrier, but it never strayed far from its East Coast routes, select Caribbean markets, and the TATL growth it undertook starting in the mid-1990s to build upon what it had grown organically and on the back of Piedmont. Service on US was neither great nor terrible but none of it memorable. The company nearly went into liquidation in 2004. What saved it was the merger with HP.


US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


US Airways struggled financially because its network sucked. In the 1980s, PIT was a prized hub due to its proximity to the US population center. But increased competition (new & larger hubs at DTW, CLE. EWR, MCO & MIA, for example, pressured traffic flows, whereas legacy & lower-cost airlines increasingly chased high-volume sun markets) put pressure on airfares, and advances in technology (first with props, later with RJ) enabled airlines to more efficiently link smaller communities to their largest hubs, creating megahubs and eliminating the utility for smaller hubs. The (comparatively) lack of local traffic at PIT handicap the operation, leading to US to pour its resources into PHL and DCA.

US didn't have much else going on for it. It had a large portfolio at LGA, but couldn't turn a profit. It acquired PSA and thought it'd be competing with UA and AA to maintain market share... but underestimated WN / the market / the ability of WN to take over the legacy PSA demand. And like PIT, CLT lacked sufficient local traffic -- it saw some growth as US found success in building up Caribbean service (a move many industry pundits initially tagged as desperate). But it wasn't until the mid-2000s when US embraced the concept of using larger mainline jets, and the lower costs that came with them (when full) to offer lower fares up and down the coast. And if it weren't for several other airlines dumping capacity, the strategy would've probably failed anyway.

Alas, I don't think US squandered much in the 1990s... it was simply a legacy airline left out in an evolving business market.


I think you're being a little too critical about legacy USAir. It's cost structure was a huge issue as didn't pilots from Piedmont and PSA when integrated to USAir get massive raises as part of the scale in the merger agreement? If anything, US were allowed too many hubs and/or Focus Cities. CLT and PIT were I think printing money in the 1990s but others such as LAX, SYR, IND, DAY etc. I doubt were. DCA has always been a valuable station for them, PHL & BWI were fine, but they always seemed to be lost up at LGA. They even had semi-major presence at airports not even classified as Focus Cities back then such as EWR, MCI, and MCO. Thus, they had a pretty impressive network to work with. The biggest pitfall were the slew of crashes they had in the early 1990s which damaged customer trust and ultimately led them to rebrand as USAirways.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:39 am

N649DL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:

US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


US Airways struggled financially because its network sucked. In the 1980s, PIT was a prized hub due to its proximity to the US population center. But increased competition (new & larger hubs at DTW, CLE. EWR, MCO & MIA, for example, pressured traffic flows, whereas legacy & lower-cost airlines increasingly chased high-volume sun markets) put pressure on airfares, and advances in technology (first with props, later with RJ) enabled airlines to more efficiently link smaller communities to their largest hubs, creating megahubs and eliminating the utility for smaller hubs. The (comparatively) lack of local traffic at PIT handicap the operation, leading to US to pour its resources into PHL and DCA.

US didn't have much else going on for it. It had a large portfolio at LGA, but couldn't turn a profit. It acquired PSA and thought it'd be competing with UA and AA to maintain market share... but underestimated WN / the market / the ability of WN to take over the legacy PSA demand. And like PIT, CLT lacked sufficient local traffic -- it saw some growth as US found success in building up Caribbean service (a move many industry pundits initially tagged as desperate). But it wasn't until the mid-2000s when US embraced the concept of using larger mainline jets, and the lower costs that came with them (when full) to offer lower fares up and down the coast. And if it weren't for several other airlines dumping capacity, the strategy would've probably failed anyway.

Alas, I don't think US squandered much in the 1990s... it was simply a legacy airline left out in an evolving business market.


I think you're being a little too critical about legacy USAir. It's cost structure was a huge issue as didn't pilots from Piedmont and PSA when integrated to USAir get massive raises as part of the scale in the merger agreement? If anything, US were allowed too many hubs and/or Focus Cities. CLT and PIT were I think printing money in the 1990s but others such as LAX, SYR, IND, DAY etc. I doubt were. DCA has always been a valuable station for them, PHL & BWI were fine, but they always seemed to be lost up at LGA. They even had semi-major presence at airports not even classified as Focus Cities back then such as EWR, MCI, and MCO. Thus, they had a pretty impressive network to work with. The biggest pitfall were the slew of crashes they had in the early 1990s which damaged customer trust and ultimately led them to rebrand as USAirways.


The USAir/USAirways network in the East was formidable. It never quite succeeded in developing a true East-West network, although it had acquired the resources to do it with the PSA acquisition and squandered the opportunity when intra-west coast networks were much more fragmented. Yes, US had way too many focus cities in East Coast markets that to some extent overlapped and in other instances, existed to dominate traffic and it made little sense. PIT developed into a world class airport facility when the new terminal opened in 1992 but it never could generate enough O&D traffic to increase yields and that was the primary reason things shifted to PHL. The best asset US acquired in its string of messy mergers was the CLT hub it inherited from Piedmont. Service wise, US was always near the bottom of industry rankings, was often delayed due to concentrated planes in congested airports, and US had a pretty bad image problem stemming from a string of crashes (405, 427, 1016, 5050, and the LAX runway disaster). It was for this reason that Stephen Wolff rebranded it to USAirways.
 
Sdmccray1984
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:07 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:53 am

I think the better question is: why wasn’t BNA ever able to sustain a small focus city operation for one of the big three? Geographically, BNA would never have been a feasible place for a massive fortress hub (competing with ATL, ORD, DTW, CLT, etc). But looking at what DL has done at RDU has me wondering why something similar wasn’t done at BNA after the AA hub failed...
 
IADCA
Posts: 2878
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:07 am

Sdmccray1984 wrote:
I think the better question is: why wasn’t BNA ever able to sustain a small focus city operation for one of the big three? Geographically, BNA would never have been a feasible place for a massive fortress hub (competing with ATL, ORD, DTW, CLT, etc). But looking at what DL has done at RDU has me wondering why something similar wasn’t done at BNA after the AA hub failed...


Timing, and remember there wasn't a "big three" in the 90s when the BNA hub closed. Nashville was a much smaller city then (the MSA population has more than doubled since 1990) and airlines worked much differently than they do today. Since then, it's become a major WN station.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:46 pm

N649DL wrote:
US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:50 pm

Runway765 wrote:
It seems AA was a bit short sighted to close their BNA hub in the mid-90s. Yes, it may have been unprofitable, but this is, in part, likely due to the RDU hub operating at the same time. IMO, they should have focused on BNA solely as it could have served the all the functions both intended to serve.

I often feel the geography of BNA within the country is overlooked: it is in a really good location to be a hub. And with growing O&D, if it were around today, I’m sure the AA BNA hub would be profitable. Of course, AA made up for it with CLT, but this is an interesting what if. Hopefully, WN grows BNA into a bigger connecting point in the future.


i Believe AA closed the BNA hub years before the 2015 merger with US Airways. A such AA did not have a RDU hub at the time US Airways did.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:34 pm

N649DL wrote:
I think you're being a little too critical about legacy USAir. It's cost structure was a huge issue as didn't pilots from Piedmont and PSA when integrated to USAir get massive raises as part of the scale in the merger agreement? If anything, US were allowed too many hubs and/or Focus Cities. CLT and PIT were I think printing money in the 1990s but others such as LAX, SYR, IND, DAY etc. I doubt were. DCA has always been a valuable station for them, PHL & BWI were fine, but they always seemed to be lost up at LGA. They even had semi-major presence at airports not even classified as Focus Cities back then such as EWR, MCI, and MCO. Thus, they had a pretty impressive network to work with. The biggest pitfall were the slew of crashes they had in the early 1990s which damaged customer trust and ultimately led them to rebrand as USAirways.


I'm not being harsh. Their network may have been impressive, but it wasn't built for profitability. Competition was increasing, and airlines with hubs with larger O/D leveraged them to offer lower connecting fares, severely handicapping US (which obviously was forced to match). Yes, US had other problems, but its biggest was its network. There's a reason why US's network in the mid-2000s had dramatically changed from a decade before.

ContinentalEWR wrote:
The USAir/USAirways network in the East was formidable. It never quite succeeded in developing a true East-West network, although it had acquired the resources to do it with the PSA acquisition and squandered the opportunity when intra-west coast networks were much more fragmented. Yes, US had way too many focus cities in East Coast markets that to some extent overlapped and in other instances, existed to dominate traffic and it made little sense. PIT developed into a world class airport facility when the new terminal opened in 1992 but it never could generate enough O&D traffic to increase yields and that was the primary reason things shifted to PHL. The best asset US acquired in its string of messy mergers was the CLT hub it inherited from Piedmont. Service wise, US was always near the bottom of industry rankings, was often delayed due to concentrated planes in congested airports, and US had a pretty bad image problem stemming from a string of crashes (405, 427, 1016, 5050, and the LAX runway disaster). It was for this reason that Stephen Wolff rebranded it to USAirways.


US' network was formidable in the sense that it carried a large amount of traffic, but not in the sense of profitability. The economics of the network continued to deteriorate as airfares dropped, handicapping the airline. Hence why US' network dramatically changed from the mid-90s to the mid-00s, compared to other legacies. No doubt there were other factors that hurt the airline, including multiple accidents. But the network simply wasn't viable.

washingtonflyer wrote:
There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.


It wasn't CA pride. CA passengers were use to paying low fares. For example, when US acquired PSA, they significantly hiked fares --a $59 walk-up fare from LAX-LAS became $300-ish. WN brought back the $59 fare, and its business flourished. If you search the LA Times articles, there's a ton of articles discussing the rise of WN. Here's one of them (just the first one I could find).

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:39 pm

Sdmccray1984 wrote:
I think the better question is: why wasn’t BNA ever able to sustain a small focus city operation for one of the big three? Geographically, BNA would never have been a feasible place for a massive fortress hub (competing with ATL, ORD, DTW, CLT, etc). But looking at what DL has done at RDU has me wondering why something similar wasn’t done at BNA after the AA hub failed...


Because in the early to mid-90s, BNA was a tiny market. In the 20 years since AA closed it, the market has flourished in population, demographics and business travel. But AA's then-decision to de-hub BNA, and focus on turning DFW into a megahub -- which helped chase away DL -- was undoubtedly the right one.

In the late 1990s, NW did indeed explore moving its MEM hub to BNA. But the cost was high and, WN was rapidly growing the market. Thus, NW opted to expand its MEM operation.

rbavfan wrote:
Runway765 wrote:
It seems AA was a bit short sighted to close their BNA hub in the mid-90s. Yes, it may have been unprofitable, but this is, in part, likely due to the RDU hub operating at the same time. IMO, they should have focused on BNA solely as it could have served the all the functions both intended to serve.

I often feel the geography of BNA within the country is overlooked: it is in a really good location to be a hub. And with growing O&D, if it were around today, I’m sure the AA BNA hub would be profitable. Of course, AA made up for it with CLT, but this is an interesting what if. Hopefully, WN grows BNA into a bigger connecting point in the future.


i Believe AA closed the BNA hub years before the 2015 merger with US Airways. A such AA did not have a RDU hub at the time US Airways did.


The hub closed in the mid-1990s...
 
N649DL
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:19 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
N649DL wrote:
US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.


Can't forget about the ex-HP hub in PHX which is still an AA hub. Don't see that one going away.
 
PresRDC
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 5:00 am

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:38 pm

Runway765 wrote:
Yes, but my broader point is the geographic differences between CLT and BNA are not huge. BNA could handle the flows CLT handles, it's not significantly that further west to make a difference. Heck, WN uses BNA to some extent for Northeast/Midwest > Florida traffic.


Here's an anecdote for you from the late 1980s. As a kid, we used to go to RSW from LGA every April. We typically flew AA and typically connected in RDU. One year, my father routed us through the BNA hub. My mother was furious as she looked at a map and perceived that routing through BNA meant "going all the way west to then go all the way east". Routing through BNA added less than 400 to the total travel distance, but it looks like much more on a map. Perceptions matter. After that, we only ever connected through RDU.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:53 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:


Can toss MCI, MKE, and a few others in there too.
The only ones who really survived that era are DEN and SLC, and that's due in dual part to the strength of their local population + general isolation.


DFW, ORD, IAH and MSP were all hubs of that era too. The difference being as they consolidated down to a single carrier (except ORD), the local market/business community didn't stagnate the way the other midwest cities did.

One could argue that WN has essentially recreated the late 70s and early 80s hubs--from DEN to MCI, STL, MDW, MKE, BNA and BWI in their own way, with their pre-Covid passenger numbers being close to the 80s hub numbers. The only former hub stations they haven't built up to any extent are the old PI and US hubs: DAY, SYR, BUF and PIT.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 15185
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:31 pm

N717TW wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Can toss MCI, MKE, and a few others in there too.
The only ones who really survived that era are DEN and SLC, and that's due in dual part to the strength of their local population + general isolation.

DFW, ORD, IAH and MSP were all hubs of that era too.

MSP is the only metro in that statement that isn't utterly laughable to compare to the likes of MCI and MKE, though not by much.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:58 pm

N649DL wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
N649DL wrote:
US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.


Can't forget about the ex-HP hub in PHX which is still an AA hub. Don't see that one going away.


This is a.net. That operation was supposed to die 5 yers ago according to some posters. I left that one out as it was much more of a merger of two equals rather than a carrier being swallowed up like what we say with QQ and PS.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:58 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
N649DL wrote:
US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.


And LAX.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:49 pm

N717TW wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
N649DL wrote:
US also squandered a lot of potential growth during the 1990s. They had a ton of potential, but excessive costs and horrific crashes damaged their reputation. One example is they basically threw in the towel at LAX and their California presence after getting the keys from PSA by the late 1990s. I definitely recall HP basically saving US from certain death. They were looking at total liquidation by late 2004 or Early 2005.


There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.


And LAX.


No, DL dismantled the LAX operation it inherited from Western. The pre-COVID operation was built in the last 5+ years.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:55 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
N717TW wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:

There was a lot of California pride in PSA and a lot of resentment when the big bad east coast airline acquired it.

Let's also remember that USAir was not the only airline to dive into the west coast / California pool only to find that the pool had cement in it:

USAir bought PSA
American bought AirCal
American bought Reno
Delta bought Western
Republic bought Hughes Air West

Delta's acquisition of Western is probably the only one where you can still see the network in existence today with Western's big hub being SLC.


And LAX.


No, DL dismantled the LAX operation it inherited from Western. The pre-COVID operation was built in the last 5+ years.


While I agree LAX was all built up in the last 5 years, LAX was still a very large station for DL pre-NWA merger. LAX resembled BOS in many ways (a smaller hub that would expand and shrink...being called a hub or not...depending on economic and competitive conditions). But overall, LAX was a smaller spoke for DL before WA and has been a larger station/hub ever since.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why did AA close their BNA hub?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:15 pm

N717TW wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
N717TW wrote:

And LAX.


No, DL dismantled the LAX operation it inherited from Western. The pre-COVID operation was built in the last 5+ years.


While I agree LAX was all built up in the last 5 years, LAX was still a very large station for DL pre-NWA merger. LAX resembled BOS in many ways (a smaller hub that would expand and shrink...being called a hub or not...depending on economic and competitive conditions). But overall, LAX was a smaller spoke for DL before WA and has been a larger station/hub ever since.


By the late 2000s, DL peaked at around 30 daily flights from LAX - all to its hubs, MCO (which was a focus city/borderline hub) and Hawaii. The operation they had inherited from Western was long gone.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos