US/AA Effects On CLT

Cubsrule · Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:44 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 88):
But which one will they see as being more profitable is the question at hand here.

I agree. My point is that connecting passengers don't care where they connect. AA/US should, logically, want them to connect at the cheapest, most efficient and best located-hub assuming that there isn't what I'll call a "local market need" to have the flight use another hub. I'd submit that AA would lose no MIA local traffic by moving one MIA-GRU flight to CLT and would gain a significant amount of connecting traffic.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 85):
AA will treat CLT just like it treated STL and RDU in the previous mergers.

How is CLT in 2012 at all analogous to STL in 2005 or RDU in 1990?

Quoting miller22 (Reply 83):
MIA is a far superior hub for PUJ and MBJ. I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise until I read your post today.

Why? The O&D isn't as MIA-centric as it would be to more VFR-oriented cities like SDQ and MIA is higher cost and, for most itineraries, more out of the way. What, exactly, makes MIA a better hub?

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 81):
You said there were only 3 jet markets withing 150 miles of STL, you mentioned one as SPI, which is the same sa COU. EVV does indeed have jet service.

EVV is (just) beyond 150 miles.

USAirALB · Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:02 am

Quoting brilondon (Reply 89):
Not as absurd, but it has been rumoured that AA will retain its headquarters and its name if a merger comes about. There fore it might be that CLT will not remain a hub in favour of MIA, being closer to the Central and South American markets.

Yes, Doug Parker said that if HIS team leads the company, it will be headquartered in the DFW area with the name AA. Note how HIS is capitalized. So it would be US running AA.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 93):
CLT is not exactly US's largest and strongest hub.

??????? What do you think US's largest hub is? PHX? PHL?

CLT is by far US's largest and strongest hub.

As of 10/1/2012, US has 601 daily departures to 130 destinations from CLT.

PHL has 438 flights daily to 114 destinations.

AAIL86 · Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:05 am

Quoting miller22 (Reply 83):

Don't confuse profitability with network routing. DFW-GRU is so popular because of the local base, not the connecting base. O&D non-stop passengers are always preferred since you only divide the cost of their ticket by one flight.

In fact, what your suggesting further strengthens the point that AA is keeping DFW smaller than the market and hub it deserves to be. I don't question if DFW-GRU is extremely popular. But if it is, then why isn't AA adding to that route? The answer is clear: they don't want to cannibalize MIA. That's what it all comes down to. How much will AA route around CLT because it's not the preferred launching point? As you just pointed out, they seem to be willing to route a lot around DFW, even though it's such a large market. Just for grins, I took a look at markets into GRU. MCO is a larger GRU market than DFW.

You made a blanket statement service to Latin American from DFW is "almost non-existent outside of Mexico", which is simply and massively false. Since that claim was questioned, the backpedaling has begun with your subsequent claim that you meant to say DFW is just underserved to Latin America....

DFW-GRU is daily with a 772 all year and twice daily 763/772 at peak periods. Compare that to DL's 764 on ATL-GRU or UA's 762 on IAH-GRU.... and those are DL/UA's primary Latin gateways. In fact, the premium cabins do so well on DFW-GRU that AA is deploying their flagship 77W first on this route - before other high routes like DFW-NRT / MIA-GRU / JFK-LHR etc. I don't doubt that DFW will continue to add service to Latin America, but I don't buy that its currently underserved by a big margin, either, especially given that DFW isn't the primary gateway.

The main question we were debating about CLT is if MSA data correlates 1:1 to O&D, which both LAXdude and I have disagreed with - on the basis that different populations have different needs, and I used the example of CHM vs CLT to prove my point - a point you did not respond to in your reply.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 87):
People keep saying "AA". You do know that if AA/US merge, "AA" will be US Airways, just with a different livery and name. Nothing will change except the name and the livery, US Airways will be running the airline, and US has been known to favor CLT.

To say MIA will replace CLT as a hub is absurd.

Well, for one thing over 70% of the employees will come from American, and the headquarters will be the Centreport complex with some random heads from US Airways thrown in. We as yet don't know who will be the acquiring carrier or how much influence each group will have, but but based on those variables alone - AA's culture will be the surviving one. As a former AAer and as much as I love AA, I'm not sure if that's even the best solution or not, but it will be the outcome nonetheless.

Cubsrule · Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:12 am

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 103):
We as yet don't know who will be the acquiring carrier

Operationally, it really doesn't matter who acquires whom. Fanboys and financial types care. It's not very important for anyone else.

CIDFlyer · Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:16 am

Quoting brilondon (Reply 93):
I really don't see any other options here for the S.E. CLT is not exactly US's largest and strongest hub. I believe that if you want to see CLT's future, you would just look at PIT or STL.

huh??? where are you getting your facts from Brilondon? CLT IS UsAirways largest and strongest hub. Its is the THIRD largest airline hub behind DL at ATL and AA at DFW. People start getting the facts straight here. AA doesnt have a hub in this region, the nearest one is nearly 700 miles away. This area is a gaping hole in the AA network. As I have pointed out previously, AA closing CLT would just be like handing over the keys to DL to be dominant in the nations fastest growing region. If AA is foolish enough to give that up (they wont) UA would probably love taking over some CLT real estate quick.

As Ive also said before, you cant compare RDU with CLT as AA hubs. AA competed with itself at RDU with their hub at BNA, a CO hub at GSO, the DL hub at ATL, Eastern hub at Atlanta and Piedmont(later USAir) hub at CLT. Too many airlines competing for same traffic flows. If this AA/US merger is consumated, we will have 3 legacy carriers, two of them with larger southeast hubs (DL at ATL and AA at CLT). I can see AA having a 500 flight a day hub there.

SESGDL · Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:09 am

Quoting miller22 (Reply 83):

DFW is the largest hub in the U.S. any way you look at it. The largest hub in the U.S. has fewer connections to Latin American markets than IAH, a hub half it's size and only 200 miles away.

DFW is not the largest hub in the US. DL's ATL hub is the largest hub in the US as well as the world. Also, IAH is nowhere near half the size of DFW, closer to 20% larger.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 83):
But lets make sure we're comparing apples to apples here. CLT is not the 3rd largest hub in the U.S. It's the 4th largest DOMESTIC hub. When you take into account international traffic, it drops significantly.

CLT is indeed the 3rd largest domestic hub and the 4th largest when taking into account international traffic, hardly drops "significantly."

Jeremy

flyguy89 · Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:09 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 99):
I'd submit that AA would lose no MIA local traffic by moving one MIA-GRU flight to CLT and would gain a significant amount of connecting traffic.

True enough, but it's going to come down to whether or not the additional amount of connecting traffic will net more money for the company than just using the additional frequency out of MIA...this is something we can't really know until the merger shakes out and we have an idea of their network dynamics and operating costs. What you're proposing is by no mean absurd however, it may very well pan out that way, it just depends.

Moose135 · Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:12 am

Quoting southwest737500 (Thread starter):
Could CLT possibly get some 777-200,777-300,737-800

It would certainly make CLT spotting more interesting...

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 43):
I've noticed she only comes if its an A34X.

No, she was out last week for the A330, she's out all the time.

blueheronNC · Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:53 am

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 104):
As Ive also said before, you cant compare RDU with CLT as AA hubs. AA competed with itself at RDU with their hub at BNA, a CO hub at GSO, the DL hub at ATL, Eastern hub at Atlanta and Piedmont(later USAir) hub at CLT. Too many airlines competing for same traffic flows. If this AA/US merger is consumated, we will have 3 legacy carriers, two of them with larger southeast hubs (DL at ATL and AA at CLT). I can see AA having a 500 flight a day hub there.

Not only that, but AA was trying to build hubs and brand loyalty feeding into BNA and RDU from scratch, whereas CLT is already a massive, fully-operating and low-cost operation. It's a lot tougher to enter a market when no one in town has flown your airline in 30 years and DL/Eastern can flood your market with capacity and perks and you're already a FF with them, versus adding flights to a massive hub and FF program you're already invested in. Seriously, around the time AA was doing the BNA/RDU build-up, the buzz around my hometown of Tallahassee, FL at the time was, "and why would anyone be flying from Tallahassee to Nashville???" They were treating it as a strictly O&D route as opposed to a new connection point, because they had no reference point to think otherwise. Adopting a CLT hub wholesale avoids this issue completely.

Ryefly · Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:08 am

Who cares what the O&D or the population of Charlotte is . All they care about is that its profitable and second that it's reliable. Both are statistics CLT excels at. It's ontime ratings are some of the best of all the hubs. In fact, CLT recorded it best ever 11-month departing (68.1%) and arriving (79.2%) ontime ratings, and best-ever (73.4%) rate for successful aircraft turn times this year. Also levels of mishandled bags were also at record lows. All of which were accomplished with an average of 600+ flights a day from US Airways.

Most importantly CLT was the 4th most profitable major airport in the country behind EWR, DCA & HOU. Low airport costs and landing fees combined with a lot of service equals big profits for both the airport and the airline.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11793...ything.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

[Edited 2012-12-17 22:13:27]

MAH4546 · Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:12 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 100):
I'd submit that AA would lose no MIA local traffic by moving one MIA-GRU flight to CLT and would gain a significant amount of connecting traffic.

Where exactly is this gain coming from? MIA is about 30% of GRU-U.S. local traffic. Adding just NYC and MCO gives more than half of all GRU-U.S. traffic.

Then throw in LAX, SFO, ATL, IAD, ORD, TPA, BOS, DFW, LAS and IAH, and you have roughly 90% of U.S.-GRU covered.

U.S.-Brazil is huge, but it remains insanely concentrated on major metros. EGE is a bigger market to Brazil than any tiny Southeast town that has a CLT flight.

Cubsrule · Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:14 pm

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 111):
Then throw in LAX, SFO, ATL, IAD, ORD, TPA, BOS, DFW, LAS and IAH, and you have roughly 90% of U.S.-GRU covered.

If I'm flying BOS-GRU and don't really care about the airline I fly, I'd probably rather connect in CLT or ATL than MIA (though ATL isn't as easy in the early mornings as it used to be).

Quoting RyeFly (Reply 109):
It's ontime ratings are some of the best of all the hubs. In fact, CLT recorded it best ever 11-month departing (68.1%) and arriving (79.2%) ontime ratings, and best-ever (73.4%) rate for successful aircraft turn times this year.

I'd submit that, given the generally good weather in Charlotte, those numbers are actually not very good. CLT needs to do something about the ramp congestion on the Express side.

Bobloblaw · Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:12 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 88):
Really? Because these are exactly the types of markets I see as most vulnerable from CLT. What destinations could be reached from these markets that aren't already better flowed over ORD?

Youd flow traffic going southeast over CLT rather than ORD, to reduce congestion and delays in ORD. While overall the DL/NW merger reduced flights, there were increase in flights to cities in the upper midwest where NW was strong. FNT and GRR in particular saw more not less capacity to ATL.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 83):
DSM is a prime market for MIA service, but AA has not had the aircraft to go after that market. Once the 81-seaters start flying en-masse, I would expect DSM-MIA to be a market added. OMA too, probably

I dont think so, unless there is lots of high yielding local traffic. It is too far for a plane under 100 seats to get a decent CASM. The CASM bottoms out well before the plane gets to DSM, so the RASM better be dam high. This is one huge advantage CLT and ATL have over MIA. To MIA youre running a mong domestic segment on an inefficient RJ type aircraft. With ATL and CLT, the inefficient aircraft, first isnt as inefficient and 2nd the longer segment is on a 150 seat plane.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 93):
I really don't see any other options here for the S.E. CLT is not exactly US's largest and strongest hub. I believe that if you want to see CLT's future, you would just look at PIT or STL.

There is no comparison between CLT and other former hubs. NONE. All the other former hubs were in smaller financially weaker local markets. Two they were all close to other hubs, STL especially. PIT too close to PHL, CLE between ORD and EWR. There is no comparison.

ALSO YOURE FORGETTING THAT AS DL SHUTS DOWN CVG, CLT WILL BENEFIT. Nothing happens in a vacuum. CLT will benefit from CVG and CLE pulling down and even to a lesser extent MEM, though much lesser.

Quoting blueheronNC (Reply 108):
Not only that, but AA was trying to build hubs and brand loyalty feeding into BNA and RDU from scratch, whereas CLT is already a massive, fully-operating and low-cost operation.

Excellent point.

flyguy89 · Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:29 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 113):
Youd flow traffic going southeast over CLT rather than ORD, to reduce congestion and delays in ORD.

1) Congestion/delay issues at ORD are nowhere near what they used to be after the airport renovations. 2) All those markets are already connected to all the major destinations in the southeast more effectively, and probably at less cost, through ORD.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 113):
ALSO YOURE FORGETTING THAT AS DL SHUTS DOWN CVG, CLT WILL BENEFIT.

So capacity being reduced due to overcapacity in the market will then be replaced with more CLT capacity, keeping yields suppressed? Doubt it, and even that argument isn't very true considering that, except MEM, they don't serve the same traffic flows. And if CLT hasn't already benefited by now, looking at where CVG and MEM are at currently, it's doubtful they'll realize any advantage from it.

Bobloblaw · Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:51 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 114):
So capacity being reduced due to overcapacity in the market will then be replaced with more CLT capacity, keeping yields suppressed?

Capacity being reduced makes CLT more viable. No one is talking about GROWING CLT, but with CVG out of the picture, CLT will be far less likely to shrink.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 114):
1) Congestion/delay issues at ORD are nowhere near what they used to be after the airport renovations. 2) All those markets are already connected to all the major destinations in the southeast more effectively, and probably at less cost, through ORD.

People who live in the midwest certainly dont have that impression. I would also bet ORD has higher enplanement costs for AA than CLT will.

flyguy89 · Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:16 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 115):
Capacity being reduced makes CLT more viable. No one is talking about GROWING CLT, but with CVG out of the picture, CLT will be far less likely to shrink.

Again, how so seeing as they didn't serve any of the same traffic flows?

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 115):
No one is talking about GROWING CLT,

Apparently they are with some of the posters above claiming it will grow to 700-800 flights.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 115):
I would also bet ORD has higher enplanement costs for AA than CLT will.

Mitigated by the longer trip costs needed to connect those cities to CLT.

cessna2 · Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:29 am

Quoting miller22 (Reply 29):
Maybe AA could finally get away from the RDU-LHR subsidied service and add another frequency.

Highly doubtful since the service is "subsidized" but has yet to use any of that money because it pays for itself.

You are all blinded by the light in CLT. AA will end up buying AWE and moving all operations back to RDU.

Bobloblaw · Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:48 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
Mitigated by the longer trip costs needed to connect those cities to CLT.

Offset by the shorter trip costs from CLT. AA flies lots of RJs to cities in the SE from ORD. Also the fees are higher at ORD. I dont know why you think that US's largest hub, AA

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
Mitigated by the longer trip costs needed to connect those cities to CLT.

Offset by the shorter trip costs from CLT. AA flies lots of RJs to cities in the SE from ORD. Also the fees are higher at ORD. I dont know why you think that US's largest hub, AA's to be 2nd largest hub and the only hub in the SE aside from ATL, is slated for big cuts. It will be the most valuable part of the merger. PHX will be the least valuable. PHL in between.

United, when they wanted to buy US Air back in 2000, didnt want US for PIT or PHL. They wanted US for CLT.

flyguy89 · Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:29 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 118):
Offset by the shorter trip costs from CLT.

Search almost any itinerary from the midwest/upper midwest to the southeast (outside the Carolinas) and 80-90% of them are of greater length connecting through CLT than ORD.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 118):
AA flies lots of RJs to cities in the SE from ORD.

As does US.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 118):
I dont know why you think that US's largest hub, AA's to be 2nd largest hub and the only hub in the SE aside from ATL, is slated for big cuts.

I'm not sure I understand how you think it will be completely unaffected when added within a completely new network and no longer being the one and only mega-fortress hub for an airline. If you re-read my posts, I don't believe CLT is in danger of being de-hubbed and it would remain an important hub in a combined AA/US network, just pared back to between 400-500 flights.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 118):

United, when they wanted to buy US Air back in 2000, didnt want US for PIT or PHL. They wanted US for CLT.

...and since then, why has no other airline come-a-calling?

CIDFlyer · Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 119):

As does US.

US flies from ORD to cities in the Southeast?? when did that happen? or do you mean UA?

I think US/AA could probably be more like UA/CO, most hubs havent seen dramatic cutbacks...heck even the people who swore CLE was a gonner seems to be hanging in there.

[Edited 2012-12-18 19:41:35]

CV880 · Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:48 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 119):
United, when they wanted to buy US Air back in 2000, didnt want US for PIT or PHL. They wanted US for CLT.

...and since then, why has no other airline come-a-calling?

Primarily because up until NW/DL went into BK, these mega mergers were being turned down by the Feds (As in the case of UA/US). As it turned out, that merger would have made the most sense, giving UA a presence in the Southeast, which it still does not have. Other than NW/DL or CO/UA what other opportunity would there have been?

Cubsrule · Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:05 am

Quoting cv880 (Reply 121):
Primarily because up until NW/DL went into BK, these mega mergers were being turned down by the Feds (As in the case of UA/US).

That's revisionist history. UA/US was turned down because of the concentration in D.C., not overall size or the fact that it was a "mega-merger." AA/TW was approved around the same time.

flyguy89 · Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:08 am

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 120):
US flies from ORD to cities in the Southeast?? when did that happen? or do you mean UA?

Meaning US flies a lot of RJ's throughout the southeast and midwest from CLT.

Quoting cv880 (Reply 121):
Primarily because up until NW/DL went into BK

So why, since the start of the mega-mergers, has no carrier looked to merge with US? I'm not saying any type of merger involving US doesn't have merits or value, but it's not as cut and dry as some portray it.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 120):
I think US/AA could probably be more like UA/CO, most hubs havent seen dramatic cutbacks...heck even the people who swore CLE was a gonner seems to be hanging in there.

Uhh...IAH?! (unless you believe UA's line of BS that they only made the cuts because the city decided to allow international flights out of Hobby). CLE is also down, though not out yet. We're far from seeing the final results of the CO/UA merger.

CIDFlyer · Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:27 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 123):

Uhh...IAH?! (unless you believe UA's line of BS that they only made the cuts because the city decided to allow international flights out of Hobby). CLE is also down, though not out yet. We're far from seeing the final results of the CO/UA merger.

IAH hasnt seen that much of a cutback, yes maybe a handful of flights but certainly not hundreds like CVG or STL experienced. Its still a very large hub.

flyguy89 · Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:42 am

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 124):
IAH hasnt seen that much of a cutback, yes maybe a handful of flights

A 10% cut is more than just a handful of flights.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 124):
but certainly not hundreds like CVG or STL experienced. Its still a very large hub.

Nor am I saying we will see hundreds of terminations like CVG or STL, my larger point was more geared towards those that don't think there will be any "adjustments" within the new network, that CLT will either stay completely unaffected or grow. I said many times before, in a merger CLT will remain an important hub, I just believe it will be pared back to between 400-500 flights once everything is settled.

CIDFlyer · Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:10 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):

Nor am I saying we will see hundreds of terminations like CVG or STL, my larger point was more geared towards those that don't think there will be any "adjustments" within the new network, that CLT will either stay completely unaffected or grow. I said many times before, in a merger CLT will remain an important hub, I just believe it will be pared back to between 400-500 flights once everything is settled.

that I do agree on, I see CLT as a significant hub but nowhere near DFW super hub status

Bobloblaw · Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:39 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 119):
Search almost any itinerary from the midwest/upper midwest to the southeast (outside the Carolinas) and 80-90% of them are of greater length connecting through CLT than ORD.

You cant argue that ORD is a more convenient or cheaper airport to connect through than CLT.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 119):
...and since then, why has no other airline come-a-calling?

Wow, that's your argument??? That after 9-11, a slow recovery from 2002-06 and an economic meltdown 2008-09, the proof that CLT doesnt have value is no one has been interested since 2000??? Also DL/US doesnt make sense and CO was only a merger partner after NW went with DL (CO golden share)

I would bet that cities in the SE, unless they have high local to DFW, will lose their DFW service in fav of CLT. Flying a 50 seat RJ 800-1000 miles isnt profitable, unless there is a high percent local.

flyguy89 · Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 126):

You cant argue that ORD is a more convenient or cheaper airport to connect through than CLT.

It's arguably more convenient with shorter itineraries, more economical because of those same shorter itineraries and better yielding with a larger amount of O&D pax to buoy the connecting flights.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 126):
That after 9-11, a slow recovery from 2002-06 and an economic meltdown 2008-09

If this were the case, why did any airlines merge at all?

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 126):
the proof that CLT doesnt have value is no one has been interested since 2000???

You can add all the question marks you want but it still won't mean that I ever said that. Below is a quote from a previous post here:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 122):
I'm not saying any type of merger involving US doesn't have merits or value, but it's not as cut and dry as some portray it.

JDAirCEO · Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:02 pm

Quoting southwest737500 (Thread starter):
I feel that CLT will see about 700 flights once the merger is done. I think CLT can connect markets more effectively than AA.

For CLT i also think AS would fly a daily flight from SEA because of there partnership.

Its obvious BA would come in. in the summer they could fly a 747 or a 777 which is probably more likely and in the winter a 763

LH is a different story i feel that they will keep CLT but we defiantly will not see the beautiful A340-600 in the summer.

I dout but maybe AB could come to CLT but it would probably be AA going to BER.

For current European flights

LHR- possibly 2 AA flights and 1 BA
FRA- 2 flights still in the summer because of AB
MAD- 1 daily but on a bigger plane like the A333 or 777
FCO- A333
DUB- I know some people think this will go but i believe it will stay

Could CLT possibly get some 777-200,777-300,737-800

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Not to be rude but this is a teenager playing make believe. Seriously.

jfk777 · Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:54 pm

IF AA merges with US CLT will play a prominent international part. Anything done by Delta in Atlanta could be done by CLT. Tokyo and J'berg are far down the wish list but CLT would expand to South America and Europe. CLT to GRU and EZE and SCL will probably daily. LHR will be double daily all year, Miami traffic is different then CLT's. Madrid could be flown by either AA or Iberia. CLT to Panama and BOG could be reality too.

southwest737500 · Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:41 pm

Quoting JDairCEO (Reply 128):

I don't get it, are you confused it's very realistic,

superjeff · Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 89):

Quoting brilondon (Reply 89):
People keep saying "AA". You do know that if AA/US merge, "AA" will be US Airways, just with a different livery and name. Nothing will change except the name and the livery, US Airways will be running the airline, and US has been known to favor CLT.

To say MIA will replace CLT as a hub is absurd.

Not as absurd, but it has been rumoured that AA will retain its headquarters and its name if a merger comes about. There fore it might be that CLT will not remain a hub in favour of MIA, being closer to the Central and South American markets.

The proposed management is all US, and the proposed merger is in effect a reverse takeover by US. Just like when America West acquired the original US Airways out of bankruptcy. They kept the US name, but the airline is really America West - thus the "Cactus" call sign. Add to that that Doug Parker is known for being able to make money which is much more than AA's management has been able to do.

LAXdude1023 · Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:55 pm

Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 130):
I don't get it, are you confused it's very realistic,

Im no CLT hater or lover, but your vision for post merger CLT is not realistic. Ive already gone into detail as of why so Im not going to do it again.

Bobloblaw · Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:32 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
It's arguably more convenient with shorter itineraries, more economical because of those same shorter itineraries and better yielding with a larger amount of O&D pax to buoy the connecting flights.

Who is more likely to have a ground stop?? ORD or CLT??? DSM-ORD-GSO is going to be more expensive over the course of 12 months than DSM-CLT-GSO. In fact you dont even realize that youre pointing out that rationalization will be ORD and DFW, not CLT. Perhaps ORD/DFW-SAV or CAE will be cut in favor of flowing the traffic over CLT, which doesnt currently have many nonstops to cities in the ORD and DFW hinterlands.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
If this were the case, why did any airlines merge at all?

Your position is increasingly untenable. The Golden Share that NW held over CO, effectively prevented anyone from merging or buying CO until NW was merged or bought. Your position has morphed from CLT has low value for AA to US has low value for AA.

flyguy89 · Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:23 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 133):
DSM-ORD-GSO is going to be more expensive over the course of 12 months than DSM-CLT-GSO.

Really? Seems like an awful lot of assuming on your part as to the on-time stats of AA's operation at ORD and US's at CLT, in addition to ratios on RASM and CASM between the two.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 133):
Perhaps ORD/DFW-SAV or CAE will be cut in favor of flowing the traffic over CLT

Perhaps. And then perhaps MCI, OMA and DSM may be cut from CLT in favor of flowing it over ORD.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 133):

Your position is increasingly untenable.

I'm only saying a sour economic environment doesn't deter airline mergers.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 133):
Your position has morphed from CLT has low value for AA to US has low value for AA.

No, my position has always been that the situation is never as cut-and-dry as "airline XYZ is merging with airline ABC because they have item X", so saying CLT would be the primary reason behind any desirability of AA to merge with US is disingenuous.

gigneil · Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:26 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 113):
Congestion/delay issues at ORD are nowhere near what they used to be after the airport renovations.

thats not true.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 113):
All those markets are already connected to all the major destinations in the southeast more effectively, and probably at less cost, through ORD.

zero of them are.

I'm sorry I love ORD. But AA/US will never prioritize it over CLT. You have zero evidence to disprove it.

NS

flyguy89 · Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:40 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 135):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 113):
Congestion/delay issues at ORD are nowhere near what they used to be after the airport renovations.

thats not true.

DOT stats say otherwise...

Quoting gigneil (Reply 135):
zero of them are.

What are you talking about? ORD it connected to BHM, RIC, ORF, CAE, GSO, RDU, SAV, CHO, CHA...etc, in other words, all the major markets in the southeast.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 135):
But AA/US will never prioritize it over CLT. You have zero evidence to disprove it.

Who's talking about prioritization of one hub over another? I'm talking about rationalization of the route network.

usflyer msp · Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:56 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 135):
zero of them are.

I'm sorry I love ORD. But AA/US will never prioritize it over CLT. You have zero evidence to disprove it.

If the US/AA merger, goes through it will be interesting what happens in NYC, LAX, ORD, and PHX. US management has repeatedly stated that it prefers smaller-market hubs where it is overwhelmingly dominant like CLT, PHL/DFW, MIA as opposed to hypercompetitive situations like LA, Chicago, Phoenix, and New York. If US can't be #1 they would rather withdraw (see LGA, LAS and BOS for examples). AA is fine with being the second or third carrier in the top markets. It ill be interesting to see which management philosophy prevails.

boberito6589 · Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:59 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 136):
ORD it connected to BHM, RIC, ORF, CAE, GSO, RDU, SAV, CHO, CHA...etc, in other words, all the major markets in the southeast.

Actually BHM, ORF, CAE, GSO, SAV, CHS, GSP, CRW are not connected to ORD by AA.

flyguy89 · Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:31 pm

Quoting boberito6589 (Reply 138):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 136):
ORD it connected to BHM, RIC, ORF, CAE, GSO, RDU, SAV, CHO, CHA...etc, in other words, all the major markets in the southeast.

Actually BHM, ORF, CAE, GSO, SAV, CHS, GSP, CRW are not connected to ORD by AA.

They are by UA...

LipeGIG · Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:27 pm

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 11):
AA is great at shutting down hubs. Id expect CLT to be cut in half 5 years after the merger. Same goes for PHL

Last time i saw the merge offer, it comes from US.
I just find interesting that many here believe that US hubs are less interesting than AA ones just because New York and Miami are "bigger markets".

US is a profitable airline, because it runs a profitable operation. This operation contains CLT and PHL as hubs, and probably they manage very well costs and revenues.

Cut CLT for what ? To increase and try to shift profits over other hubs ? Why ? A smart business administration would take full advantage of CLT rather than decrease it.
Furthermore, CLT downsizing could represent a threat as UA can see that as a chance to build up a Southeast small hub that can just jeopardize any effort to shift traffic.

As for PHL, as off-topic, there's no room for AA to grow in New York so much to compensate that.

USAirALB · Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:28 am

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 140):
US is a profitable airline, because it runs a profitable operation. This operation contains CLT and PHL as hubs, and probably they manage very well costs and revenues.

It's also worth noticing that CLT has the lowest cost of enplanement of any large hub in America, lower even than SLC. The median cost of enplanement was around 10 dollars last year, with ORD just above that mark, and MIA and JFK being way above that mark. DFW and PHX were somewhat in the middle, at a little above 5 dollars. PHL was right at 10 dollars.

deltairlines · Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:19 am

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 140):
US is a profitable airline, because it runs a profitable operation. This operation contains CLT and PHL as hubs, and probably they manage very well costs and revenues.

It is profitable, but I'd argue a VERY large part of this (knowing US Airways) comes from savings on the cost side. Doug and Co. have mentioned that they have an inferior network (save DCA) compared to DL/UA/AA. If a merger goes through, the entire cost structure at US changes, and it ain't going down. Revenue might tick up slightly with a more efficient network, but the question is will the margins remain competitive enough with the increase on the denominator.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 129):
IF AA merges with US CLT will play a prominent international part. Anything done by Delta in Atlanta could be done by CLT. Tokyo and J'berg are far down the wish list but CLT would expand to South America and Europe. CLT to GRU and EZE and SCL will probably daily. LHR will be double daily all year, Miami traffic is different then CLT's. Madrid could be flown by either AA or Iberia. CLT to Panama and BOG could be reality too.

Absolutely no chance - CLT will always be a distant second fiddle to ATL, even post merger. The O&D to most of the secondary cities (and even more acutely the tertiary cities!) is simply too acute to shift flights from Miami, where there's a ton more O&D, 650 miles less to fly and sufficient feed from the cities that count (Boston, New York, Philly, Washington, Montreal, Toronto, etc. Sorry Charleston WV, Roanoke VA, Jacksonville NC, etc. - you're just not factors when it comes to providing consistent flow traffic levels and yields). Not to mention for Orlando, what makes sense - MCO-MIA-GRU (4264 miles) or MCO-CLT-GRU (5091 miles)? Given that MCO is a huge flow for CLT-GIG, in a merger all that traffic is going to be shifted to CLT instead of hauling these pax an extra 20% further, which makes no sense if another rational option exists (which it would).

gigneil · Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:29 am

They're not going to downsize Miami either. There's PLENTY of room for both of those airports.

NS

Cubsrule · Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:50 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 133):
Who is more likely to have a ground stop?? ORD or CLT???

CLT has summer thunderstorms that muck things up and probably, on average, runs somewhat worse than ORD in the summer. Ramp congestion on the Express side is also a problem year round. CLT would run a lot smoother with about 20 percent fewer Express flights.

gigneil · Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:33 am

Me thinks with the combined fleet and force of AA+US, they could ramp mainline and reduce Express.

NS

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net