This is a continuation thread from part 1 (merger impact: hubs) which can be found here: AA/US Merger Impact: Hubs (Part 1)


Please feel free to continue your discussion here. On behalf of the moderators, please continue to enjoy the forums.


The Moderators

Local business report on WCBS 880 in New York stated that AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that?

Fewer ERJs and more international flying, I'd expect.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Love to know how they're going to do that?

Maybe less short haul domestic (shift that to PHL), more transcon and international?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2): Fewer ERJs and more international flying, I'd expect.

That's what I'm thinking too. I see them utilizing some of the 762s on more tatl flights.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4): That's what I'm thinking too. I see them utilizing some of the 762s on more tatl flights

Those are going to be retired, soon.

I was looking at documentation that US/AA provided on the merger website. One thing I found is there are a few western cities that US serves from PHX that are not served at all by AA. The question is, are these cities still going to be served from PHX post merger, or is AA going to pull out entirely, or shift the service to other hubs? Something to think about.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Love to know how they're going to do that?

As others have also suggested, my guess is that AA plans to replace peak slots now used by RJs with mainline (primarily transcon and/or longhaul flights). AA already has a strong network at JFK, but I think it could benefit from some strategic additions in key New York O&D markets (both domestic and international) not already served.

AA forces transfers through JFK onto international flights because in many cases AA has little alternative to JFK for handling those connections. Now, with PHL, connections to Europe from places like CVG, BWI, CLE, etc. can be routed over the far larger PHL hub, freeing up JFK slots and capacity to be allocated in a more optimized way for the local O&D market.

Quoting apodino (Reply 7): I was looking at documentation that US/AA provided on the merger website. One thing I found is there are a few western cities that US serves from PHX that are not served at all by AA. The question is, are these cities still going to be served from PHX post merger, or is AA going to pull out entirely, or shift the service to other hubs? Something to think about.

There are several - around 10, I think - markets in the western U.S. that are served by US through PHX but not AA at all (although many of them are markets AA used to serve within the last decade, such as LGB, OAK, SBP, BOI, BFL, etc.). My guess is that some of them may well transition to either DFW or a DFW/PHX mix, as DFW provides greater connectivity than PHX ever can.

Btw I don't know why some people insist in keeping flights to BCN just because it is a "Oneworld hub". Vueling is not a OW partner airline, so BCN is not a OW hub.

Quoting commavia (Reply 8): AA forces transfers through JFK onto international flights because in many cases AA has little alternative to JFK for handling those connections. Now, with PHL, connections to Europe from places like CVG, BWI, CLE, etc. can be routed over the far larger PHL hub, freeing up JFK slots and capacity to be allocated in a more optimized way for the local O&D market.

This has been discussed to extenuation in the previous thread. The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable... specially from Europe from where many secondary cities would only make viable a flight to New York (largest O&D in the US by far to most of those destinations) and good connectivity opportunities. That is what BA does in overcrowded Heathrow (why don't they split it between LHR and BHX for instance) or AF in CDG. Sure both BA and AF use LGW and ORY, but both London and Paris play in a very different league (comparable only to New York) and both airports serve roughly the same O&D market (same as DL does from JFK and LGA).

I feel that some people here might give the impression that transiting through an airport in a smaller city with less O&D would be more convenient. Particularly in PHL I don't think it is the case... the airport is not bad but either amazing (I prefer AA's terminal at JFK for transiting) and it shares the same crowded airspace and likely the same issues as JFK if there is a windstorm, for instance.

However for some reason many ppl insist here that "splitting" O&D with JFK and transfer with PHL makes sense. We will see.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:09:02]

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9): The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable... specially from Europe from where many secondary cities would only make viable a flight to New York (largest O&D in the US by far to most of those destinations) and good connectivity opportunities.

That may be true in Europe, as you posit, but how do we explain the relative sizes of ATL versus JFK or SFO versus LAX? In each case, the hub in the more "world class" city is significantly smaller.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:26:58]

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9): Btw I don't know why some people insist in keeping flights to BCN just because it is a "Oneworld hub". Vueling is not a OW partner airline, so BCN is not a OW hub.

True - BCN is not a oneworld hub, but it is a market where oneworld has a relatively strong market penetration given the local presence of Iberia, and Vueling, which is a partner in Iberia's frequent flyer program.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9): The real fact is that most carriers world wide prefer to use an airport with a huge O&D base (in this case NYC VS Philadelphia) and transfer people there... more O&D makes more routes viable

True - most carriers would prefer that. But the reality in the northeastern U.S. is that there is only one hub that can effectively combing both a huge O&D base and also be a huge connecting hub catering to all types of connecting flows - domestic and international, longhaul and shorthaul, throughout the day. That hub is EWR, and that hub is obviously taken. Given that, PHL is the only other hub in the reason capable of even coming close.

JFK and LGA are both limited by the fact that while they obviously both cater to a massive local market, they also compete with each other - and EWR - and the overall NYC market is now highly competitive, with (soon) four airlines each having 15-20%+ of the market share. PHL, while a smaller O&D market, true, is still a very large O&D market by national standards, and yet it competes with no other major connecting hub in the same metro area, and it's handily dominated by the hub airline. Given that, it's a great "silver medal" as hubs go in the northeast.

However, all that being said, AA is now in the strong position of being able to enjoy - to some extent - the best (or at least the "better") of both worlds: AA will continue to maintain a huge local presence in the New York market, with ~300 daily flights to dozens of cities catering (primarily) to the local O&D demand, while also having a huge, 400+ flight hub just down I-95 to handle not only the PHL market's O&D (relatively smaller than NYC's), but also connections. That is a lot of network breadth and depth in both markets, and the two should compliment each other well.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9): I feel that some people here might give the impression that transiting through an airport in a smaller city with less O&D would be more convenient. Particularly in PHL I don't think it is the case... the airport is not bad but either amazing (I prefer AA's terminal at JFK for transiting) and it shares the same crowded airspace and likely the same issues as JFK if there is a windstorm, for instance.

No question. AA's JFK terminal is overall vastly superior to the PHL terminal facilities, but PHL is at least functional. It's overcrowded, outdated, and in need of investment. But, then again, that could describe part or all of many airport terminals in the northeast.

[Edited 2013-02-16 12:26:34]

Quoting commavia (Reply 11): No question. AA's JFK terminal is overall vastly superior to the PHL terminal facilities, but PHL is at least functional. It's overcrowded, outdated, and in need of investment. But, then again, that could describe part or all of many airport terminals in the northeast.

PHL has a fair amount of cosmetic and functional work done or planned, including a people mover that would make connections work a whole lot better. This recent press release has a somewhat complete list.

I am not sure how profitable AA growth at JFK would be. It is definitely attractive looking on a map. But JFK is competitive. AA apparently has a good facility at JFK. But getting a high RASM at JFK isn't just trivially easy.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10): That may be true in Europe, as you posit, but how do we explain the relative sizes of ATL versus JFK or SFO versus LAX? In each case, the hub in the more "world class" city is significantly smaller.

You are right... Europe is different to the US in many senses. I am not talking only about "world cities" but the necessity of tapping any market. My comment about "world cities" was mostly regarding the fact that for AF, BA or DL, keeping two hubs in the same city (when they are such major economic and tourism centers) probably makes more sense than for AA keeping both JFK and PHL... two nearby distinctive markets.

ATL's success is due to different factors as we all know:

- Location, no other major or medium airport in many many miles away (not the case for PHL). And certainly DL has not another hub 150 miles away  ... and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.
- Convenience and expansion... sure ATL is not "nice" or state of the art but it is a very efficient machine to transfer (the airport itself and the paralel runways system). Also, the airspace is not crowded. Not the case for PHL either.
- Good weather. Not the case for PHL.
- Very good location to transfer from Europe to Florida, Texas, West Coast... not the case for PHL (AND it doesn't have any geographic advantage to NYC). Even if as some ppl say here, PHL can serve a bunch of secondary markets that probably NYC can't... is it worth to keep an intercontinental hub just for the sake of 8 or 10 PVD and the likes? BA concentrated operations in London (I know that BA is the dominant player in London, not the case for AA in NYC) so some UK markets like MAN or BHX have been more and more "lost" to foreign carriers... but would it be worth for them to have kept hubs in those places just to get more share of those markets? Probably not.

On top of that, whether PHL can still be a major market, current economy, demographics (and their prospects) are really grim and I assume (this has been pointed in this thread) yields are not really that high. Again, just look at how little to none interest Philadelphia Airport gets from foreign carriers and then compare it to similar +- metro areas like Boston, Miami, DC, San Francisco, Dallas... it is like night and day. I would see a point to keep PHL even if it is so close to NYC if Philadelphia would be a kind of booming powerhouse with high yields and economic growth, like San Jose or Houston, but this is certainly not the case.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9):

True the discussion over PHL has been had at length in the previous thread. However, the arguement clearly favors a significan usage of the PHL airport even if a few transatlantic destinations shift to JFK. That has been supported by data whereas the arguement for shutting down PHL is predominantly anecdotal and rhetorical.

Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would. Can they create JFK into a hub that serves the same function as PHL as a domestic and international connector serving all cities big and small on the east coast and Eastern Midwest? Absolutely not. AA has neither the gates or slots at JFK to create that. Unless the new AA is prepared to give those markets to DL and UA, the need PHL and won't be dumb enough to shut it down. Not to mention the PHL transatlantic market is only small compared to NYC and Boston. When you compare it with other markets across the US, it's quite sizable.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5): Those are going to be retired, soon.

True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13): I am not sure how profitable AA growth at JFK would be. It is definitely attractive looking on a map. But JFK is competitive. AA apparently has a good facility at JFK. But getting a high RASM at JFK isn't just trivially easy.

It might get better once more small-spoke routes are cut in favor of either transcontinental or high-revenue transcon flights.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14): Even if as some ppl say here, PHL can serve a bunch of secondary markets that probably NYC can't... is it worth to keep an intercontinental hub just for the sake of 8 or 10 PVD and the likes?

This is basically arguing against the hub system itself in favor of high volume P2P.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14): Location, no other major or medium airport in many many miles away (not the case for PHL). And certainly DL has not another hub 150 miles away ... and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.

The population density is much higher in the northeast, though. There aren't other major airports near ATL because there aren't other major cities near Atlanta. The next closest MSAs over, say, 1.5 million are Nashville and Charlotte, and those are about 250 miles away.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14): ery good location to transfer from Europe to Florida, Texas, West Coast... not the case for PHL (AND it doesn't have any geographic advantage to NYC

Europe-Flords/Texas/West Coast are all shorter via PHL than via ATL.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14): On top of that, whether PHL can still be a major market, current economy, demographics (and their prospects) are really grim

Philadelphia is surely a more mature market than, say, Atlanta or Houston, but which economic fundamentals are poor?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6): 1) Expand flying outside of peak departure times, where slots are plentiful and not an issue (e.g. slots around noon are easy to grab; noon is prime departure to Asia. I know AA is in fact considering JFKPVG).

I'm sure AA will consider this option but this still doesn't create an all day 400+ flts hub

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 9): However for some reason many ppl insist here that "splitting" O&D with JFK and transfer with PHL makes sense. We will see.

The comment below addresses this perfectly. If it it were a perfect world for AA/US they would certainly choose JFK over PHL for a Northeast mega hub (400+ flts). Problem is that it's not a perfect world and the best they can do is what MAH suggested and optimize JFK and add flts where they can.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15): Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would. Can they create JFK into a hub that serves the same function as PHL as a domestic and international connector serving all cities big and small on the east coast and Eastern Midwest? Absolutely not. AA has neither the gates or slots at JFK to create that.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15): True the discussion over PHL has been had at length in the previous thread. However, the arguement clearly favors a significan usage of the PHL airport even if a few transatlantic destinations shift to JFK. That has been supported by data whereas the arguement for shutting down PHL is predominantly anecdotal and rhetorical.

And I haven't said either that PHL would be closed... my point is that AA would carry whatever they can from PHL to JFK.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 15): Would the combined airline prefer at JFK super hub to a PHL one? I'm sure they would.

So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

Would be nice to see some former AE routes from JFK flown on US 319/320 metal: JFK-ALB/BTV/PWM/SYR/BUF/MHT etc.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Local business report on WCBS 880 in New York stated that AA plans to grow JFK after their merger with US. Love to know how they're going to do that?

LEave the short Hual at LGA and more International at JFK shift the slots they have

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20): So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

Well in all defense I think you'd be hard pressed to find a major carrier (past or present) that would not bite at the opportunity to turn JFK, or EWR for that matter, into a 400+ hub with connections to the US, Europe, South America, and Asia. I don't think that means PHL is not relevant.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20): So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

There is not one market in the US that is more important as NYC. Comparing it to any city in the US is not apples to apples.

PHL's ability to expand is quite limited given their current location. However, if they were to move deeper into the suburbs such as a IAD case, would that help any? Or is it the city's corporate image that needs to be changed? This is more an issue of airport management/planning as well as city politics.

Get down to the HUB issue: PHL should be kept.

PHL itself has gone through renovations and I'm quite impressed by what I've seen by the newer international concourse,the F regionals concourse is quite nice too. However, C, D, E are not so nice. Too antiquated. AA will move from its current location and take over the whole terminal, but where will ALL its planes go?

I don't think that PHL will become redundant. It's market is quite unique. Why did WN or VX choose to go to PHL? There has to be a reason.

No one is going to allow America's birthplace to go unnoticed, I'm sure of that.
By circumstance and history, the four major centres of the eastern seaboard, BOS, NYC, PHL and WAS just happened to be populated as such.
Why should PHL be given lower priority or lower relevance as a hub? I would hate to see it downgraded. JFK's strength is international. PHL's strength is domestic/Caribbean/Europe. Keep it as such.

BOS? New England's premier hub . . . don't downgrade.

I want to protect PHL as a hub in the final analysis.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16): True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL

US gets more A330's this year and next to replace most if not all remaining 762's and AA has a lot of 787's on order. This combined with some schedule rationalization (movement of some TATL flying CLT?) may free up some needed WB metal. Also, are all of the 77W's net new? If they are, that is a lot of new WB's to find a home for.

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25): PHL's ability to expand is quite limited given their current location. However, if they were to move deeper into the suburbs such as a IAD case, would that help any? Or is it the city's corporate image that needs to be changed? This is more an issue of airport management/planning as well as city politics.

Are you referencing PHL's physical ability to expand? Essentially they can't.
The options are (20+ year plan):
-put a new runway partially in the river
-redesign the terminals to alleviate the "alleyway" congestion
-knock down some of the airport hotels by long term parking and put a build a regional terminal and build a new mainline terminal over the current F terminal

Im hoping we could see some CLT flights into the heartland, like what DL has from ATL. Places like PIA, CMI, CID, MSN, GRR etc.

wonder what chance GSO has of seeing mainline jets back... maybe lower the 9+ flights a day to CLT and upgrade DFW to mainline ... or how about relaunching GSO-ORD to compete with UA ... hopefully the US Club will stay open long enough to be an Admirals Club  

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25): PHL itself has gone through renovations and I'm quite impressed by what I've seen by the newer international concourse,the F regionals concourse is quite nice too. However, C, D, E are not so nice. Too antiquated. AA will move from its current location and take over the whole terminal, but where will ALL its planes go?

I am not sure what you are saying here. D and E are used by DL, UA, and WN primarily and this is still going to be true post merger. American is currently in A East, and given the face that US uses most of the non AA gates in A East for some international stuff, they aren't moving anywhere, and in fact their gates can be easily converted into International Arrival gates which will give them more capacity in that regard. AA isn't moving, they are just expanding big time with the merger.

As for JFK being a 400 flights per day hub...forget about it. You would be talking about 20 arrivals an hour in that situation, which is nearly half of what JFK ATC can actually handle in an hour. Throw in the DL and B6 operations, and you are at gridlock in JFK. And that is before you account for any international carriers, of which there are plenty. I think somewhere in the ballpark of 150-200 would be optimal for AA in JFK, though I do think it is going to be more like 100-150 in the early phases of this merger. Given that US is at 450 or so flights per day in PHL right now, I can't see much happening here, except for some key markets adding in LGA/JFK. But I think PHL is safe at 400 flights or so.

Here is an interesting list, this is the number of departures that the combined carrier currently has in each hub.

JFK - 100
LGA - 161
PHL - 459
DCA - 272
CLT - 653
MIA - 319
ORD - 478
DFW - 786
PHX - 288
LAX - 168

One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

PHX is the one that people have been worried about. Well, there are a few cities like I have mentioned where only US serves from PHX (and in some cases AA on DFW pulled out from). Stations like BUR, LGB, BFL are places where PHX makes more sense than DFW. Also, US serves OAK from PHX, which is another route AA pulled out from. US has been able to make these routes work from PHX, while AA has not been able to from existing hubs. This is one aspect of the merger to keep an eye on. Not to mention the O and D traffic in PHX, and given what is happening, yields in PHX are going up.

Quoting apodino (Reply 30): One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

That comparison is somewhat skewed because average aircraft size is quite a bit higher at MIA.

Quoting apodino (Reply 30): Here is an interesting list, this is the number of departures that the combined carrier currently has in each hub. JFK - 100 LGA - 161 PHL - 459 DCA - 272 CLT - 653 MIA - 319 ORD - 478 DFW - 786 PHX - 288 LAX - 168 One thing I notice on this list is CLT compared to MIA. Most of the CLT traffic is Domestic, while MIA has a good chunk of Caribbean and Latin America traffic. I suspect some of the CLT traffic fitting that bill might be moved to MIA, but there is no way that MIA can absorb all of what CLT provides.

It's also interesting the impact the AA/BA ATI will have on the hubs as I expect that US will leave Star and join oneworld (and the AA/BA ATI) before the merger of AA/US at a ground level (full fleet/crew integration). Flights from the AA/US hubs to LHR currently stand at: -

JFK - 8x Daily BA (772/744) + 5x Daily AA (772/77W)
PHL - 2x Daily BA (772/763) + 1x Daily US (333)
CLT - 1x Daily US (333)
MIA - 2x Daily AA (772) + 2x Daily BA (744)
ORD - 4x Daily AA (763/772) + 2x Daily BA (744)
DFW - 3x Daily AA (772/77W) + 1x Daily BA (744)
PHX - 1x Daily BA (744)
LAX - 3x Daily BA (744) + 1x Daily AA (772)

The fact that PHL can support three flights already, when BA and US effectively have a hub at one end only each, wuld suggest that - IMHO - LHR-PHL could easily increase to 4x or 5x Daily when the ATI deal can exploit hubs at PHL and LHR for all flights.

CLT-LHR would, I suspect, regain a BA flight to complement the US flight given the markets that what becomes a hub-to-hub route can exploit.

The interesting one for me is the LHR-PHX route, that BA can curently sustain entirely on O&D traffic at the LHR end. I'm not saying this flight would go 2x Daily, but if the new AA maintains a sizeable presence in PHX then in a couple of years moving from say 1x Daily BA 744 to 2x Daily BA 772 (or AA 332/BA 772).

Again, I think that the US hubs offer a real opportunity for AA's partners to exploit greater access to the US market through joint ventures, and seeing AA or JL 788s operating PHX-NRT and PHL-NRT aren't outside the realm of possibilities.

I know a lot of this is speculation, but once US transitions to oneworld and starts beuilding links with those carriers as the merger progresses, then I think the international flights that operate from (and get added to) PHX, CLT and PHL will indicate the importance of these hubs to new combined carrier.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32):

I wonder if LH will keep the CLT-MUC (and US the CLT-FRA) once there is no Star feed at the US end. Maybe it will make more sense for LH to cancel MUC and start CLT-FRA just focusing on Charlotte's O&D transiting to Europe/Asia.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32): The interesting one for me is the LHR-PHX route, that BA can curently sustain entirely on O&D traffic at the LHR end. I'm not saying this flight would go 2x Daily, but if the new AA maintains a sizeable presence in PHX then in a couple of years moving from say 1x Daily BA 744 to 2x Daily BA 772 (or AA 332/BA 772).

The BA744 is always an interesting flight here on our end. A few years back someone was speculating that they would send the A380 here, which we know won't happen for quite some time. What a few of us are thinking, if the O&D continues to grow, is that BA will send a 772 to compliment the daily 744 about 3 times a week, and eventually that will grow to probably 2x (daily) 772 or 1x773 1x772....maybe eventually 1x744 1x773 if things really begin to pick up again. All speculation for now.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 32): CLT-LHR would, I suspect, regain a BA flight to complement the US flight given the markets that what becomes a hub-to-hub route can exploit.

One thing though is with the ATI it may not necessarily make sense for AA/US and BA to each operate 1 flt. I think CLT may be a candidate for AA/US to just operate 2 daily

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 33): I wonder if LH will keep the CLT-MUC (and US the CLT-FRA) once there is no Star feed at the US end. Maybe it will make more sense for LH to cancel MUC and start CLT-FRA just focusing on Charlotte's O&D transiting to Europe/Asia.

This one will be interesting. I think if anything stays LH will knock it down to a 330/343 because the 346 is way too much aircraft without the feed.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 35): One thing though is with the ATI it may not necessarily make sense for AA/US and BA to each operate 1 flt. I think CLT may be a candidate for AA/US to just operate 2 daily

It's hard to say. I think BA could come in with a daily flight so that it's frequent fliers who want to fly on BA can do so. I know the ATI between AA/BA is meant to be metal neutral, but there are differences in the product offerings, and as CLT will be a hub-to-hub flight I could see both carriers operating a flight.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 28): Im hoping we could see some CLT flights into the heartland, like what DL has from ATL. Places like PIA, CMI, CID, MSN, GRR etc.

I can see a GRR-PHL trip, though, especially with the AMS trip out of PHL. It would be a nice connection. Lots of people from GRR go to the Netherlands...........Would be competitive with the connections on DL(DTW, JFK) and UA(ORD, EWR).

Per American "New American" website, no hubs are closing

Maintaining all hubs* currently served by both airlines, bringing you more travel options through more than 6,700 daily flights to 336 destinations in 56 countries.

*Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Phoenix and Charlotte.

http://www.aa.com/arriving

Quoting capitalflyer (Reply 38):

Per American "New American" website, no hubs are closing.



DL said the same thing when going through their merger with NW. It is all PR fodder to get the merger approved.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/14/news...ompanies/delta_northwest/index.htm

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/...ses-memphis-says-congressman-cohe/

Any thoughts on AA/US re-hubbing BOS? Or will Parker continue the cozy relationship with B6?

I would expect that we see some domestic hub to hub flying, especially if both hubs have International services. Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's as this transition takes place. How many other domestic widebody flying may we see from the combined AA?

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 14): and don't forget IAD is not far either from PHL.

Its hundreds of miles - its not like people in the catchment area think about one vs the other.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16): True, but I wonder what they're going to use TATL

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 26): US gets more A330's this year and next to replace most if not all remaining 762's and AA has a lot of 787's on order.

They don't fly the AA 762s internationally anyway.

NS

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 41): Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's

Well, that's less than a hundred miles. US just started the route in 2012 IIRC with E-jets. That's about right.

Costs too much to put widebodies on such a short route. But other H2H, yes. PHL-DFW will be active.

Very interesting thread, two sets of questions come to mind:

- I agree with many that given the current availability of slots at JFK, the new AA will have to keep PHL and use it to serve smaller Northeast connection markets for which there would be no space at JFK. However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK? That would allow them to de-hub Philadelphia or turn it into a focus city and to run a single hub at JFK, plus to re-hub Boston if they would like to. Would this make sense in economic terms? Would the DOJ allow it, and if so, what would be the likely conditions on such an acquisition?

- About PHX, I am not familia with the Western U.S. market, but just by looking at the map, it looks like for some destinations West of DFW connecting there would mean a lot of backtracking, and also to a extent for some destinations East of LAX connecting there. Isn't Phoenix quite a good hub to route traffic to Mexico and Central America from the Western U.S., at least to an extent, with enough O&D to support a connecting hub? Wouldn't people prefer to transfer at PHX if that means an easier, more direct connection? Isn't this a somehow similar situation to the JFK-PHL one? I imagine that DFW is not a problem, but how much could AA increase their operation at LAX?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Quoting AA767LOVER (Reply 25): Why did WN or VX choose to go to PHL? There has to be a reason.

The main reason why WN chose to come to PHL was because US (pre-HP merger) was in Chapter 11 and was heading for Chapter 7. Given those conditions, WN was not going to sit idle and let FL continue to expand (which they were doing at the time) nor allow B6 (they weren't at BOS yet) to come in.

The reason for VX coming was likely due to WN cutting some of their PHL-West Coast nonstops.

In a couple of months, B6 will finally be coming to PHL offering service to their BOS hub; since WN abandoned all their PHL-New England routes over a year ago.

Quoting Markam (Reply 44): However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK?

*Groans* Oh for the love of...  
How about waiting to see whether or not DOJ approves this AA/US merger first. If they ultimately approve it (most do not see any reason why they won't) and barring a carrier heading towards Chapter 7, I don't see any mergers w/the remaining legacy carriers happening anytime soon.

And what the heck do you (and others) have against B6 that you keep talking about them merging with any of the legacy carriers. B6 merging w/any legacy carrier would ultimately kill every element of the B6 brand that curerntly makes them unique. The only surviving entities of such would be likely be the aircraft and routes the larger carrier doesn't yet serve. For B6, or any other LFC for that matter, such a move would be suicidal.

With the new flights AA added last year and the new ones this year Mia will continue
to grow. Especially with more 773 comming into the fleet. With the 787 comming into the
fleet eventually (without any more problems or delays) possibilities are endless.

Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax
there is the possibility of new flights but not much. Phx will stay a strong focus city.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 41): Routes like JFK-PHL may see some 777's, 330's, 767's as this transition takes place.

Not a chance. Way too short of a route for a large airplane.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 46): Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax

I doubt you'll see LAX stealing any PHX routes... their operating costs are ridiculous.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 20): So we basically agree again... PHL is not that important market... if AA at JFK would be able to expand operations as pleased... PHL could be shut down or largely minimized. If PHL would be such relevant market, AA would not do that even if they could grow at JFK as they want.

PHL is an incredibly important market. You don't just dehub the number 6 (5 by some measurements) metro area in the country for, pardon the expression, shits and giggles. So it's not as important as NYC...neither is anywhere else. Should DL dehub ATL and try to build up JFK just because JFK is more important? Certainly not. Not everyone needs a fortress hub in New York City to be successful.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 46): Phx will shrink but not de-hub. Some flights will shift to Dfw & maybe Lax there is the possibility of new flights but not much. Phx will stay a strong focus city.

That's contradictory. A hub is not a focus city. I personally believe PHX will end up a focus city, not a true hub. It seems you would agree.

Quoting Markam (Reply 44): However, what if the new AA goes for JetBlue, and uses their slots and fleet to build that super-hub at JFK? That would allow them to de-hub Philadelphia or turn it into a focus city and to run a single hub at JFK, plus to re-hub Boston if they would like to.

"Goes for"? I'm assuming you don't mean a takeover since it would never be approved by the powers that be. Otherwise you mean a blanket codeshare, and even if they did, still doesn't justify dehubbing PHL. PHL is still a much larger market than BOS. US closed the BOS focus city about the same time as PIT (within a year or so of it) and kept PHL for good reason.

Thats what I meant to say thanx for correcting me HPRamper. Phx will be
a strong focus city. But as I mentioned above Mia will continue to grow