Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CV880
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:15 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 40):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 40):
Isnt CLT the 4th largest hub in terms of daily departures.

Yes, but it's also something like 80% connecting traffic.

So what's Your point? ATL is about 75% connecting traffic.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:20 pm

Quoting cv880 (Reply 50):
Quoting LOWS (Reply 40):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 40):
Isnt CLT the 4th largest hub in terms of daily departures.

Yes, but it's also something like 80% connecting traffic.

So what's Your point? ATL is about 75% connecting traffic.

Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.
 
CV880
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:22 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

Total BS in some respects. SLC's O&D is much higher, due to the fact that it's the only major airport within hundreds of miles. RDU's O&D is much higher than ATL's, so should we move the ATL hub to RDU? O&D has some relevance, but You are comparing CLT's O&D with others that have no surrounding competition. CLT is a connecting hub, the same as ATL, just on a smaller scale. The major airports in the Carolinas are so close together that locals frequently drive to the airport where they can get a better fare, which in itself distorts the O&D. If CLT were the only airport in a 100 mi radius, the O&D would be much higher, but it has CAE/GSP/AVL/GSO/FAY to compete with as well as RDU a little further out.
 
AAIL86
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:45 pm

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
Total BS in some respects. SLC's O&D is much higher, due to the fact that it's the only major airport within hundreds of miles. RDU's O&D is much higher than ATL's, so should we move the ATL hub to RDU?

        

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

This is a classic case of how looking at the statistics alone can be tricky - remember the phase atrubuted to Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.
" Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness ... Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. ” - Mark Twain, 1869
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:06 pm

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.

Exactly. My intermediate family lives off of I-77 on Lake Norman, roughly 30 minutes or so north of CLT. To put it in perspective, they can make it to GSO in about an 1:15, to GSP in about 1:45, to CAE in just under 2:00, and to AVL in about 2:00. My parents have driven to both AVL and GSP on numerous occasions to get a lower fare.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 763ER, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:21 pm

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

Total BS in some respects.

It's not. I don't really care about the leakage to other airports because, even if that was factored in, the Charlotte market is still very small compared to ORD, ATL, EWR, IAH, DFW...etc. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here as the OP was originally referring to the size of the markets of airline hubs and how Charlotte compares.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 51):
Meaning that CLT is a very small market when compared to other hubs. ATL may be 75% connecting, but it's almost twice the size of CLT and is one of the top air markets in the country.

This is a classic case of how looking at the statistics alone can be tricky - remember the phase atrubuted to Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.

Again, this is all irrelevant, the original claim was that Charlotte is a comparatively small market among other major hubs, this is true on every metric even counting leakage, not sure why this is an issue for some people or why they feel they need to justify it. CLT has a strong role as a domestic hub, but yes, it's a small market when compared to other large airline hubs.
 
SJUSXM
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:52 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:48 pm

And yet the costs of the CLT operation are going to rise significantly with all of the US employees getting significant raises. Does that change the margins in CLT from positive to negative? It's something that hasn't been discussed in this thread so far, yet this probably plays a more significant impact than a 5% difference in O&D traffic compared to ATL.

IMO, I agree with wingnutmn, CLT is likely to look more like MSP than MEM. CLT fills a large gap in the AA network and doesnt really overlap much. However, does it need 4 CLT-SJU flights? Makes sense when you only have PHL and CLT to connect the east coast, but when you add JFK, PHL, MIA, DFW and ORD to that mix maybe 2 flights are more appropriate. There are more cities like this. It won't make the hub go away, just maybe a loss of a few cities and flights.

I think PHX is in a much more precarious position.


As for *A, what does CLT really bring that UA can't do at IAD?
AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:48 pm

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
SLC's O&D is much higher, due to the fact that it's the only major airport within hundreds of miles.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 54):
Exactly. My intermediate family lives off of I-77 on Lake Norman, roughly 30 minutes or so north of CLT. To put it in perspective, they can make it to GSO in about an 1:15, to GSP in about 1:45, to CAE in just under 2:00, and to AVL in about 2:00. My parents have driven to both AVL and GSP on numerous occasions to get a lower fare.

SLC is particularly interesting, as it is both a fortress hub and the place that you drive to get a lower fare in the Intermountain area. I've met people from as far away as WYS (West Yellowstone, MT) who routinely drive to SLC (about 325 miles/5+ hours away) to get better fares. Of course WYS has very limted service, but they are also bypassing BZN (90 miles), IDA (110 miles) and PIH (165 miles) to get there. SLC is often considered a high-fare fortress hub, but people will still drive 5 hours and bypass 4 other airports to get there from places that cost even more. That's why DL loves it. The only competition is from expensive RJ outstations. [/tangent]

Anyway, I think CLT will be just fine.
 
point2point
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:51 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 45):
With US' departure, the only domestic Star carrier in the USA will be UA. I doubt that UA will try to establish a hub just to connect points within the southeast.

With this new triage of legacy carriers remaining in the U.S., I don't think now that it is possible for any of the three legacies to be strong in every region in the county. WN may be considered as strong in just about every region of the country, but they don't do smaller airports. Each of the three legacies will have strengths in different areas, and be weak in different areas.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 44):
I was talking about the CLT-FRA which, at ~43 PDEW, is small beans when compared to LH's other TATL destinations. And why are you sure LH would be the carrier for such a route when, by your logic, BA should be the carrier serving LHR-DTW/MSP? The trend has almost always been that either the home carrier dominating these fortress mid-size market hubs or their alliance partners serve the international routes, I see no reason to believe CLT is any different.

Okay, so now do you want to say that there really isn't any need for a CLT-Germany nonstop flight? With a whole 86 O&D pax daily on CLT-FRA, and then another whole 60 some O&D pax daily on CLT-MUC, and then another whole 64 some in total O&D pax to about 7 other German cities for a total of about 105 O&D PDEW.... is this even enough to support even 1 daily CLT-Germany flight? Maybe, if the O&D of at least 50% purchase Business Class or better seating. And who will those premium pax rather be purchasing from..... AA or LH?

As for DL LHR-DTW/MSP, I guess one can look at it any way they want. Different markets, I would say, and it's also curious here that MSP-Germany (173 O&D pax daily) does not have any nonstops into Germany, while DTW-Germany (390 O&D pax daily) has one daily with LH to FRA, and not on DL.



Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):
It's amazing that we have two simultaneous incorrect arguments on this thread. One is CLT will shut down or shink by 50%, the other is UAL will have to have a hub in the SE. This web site is enough to give anyone a migraine.

Oy vey.... I think that we're all having a discussion here and just have different points of view. And as for your migraine headaches here, you can't tell me that you don't look forward to them as much as you look forward to going your neighborhood dominatrix (or dominator, I don't care and I don't judge) and having her tie you up, get out that thick leather paddle, and then pulling down your trousers.......

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):
Tell me where AA isnt getting their QSI fair share of O&D traffic and where they will be able to by shutting down CLT? So cut profitable service to CLT and add marginal flights in NYC or LAX. As for 50 seaters going away , CLT and every other hub would see a reduction in departures but that has nothing to do with the merger. Still no one has answered where the lost CLT traffic will be recaptured.

Can we look at it this way? I think that we can all agree that the new merged AA/US will have higher costs. If we can’t agree here, that’s another discussion. So now assuming increased costs, fares will have to increase in order for the new AA/UA to profit. And I think that we all know the basic economic rule of demand….. as price falls, people will buy more….. and as price rises, people will buy less. I think that we can agree on this as well. Now…. as to where will all this traffic go? This traffic will now just not be there because price increase will have created less demand. Some may drive, some may take a bus, some may not go on a trip at all, and now as demand drops, so will flights since there is no demand for them. Lost traffic will happen because of fare increase. Yes, CLT can get a premium, it has that in its favor. And the new AA/US will not shut down or cede the Southeast; having between 300-400 daily flights at CLT is more than enough to keep DL and ATL honest down there.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". As CV880 mentioned, CLT competes with several airports in the Carolinas, including a fairly large operation at GSO that drains a significant amount of O&D that would otherwise (mostly - probably 60-70%) go to CLT.

The more that folks in the CLT area drive to CLT and use it as their O&D airport, the better the chances of CLT keeping up a higher number of flights.

Now.... I'll say this again. It's wonderful that the airline execs are now singing the tune of praising how many opportunities there will be with this merger..... and the civic officials joining them in harmony. But what tune is going to be sung when the price of jet fuel spikes for some reason, or jet fuel just continues in its upward cost to some point? I'm sure that a completely different tune is going to be sung, and the latter one not so happy as this current one. And it won't be just CLT that will see traffic decline, but ATL, DFW, etc, etc., and easiest cutting is where O&D doesn't match demand.

And even without jet fuel spiking too quickly, I think that soon we'll be seeing lots of system-wide capacity cuts to utilize scarce resources to compliment O&D. WN is already doing this at ATL, where reductions are going to be increasing the local percentage of O&D sometime soon.

And lastly, Parker is smart and knew that his miracle will be ending. I think that everyone here agree that Parker would have just about traded in his left testicle (ouch) for this merger to happen. And he finally got it, and with that, is probably turning cartwheels that CLT isn't the center of his universe anymore.

And for now, that's all folks.......


 







[Edited 2013-02-19 15:22:47]
 
CV880
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:17 pm

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
And lastly, Parker is smart and knew that his miracle will be ending. I think that everyone here agree that Parker would have just about traded in his left testicle (ouch) for this merger to happen. And he finally got it, and with that, is probably turning cartwheels that CLT isn't the center of his universe anymore.

Please don't give Parker credit for something that He didn't do. It was done by acquisition of Piedmont by US and now by AA.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:14 am

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
As for DL LHR-DTW/MSP, I guess one can look at it any way they want. Different markets, I would say, and it's also curious here that MSP-Germany (173 O&D pax daily) does not have any nonstops into Germany, while DTW-Germany (390 O&D pax daily) has one daily with LH to FRA, and not on DL.

Kinda surprised there isn't a MSP-Germany nonstop. And DL also flies DTW-FRA with a 764.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 763ER, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:38 am

CLT is a great hub - it is without a doubt the "silver medal" among hubs in the southeast U.S.

Losing the connectivity it affords (via the extensive US codeshare) will certainly impact UA, but not enough for UA to try and build a new hub - mini or otherwise - in the region. Thankfully for UA, its hub structure is relatively well-situated to handle traffic flows in and out of the region (IAD/EWR north, ORD/IAH west) - not as good as what DL and now AA will have, but fine nonetheless.

We will now have the three big network carriers all large around the U.S., with a few weak spots. For UA it will be the southeast. For DL it will be the west coast and south-central. For AA it will be the west coast and Rockies. No airline can win everywhere. UA will be just fine without a hub in the southeast U.S.
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:47 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):

Here is where your lost traffic is...CLT keeps domestic flights and internationals to LHR, BCN or MAD, and probably FRA. You lose most others because you now transfer those pax to JFK, PHL, ORD, or DFW and MIA to Latin America. It doesn't matter that 25% of traffic is O&D. That 75% can connect elsewhere. It would be an absolute pipe dream to think CLT stays as large or grows in size in this merger.

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
airbazar
Posts: 10250
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:54 am

Regarding LH, this has been discussed at length in the other thread. It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay. I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT. AA's can't even make FRA work today other than a single flig from DFW so I very much doubt the will keep CLT.
There are dozens of German companies HQ'd or with significant presence around CLT and in NC, all of which rely on LH for their travel and cargo needs. None of these companies are going to put their employees on an one other than LH.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:57 am

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 44):
I was talking about the CLT-FRA which, at ~43 PDEW, is small beans when compared to LH's other TATL destinations. And why are you sure LH would be the carrier for such a route when, by your logic, BA should be the carrier serving LHR-DTW/MSP? The trend has almost always been that either the home carrier dominating these fortress mid-size market hubs or their alliance partners serve the international routes, I see no reason to believe CLT is any different.

Okay, so now do you want to say that there really isn't any need for a CLT-Germany nonstop flight?

Where did I say that? There's most definitely a market, I'm just saying IMO it's 99% certain AA will be the one serving it.

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
And who will those premium pax rather be purchasing from..... AA or LH?

And I'm saying 99% will continue with US, which will then be AA. Even if that traffic does get split between AA or LH, AA still wins out as CLT is a larger hub than FRA and AA will have the whole CLT network to pull from, additionally pax that would normally connect in FRA or MUC to get to CLT can now be routed through LHR on BA.

Quoting point2point (Reply 58):
As for DL LHR-DTW/MSP, I guess one can look at it any way they want. Different markets

The only difference is that they're larger markets, so why is it that you don't have BA in any of these much larger markets yet you seem so sure that LH will remain in the far smaller FRA/MUC-CLT market absent all the feed from US? The answer is simple: DTW and MSP are fortress hubs where DL dominates the market as US/AA does in CLT, so I'm failing to see why you think the situation will be different in CLT than any other fortress hub.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT.

You're talking about the two like they're two competing airlines which isn't the case. They're both in *A and code-share on each others' flights to Germany, thus it's a wash as to whether pax choose LH or US at CLT. After the merger though, all those CLT-based corporate contracts go to AA and OW and BA thus probably replaces LH.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
AA's can't even make FRA work today other than a single flig from DFW so I very much doubt the will keep CLT.

With the CLT fortress hub and the massive feed it provide what makes you think they won't? Sorry, but LH has neither the plane nor the fortitude to operate such a long, thin and what would be a competitive route with AA still on it. CLT will continue to be a fortress hub and AA will defend it from competitors as such.

[Edited 2013-02-19 18:10:16]
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:59 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
Regarding LH, this has been discussed at length in the other thread. It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay. I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT. AA's can't even make FRA work today other than a single flig from DFW so I very much doubt the will keep CLT.
There are dozens of German companies HQ'd or with significant presence around CLT and in NC, all of which rely on LH for their travel and cargo needs. None of these companies are going to put their employees on an one other than LH.

I doubt it - I fully expect AA will maintain a daily CLT-FRA (probably as a 763). There is a healthy local market between Germany and the southeast U.S. and it should be enough to support at least 1 daily AA flight CLT-FRA.
 
point2point
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:03 am

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 60):
And DL also flies DTW-FRA with a 764.

You are correct, and oooops on me that I missed that.

Anyways.... I would wonder if there is any substantive difference between the yields of the two carriers on this route.

Quoting cv880 (Reply 59):
Please don't give Parker credit for something that He didn't do.

I wouldn't give Parker any credit for anything that he didn't do.

However, being at the helm of a large domestic airline (a money losing proposition to begin with many would say) that recently went through BK twice, and then basically picked through second tier cities (no offense Charlotte, Phoenix and Philadelphia, but NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Miami, Chicago, and maybe a few other larger population centers you aren't) to have to transform their airports as best he can into fortress hubs, while basically battling DL and ATL (the world's largest airline for a while at the world's largest airport) in the Southeast and WN (an 800 pound gorilla) at both PHL and PHX, and knowing to dehub LAS, all the while not having parts of his own work groups unite behind him, and then somehow being able to generate profits for quite a few years from all of this, well....... I do think that it's practically a miracle what he accomplished.

And as clever as he is at the helm being able to churn out these profits, all the while I can't help but thinking that he's thinking how long can I keep this going on......???


 
 
usairways85
Posts: 4198
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 11:59 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:34 am

In getting back to the topic of Star without CLT, I think IAD will obsorb some of the Northeast/Midwest-Southeast traffic. IAD may also absorb some Southeast-Europe traffic that CLT if paxs want to remain loyal to Star.

All in all I think Star can get along fine with out CLT. It may hurt a bit but CLT is not a IAD with a variety of international Star carriers that funnel paxs to/from UA.
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:56 am

Quoting cv880 (Reply 52):
RDU's O&D is much higher than ATL's, so should we move the ATL hub to RDU?

What? RDU's O&D is nowhere near the size of ATL's O&D, which is one of the largest O&D airports in the country.

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 63):
Here is where your lost traffic is...CLT keeps domestic flights and internationals to LHR, BCN or MAD, and probably FRA. You lose most others because you now transfer those pax to JFK, PHL, ORD, or DFW and MIA to Latin America. It doesn't matter that 25% of traffic is O&D. That 75% can connect elsewhere. It would be an absolute pipe dream to think CLT stays as large or grows in size in this merger.

CLT's main function as a hub is not as an international connecting point, but as a massive North-South and Southeast regional hub. CLT's economies of scale, much in the same way as ATL, help to make most routes work in the absence of a large O&D base (though CLT is a decent sized, and growing market). The Southeast is the most populous region of the country and CLT is one of just two hubs that are reasonably developed to handle the traffic in the region. While ATL will likely always be the premier Southeast airline hub, CLT sits comfortably in 2nd place as it has for decades. DFW, ORD, MIA, PHL, and JFK can't replicate the traffic flows that CLT handles, and AA/US would be insane to abandon the hub and, in turn, the region. While CLT will undoubtedly be rightsized, as will all hubs in the merger, CLT will continue to operate as a large hub in the new AA network. I foresee CLT maintaining its position as the 2nd largest hub in the AA network and don't envision any scenarios that would cause this to change; AA having a strong hub in the Southeast is too important strategically for the airline.

Jeremy
 
CV880
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:08 am

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 69):
What? RDU's O&D is nowhere near the size of ATL's O&D, which is one of the largest O&D airports in the country.

In terms of percentage of total traffic, it is way above ATL's as are most of the top 50, and that was what was being discussed. (I thought)
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:30 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 64):
It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay. I think this because US needs LH feed at FRA far more than LH needs US at CLT since by previews accounts LH's traffic is predominantly O&D at CLT.

US ran CLT-FRA alone for 13 years before it had any type of relationship with LH. LH's feed traffic was an added bonus but US does not need LH to make CLT-FRA work. In the meantime, both BA and LH have attempted flights to CLT and none have made it work without some sort of relationship with US....
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:04 pm

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 68):
The Southeast is the most populous region of the country and CLT is one of just two hubs that are reasonably developed to handle the traffic in the region.

Er, no, the Northeast still has the Southeast beat handily, even if one includes Kentucky and Virginia in the Southeast region. But you are right about CLT and ATL - even MEM was a bit too far west to efficiently serve the entire region as well as the other two can.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:24 pm

To those who think CLT will be closed or cut substantially. Do you think AA will to the same to PHX? That is close or substantially cut? If so, you think AA is getting together with US for the purpose of one hub PHL and one large focus city DCA and will close probably domething close to 50% of US's current revenue stream and magically recapture thru other hubs all if which are running close to capacity.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 71):
[/
Beat handily???? PA, NJ, NY and the six New England states are handily larger than VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN?


As for CLT-FRA, it will be tough for AA but German auto presence in the SE might help.


[quote=wingnutmn,reply=62]

CLT will not lose international traffic to ORD or DFW because it is too far a backtrack. JFK doesn't have the domestic presence for AA that it does for DL. PHL can flow traffic away from CLT now, they don't need AA to do it. As for MIA I could see the Brazil flights being moved to MIA but not much else. We've had the ad nausim discussion and CLT will not
lose carribbean traffic to MIA. There is simply not the capacity in MIA to recapture even a small fraction of list CLT traffic.
 
doug
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 8:54 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:36 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 72):
As for MIA I could see the Brazil flights being moved to MIA but not much else. We've had the ad nausim discussion and CLT will not
lose carribbean traffic to MIA. There is simply not the capacity in MIA to recapture even a small fraction of list CLT traffic.

Miami does not have a capacity issue and CLT will lose more than some Brazil flights to Miami.

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 68):
CLT sits comfortably in 2nd place as it has for decades. DFW, ORD, MIA, PHL, and JFK can't replicate the traffic flows that CLT handles,

Time will tell
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:59 am

Quoting doug (Reply 73):
Miami does not have a capacity issue and CLT will lose more than some Brazil flights to Miami.

You are right, MIA does not have a capacity issue but it does have a domestic feed issue (largely thanks to its airport costs). For the strong MIA O/D VFR markets like KIN and BOG this is not a big deal but for the beach markets that depend upon vacationers from Omaha and Richmond to fill the planes, moving the flights to MIA and requiring double connections would not be competitive.
 
point2point
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:12 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
And I'm saying 99% will continue with US, which will then be AA. Even if that traffic does get split between AA or LH, AA still wins out as CLT is a larger hub than FRA and AA will have the whole CLT network to pull from, additionally pax that would normally connect in FRA or MUC to get to CLT can now be routed through LHR on BA.

flyguy my friend..... if you are 99% certain that CLT-FRA will remain with the new AA/US, then I guess that it's going to be that. I'll agree with you for now..... but tomorrow is another day, eh? In the meantime...... just to offer a bit of wisdom that I've experienced in my longer years of life here and that is sometimes the more certain one is of something..... well.......

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 72):
To those who think CLT will be closed or cut substantially. Do you think AA will to the same to PHX? That is close or substantially cut? If so, you think AA is getting together with US for the purpose of one hub PHL and one large focus city DCA and will close probably domething close to 50% of US's current revenue stream and magically recapture thru other hubs all if which are running close to capacity.

As all of us (I think) are just basically offering our guesses here (and those in the know at AA/US as to what will be happening maybe don't even know anything themselves yet, and if they did, they'd be kinda not so wise to post anything here before the company announces it) and my guess is just that ALL carriers are going to start optimizing their routes and frequencies to capture the largest amount of O&D traffic that they can. This is where the premium dollars. There's a thread here about NK's recent profits, and many are at awe as to how low at a cost that they operate. However, my thinking is that the CEO of NK stated that NK has a 90% O&D rate. And that is what I see as to why they are printing $$$$$, as well as just about every carrier CEO drolling over this. And WN, well, it's no secret that they took over FL, and now are maximizing O&D at ATL (and probably their other points) to maximize O&D. Gee...... I wonder why WN's doing that, eh?

At any rate, we will still see hubs. And CLT will still be an important hub in the new AA/US. And I don't know if, or if so how much, CLT will be cut for a fact. But all I see is that CLT is very high in terms of connect pax, and when jet fuel goes up, or maybe any number of events happen that requires airlines cutting schedules, routes and/or frequencies that aren't supporting O&D are easiest to let go. And at this point, personally all I am really looking at is O&D traffic and that is how I'm basing my guesstimations going forward.

And other than probably Brazil, and then maybe minor/seasonal European routes, I can see CLT keeping most of their dailies, or once-twice weeklies into the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America. It just isn't that much traffic, as say.... the 8 or so banks that CLT has with the domestic schedule.

Now with PHX, it's another matter..... because of some 200+ flights that the new AA/US will have there...... PHX is pretty good with O&D..... some 60% or so. Yes..... it's lower yielding.... however, I do believe that AA/US can still take some premium out of there. So even with the new set of metrics that involved with the new AA/US, since I'm using O&D as a guide, and PHX has good O&D...... I just don't think that PHX will be hurt that much.

In the meantime, despite my direness in some cases..... I would want all the best for the new AA/US, along with all of their hubs, and especially for the employees, who I'm keeping both my fingers and toes crossed that whatever happens will be as painless as possible for them



 
 
airbazar
Posts: 10250
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:30 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
You're talking about the two like they're two competing airlines which isn't the case. They're both in *A and code-share on each others' flights to Germany, thus it's a wash as to whether pax choose LH or US at CLT. After the merger though, all those CLT-based corporate contracts go to AA and OW and BA thus probably replaces LH.

The contracts are German based companies, therefore they will stay with LH and *A.
http://charlotteusa.com/business-info/international-business/germany/

Quoting commavia (Reply 65):
I doubt it - I fully expect AA will maintain a daily CLT-FRA (probably as a 763). There is a healthy local market between Germany and the southeast U.S. and it should be enough to support at least 1 daily AA flight CLT-FRA.

A single 763 is a significant reduction from an A333 or 2xA330 in the Summer. You're pretty much agreeing with me. I don't see AA/US mainitaining a 2xA330 in Summer to FRA as they do now.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 70):

US ran CLT-FRA alone for 13 years before it had any type of relationship with LH

Yes, with a 762 not 2xA330, and there were 300,000 US troops staged near FRA, and fuel was cheaper than peanuts. A lot has changed since then.

[Edited 2013-02-20 17:32:20]
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:41 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
You're pretty much agreeing with me.

Agreeing the CLT-FRA capacity will be reduced, not that the CLT-FRA flight will be ended entirely.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:52 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):

The contracts are German based companies, therefore they will stay with LH and *A.

No, it is their US subsidiaries which will remain with US/AA. Are they going to fly around the US doing their sales calls and product presentations on LH?

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
A single 763 is a significant reduction from an A333 or 2xA330 in the Summer. You're pretty much agreeing with me. I don't see AA/US mainitaining a 2xA330 in Summer to FRA as they do now.

Nobody said that AA was going to keep flying 2x A330 to FRA. We just said that AA would maintain the route would you said they would drop it completely. It is more like you are agreeing with US  
Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
Yes, with a 762 not 2xA330, and there were 300,000 US troops staged near FRA, and fuel was cheaper than peanuts. A lot has changed since then.

SE USA - Germany traffic has only grown since then so I really don't see why US/AA would give up on it now....
 
CV880
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:00 am

Quoting point2point (Reply 75):
and when jet fuel goes up, or maybe any number of events happen that requires airlines cutting schedules, routes and/or frequencies that aren't supporting O&D are easiest to let go. And at this point, personally all I am really looking at is O&D traffic and that is how I'm basing my guesstimations going forward.

Obviously on a pt to pt route system, what You say is true, but the hub & spoke system was developed for the same reason--a cost saving measure or a gathering place to get from point A to B via point C at an economical cost. NK's route system leaves out much of America as opposed to the Big 3 Carriers. Try getting to Asia or Europe on NK. As for PHX, the O&D of that Airport really has no relevance to the US flight schedule in it's present form. Most of the O&D traffic from PHX is probably on WN.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26468
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:10 am

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 74):
MIA does not have a capacity issue but it does have a domestic feed issue (largely thanks to its airport costs).



MIA doesn't have a domestic feed issue. AA runs an extensive domestic network out of MIA. There are some gaps to the smaller Northeast markets and MCI/MKE/SAT/AUS/SAN. But AA will take care of that with its new fleet. Having nothing between an ERJ-145 and a 737-800 meant AA has been unable to fill that gap until now. AA not serving those markets have absolutely zilch to do with airport costs. A RIC-SXM passenger is a very high fare premium passenger; the extra $5-7 it cost is irrelevant.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 74):
but for the beach markets that depend upon vacationers from Omaha and Richmond to fill the planes,



There is not one single beach market that relies on Richmond or Omaha. MIA can connect one-stop to more than 90% of the U.S.-Caribbean market. AA serves pretty much every decent sized metro in the South from Miami - Richmond, Norfolk, Louisville, Birmingham, etc. The only somewhat important feeder markets missing are smaller Northeast markets - ROC, SYR, BUF, PVD - but, again, AA will soon have the planes to finally serve those markets, and specifically used MIA-BUF as an example of a market it will open during a presentation on its turn around plan.
a.
 
usairways85
Posts: 4198
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 11:59 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:17 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 72):
PHL can flow traffic away from CLT now, they don't need AA to do it.

CLT's role in new AA/US will be different than it is now with US. US needs a reliever for PHL in terms of TA growth as well as additional options to Europe. With ORD, DFW, and JFK added CLT does not need to play this role as much as US has built it up to be. CLT will likely retain TA service but not to the extent it has today.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:08 am

Quoting point2point (Reply 75):
just to offer a bit of wisdom that I've experienced in my longer years of life here and that is sometimes the more certain one is of something..... well.......

Oh I absolutely agree with you, I've always said that in this industry, never say never, perhaps a better way to phrase it would have been that I'm as certain as one can be in this business.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 76):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 64):
You're talking about the two like they're two competing airlines which isn't the case. They're both in *A and code-share on each others' flights to Germany, thus it's a wash as to whether pax choose LH or US at CLT. After the merger though, all those CLT-based corporate contracts go to AA and OW and BA thus probably replaces LH.

The contracts are German based companies, therefore they will stay with LH and *A.
http://charlotteusa.com/business-inf...many/

As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT. Do you think Haier USA contracts exclusively with Air China?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10250
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:32 am

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 78):
Nobody said that AA was going to keep flying 2x A330 to FRA. We just said that AA would maintain the route would you said they would drop it completely. It is more like you are agreeing with US

Hummm...let me quote what i said:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 63):
It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay.
Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 78):
No, it is their US subsidiaries which will remain with US/AA. Are they going to fly around the US doing their sales calls and product presentations on LH?

Nonesense. If that was true they would be flying on AA today but they're not. They're flying on LH. LH's MUC-CLT a.k.a the BMW Express, exists because of the German companies located in and around Charlotte. You guys are severely underestimating German pride.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT.

Sure, for domestic travel but not for international travel. My company has contracts with different airlines for domestic and international travel.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:14 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT. Do you think Haier USA contracts exclusively with Air China?

I think there is some confusion here. Based on airbazar's post after yours, I think the point was that LH to MUC is likely to stay, even if FRA on AA/US metal goes. From the sound of things the current US CLT-FRA service is in more danger because they probably rely more heavily on Star connections (at both ends, but connections nonetheless) than the LH MUC flight. That's not to say there may not be respectable O&D traffic on CLT-FRA, but of the two it frankly is seems a bit weaker.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:45 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 63):
It's my belief that US's FRA flights will be gone or at least severely reduced but LH will stay.
Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 78):
No, it is their US subsidiaries which will remain with US/AA. Are they going to fly around the US doing their sales calls and product presentations on LH?

Nonesense. If that was true they would be flying on AA today but they're not. They're flying on LH.

They're flying on LH because LH codeshares with US, they're both in *A and they can earn Dividend Miles. It doesn't really matter which airline the employees want to fly as it's the employers who sign the contracts and pay for the travel, it just so happens right now with the relationship between LH and US that they can fly the two interchangeably, if that interchangeability goes away (i.e. codesharing and *A), they stop flying LH unless LH nabs the contract.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
LH's MUC-CLT a.k.a the BMW Express, exists because of the German companies located in and around Charlotte.

It exists because both LH and US codeshare, are in *A and US has a massive hub in CLT. The BMW biz travelers are great and certainly make the flight profitable, but take away the CLT feed and it's gone, 35 PDEW is not enough to sustain A333 service on LH.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
You guys are severely underestimating German pride.

German pride isn't going to keep LH in CLT, especially considering that most of the people employed by these CLT-based German subsidiaries are American.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 83):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
As pointed out before, they're contracts with the subsidiaries of German-based companies, companies that send travelers around the US more than they send them to Germany, thus making AA the airline offering the most value to them by having a massive domestic hub in CLT.

Sure, for domestic travel but not for international travel. My company has contracts with different airlines for domestic and international travel.

Are you based in a fortress hub dominated by one single airline who are the only ones offering international service?

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 84):
From the sound of things the current US CLT-FRA service is in more danger because they probably rely more heavily on Star connections (at both ends, but connections nonetheless) than the LH MUC flight. That's not to say there may not be respectable O&D traffic on CLT-FRA, but of the two it frankly is seems a bit weaker.


FRA is definitely the stronger market between the two with 43 PDEW compared to MUC's 35 PDEW, yield-wise it could balance out. But in either case, the new AA will dominate the Charlotte market and I doubt they will allow a large international competitor such as LH to remain without a fight, and I doubt LH would really care to put up a fight over what would be a long, thin route for them absent any US feed at CLT.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:24 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):

I think the kicker here is that LH holds the high cards in terms of the major contracts and money underwriting the route. With that giving the route a nice baseline, LH can leverage MUC connections to fill the back. While FRA is a big destination in it's own right, and a merged AA/US may look at keeping some of the FRA service beyond what AA offers now (just DFW I believe), I just don't see CLT as a major cornerstone for them. With their lucrative and valued (loyalty/pride) contracts here, LH has some vested interest with CLT-MUC. OTOH, AA has all but left Germany, and even the merged carrier in OW may not have all that much stake in CLT-FRA. My thinking here is that FRA in the merged carrier is likely to go to ORD and/or JFK (or stay at PHL), and those would be quite sufficient for the combined network sans Star connections. AB though might pick up the slack if they get their ball rolling.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10250
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:20 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):
It exists because both LH and US codeshare, are in *A and US has a massive hub in CLT. The BMW biz travelers are great and certainly make the flight profitable, but take away the CLT feed and it's gone, 35 PDEW is not enough to sustain A333 service on LH.

But where's the point of sale for the rest of the passengers? Is it in the US or is it in Europe?
LH has an equally massive hub in MUC and that's how they fill the plane. CLT will be competing with PHL, MIA, JFK, ORD, DFW, for those very valuable FRA slots. I would be very surprised if AA does not move the flight to a bigger market like JFK.
Also of importance here is that a lot of those companies are not in Frankfurt. FRA was just the connecting airport to get to different cities in Germany. Without the connections via LH, passengers will be using LHR as their connecting point, thus undermining AA/US's own CLT-FRA route.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:02 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):

Well said, I think that is precisely the issue for CLT. Just like domestically, there are lots of other options when you're leaving (or entering) the SE/South U.S., so this is ultimately just one more option for pax. And it's an option that is probably more valuable, maybe even consolidated onto larger equipment, at one of the other hubs. DFW and MIA are both good candidates as well, given AA strength there.
 
coairman
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:31 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:27 pm

I think overall star could build up UA's IAD hub to increase frequencies, add new markets and upgauge aircraft to accommodate the loss of the CLT hub. Building up markets in the SE could help sway that region to UA and feed into UA's broad worldwide markets.
The views I express are of my own, and not the company I work for.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:40 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 86):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):

I think the kicker here is that LH holds the high cards in terms of the major contracts and money underwriting the route.

They don't though, they're US contracts, but because of *A and the codesharing, it doesn't make a difference whether they fly LH or US. Even in a best-case scenario for LH, let's say they get 50% of the contracts for the route, it further undermines the case for LH serving CLT (17 PDEW now?). AA is going to have the right-sized plane for the route and the better leverage with the hub in CLT to make it work.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 86):
LH can leverage MUC connections to fill the back.

I doubt LH is able to profitably serve a route where 90+% percent of the passengers would be connections. AA/US on the other hand have lower costs, better-sized aircraft and have long tuned their operation at CLT to operate profitably with that high percentage of connections. I doubt there's a single long-haul route that LH flies that carries anywhere near 90% connections.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 86):
OTOH, AA has all but left Germany, and even the merged carrier in OW may not have all that much stake in CLT-FRA.

Again, this is all the more reason for them to remain in the market. As someone pointed out previously, CLT-FRA ran for years without LH feed, it's a long-established route for US and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue serving it post-merger.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 85):
It exists because both LH and US codeshare, are in *A and US has a massive hub in CLT. The BMW biz travelers are great and certainly make the flight profitable, but take away the CLT feed and it's gone, 35 PDEW is not enough to sustain A333 service on LH.

But where's the point of sale for the rest of the passengers? Is it in the US or is it in Europe?

Ok, let's say, as I said above, that LH does happen to contractually lock-in half the business traffic on the route, they've essentially just cut their O&D traffic on the route in half, a severe blow to LH in such a small market. So LH would be going up against AA in the market with bigger, expensive aircraft, higher costs and filling up the plane with 90% connections. AA/US meanwhile have more long-haul aircraft options to better fit the route, lower costs and an operation better tuned to be profitably with such a high percentage of connections.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
LH has an equally massive hub in MUC and that's how they fill the plane.

Name me a single long-haul route LH operates that would rely as heavily on lower-yielding connections to fill up the plane as CLT would. LH's operating costs are too high to profitably operate a route that is almost all connecting traffic.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
CLT will be competing with PHL, MIA, JFK, ORD, DFW,

Sure, but CLT would the largest hub of all of those listed and FRA is a major European market. I agree that CLT would see TATL service scaled back with the merger, but FRA is a large, important market, one of the few that would remain, otherwise it would be a pretty major hole in the network not to have your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 87):
Also of importance here is that a lot of those companies are not in Frankfurt. FRA was just the connecting airport to get to different cities in Germany.

Sure, but MUC is in the same boat where LHR would be poaching many of the connecting pax. 43 PDEW to FRA is enough for a daily 763 service with the CLT connections to back it up.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 88):
Just like domestically, there are lots of other options when you're leaving (or entering) the SE/South U.S., so this is ultimately just one more option for pax. And it's an option that is probably more valuable, maybe even consolidated onto larger equipment, at one of the other hubs.

I agree with the argument and that CLT will see some right-sizing, but not to the extent of having LHR as the only TATL flight. CLT will likely remain the second-largest hub in AA's network after the merger, having it connected to FRA or Germany would still be an imperative for the carrier.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:03 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):
They don't though, they're US contracts, but because of *A and the codesharing, it doesn't make a difference whether they fly LH or US. Even in a best-case scenario for LH, let's say they get 50% of the contracts for the route, it further undermines the case for LH serving CLT (17 PDEW now?). AA is going to have the right-sized plane for the route and the better leverage with the hub in CLT to make it work.

As mentioned above, I wouldn't be so sure. Obviously I can't speak for them, but the German HQ folks may well have loyalty to LH, and then have their US division hop LH back home when they need to be in Germany for whatever. There are many instances where companies have domestic contracts and foreign contracts with different carriers in different alliances. The other issue is that a combined US/AA is not in a position to fight LH tooth and nail for a route that LH holds the high cards on -- it just wouldn't make sense because LH has that locked up.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):

I doubt LH is able to profitably serve a route where 90+% percent of the passengers would be connections. AA/US on the other hand have lower costs, better-sized aircraft and have long tuned their operation at CLT to operate profitably with that high percentage of connections. I doubt there's a single long-haul route that LH flies that carries anywhere near 90% connections.

With the contracts they have, it's possible. It all depends obviously, but there is no reason they can't. One thing here is that LH only has two connecting hubs to worry about, whereas AA/US has multiple in the U.S., so it's much easier to consolidate all the traffic going to CLT from wherever in the LH network than it is for AA/US to consolidate it at CLT.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):
Again, this is all the more reason for them to remain in the market. As someone pointed out previously, CLT-FRA ran for years without LH feed, it's a long-established route for US and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue serving it post-merger.

No argument about US's history on CLT-FRA. My only point there was to note that AA is not too excited about Germany so far in terms of spreading the love beyond DFW, so I'd think ORD or JFK would be a higher priority than CLT. Who knows they may do both, but in the scheme of things, it's a notch down from where else I'd be worried about offering FRA service for the aforementioned O&D reason.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:09 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
but the German HQ folks may well have loyalty to LH

Certainly true, but then again how many will stay with AA, especially the ones that connect on to other German cities where they could just as easily connect in LHR? There may well be companies that will remain in *A and LH, but there will also be many that remain with AA/US, in such a scenario, that small segment of profitable O&D traffic from CLT is further fragmented, a scenario which LH can't afford on such a long, thin route.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
The other issue is that a combined US/AA is not in a position to fight LH tooth and nail for a route that LH holds the high cards on -- it just wouldn't make sense because LH has that locked up.

At best they may lock-in 50% of the contracts, a generous assumption, I wouldn't call that holding the high cards in such a small market.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
It all depends obviously, but there is no reason they can't.

There are numerous reasons to believe that they can't that I discussed above. LH would be at a cost disadvantage compared to AA/US and they would be forced to use a comparatively large and thirsty A333 where AA could use better-sized 762's or 763's. Factor in the fact that the amount of high-yield travelers LH/US are currently carrying on the route would, at best, be fragmented 50/50, and you're looking at a very challenging outlook, one that I just don't think LH really cares to face considering they have bigger fish to fry.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
One thing here is that LH only has two connecting hubs to worry about, whereas AA/US has multiple in the U.S.,

I understand that, but as I said earlier, CLT will in all likelihood remain the second-largest hub for AA/US, and you can't say that having your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe wouldn't be important for the combined airline with the massive feed available and the somewhat appreciative amount of O&D in the markets.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 91):
My only point there was to note that AA is not too excited about Germany so far in terms of spreading the love beyond DFW,

I don't think it has anything to do with them being "excited" about Germany or not so much as it was the fact that, pre-BK, they just couldn't effectively go up against LH/UA in ORD or JFK, I have no doubt they're anxious to expand their scope in the Germany market which would be an easy thing to do from CLT.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:02 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
At best they may lock-in 50% of the contracts, a generous assumption, I wouldn't call that holding the high cards in such a small market.

Maybe it is only that much as a percentage of seats/contracts, but those are most of the big players who make frequent use of CLT-Germany and CLT-MUC specifically.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I understand that, but as I said earlier, CLT will in all likelihood remain the second-largest hub for AA/US, and you can't say that having your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe wouldn't be important for the combined airline with the massive feed available and the somewhat appreciative amount of O&D in the markets.

I'd like for AA/US to keep that up, but based on AA's and OW's seeming priorities (lock up TATL to LHR then serve the other stuff more or less sparingly), my fear is that CLT will be become another DEN or MSP - lots of domestic connectivity but barebones intercontinental. If I prove to be wrong in the long run great, but given the overall emphasis and network of the airline, I don't see CLT remaining a major TATL gateway.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I don't think it has anything to do with them being "excited" about Germany or not so much as it was the fact that, pre-BK, they just couldn't effectively go up against LH/UA in ORD or JFK, I have no doubt they're anxious to expand their scope in the Germany market which would be an easy thing to do from CLT.

I'd bet they are too, but given the aforementioned weak O&D from CLT, it seems to me that you'd be better served by getting your foot in the larger pool of ORD or JFK where there is both substantial O&D and good connectivity. Maybe I should have rephrased it to say that out of their available slots to FRA, CLT may be high-yielding in isolation but they may be better served going with larger TATL markets in Chicago or NY or even MIA. Just my two cents though. Another thing I see playing in is how AB gets rolling - do they start to be the OW key to Germany and more on the continent in general? If so I'd guess cities like CLT would be viable for them.
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5518
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:13 pm

Quoting coairman (Reply 89):
I think overall star could build up UA's IAD hub to increase frequencies, add new markets and upgauge aircraft to accommodate the loss of the CLT hub

Problem with that is that IAD is not the preferred O&D airport for domestic travelers in the WAS market. IAD loses a lot of it's domestic traffic to DCA and to a lesser extent BWI. Because of this, UA can't maintain high frequency domestic service to many markets from IAD except to hubs and some of the beyond perimeter markets. Plus, the LCC's are now getting into DCA and will likely get even more flights at DCA when US/AA divest slots.

Domestic traffic at IAD today is now below 1999 levels and still declining. International traffic on the other hand is booming and setting new records every year.

IAD simply can't replace CLT. It's too far north to make most of the secondary southern markets work. Routes like MOB, VPS, TLH, MGM, JAN, etc don't work from IAD.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:47 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
At best they may lock-in 50% of the contracts, a generous assumption, I wouldn't call that holding the high cards in such a small market.

Maybe it is only that much as a percentage of seats/contracts, but those are most of the big players who make frequent use of CLT-Germany and CLT-MUC specifically.

  50/50 is an even split, they wouldn't have most of anything under such a scenario.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
I understand that, but as I said earlier, CLT will in all likelihood remain the second-largest hub for AA/US, and you can't say that having your second-largest hub connected to the largest market in Europe wouldn't be important for the combined airline with the massive feed available and the somewhat appreciative amount of O&D in the markets.

I'd like for AA/US to keep that up, but based on AA's and OW's seeming priorities (lock up TATL to LHR then serve the other stuff more or less sparingly), my fear is that CLT will be become another DEN or MSP

If we were having this conversation 3-4 years ago I would agree with you, but AA has been moving beyond that strategy as of late, and post-BK and post-merger, AA won't be at all following the defensive, shrinking strategy they had been pursuing previously. And I don't honestly see anything wrong with MSP (services to LHR, CDG, AMS and NRT) or DEN (LHR, FRA and NRT), not bad line-ups in those cities. I see AA serving LHR, FRA and CDG or MAD from CLT after all is said and done.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
I'd bet they are too, but given the aforementioned weak O&D from CLT

It's not awful O&D for a city it's size, just not large enough to be served by both AA and LH, and my argument is that AA isn't just going to forfeit that traffic, they'd be crazy to do so. Additionally, what CLT may lack in O&D it makes up for in network connectivity.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 93):
it seems to me that you'd be better served by getting your foot in the larger pool of ORD or JFK where there is both substantial O&D and good connectivity.

Right, but those are also very competitive markets and there's even more connectivity at CLT. I do think we'll see AA service to FRA return to those markets, but not at the expense of CLT. I agree with you that TATL from CLT will be scaled back, but FRA is one of the major markets AA will retain out CLT in my view.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:59 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 95):
50/50 is an even split, they wouldn't have most of anything under such a scenario.

It's not if those are more lucrative ones...let's say US and LH split all the CLT-Germany down the middle, 50/50, and connections are a wash. Even so, I'd bet those that LH holds are more valuable (more premium, more frequency and higher fares, etc.) -- BMW alone has to be a good chunk of that.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3317
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:10 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 96):
Even so, I'd bet those that LH holds are more valuable (more premium, more frequency and higher fares, etc.)

Why should that be the case? I see no reason why AA/US also wouldn't get some of those contracts, especially considering their more extensive flight offerings from CLT. Even if that were the case, again, it just further fragments the traffic on an already long, thin route that LH doesn't really have the right aircraft for. We don't see LH serving any other TATL routes that small, I'm just failing to see the exceptionalism or the economic case for it here.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:35 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 97):

It's not about should or won't, it's that LH currently has the contracts for a handful of German companies with U.S. divisions or HQs in the CLT area. These companies, I would wager, are the ones with the most overall travel to Germany from CLT, and those with the most premium traffic between them. I don't see many other companies with a frequent demand for travel to MUC specifically and/or Germany writ large - the financial sector may have a few for FRA but I'd bet LHR is at least as good on that front, for instance.

I wasn't attempting to point out exceptionalism, just an economic case based a group of companies who have highly specific demand between CLT and central/southern Germany specifically. That is a very specific confluence of factors.
 
CV880
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Star Alliance Without CLT

Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:45 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 97):
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 96):
Even so, I'd bet those that LH holds are more valuable (more premium, more frequency and higher fares, etc.)

Why should that be the case? I see no reason why AA/US also wouldn't get some of those contracts, especially considering their more extensive flight offerings from CLT. Even if that were the case, again, it just further fragments the traffic on an already long, thin route that LH doesn't really have the right aircraft for. We don't see LH serving any other TATL routes that small, I'm just failing to see the exceptionalism or the economic case for it here.

A component of LH's decision may be the cargo yields with industrial import/exports concerning BMW, Siemens(Westinghouse) & Freightliner. Would not be surprised to see LH continue the service for at least awhile after the merger just to see if continuation of the flight is worthwhile. The 333 is less expensive to operate than the 747 used in the '90s.

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