usairways85 said:
Well if you feel that US should just finally dump PHL and go back to PIT, then they mise well get rid of the 330's and some of the 762's since neither PIT nor CLT can handle a fraction of the transatlantic traffic that PHL does. Along the same lines PIT won't do nearly as well as PHL does with the caribbean traffic, and you can only route so much through CLT so there goes a little less than half your caribbean traffic.
Also US will be competing with WN in PIT soon so your reasoning that US should drop PHL because of WN contradicts yourself.
[post="241733"][/post]
An airline hub is by definition a place
where many planes arrive full of
passengers and those customers transfer
to other flights. In the true sense of the
word, PIT is a much better hub than
PHL because there are rarely any
operational problems that impede
the connecting process. Passengers
are much more likely to get to PIT
when they are scheduled to and are
much more likely to depart on time
to their destination.
Why would US have to get rid of
A330's and 767-200's if they were
funneling all of their transatlantic
customers through PIT as opposed
to PHL? The planes would be full
just as they are in PHL if the
schedules were nominal. You can
try to justify anything you want
with PHL, but in the end, PIT is a
much more efficient HUB and costs
the company a lot less in operational
problems. The problem with PIT is
that the company never really tried
to hub it the same way they did PHL.
If they had tried it, the costs they
whined about would have been
spread across a larger number of
flights and would have been
negligible in the long run. Herein
lies the problem, the company put
their eggs in one basket (PHL) and
didn't even try to make it work in
PIT.
PHL is a POS as an airport, and you
can't polish a turd, because in the
end, you will only have a shiny turd
and nothing else.
