Are Lccs Actually Better For Pit?

[Rage4Order]

It seems that people that don't live in/near Pittsburgh think that USAirways pulling out of PIT is in the "best interests" of the area and the ACAA. As a furloughed ramper here, I can say that for me, and the thousands of other furloughed and active PIT employees, we're not as in favor of this as everyone else is.

I know that US won't have the the presence it once had here, but I'm hoping for the best, despite the numerous dire predictions I read on here. Some of the same types of predictions that said MAA would never get off the ground, by the way.

The following is a report from WTAE's website, by Wendy Bell (the same reporter doing the current story on the many different airfares for the same flight, mentioned in another thread). It's from a few months ago, so some numbers might have changed, but the idea is still the same.

Sorry for the length of the post. I don't have the link to the site. This is copied from an email.

Wendy Bell Examines Low-Cost Airlines

UPDATED: 4:28 PM EST January 12, 2004

What will life be like if US Airways moves out of town and Pittsburgh is no longer a hub city?

Some travel experts argue that new, low-cost carriers would come to town, fares
would be cheaper and Pittsburgh could attract new business.

Others say losing US Airways would make the city even smaller and make travel
downright painful.

What's the truth? Here's what Channel 4 Action News anchor Wendy Bell's research
shows.

Bell compared fares from Pittsburgh to Los Angeles on ATA, Air Tran, America
West and US Airways. She chose spring break, which is a tough travel time.

Here's what she found:

ATA had three flights to choose from, a two-hour layover in Chicago and eight
hours of travel time.

Same story with Air Tran. Eight 1/2 hours to get there, and layover in Atlanta.

America West only offered one flight through Phoenix, and 7 1/2 hours of travel
time.

US Airways had 13 flights. Several of them were direct. They could go to Los
Angeles faster, and for the best price: $222.70 (40 percent cheaper than ATA). US Airways also gets to L.A. 3 1/2 hours faster than AirTran.

What about Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale, Fla.?

ATA has two flights -- morning only. On the return trip, you have to connect
through Chicago. A 3-hour trip takes 8 hours on ATA for $447.40.

US Airways has 13 flights. Bell got the exact travel dates and times she wanted
for $335.20.

USA 3000 comes in the cheapest at $235, but Bell had to bump our departure date
one day because they only fly to Fort Lauderdale every other day.

Bell also looked at flights from Pittsburgh to Las Vegas. US Airways offered the
most flights at the cheapest price, and they get you where you're going the fastest.

So will smaller carriers save you money? According to Bell's research, losing US
Airways means it'll be harder to get where you're going quickly, and at the price you want to pay.

 

[Dizel8]

While that may be true at present, who knows what the future may hold.
If U were to leave, you may see an influx of more carriers serving more markets direct, with competetion between them keeping prices low.

In hubs were two or more competitors are operating, say ATL, where there is overlap, prices are very competetive. For proof, just look at the ATL-LAX route, where DAL used to have a monopoly and very high fares, to now, where AirTran has forced DAL to compete.

While it is certain, that some routes will go the way of the dodo bird or require a connection, I would almost bet, that other routes will see lower prices and direct routings.

 

[Rage4Order]

Dizel,

I definitely understand what you are saying. I guess the point of my post was to show that US leaving PIT, and being replaced by LCCs, isn't the cure-all some seem to think it is. There would be alot of negative impacts throughout the area.

And to clarify one thing, I'm absolutely NOT saying that the ACAA should bend over backwards and give US anything they want. I'm hoping some type of compromise can be reached, that is fair to as many people (especially the employees) as possible. If there is no agreement, then we'll see what happens.

 

[Dizel8]

Yes, I totally understand what you are saying and the economic fallout would be harsh, not just to the employees, but more far reaching.

The ACAA is between a rock and a hard place. They hitched their horse to U and extended all kinds of incentives, now however, they are not seeing a fair return of investment, so what to they do? Do they cut the cord and seek the business of other airlines or do they go along with the demands of U?

Certainly, I find it doubtful, that other airlines would wish to assume the repsonsibilities made between U and ACAA in times past, financially that is. So that cost will be borne by the taxpayer, but then, even if U stayed the dominant carrier, that would appear to be the case.

It is a quagmire for sure!

 

[DLFlyer31]

Here's another article that provides more balance to life after a major hub.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04292004/business/161590.asp

"But Nashville airport officials, once crushed to be losing hub status, are now happy with their trade-off. Airport spokeswoman Allison Lanquist, noting the current economic struggle in the airline industry, says life without a hub is just fine."


Losing jobs hurts and isn't a good thing. In the short term, the loss of a USAirways hub would hurt PIT's economy...but in the long run, I think PIT would come out ok.