Bob was right about 3Billion profit

[FWAAA]

40 mil pax a year...doesn't matter if it's o&d or xfer, the airport still has operate like one of the big boys to accomodate that volume of traffic...I just don't understand why all you airline superboys hate CLT so much, it has been a poven hub for US and may continue to be, if down the road it does not continue to be a viable hub then that will benefit the flying public with lower fares...

I doubt that anyone here hates CLT. I'm impressed that Jerry Orr and US have built CLT into one of the world's busiest hubs despite its medium-sized metro area population and fairly low percentage of local (O&D) traffic. Discussing the obvious - that most legacy hubs in cities the size of CLT have been downsized/dehubbed over the past 10-15 years - does not equal "hating" CLT. And despite the relatively low percentage of local traffic, US has managed to squeeze some pretty high yields out of those too-few local passengers.

The US Airways mantra from Parker and his fanbois for the last few years has been that AA really needed a Southeast conncting hub to enable AA to compete with UA and DL. Even if that's true, connecting the NE to SE domestic passenger (or even Jamie Baker's hypothetical RIC-JAX passenger) does not require a mega-hub with 600 flights a day. Of course, if it's downsized, its efficiencies probably diminish and would enable competitors to grab more of the local traffic. As you pointed out, that would bring down fares, further hurting the hub. All in all, no easy answers. But as hubs go, CLT is hugely overserved, even compared to the other overserved hubs.

 

[FlyUs]

CLT is a unique hub when considering o&d passengers. Cities like ORF, RIC and CHS are considered O &D even though they have to fly to CLT, if that makes sense.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The hub clearly could have been in other cities in the SE for sure. But the same principle would have existed. You can look at any one of the hubs that exist and see how much connecting traffic each has to see that a lot of cities are overhubbed. Consolidation is intended to reduce the amount of capacity in the system and it comes at the cost of hubs.... others have been there before. The local market in former hubs is still there - it just often is divided among other players because few carriers but not all have been able to retain their market share in former hubs after the hub is dismantled.

CLT has very favorable economic factors from both the city and US... but those can all change.

I seriously doubt AA/US will target CLT but its importance in the total combined AA/US network will change and the chances are high that most of US' hubs which have high levels of connecting traffic compared to other airlines will see reductions - or at least won't see growth like they have in the past.

The implications of those network choices remain to be seen... but they will undoubtedly have to be dealt with.

 

[robbedagain]

nobody hates any hub... but it isn't about emotion or preference or loyalty that will decide CLT's future - or that of any other airline hub.

The size of hubs will be determined by economic factors. CLT is as big as it is because it is the only hub for US in the SE and shared with large midcon hubs at ORD and DFW. It is anyone's guess how well CLT will fare when it has to compete for its position with multiple other hubs. OTOH, ATL hasn't shrunk since the NW merger when DL gained two strong hubs in the Midwest.... so perhaps all of the posturing about CLT will come to nothing.

In reality, PHX is probably a whole lot more at risk than CLT.

i agree that phx is at more risk given aa lax hub and dfw hub clt i think will be a ok

 

[eolesen]

CLT is a unique hub when considering o&d passengers. Cities like ORF, RIC and CHS are considered O &D even though they have to fly to CLT, if that makes sense.

You would be the first airline in history to consider boardings from 150+ miles away as being part of the local market, but whatever makes you feel good...

You might have gotten away with saying RIC was part of the DCA market, since there are people who would drive up there for a nonstop vs. a connect, but nobody in their right mind is doing that to CLT.

FWIW, when my son was briefly stationed at ORF, he didn't fly via CLT. Ever.

 

[FWAAA]

CLT is a unique hub when considering o&d passengers. Cities like ORF, RIC and CHS are considered O &D even though they have to fly to CLT, if that makes sense.

That doesn't make any sense to me. That's like saying that IND, FWA, GRR, TOL, MKE, etc, are really CHI O&D passengers even though they have to fly an hour or more on an Eagle RJ to get to ORD.

I'll grant you that CLT is a unique hub in that it has the lowest percentage of local O&D passengers of any large domestic hub.