Charlotte would be new Delta’s No. 3 hub

[trvlr64]

Or to put it bluntly, US was solely responsible for the increasing cost per passenger at PIT, yet blamed PIT. Something like you taking your car back to the dealer complaining that it's become twice as expensive to operate in my little example.

What's amazing is the number of people that believed the BS.

Jim

THANK YOU JIM for pointing that out. Apparently people still think PIT screwed US. Let's just say it was a concentual F#$*KING by both parties.


And FLUF....to your statement that "everyone moves out". Let me tell you that is a total false statement. I grew up in PIT and I have lived in Winston-Salem then San Diego, returned to Pittsburgh, then moved to NYC and then over to NJ to once "again" return to Pittsburgh.

And NO I don't work for USAirways. I just happen to be one of those pesky US1's.

And let me just say this. I would much rather fly out of PIT than any of those airports where I used to live previously. Ofcourse it was much easier to fly out of PIT prior to the 2nd BK and the merger with HP. And another FYI.....PIT has increased in passenger traffic for ALL of the other airlines that continue to fly out of PIT while US has shown a drop in passenger traffic. So I guess it's actually not that expensive to operate out of PIT like US likes you all to believe.

Keep drinking that koolaid.

 

[ClueByFour]

Kirby, as usual, is full of it.

CLT has 9 Fortune 500s. PIT has 7. If you count the Fortune 1000 it's a wash. CLT has banks. Mellon and PNC are not exactly small institutions, neither is Federated.

At the end of the day, it's all about the fortress hub. People in CLT continue to take it in the chops in terms of monopoly hub airfare, whereas people in PIT had relatively easy alternatives (CAK and CLE). Witness:

But Kirby said Charlotte is a key market because its business travelers are willing to pay for non-stop flights to cities in California and along the east coast.

I almost guarantee that the feds are going to force a gate divestiture at CLT. And when that happens, someone (FL, B6, or even WN) is going to move in. And then we'll find out if Kirby still thinks people will tolerate monopoly hub pricing. "Willing" indeed.

I foresee more RJs int CLT's future. Many more.

 

[Travels2mch]

I foresee more RJs int CLT's future. Many more.

This makes sense....unfortunately. Given that from PIT, we have to connect to most places, CLT was my north/south option always (ORD and UA being the east/west option).

CLT is a great airport to be stuck in or connect through. This leaves the options of PHL (no freakin way.....EVER!!) or ATL (better than PHL....although it's easier to connect in ATL than it is to start out there, IMO). I'd hate to see CLT go. That will be the end of US for me (or DL, or whatever the hell they call it).

 

[High Iron]

they are telling some tall tales about how CLT will look post-merger, to keep the troops in CLT calm and under control...

Ah, rumors ( educated ones at that ) of CLT's demise: That quote is the dirty little secret...Pretty much the heart of it. To keep the Charlotte civic boosters happy too. That proclamation all sounds a little too defensive, ya know what I mean? How's the Dilbert-esque adage go? "Nothing lends more credence to a rumor than to have it officially denied". That's been the case in...what, 12 out of 10 times?

The RJ angle, haven't thought of that, but it would be a way to make the numbers look good on paper, while bad in reality.

 

[Itestwell]

This makes sense....unfortunately. Given that from PIT, we have to connect to most places, CLT was my north/south option always (ORD and UA being the east/west option).

CLT is a great airport to be stuck in or connect through. This leaves the options of PHL (no freakin way.....EVER!!) or ATL (better than PHL....although it's easier to connect in ATL than it is to start out there, IMO). I'd hate to see CLT go. That will be the end of US for me (or DL, or whatever the hell they call it).

Umm, unless I am missing something, CLT is already all RJ's! Prettty much every market we used to fly on the 737/ DC9/ F100 are complete RJ markets now. Just look at the C concourse, it's baffling....

I really do not think CLT will lose that many more mainline flights:
Florida markets? Nah, those will stay mainline.
West Coast/PHX/LAS? Nope, those will stay mainline.
BOS/LGA/PHL? Maybe a few RJ's thrown in, but for the most part, mainline.
Caribbean? Maybe some shift to ATL, but remember, ATL is busy already. Just how much more could be added there?
Frankfurt and London? Staying.
That said, the rest, for the most part, is RJ's!

And with regards to PIT, the O&D traffic is greater in CLT, is it not? I still do not understand why people think US is lying about PIT being able to sustain the level of traffic it did in the late 90's. PIT was screwed by US, and vice versa. Different management, different time. It will never be what it once was, time to accept that.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

Umm, unless I am missing something, CLT is already all RJ's! Prettty much every market we used to fly on the 737/ DC9/ F100 are complete RJ markets now. Just look at the C concourse, it's baffling....

I really do not think CLT will lose that many more mainline flights:
Florida markets? Nah, those will stay mainline.
West Coast/PHX/LAS? Nope, those will stay mainline.
BOS/LGA/PHL? Maybe a few RJ's thrown in, but for the most part, mainline.
Caribbean? Maybe some shift to ATL, but remember, ATL is busy already. Just how much more could be added there?
Frankfurt and London? Staying.
That said, the rest, for the most part, is RJ's!

And with regards to PIT, the O&D traffic is greater in CLT, is it not? I still do not understand why people think US is lying about PIT being able to sustain the level of traffic it did in the late 90's. PIT was screwed by US, and vice versa. Different management, different time. It will never be what it once was, time to accept that.

You will be surprised at what management is capable of, just about every decision made makes no sense, so if you think they will keep this flight, or that flight just because they are full, your in for a rude awakening.......Remember that when the talk of cutting flights in PIT-BWI and other stations looked rediculous they gave the excuse that there are just too many flights too close together and they would all just be competing with one another...Remember that these flights were always full and packed to the gill also and were still cut.....CLT-ATL has the exact same look no matter what you think......Brace for another uncertain rocky road while they continue to smile at you tell you not to worry and lie to you at the same time.........

 

[Bear96]

“Charlotte is a luge local market for us,â€￾ Kirby said. “It’s a banking center, and there is a lot of local demand. It’s not like Pittsburgh. Charlotte has a larger local market.â€￾

Ouch.

 

[DLFlyer31]

Anyone who thinks that CLT won't shrink in this merger is dreaming. When the same airline has two hubs that compete directly for the same traffic flows, something has to give. In this case, ATL will overshadow CLT and much of the higher yielding traffic will go toward ATL as ATL offers more frequencies and vastly more destinations.

According to the USAirways fact sheet, CLT has 221 mainline flights and 320 Express flights for a total of 541 flights. If the merger happens, I would expect CLT to end up looking more like 100 mainline and 220 Express...for a total of 320 flights. ATL wouldn't see a lot of new frequencies, but a lot of equipment upgauging...allowing the "new DL" to carry more traffic w/o more airspace/ramp congestion.

For all those US folks who work in CLT and think this merger is a good thing, you might want to think again. Unless you look forward to moving to ATL.

 

[ClueByFour]

Ouch.

What's truly amusing is that he's factually incorrect. The population and O&D numbers are both greater in PIT than CLT.

I think 700 should tell Kirby "not to let the facts get in the way."

 

[longing4piedmont]

I've said it before and I will say it again.

PIT was downsized in order to bust the unions. PIT was the hot bed of the hard core. It was the one base they could not ever get control of. Of course the brain trust didn't think down the road to understand the ramifications of what they were doing.

 

[Twicebaked]

This is a bit off of the CLT debate, but it does involve Hubs/bases.

I know that Delta has Hubs in: Atlanta, Cincinatti, Salt Lake, and JFK....do they have crew "bases" like we have at US (i.e. PIT,BOS,DCA,LGA )? Does anyone know where they are??

Does Delta still have Song???

 

[DCAflyer]

Or to put it bluntly, US was solely responsible for the increasing cost per passenger at PIT, yet blamed PIT. Something like you taking your car back to the dealer complaining that it's become twice as expensive to operate in my little example.

What's amazing is the number of people that believed the BS.

Jim

Jim, from what I remember, wasn't there a fee at PIT somewhere in the range of $9-11 for each landing PAX, while similar fees in CLT and PHL were in the $2 range? I remember that the fees were directly related to the high construction costs of the midfield terminal, which, of course, was built to U's specifications. I agree that U was solely responsible for increasing the costs, and yes, A/C landing fees are better spread out among more passengers, but you'd have to add to the fixed operating costs of the A/C the per PAX fees. When an overwhelming majority of PAXs in PIT were transfering, obviously those costs would have to be eaten by the airline.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim, from what I remember, wasn't there a fee at PIT somewhere in the range of $9-11 for each landing PAX, while similar fees in CLT and PHL were in the $2 range?

There was never a "fee" per passenger per se - my car with 3 or 6 people example is very apt. The cost of operating the airport less non-airline revenue (concessions, parking, etc) is passed on to the tenent airlines thru facility lease costs and landing fees. That total cost to the airlines, divided by the number of passengers that use the airport, gives the "per passenger" cost. As US reduced service the number of passengers dropped, thus raising the "per passenger" cost.

In fact, the figure that's quoted is the average for all airlines. US, by hanging onto more gates than it needed as service was reduced, saw the greatest increase in "per passenger" costs while other airlines, carrying more passengers with the same facilities, saw lower increases in "per passenger" costs. For example, WN enplanes 1/4 as many passengers as US, but does it thru about 1/8 the gates. Thus their "per passenger" cost is roughly half of ours.

Finally, PHL has "per passenger" costs similiar to PIT and was higher before the PIT cutbacks - yet that wasn't used as an excuse to downsize PHL. DCA and several other airports we operate from have even higher "per passenger" costs.

Jim

 

[N109UW]

Wasn't US paying a higher landing fee than WN? I thought we asked PIT to lower ours to their level and they refused. I was under impression that PIT wanted WN there, so they offered lower landing fees.

 

[DCAflyer]

There was never a "fee" per passenger per se - my car with 3 or 6 people example is very apt. The cost of operating the airport less non-airline revenue (concessions, parking, etc) is passed on to the tenent airlines thru facility lease costs and landing fees. That total cost to the airlines, divided by the number of passengers that use the airport, gives the "per passenger" cost. As US reduced service the number of passengers dropped, thus raising the "per passenger" cost.

Jim,

Please review this document, which is the information sheet of Fees, Rates and Charges for PIT. It lists per passenger fees of $9.85 for passengers requiring FIS, and $3.60 for passengers not requiring FIS. As near as I can tell, FIS is an acronym for Flight Information Systems, but what that entails, I really couldn't say. In addition, the document lists per-passenger departure fees of $3.36 for "signatory airlines" (and I'm not sure what that is, but it goes on to list flat-rate fees for non-signatory and charter airlines requiring ticket counter use). The $9.85 figure seems in line with what Siegel indicated when he was at the helm, and he specicially cited the high per passenger rates (as compared with PHL and CLT which I recall being around the $2-3 range) as the main cause for downsizing PIT. I remember discussions where references were made to the high fees being directly resultant from the high cost of the airside terminal construction, which from what I remember, was pretty much built to U's specifications.