Close Location Of Hubs

[ISP]

Okay...

So everyone say that US is troubled because it's 3 major hubs are PIT, PHL, & CLT.

Granted, most of US's operation are on the east coast, but it got me thinking...

NWA's 3 biggest hubs are MSP, DTW, & MEM. None of these are less than 500 miles apart from each other (MSP-DTW, DTW-MEM, MSP-MEM). Why are they in such better shape than US. Is it solely because they have trans-pacific ops? What gives? Before the major cutbacks, US was almost as large as NW!

 

[DCAflyer]

Okay...

So everyone say that US is troubled because it's 3 major hubs are PIT, PHL, & CLT.

Granted, most of US's operation are on the east coast, but it got me thinking...

NWA's 3 biggest hubs are MSP, DTW, & MEM. None of these are less than 500 miles apart from each other (MSP-DTW, DTW-MEM, MSP-MEM). Why are they in such better shape than US. Is it solely because they have trans-pacific ops? What gives? Before the major cutbacks, US was almost as large as NW!

Well, there are two issues at play here, I think.

First, I believe MEM is actually about 700 air miles from MSP and 600+ from DTW. For purposes of regional feed, which seems the direction we are headed, we would enjoy a greater potential customer base by having a hub or focus city farther away than 300 miles.

The second issue is geography. NWA enjoys a greater customer base because two of their three hubs are roughy in the center of the country. MSP serves regional feed from the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconcin (whose citizens don't want to connect through ORD if it can be avoided). MSP also, along with MEM, serves as a connection point for long-haul east-west traffic. DTW handles connection in the Northeast corridor for NWA.

Even though two of the three hubs are in major winter weather areas, those two facilities seem to handle bad weather well. None of NWA's hubs are overly- congested. None of NWA's focus regions seem to have been affected too much from LCC competition... the airline has been very lucky in that regard.

 

[TheWatcher]

US Airways doesnt seem to get competition until it starts to shrink its operations. The SWA push in Philly is designed to push US Airways to run. I think they see an oportunity to take advantage of the lack of leadership at the company. Having the current 3 hubs isnt a problem if you plan on having a large operation. A smaller US Airways isnt good for its long term survival. That company clearly has to start growing.

 

[Light Years]

The three US Airways hubs are a joke, especially considering the cities US and its predeccessors had presence in at different times (IND, MCI, EWR, LAX, SFO, SAN). Two hubs in Pennsylvania? And before, BWI, plus big operations in DCA, LGA, and BOS? I know they were the results of mergers and such but its as if someone had obssesive compulsive disorder about serving one part of our enormous country.

PIT is an amazing facility, the people are great, and until recently the airline had alot of support from the public and the city there (especially compared to PHL). But it is the weakest link. It is better located geographically than PHL, which is too eastward- no one wants to have to go east to go west. Its nicely situated to be a great omnidirectional hub connecting the northeast with the south, the east with the midwest. PHL and CLT are too far east and south for some of PIT's more midwestern markets. It looks like it should be a great hub, and it probably could be if US didnt have so many redundant operations nearby. The O&D traffic is dreadful and it serves pretty much exactly the same places as PHL with a few exceptions. For the most part it doesnt bring much to the table destination wise (West Virginia I guess, and a few places in Indiana and Ohio), its more its location thats vital. If only you could get a crane and lift up the airport and move it a few states west.

CLT is a great hub. Its O&D is not terrific either, but its location and facility are great. It brings alot more variety to the route structure with comprehensive service throughout the southeast, while still serving alot of northeast cities. Theres also room for expansion.

PHL can be a big rude city and has a crap airport (with gorgeous international and regional terminals awkwardly tacked onto the ends). However, the O&D traffic is big and it can support a rather large transatlantic network despite its close proximity to New York. I'd venture to say that US long haul flights do best out of PHL as people do actually want to go there.

I've often wondered if US could work without PIT (not that it is working now). PHL would have to pick up some of those cities and capacity, but cant handle it to large extent and isnt a great connecting point aside from north-south. So CLT would have to become a much bigger hub, with flights much deeper into the midwest and towards the southwest. US could essentially serve the same network, but with fewer, larger aircraft (e.g rather than 3 RJs from somewhere to PIT, CLT, PHL, an E170 to CLT and PHL) They could also increase connectivity in the three focus cities, strengthen the two remaining hubs to support more service, and redeploy mainline aircraft to more island, western, and international service (again suported by stronger hubs with more connections rather than three weak, redundant ones).

Any thoughts? I'm not bashing PIT or saying it should close, I'm merely trying to picture what a reconstructed route network would look like.

 

[ClueByFour]

Any thoughts? I'm not bashing PIT or saying it should close, I'm merely trying to picture what a reconstructed route network would look like.

Without a severe rework of the route network and fleet, you can't have US without PIT. PHL cannot handle the short-haul connecting traffic in the east, you won't connect someone from BNA to ROC in CLT with any frequency, and there is no other city available for a US hub that does not already have a major airline hubbed, greater O&D than PIT, the facilities for a hub, and no large LCC presence.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Without a severe rework of the route network and fleet, you can't have US without PIT. PHL cannot handle the short-haul connecting traffic in the east, you won't connect someone from BNA to ROC in CLT with any frequency, and there is no other city available for a US hub that does not already have a major airline hubbed, greater O&D than PIT, the facilities for a hub, and no large LCC presence.

So, isn't this why, on paper, MAA at PIT with lower airport costs made sense? You could provide smaller community connectivity throughout the day through PIT, while serving PHL with larger aircraft in a more 'rolling hub' efficient fashion, maintining FF loyalty with both frequency and connectivity with a better O and D experience through PHL with more rational, simple fares.

Keep CLT as 'not ATL.'


At least that's what I assumed U management WAS getting at. well, I haven't thought that recently.

 

[ClueByFour]

So, isn't this why, on paper, MAA at PIT with lower airport costs made sense?

I'd assume.

US originally proposed a tax package (car, hotel, sales) that would have ultimately reduced the debt at PIT by $31 million/year. The ACAA has since offered to lower the debt by $24 million a year without gaming revenue, and around $30 million if gaming revenue is included. CCY, being greedy, then said they wanted $47 million with gaming revenue.

$24 million a year is not chump change, and bit more than 2/3rds of the original US demand. Not a bad offer, to anyone except someone who thinks his own personal feces are not odorific (Siegel). And most of that will probably reduce traffic at PIT, since the entire exercise will involve cranking up PFCs.

Not that any of this matters: the ACAA is like our administration: "We will not negotiate with terrorists." With any luck, Lakefield might prove to be a better guy to try and build a suitable agreement for all parties involved.

The other thing to consider is that US has a pretty nice monopoly pricing situation at PIT (although the recent cutbacks may have influenced this to some degree). Not going to get that anywhere else.

 

[mweiss]

US's monopoly pricing at PIT are on the endangered-species list. Rational pricing for PIT alone would double O&D, perhaps even overnight. Perhaps that would be enough to turn PIT into a powerhouse for the company.

 

[RWerksman]

PIT is an amazing facility, the people are great, and until recently the airline had alot of support from the public and the city there (especially compared to PHL). But it is the weakest link. It is better located geographically than PHL, which is too eastward- no one wants to have to go east to go west. Its nicely situated to be a great omnidirectional hub connecting the northeast with the south, the east with the midwest. PHL and CLT are too far east and south for some of PIT's more midwestern markets. It looks like it should be a great hub, and it probably could be if US didnt have so many redundant operations nearby. The O&D traffic is dreadful and it serves pretty much exactly the same places as PHL with a few exceptions. For the most part it doesnt bring much to the table destination wise (West Virginia I guess, and a few places in Indiana and Ohio), its more its location thats vital. If only you could get a crane and lift up the airport and move it a few states west.

CLT is a great hub. Its O&D is not terrific either, but its location and facility are great. It brings alot more variety to the route structure with comprehensive service throughout the southeast, while still serving alot of northeast cities. Theres also room for expansion.

I've often wondered if US could work without PIT (not that it is working now). PHL would have to pick up some of those cities and capacity, but cant handle it to large extent and isnt a great connecting point aside from north-south. So CLT would have to become a much bigger hub, with flights much deeper into the midwest and towards the southwest. US could essentially serve the same network, but with fewer, larger aircraft (e.g rather than 3 RJs from somewhere to PIT, CLT, PHL, an E170 to CLT and PHL) They could also increase connectivity in the three focus cities, strengthen the two remaining hubs to support more service, and redeploy mainline aircraft to more island, western, and international service (again suported by stronger hubs with more connections rather than three weak, redundant ones).

Any thoughts? I'm not bashing PIT or saying it should close, I'm merely trying to picture what a reconstructed route network would look like.

I absolutly agree with you on PIT being a wonderful airport. Almost everyone I have come into contact with has been awesome. The airport facility itself is fantastic from a traveler point of view. US Airways is viewed as a home town team considering the amount of employees in the Pittsburgh area.

Despite what some people think, the community and the leadership want badly to keep U in town. That said -- when you have uncooperative leadership, and a very good posibility that the airline will inevitabily fail it does put a damper on this want. Believe me though -- hope is most definately alive. (on both fronts)

O&D sucks at PIT. I'll tell you why -- some fares are unrealistically high. PIT to PHL for instance -- forgettaboutit! Plus -- fares from Cleveland and Akron are very, very well known to be cheaper. I've personally used both airports. Bottom line - drop some prices, throw up some bilboards, and watch Pittsburgh originating traffic soar. Driving to Cleveland sucks



On the PHL side:

PHL is a sh*thole. It is an overtaxed, understaffed, rude, poorly designed airport. Rolling Hub? Get real!! PHL currently has and always will have too many problems to effectively pull that off. (one screw up at 7am throws the whole friggen day off in certain situations)

Throwing PIT dehubbing traffic into PHL is trying to make a silk purse out of a sours ear. Oh, and what about WN coming in? Close the airport that can be a gateway into the west, and get crushed in the one that you leave open -- thats forward thinking.

 

[N628AU]

you won't connect someone from BNA to ROC in CLT with any frequency

Not quite sure I get this totally.

If you are saying the schedule is inconvenient, that can be adjusted. If you are talking about going out of your way to connect, that is another story. I am sure DL connects people from the TN area to the NE constantly. I know of plenty of people who go from CLT to BUF or ROC via DTW on NW (not exactly a straight line).An ex girlfriend of mine flew LAX-MEM-SAT on NW. Will someone go from ERI to PWM through CLT, no, but BNA to ROC through CLT is not a very big deal.

 

[RWerksman]

US's monopoly pricing at PIT are on the endangered-species list. Rational pricing for PIT alone would double O&D, perhaps even overnight. Perhaps that would be enough to turn PIT into a powerhouse for the company.

Right figgin on!

PIT has so much potential!!

- A virtually monopoly on O&D traffic
- A fabulous facility
- A great location that can effectively fly to almost anywhere
- An awesome staff
- A large city (#7 in the nation if you combine the city/county) to draw from


It's really a shame when you look at it. So much potential wasted under years of mismanagement.

 

[BoeingBoy]

mweiss & RWerksman,

As far as I'm concerned, you're both right about the potential of PIT - decent fares could probably double the O&D traffic and have the side benefit of significantly lowering our "per head" cost there.

While PHL has more O&D traffic, it is about the worst in the country as far as O&D traffic relative to metropolitian population is concerned. Yields are already low - we have a yield disadvantage to WN for connecting traffic vs going thru BWI - and O&D yields are dropping as more LCC service is added. Wait till the 900 pound LCC gorilla arrives next month.

Jim

 

[TomBascom]

mweiss & RWerksman,

As far as I'm concerned, you're both right about the potential of PIT - decent fares could probably double the O&D traffic and have the side benefit of significantly lowering our "per head" cost there.

While PHL has more O&D traffic, it is about the worst in the country as far as O&D traffic relative to metropolitian population is concerned. Yields are already low - we have a yield disadvantage to WN for connecting traffic vs going thru BWI - and O&D yields are dropping as more LCC service is added. Wait till the 900 pound LCC gorilla arrives next month.

Jim

If rationalizing fares at PIT could be expected to have such an impact on O&D wouldn't it be fair to conclude that the same could be said for PHL?

WN is coming to PHL precisely because it is so underserved -- there are tons of people who should be flying but who are not. WN thinks that's because fares are high. OTOH by US' reasoning to date PHL has been suffering from "over capacity". Too many seats and not enough customers... We're about to find out who's right...

 

[RWerksman]

Are people from PIT that dumb? If you're selling it for $9.00 and I can buy the same thing elsewhere for $3.50 where do I give the bulk of my business? Ok so I have a "monopoly Price structure" from PIT, that means I'll pay a premium of $2.00 or a total of $5.50 NOT NINE FREAKIN' DOLLARS.

Don't worry the Steel Industry Will turn around any day now. Who needs that pesky airline anyway, Big Steel will save us!

Cmon now, do you really think that after negotiations the final tag per person would have been $9?

There were / are bigger issue in play here such as a long term commitment to the region, and blah blah blah.


And for the record there were quite a few contributing factors to the steel industry collapse. And I would rather discuss avoiding deja vu rather than trading insults.

 

[mweiss]

...by US' reasoning to date PHL has been suffering from "over capacity". Too many seats and not enough customers... We're about to find out who's right...

WN's right. Just like they were when Braniff said there was too much capacity between DAL and HOU in 1971.

And, yes, rationalizing airfares in PHL would increase O&D there as well, but we were talking specifically about PIT.