CLT Larger than MIA

[jcw]

Sit down everyone - with all the push by some to shut CLT for MIA - you are not going to believe this CLT has more O&D than MIA.  See chart.  I'm not saying CLT is ATL or anything else - I'm just saying I don't understand how you can rationalize shutting down CLT and connecting everyone north / south through MIA.
 
http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p521/ft3cforme/Screenshot_zps0bb5211b.png

 

[FWAAA]

I don't know why you keep attacking your straw man - the argument you attribute to everyone else that CLT will be shugt down and everyone will be asked to connect at MIA - but it's a free country and you're free to make any number of erroneous arguments.

As to the chart you found on Flyertalk - note that it includes only domestic O&D, and does not include any international O&D. If I recall correctly, Miami has about 10-20 times the international O&D as Charlotte.

As others have posted, some of the CLT international flights, like Rome, are filled primarily with O&D to/from South Florida, not CLT O&D and not O&D to/from the small towns in the Carolinas for which CLT is the only logical connection point.

MIA has huge international O&D and CLT has almost none. That's why CLT won't have a wide variety of international flights next year. LHR, FRA, CDG and MAD - certainly. Many of the others? They probably won't return next year.

So how will people in CLT get to European cities not listed above? Either via PHL, JFK, MIA or they'll connect in London.

The AA execs in CLT (actually US execs) told Charlotte in June that CLT had the lowest unit revenue of any East Coast hub. That's not encouraging news for the future of CLT.

Before you go beating that straw man again - I'm not saying that CLT will be STLd or PITd or CVGd or MEMd or CLEd. CLT just won't continue to grow exponentially and may in fact shrink now that Parker has higher-yielding hubs at his disposal, like NYC and MIA.

 

[737823]

Wow, just wow. This garbage isn't even worth responding to. FWAAA covered it well above but I guess some here don't recognize there are three major airports serving the region, FLL handing the majority of the domestic O&D.

Josh

 

[jcw]

I don't know why you keep attacking your straw man - the argument you attribute to everyone else that CLT will be shugt down and everyone will be asked to connect at MIA - but it's a free country and you're free to make any number of erroneous arguments.

As to the chart you found on Flyertalk - note that it includes only domestic O&D, and does not include any international O&D. If I recall correctly, Miami has about 10-20 times the international O&D as Charlotte.

As others have posted, some of the CLT international flights, like Rome, are filled primarily with O&D to/from South Florida, not CLT O&D and not O&D to/from the small towns in the Carolinas for which CLT is the only logical connection point.

MIA has huge international O&D and CLT has almost none. That's why CLT won't have a wide variety of international flights next year. LHR, FRA, CDG and MAD - certainly. Many of the others? They probably won't return next year.

So how will people in CLT get to European cities not listed above? Either via PHL, JFK, MIA or they'll connect in London.

The AA execs in CLT (actually US execs) told Charlotte in June that CLT had the lowest unit revenue of any East Coast hub. That's not encouraging news for the future of CLT.

Before you go beating that straw man again - I'm not saying that CLT will be STLd or PITd or CVGd or MEMd or CLEd. CLT just won't continue to grow exponentially and may in fact shrink now that Parker has higher-yielding hubs at his disposal, like NYC and MIA.

 
I've said before I think the international flying will shrink - I dont' think the domesitc flying will go away - the entire notion that Josh keeps pushing the CLT goes away just won't happen

 

[nycbusdriver]

The CLT hub is not going anywhere any time soon.  There may very well be a rethinking of the international routes, and the fact that AA is now doing this "rethinking" is evident by CLT's decision to scrap the new international terminal.  It's really too soon for the AA management to settle on a plan, but Latin American routes are obviously going to be flown out of MIA (which does make geographical sense.)  Will there be sufficient traffic to support more European flights?  My feeling is that management wants more time to study it, and would rather not commit either way while there are so many other merger related items that need clear focus and attention.
 
But historically, AA tried twice to establish hubs located close, and very close, to CLT, i.e. Nashville and Raleigh-Durham (AA practiaclly rebuilt the entire RDU airport to make it work.)  The presence of the CLT hub doomed both of those AA hubs to failure.  Now, AA owns the CLT hub, and I seriously doubt that they want to give up the prize with which they could not compete in previous decades.  Besides, AA has its sights set firmly on Delta, and CLT is really their best shot on giving ATL a run for its money (not that they will ever displace ATL, but they can offer the region a more user-friendly alternative and shave sme of Delta's traffic away from them.  That was the original concept that Piedmont tried in the early 80s, when CLT had a "joke" of a terminal (which is still standing and doing other functions.)  But Piedmont "ate their lunch," at least to a certain degree, and proved to the stunned industry that it was possible to compete against a fortress hub and succeed splendidly.  All that domestic traffic going through CLT today?  Back in 1980, the conventional wisdom was that ATL would scarf all of it up, and CLT would still be the sleepy little NC city that couldn't.

 

[WorldTraveler]

it's always amazing to watching the intracompany rivalry that goes on between PMAA and PMUS people - even about tn network.

The only real reason would appear to be a fear about what will get cut - and the realization that cuts will have to come.

Despite the fact that CLT has a smaller amount of O&D, US' hub at CLT ranks as one of the top hubs in the US based on number of flights operated.

It is more insightful to look at CLT compared to IAH and DTW, cities that have higher O&D based on the chart.

DL's DTW hub offers the smallest amount of seats of all of the hubs on the lower end of the chart - except for SLC.

CLT offers 50% more seats than DTW and 33% more than IAH - even though DTW and IAH both have significant amounts of int'l flights.

MIA has the highest percentage of int'l seats of perhaps any large hub other than DL at JFK.

CLT plays a key strategic role for new AA but it is vastly overhubbed and carries far more domestic connecting traffic than any other hub, esp. significant given the pulldown of several int'l flights.

However, the domestic market is very strong right now; it isn't a surprise that WN is leading the industry in RASM growth as a nearly exclusively domestic airline.

AA can get by with keeping CLT at its present size because of the strong domestic market but other carriers will continue to grow in key east coast markets which will erode the value of connecting traffic.

OTOH, part of the reason why MIA is such a small domestic market is because AA has dominated the market and kept fares high. As competition spreads to MIA, AA will be forced to add capacity in order to maintain traffic.

as to the statements about how CLT provides an alternative to ATL, DL offers twice the amount of seats from ATL compared to US at CLT and ATL is a true five continent hub - on top of the much larger local market.

DL also has the largest average aircraft size from any hub except for AA from MIA; larger aircraft provide greater efficiency and greater ability to flex capacity to the route while maintaining frequencies during lower peak periods.

What is most significant when comparing CTL and ATL is that DL is the number 2 carrier in CLT by almost the same ratio as FL/WN is to DL in ATL. The bigger factor in the future of CLT and AA is the fact that DL is the dominant airline in far more cities on the east coast outside of AA/US hubs than the other way around.

 

[737823]

I'd hardly call MIA a small domestic operation, AA has frequent non-stops to all the major markets. Yes a number of domestic cities are only 1-2x daily but the majority of AA hubs and large cities have frequent service.

CLT has worked for US thanks to the bargain basement wages and work rules they have enjoyed over the years. Now with higher costs in place and more attractive hubs CLTs role will be less strategic going forward. Again USAIR flew to European markets from CLT to relieve PHL and because during the summer they could fill much of the European capacity at lower fares. Same for the Brazil flights-CLT as the most suitable gateway US had to work with. A similar argument could be made for the PHL-TLV service, while some O&D exists in that market, BOS, MIA, and CHI are all larger and more sensible gateways.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA has less than 150 domestic flights/day at MIA and that includes their regional operations. AA's domestic hub at MIA is smaller than DL's domestic operation at SLC.

PHL-TLV has geography on its side - as well as being able to provide far more feed than BOS.

 

[robbedagain]

PHL TLV works better bec it has a large swath of areas to draw from  NY DE PA MD even NJ

 

[WorldTraveler]

the vast majority of US' traffic on PHL-TLV comes by air from outside the NE.

 

[737823]

AA has less than 150 domestic flights/day at MIA and that includes their regional operations. AA's domestic hub at MIA is smaller than DL's domestic operation at SLC.PHL-TLV has geography on its side - as well as being able to provide far more feed than BOS.

My source at Massporr says LY is in close communication with B6 who can serve all the main TLV O&D points and it's easier/less congested than JFK/EWR. Not to mention that BOS has much higher O&D than PHL.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

and for LY that is not surprising.

My reference was to AA/US which does not have a partnership with B6.

B6 at BOS is what AS is to SEA - the domestic airline for all of the foreign airlines that want to serve the city but couldn't make the city work w/o domestic feed traffic.

for AA/US, PHL makes the most sense for a gateway across the Atlantic other than what remains/will remain at JFK, which will likely eventually be just oneworld hubs/major markets - not unlike what CLT will be reduced to.

the problem for CLT is that new AA has too many hubs on the east coast. at JFK, they don't have the domestic feed necessary to make flights work compared to DL and UA who can serve the same markets but with much more feed while at CLT it is just the opposite - plenty of domestic capacity but very little int'l demand and far larger hubs around CLT. Remember that ATL, DTW, and IAD are also direct competitors to US' CLT int'l ops in addition to AA/US' own hubs.

 

[737823]

AA has less than 150 domestic flights/day at MIA and that includes their regional operations. AA's domestic hub at MIA is smaller than DL's domestic operation at SLC.PHL-TLV has geography on its side - as well as being able to provide far more feed than BOS.

MIA serves a very specific purpose on AA's network and that is to feed the Central, South America and Caribbean flying. Yes some domestic connections flow over MIA but it's mostly international connections and the flight schedule matches that. AA has as any as 7x MIA-BOS flights IMO that's pretty strong.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

precisely.

and to your point, BOS-MIA is about 40% local traffic with the rest connecting to Latin America.

Even in LGA-MIA, a far larger market, AA carries about 30% connecting traffic despite the amount of nonstops from NYC to Latin America.

IN contrast, DL's LGA-MIA is 90% local traffic (most of the rest are connections from north of NYC) and yet DL carries half the amount local traffic that AA does between LGA and MIA.

the point is simply that a large local market is necessary to support high frequency domestic service or to allow a hub to compete with int'l flights from other hubs.

CLT is a much smaller int'l market than other cities which will limit the number of int'l flights that can be supported.

When you consider that DL has a larger presence in more cities in the eastern US than AA/US, the way that US competed for traffic was via low fares, an option they do not have because of their higher costs and a need to no longer undercut other carriers

 

[737823]

and for LY that is not surprising.My reference was to AA/US which does not have a partnership with B6.B6 at BOS is what AS is to SEA - the domestic airline for all of the foreign airlines that want to serve the city but couldn't make the city work w/o domestic feed traffic.for AA/US, PHL makes the most sense for a gateway across the Atlantic other than what remains/will remain at JFK, which will likely eventually be just oneworld hubs/major markets - not unlike what CLT will be reduced to.the problem for CLT is that new AA has too many hubs on the east coast. at JFK, they don't have the domestic feed necessary to make flights work compared to DL and UA who can serve the same markets but with much more feed while at CLT it is just the opposite - plenty of domestic capacity but very little int'l demand and far larger hubs around CLT. Remember that ATL, DTW, and IAD are also direct competitors to US' CLT int'l ops in addition to AA/US' own hubs.

I disagree, BOS is on a roll landing new airlines and cities. People thought we would lose capacity to the European hubs that have long been served but instead we have LH increasing capacity with the 747-8 and both BA & LX have maintained their capacity. CX is coming online next May and all indications are JL is doing well more than two years into the route. I don't think the B6 feed makes these routes viable it's merely something extra and a convenient alternative airport to JFK. The local market and demand are strong and the flights would still stand on their own.

Josh