Hub situation post merger (if)

[A330US]

People on Airliners.net have been talking about US current hubs scaling down, or possibly shutting down.

I think that US hubs will benefit from this. CLT is the cheapest hub in the nation to run, with fees almost at $2 a passenger. CLTs expansion could play real good with the merger scenario, as extra metal from AA including 757s, 777s and 767s could play a role in increasing international flights from CLT. People always keep on saying that MIA
will get bigger, DFW will stay as it is etc etc. I dont think so, These airports are good, but there is something obviously wrong with these so called strong hubs, or a airline wouldn't be continously losing money, and going into bankruptcy.

CLT/ATL are the only prime southeast hubs, and there is no way you would NOT make CLT even stronger, as ATL is already the worlds busiest, and i think one of the most efficient hubs in the US.

What do you guys think ? I think some transcon widebodies would be taken off, and replaced by narrowbodies, and instead, start new routes from CLT.

 

[FWAAA]

People on Airliners.net have been talking about US current hubs scaling down, or possibly shutting down.

I think that US hubs will benefit from this. CLT is the cheapest hub in the nation to run, with fees almost at $2 a passenger. CLTs expansion could play real good with the merger scenario, as extra metal from AA including 757s, 777s and 767s could play a role in increasing international flights from CLT. People always keep on saying that MIA will get bigger, DFW will stay as it is etc etc. I dont think so, These airports are good, but there is something obviously wrong with these so called strong hubs, or a airline wouldn't be continously losing money, and going into bankruptcy.

AA is losing money and is in bankruptcy because its labor costs are at least $2 billion higher each year than they would be if AA enjoyed the US contracts and the US payrates. If you move AA planes to CLT and away from DFW and MIA, then the current revenue that AA brings in will shrink. That won't work. Then combined airline needs to increase revenues, not decrease them.

CLT/ATL are the only prime southeast hubs, and there is no way you would NOT make CLT even stronger, as ATL is already the worlds busiest, and i think one of the most efficient hubs in the US.

It's a shame that CLT doesn't have enough O&D to enable CLT to grow more.

What do you guys think ? I think some transcon widebodies would be taken off, and replaced by narrowbodies, and instead, start new routes from CLT.

What do I think? I don't think that CLT will play as big a part in the new airline as you think it will.

AA has already ordered planes to replace the old 762 widebody transcons.

 

[USFlyer]

In my opinion, CLT won't go anywhere. I've seen posts that MIA will replace CLT, but that doesn't make sense. MIA will never have the feed that CLT has. MIA is great for connecting to the Caribbean and Latin America but is otherwise not conducive for getting to most domestic destinations. CLT is currently the only viable alternative to ATL, and the SE can support two domestic hubs.

 

[BoeingBoy]

People always keep on saying that MIA will get bigger, DFW will stay as it is etc etc. I dont think so, These airports are good, but there is something obviously wrong with these so called strong hubs, or a airline wouldn't be continously losing money, and going into bankruptcy.

How quickly they forget....

It wasn't many years ago that US was the airline "continously losing money, and going into bankruptcy." And that was with CLT and PHL hubs. If having a hub in CLT is the recipe for success, why was US in it's second bankruptcy and facing liquidation? And what hub changes altered that outcome? Adding a PHX hub perhaps...

Having said that, if there's a merger between US & AA I think CLT will have a role but certainly not a starring role. CLT will pretty much play the role it plays now - a southeast hub with some TA flights but only what the O&D and moderate feed will support. Likewise with PHX. It will be a western hub. The place to worry about is PHL - a market that produces only a fraction of the O&D that it should produce given the population.

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

The place to worry about is PHL - a market that produces only a fraction of the O&D that it should produce given the population.

Jim

Ding, ding, ding.

PHX would be a great complement to LAX. LAX is severely limited in its ability to grow and is expensive. PHX has great O&D and would serve as a connector to west coast cities instead of going through LAX.

PHX won't be going anywhere.

 

[luvthe9]

Ding, ding, ding.

PHX would be a great complement to LAX. LAX is severely limited in its ability to grow and is expensive. PHX has great O&D and would serve as a connector to west coast cities instead of going through LAX.

PHX won't be going anywhere.

You told us LAS was not going anywhere. PHX will go to SWA.

 

[Move2CLT]

You told us LAS was not going anywhere. PHX will go to SWA.

No, I didn't. LAS was a company experiment that couldn't survive because of fuel and poor yields. Gamblers like to use their money on the tables.

If PHX was going to SWA, it would have gone that way long ago.

Don't fear SWA.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

How quickly they forget....

It wasn't many years ago that US was the airline "continously losing money, and going into bankruptcy." And that was with CLT and PHL hubs. If having a hub in CLT is the recipe for success, why was US in it's second bankruptcy and facing liquidation? And what hub changes altered that outcome? Adding a PHX hub perhaps...

Having said that, if there's a merger between US & AA I think CLT will have a role but certainly not a starring role. CLT will pretty much play the role it plays now - a southeast hub with some TA flights but only what the O&D and moderate feed will support. Likewise with PHX. It will be a western hub. The place to worry about is PHL - a market that produces only a fraction of the O&D that it should produce given the population.

Jim

MIA is waay too expensive to hub at, CLT gets the gain, likewise, PHX is inexpensive to operate at, it should stay the same size, ORD and DFW are not going anywhere, nor is JFK or DCA. PHL is the one that doesn't make much sense.

 

[BoeingBoy]

MIA is waay too expensive to hub at,

Expensive or not, it's in the ideal location for a S American gateway. The cost of a hub isn't the be all and end all answer - if it were US wouldn't have a hub at PHL or have wanted more slots at DCA as all that would have gone to CLT instead.

Any hub depends on a combination of factors - cost, revenue, O&D and competition for hub carriers at that airport (plus you could throw in a carrier's network needs). Otherwise, every airline would have hubs at a few low-cost airports and none would make money because of the competition. CLT has the low cost, but not the O&D to be much bigger. PHL has more O&D than CLT, but not the cost. PHX has the O&D and cost, but not as much revenue. MIA doesn't have the cost, but has the revenue and O&D.

Jim

 

[gabby]

MIA is waay too expensive to hub at, CLT gets the gain, likewise, PHX is inexpensive to operate at, it should stay the same size, ORD and DFW are not going anywhere, nor is JFK or DCA. PHL is the one that doesn't make much sense.

All the signs are here and visible.

The LGA Gate swap started it off. Parker has been planning this a long time ago. CLT recently started its plan to spend over 1billion for the airport.
CLT is excited because the merger is most likely going to happen and the airport is going to become a large international hub. I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't been in the works for years. PHL PIT JFK are all great size airports but are expensive to operate from. Just one winter storm can eat up profits for the week. CLT has maybe 1 winter madness day a year. The climate in CLT is what makes it most desirable and secondly its location. My .02

 

[roabilly]

AA is losing money and is in bankruptcy because its labor costs are at least $2 billion higher each year than they would be if AA enjoyed the US contracts and the US payrates. If you move AA planes to CLT and away from DFW and MIA, then the current revenue that AA brings in will shrink. That won't work. Then combined airline needs to increase revenues, not decrease them.


It's a shame that CLT doesn't have enough O&D to enable CLT to grow more.


What do I think? I don't think that CLT will play as big a part in the new airline as you think it will.

AA has already ordered planes to replace the old 762 widebody transcons.

In terms of O&D… CLT has more room to GROW than any other hub in both systems!
So, don’t fool yourself… CLT just announced a one billion dollar expansion plan that adds another runway, tower, and international departure terminal.

Mark my words… CLT will be a major player in this merger!

 

[ChockJockey]

PHX would have to learn to turn widebodies, right?

Wow, how convenient that all our gates were re-engineered and repainted just last year. B)

 

[Kittyhawk]

If you base the success of a hub on O & D traffic, and O & D is based on population, here is how the combined hubs would perform based on the 2010 census.

1) NYC ................... 8.2 mil
2) LAX ................... 3.8 mil
3) ORD .................. 2.7 mil
5) DFW ................ 1.9 mil
6) PHL ................... 1.5 mil
7) PHX ................... 1.4 mil
17) CLT ................... 0.7 mil
24) WAS ................. 0.6 mil
44) MIA .................. 0.4 mil

Though population, by itself, does not make a hub successful, it certainly helps. The new combined airline would have a hub established in 6 of the top 7 most populated cities.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Not being a "Know it all" like some, I do have some thoughts on hubs.

Let's start with PHL, The pro's as I see them are market dominance for US/AA which is never bad. International Service and facilities are excellent at PHL. OTOH you have the ATC issues (which are being addresses over time with the proposed runway changes) and the aforementioned less than Stellar O & D.

MIA/CLT - All of AA routes out of MIA are Caribbean or South American. Given MIA's cost structure it might make sense to consolidate these routes in CLT with only enough direct flights out of MIA to support the local O&D.

DFW-ORD - IMO these cities, particularly DFW will see some growth as AA is #1 in Market share and believe it or not US was #2 last I looked and that was pre CO/UA. None the less a merged US/AA would be a powerful hub. ORD is listed as a hub, but I never thought of it as such. I don't see much change there.

PHX- Could be the next PIT due to the lower yields caused by SWA. I mean really if you flat dominate DFW, what use is PHX? You could say the same thing for PHL versus JFK if AA was more dominant at JFK

DCA, BOS, LGA will IMO get all the flights that those airports can handle. Personally I like the Idea of Int ops in BOS, PHL & CLT as I think the combined airline could kick some butt and make some serious money.

 

[700UW]

Charlotte is the largest city in the U.S. state of North Carolina and the seat of Mecklenburg County. In 2010, Charlotte's population according to the US Census Bureau was 731,424,making it the 17th largest city in the United States based on population. The Charlotte metropolitan area had a 2010 population of 1,758,038. The Charlotte metropolitan area is part of a wider thirteen-county labor market region or combined statistical area with a 2010 U.S. Census population of 2,402,623