PHL only differs in degree from PIT - without the hub and the connecting passengers, there's no way that PHL would have all the flights it has (both domestic and international). So like PIT and CLT, PHL built A-West for US and is improving other infrastructure based on the needs of a hub carrier.
So isn't PHL another case of the "the powers that be" not seeing "the vulnerability of the airline industry?" Who's to say that PHL, like PIT in the 80's, is planning based on the US hub without considering that it may not be a hub in a decade or so if another merger comes along.
All I'm saying is that PIT built what US wanted based on assurances from US (via long term leases) that it would be a hub. Is that really any different from what PHL did with A-West and is planning on doing with the rest of the infrastructure? It's awfully easy to have 20-20 hindsight and say that PIT shouldn't have given US what it wanted. It's a lot harder to have 20-20 foresight.....
Jim