US, AA merger could cost Charlotte

[AirwAr]

I guess I was wondering if AA could move around some of those "beyond" slots. Seems a shame that PHX has 3 a day while LAX only has 1.

 

[cltflyer1]

Let me take a stab at it.

PHX...Latin & Europe flights will flow over DFW/MIA/ORD. Many of the smaller Mountain cities could be well served over DFW/LAX/ORD versus funneling into PHX. Slowly but surely...PHX will become a focus city.

CLT...flow all Latin traffic over the MIA fortress hub. CLT will gain some of smaller cities that Eagle flies to in the East. Maybe have Europe flights to Oneworld hubs, LHR/MAD...but flow the rest of PHL and JFK. CLT will remain a hub...but will always be a secondary hub to AA's.

PHL...given that JFK is so constrained...maybe PHL will get to see an increase, it will be interesting to watch. If JetBlue comes into the AA fold one day...maybe PHL would take a hit.

Thing is...I can see Parker having pride in the previous US hubs and he'll want to try to make them appear extremely important...but, in reality, in the next downturn, the economics will actually creep into the decision making and the US hubs will take a hit.

And no...I don't think "AA is all that"...it's just i know how AA operates. STL/BNA/RDU/SJC. During the downturns...these secondary hubs were laid to waste.

CLT will be more than just a "secondary hub" in the AA system. Yes you can flow some of the traffic through MIA to Latin America but I would assume they don't have near enough space at Mia to flow all of CLT's Latin America traffic through MIa. Yes CLT may lose some saturday only Carib service and perhaps GIG but not much more, CLT's Latin America system isn't that extensive to start with besides.

On the economics side of things. I can't give you exact numbers, but the cost per each passenger through CLT is just over $1. I believe MIA is someone where over $20. Not does CLT cost MUCH less to operate from than Mia, its also the lowest among all major airline hubs. Why fix something that isn't broke economically to begin with?

 

[FWAAA]

I guess I was wondering if AA could move around some of those "beyond" slots. Seems a shame that PHX has 3 a day while LAX only has 1.

As the soon-to-be world's largest airline, I've been assuming that the government will not permit new AA to keep all six daily nonstops between DCA and the west, when DL and UA have so few by comparison. Recall that TWA had just been awarded DCA-LAX but AA had to give it back in 2001 - that's when AS won that slot. Great big AA simply couldn't be permitted to have something that might help it succeed.

But if new AA gets to keep all of them, I would attempt to move the LAS flight to SFO (provide competition to UA) and I would move one of the PHX slots to LAX (giving LAX a morning flight and a redeye flight to DCA). That would give DCA a morning flight to LAX and a early evening flight to LAX. LAS is no longer all that important to the US route network and certainly not to the new AA. And PHX certainly doesn't need three when double daily would be fine.

So my plan would give SFO and SAN one daily flight each plus double daily flights from LAX and PHX. IMO, that would be an efficient allocation of those scarce slots.

 

[LD3]

Interesting read why US likes CLT, http://www.wfae.org/post/philosophy-behind-charlotte-airports-success 17 million in operating costs for US, over 10 million back in revenue sharing, not a bad deal.

 

[700UW]

Great chart in the article.

 

[zethya]

Interesting read why US likes CLT, http://www.wfae.org/...irports-success 17 million in operating costs for US, over 10 million back in revenue sharing, not a bad deal.

The problem with CLT is that the relatively low O&D, compared to other large Hub airports, makes it very vulnerable to significant per/passenger cost increases if the connecting volume decreases. If that occurs, especially if the authority is changed, I really doubt any astute politician would provide offsetting funds. IMO, Parker's love for CLT is largely economic. If the $ advantage deteriorates, so will the new AA's presence.

 

[Non Rev]

Great chart in the article.

Very interesting chart for sure! I was surprised to see ATL has the 2nd lowest O&D traffic and DFW the 3rd lowest....

 

[Non Rev]

The problem with CLT is that the relatively low O&D, compared to other large Hub airports, makes it very vulnerable to significant per/passenger cost increases if the connecting volume decreases. If that occurs, especially if the authority is changed, I really doubt any astute politician would provide offsetting funds. IMO, Parker's love for CLT is largely economic. If the $ advantage deteriorates, so will the new AA's presence.

I think the Republican power grab in CLT will ultimately be it's demise as a major hub!

http://www.usatoday....irport/1985323/

 

[wings396]

Those numbers show some interesting facts. While the CLT connecting % is high, ATL isn't far behind, and just over half of the PHL boardings are connections. Also noteworthy are the top 2 cities dominated by a single carrier. Also wondering why none of the NYC airports are on the list.

 

[FWAAA]

Those numbers show some interesting facts. While the CLT connecting % is high, ATL isn't far behind, and just over half of the PHL boardings are connections. Also noteworthy are the top 2 cities dominated by a single carrier. Also wondering why none of the NYC airports are on the list.

The chart was prepared by Julie Rose, the reporter for WFAE, using data from Fitch Ratings. It's a selected list of airports, not a comprehensive list. From the Fitch bar graph in the story, it's apparent that the NYC airports are significantly more expensive than typical (NYC is shown at about $47/per passenger on average):

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wfae/files/201303/cost%20per%20enplanement.gif

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wfae/files/201303/transfer%20and%20dominance.JPG

 

[LD3]

I wouldn't worry about an authority bringing down the hub, the city (not at the airports request) has already doubled the cost of security much to US Airways displeasure for a security breach that has not been solved.

 

[AirwAr]

CLT will be more than just a "secondary hub" in the AA system. Yes you can flow some of the traffic through MIA to Latin America but I would assume they don't have near enough space at Mia to flow all of CLT's Latin America traffic through MIa. Yes CLT may lose some saturday only Carib service and perhaps GIG but not much more, CLT's Latin America system isn't that extensive to start with besides.

On the economics side of things. I can't give you exact numbers, but the cost per each passenger through CLT is just over $1. I believe MIA is someone where over $20. Not does CLT cost MUCH less to operate from than Mia, its also the lowest among all major airline hubs. Why fix something that isn't broke economically to begin with?

Obviously I could be wrong, but I would assume that a high percentage of the CLT- Latin America traffic is traffic originating in other cities. If those cities are already served with flights to MIA, how much siphoning off of traffic through MIA would it take to make CLT-LA flights unprofitable It would seem there would be a very easy case to make for moving the CLT-LA, and possibly CLT- Caribbean, frequencies to MIA...or some other cornerstone hub.

If passenger cost was the main issue...every carrier would hub in CLT? They don't because there are even better locations for a hub.

 

[700UW]

It is cheaper to have a passenger connect through Charlotte than Miami, fees in CLT are way less than MIA.

And your logic is false, how would any other airline set up a hub in CLT when there isnt gate space nor facilities to accomplish this?

 

[AirwAr]

It is cheaper to have a passenger connect through Charlotte than Miami, fees in CLT are way less than MIA.

So, do you see the new American moving Latin America/Caribbean flights from MIA to CLT?

 

[700UW]

No they both currently survive and make a profit for AA and US.