Which hub will close first, post-merger?

[wings396]

My thoughts as well, excellent post.

 

[737823]

"loose"?

PHX is the only city that could "lose" their hub status and become a focus city.

Has USAIR already or all ready announced their intention to merge with AMR?

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

josh the boards of both companies agreed late wednesday feb 13 the 2 ceos made the announcement public on thur feb 14
www.justplanenews.com is a good source of info.....

as for the hubs i think phx would be turned into a focus city but with more flights than dca bec i dont think they have the slot issues that dca has

 

[Kellerguy]

PHX offers the ability to connect a lot of western traffic that LAX and DFW do not, so I doubt PHX is de-hubbed although there will definitely be some traffic rightsizing affecting all the hubs. This will free up some a/c for both new service--there is a northwest deficiency still, as well as allow more a/c retirements.

I think JFK will be and remain the premier O&D TATL gateway, but due to slot constraints PHL may well be the main connection point for TATL for most cities without direct service. CLT is not likely to loose any service as long as the new service patterns with multiple hubs do not cause it to be less preferred. CLT as long as it remains a low cost hub together with MIA could pick off lots of DL traffic and cause them fits.

DCA will likely loose only because of governmental intervention, however it will still be interesting because of the DL and UA domination at other slot controlled airports it is possible that there may be a forced multi city trade between the bigs for some of those slots to rebalance.

No way ORD or LAX loose out as they's be too important for the international feeds which Parker will not want to wait long to exploit. DFW will continue to get bigger. All in all, I think this is about 1 plus 2 equals 4 not 3.

 

[nycbusdriver]

PHX offers the ability to connect a lot of western traffic that LAX and DFW do not, so I doubt PHX is de-hubbed although there will definitely be some traffic rightsizing affecting all the hubs.

Please, name "a lot" of city pairs out west that are better, or even more effectively, served connecting through PHX rather than DFW or LAX?

Then, let's examine the amount of traffic actually generated...like Yuma to Flagstaff?


Oh, and "loose" means something different than "lose."

 

[Kellerguy]

Please, name "a lot" of city pairs out west that are better, or even more effectively, served connecting through PHX rather than DFW or LAX?

Then, let's examine the amount of traffic actually generated...like Yuma to Flagstaff?


Oh, and "loose" means something different than "lose."

Well you got me on that one, and no I didn't bother to check my spelling before I hit enter, so that makes me lazy perhaps but not stupid sir. I agree in the big scheme of things the western traffic is much less important than the eastern feeds. It will however play a larger role in the future for increased AS code shares to build feeder traffic to better support Asia feeds which AA needs to develop as fast as possible.

As for western hubs, let's see. DL has made a go of it in SLC, and US in PHX. Both have the advantage of not having the ocean on one side so they can connect on all directions. DFW and ORD are too far east to reasonably connect for west to west traffic. PHX while perhaps not ideally situated nevertheless is there, and is growing and I doubt DP will want to hand that over to WN.

With the advent of mega carriers, I think the hub and spoke carriers just might find mixing major and to some extent minor hubs to gain increased ground cover for their FF programs.

 

[LD3]

CLT as long as it remains a low cost hub together with MIA could pick off lots of DL traffic and cause them fits.

You better run for cover....

 

[nycbusdriver]

Well you got me on that one, and no I didn't bother to check my spelling before I hit enter, so that makes me lazy perhaps but not stupid sir. I agree in the big scheme of things the western traffic is much less important than the eastern feeds. It will however play a larger role in the future for increased AS code shares to build feeder traffic to better support Asia feeds which AA needs to develop as fast as possible.

As for western hubs, let's see. DL has made a go of it in SLC, and US in PHX. Both have the advantage of not having the ocean on one side so they can connect on all directions. DFW and ORD are too far east to reasonably connect for west to west traffic. PHX while perhaps not ideally situated nevertheless is there, and is growing and I doubt DP will want to hand that over to WN.

With the advent of mega carriers, I think the hub and spoke carriers just might find mixing major and to some extent minor hubs to gain increased ground cover for their FF programs.

I would not have made the comment about the "spelling?" error, but you misused (misspelled?) the word twice in your posting.

PHX does effectively have an "ocean" close to one side of it. It's called the Mexican border.

 

[austwin1]

Absolutely agree with FWAAA. Thanks for writing about it so clearly.

 

[hula-flyguy]

I've said it before: If Parker's goal is to downsize the combined airline and de-hub any of the nine hubs/focus cities (the nine on the OP's list), then he would not have merged US and AA - rather, he would have simply applied for the position of CEO and the AMR creditors would have hired him (as Horton had no chance of sticking around).

This is a merger about growth, not contraction. Since 2007, when NW and DL got hitched, the steady drumbeat has been that both AA and US were too small on their own and the only way they would thrive is to merge and grow.

Most of the analysts predicted that AMR would shrink by at least 10% in 2012. They were wrong by a country mile, as AMR shrank by about two percent and increased revenue by $900 million compared to 2011. Jamie Baker wrote in December, 2011 that AMR's bankruptcy would cause AMR to shrink and spill revenue to be picked up by the other airlines, just like what happened in the earlier bankruptcies of US, UA, NW and DL. What he failed to take into account was that AA had spent the last decade shrinking and didn't file for bankruptcy so that it could shrink a lot more.

In 2008-09, AMR retired 34 A300s. That's more widebody capacity than US currently flies. AA also put down dozens of MD-80s. Throughout the past decade, AA let go of the 19 incompatible engined 757s acquired from TWA (subsequently leased by DL). The past 10 years has seen massive shrinking by AA, on top of all the shrinking that US did 10 years ago in its bankruptcies.

This merger is about growth. If the airline closes hubs and begins shrinking right away, then that will be proof of failure by Parker. It might happen eventually, but that's not the plan.

I like this guy

 

[nycbusdriver]

I've said it before: If Parker's goal is to downsize the combined airline and de-hub any of the nine hubs/focus cities (the nine on the OP's list), then he would not have merged US and AA - rather, he would have simply applied for the position of CEO and the AMR creditors would have hired him (as Horton had no chance of sticking around).

This is a merger about growth, not contraction. Since 2007, when NW and DL got hitched, the steady drumbeat has been that both AA and US were too small on their own and the only way they would thrive is to merge and grow.

Most of the analysts predicted that AMR would shrink by at least 10% in 2012. They were wrong by a country mile, as AMR shrank by about two percent and increased revenue by $900 million compared to 2011. Jamie Baker wrote in December, 2011 that AMR's bankruptcy would cause AMR to shrink and spill revenue to be picked up by the other airlines, just like what happened in the earlier bankruptcies of US, UA, NW and DL. What he failed to take into account was that AA had spent the last decade shrinking and didn't file for bankruptcy so that it could shrink a lot more.

In 2008-09, AMR retired 34 A300s. That's more widebody capacity than US currently flies. AA also put down dozens of MD-80s. Throughout the past decade, AA let go of the 19 incompatible engined 757s acquired from TWA (subsequently leased by DL). The past 10 years has seen massive shrinking by AA, on top of all the shrinking that US did 10 years ago in its bankruptcies.

This merger is about growth. If the airline closes hubs and begins shrinking right away, then that will be proof of failure by Parker. It might happen eventually, but that's not the plan.

Your arguments are well-stated, well thought out and rational. It does makes sense, but making sense is not the traditional Allegheny/USAir/US Airways way of doing business, so we over on this side are always skeptical at best.

I do hope you are right, though. I nominate you for Official Prophet.

 

[Crazy Daytripper]

I dont see any getting shutdown PHX will grow to places like MSO,EUG,MFR and others, LAX will grow by flight or 2, DFW will grow, ORD will grow, DCA will stay the same MABY loose some flight due to slots, PHL aill stay the same and mostliky grow, CLT will grow overall but might lose some island but that still a big IF, MIA will grow and at the most stay the same. JFK will grow.

 

[700UW]

Keep telling yourself that, PHX will be the loser in this merger, you dont need DFW, LAX and PHX.

 

[ChockJockey]

Keep telling yourself that, PHX will be the loser in this merger, you dont need DFW, LAX and PHX.

Right, because why be #3 in the West when you can be #4, or worse? PHX is toast, it's as true today as it was 30 years ago. Some seem giddy at the prospect, something about just desserts...

 

[Crazy Daytripper]

so tell us why PHX wont be a hub? and dont use PIT or LAS as an example give a educated all facts reponce. and what is this merger about? and WTH if we dont have LAX PHX OR the biggest hun in this airline DFW what the pont of the merger?