Which hub will close first, post-merger?

[nycbusdriver]

http://articles.phil...s#ixzz2PGoLw9T3
US Airways CEO Doug Parker was in Philadelphia on Tuesday, touting the benefits of a merger with American Airlines and reaffirming that Philadelphia would be key to the combined airline.
Parker, who will head the new American when the deal closes, likely in September, was in Philadelphia for the first time since the planned merger was announced Feb. 14.
Parker met with Mayor Nutter and went bowling with a group of 40 to 50 US Airways employees

Pinning down the date of the deal closing seems like trying to catch a greased pig. First, it was as early as July 1st, then the reality of the DOJ and EU had it pushed to fourth quarter, or maybe even first quarter of 2014.

Is it now back to September, 2013?

 

[dash8roa]

I doubt PHL can add many more flights as it seems to have outgrown its infrastructure and DCA will most likely have to relinquish some slots in the merger. JFK will be the premier east coast international airport just due to its population base, O&D and the myriads of other international flights that can be used to accommodate passengers from canceled flights.
LGA will see an increase that will help to make up for the slots traded to DL. CLT will stay about the same and if growth is needed, the recent addition of another runway will make that possible.
ORD is where I see the most growth, the largest mid-west city , a major business center and a chance to gain on united for business travelers. PHX will shrink a bit and DFW will grow. MIA is assured of its hub status as the central and South American markets is growing very fast. LAX is a great market but as some have said, there are no extra gates for the taking and that's a shame as it is the largest market on the west coast.
It will take a year or two to sort out who grows,stays the same or shrinks. it will be interesting to watch as these decisions will always be affected by the whole worlds ever changing economies. By the way, take your money out of the Cyprus banks now!

 

[FWAAA]

Overall, an excellent example of a well-reasoned, thoughtful (and even concise) summary of the issue. Huge changes probably not going to happen for a while.

LAX is a great market but as some have said, there are no extra gates for the taking and that's a shame as it is the largest market on the west coast.

As to LAX, a couple of details might affect the balance.

1. Don't forget AA's preferential use of four new gates at the rebuilt TBIT and the T-4 to TBIT connector that was approved two weeks ago (at a frugal $107 million total appropriation by LAWA); and

2. Depending on how many gates US obtains at T-3 when it moves from T-1, there may be a possibility of slight expansion in the number of domestic flights. I don't know how crowded T-3 is with VX and B6.

Sure, the T-4 to TBIT connector is a three-year project (that may take 4 or 5 years total) and T-3 to TBIT/T-4 requires a bus or outside stroll and additional TSA X-ray, but T-3 gates could be used for the flights that are more heavily weighted to local O&D and feature fewer connecting passengers. Flights that are more connection-heavy could use T-4 and/or TBIT.

One last thing: Several years ago, AA pushed more mainline flights thru T-4 than it does now, so there is certainly some additional unused capacity. There's interwebs rumours that JFK-LAX frequencies will increase with the new A321s (to make up for the greatly reduced seating capacity), so if true, that would absorb some of the slack. On the flip side, AA should be able to turn a 102-seat A321 a little faster than a 168-seat 762. Some of the interwebs rumours say that there will be two dedicated T-4 gates for JFK flights.

My back of the envelope calculations result in an estimate of about 200 daily mainline flights as the potential max for new AA at LAX (based on three T-3 gates, the four new TBIT gates and the historical capacity of the 13 T-4 gates). That's based on a flight activity day that runs from 0500 to about 0200.

 

[zethya]

I doubt PHL can add many more flights as it seems to have outgrown its infrastructure.................

Explain how the international concourses and adjoining federal facilities in PHL (A-East and A-West) have "outgrown their infrastructure??

 

[nycbusdriver]

Overall, an excellent example of a well-reasoned, thoughtful (and even concise) summary of the issue. Huge changes probably not going to happen for a while.



As to LAX, a couple of details might affect the balance.

1. Don't forget AA's preferential use of four new gates at the rebuilt TBIT and the T-4 to TBIT connector that was approved two weeks ago (at a frugal $107 million total appropriation by LAWA); and

2. Depending on how many gates US obtains at T-3 when it moves from T-1, there may be a possibility of slight expansion in the number of domestic flights. I don't know how crowded T-3 is with VX and B6.

Sure, the T-4 to TBIT connector is a three-year project (that may take 4 or 5 years total) and T-3 to TBIT/T-4 requires a bus or outside stroll and additional TSA X-ray, but T-3 gates could be used for the flights that are more heavily weighted to local O&D and feature fewer connecting passengers. Flights that are more connection-heavy could use T-4 and/or TBIT.

One last thing: Several years ago, AA pushed more mainline flights thru T-4 than it does now, so there is certainly some additional unused capacity. There's interwebs rumours that JFK-LAX frequencies will increase with the new A321s (to make up for the greatly reduced seating capacity), so if true, that would absorb some of the slack. On the flip side, AA should be able to turn a 102-seat A321 a little faster than a 168-seat 762. Some of the interwebs rumours say that there will be two dedicated T-4 gates for JFK flights.

My back of the envelope calculations result in an estimate of about 200 daily mainline flights as the potential max for new AA at LAX (based on three T-3 gates, the four new TBIT gates and the historical capacity of the 13 T-4 gates). That's based on a flight activity day that runs from 0500 to about 0200.

The A321 carries quite a bit more than 102. I don't recall exactly, but it is north of 150.

 

[FWAAA]

The A321 carries quite a bit more than 102. I don't recall exactly, but it is north of 150.

Sure it can, and usually does, but AA's new 3-class transcon A321s (arriving this fall) to replace the 3-class 762s are planned to be configured 10F/20J/72Y for a total of 102. 36 of the 72Y will be MCE. At least the light payload should help ensure that westbound winter fuel stops are minimized. 🙂

 

[Walmartgreeter]

The A321 carries quite a bit more than 102. I don't recall exactly, but it is north of 150.

Ours are currently being refitted with 4 more seats. 187 daredevils!

Greeter

 

[700UW]

US flies from east coast to west coast in the A321, PHX, LAX, SFO and SFO with no fuel stops.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

US flies from east coast to west coast in the A321, PHX, LAX, SFO and SFO with no fuel stops.

........ and SEA. In fact, in very few cases fuel stops are required. My only fuel stop in four years was dropping into PIT, EASTbound for PHL. The wx on the East coast was uniformly bad, and thus a tad short for comfort to proceed without a little more gas. Most situations (winds and occasional bad wx on the West coast) Westbound affect most other narrowbodies also, unless they are empty of pax and loaded with just fuel, and that is not normal. And don't compare anything to the 757, because that airplane, despite its legacy fuel burn, is in a class by itself.

Anyone have an actual number for how many 321 diverts Westbound in one year for fuel? I bet it is very, very small.

Greeter

 

[700UW]

Oops, I listed SFO twice, meant SEA, I flew first class CLT-SEA and it was very nice flight.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Oops, I listed SFO twice, meant SEA, I flew first class CLT-SEA and it was very nice flight.

Thats what I figured! Thanks for that typo and allowing me to give my important comment.

Greeter

 

[700UW]

Your welcome.

 

[Keroseneuser]

I'll eat my hat if the 321's stay at 102 seats for long after the merger is completed and Parker is running the show. He might not bring them all the way up to the 187 that Airways fleet is for some specific routes, but 102? Not a chance. Original seating config is 183, not sure how many are up to 187 yet but they are reconfiguring them as they come thru maint.

As far as coast to coast? Never had to make a fuel stop yet in one. With 183 on it you spend half the trip at FL 290 or 300 till you burn off fuel and get the weight down a bit though.

 

[jimntx]

I'll eat my hat if the 321's stay at 102 seats for long after the merger is completed and Parker is running the show. He might not bring them all the way up to the 187 that Airways fleet is for some specific routes, but 102? Not a chance. Original seating config is 183, not sure how many are up to 187 yet but they are reconfiguring them as they come thru maint.

My thoughts exactly. I can only imagine that 102 seats is assuming that AA will dominate the transcon market as in the "good old days" and will be able to command premium ticket prices for those flights. I doubt it.

Plus I don't see the 102 seats from a staffing standpoint. 2 seats does not justify another flights. Even on a transcon with more elaborate services/meals, you still have to pay for the "hard" help. It will be interesting to see how they staff those planes. 102 requires 3 f/as, but I don't see how you could get by with fewer than 6 if you are going to have 3 classes of service on a 5-6 hour flight.

 

[700UW]

AA is replacing the 767-200 on the JFK-LAX and SFO routes, that is why the special subfleet of 10 A321s, they wont be changed, as those markets are lucrative and AA has contracts with the movie studios and maybe some networks.