DorkDriver
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
AA763 is correct. Thats why TWA moved all hub ops from Kansas City to St. Louis way back when....
Why do they want St Louis???
- Thread starter LambertMan
- Start date
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
Put LUV in PIT, and the O&D numbers will climb double digits (percentage wise). Half of the vacation and leisure travelers in PIT drive to CLE for the fares.
ITRADE
Veteran
AA flew 6,647,816 passengers out of STL in the first 9 months of 2002. Don''t know if that includes Eagle/Connection or not. The average LF was 70.4%
Southwest had about 1,400,000 passengers for the same time period.
Southwest had about 1,400,000 passengers for the same time period.
Actually, it''s more a case of put LUV pricing in any airport and watch the traffic numbers go up. Southwest''s market share at STL isn''t as important to fare levels as the pricing discipline their presence enforces. The same is true at CLE.
With all three of its hubs within 450 miles of each other, US has very little to offer travelers whose trips do not begin or end within the Eastern Time Zone. STL (or MCI or some mid-continent hub) would help improve US Airways'' reach, but there are no airports in the region which (1) have suitable O&D, (2) aren''t already network hubs, and (3) aren''t dominated by Southwest.
With all three of its hubs within 450 miles of each other, US has very little to offer travelers whose trips do not begin or end within the Eastern Time Zone. STL (or MCI or some mid-continent hub) would help improve US Airways'' reach, but there are no airports in the region which (1) have suitable O&D, (2) aren''t already network hubs, and (3) aren''t dominated by Southwest.
ITRADE
Veteran
----------------
On 4/9/2003 2:59:24 PM sfb wrote:
Actually, it''s more a case of put LUV pricing in any airport and watch the traffic numbers go up. Southwest''s market share at STL isn''t as important to fare levels as the pricing discipline their presence enforces. The same is true at CLE.
With all three of its hubs within 450 miles of each other, US has very little to offer travelers whose trips do not begin or end within the Eastern Time Zone. STL (or MCI or some mid-continent hub) would help improve US Airways'' reach, but there are no airports in the region which (1) have suitable O&D, (2) aren''t already network hubs, and (3) aren''t dominated by Southwest.
----------------
On 4/9/2003 2:59:24 PM sfb wrote:
Actually, it''s more a case of put LUV pricing in any airport and watch the traffic numbers go up. Southwest''s market share at STL isn''t as important to fare levels as the pricing discipline their presence enforces. The same is true at CLE.
With all three of its hubs within 450 miles of each other, US has very little to offer travelers whose trips do not begin or end within the Eastern Time Zone. STL (or MCI or some mid-continent hub) would help improve US Airways'' reach, but there are no airports in the region which (1) have suitable O&D, (2) aren''t already network hubs, and (3) aren''t dominated by Southwest.
----------------
Agreed.
As to the "region", your three criteria are pretty damned broad. I would narrow down the criteria to two - suitable O&D and already networked hubbed. With those two, you''re only "hub" options are MCI or OKC - and OKC is borderline on the first criteria.
ITRADE
Veteran
Aviation Daily.
Interestingly, WN's STL load factor is only about 53%.
Interestingly, WN's STL load factor is only about 53%.
LambertMan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, the 70.4 load factor is a nice surprise to me. Good to see the hub doing fairly well in all aspects. ITRADE where did you get those figures? I've often looked...
I think if MCI didnt have that 3 C terminal design it would work well for US, but nonetheless they have it, and it just doesnt work as a hub. Leaving OKC as the only one, which probably just wouldnt work.
I think if MCI didnt have that 3 C terminal design it would work well for US, but nonetheless they have it, and it just doesnt work as a hub. Leaving OKC as the only one, which probably just wouldnt work.
pitflyer
Member
St. Louis Metro area: 2.6M ranked 18th
Pittsburgh Metro area: 2.4M ranked 22nd
Source: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/p...03.txt
I don''t care to say that the WHOLE difference between the O&D in STL and PIT
is Southwest, but considering similar populations and probably similar cost
of livings, similar fascination with sports teams, etc, etc, I don''t see the
change making much of a difference for U, especially considering the investment
to bring STL up to ''code''. And I flew through STL yesterday; if you could combine
PHL delays with STL design I think you would have designed the HLL hub.
Pittsburgh Metro area: 2.4M ranked 22nd
Source: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/p...03.txt
I don''t care to say that the WHOLE difference between the O&D in STL and PIT
is Southwest, but considering similar populations and probably similar cost
of livings, similar fascination with sports teams, etc, etc, I don''t see the
change making much of a difference for U, especially considering the investment
to bring STL up to ''code''. And I flew through STL yesterday; if you could combine
PHL delays with STL design I think you would have designed the HLL hub.
----------------
On 4/9/2003 3
24 PM ITRADE wrote:
Agreed.
As to the "region", your three criteria are pretty damned broad. I would narrow down the criteria to two - suitable O&D and already networked hubbed. With those two, you''re only "hub" options are MCI or OKC - and OKC is borderline on the first criteria.
----------------
On 4/9/2003 3
24 PM ITRADE wrote: Agreed.
As to the "region", your three criteria are pretty damned broad. I would narrow down the criteria to two - suitable O&D and already networked hubbed. With those two, you''re only "hub" options are MCI or OKC - and OKC is borderline on the first criteria.
----------------
See, the thing is that I think a WN presence poisons the well for a network carrier. While connecting traffic is nice to have to help fill the planes, the biggest chunk of money comes from the O&D traffic. If WN is serving most of the top 10 or 20 markets out of a given airport (and capping fares at $250-300), it''s going to be very tough to justify "premium" prices for business travelers. I think the past experience of USAir and its focus city at MCI, as well as Vanguard, helps bear that out somewhat. Even at STL, TWA suffered from not being able to command high yields on many "business" routes (and Karabu killed them on connecting traffic).
Though America West has managed to get by at PHX and LAS while Southwest has its two largest stations at those airports, I''m not sure that''s a good model, given that HP has some of the lowest pay rates in the industry and has decided to reinvent itself as a low-fare carrier as well.
----------------On 4/9/2003 8:58:33 PM sfb wrote: Though America West has managed to get by at PHX and LAS while Southwest has its two largest stations at those airports, I''m not sure that''s a good model, given that HP has some of the lowest pay rates in the industry and has decided to reinvent itself as a low-fare carrier as well.----------------
Well, the reasons AWA has been able to grow right under LUV''s nose are twofold. 1) They''re something LUV isn''t -- flying to places LUV won''t fly, and offering some amenities. 2)The lower pay rates. And not necessarily in that order.
Actually, AWA''s remaking itself as a low-fare carrier has been hugely successful. AWA''s outperformed the industry in RASM increases, seeing solidy increases (up almost 12% from Q4-01 to Q4-02) while others have, at best, stayed even.
The key to the success of the low-fare airlines is the fare structure -- not charging more for a one-way ticket than a roundtrip, not requiring a Saturday night stay, and most importantly, REASONABLE walkup fares.
