Major Weather Event

[youngblood]

Land weather bulletins allow for more flexible travel. More people than you think will have the forsight to call RSV and rebook a flight if they can. We had a Land weather bulletin out the day before the weather hit. I would rather a PAX rebook a flight than request a refund for a flight that canceled but didn't necessarily have to be canceled. I have had plenty of situations when other carriers have "proactively" canceled flights and ours were still operating. Although they may have been behind schedule, more people were simply thrilled to be getting to their destination than not. PAX accept a cancellation due to weather more readily than they accept one due to the "possibility" of weather.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

2 comments:

The PIT O&D point is getting old, and is still incorrect (PIT's O&D is higher than CLT, and would be much higher than CLT if half a million boardings did not drive to CLE every year for the much more realistic fares).

The "thorough" de-icing in PHL was probably due to the fact that simply by going thru PHL, you were sitting on the ground at the gate and enroute to the de-iceing pads for about 5 times as long as you would have had to wait at PIT.

A couple of replies to your 2 comments clue.,


The O&D difference between CLT and PIT is hardly any difference at all in present terms. The cost of operations difference and PIT's proximity to PHL is of a major concern.

What is a HUGE difference is the annual costs of the two facilities Vs. what they yield this company. PIT is frankly priced out of acceptable levels for USAirways....and this is not even taking into account the annual costs of de-icing Acft 4 months out of the year Vs. maybe a few days or weeks at worst per year...Hince the 11th hour breaking of the leases with PIT instead of the cost effective CLT base of operations. CLT is a bargain as a hub by anyones measure...and this is a major reason LH will be flying MUC to CLT instead of to ATL and dealing with that headache. CLT also has a number of companies with German based ties that make this a good deal for them as well.


The next issue is market growth potential..something U has to be very concerned with , if its to survive?. The Greater Pittsburg area is beginning to die in some respects...and people and businesses are departing the area. The same cannot be said of the Charlotte /metropolitan area by any means. Hell Pittsburg and Allegheny County are on the verge of bankruptcy in their own right. My reading indicates their bond status as being a heart beat away from junk status of late.

The last issue....Sure lower fares out of CLE hurt PIT.....but the exact same thing happens to CLT due to even closer distances to GSP , RDU , GSO and soon to be HKY again...often those alternatives lead people away from U in CLT....and in some cases into the open arms of the competition in those smaller cities. Check the distances between those cities , and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I cannot think of a single time when I've been in public wearing a U Polo shirt or deck jacket with the U logo on it...when a local hasn't appraoched me with this comment, What's Up with your airline? I can drive to GSO , RDU or GSP and fly to CLT and on to my destinaton for $300 to $800 dollars less , than if I boarded in CLT to begin with. They cannot grasp flying on two planes for less money than boarding just one in CLT and then on to where they wish to be.

U thinks they are upholding our business with high prices out of the hubs..but I can attest to hundreds of cases where CLT lost the passenger...and CO, WN , AA or someone else netted that paying soul elsewhere within a 100 mile radius of CLT.

 

[youngblood]

I can attest to the poor state PIT is in but at least fares are starting to get more reasonable. CLE doesn't necessarily have the lowest prices anymore. What I can't fathom is the reasoning behind the pricing structure for CLT. We force passengers to go to other airports to get lower fares, have them fly back to CLT for a connection, and expect them to be repeat customers. I think it would be better PR to lower the fares out of CLT and in the long run more cost effective.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Youngblood,

You said "What I can't fathom is the reasoning behind the pricing structure for CLT". I can shed some light on the reasoning, though not too much justification in today's marketplace.

A hub allows the imcumbent carrier to offer something that the other carriers serving that airport can't - nonstop service. The reasoning is that folks will pay extra for the convenience of not having to make a connection to get to their destination.

The reasoning is reasonably valid - most people probably will pay some extra price for nonstop service. The question is how much. Go back 5 or 10 years to a time when the LCC's were basically niche players (at least on the east coast) - the hub incumbent carrier could charge a reasonably stiff premium.

Now days, most folks on the east coast are within a couple of hours drive of an airport served by a LCC. That limits how much extra can be charged at the hub. CLT folks drive to GSO and RDU. PIT folks drive to CLE.

Now, before anybody jumps on me with examples of other carriers offering nonstops from our hubs - yes they do, but generally to their hubs (or focus cities). The "gouge the hub O & D traffic" practice worked when the network carriers had 90% or more of the domestic market. As the LCC's expand, the idea of a "fortress hub" will all but disappear - at least on the east coast.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Youngblood,

I should have added one other item. The comments about this city has "X" O & D traffic while that city has only "Y" is a holdover from the old model of charging a significant price premium in your hub market. As the price premium erodes, the need for high O & D decreases.

Jim