2007 PHL Int'l Departures

[N965VJ]

Cross-Slapâ„¢!

 

[sfb]

Making a statement that "nobody who wants to get where they are going connects in PHL" is really quite absurd and without proof. For the period 7-2004 through 6/2006, PHL annual traffic has grown from 20.62M to 27.03M and that is with US's reduction in # of flights during the last year. PIT on the other hand has grown from 13.59M to 9.87M - a significant reduction.

Interestingly, though, US Airways' domestic mainline traffic at PHL has declined by roughly 1.4 million annual passengers since 2005. The growth at PHL has been entirely on other airlines (including the US Express carriers). The growth in passenger numbers at PHL doesn't indicate a willingness to connect; it indicates greater O&D traffic stimulated by lower fares.

And as for PIT, the aggregate traffic decline is actually considerably smaller than the fall-off in US Airways mainline traffic at the airport; in the same period you cite, US mainline traffic went from 8.18 million to 3.55 million -- an even greater reduction.

This is not to say that US Airways should have a connecting hub at either airport. The PIT hub only worked, given US Airways' highest-in-the-industry costs, when the airline had a near stranglehold on its core market in the Northeast. Once WN, B6, and FL entered many of US' former franchise markets in upstate New York and New England, the cost structure of the PIT hub became unsustainable. PHL does as well as it does largely because it needs relatively little connecting traffic to help fill the planes.

WN adding an additional frequency to their major connecting hub MDW, starting one flight to PHX (both shortly after startup)and additional flights to PHL (probably due to US's reduction in services), certainly does not demonstrate significant confidence in the area, particularly based on WN's expansion history at other cities. As far as US "defending it's turf", it seems obvious that US doesn't consider PIT that important to defend.

Actually, US Airways increased PIT-PHL service when WN entered the market. But at this point, I agree that it is clear that PIT is no longer a key market for US Airways. However, the market is certainly strong enough to support an operation similar to what WN does at BNA.

 

[john john]

Interestingly, though, US Airways' domestic mainline traffic at PHL has declined by roughly 1.4 million annual passengers since 2005. The growth at PHL has been entirely on other airlines (including the US Express carriers).

Hence one of the main problems in PHL

 

[zethya]

The growth in passenger numbers at PHL doesn't indicate a willingness to connect; it indicates greater O&D traffic stimulated by lower fares.

PHL does as well as it does largely because it needs relatively little connecting traffic to help fill the planes.

I never implied that all of the growth was connecting traffic. I disagree with your statement that the growth in PHL doesn't indicate a willingness to connect. For the period 1/1/2004 through 12/31/2005 the PHL traffic for 2004 totalled 20.062M of which 15.364M was O&D and for 2005, 24.063M of which 17.573M was O&D. It can be derived from this that for the period 2004-2005, Overall increased by 3.44M and O&D by 2.20M, which leaves 1.24M as connecting traffic gain for the period. I agree that a lot of the increased O&D was from WN, on the other hand most of the connecting gain was from US. Your statement that PHL does well because it needs little connecting traffic to fill planes is the definition of most large city hubs in the U.S., including ATL and ORD and is not peculiar to PHL and in fact is certainly not a negative. It just proves that the Philadelphia region is economically successful enough to alone support the airport.

 

[ClueByFour]

There is no "suggestion" that CLT has PIT's O&D, it's a fact that it's very close. Just saying it isn't so is without merit

CLT does not have PIT's O and D. That's a fact. (irony alert--US' pricing habits in CLT will keep this the case as PIT's shrinking population will fly more now that it's cheap to do so while CLT's growing population base won't fly more because of the US gouge-a-thon that continues). Next?

Fortunately for US's bottom line and it's shareholders, you don't make decisions regarding how much traffic is connected through PHL.

US has made money for what, 2 quarters in the last 10 years? It would be tough not to beat that.

People avoid PHL. Business travelers who know better already avoid it, and leisure travelers typically avoid it after the first experience.

Making a statement that "nobody who wants to get where they are going connects in PHL" is really quite absurd and without proof.

I hear it every time I fly from US flight crew and other FFs. Read flyertalk and see (absent the folks who live there) what people think of flying thru PHL.

For the period 7-2004 through 6/2006, PHL annual traffic has grown from 20.62M to 27.03M and that is with US's reduction in # of flights during the last year. PIT on the other hand has grown from 13.59M to 9.87M - a significant reduction.

When you reduce a few hundred flights from PIT, it stands to reason emplaned PAX will drop like a stone. This proves (you guessed it) nothing.

WN adding an additional frequency to their major connecting hub MDW, starting one flight to PHX (both shortly after startup)and additional flights to PHL (probably due to US's reduction in services), certainly does not demonstrate significant confidence in the area, particularly based on WN's expansion history at other cities.

Really? Traditionally, (that is, before the last couple of years), WN will typically add a few flights/year to a new city.

As far as US "defending it's turf", it seems obvious that US doesn't consider PIT that important to defend.

Other airlines have added service as US has reduced it. Make of that what you will. That US could not defend service between a former hub and two focus cities speaks volumes about the east operation as a whole (it's "chase the citypairs with no competition that we can gouge on, but that's another post for another thread).

Bottom line is that I have never read a post anywhere from a PIT cheerleader that has an ounce of quantifiable justification as to why PIT is not currently rightsized and why US should risk returning to the unprofitable situation of a money loosing (PIT) airport.

Unless and until US breaks out the historical numbers, nobody knows the profitability of a given city. Off-cuff remarks by US executives past and present don't consitute raw numbers.

I have no doubt that PIT was losing money immediately after 9/11. Then again, so was everybody else.

So, in short, I've yet to read a quantifiable justification as to why US rightsized PIT in the first place. And the data (publically) is not available.

Pittsburgh is I believe now and has been in financial "Receivership" to the State for several years because it cannot manage it's finances.

Well, sort of. It's budget is subject to state oversight. Of the roughly 2.3 million people in the MSA, less than 500,000 live in the city itself. Not that this has anything at all to do with the airport, of course. You are going to have to do better than this kind of diversionary statement--it's intellectually dishonest and not all that significant (New York was broke a decade or so ago. DC basically is now).

The airport continues to carry a debt in excess of $600M and consequently has among the highest landing fees in the country.
One cannot muster sympathy for a city which was foolhardy enough to build a $1+B airport on the basis of a single (2nd tier) airline's viability.

Umm, yeah. The airport had legally binding leases from US that would have retired the debt in whole that were rejected on the last day of BK1. It was a screwjob from beginning to end on the part of US. I agree with the premise of not spending taxpayer dollars on airports, but I extend that to any airline, not just US.

BTW, that very screwjob is why US won't see money or any drastic improvements made at PHL unless US brings cash to the table.

PHL, on the other hand, required that USAir pay the majority of all costs for the development of it's new international terminal (A-West). The best minds in Pittsburgh cannot convince a single airline to offer a single flight on even a 757 to Europe - that just about sums it up. Even CLT has been able to capture, through subsidies, a non-stop LH flight to Munich.

So you disparage subsidies and then pat CLT on the back for gaining a flight to MUC--which required both the immense connecting traffic and subsidies. Consistancy not a hallmark, eh?

PHL sucks as a connecting hub. No amount of disparaging PIT is going to change that.

 

[ringmaruf]

Wow look at your numbers....

PIT still has more originating passsengers with less then 1/10th the amount of flights.....What's that tell you....

I'm sorry, but on what planet does PIT have "[fewer] [than] [1/10] the amount of flights" as CLT?

 

[BoeingBoy]

For the period 1/1/2004 through 12/31/2005 the PHL traffic for 2004 totalled 20.062M of which 15.364M was O&D and for 2005, 24.063M of which 17.573M was O&D.

I'd love to have a reference for these numbers - at least the O&D numbers (the total traffic numbers seem to come straight from the airport "snapshots" on the BTS site). The BTS data doesn't agree with them. Perhaps you're looking at the Form 41 data instead of the O&D survey data.....

Jim

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'm sorry, but on what planet does PIT have "[fewer] [than] [1/10] the amount of flights" as CLT?

DUH US alone has over 500+ flights a day at CLT that does not even include the other airlines.....

Now PIT on the other hand may have a total of about 150/170 including all airlines....

Maybe not 1/10th but close....

 

[sfb]

I never implied that all of the growth was connecting traffic. I disagree with your statement that the growth in PHL doesn't indicate a willingness to connect. For the period 1/1/2004 through 12/31/2005 the PHL traffic for 2004 totalled 20.062M of which 15.364M was O&D and for 2005, 24.063M of which 17.573M was O&D. It can be derived from this that for the period 2004-2005, Overall increased by 3.44M and O&D by 2.20M, which leaves 1.24M as connecting traffic gain for the period.

I will happily concede that connecting traffic at PHL did increase between 2004 and 2005; my rough estimate from BTS data shows domestic O&D traffic at PHL increased by around 2.1 million passengers between 2004 and 2005. However, I'd also point out that much of the increase in connecting traffic at PHL (on US Airways) was arguably driven by the massive reductions at PIT in 2004. Daily mainline departures fell from 120 in January 2004 to 70 in November of the same year, while Express departures declined from 250 to around 170. Yes, some percentage of people who had been connecting at PIT continued to connect via PHL (or CLT, DCA, or LGA). I'm not sure that sending these folks via PHL was good for the airline given that PHL already had problems.

I agree that a lot of the increased O&D was from WN, on the other hand most of the connecting gain was from US. Your statement that PHL does well because it needs little connecting traffic to fill planes is the definition of most large city hubs in the U.S., including ATL and ORD and is not peculiar to PHL and in fact is certainly not a negative. It just proves that the Philadelphia region is economically successful enough to alone support the airport.

It wasn't meant as a negative. PHL's cost structure is actually comparable to PIT's, but high O&D makes PHL more lucrative. The cost structure problem at PIT was partially self-induced by US -- much of the "high cost" of the airport was the fixed cost of the debt service associated with the new terminal. When US slashed capacity at PIT, that left fewer passengers across whom to spread the airport's high fixed costs.

But yes, PHL works for US just as EWR does for CO.

 

[AstroLounge]

CPH service would be wonderful, indeed. (Year round flights would be even better.) I was a surprised when ARN was added rather than Copenhagen; connection possibilities seem greater at the latter. Also suprising is the lack of code-sharing with SAS.
And welcome to USAviation, EKCH!

Very good point.....I am surprised that US doesn't try to serve other Star Alliance HUB airports like Copenhagen (SAS) Warsaw (LOT) and Zurich (Swiss) from our primary Int'l Gateway in PHL. Service to Brussels should also be reconsidered, always felt they pulled the plug on that route too soon.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Very good point..... Service to Brussels should also be reconsidered, always felt they pulled the plug on that route too soon.

I think that one reason BRU was dropped was the demise of Sabena (which was a mileage partner then). (That, along with the huge drop in traffic after 9/11). You're right that the BRU market never really had a chance to develop
With Swiss joing *A, perhaps ZRH might be a good market. But I really would like to see CPH added to the US route map. (Danish beer is pretty good! )

It would also be nice to see year-round flights to some of the seasonal markets. (Even if just with 757EOWs) Maybe BCN as a tag-end to LIS (didn't TWA do this in the winter?).

 

[Boeing Boeing GONE]

I think that one reason BRU was dropped was the demise of Sabena (which was a mileage partner then). (That, along with the huge drop in traffic after 9/11). You're right that the BRU market never really had a chance to develop
With Swiss joing *A, perhaps ZRH might be a good market. But I really would like to see CPH added to the US route map. (Danish beer is pretty good! )

It would also be nice to see year-round flights to some of the seasonal markets. (Even if just with 757EOWs) Maybe BCN as a tag-end to LIS (didn't TWA do this in the winter?).

Yes they should keep SNN/DUB year round on the wrap, they are doing the wrap for one week from 28th Oct, maybe this is a test for possible year round next year...

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Here is something to get this thread going again (and get it back on track). Imagine what US could do if it followed NW's example and converted some more 757s. (I know, three more are in the works)
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=6735

Northwest to use upgraded 757s on new transatlantic routes
Thursday October 12, 2006
Northwest Airlines will revamp 10 757-200s for an expansion of its transatlantic network announced yesterday.

The routes include two new destinations from NWA's Detroit hub and the first nonstop transatlantic service from Hartford's Bradley International Airport. "The combination of our customer-focused WorldGateway at the Detroit hub, competitive costs and the Boeing 757 aircraft, which allows us to match capacity with economically viable demand, has made this major expansion possible," President and CEO Doug Steenland said.....

.........The 757s, which must be ETOPS certified, will be fitted with winglets and will seat 160 passengers in two classes.

 

[PHLfa88]

Here is something to get this thread going again (and get it back on track). Imagine what US could do if it followed NW's example and converted some more 757s. (I know, three more are in the works)
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=6735

Northwest to use upgraded 757s on new transatlantic routes
Thursday October 12, 2006
Northwest Airlines will revamp 10 757-200s for an expansion of its transatlantic network announced yesterday.

The routes include two new destinations from NWA's Detroit hub and the first nonstop transatlantic service from Hartford's Bradley International Airport. "The combination of our customer-focused WorldGateway at the Detroit hub, competitive costs and the Boeing 757 aircraft, which allows us to match capacity with economically viable demand, has made this major expansion possible," President and CEO Doug Steenland said.....

.........The 757s, which must be ETOPS certified, will be fitted with winglets and will seat 160 passengers in two classes.

Because This MGMT Just Does NOT Get It!! :blink:

 

[az_wild727]

Very good point.....I am surprised that US doesn't try to serve other Star Alliance HUB airports like Copenhagen (SAS) Warsaw (LOT) and Zurich (Swiss) from our primary Int'l Gateway in PHL. Service to Brussels should also be reconsidered, always felt they pulled the plug on that route too soon.

I too believed WAW was good idea and a codeshare w/ LOT. Then I spoke to Kirby and he said there is not enough business traffic or cargo traffic and that Poland is at the bottom of the list for new cities. Now things will turn the other way. LOT is looking at 3 new US cities, and guess which ones? LAX,IAD and... (drum roll)PHL. It will probably be w/ a 767. I hope it works!