AA to go back to "banked" hubs

[NYer]

Sounds lovely, but I will need to reserve judgement until I see the execution of the plan.  If they are going to bank flights, then there are some obstacles to overcome.  Such as,
 
1.  Last Friday night when after we landed we were reassigned to gate C-11.  Fine, except there was a problem.  There was an empty airplane at that gate that needed to be towed to the pad.  There was no tow crew to tow the a/c to the pad.  When they got a tow crew, there was no gate agent to move the jetbridge (and evidently no one in the vicinity who was able/qualified to operate the jetbridge).  We landed 10 minutes early.  Finally got to the gate over 30 minutes late.
2.  Random boarding which results in front rows of coach boarding late after the passengers in the back of the plane who boarded early have filled up the front bins with their rollaboards.  Which means that the passengers in the front of the a/c have to swim upstream against the traffic or wait until the passengers in the back have gotten off so they can go back to where their carryons are stored.  Fine if they don't have a connection.  Not fine if they do.
3.  Wheelchair passengers having to wait up to 20 minutes (after all other passengers are off the a/c) for a wheelchair and pusher.  Saturday night had 3 w/c pax.  Airserv sent one pusher with one wheelchair.  The theory is that he would push each one up the jetbridge and transfer them to a cart or other wheelchair then come back and get the next passenger.  However, he simply left with the first wheelchair passenger and never returned.
4.  American needs to stop skimping on gate agents.  The agent who met that flight in item number 1 told me that she had called and told the supervisor..."I've never thought of walking off the job in 27 years as a gate agent.  If you don't get me some help down on this concourse, I'm walking off the job."  She was effectively the only agent for 3 active gates.  After her call, all of a sudden she had more help than she could handle.  Where were these people before?
 
I'm sure others have similar stories and other ideas about making it possible for passengers to make their connections.  A banked hub doesn't work unless a/c can leave on time with the passengers that were supposed to be on it aboard.

 
They used this system in MIA for many years, they called them Complexes. It drives more headcount and it actually makes it easier to connect passengers as all flight come in at the same general time and leave at the same general time. They usually do a better job at waiting for passengers and bags.

 

[WorldTraveler]

US Airways has no RASM premium, compared to the industry.
 
For the first three quarters, even AA's mainline RASM exceeds that of US.    Same thing for the third quarter alone.

In absolutely RASM, true, but US' RASM growth has been far stronger than AA's, precisely because US does not maintain capacity that doesn't have profit potential.

Specific to the banking concept, tighter connections do have the potential to increase revenue but they also are more costly. Given that new AA will have a surplus of employees in the near term, focusing on revenue growth probably makes the most sense.

 

[767one]

 
How about dumping the Medical Department?  That has to be a huge cost to AA, and it is a relic of a long bygone era.  It also opens the door to much abuse of labor at the hands of management.  
 
Will Parker see it as a waste of money (since AW and US managed to get along rather well without this huge cost)?  Or, will he decide to spend that company money to hang on to one more tool to pound labor?

That will indeed be a hard decision for Doug! Might take a six pack or two to solve that dilemma.It would be a no brainer if he could keep the medical department for free AND pound labor.

 

[767one]

 
They used this system in MIA for many years, they called them Complexes. It drives more headcount and it actually makes it easier to connect passengers as all flight come in at the same general time and leave at the same general time. They usually do a better job at waiting for passengers and bags.

At USAirways it was not normal to wait for bags or pax because being on time is more important to the management . Once I had an agent try to get us off the gate 20 min. early on the last PHL CLT flight of the day with 60 pax running from the A concourse. She thought I was the jumpseater because when I walked off the airplane she told me she was going to close the door and the airplane would leave without me. I told her fine! and walked down the hall until the 60 or so connex showed up and then 5 min. before sched. departure time got back on the airplane. She slammed the door without giving us a count so we waited until departure time called ops and said we needed the agent back to give us a count and ask us if we were ready. Needless to say she was not a happy camper but did come back and do her job properly. We still made it to CLT on time.   Edited by Mod.

 

[eolesen]

Going back to banked hubs will certainly have its tradeoffs. It might have a positive impact on revenue if connect/travel times were really driving people to fly on other airlines, but I'm a bit of a pessimist on that. I liked the longer ground times. Less hassle, less rushing, less sitting in the penalty box at DFW or ORD on arrival.


Today, gate holds aren't as common as they used to be. With banks, you're going to spend a lot more time in the penalty box than you have in the last couple years. No more arriving 20 minutes early. The impact on QSI might wind up as a wash if they're currently taking a hit from longer connection times.

Having more compressed ground times drives headcount as many already noted, and if the part time ceiling for the TWU was eliminated in the S.1113 givebacks. Certainly, having more day of week flying will also drive more part timers.

Shorter ground times will also have a negative impact on delay performance, since there's less of a firebreak to recover. Another impact is going to be seen in Admirals Club's membership numbers, probably on a delayed basis. No sense having one if you don't live in one of the cities where there's a club, and using the club is a waste of time when you only have a 60 minute connection.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Going back to banked hubs will certainly have its tradeoffs. It might have a positive impact on revenue if connect/travel times were really driving people to fly on other airlines, but I'm a bit of a pessimist on that. I liked the longer ground times. Less hassle, less rushing, less sitting in the penalty box at DFW or ORD on arrival.Today, gate holds aren't as common as they used to be. With banks, you're going to spend a lot more time in the penalty box than you have in the last couple years. No more arriving 20 minutes early. The impact on QSI might wind up as a wash if they're currently taking a hit from longer connection times.Having more compressed ground times drives headcount as many already noted, and if the part time ceiling for the TWU was eliminated in the S.1113 givebacks. Certainly, having more day of week flying will also drive more part timers.Shorter ground times will also have a negative impact on delay performance, since there's less of a firebreak to recover. Another impact is going to be seen in Admirals Club's membership numbers, probably on a delayed basis. No sense having one if you don't live in one of the cities where there's a club, and using the club is a waste of time when you only have a 60 minute connection.

That leads to less time to sell your brand to the business traveller in the clubs.

 

[PullUp]

Going back to banked hubs will certainly have its tradeoffs. It might have a positive impact on revenue if connect/travel times were really driving people to fly on other airlines, but I'm a bit of a pessimist on that. I liked the longer ground times. Less hassle, less rushing, less sitting in the penalty box at DFW or ORD on arrival.


Today, gate holds aren't as common as they used to be. With banks, you're going to spend a lot more time in the penalty box than you have in the last couple years. No more arriving 20 minutes early. The impact on QSI might wind up as a wash if they're currently taking a hit from longer connection times.

Having more compressed ground times drives headcount as many already noted, and if the part time ceiling for the TWU was eliminated in the S.1113 givebacks. Certainly, having more day of week flying will also drive more part timers.

Shorter ground times will also have a negative impact on delay performance, since there's less of a firebreak to recover. Another impact is going to be seen in Admirals Club's membership numbers, probably on a delayed basis. No sense having one if you don't live in one of the cities where there's a club, and using the club is a waste of time when you only have a 60 minute connection.

It's all about the bottom line. If banked hubs generate more $$, then that's it. AA emps must realize they are working for Mesa Grande now.

 

[MetalMover]

It's not called The New American for nothing!

 

[amtide]

It's not called The New American for nothing!

 
Like I said before there is nothing new with the new American. Go back to banked hubs - change strategy back and forth. To me it looks like they have no idea of what are doing. The sad thing is that we pay for their mistakes while they are promoted and get productivity bonus for making a mess. Which way we are moving? Or are we moving?

 

[PullUp]

 
Like I said before there is nothing new with the new American. Go back to banked hubs - change strategy back and forth. To me it looks like they have no idea of what are doing. The sad thing is that we pay for their mistakes while they are promoted and get productivity bonus for making a mess. Which way we are moving? Or are we moving?

US tried rolling hubs in CLT and PHL. In PHL, it opened the door for LUV to schedule more flights against US. I believe part of the reason US switched back to banked hubs is to disrupt LUVs schedule...in PHL, banks can generate a few minutes (45-50) delay from push to liftoff if the weather and ATC are not perfectly tuned. Anyway, this mgmt has tried and tested banked vs. rolling hubs and it is doubtful that they are reinventing the wheel at this point.
With Kirby, if it can be tweaked to make more $$, he'll do it. The bottom line IS the bottom line - and it shows - the one thing US has done well is make money and it is a credit to the top mgmt. Now, for managing employees?
Not so much. You won't be happy.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Banked hubs are more costly to operate in every sense including the strain on the airport and airways infrastructure in which AA/US operate.

It is also true that the congestion which is created by banked operations impacts other carriers. Whether US did that at PHL or not, I cannot know but scheduling is a competitive tool which carriers can and do use and there is no reason to think it wasn't considered.

It's interesting that WN now has some of the worst on-time statistics in the industry even though some of the worst OT stats for WN come from airports where WN is the dominant carrier and should be able to control congestion moreso than in other more competitive airports.

 

[PullUp]

Customers, especially business pax, don't want to sit around for three hours waiting for their connection.
Seamless service on a global carrier requires reasonable connection times or the biz pax will book away.
Bottom line is the bottom line.

 

[formeraa]

Customers, especially business pax, don't want to sit around for three hours waiting for their connection.
Seamless service on a global carrier requires reasonable connection times or the biz pax will book away.
Bottom line is the bottom line.

 
Exactly!  Given the emphasis on "test and learn" in today's business culture, we should all view the banked hubs as a test.  If they work, the new AA will keep them.  If they don't work, "rolling hubs" will make a comeback.

 

[PullUp]

 
Exactly!  Given the emphasis on "test and learn" in today's business culture, we should all view the banked hubs as a test.  If they work, the new AA will keep them.  If they don't work, "rolling hubs" will make a comeback.

Tested at US. Data says they'll make more money with them. Not a test.
Cheers.

 

[FWAAA]

With Kirby, if it can be tweaked to make more $$, he'll do it. The bottom line IS the bottom line - and it shows - the one thing US has done well is make money and it is a credit to the top mgmt. Now, for managing employees?
Not so much. You won't be happy.

Banked hubs may increase revenue, but let's get one thing clear:   the one and only reason that US Airways has generated any profits since 2005 can be found in the very low pilot payrates (and until earlier this year, the very low FA pay).    If you and your colleagues had put aside your civil war and obtained AA-APA payrates since the merger, US Airways wouldn't have had a single profitable year.   
 

Customers, especially business pax, don't want to sit around for three hours waiting for their connection.
Seamless service on a global carrier requires reasonable connection times or the biz pax will book away.
Bottom line is the bottom line.

The current ORD and DFW schedules show relatively few city-pairs requiring anything like a three hour layover.    With banked hubs, a 75 minute or 90 minute connection might be reduced to a 45-60 minute connection.   Besides, AA has far more nonstops for the key business markets;  it's US AIrways that connects far more passengers who would have flown nonstop on AA if they weren't attracted to the low US Advantage fares.   
 

Tested at US. Data says they'll make more money with them. Not a test.
Cheers.

Maybe you're right, but the profit-loss picture at US Airways since 2005 doesn't constitute any evidence to support that proposition, given the apples-oranges comparison (thanks to your very low pilot pay).   Now that Parker has finally handed you guys pay increases (retroactive to Valentine's Day)  to match the AA payrates, the labor cost advantage your airline formerly enjoyed has evaporated.  
 
Old US could afford higher labor costs for ground employees caused by banked hubs at CLT and PHL since the pilots subsidized those higher costs.   Now, new AA has higher pilot and FA costs and Parker/Kirby have announced that MIA, ORD and DFW are going to get higher ground labor costs with banked hubs.   With the pilots and FAs no longer subsidizing those ground costs (like they did at old US Airways), we'll see if Kirby the Miracle Worker can generate profits at new AA.