What's new
By:

CLT

Another slow news day in Pittsburgh.....Whaaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa. Dan Fitzpatrick needs to find another pinata to beat on.
 
CLT is a great Hub. PIT was a great Hub. PHL well......
Let's hope PHX gets to be the next great Hub...
 
What's the point of this article?

Fitzpatrick doesn't have anything better to write about?
 
Pittsburgh International still has twice as many shops as Charlotte-Douglas International, and passengers like the shopping options, spending twice as much on retail purchases while at the airport than do passengers in Charlotte.

Oh, good, they're finally going to turn it into the mall that greater Pittsburgh deserves... 😛
 
It's just another article by a writer to try and instill some hope that PIT will return to its former glory days. What these articles seem to always avoid mentioning is the substantial financial losses US acquired at PIT during those years. It's interesting that in the same paragraph, the writer states that a "rumor" has been around that US is considering trying to relieve some congestion at PHL, by moving some transcontinental flights to PIT - he then immediately states that Parker says no way. Why squash the rumor - a positive, albeit remote possibility, but a "pleasant" thought provoker for the reader. On the whole, a very negative article about PIT.
 
Is there any data to suggest that PIT was not profitable? I mean actual data, not "he said, she said" and certainly nothing after the hub was yanked qualifies (for obvious reasons).

Meanwhile, US stuck (yes, stuck) the ACAA with hundreds of millions in bond obligations after the first Chapter 11. Why should the collective taxpaying public of Agh. county or the State of PA do anything except give US the finger?

I've been trying to figure this logic out for awhile now, and have yet to get an acceptable answer.

CLT, if it had the kind of LCC presence that PIT and PHL have, would lose money hand over fist. In fact, it's going to be very interesting to see who is laughing once (not if) LUV enters CLT. In the meantime, the good folks in CLT will continue to pay thru the nose (in airfare) for the right to have a hub. That's why I utilize AVL, GSP, GSO, and occasionally RDU for my travels: CLT would be lesser drive than two of my other options, but cost twice as much.
 
Barbell said:
Pittsburgh International still has twice as many shops as Charlotte-Douglas International, and passengers like the shopping options, spending twice as much on retail purchases while at the airport than do passengers in Charlotte.

Oh, good, they're finally going to turn it into the mall that greater Pittsburgh deserves... 😛
Click to expand...

I'm glad we can count on you for your oh-so-wry wit.
 
ClueByFour said:
Is there any data to suggest that PIT was not profitable? I mean actual data, not "he said, she said" and certainly nothing after the hub was yanked qualifies (for obvious reasons).

Meanwhile, US stuck (yes, stuck) the ACAA with hundreds of millions in bond obligations after the first Chapter 11. Why should the collective taxpaying public of Agh. county or the State of PA do anything except give US the finger?

I've been trying to figure this logic out for awhile now, and have yet to get an acceptable answer.

CLT, if it had the kind of LCC presence that PIT and PHL have, would lose money hand over fist. In fact, it's going to be very interesting to see who is laughing once (not if) LUV enters CLT. In the meantime, the good folks in CLT will continue to pay thru the nose (in airfare) for the right to have a hub. That's why I utilize AVL, GSP, GSO, and occasionally RDU for my travels: CLT would be lesser drive than two of my other options, but cost twice as much.
Click to expand...
Why would CLT lose money? It's costs US approx $2.08 per pax to move them thru the hub....Kinda of low considering the low amount of O&D traffic...
 
LD3 said:
It's costs US approx $2.08 per pax to move them thru the hub....Kinda of low considering the low amount of O&D traffic...
Click to expand...
The two - cost per passenger and O&D traffic - aren't directly connected. Cost per passenger is based on enplanements so a connecting passenger and an originating passenger count equally when calculating cost per passenger.

Where the O&D traffic has traditionally been important to the hub carrier is fares. Because of the non-stop flight that the hub carrier can offer vs the competition's connection, higher fares have been charged by the hub carrier (like US in CLT). Often, the fare for something like CLT-MCO wwould be higher than for a flight connecting in CLT like RIC-CLT-MCO. What Clue is referring to is the true LCC practice of not charging higher fares just because they offer the only non-stop service between a given city pair. So as the LCC's have more influence on hub pricing, the extra revenue generated by the hub O&D traffic will decline - thus making O&D traffic less valuable as a measure of the revenue generating capability of a hub.

Jim
 
Jim, I agree what you are saying, I was trying to say was that even if another lcc came into CLT and of because of the low operating cost out of CLT I cant see US losing money hand over fist...Also, I think Prince may be onto something about O&D numbers not being important especially at a single carrier dominant hub...
 
I certainly don't have the numbers, but suspect that the cost per passenger at an airport is but a small portion of the total cost of serving that passenger, though it is indeed a cost that is best lower than higher.

I've always noticed that the cost of PHL is never mentioned as a problem for that airport, unlike PIT. Yet from what I can gather, the cost per passenger at those two airports is about the same. Likewise DCA, though it is higher than either PIT or PHL. Presumably, the extra revenue that's traditionally come from the higher O&D traffic has made up the difference.

Without a breakdown of both the cost and revenue per passenger at various airports, it's impossible to determine the porfitability of any serving any particular airport. For example, the quoted remark that PIT is "slightly" profitable - when the entire airline is only "slightly profitable", is PIT doing better or worse than PHL, CLT, DCA, LGA, or any other airport?

If the legacy (including LCC) fare structures ever become aligned with the true LCC, where the fare is pretty much distance based in a given fare class, the value of hub O&D traffic to a hub's status will dimish. But hub O&D traffic will probably always be useful, if for no other reason than helping to fill airplanes.

Jim
 
Not to fawn over you, Jim, but your knowledge is astounding!

Now, that being said, I wonder if the only reason PIT is still around is the possibility that at some point in the distant future the Pittsburgh Region suddenly start to grow again due to other non-transportation companies moving here.

If the city and county ever get taxes to drop, new business may see Pittsburgh as viable in supporting development. The equation would be fairly straightforward:

More business = more employees = more commuting via air = more O&D for PIT

It might be too simple to state, but I think all airlines are watching different regions to see where to place the planes.

Despite the O&D argument, I still believe PIT is the best way to alleviate the traffic stress at PHL, if only the additional flights were in place to destinations now only served by CLT and PHL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

700IAM
Specter, Casey blister US Airways
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
PITbull
PITbull
B
More good news!
Replies
2
Views
1K
AstroLounge
A
phlforce
  • Locked
BALL IN UNITEDS COURT
Replies
2
Views
2K
scot
S
EyeInTheSky
US Airways' migratory workforce
Replies
6
Views
2K
signals
signals
P
Deferring Airbus Deliveries
Replies
0
Views
1K
Poug Darker
P

Latest posts

Back
Top