----------------
On 7/6/2003 10:36:02 PM HPearlyretiree wrote:
If you look at the 20 year history of HP, they have still not come close to profitability over the long run, that needs to change.
----------------
On 7/6/2003 10:36:02 PM HPearlyretiree wrote:
If you look at the 20 year history of HP, they have still not come close to profitability over the long run, that needs to change.
----------------
No argument here. Mergers can be troublesome, and I''m not advocating an AWA/HA marriage. But I don''t see a lot of drawbacks to it -- or, at least, those that I do see appear to be much smaller than the potential advantages.
----------------
On 7/6/2003 10:36:02 PM HPearlyretiree wrote:
PHX isn''t a very good connection point to HNL, there are dozens of flights there from LA area and SFO, as well as non stops from JFK, EWR, ORD, IAH, and DFW. The money just ain''t in it, the expenses to setup over there are high and you would need more than one flight a day to justify the field station costs.
----------------
On 7/6/2003 10:36:02 PM HPearlyretiree wrote:
PHX isn''t a very good connection point to HNL, there are dozens of flights there from LA area and SFO, as well as non stops from JFK, EWR, ORD, IAH, and DFW. The money just ain''t in it, the expenses to setup over there are high and you would need more than one flight a day to justify the field station costs.
----------------
You''re missing the point. A merged AWA/HA would continue flying to HNL from various points along the West Coast. But PHX would be a fantastic connection for folks anywhere else in the country. Yes, there are non-stops on other airlines from the cities you mentioned, but AWA/HA could offer some of those. They''d already have AWA staff there to handle an extra flight a day.
And many pax who go to HNL do so by connecting in ORD, DFW, IAH, etc. A PHX-connection routing -- especially one with a reasonable fare structure -- would be able to siphon travelers away from those other, higher-fare airlines.
