HP Management

[Jimmy Neutron]

That about sums up the whole thing in a nutshell------


Now why can't the people running the airline see it, afterall they are supposed to be so smart-----

It's not brain surgery, just common sense----

 

[diogenes]

Jim,

That latest post indicates why you will never be CEO material at US. Too much common sense, and not a patty of BS in sight!

What the heck, driving a tractor is about the most fun you can have with your clothes on anyhow! 😉

How much long 'til retirement?

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Pretty much nonsense, or perhaps more accurately, not seeing the forest for the trees......

Yes, connecting traffic is lower yield traffic. That is the case whether you run that connecting traffic thru PIT or PHL (or CLT). Running it thru PHL doesn't make connecting traffic any higher yielding. Likewise, running connecting traffic thru PIT doesn't make it lower yielding.

So moving some of the connecting traffic to PIT would do two things - raise PHL's average yield and lower PIT's average yield. What it would not do is change the overall yield.

What it would also do is decrease the additional unnecessary costs that the "Philly Phactor" imposes - fuel burn, crew pay, lost baggage, misconnects, etc) - which would result in lower costs overall.

In short, the "Kool Aide" answer is fine as long as you only look at each hub's financial performance in isolation - removing some of the connecting traffic from PHL would lower PHL revenues from traffic through PHL. Adding connecting traffic to PIT would not necessarily stimulate more O&D higher yield traffic at PIT.

However, from a system perspective, it makes sense to offload some of PHL's burden. PHL would run better (lowering costs) while the connecting traffic's revenue (though lower yielding than O&D) would still be captured - just thru a different connecting point.

Lower costs with the same revenue equals something that is never included in the "run everything thru PHL" proponent's arguments about "PHL revenue" - bigger profits.....

Jim

Two questions:

While I understand your 'yield' analysis, wouldn't parsing the connecting traffic to PIT and PHL lower RASM and increase CASM, because it would necessarily increase operations and seats over the system and increase ops thus increasing costs?

Also, wouldn't pulling LCC capacity at PHL simply encourage congestion-making capacity additions by other carriers?

 

[barbeetantrums]

You hit the nail on the head, before US downsized PIT the yield was significantgly higher, remember that the real problem lies with old US management (Siegal) and the old allegheny County (Roddey). It's time to bury the hatchet for good and do what's right for the company and especially the customers, they deserve better......It's a total embarassment for all employees what our connecting passengers endure in PHL.....

The PHL is GOD slogan just does not cut it anymore-----If we continue with this obvious path of utter operational destruction in PHL it will end up being the downfall of the entire company!

Until Doug Parker leaves or keels over, I don't see much help for PIT. From what a birdie told me, many of his VPs and higher-ups have called for reductions in PHL with a return to PIT and he is not hearing it. Fingers in the ears and singing la-la-la. The folks in PHL have no idea that they are his favored children. He will stick with PHL until this airline becomes another Braniff.

 

[aredeeyou22]

Until Doug Parker leaves or keels over, I don't see much help for PIT. From what a birdie told me, many of his VPs and higher-ups have called for reductions in PHL with a return to PIT and he is not hearing it. Fingers in the ears and singing la-la-la. The folks in PHL have no idea that they are his favored children. He will stick with PHL until this airline becomes another Braniff.

I really don't believe that PHL is "GOD," and I don't believe that moving everything back to PIT is the answer! As I have said, move the connecting traffic to a facility somewhere in the middle of the country, not PIT! THAT makes no sense....

I realize that PHL is dysfunctional, to ignore that fact would be idiotic. But until we can come up with our own ATL, ORD, DFW, or other mega generating fortress hub, we better make it work. It's the best we have in terms or revenue. That's a fact.

 

[Travelpro72]

With all the connecting passengers we have going through PHL, why would it make sense to connect them to the midwest to go south or southeast. CLT does NOT handle the north south connections alone by ANY means. We don't have that many flights to the west coast as far as the east operation is concerned to sustain a hub in the midwest at this time. The point is, PHL cannot nor will EVER be able to handle what US tries to put through it. YES indeed it does make money but how much money does it cost the company to stay there. With all the chaos it brings it just seems odd. Again nobody can come up with that magic little figure. For all the flying that US said wasn't there in PIT to stay, the other carriers sure are finding it. That's legacy carriers and low cost carriers. I don't think anyone is saying to wrap up operations in PHL and move them back to PIT. Hell no, PHL is where the big money is and a HUGE customer base. Those that are not going international or local to PHL just don't need to be connected through a non user friendly airport. Other big carriers have MUCH nicer airports to connect their passengers through with a lot more to offer during their stay on top of on-time flights.

 

[barbeetantrums]

I don't think anyone is saying to wrap up operations in PHL and move them back to PIT.

Uh, yeah, people are saying that.

 

[aredeeyou22]

With all the connecting passengers we have going through PHL, why would it make sense to connect them to the midwest to go south or southeast. CLT does NOT handle the north south connections alone by ANY means. We don't have that many flights to the west coast as far as the east operation is concerned to sustain a hub in the midwest at this time. The point is, PHL cannot nor will EVER be able to handle what US tries to put through it. YES indeed it does make money but how much money does it cost the company to stay there. With all the chaos it brings it just seems odd. Again nobody can come up with that magic little figure. For all the flying that US said wasn't there in PIT to stay, the other carriers sure are finding it. That's legacy carriers and low cost carriers. I don't think anyone is saying to wrap up operations in PHL and move them back to PIT. Hell no, PHL is where the big money is and a HUGE customer base. Those that are not going international or local to PHL just don't need to be connected through a non user friendly airport. Other big carriers have MUCH nicer airports to connect their passengers through with a lot more to offer during their stay on top of on-time flights.

Trav,

Everyone keeps asking how much it costs US to operate in PHL. I am assuming that PHL makes a h*!! of a lot more $$ than it costs to operate there, or we simply would not have the operation we have there. We would have that operation in PIT.

What carriers are adding mounds of service in PIT? I asked before, but no one answered, since WN started at PIT with roughly the same amount of flights as it started with in PHL, is PIT now on par with the WN operation in PHL? They can add all the service they want in PIT, at $119 to the coast and $59 to Florida........

Other carriers have much nicer airports, you are exactly right! Let's see, there is ATL, DFW, ORD, DTW, etc..... all of which generate unprecedented revenue that PIT could not and has not ever come close to matching. That is the difference!

Again, PHL is a mess. Agreed. Management needs to fix that, make it more user friendly, and make it work. Sending all of the connecting traffic to PIT is not the answer, and while it makes sense logistically, it would not make sense financially.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Two questions:

While I understand your 'yield' analysis, wouldn't parsing the connecting traffic to PIT and PHL lower RASM and increase CASM, because it would necessarily increase operations and seats over the system and increase ops thus increasing costs?

Ah - you astutely see one of the possible problems, though it's never mentioned by those citing PHL as our salvation.

First, the CASM. Moving some connecting traffic from PHL requires either adding planes, increasing utilization of existing planes, or cutting some flights from PHL (or some combination). These should either have no effect on ASM's or increase ASM's. If there's no effect on ASM's (shifting some flights), CASM should stay the same. If ASM's are added (more planes or utilization), CASM should come down as fixed costs are spread over those higher ASM's. And that disregards the cost savings of operating at a more efficient airport than PHL.

RASM is somewhat different. If ASM's are added without a balancing increase in revenue, RASM will indeed decrease - making the profit change dependent on whether RASM falls more or less than CASM (which also falls if ASM's are added).

However, in the "shift flights" scenerio ASM's stay basically the same. If one assumes that the revenue will also stay the same (the passengers are still there, just connecting somewhere other than PHL), then RASM should stay the same.

Also, wouldn't pulling LCC capacity at PHL simply encourage congestion-making capacity additions by other carriers?

It depends.....

If we relinquished gates and other airlines added flights at the same times as our banks, the congestion would stay the same. But if we didn't relinquish gates (like PIT as we drew down ops) or other airlines additional flights weren't timed with our banks, PHL would run smoother.

To see a visual, take a look at this ATC site very early any morning or very late at night. Just select PHL from the drop down menu (double-click). You will see the peaks and valleys in the arrival flow for all airline's flights. If other airlines added the same number of flights to the peaks as we subtracted, the congestion would stay the same. But if those other airline flights were partially or completely in the valleys, congestion would be reduced.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Time to really fix PHL.

Time to "get over" PIT as a hub.

Time to move on and quit trying to return to a time that will never be again.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

Time to really fix PHL.

Time to "get over" PIT as a hub.

Time to move on and quit trying to return to a time that will never be again.

What part of PHL CAN'T BE Fixed don't you understand.....

All have tried and all have failed.....Wake up

 

[barbeetantrums]

What part of PHL CAN'T BE Fixed don't you understand.....

All have tried and all have failed.....Wake up

I thought that Tony Grantham would have fixed PHL but it seems to be beyond repair. If Tony can't do it, then stick a fork in it. It's hopeless.

 

[aredeeyou22]

I thought that Tony Grantham would have fixed PHL but it seems to be beyond repair. If Tony can't do it, then stick a fork in it. It's hopeless.

Oh please..... it's the drama in your posts about this HORRID PHL experience that keep me comin' back.

It's delayed, it's saturated, it's space constrained, it's got baggage probs (which are being addressed....)

Most major hubs for airline in large, REVENUE GENERATING cities are busy, delayed, saturated, etc.... The setup of the airport sucks, and that ain't gonna change anytime soon. We work with what we have. Why? It is a serious money maker for this airline, plain and simple. Otherwise, we would have abandoned the inferior facilities in PHL and moved, long ago, to the superior facilities in PIT. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Stick a fork in it? When we move all the connecting traffic out of PHL and back to PIT, the fork will be forthcoming. It simply ain't gonna happen in PIT, and PHL will have to be fixed, or we are cooked! :down:

 

[Travels2mch]

Oh please..... it's the drama in your posts about this HORRID PHL experience that keep me comin' back.

It's delayed, it's saturated, it's space constrained, it's got baggage probs (which are being addressed....)

Most major hubs for airline in large, REVENUE GENERATING cities are busy, delayed, saturated, etc.... The setup of the airport sucks, and that ain't gonna change anytime soon. We work with what we have. Why? It is a serious money maker for this airline, plain and simple. Otherwise, we would have abandoned the inferior facilities in PHL and moved, long ago, to the superior facilities in PIT. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Stick a fork in it? When we move all the connecting traffic out of PHL and back to PIT, the fork will be forthcoming. It simply ain't gonna happen in PIT, and PHL will have to be fixed, or we are cooked! :down:

Yeah you just keep waiting for that fix.......it is on its way. So is the Easter bunny....maybe he'll bring you some more kool aid.

 

[zethya]

Everyone brings up the mileage issue between PHL and PIT there is something to think about. PHX and LAS are VERY close together. YES LAS has all that tourist traffic BUT.... There are millions upon millions of people that fly in, out and throughout the northeast. PHL cannot nor will NEVER be able to run effectively. PIT was a money loser yet NOBODY still can come up with number as to how much money PHL costs this company compared to what it brings in. If PHL can "hold it's own" due to it being such a big city with all that "O&D" then WHYYYYYY do you need to subject people to that DUMP. It is a class "A" D - U- M - P! ! ! ! Plain and simple. I don't care who it is that runs the place. Filter more connections that are NOT int'l through PIT and let the O&D passengers there in PHL fill those flights alone. Take the distance out of the equation. There are too many people and the operation it much to large for the PHL airport to handle on its own. Stupid, stupid stupid. 🙄

The last 3 words of your post accurately reflect the worth of your suggestion.