My Solution For Us Airways

[ITRADE]

MCI, however, has largely failed as a hub every time an airline tried it -- Even before a big Southwest presences. Eastern failed there. Braniff 2 failed there. US Airways failed there (In the PSA days, US Airways did have a bit of a focus city there, the relationship with Air Midwest is a testament), and Vanguard failed there. Furthermore, Midwest is hanging on at MCI by two methods: 1) sticking only to major biz markets and 2) Be the opposite of Southwest.

True, history does not favor hub carriers at MCI. Wonder if the terminal layout has something to do with it.

Unfortunately, I do not view MCI as a viable hub operation or focus city for US Airways for the above reasons. OMA might be a better option as Southwest's and Midwest's operations from OMA are much smaller than MCI, although, I suspect there is a reason for that.

OMA's population is about 1/3 that of MCI. You;ve got some insurance and banking there, but nothing that would support any type of hub. You don't even have a neighboring metropolis from which you can leech passengers.

Now. OKC, does have about a million people. Maybe that could work. Of course you've got a chicken and egg problem in that US doesn't even fly a single aircraft to OKC at this point in time.....

 

[funguy2]

I doubt the terminal design is a factor. For one, DFW has a similar conceptual design, and AA seems to have made it work. Secondly, overtime, terminal design is driven by the type of traffic carried... Look at ATL and DEN as examples where, over time, the connecting nature of traffic in those cities influenced the terminal designs. Now look at LAX and JFK, and notice how the lessened influence of connecting traffic influenced their terminal concepts over time...

The problem with OKC (and many western cities) is the fact that Southwest (and other LCC's in other places) will still control the pricing. US Airways is wetting itself with worry (i.e. "Southwest has come to kill us") over 28 flights a day to the 5th busiest city in the nation. If US Airways cannot compete with Southwest's 28 flights in the 5th biggest city, then how does it compete with Southwest's 28 flights (or whatever) from the 50th biggest (or whereever OKC happens to be)? My point being that Southwest offers a much larger percentage of the seats at OKC than it does at PHL. If US Airways had transformed to a LCC between 9/11 and now, Southwest would have never moved into PHL.

Southwest might have moved into California as US Airways moved out, but Southwest has clearly forced US Airways out of Florida and BWI. Why would anybody think that going up against Southwest again would be successful, when clearly, little besides employee compensation, has changed? Even CASM has not dramatically changed (still 11.68cents).

First, US Airways needs to find a way to neutralize Southwest (and other LCCs) in the east, compete successfully there, and then use what it learns in transformation to re-attack the west later. Unfortunately, I don't think US Airways has the time or resources to complete that task.

 

[ITRADE]

I doubt the terminal design is a factor. For one, DFW has a similar conceptual design, and AA seems to have made it work. Secondly, overtime, terminal design is driven by the type of traffic carried... Look at ATL and DEN as examples where, over time, the connecting nature of traffic in those cities influenced the terminal designs. Now look at LAX and JFK, and notice how the lessened influence of connecting traffic influenced their terminal concepts over time...

Actually terminal design is a huge issue at MCI. The terminal is not more than 75 feet wide and every two or three gates has a separate security check point. This makes connecting (hub style) very very difficult. It is very different from DFW (a hub which should not be emulated as a symbol of a good connecting hub). Of course, the entire horseshoe design was done for O/D traffic -not for hub traffic.

ATL and DEN are similarly situated styles of hubs that allow for maximized aircraft gate access while permitting a relatively minimal amount of passenger movement.

The problem with OKC (and many western cities) is the fact that Southwest (and other LCC's in other places) will still control the pricing. US Airways is wetting itself with worry (i.e. "Southwest has come to kill us") over 28 flights a day to the 5th busiest city in the nation. If US Airways cannot compete with Southwest's 28 flights in the 5th biggest city, then how does it compete with Southwest's 28 flights (or whatever) from the 50th biggest (or whereever OKC happens to be)? My point being that Southwest offers a much larger percentage of the seats at OKC than it does at PHL. If US Airways had transformed to a LCC between 9/11 and now, Southwest would have never moved into PHL.

This is US's problem virtually anywhere west of the mississippi.

 

[ClueByFour]

US is walking away from a market of almost 2.5 million people in the form of PIT. Something tells me they are not gonna open a midwest hub in an MSA with any less than that.

 

[USFlyer]

Clue, really, has US done something to you to really piss you off? They are not walking away from PIT. They are rightsizing the hub to what it always should have been for the market of its size. Keeping PIT mostly an RJ hub with select mainline flights is what analysts have been suggesting for almost a decade now. Funny now that US is finally doing it people are saying it's not what they should be doing.

Also, US has choices: Keep mainline planes flying out of PIT to serve what little connecting passengers are left or start offering more nonstop flights in non-hub markets to offer customers better choices and reduce the costs of flying those customers. No matter what, a passenger pays let's say $250 BOS-MCO. Routing those passengers thru PIT or PHL increases the costs much more than flying nonstop BOS-MCO. Or PVD-TPA. Or BDL-SFO. Etc. Now we have no idea what non-hub flights US will choose to operate yet, but overflying PIT is what the LCCs have been doing now for years and, funny, they seem to make money doing it.

PIT will still be a connecting facility for smaller markets. But, US will focus more on O&D traffic there, and the O&D levels demand mainly RJs/E170s.

 

[funguy2]

US is walking away from a market of almost 2.5 million people in the form of PIT. Something tells me they are not gonna open a midwest hub in an MSA with any less than that.

I don't think US Airways will open a full-fledged hub anywhere... But that 2.5mil / MSA number may be a min for future focus cities (i.e. no new focus cities like DAY or BUF...)

 

[ITRADE]

US is walking away from a market of almost 2.5 million people in the form of PIT. Something tells me they are not gonna open a midwest hub in an MSA with any less than that.

Who said anything about a "hub"? Why not an operation with say 100 or 150 (mainline + express flights).

 

[RWerksman]

Keeping PIT mostly an RJ hub with select mainline flights is what analysts have been suggesting for almost a decade now. Funny now that US is finally doing it people are saying it's not what they should be doing.

What about PIT is so difficult to understand? Use PIT as a gateway to the midwest and north.

Flights going from north to south connect through CLT.

Flights going from the south to the north connect PIT.


Flights to the midwest (PA to KS to TX... ish) go through PIT.

Flights to far west can connect via UA codeshare at DEN and ORD.

PHL should be a focus city due to the population. (much like Boston, NY, and DC)



I still cant grasp why most people are so bullish on PHL. It is a horrible facility that has serious problems. The O&D market there will be limited due to WN. Cost can come in line at PIT with work, and I still have never seen where they compare to PHL in a $ to $ comparison. (vague higher / lower statements dont count)

Someone please explain to me where I am wrong and show me some hard figures.

 

[Light Years]

I think its funny, "route structure" posts are always dominated by myself, ITRADE and sfb.

Interesting points from both. ISP (not Art!), I hope you dont think we're bashing your ideas as they are intersting and appreciated. Theres nothing the US employees would like more than to have a more diverse network.

Its ironic just how much that ambitious regional airline that wanted to be a big player (Allegheny) has morphed back into a sickly, thrown together franchise version of itself 25 years ago. Its sad.

 

[avek00]

PIT was lucky that a post-deregulation airline kept a hub there for so long in the first place. The PIT terminal might be nice (and costly), but its geographic location stinks - PIT is too far west to be an effective intra-Northeast hub, yet too far east to be an effective intra-Midwest hub. US made a go of PIT for as long as it reasonably (although some might argue unreasonably) could; a US focus city plus slightly expanded offerings from US competitors will serve the city's travel needs.

 

[ClueByFour]

That explains the presence of CO at CLE and DL at CVG perfectly. Populations within half a million of PIT's MSA on both sides, and less than 50 minutes flying time apart from either of the other two cities. But hey, the location sucks.

Note to self: next time I'm over in the states, I'm going to let Gordo and the folks on Virginia Ave know that their choice of hub geography has been debunked by the experts

 

[Ch. 12]

I If US Airways cannot compete with Southwest's 28 flights in the 5th biggest city, then how does it compete with Southwest's 28 flights (or whatever) from the 50th biggest (or whereever OKC happens to be)?

Not to be a stickler, but with all of the press recently about how US and WN will be duking it out in the "5th largest city" I think it's important to note that PHL is actually the 7th largest and was just recently passed by PHX.

First, US Airways needs to find a way to neutralize Southwest (and other LCCs) in the east, compete successfully there, and then use what it learns in transformation to re-attack the west later. Unfortunately, I don't think US Airways has the time or resources to complete that task.

And I go back to my soapbox to say that US does not need to scramble to fight for their past turf ("neutralizing WN and other LCCs in the East") but rather find better ground. I know that U has mentioned a shift to focus cities, etc, but here is why their hub/spoke system has failed beyond the other legacies...1) They have three hubs with the largest city being the 7th largest in the US (take a look at hubs like CHI, DFW, ATL, etc where the cities are much larger) and 2) as I've stated a number of times, U has restricted themselves the the East which means they are missing many valuable markets as well as currently being in the middle of the biggest LCC turf war in the US (east coast w/ JB, FL, WN, NK).

So I don't think they should spend all of their remaining resources to battle WN and neutralize them...that's a battle that cannot be won. U needs to be opportunistic with their remaing resources rather than fight for their precious (and quickly devalueing) east coast network.

Off of my soapbox once again.

 

[ITRADE]

That explains the presence of CO at CLE and DL at CVG perfectly. Populations within half a million of PIT's MSA on both sides, and less than 50 minutes flying time apart from either of the other two cities. But hey, the location sucks.

It certainly does. It certainly explains why both hubs are primarily RJ operations, not overbloated mainline hubs.

 

[MarkMyWords]

In many ways I think that the PIT hub has been squeezed by DL hub in CVG, CO's hub in CLE and NW's hub in DTW. The glory days of PIT being the Mecca hub of the east/midwest are pretty much over. Look at the changes to the above 3 hubs in the last 10-15 years. Stations like ERI and ABE where we were nearly the only choice have receieved a lot more service with the intorduction of additional regional flying. Our bread and butter stations have all been invaded and we lacked a competitive response. We (US) have always been a high cost / high fare operator and we have never competed well. Look at all the markets that we have been run out of over the years. Why? Because we couldn't compete.

Operationally I think PIT will remain a connecting hub, just not for mainline. If you think about it, currently there are 107 mainline departures a day from PIT, but there are 250 express departures a day. What I envision the fall schedule to look like is a reduction to approx 75 mainline flights a day to markets in the west coast, Florida, PHL, CLT, BOS, LGA, DCA and maybe FRA and LGW. I think you will find service to DFW, IAH, RDU, ALB, BDL, PVD, ROC, BUF, RIC, RDU, BWI, MDT, MCI, EWR, IND and MHT converted to all express service. There may be less frequencies, but I think we will maintain service to nearly all of these stations. I think we have to. How many customers in BUF or ROC are going to want to fly all the way to PHL to get to the west coast or Florida? Also look at the make up of the PIT hub today. Where would all of the service to stations like GRR, FWA, EVV, SBN, TOL, FKL, HGR, ERI, CKB, PKB, ELM, ITH and the likes be diverted to? Would we just pull all of our service from these stations completely? There is no way PHL could handle the addition of service to all of these markets. So PIT will remain a connecting point, but the mainline service will be greatly reduced.

 

[Hope777]

I think Mark is right on with his observations. I would invision PIT looking very Similar to what DAY or EWR looked like at Merger with PI. The only problem with using just RJ's is obviously their Weight and Balance issues, they CAN NOT take much cargo. This is something Mainline MUST work out with the contract carriers, mainly TSA. Also another problem U has, is the in fact competes with itself. If a pax cannot get that low fair flying from the NE to FL thru PHL or CLT, they can get it thru PIT. Either way, the entire route system needs to be looked at and adjusted accordingly.