Southwest vs Us Question #2

trvlr64

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
725
10
FLL
www.usaviation.com
I'm a US1 that lives in PIT, so for me the HUB system doesn't have too much effect on me at times. I do love that I can get a direct flight to most every place I fly (well, sometimes)

What I have noticed over the years and again in TPA recently is that USAirways has 2 flights that leave within 5 mintues of each other for PIT. I heard these flights are full, but what is the logic to this. It used to be the same at LGA a year or so ago. I could get the 3pm flight and there was a 3:15pm if the 3pm was oversold. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread these flights out say an hour between each other? I would love to see USAirways do what American has done at ORD. We endure long "early" wait times before we fly now, so what would be different if us passengers had an hour or more between connections? I have a flight to TLH via MCO in 2 weeks that has a 20 minute connection time. I can only hope that we leave PIT on time and don't circle MCO waiting to land or I will miss my connection.
 
Is the traditional hub system broken? Can US survive with these massive banks into and out of PHL/CLT/PIT where delays are enevitable?
Is the AA vision of a rolling hub a better play (planes come and go on a constant basis to spread then throught the day instead of a concentration of 50 planes in an hour and nothing the next hour)? (My personal opinion is YES!)
Should the hubs be used for cities that on their own can''t produce enough passengers to any single destination? The larger cities that can produce enough passnegers to a single destination, should they get less hub service and more point to point? We all know passengers hate hub flying to begin with.
Imagine this. CLT for Florida and Island hoping, Pit for Coast to Coast, and PHL for International? We all know that feeder flights must come and go to fill the Coast to coast, Intl, FLA, etc flights, But do we need to funnel everyone through a hub all the time??
Food for thought.
 
Oliver,

I personally think that the banking hubs for PIT and CLT are a necessity due to the low O & D markets there. Add to that the lack of congestion at both of these airports and banking hubs do make more sense. Dave in his roadshows eluded to changes in how PIT and CLT would operate. Currently CLT is a directional hub running primarily North-South. CLT will transition to a more omni-directional hub, meaning flights will come in from all different directions and then go back. PIT on the other hand, is currently an omni-directional hub and will be transitioned to a more East-West flowing hub.

PHL presents a whole different operational challenge. With the stronger O & D market PHL is a better candidate for the rolling hub concept. Add to that the operational challenges (better known as the Philly effect) and de-peaking the PHL hub seems to make great sense to me. By de-peaking the hub you have a more constant and continual flow of traffic in and out of the hub, so it isn't that mad dash to the runway to sit and wait. You would get better gate utilization, reduce fuel costs, increase employee productivity and increase aircraft utilization. All of that and you would (hopefully) reduce the ATC issues we have in PHL. The down side of that is you could increase customer connection times because of de-peaking the banks. In Dave's roadshow he said they still weren't quite sure what to do with PHL yet. He mentioned possibly banking flights in the morning and doing the rolling hub in the afternoon.
 
trvlr -

The flights are at a peak time and there is a strong demand for service at that time of day. The problem is that there is not a large aircraft available at that time to cover the demand. So the answer is to offer "wingtip" service at peak times. So at 1500 in PIT there is a peak demand for service to LGA and we offer a 733 and a 734 within 15 minutes for a total of 270 seats, versus using a 757 with only 182 seats. That is an additional 88 seats.
 
One of the things that I like about US vs CO, for example, is that the connection times in the hubs are longer (At least they seem that way...) I rarely have time to stop at the President's Club at EWR whereas I can usually spend at least a little bit of time in the USAirways Club at PHL. I've got nothing against spending 90 minutes or maybe even 2 hours between flights in PHL -- especially if it means that "the Philly effect" becomes less severe.

The 3 hours that my family got to spend in PIT on their way to PHX a few months ago were, however, somewhat excessive... I still can't figure out how I missed that when I booked the flights. [:((]
 
I agree with Tom--with the exception of PHL. Next month, I'm eating a 2.25 hour layover in CLT enroute to SFO instead of trying a 40 minute connection in PHL. After all, I want to get to SFO [:p]
 
If I understand the sentiment so far- Hubs can work, but need some re-tooling and most think PHL is badly broken. That being said- NO ONE is pointing a finger at the folks working in PHL. I suspect those very folks might have a good idea or two worth listening to.

I for one believe we need to de-peak our hubs to some extent and return to more point to point flying. By following the AA approach, we may just get a few extra planes out of the deal for free!

As for PHL, the weather is unchangable as is the topography of the area. Vexing weather at times in PHL, similar to the brown cloud hanging over Denver proper. It is my opinion that a possible solution to PHL's problem is to spread out as much as possible all flights to and from PHL. Having a 30-40 minute connection in a hub like PHL is a problem waiting to land given the ATC/Weather problems inherent in the region, not just PHL. It makes little sense to book International connections on a flight that has such a short connecting time - only to be late from PHL and late back to PHL. It is a good weather day, BUT there is a line up of 50 airplanes trying to take off. Let's not forget the next bank arriving as those 50 planes are leaving too.

Missed international connections are horribly expensive for US in terms of dollars lost in revenue and expense of re-routing the passengers to other carrier's flights. Does anyone know how much "Ill Will" Costs US?

I do not believe building extra time into schedules is the only answer. De-peaking PHLmay be the right move.

Thanks for the responses. question # 3 is soon to arrive.

[;)]
 
PHL is probably the only of the three hubs that US could de-peak. De-peaking the hub requires a really healthly amount of O&D traffic, which is why AA could pull it off at ORD (and will probably be able to pull it off at DFW).

I don't see it happening at PIT or CLT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing the finger at PHL employees (most of them, anyway). The very first problem that hub has is the lack of runways and the ATC nightmare that occurs when a drop of water falls on the Woodstown VORTAC.
 
The assumption one needs strong O&D in order for depeaking to work is probably going to turn out to be more myth than truth. I don't think too many people are focusing on how long their sit time is, just so long as it leaves when they're ready to leave, or arrives before they want to arrive.

But that's just my opinion.