US Airways Dividend Miles (Pre-FlightFund Merger) - Thanksgiving Woes for PHL

It's 2:30 Eastern on Wednesday and the FAA already says the following about PHL:

Due to WEATHER, LOW CIGS/VIS, departure traffic destined to Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA (PHL) is currently experiencing delays averaging 2 hours and 55 minutes.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
A 2:55 average delay + a work slowdown equals unhappy flying to/from Philly.
Ugh.

Please feel free to report horror stories here.

My friend was scheduled on the 5:45pm DCA-PHL because we are catching the FRA flight tonight together to go to Berlin. I called to switch him to the 4pm and they informed me the 5:45 had been cancelled. He just barely got on that flight as it only had 4 seats left.

Looks to be pretty messy.

Anyone that's going to be in philly tonight can feel free to email me umdude22@aol.com I will be hanging around the envoy club over in A-West.

I'd be happy to say hi

Chris

There's no work slow down. It's purely weather and traffic related.

The whole east coast is experiencing similar delays.

Due to WEATHER, LOW CEILINGS/VISIBILITY, departure traffic destined to Chicago OHare International Airport, Chicago, IL (ORD) is currently experiencing delays averaging 3 hours and 14 minutes.
Source: FAA.gov

If anyone gets stranded in Philly tonight, drop a line. I'm not leaving til tomorrow afternoon and can route you to dining/time killing options.

There's no work slow down. It's purely weather and traffic related.

The whole east coast is experiencing similar delays.


Tom is correct as usual.

I've talked with several people who have gone through PHL today. Ramp and all others are busting their humps today. It is the weather and ATC delays.

PIT was fine this afternoon....just flew home. No problem with congestion or weather.

I was listening to the radio. Atlanta is even worse. Ground stop of up to 90 minutes. I am not sure how it is now. This was at 3pm today. And we all know how Atlanta can get.

Everytime I try to fly to ATL the US Airways Capt. has come on. Sorry folks, ATL is holding us here and we are not sure when we are going to have a release time. That airport is running PHL in competition for sure.

T

PIT was fine this afternoon....just flew home. No problem with congestion or weather.

The irony is stunning.

Karen and I will be flying thru PHL early tomorrow. Hopefully, we will miss any mess. Travel on the holiday itself is usually less stressful. Coming back Sunday could be an adventure.

I'd hate miss sharing turkey with the in-laws and out-laws in FL.

The irony is stunning.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled "hub available" and moved to the DL forum?

Perhaps the thread should be retitled "hub available" and moved to the DL forum?

We would, but the thread has to connect in PHL. If we are lucky. it'll get moved sometime tomorrow :p .

The FAA traffic page has had PHL clear for quite some time now. EWR, ATL & ORD were yellow long past the time when PHL went green. EWR is still yellow...

To echo Tom, THERE WAS NO WORK SLOWDOWN.

Oh the sour grapes PIT crowd will crow and caw about their clearly superior facility. But lacks 2 things, People & a cost effective price structure.

The clearly inferior PHL facility is further tribute to the workforce employed there.

To echo Tom, THERE WAS NO WORK SLOWDOWN.

Oh the sour grapes PIT crowd will crow and caw about their clearly superior facility. But lacks 2 things, People & a cost effective price structure.

The clearly inferior PHL facility is further tribute to the workforce employed there.

Sorry to disagree but I think that the decision to make PHL the main hub rather than PIT will ultimately be a major factor in what I fear will eventually, and soon, be the disappearance of USAir. PHL is an operations nighmare, there is simply no way around that, and it wont change. The costs in PIT could have been addressed and the fewer people in PIT is not as serious a drawback as the operational impossibilities in PHL. This is the kind of decision that gets made by accountants looking at numbers without input from operations people who fly the airline and know what it is like.

One plane heading to PHL had to make an emegency landing:

US Airways jet makes emergency landing at Ford Airport

(Update, Cascade Township, November 24, 2004, 4:16 p.m.) A US Airways jet was forced to make an emergency landing Wednesday at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport in Cascade Township.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2610799

My sister flew BOS-PHL-TPA on US yesterday. Originally on a 4:30 BOS-PHL connecting to her 8:00 PHL-TPA. The 4:30 was cancelled. I called US and got her on the 5:30 BOS-PHL, which was the same plane that was to then head down to TPA at 8:00. The 5:30 was then delayed for 2 hours and they brought in new equipment for the 8:00 PHL-TPA. I saw this and called US again. Had her kept on the 8:00 in case it was delayed and had her protected on the 10:10 PHL-TPA. She ended up on the 10:10 and made it to TPA at about 1:00 am.

Each time I called, I was able to get someone on the phone in about a minute. The US folks that I spoke with on the phone could not have been nicer. They all went out of their way to search all of the available options and get my sister to TPA ASAP. They all agreed that this weather could not have come at a worse time for them, but they were well staffed and seemed to make the best out of a potentially awful situation.

Well done US.

The clearly inferior PHL facility is further tribute to the workforce employed there.

Yes, I am sure the PHL workforce combined with FFOCUS will save USAirways! Here comes the White Knight!

Sorry to disagree but I think that the decision to make PHL the main hub rather than PIT will ultimately be a major factor in what I fear will eventually, and soon, be the disappearance of USAir. PHL is an operations nighmare, there is simply no way around that, and it wont change. The costs in PIT could have been addressed and the fewer people in PIT is not as serious a drawback as the operational impossibilities in PHL. This is the kind of decision that gets made by accountants looking at numbers without input from operations people who fly the airline and know what it is like.

It certainly won't change if everyone tosses their hands up and says that it can't be done...

There are ways around the problems with PHL. What remains to be seen is if they have the willingness, the skill and in some cases the cash to execute them. Things have improved -- albeit far more slowly than they need to. It wasn't so many years ago that current traffic levels at PHL had far more serious consequences than they do now.

The real guarantee of success is to offer a product or service the competitor can't. In that way, as the airline industry begins to realize that, for example, Airbus makes a very different, and perhaps more up to date plane than Boeing, they start outselling their competitor. Likewise, USAirways had two choices. Emphasize the superiority of the PIT hub, and thus cater to the thousands of non hub customers who originate their travel in the populous eastern half of the country, or go for the easy money, by milking Philly, which was a much bigger market. The latter strategy apparently ignored the possibility that competitors would challenge their dominance at PHL. Thus, the salvation of the enterprise would be from very high yields in one location. Home runs, versus base hits. They were wrong. The best connecting facility in the country is in disuse, and they got Southwest and $29 Go Fares where those monopoly yields were supposed to be. The charitable view is they took a shot, and guessed wrong. Then again, one could also say there is a certain thread of consistency in the apparent thought process over there. The guys who think it's smart to screw their best customers, might also be tempted to try and extend that theory to other problem solving. Maybe even those planes to nowhere at PHL last night would have gone somewhere if they had gone via PIT. At this point, it really doesn't matter.

It certainly won't change if everyone tosses their hands up and says that it can't be done...

There are ways around the problems with PHL. What remains to be seen is if they have the willingness, the skill and in some cases the cash to execute them. Things have improved -- albeit far more slowly than they need to. It wasn't so many years ago that current traffic levels at PHL had far more serious consequences than they do now.

I cant argue with this. But I am very skeptical of their ability and willingness to fix it. I think it would have been easier to fix costs at PIT.

I am sure the PHL workforce combined with FFOCUS will save USAirways! .......

If I were you I would be begging whatever business school you went to for your money back....and fast.

Yes, I am sure the PHL workforce combined with FFOCUS will save USAirways! Here comes the White Knight!


On the other hand, how many carriers are beating down the door at PIT to offer new service or make it a hub?

You just don't have the population to support a hub. Deal with it.

On the other hand, how many carriers are beating down the door at PIT to offer new service or make it a hub?

You just don't have the population to support a hub. Deal with it.

I think this logic is badly flawed. No one is opening new hubs anywhere and no one is suggesting that US do so. What several of us are saying is that they made a poor choice on chosing which hub to deemphasize and which one to expand. And should I "Deal with it"? Really? Do I need to? Well, I guess I do in that I went from years at 100 plus segments per year to requalifying this year on a handful of mileage runs at double EQMs. And I have no plans at all to fly them next year. And I wont connect through PHL. There are a lot of carriers that will let me fly places without connecting through PHL. Giving them my money instead of US is about all I need to do to deal with it. US is on life support, they have a lot more that they have to deal with than I do, thanks.

FWIW the choice was made a long time ago. Recent events are just the culmination of a path that the Wolfman sent them down way back when...

To echo Tom, THERE WAS NO WORK SLOWDOWN.

Oh the sour grapes PIT crowd will crow and caw about their clearly superior facility. But lacks 2 things, People & a cost effective price structure.

The clearly inferior PHL facility is further tribute to the workforce employed there.

And it'll be the death of the airline.

PHL should never, ever, have been made the focus of the northern connecting traffic it is now. It will not work. Period. End of story. And now it's dead as an O&D cash cow. Whoops.

US might have had a shot to fix the cost structure in PIT, had they actually asked before the 11th hour of Chapter 11. We'll never know.

That said, do you wonder why DL has made CVG work or CO has made CLE work with less people? Here is a hint for those who have stars in their eyes when talking to the geniuses from CCY: it's the strategy perpetuated by the whiz kids at CCY and the horrid lack of operational acumen that buried the hub at PIT. In the post-US world after the ACAA starts to see slot money, it's per pax cost will drop well below PHL. If it had the 400+ flights it had in 2000, it'd be under $5 at that point. Something to think about.

And while Tom and I actually agree that there are things that can be done to ease some of the pain at PHL if CCY had a clue, they cannot change the fact that the arrival rate drops to well under 90 flights/hour (often down to 60). PIT's drops below 100 if the apocalypse comes early.

US must know this. Despite being a "focus city," the banks at PIT, last I was there, sure look and act like a traditional hub.

And it'll be the death of the airline.

PHL should never, ever, have been made the focus of the northern connecting traffic it is now. It will not work. Period. End of story. And now it's dead as an O&D cash cow.........That said, do you wonder why DL has made CVG work or CO has made CLE work with less people?

I might be one of the few who believe PHL is a good choice for building up operations there. The population in the PHL metro area is huge. Probably 3 or 4 times that of the PIT metro area. O&D is key.

DL and CO have reduced their CVG and CLE hubs to RJ centers, too. If you compare them to what they were 10 years ago, there are far fewer mainline/large aircraft and therefore, fewer people. At the sametime CO beefed up EWR and DL beefed up ATL *AND* JFK. Those are all in very large metro areas that will support O&D. How is what U doing significantly different?

I think we all agree that there's no way that PIT could support the Caribbean and European operation that has developed at PHL over the last 5 years. These are two of the largest revenue generators and I believe that without that expansion, U would be as dead as a doornail by now. On the flip side, though, they need to feed routes into PHL, and that's where things sometimes go bad.

If U survives, this may not be a problem in a few more years. The FAA is well aware of the problem PHL has being sandwiched in between WAS and NYC and solutions are being developed. But, as with anything that has the FAA stamp on it, this will be a slow transition.

And, as a larger initiative, separation minimums are also about to go from 2000 to 1000 feet for enroute traffic (flight level 290 to 410), which will help the ATC system nationwide (see http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm1.htm)

Stepping planes up/down into terminal areas will become more efficient. Route options will expand since you can use every incremental flight level instead of every 3.

Previously if plane A was flying at 33000 feet Eastbound, a plane flying Westbound on the same airway had to be at 30000 or 36000. That left flight levels 310, 320, 340 and 350 unused for that airway. If it's a busy airway, you can see how planes can stack up on the ground waiting for a 'slot' in the sky. Not only will this help PHL, but it will lift a huge burden everywhere.

Don't be too surprised to look out your window while cruising along at 33000 feet and see a 757 pass over or under you in relatively clear view.

It always surprises me that people don't understand US' cost structure at PIT prior to their rejection of the contract there.

You always read US saying that their cost at PIT is/was $X/pax. In reality, the total cost (in general) there was one number shared by all the airlines divided up (generally again) based on number of pax boarded. In reality, this was a very good deal for US as long as they maintained or increased traffic. If US had chosen PIT over PHL for their northern hub, then the cost/pax their would have declined dramatically. Instead, they went in the other direction and the cost/pax skyrocketed.

I might be one of the few who believe PHL is a good choice for building up operations there. The population in the PHL metro area is huge. Probably 3 or 4 times that of the PIT metro area. O&D is key.

DL and CO have reduced their CVG and CLE hubs to RJ centers, too. If you compare them to what they were 10 years ago, there are far fewer mainline/large aircraft and therefore, fewer people. At the sametime CO beefed up EWR and DL beefed up ATL *AND* JFK. Those are all in very large metro areas that will support O&D. How is what U doing significantly different?

I think we all agree that there's no way that PIT could support the Caribbean and European operation that has developed at PHL over the last 5 years. These are two of the largest revenue generators and I believe that without that expansion, U would be as dead as a doornail by now. On the flip side, though, they need to feed routes into PHL, and that's where things sometimes go bad.

If U survives, this may not be a problem in a few more years. The FAA is well aware of the problem PHL has being sandwiched in between WAS and NYC and solutions are being developed. But, as with anything that has the FAA stamp on it, this will be a slow transition.

And, as a larger initiative, separation minimums are also about to go from 2000 to 1000 feet for enroute traffic (flight level 290 to 410), which will help the ATC system nationwide (see http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm1.htm)

Stepping planes up/down into terminal areas will become more efficient. Route options will expand since you can use every incremental flight level instead of every 3.

Previously if plane A was flying at 33000 feet Eastbound, a plane flying Westbound on the same airway had to be at 30000 or 36000. That left flight levels 310, 320, 340 and 350 unused for that airway. If it's a busy airway, you can see how planes can stack up on the ground waiting for a 'slot' in the sky. Not only will this help PHL, but it will lift a huge burden everywhere.

Don't be too surprised to look out your window while cruising along at 33000 feet and see a 757 pass over or under you in relatively clear view.

Well, it is useful to see other peoples opinions but I respectfully disagree. I dont agree that about the Europe and Caribbean traffic. That is mostly connecting traffic on US and having it in a place with bad operations makes it much less attractive to customers. Just look at all the threads here about missed flights etc. connecting in PHL. They could have run the Caribbean connections out of CLT and they would have been much better off from an operations standpoint. While the FAA may fix PHL partially or completely it wont be quick enough for US. I think deelmaker described exactly what US was thinking and what happened when it backfired on them. I remember before SWA came to PHL trying to book LGA-LAX on US and it was connecting through PHL. They wanted $2200 and for the same departure times on AA 3 class service on a nonstop it was $300. Why? Raping PHL people. Now it is more like $300 or $400 and that doesnt fit into U's financial plans so they are toast.

I might be one of the few who believe PHL is a good choice for building up operations there. The population in the PHL metro area is huge. Probably 3 or 4 times that of the PIT metro area. O&D is key.

And if PHL were strictly an O&D operation, I'd agree with you. It's not, and won't be moving forward.

Stepping planes up/down into terminal areas will become more efficient. Route options will expand since you can use every incremental flight level instead of every 3.

This won't change the runway configuration and layout at PHL. Nor does it change the fact that a whole slew of regional operators and some mainline pilots cannot accept PRM approaches even if they wanted to. Getting into the terminal area assumes a large stretch of concrete to land on, far enough away from any other large stretches of concrete being landed on. PHL does not have enough (PIT, OTOH, can take simultaneous Cat III ops all day long).

PHL is an awful place for a hub. Forget traffic, nearby airports, weather, attitude...it starts with the fact that you can barely walk down the B or C concourses, which are choked with people, electric carts, and concession stands, which soak up more of the badly needed room. Bodies spill out of the tiny gate areas, some of them with two jetways. It's a case of head in the sand thinking that no one would come in with lower fares, and the usual tendency to go for the quick fix. This airline is a hub and spoke business. That's why the DM program has been more generous. A lot of it's traffic has other choices. They chose to ignore that, and tried to be like AA in Dallas. Lots of people, with few choices, paying big money. Only to do that, you need a network like American, and a balance sheet that says if you screw with me I'll push back. There's a reason why Southwest stays over at Love Field. They moan about the limitations the Wright Ammendment places on them, but all they have ever had to do was move a few miles to DFW. You cannot effectively run a business you fundamentally don't understand. I have always said I don't believe the big guys at US fly their own line. If they did, they would do many things differently.

They could have run the Caribbean connections out of CLT and they would have been much better off from an operations standpoint.

Maybe operationally, but certainly not from a revenue standpoint. I don't have the DOT reports in front of me, although I'm sure someone here can whip them up pretty fast, but I would think that more of the Carib. traffic from PHL is O&D than connections. A lot of them leave pretty early in the morning, leaving a handful of options for inbound connections. That means that most of the connections are from the N/NE of PHL. Notice how US has started beefing up some of the larger cities like BOS and LGA with their own nonstops to alleviate this connection problem.

I don't think CLT is a good choice because it, like PIT, would lack the O&D traffic for those flights.

Implementing FLL as another mini-hub, on the other hand, will also allow US to send connections further South, as well as capitalize on the large O&D market there. I have to say that this is probably one of the most forward looking management teams, given what they inherited from the previous mis-managers.

Bringing up Caribbean routes, and where to fly them from, begs a bigger question. Are they making, or losing money? Sending one flight a day, on a long, thin route, with razor thin yields, is a dicy business. In some instances, they are turning the crews, which requires a third pilot for the whole trip. I wasn't very good at math in school, but that seems to look like a 50% increase in pilot cost. It's those average seat costs which have continued to kill them. Then, of course, there's handling, and some revenue share with Caribbean Star.In a case of Philly redux, where nobody seems to have thought about what the competitors would do, do we think AA will let them build up a Caribbean presence in their backyard at FLL? The ongoing saga of this company always seems to center on what, in hindsight, appears to be failure to adequately assess risk (and by extension, failure to develop operations which cannot be duplicated easily, like the best hub in North America). If I'm going from Albany or Montreal to Barbados, and the travel time is the same, what do I care about where I connect, other than it wasn't stressful.

Maybe operationally, but certainly not from a revenue standpoint. I don't have the DOT reports in front of me, although I'm sure someone here can whip them up pretty fast, but I would think that more of the Carib. traffic from PHL is O&D than connections. A lot of them leave pretty early in the morning, leaving a handful of options for inbound connections. That means that most of the connections are from the N/NE of PHL. Notice how US has started beefing up some of the larger cities like BOS and LGA with their own nonstops to alleviate this connection problem.

I don't think CLT is a good choice because it, like PIT, would lack the O&D traffic for those flights.

Implementing FLL as another mini-hub, on the other hand, will also allow US to send connections further South, as well as capitalize on the large O&D market there. I have to say that this is probably one of the most forward looking management teams, given what they inherited from the previous mis-managers.


If more of the PHL-Caribbean traffic is from PHL than from everywheree else combined they are in worse trouble than I thought. It would mean that more people like me have figured out that if they have the opportunity to connect in PHL they should fly another carrier. US isnt a PHL-Caribbean airline, those are most of its Caribbean flights from the US. Even in NY, you usually have to connect in PHL to go to the Caribbean. People will soon tire of it. It would be a lot better to fly AA to Miami and connect there to AA. As bad as AAs balance sheet is and as bad as their Miami operations are, PHL and the US balance sheet are worse. Add to that AAs network and they will eat US alive in Florida if US tries to expand there. Facts are that most traffic through a hub is connecting and while the local O&D traffic is good, it doesnt make up for really bad operations that make a poor customer experience for most of your customers, who are the connecting ones. I fly a LOT. I know there are people here who fly more but I will do a couple hundred thousand miles this year and I used to do more. And PHL is the WORST airport I have ever flown through on average. It may be great for the O&D business that they moved the hub to PHL but it is bad for their business from everywhere else. And all it takes to ruin the O&D business is for an LCC to come in which is what happened. If they had stayed in PHL it is unlikely SWA would have come there since it is a smaller market. So US would have better operations and would still be able to rape people in PIT. And while there arent as many in PIT as PHL, they might make more money raping people in PIT than getting it themselves in PHL at the hands of SWA. They can have O&D traffic out the wazoo at PHL but at $29 a ticket all they are doing is slitting their own wrists.

Bringing up Caribbean routes, and where to fly them from, begs a bigger question. Are they making, or losing money? Sending one flight a day, on a long, thin route, with razor thin yields, is a dicy business. In some instances, they are turning the crews, which requires a third pilot for the whole trip. I wasn't very good at math in school, but that seems to look like a 50% increase in pilot cost. It's those average seat costs which have continued to kill them. Then, of course, there's handling, and some revenue share with Caribbean Star.In a case of Philly redux, where nobody seems to have thought about what the competitors would do, do we think AA will let them build up a Caribbean presence in their backyard at FLL? The ongoing saga of this company always seems to center on what, in hindsight, appears to be failure to adequately assess risk (and by extension, failure to develop operations which cannot be duplicated easily, like the best hub in North America). If I'm going from Albany or Montreal to Barbados, and the travel time is the same, what do I care about where I connect, other than it wasn't stressful.

You forgot NY to Barbados. I had to go through PHL one time to get from Bangor to NY. And the flight from PHL to LGA was in the middle seat on the back row of a Dash 8 that was late and filled with fuel fumes. And I paid like $700 for such joy. They really have to be kidding if they think people will put up with that for long. My wife and I flew once on US from CDG-PHL-LGA. The Envoy flight from Paris was great but was late, then 45 minutes in line for immigration, no one to help us with was by then a very late connection on how to get to our gate. Fortunately I knew enough to bypass the recheck in for security line, which was huge, run outside to the other terminal and got back in through security there. And even then no carts or anything to help all of the people on really tight connections. Basically an hour plus of total panic. My wife told me in no uncertain terms that she would never fly to Europe through PHL again. I throw out my companion upgrades the last two years since she wont fly US to Europe. I flew once a week LGA-PIT-STL on US a few years ago. Since most of what I have to get to STL now is either LGA-PHL-STL or LGA-CLT-STL I fly on AA now. To connect in PHL, even if I wanted to, I would have to leave several hours earlier because I have to allow at least 90 minutes and better 2 hours connecting time to feel comfortable. CLT doesnt require that but is longer flying time. In either case the hassle versus loyalty to US equation flipped so I wont fly US on that route anymore. It isnt worth it to stick to their program.

[COLOR=DarkRed]Nor does it change the fact that a whole slew of regional operators and some mainline pilots cannot accept PRM approaches even if they wanted to.[/COLO

And why is this? The requirements to conduct a PRM approach is (1) to view a video and complete a briefing sheet and (2) the a/c must have dual comm capabilities in order to monitor the backuip PRM frequency.

It's not that they can't accept the approach, it's that they won't.

[COLOR=DarkRed]Nor does it change the fact that a whole slew of regional operators and some mainline pilots cannot accept PRM approaches even if they wanted to.[/COLO

And why is this? The requirements to conduct a PRM approach is (1) to view a video and complete a briefing sheet and (2) the a/c must have dual comm capabilities in order to monitor the backup PRM frequency.

It's not that they can't accept the approach, it's that they won't.

Nor does it change the fact that a whole slew of regional operators and some mainline pilots cannot accept PRM approaches even if they wanted to.

And why is this? The requirements to conduct a PRM approach is (1) to view a video and complete a briefing sheet and (2) the a/c must have dual comm capabilities in order to monitor the backup PRM frequency.

It's not that they can't accept the approach, it's that they won't.

Because there are people in the world whose operations don't revolve around either MSP or PHL (and anywhere else that might actually have PRM approaches) and thus have not bothered getting the briefing.

That is my point exactly - in your earlier post, you stated that they couldn't accept an approach even if they wanted - the fact is that they won't. The amount of crews that decline a PRM approach is minimal and really doesn't have any impact on the delays at PHL. As far as I know, almost all Part 121/135 carriers have incorporated PRM approaches into their Op Specs as well as a number of Part 129's. The problem is that the new 8/26 RW at PHL is too short and allows for landing and departures in one direction only. PHL will always use the 9/27 parallels as their primaries.

By the way, if a crew is scheduled to fly into an airport that may be conducting PRM approaches, they must file in their flight plan if they will accept the PRM approach. If not, they are assigned a pre-coordinated arrival slot. If they show up and decline the approach, the a/c may be diverted to their alternate airport, per the latest FAA Advisory Circular on conducting PRM approaches.

Also, in addition to PHL and MSP, Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches are in use at SFO, with CLE coming on board early next year and ATL in 2006.