DENviaLAX

I reread the article and none of the quotes mention anything about packing more flights into smaller windows. All I saw was reference to "re-banking" and being "more efficient." I feel like the author put his own interpretation of what that means into the article.

But again, I don't know about ORD or IAH, and that very well may be the case for what they're doing. But its not at DEN. My example from earlier is essentially exactly what I was told, straight from the fish's mouth. They're aiming to reduce the super long connection times during the middle of the day, where it is currently extreme dead time. Not reduce connection times during the existing peaks.

1KPath

Well stated and my experience as well. The reality is that I (and my organization) no longer "trust" UA to take care of us in a manner that we can depend on (without a "fight")

UA-NYC

I thought only channa had 30 minute calls?

(joking, I have them all the time myself for fairly trivial issues...amazing)

channa

Perhaps a 40-minute call doesn't count as a 30-minute call, and I am the only person who has 30-minute calls. Everyone else must be over/under by a few minutes, making them technically not 30-minute calls.

minnyfly

Re-banking DEN and IAH would make a lot of sense. DEN is an ideal connecting hub, and re-banking would allow for better connection options, times, and a larger aircraft gauge. IAH is a similar story. ORD would offer the same advantages, but the challenge of squeezing more flights into a smaller time frame remains a question mark. I think it's worth a shot though.

mkr

If one will read the complete transcript of the 2nd Q earnings conference call, this concept of rebanking is explained a bit more, after questions were asked by analysts. UA plans to begin with DEN in the 4th Q, then IAH from the end of the year into 2015, then followed by ORD

Check post#15 above for the link to obtain the transcript.

Mike Jacoubowsky

Two comments on this-

• If the airlines are all "re-banking" to save $$$, and scheduling those "banks" for the timings their most-valuable customers require, isn't that going to overload peak-travel times at airports further than they already are?
  
  
• If the banking apples primarily to mainline and not UX, I think the effect on missed connections won't be so bad.

CO_Nonrev_elite

With the extremely high percentage (70%+) of flights in and out of DEN being express, I think it is unlikely to be mainline only or even mainly.

CO_Nonrev_elite

With the extremely high percentage (70%+) of flights in and out of DEN being express, I think it is unlikely to be mainline only or even mainly.

FWAAA

The airlines aren't re-banking the hubs to "save $$$," they're re-banking the hubs in the hopes of attracting higher yielding connecting fares (debatable whether that will actually happen). Re-banking the hubs will cost more money, not reduce costs. When AA went to unbanked "rolling hubs" a decade ago, the reasoning was to save money and reduce congestion (which also saves more money).

Funny thing though. When Drunken Parker and Scooter Kirby announced that they would re-bank the AA hubs of MIA, ORD and DFW, I could have sworn that they said that UA and DL were already operating banked hubs and that bankrupt AA was the outlier. The AA announcement was just days after the closing date of the merger and was one of an endless series of announcements of how the new management team would improve things at AA (after all, AA "went bankrupt" for a reason, goes the well-worn narrative). Parker admitted that it would be more costly but that higher-yielding connecting business travelers would more than make up the difference. Sure they will.

Just a month ago, Aviation Week was parroting the Parker/Kirby line that the competition already operated banked hubs:

http://awin.aviationweek.com/portals...06_20_2014.pdf

So I'm surprised to hear that UA doesn't already operated banked hubs.

In Chicago, re-banking by AA and UA promises to screw up what has become a more smooth, better experience than it was during the 1990s up to September, 2001, when congestion was extreme. But management promises that re-banking will attract higher-yields and will contribute to higher load factors, helping with profitability.

mkr

I would like to know from where all of a sudden all of these passengers will magically appear in all the UA hubs.

cerealmarketer

Your memory serves you correctly. They claimed UA and DL were already banked.

Welcome to HPdbaAA, which you are presciently aware of.

mkr

In the book The Global Airline Industry 2009, pages 165-167, the pros and cons of banking are discussed.

One can read excerpts from that book through this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BRt...20hubs&f=false

skidooman

I remember a few years ago in IAH... I guess Continental were "banking" their flights. And the result was a miserable wait list behind, what, 15-20 planes before takeoff.

So, have people run like hell in the terminal, get the flights off... and then allow a breather to passengers with longer "joy rides" on the taxiways.

DENviaLAX

That's the thing though, they do. At DEN there is a heavy morning bank and another decent sized one in the evening.

Looking at today's mainline schedule:
7 departures before 8 am
62 departures between 8 am and 1 pm
21 departures between 1 pm and 5 pm
39 departures between 5 pm and 9 pm
12 departures after 9 pm

11 am and 7 pm, in particular, are really heavy with 21 departures in each respective hour. Most of them being quick turns as well. Compare that to say the 7 am or 2 pm hours, where there are a total of 5 departures combined.

So the idea here isn't to move more flights to those existing heavy banks, but rather move more flights to the slow points in the schedule to make things a little more fluid. That way people who arrive around noon don't have to wait 5+ hours to connect onward. At least that was how it was explained to me.