agehall

Which flight are we actually talking about here? US2042?

Fanjet

I think people are looking way too much into this. This flight left CLT in the late evening. And returned to CLT after midnight. This aircraft would have otherwise been sitting on the ground overnight at CLT. This was just making better use of that aircraft during a high demand period. That's all.

ElmhurstNick

Also, this summer they couldn't do as much cross-fleeting. Next summer, one would think that they'd be able to use the equipment more efficiently, so that would explain why nobody would want to commit to the seasonal flight returning next summer.

I do think that once greater cross-fleeting can occur, it would make sense for them to target a small portion of the fleet to serve increased capacity locations during huge conferences and festivals. Austin during SXSW, etc. Just like they do for the Super Bowl.

Often1

With the SOC in October, there's little reason for an AA flight to another hub when DFW can handle both the East Coast and TATL connections. It's also bad news for CLT as it's going to be harder and harder to justify a hub there.

This was an aircraft utilization which barely touched availability and the frequency still couldn't make it.

Memo21

Where are you going to connect to in the Southeast via CLT, that you can't via AA's mega DFW hub, other than maybe places like Lynchburg, VA.....Florence, SC......Jacksonville, NC.....etc. AA is not going to overfly their mega hub, with a flight that offers only a few additional options to small Southeast places served by Dash-8's and CRJ200's.

minnz21

We are talking AA1732

minnz21

The timing of it to me was key. You take the red eye to CLT and can get to any of those SE or Caribbean destinations in the late morning still. Going through DFW means nothing until afternoon landing wise now.

Fanjet

I don't think Republic does overnight flying for any of their carrier airlines. But this route is well within the range of an E175. Perhaps it will come back in that form. I do agree, the post 12am depature gave flyers options that are not avaible via DFW or PHX. Although you can still do some overnight flights via PHX from ABQ; but that adds a lot of time to the journey.

formeraa

I hear this type of logic frequently. CLT has 600+ flights per day which are 80%+ full and presumably profitable. Somehow, the new AA is just going to dump all those passengers on DFW or other hubs. I don't think so. There is no way to efficiently double the size of the operation at DFW. Thus, CLT will remain a strong domestic hub for the new AA.

As for ABQ-CLT, it will come back during peak times IF demand was strong enough. If not, it won't reappear.

mjnewser

Longtime lurker here, finally posting. As an east-coaster who can't remember how many times I've done DCA/BWI (depends on fare)-DFW/ORD-ABQ, a CLT connection would be much more welcome in the May/June/Holiday time I get out there. I never really understood how few east coast flights there are to ABQ. I remember when UAL ditched its nonstop from IAD. ABQ may be smaller market, but it's a huge federal city. With as many, if not more non-stops fro CLT-DCA/BWI/IAD, it just seemed like a logical flight to keep around, especially as a redeye. Technically that can allow workers to have complete days in ABQ, take the late flight, and get back to work in DC the next day (even if it is a half day telecommuting).

As for the CLT hub comment, don't be so sure about that, AA has a history of dissolving merger hubs. STL was deemed "safe" when TWA was absorbed, but just a few years later, everything was fit into ORD & DFW. Over time, I think it's very realistic that AA would think PHL, JFK, DCA & MIA can handle domestic ops for the east coast.

PHL

Welcome to FT or, at least, congrats on your first post

PHL, JFK, DCA and MIA are strong O&D points while CLT is heavily weighted towards connecting traffic. CLT doesn't really handle the East Coast traffic so much as it funnels traffic from all directions.

CLT handles a very large share of traffic in the combined network, and it's a larger hub than STL ever was. At it's peak in the early-2000's STL was handling about 25M passengers. CLT was handling that number a few years later and is now around 45M, with most of them being AA/US flights. To downsize CLT would mean downsizing the airline and it's capacity.

The location of CLT is very convenient for the SE destinations for the entire Northeast USA, down through the Midatlantic states and out to the Midwest states. One reason ATL has thrived so well is that DL has used it as a connecting airport so well.

formeraa

Let's see. What major external event happened while AA was merging with TW? Oh, that's right, it was 9/11. Airline demand decreased dramatically after 9/11. That is what led AA to close STL. If 9/11 hadn't happened, it is very possible that STL would still be a hub for AA today. It took most of the decade for fares adn demand to recover from 9/11.

As for ABQ-CLT, it will return if demand warrants.

dtremit

CLT has a few notable advantages: it's located perfectly for traffic in the Southeast, it's located perfectly for traffic going to and from Florida and the Caribbean, and it's *cheap*. Connecting a passenger in CLT costs a lot less than connecting one in DFW -- or in ATL, for that matter.

AA is already starting to phase out a lot of pmUS connections through CLT that make more sense through DFW or ORD. For instance, it was fairly common for US to offer a northeast-west coast routing through CLT; I'm seeing fewer of those come up in my searches.

That said, I expect they will do the same for DFW/ORD/MIA traffic in many cases. There is very little reason to fly people to vacation cities in Florida through expensive hubs in MIA or DFW when that traffic can go through CLT faster and cheaper.

I won't be shocked if CLT ends up smaller than it is today, but I think it's going to be an important airport for quite a while.

The management that made those decisions is not in charge anymore; I don't think there's any reason to expect consistency.