Originally Posted by
nall
First, DFW, MIA, and CLT - these are the "crown jewels" of their respective airlines. Lots of traffic, AA/US dominate there, they're not close to other hubs, big lucrative markets, .etc. They may lose or gain some routes, but they're very "safe."
Originally Posted by
nall
That I don't think anyone knows for sure, possibly even AA/US management. In the short term, you'll see some *A heavily routes (e.g., CLT-FRA) dropped but you may get some new traffic from OW partner airlines or on AA/US to partner hubs.
Great analysis, nall. Agreed that DFW is not going to be touched. It is a fantastic hub and a fantastic fortress.
I think MIA and CLT are both important in a merged entity, but I think each of them is doing some things today that the other would do better. AA is connecting a lot of domestic traffic at MIA that would be cheaper and more directly served at CLT. Likewise, CLT really has very little justification as an international gateway with MIA in the mix.
I would speculate that MIA will lose domestic flights to smaller Southern cities outside of FL, and see many of its existing domestic flights move to smaller planes or lower frequencies -- with the exception of strong O&D routes. I'd expect international traffic to move from CLT to MIA, particularly non-leisure Caribbean flights.
I suspect TATL traffic would be limited to LHR and MAD.
Originally Posted by
nall
Second, ORD - this is the only hub AA/US would have in the midwest. It's relatively safe.
I think the question here is how much they need it. If you think about it, there's relatively little traffic that can only be served via ORD once PHL and CLT are in the mix. It would basically only be intra-Midwest traffic. AA has cut back on ORD quite a bit already, putting them in a distant third in CHI as compared with UA and WN. I think it could end up as something closer in scale to what DCA looks like today, but I don't think they'll walk away.
Originally Posted by
nall
Third, PHX/LAX and DCA/PHL/JFK/LGA - These hubs are relatively close together, largely serve the same markets and there's a lot of overlap. Probably 2 or 3 of these will be shuttered, although there's a lot of disagreement as to which.
These are the sticky wickets, aren't they? In a vacuum, it'd seem to make sense to shutter PHX and keep LAX, but there's no room at LAX for all the traffic. T4 is at the breaking point (though they'll get some new gates in the TBIT expansion), and a lot of the flights that enable them to have a hub at LAX go out of the Eagle satellite. My suspicion is that a lot of E175s and CR7/CR9s will be at that satellite pretty quickly.
DCA, I think, is safe exactly as it is (that is, as US uses it -- I suspect AA's slots will disappear). It's close to PHL today, and PHL is nowhere near at capacity -- they're not being forced to use it. And US has been pretty clear that their margins at DCA are fantastic. I would put it in the "crown jewel" category.
Originally Posted by
nall
They're certainly not going to wholly abandon PHL, but flights that are now non-stops could require a short connection.
I don't know specifically which hub will get the axe, but the reality is that JFK/LGA/DCA/PHX and LAX/PHX have significant overlap, and the combined carrier will almost certainly seek consolidation. Maybe not on day 1, but soon.
Re: the northeast, no single airport can adequately serve as a hub, but four is almost certainly too many. Can three hubs serve the same network adequately? The answer is probably yes.
I don't see what the combined carrier gains by connecting traffic at JFK. In fact, I think the idea of trying to build a hub at JFK is a terrible one, and one of the reasons AA is in the situation they're in today. The airport is slot-restricted, so there's not a whole lot of room for expansion -- certainly not enough to take on the traffic from PHL. Plus it's hard to get to for New Yorkers. The combined airline will have a huge wealth of slots at LGA, but no good terminal space to make use of them, though LGA is working on an overhaul of the CTB.
As much as we hate it, PHL is actually a pretty good hub strategically; it's a good O&D market, a reasonably priced facility, and far enough out of NYC to be slightly less delay prone than JFK or EWR.
I see PHL staying a hub, DCA remaining a large focus city as it is today, and JFK and LGA ending up as similar focus cities primarily focused on O&D traffic on "right-sized" planes.
Originally Posted by
FWAAA
I disagree that the key cities/hubs in the east are in any real danger, as this merger isn't motivated by a desire to trim capacity - rather, it's driven by a desire to get bigger, as everyone seems convinced that bigger is th only way to succeed.
Both US and AA have trimmed a lot of capacity already, of course. In a sense, the post-merger cutting has already happened.