Originally Posted by
AAExPlat
You are missing the point here...this has nothing to do with the size of the catchment area, but everything to do with the average yields of the catchment area. And whether you like it or not, yields at PHX are lower than at any of the other AA and US hubs (and lower than DL hubs), so routes originating PHX are most likely to get the axe first.
Don't hate the player...hate the game.
+1. Not too many people here are stating "PHX will be completely dismantled".
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
Rationalizing the network post-merger (which is pretty obvious) is not the same as "eliminate a hub ala LAS or PIT". If AA can't serve a city of 4.5 million people with a functional hub based on O/D traffic+logical hub service, WN, B6 or VX will be happy to jump in (WN in a sense already has, go look at their route network out of PHX- nonstops to MSP, SEA, BOI, SLC, SJC, OAK, SAN, HOU, DEN, SAT, LAX, and so on). Or maybe 4.5 million people will all drive 6 hours to LAX to fly on an airplane?
We are talking about the NewAA@PHX. Not B6 or anyother carrier "stepping in".
PHX for its "catchement size" can't even get more than 1 European carrier-what a "strong" O&D market that is.
Originally Posted by
AAExPlat
I am not sure what the difference between "rationalizing a network" and "eliminating a hub" is...same thing, just different description. And the end result in this case will certainly be what you proposed...namely that the LCCs will pick up all the traffic on the routes AA abandons.
Which as happened with AA before. BOS and SJU come to mind.
Originally Posted by
hillrider
Agree, but it doesn't change the economics of hubbing, which is all about lowering unit costs (bigger planes vs. smaller ones) while increasing the number origin & destinations served (a geometric function).
The latter one is driven by the hub's capacity in flights/hour and efficiencies (see DXB before the local boom), while the former is driven by the size of the local market: serving a hubbing operation with 100 connecting people + 150 local (total 250 passengers, 60% local traffic) will always be far cheaper than serving it with 100 connecting people + 33 local (total 133 passengers, 25% local traffic).
Incidentally, Europe, which has a bigger population and GDP than the US, is down to 6 hubs (LHR, FRA, CDG plus MAD, AMS, MUC) and a smattering of really tiny hubs in name only that exist mostly because of politics (DUB, ARN, VIE, FCO, BRU, ZRH, HEL etc.). That's across all airlines.
+1