Originally Posted by
nall
I absolutely agree that CLT is not going anywhere. CLT, MIA, and DFW are extremely valuable fortress hubs.
That said, I disagree about its infrastructure. I book a lot of people into and out of the southeast, typically connecting between regional and mainline, and for that, CLT is by far the LEAST favorite airport. At least with big airports like DFW, you have a tram that can rapidly get you from one side of the airport to the other.
Walking from the end of CLT E to mainline on B really isn't that bad at all. 10 minutes, 15 if you're not walking too fast or aren't using the moving walkways.
If you want to talk about a bad connection from regional to mainline, PHL is my least favorite of the US hubs. There's no airside walk from F to anywhere else, and all CRJs land in F. My only "trick" here has been to make sure I'm on an ERJ of some sort so that I land in B/C. There's a shuttle bus, but who wants to ride that?
Anyway, having talked with a lot of people in the industry (including a former exec, although this was before the DCA divertisure announcements), here are my thoughts on hubs.
Safe:
DFW/CLT/MIA - These hubs are absolutely safe, and will likely see growth. They may lose some routes to other hubs as rationalization happens, but they'll remain the crown jewels.
ORD - This is the only real midwest hub, and again, may lose some routes, but will remain a hub.
LAX - Unfortunately, this is a hard one to grow, but it's such a valuable premium market and so much INTL connecting traffic is done here. All those partners will not move to PHX, so this operation will remain.
Goodbye:
PHX - Sandwiched between DFW and LAX which aren't going anywhere? Will become a small focus city, at best.
Too close to call:
DCA/LGA/JFK/PHL - One of the NY hubs will absolutely remain for INTL connecting traffic, but at least one hub is going to close here.
I think you're starting from the perspective that the world's largest airline can't support 8 hubs. None HAVE to go. From your list, you're basically saying the pmUS hubs are unimportant, so I'll guess you don't travel the mid-atlantic or the northeast. It does, however, make more sense to concentrate LAX and NYC on O&D and INTL. That leaves a lot of room for PHX to serve regional traffic out west (and its own O&D, which is significant). As for DCA, no way that's too close to call - that's an important city to any airline and the only way it shrinks is if the new AA needs cash. PHL is already a fortress - even if you want to move its INTL traffic to NYC, there's still way too much O&D and connecting traffic to shift anywhere else.
If anything shrinks, it's rationalizing LGA/JFK - concentrate on O&D and INTL, and leave the domestic east to PHL/CLT. In addition, focus regional traffic at PHX and move INTL to LAX/DFW.
I see a lot of shifting of traffic, but I honestly don't think any of the current 8 gets de-hubbed. The way I see it, de-hubbing any of the current "at risk" hubs from your list requires shifting significant traffic to airports that can't support it. You can't shift PHL's hub ops anywhere else in the Northeast unless you want to rebuild BOS (and geographically, PHL is a better bet). PHX can't go to LAX for lack of space, and shifting it all to DFW makes for some long connections. DCA has a huge geographic advantage and a very captive market - shifting that anywhere else means losing your business to whoever takes over at DCA. I could see shrinking LGA or JFK to focus on INTL and O&D, but that other traffic has to go to PHL.