Originally Posted by
WineCountryUA
DCA & IAD handle about the same total passengers and IAD has significant more long-haul international (higher revenue generating)
EWR has significantly more passenger traffic than LGA and UA has a reasonable non-hub share at LGA.
One can go around and around if DCA is better than IAD or EWR vs LGA / JFK because it comes down to where you are in those metro regions -- which is most convenient for your personal travel patterns.
For me coming from the west coast (non-stop), the answer is pretty clear for me. But it is different for others.
DCA and LGA are limited in their capabilities, so of course IAD and EWR will be larger..... I guess I am confused on the argument you are making.
Originally Posted by
EWR764
AA’s RJ-oriented DCA and LGA networks are nice for the respective local markets but I hesitate to consider them hubs in the true sense of the word because very little about those operations are structured to facilitate connections. I’m not saying connections aren’t possible there, but they are far from ideal. The mix of passengers (I would wager) exceeds 80% local as a rule.
Outside of the megahubs, which serve a different network purpose, EWR and SFO are “crown jewels” and don’t underestimate what AA/DL would give up to step into United’s shoes at both locations. No other hubs in the country have the same high-value traffic and service mix. DL would drop any of its Pacific gateways (except ATL, to the extent it can be considered such) in less than a heartbeat if UA were actually willing to trade SFO.
MIA *was* in that category and remains of paramount strategic importance to AA, but doesn’t generate the same returns today it did a few years ago .
AA's position in New York is anything but "aadvantageous", and my view is that this management team isn't particularly committed to it, but at the same time, doesn't really know what to do with it. Unloading JFK/LGA slots or gates would undoubtedly further strengthen competitors, and AA doesn't want UA to regain a toehold in the JFK transcons.
Oh absolutely the primary goals of both DCA and LGA are to funnel O&D, and then I believe connections follow behind, so they are not textbook hubs by any stretch. However, I would say they are too large to fairly call them focus cities though.
To your second point, and this whole AA would give up X to get SFO or DL would give up Y to get SFO, you can argue the same thing for each airline. AA would trade CLT for DL's megahub in ATL, or UA would give up DEN to get AA's DFW operation, e.t.c. e.t.c. But it doesn't matter because it wouldn't happen. Grant it, it would be one thing if CLT was a loss leader, but CLT is reportedly AA's most profitable hub.
Point is, every single US3 has a major market that they would like to have a larger position in.....But that doesn't mean they would just be reckless and trade one of their profitable core hubs for a shiny new toy. Let's also not forget that DL is a sizably more profitable airline than UA, so they specifically are likely content with their hubs even if the don't have the SFO "crown jewel"
I don't want to turn this into an AA thread or UA vs. AA thread, but I will point out that as long as AA has a large operation at LGA, I think JFK will also remain a sizable AA operation
Originally Posted by
fly18725
SFO is superior from every economic perspective to DTW
Never said otherwise