Originally Posted by
Global321
I don't see the profit opportunity here. LAS might be a better investment if any out West.
I agree but given Southwest's issues pushing for that terminal expansion to start now, and capturing more allocated gates in the new terminals b/c usage and market share before they recover could be a good long-term play.
Originally Posted by
Global321
As for PHL, the biggest issue for PHL is location. It is very close to JFK. There is not a great reason to invest heavily in both. And AA has already made a considerable bet on JFK. PHL has enough traffic to get a FL lounge. (I would assume no FFD.) I would also assume they will upgrade the check-in area as they have with all the other FL airports.
If I were AA, as the new planes come on line and the T's are not needed at JFK, I would move some of the T's to PHL to see if PHL could support premium transcons. Once the FL is open, there would very little needed for a 6 month experiment. Best case, more premium transcon revenue short and long term. If it doesn't work, all they have done is pushed refurb costs back 6 months and confirmed a theory about PHL.
I agree with what you're saying - I think the PHL transcons can be similar to MIA-LAX where 1-2 daily frequencies may make sense but more seems iffy. JetBlue pulling out of LAX-EWR completely last week plus United publicly bemoaning their pullout from JFK impacting their ability to capture premium transcontinental travel suggests EWR can't replicate JFK and that's despite its proximity to the UWS and NYC. However, that plus the Europe flying is plenty for a FL.