ubernostrum

Yeah, hence the "wishful thinking" part. WN does MCI-STL and back 4x daily, and I know the fact that they're point-to-point and connecting people is why they can manage it (and I wonder how long that frequency will last once Wright is completely gone -- right now MCI seems a convenient place to connect people on Wright-restricted itineraries).

But in my dreams, a 1/day MCI-STL would exist and would be incredibly convenient to me

DCdeacon

I'm not disagreeing with you on the logic to shift flights to ORD. But just to put some hard numbers out there, the difference in miles between ORD and CLT to some Western European cities is negligible:

MAN - Chicago is 56 miles closer
DUB - Chicago is 47 miles closer
LHR - Chicago is 39 miles closer
CDG - Chicago is 22 miles closer
FCO - Charlotte is 10 miles closer (realize this isn't quite western europe, but this was used as an example)
MAD - Charlotte is 92 miles closer

trvlr70

No, I get it. It just seems like folks on this thread automatically think Charlotte is the ideal jumping off point for connections to Europe because, being East Coast, it must be closer to the continent than the Midwest. However, in reality, the difference in air miles is, as you say, negligible. Chicago grew to be air hub of North America because of its strategic geography being near the US population center and a good connecting point for Europe and Asia. And the sizable O&D traffic that is associated with the third largest city and metro cannot be overlooked.

phlwookie

I think you have to consider not just the distance from ORD and CLT to the European city but whether the majority of users of the service would need to backtrack. Ignoring the weather, ORD is a logical connection point to Europe for roughly the western 2/3 of the country. The problem, though, is that the eastern 1/3 of the country, where the greatest population density exists, would have to backtrack, and therefore traffic flowing to Europe is likely better routed via CLT, JFK or PHL. In reality there's likely a market for both CLT and ORD to maintain some routes to smaller transatlantic markets. What that equilibrium is may take some time to work out.

scnzzz

I don't see this as self-evident if you're comparing ORD and CLT. If the net travel time is the same - let's take BNA or CLE for instance. Both about an hour, hour and a bit to either ORD or CLT. As long as the total travel time is about the same (and total distance traveled within say about 5%), what difference does it it really make? I get that PHLor JFK would make a difference, relative to CLT or ORD, but just comparing ORD to CLT,the whole backtracking argument really makes doesn't hold much water as long as travel time to the gateway (and layover time) are comparable.

CLT makes a lot more sense for the deep South, SouthEast, and the west makes more sense through ORD. But there's a big chunk of the country, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

joejones

Forget travel time, there are three huge problems with ORD as a hub relative to CLT:

(1) Terrible operational issues in the winter.

(2) Much more expensive than CLT in terms of rent, landing fees, etc.

(3) Competition from UA, and now DL is pushing its way back in to some extent.

Yes, ORD does have a much larger O&D market, but as a connecting passenger I'd rather go through CLT. It's a nicer airport from the passenger's perspective too.

GNRMatt

While the distance from ORD to Europe compared to CLT/PHL to Europe may not be much of a difference, to most average Americans that live in the East, they'll think "Why fly backwards to Chicago when I can catch a flight from the East Coast?" Maybe people who really follow airlines and flights closely understand that there isn't a huge difference, but that isn't what most people would think. Most East Coasters would think "Chicago is back in to the middle of the country. Why do I want to go there to head East to Europe?"

Fanjet

Look at where most of the U.S.-Europe traffic is going. It's to/from destinations that are to the east of Chicago (if you drew a vertical line through city). While some cities like BNA or CLE might be equidistant to CLT and ORD, all other cities north of CLT all the way to Maine, are closer to CLT than to ORD. And moreover, it costs a lot less to transfer a passenger via CLT than it does through ORD. Add on top of that, the fact that about a dozen airlines fly from ORD to Europe daily. Whereas at CLT, there is one LH flight aside from the US service. But let's not over-inflate the CLT-Europe service, in the first place. It only has year-round service to LHR/FRA/CDG. All other cities are summer seasonal flights. However, I don't see things as a CLT versus ORD situation. But rather as a PHL versus ORD argument. Prior to the merger, ORD was the closest hub station AA had to Europe. Yes, JFK had the most flights to Europe. But the number of U.S. flights/cities feeding that service was quite small in comparison. Now the new airline has PHL as a major transfer hub to Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if the ORD-HEL and ORD-DUS flights end up being moved over to PHL.

dtremit

Not meaningfully. E.g., BOS-CLT-FRA and BOS-ORD-FRA are less than 100 miles different -- fifteen minutes at cruise. CLT isn't just south -- it's as far west as Cleveland. (Likewise, Atlanta is west of Detroit.)

The bigger problem is that people don't think of it that way.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think you could see a redistribution such that some ORD service shifts to PHL, and some CLT service shifts to ORD.

That said, DUS and HEL are both minor OW hubs.

scnzzz

And that's the kicker.

Yes, winter is a factor. Chicago tends to handle it reasonably well, all things considered. I don't know enough about emplanement costs at ORD vs CLT so that's a point I'm happy to concede. But rationally, if distance traveled (and time spent) is the key consideration, they aren't that different to a lot of the country east of the Rockies.

Still, relative to both, PHL does make sense. It just doesn't have as much service west of the Rockies that I'm aware of, at least relative to ORD. So unless that feed increases dramatically, PHL will supplement rather than supplant ORD. My opinion only of course. I happen to believe there's a stronger case for PHL than for CLT as a gateway (closer to the big population centers in New England and the upper Midwest than CLT).

Peter T.

For short one-hour hops, WN is a perfectly fine option. Sure, it's all coach seating, but it's more than bearable for short flights. And being an all Boeing 737 fleet (AND having the option to check in two pieces of luggage for free) means there's usually plenty of overhead bin space for those of us who prefer to take along only a carry-on. Which is really convenient. Far better than having to gate-check a carry-on when boarding a CRJ or smaller aircraft.

trvlr70

Even in consideration of the congestion, weather concerns, and competition at ORD, Chicago was recently touted as the 4th most economically powerful city in the world with an annual economic output of over $460 billion - only behind NYC, London and Tokyo. Given that business flyers and O&D traffic are the bread and butter for the airlines, you be ridiculous to ignore this.

Sure, PHL is closer to Europe. NYC is even more so. But neither are great connection hubs because they are not located in places where they could accommodate flights from everywhere in the US. ORD is close enough to the center of population that it can even support links to smaller and mid-sized cities from all corners of the country - even on regional jets.

I will agree that East Coast folks may perceive connecting at ORD as backtracking. But, as was mentioned earlier, Chicago is actually slightly closer to the majority of Western European cities than CLT....simply given the fact that both Chicago and Europe are more northerly. I imagine most travelers, after price, look at timing.

nova08

Exactly, people look at timing, not distance (unless you really want your miles). They don't care that ORD is 50 miles closer to Europe, they care if it will take an hour longer. And this may simply mean that a reasonable connection isn't offered (e.g. 45 minutes or 3 hours)

I just did a simple search for RDU-FRA to see what connections are offered
RDU-IAD-FRA on UA
10 hours and 41 minutes including a 1 hr and 12 minute connection

RDU-ORD-FRA on UA
11 hours and 39 minutes including a 55 minute connection

RDU-PHL-FRA on US
10 hours and 49 minutes including a 1 hours and 26 minute connection

This is by no means scientific but honestly the flight through IAD and PHL provides the optimal connection times while still offering a relatively low travel time.

FWIW, ORD-FRA is longer distance wise than both IAD/PHL-FRA

morrisunc

Problem with this is 25% of the time you are not going to make your connection in PHL. I used to fly RDU-PHL-Europe quite often and would always give myself at least a 3 hour layover as the RDU-PHL flights are OFTEN delayed or take off on time and sit on the runway for an hour on ground delay before taking off - I can't count the number of people I have seen flipping out on that flight because they are missing intl connections.

I would always choose CLT over a connection at any of the major east coast hubs from RDU. However living in LA now I am not inclined to connect anywhere in the US en route to Europe, but if I had to do it I would go JFK so I could have a seamless bc experience.

plon

The costs can make a huge difference for the airlines.

For the CPEP (Costs Per Emplaned Passenger) for the AA/US Hubs:

JFK: $50.99
MIA: $19.13
ORD: $16.41
PHL: $9.96
DFW: $6.86
PHX: $5.07
CLT: $2.28

From an Oliver Wyman Report


Some airports are also very aggressive with revenue sharing as well. In FY 2013 CLT shared $18 Million with the airlines, with US getting the majority of that of course.

Now after the merger they have much higher labor costs to account for, but the low CPEP certainly helps.


.