AA rebanked DFW and ORD today [29 Mar 2015]
Apr 6, 2015, 7:47 am
#46
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: IL
Programs: AA PLT, HYT PLT
Posts: 211
Thanks to the reschedule my 3 hour international arrival connection turned into a theoretical hour and 15 min for the last flight of the day to my final destination. Of course we took off late and had to hold for a gate. Upon landing I saw that AA protected me on the next day's flight and were extremely nice to relieve us of our exit row seats on our original flight (E145). In the end we made it 5 minutes before they closed the doors only because of GE and my wife and I running through the terminal.
Still mad we lost our original seats, and since the flight wasn't full, one of the guys that took our seats decided to take an empty row.
Still mad we lost our original seats, and since the flight wasn't full, one of the guys that took our seats decided to take an empty row.
Apr 6, 2015, 7:49 am
#47
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Programs: AA P-Pro, Chase SP, SPG Gold
Posts: 556
As someone who worked at AA DFW Operations in the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that your "theories" are not true.
Banked hubs suck specifically because there is NOT any of this "slack time" that you speak of. There are 50+ flights sked to arrive within a 20 minute time frame. They all have connections to each other. Those connecting flights are sked to depart within 20 minutes of each other. If the last arrivals of a given bank are running behind (but not late enough to totally mis-connect) then they jeopardize the departure time of the earliest flights out. So we (Operations Tower) delay the earliest departures of the bank.
The result is that instead of 50+ flights departing within a 20 minute time frame, they depart within a 5 minute frame.
Ok, but you'll argue they all departed (the gate) reasonably within time, so what's the deal ?
In times of good weather, 50+ flights within a 20 minute frame taxiing out to the runways can usually be handled ok. Throw in even a minor weather event (we're no longer "visual" separation [between aircraft]) and the takeoff lines on the runway start to back-up. Same thing when you send 50+ departures to the runway within a 5 minute time frame. Even on a good day, that amount of concentrated traffic requires additional time to "clear out". Combine the 2 concepts and ...well... it just does not work.
Ok, but you'll argue that at least all flights eventually departed and took off, that can't be too bad.
A lot of those flights sitting in the takeoff lineup are short flights (DFW to AUS/SAT/IAH/OKC/TUL/SHV/LBB/AMA/MAF/CRP/ELP/etc that fly to their downline station then with a short ground time, fly back to DFW. Delay them at the gate or in the take-off line and they'll be the late flight arrivals to DFW just a few hours later.
Ok, but you'll argue that short turn-arounds should never be schduled. Plan a longer turn around at the spoke city.
If you actually argue that, then you've just argued for rolling hubs instead of banked ones.
A banked hub requires very specific timing in getting an aircraft/crew out to the spoke and then back. Sometimes it means scheduling short turns at the spoke that suffer from even minor delays. Other times it means sked them with crazy layover times to catch a later bank at the hub (IE: 45 mins DFW to XXX, then 2.5 layover at XXX then 45 mins XXX to DFW).
A rolling hub would be more likely to have the plane/crew fly DFW to XXX, with a logical layover in XXX that can absorb an arrival delay and get the flight XXX to DFW out on-time. Once arriving DFW, there's many connections all over within 2 hours or so (vs many connections all over within 50 minutes or so ... assuming you're not misconnected).
Banked hubs do NOT have ground crews hanging around, rolling hubs are more likely to have this.
At a banked hub, if you have 50+ flights per bank then you need 50+ ground crews (above and below the wing), 50+ gates, 50+ etc.
If a ground crew is just sitting around because (even though their inbound aircraft arrived on time) their departing flight is delayed, you can't just send them to another gate to work an arrival. That gate already has a crew waiting for the delayed inbound. It's most likely this delayed inbound that's causing the delay to your outbound !!!
Summary:
Banked Hubs
Rolling Hubs
Bottom Line:
Banked Hubs: over-promise (better connection opportunities) but under deliver (operational headaches from the domino effect)
Rolling Hubs: just don't look as good when buying (I have a 3 hour connection at DFW) but can handle operational difficulties (the plane for my flight to DFW was arriving from DFW 3 hours late but we departed to DFW 2 hours late, yet I still made my "3 hour" connection with 15 minutes to spare. I arrived on-time.).
IMHO: short term revenue gain of a banked hub in exchange for delivering on the (slightly worse) promise of a rolling hub.
(My personal jab against most USA Corporations, not specifically against Douggie):
We'd rather take the customer's $$$ right now than ensure they enjoy their purchase enough to "buy" from us again in the future .
Your opinions may vary
Banked hubs suck specifically because there is NOT any of this "slack time" that you speak of. There are 50+ flights sked to arrive within a 20 minute time frame. They all have connections to each other. Those connecting flights are sked to depart within 20 minutes of each other. If the last arrivals of a given bank are running behind (but not late enough to totally mis-connect) then they jeopardize the departure time of the earliest flights out. So we (Operations Tower) delay the earliest departures of the bank.
The result is that instead of 50+ flights departing within a 20 minute time frame, they depart within a 5 minute frame.
Ok, but you'll argue they all departed (the gate) reasonably within time, so what's the deal ?
In times of good weather, 50+ flights within a 20 minute frame taxiing out to the runways can usually be handled ok. Throw in even a minor weather event (we're no longer "visual" separation [between aircraft]) and the takeoff lines on the runway start to back-up. Same thing when you send 50+ departures to the runway within a 5 minute time frame. Even on a good day, that amount of concentrated traffic requires additional time to "clear out". Combine the 2 concepts and ...well... it just does not work.
Ok, but you'll argue that at least all flights eventually departed and took off, that can't be too bad.
A lot of those flights sitting in the takeoff lineup are short flights (DFW to AUS/SAT/IAH/OKC/TUL/SHV/LBB/AMA/MAF/CRP/ELP/etc that fly to their downline station then with a short ground time, fly back to DFW. Delay them at the gate or in the take-off line and they'll be the late flight arrivals to DFW just a few hours later.
Ok, but you'll argue that short turn-arounds should never be schduled. Plan a longer turn around at the spoke city.
If you actually argue that, then you've just argued for rolling hubs instead of banked ones.
A banked hub requires very specific timing in getting an aircraft/crew out to the spoke and then back. Sometimes it means scheduling short turns at the spoke that suffer from even minor delays. Other times it means sked them with crazy layover times to catch a later bank at the hub (IE: 45 mins DFW to XXX, then 2.5 layover at XXX then 45 mins XXX to DFW).
A rolling hub would be more likely to have the plane/crew fly DFW to XXX, with a logical layover in XXX that can absorb an arrival delay and get the flight XXX to DFW out on-time. Once arriving DFW, there's many connections all over within 2 hours or so (vs many connections all over within 50 minutes or so ... assuming you're not misconnected).
Banked hubs do NOT have ground crews hanging around, rolling hubs are more likely to have this.
At a banked hub, if you have 50+ flights per bank then you need 50+ ground crews (above and below the wing), 50+ gates, 50+ etc.
If a ground crew is just sitting around because (even though their inbound aircraft arrived on time) their departing flight is delayed, you can't just send them to another gate to work an arrival. That gate already has a crew waiting for the delayed inbound. It's most likely this delayed inbound that's causing the delay to your outbound !!!
Summary:
Banked Hubs
- better at (short term) revenue generation. Better connection opportunities (on paper)
- require more crew (my 50+ gates/crew/etc, a dedicated one for each flight in the bank
- are more prone to the "domino effect" (assume airline operations always work "as planned")
- lose out in long term revenue in as passengers grow tired of the operational headaches
Rolling Hubs
- lose short term revenue due to the shorter list of connection opportunities (at short connection times with no room for slack)
- do not have ridiculous turn times at downline spoke cities (planes are scheduled to turn back to a hub when they can logically be expected to do so)
- do not result in as many operational difficulties in juggling resources (all resources are not committed to "bank #1", "bank #2", etc. They work as things happen).
Bottom Line:
Banked Hubs: over-promise (better connection opportunities) but under deliver (operational headaches from the domino effect)
Rolling Hubs: just don't look as good when buying (I have a 3 hour connection at DFW) but can handle operational difficulties (the plane for my flight to DFW was arriving from DFW 3 hours late but we departed to DFW 2 hours late, yet I still made my "3 hour" connection with 15 minutes to spare. I arrived on-time.).
IMHO: short term revenue gain of a banked hub in exchange for delivering on the (slightly worse) promise of a rolling hub.
(My personal jab against most USA Corporations, not specifically against Douggie):
We'd rather take the customer's $$$ right now than ensure they enjoy their purchase enough to "buy" from us again in the future .
Your opinions may vary
Thanks for sharing such a detailed observations from someone who's been there and seen it!
I wonder if that the new operations planning team is relying on newer "technology" to help work through the issues you highlighted, i.e., run a mad amount of simulations and have predetermined playbooks for various situations that will magically mitigate problems?
I wonder if that the new operations planning team is relying on newer "technology" to help work through the issues you highlighted, i.e., run a mad amount of simulations and have predetermined playbooks for various situations that will magically mitigate problems?
Apr 6, 2015, 8:44 am
#48
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas
Programs: AAdvantage EXP, IHG Spire, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, National Executive Elite
Posts: 1,523
As someone who worked at AA DFW Operations in the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that your "theories" are not true.
Banked hubs suck specifically because there is NOT any of this "slack time" that you speak of. There are 50+ flights sked to arrive within a 20 minute time frame. They all have connections to each other. Those connecting flights are sked to depart within 20 minutes of each other. If the last arrivals of a given bank are running behind (but not late enough to totally mis-connect) then they jeopardize the departure time of the earliest flights out. So we (Operations Tower) delay the earliest departures of the bank.
The result is that instead of 50+ flights departing within a 20 minute time frame, they depart within a 5 minute frame.
Ok, but you'll argue they all departed (the gate) reasonably within time, so what's the deal ?
In times of good weather, 50+ flights within a 20 minute frame taxiing out to the runways can usually be handled ok. Throw in even a minor weather event (we're no longer "visual" separation [between aircraft]) and the takeoff lines on the runway start to back-up. Same thing when you send 50+ departures to the runway within a 5 minute time frame. Even on a good day, that amount of concentrated traffic requires additional time to "clear out". Combine the 2 concepts and ...well... it just does not work.
Ok, but you'll argue that at least all flights eventually departed and took off, that can't be too bad.
A lot of those flights sitting in the takeoff lineup are short flights (DFW to AUS/SAT/IAH/OKC/TUL/SHV/LBB/AMA/MAF/CRP/ELP/etc that fly to their downline station then with a short ground time, fly back to DFW. Delay them at the gate or in the take-off line and they'll be the late flight arrivals to DFW just a few hours later.
Ok, but you'll argue that short turn-arounds should never be schduled. Plan a longer turn around at the spoke city.
If you actually argue that, then you've just argued for rolling hubs instead of banked ones.
A banked hub requires very specific timing in getting an aircraft/crew out to the spoke and then back. Sometimes it means scheduling short turns at the spoke that suffer from even minor delays. Other times it means sked them with crazy layover times to catch a later bank at the hub (IE: 45 mins DFW to XXX, then 2.5 layover at XXX then 45 mins XXX to DFW).
A rolling hub would be more likely to have the plane/crew fly DFW to XXX, with a logical layover in XXX that can absorb an arrival delay and get the flight XXX to DFW out on-time. Once arriving DFW, there's many connections all over within 2 hours or so (vs many connections all over within 50 minutes or so ... assuming you're not misconnected).
Banked hubs do NOT have ground crews hanging around, rolling hubs are more likely to have this.
At a banked hub, if you have 50+ flights per bank then you need 50+ ground crews (above and below the wing), 50+ gates, 50+ etc.
If a ground crew is just sitting around because (even though their inbound aircraft arrived on time) their departing flight is delayed, you can't just send them to another gate to work an arrival. That gate already has a crew waiting for the delayed inbound. It's most likely this delayed inbound that's causing the delay to your outbound !!!
Summary:
Banked Hubs
Rolling Hubs
Bottom Line:
Banked Hubs: over-promise (better connection opportunities) but under deliver (operational headaches from the domino effect)
Rolling Hubs: just don't look as good when buying (I have a 3 hour connection at DFW) but can handle operational difficulties (the plane for my flight to DFW was arriving from DFW 3 hours late but we departed to DFW 2 hours late, yet I still made my "3 hour" connection with 15 minutes to spare. I arrived on-time.).
IMHO: short term revenue gain of a banked hub in exchange for delivering on the (slightly worse) promise of a rolling hub.
(My personal jab against most USA Corporations, not specifically against Douggie):
We'd rather take the customer's $$$ right now than ensure they enjoy their purchase enough to "buy" from us again in the future .
Your opinions may vary
Banked hubs suck specifically because there is NOT any of this "slack time" that you speak of. There are 50+ flights sked to arrive within a 20 minute time frame. They all have connections to each other. Those connecting flights are sked to depart within 20 minutes of each other. If the last arrivals of a given bank are running behind (but not late enough to totally mis-connect) then they jeopardize the departure time of the earliest flights out. So we (Operations Tower) delay the earliest departures of the bank.
The result is that instead of 50+ flights departing within a 20 minute time frame, they depart within a 5 minute frame.
Ok, but you'll argue they all departed (the gate) reasonably within time, so what's the deal ?
In times of good weather, 50+ flights within a 20 minute frame taxiing out to the runways can usually be handled ok. Throw in even a minor weather event (we're no longer "visual" separation [between aircraft]) and the takeoff lines on the runway start to back-up. Same thing when you send 50+ departures to the runway within a 5 minute time frame. Even on a good day, that amount of concentrated traffic requires additional time to "clear out". Combine the 2 concepts and ...well... it just does not work.
Ok, but you'll argue that at least all flights eventually departed and took off, that can't be too bad.
A lot of those flights sitting in the takeoff lineup are short flights (DFW to AUS/SAT/IAH/OKC/TUL/SHV/LBB/AMA/MAF/CRP/ELP/etc that fly to their downline station then with a short ground time, fly back to DFW. Delay them at the gate or in the take-off line and they'll be the late flight arrivals to DFW just a few hours later.
Ok, but you'll argue that short turn-arounds should never be schduled. Plan a longer turn around at the spoke city.
If you actually argue that, then you've just argued for rolling hubs instead of banked ones.
A banked hub requires very specific timing in getting an aircraft/crew out to the spoke and then back. Sometimes it means scheduling short turns at the spoke that suffer from even minor delays. Other times it means sked them with crazy layover times to catch a later bank at the hub (IE: 45 mins DFW to XXX, then 2.5 layover at XXX then 45 mins XXX to DFW).
A rolling hub would be more likely to have the plane/crew fly DFW to XXX, with a logical layover in XXX that can absorb an arrival delay and get the flight XXX to DFW out on-time. Once arriving DFW, there's many connections all over within 2 hours or so (vs many connections all over within 50 minutes or so ... assuming you're not misconnected).
Banked hubs do NOT have ground crews hanging around, rolling hubs are more likely to have this.
At a banked hub, if you have 50+ flights per bank then you need 50+ ground crews (above and below the wing), 50+ gates, 50+ etc.
If a ground crew is just sitting around because (even though their inbound aircraft arrived on time) their departing flight is delayed, you can't just send them to another gate to work an arrival. That gate already has a crew waiting for the delayed inbound. It's most likely this delayed inbound that's causing the delay to your outbound !!!
Summary:
Banked Hubs
- better at (short term) revenue generation. Better connection opportunities (on paper)
- require more crew (my 50+ gates/crew/etc, a dedicated one for each flight in the bank
- are more prone to the "domino effect" (assume airline operations always work "as planned")
- lose out in long term revenue in as passengers grow tired of the operational headaches
Rolling Hubs
- lose short term revenue due to the shorter list of connection opportunities (at short connection times with no room for slack)
- do not have ridiculous turn times at downline spoke cities (planes are scheduled to turn back to a hub when they can logically be expected to do so)
- do not result in as many operational difficulties in juggling resources (all resources are not committed to "bank #1", "bank #2", etc. They work as things happen).
Bottom Line:
Banked Hubs: over-promise (better connection opportunities) but under deliver (operational headaches from the domino effect)
Rolling Hubs: just don't look as good when buying (I have a 3 hour connection at DFW) but can handle operational difficulties (the plane for my flight to DFW was arriving from DFW 3 hours late but we departed to DFW 2 hours late, yet I still made my "3 hour" connection with 15 minutes to spare. I arrived on-time.).
IMHO: short term revenue gain of a banked hub in exchange for delivering on the (slightly worse) promise of a rolling hub.
(My personal jab against most USA Corporations, not specifically against Douggie):
We'd rather take the customer's $$$ right now than ensure they enjoy their purchase enough to "buy" from us again in the future .
Your opinions may vary
If you looked at AA's schedules pre-US merger, you'd notice that the "smaller" hubs were already very "wavy" if not actually banked. MIA/LAX/JFK, which were all under 300 departures, were very closely scheduled to major connecting waves (for MIA, it was 3 connecting waves; 2 Caribbean, 1 deep south). JFK was very "banked" for anything that had less than 4 daily frequencies. LAX was clustered around Asia and Hawaii flights.
But for ORD & especially DFW, you dont need to be banked when you have such large hubs. DFW is a 800+ departure megahub. Over the course of 16 hours, they average 50 departures every singe hour. Which means over the next 2 hours, you had 100 easy connections. Now with the banks, they have 10 banks of ~60-100 departures. So they now have ~60-100 easy connections. Wait a second, if you'll notice, its the same???
The other, and arguably most important fact that is different for AA than US is the "style" of their hubs. AA's hubs are in major O&D cities and have a much higher local percentage than US' hubs. This means you DONT NEED to be banked to cater to the higher value passengers. In fact it can be argued that the new schedules, with 45+ 5am departures for DFW spokes will actually make the local patterns worse.
US Execs grossly overexagerated (in my opinion) the benefit they will see for revenues with rebanking the hubs. And as you pointed out so well, the "benefits" are only when things go right. 100 departure banks in 30 minutes will come grinding to a halt in bad weather. AA will be forced to wipe out whole banks to keep the operation running in those instances.
Apr 6, 2015, 10:32 am
#49
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: LHR, SAN
Programs: BA GGL, AA PLT, VS-curious
Posts: 1,487
Interesting to have my most hated airports at various times in my flying history spelled out. My habit has always been to take a slightly longer connection at a favoured airport over a short one at a mess of a place. I had terrible intl-domestic connection experiences at both JFK and LAX to the point I spent years avoiding them. But recently I've come to like both and appreciate their (relative) efficiency and no longer actively search for flights through my more-trusted DFW.
If last week was any indication of things to come at DFW, I'm going to be looking to switch my avoidance!
If last week was any indication of things to come at DFW, I'm going to be looking to switch my avoidance!
Apr 6, 2015, 1:02 pm
#50
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: IL
Programs: AA Plat, HH Diamond
Posts: 24
Are changes still being made?
I have a flight ticketed on July 13th. I was originally on 2332 ORD->DFW and then connecting on. This was scheduled as a 788 flight and I was excited to try it out. Did a miles/copay to upgrade this and the connection.
Yesterday (4/5) I get an email from AMEX corporate travel that my flights had been changed. I was rebooked on 2335 which gave me ~30 min to get from gate to gate. Also this was an MD80.
I called AMEX today to move back to an earlier flight and ticketed on 2334 which is on a 788! But this flight isn't listed on AA's website. If I pull up the flight schedule on aa.com and choose July 13th and ORD->DFW I don't see that flight. ExpertFlyer shows it. AA.com shows a 788 on 2353 at 8:40 PM, but that is way too late for my needed connection. Also oddly, aa.com doesn't show the 2335 that I was rebooked onto.
I'm going to keep my eyes on this one to make sure I really have a flight and ideally on a 788.
Yesterday (4/5) I get an email from AMEX corporate travel that my flights had been changed. I was rebooked on 2335 which gave me ~30 min to get from gate to gate. Also this was an MD80.
I called AMEX today to move back to an earlier flight and ticketed on 2334 which is on a 788! But this flight isn't listed on AA's website. If I pull up the flight schedule on aa.com and choose July 13th and ORD->DFW I don't see that flight. ExpertFlyer shows it. AA.com shows a 788 on 2353 at 8:40 PM, but that is way too late for my needed connection. Also oddly, aa.com doesn't show the 2335 that I was rebooked onto.
I'm going to keep my eyes on this one to make sure I really have a flight and ideally on a 788.
Apr 6, 2015, 6:47 pm
#51
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Texas
Programs: Hyatt Glob (Barely); Marriott Plat Life; AA Up and Down Now Plat; Hilton, UA, BA, HA Peasant
Posts: 2,668
If last week was any indication of things to come at DFW, I'm going to be looking to switch my avoidance!
My legacy AA aircrew friends all bang their heads on the wall and vent about how the legacy US management is determined to repeat the same mistakes AA made. Oh except the one person who is in current management. She sings the company tune.
Apr 7, 2015, 6:44 am
#52
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Programs: AA P-Pro, Chase SP, SPG Gold
Posts: 556
Awww crAAp my itineraries for the rest of the year were all changed due to the rebanking of DFW. Dang it, dang it, dang it. It's something like 13 itineraries, calendar notices and seat assignments that have to be rechecked.
Thank you Award Wallet for the heads' up, not you AA.
Thank you Award Wallet for the heads' up, not you AA.
Apr 7, 2015, 7:02 am
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
Glad I'm only booking non-stops on AA to DFW to transfer to other airlines now.
The banked hubs suck (aka MIA now). You're left either being forced into a 40 minute connection, or a 4 hour connection and if you thought Admirals Clubs were packed to the gills before... HAH! Just wait until you're queuing for a restroom slot for 20 minutes when you're at the club during one of the 'banks'.
As bad as DFW may be though, ORD is going to become an absolute massacre. Only a slight dusting of snow and people will be IRROPSed for days!
The banked hubs suck (aka MIA now). You're left either being forced into a 40 minute connection, or a 4 hour connection and if you thought Admirals Clubs were packed to the gills before... HAH! Just wait until you're queuing for a restroom slot for 20 minutes when you're at the club during one of the 'banks'.
As bad as DFW may be though, ORD is going to become an absolute massacre. Only a slight dusting of snow and people will be IRROPSed for days!
Apr 7, 2015, 2:15 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
I think because if you have a shorter connection time, you may not get to that onward flight in time for the early boarding process. However, that would be the case for most other passengers as well. Moreover, if people so desire, they can "force" a longer connection themselves during the booking process as long as they don't go over 4 hours.
Apr 7, 2015, 2:16 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Tighter connections mean there will likely be more times when you arrive at your connecting gate after boarding has already commenced, and thus you may find yourself in a "everyone from this point on must check all rollaboards" situation. During the rolling hub era, you could (if you choose to) arrive at the connecting gate well in advance, and thus be one of the first people to board, ensuring that you'd find overhead bin space where you wanted it (like where you could keep an eye on your stuff).
Apr 7, 2015, 5:05 pm
#58
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: ORD
Programs: AA PLT
Posts: 2,781
Apr 7, 2015, 5:27 pm
#59
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA PLT, HHonors Gold
Posts: 178
I flew out of ORD last week and according to a co-worker Frontera was quoting 20-30 minute wait times at the time of ordering (lunch). She said she got hers food in 15-20 minutes but many people walked away as soon as they heard 20-30 minutes.
As someone who has connected in PHL 10 times in three months I can tell you that the banked hub system has very little room for error. Five trips have resulted in or would have led to a misconnect while five have been smooth sailing. The one positive is that US has been pretty proactive in three situations by changing the "resulted in" to "would have been" by re-routing me through CLT before I ever got to the airport.
As someone who has connected in PHL 10 times in three months I can tell you that the banked hub system has very little room for error. Five trips have resulted in or would have led to a misconnect while five have been smooth sailing. The one positive is that US has been pretty proactive in three situations by changing the "resulted in" to "would have been" by re-routing me through CLT before I ever got to the airport.
Apr 7, 2015, 6:49 pm
#60
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,546
because the bottleneck is the sandwich press / grill.