FlyerTalker688786

Who still remember AA's hub strategy a decade ago? The famous Corner Stone strategy of LAX<DFW<ORD<JFK<MIA. With 3 international getaways in the corners of USA mainland and 2 giant transcontinental hub in Chicago and Dallas.

With the integration of US Airways and the new strategy of PD and co., a new hub strategy seems to be forming, and we can see some trends here:
1, DFW is becoming the Super Hub with flights to all corners of the world and the US.
2, LAX is becoming predominantly the only Asia Pacific getaways with the demise of ORD. (the dual Asia Pacific hub era is gone).
3, MIA is left intact and will continue to the Caribbean/ Latin America hub.
4, PHL is becoming the new JFK, or maybe we can put it gently that PHL is sharing the traffic overflow from ORD and JFK (I am only kidding here).
5, CLT is becoming the not-sure-what-I-do-with-it hub but its North-South connection hub is unbeatable.

So with above trends in mind, we can see:
1, Super hub: DFW
2, Asia Pacific hub: LAX
3, Latin/Caribbean hub: MIA
4, Atlantic hub: PHL
5, North-south hub: CLT
6, East-west hub: ORD
7, South-western secondary hub: PHX
8, Sorry, a new focus city: JFK!

This ultimately constitute the new AA HUB strategy: Southern Charms (LAX-DFW-MIA) with Gem Stones chain (PHX-ORD-PHL-CLT-JFK-LGA-DCA).

May I challenge fellow Flyertalkers to come up with a most appropriate title to define the new DP's AA HUB Strategy?

MrAndy1369

Agreed on most counts, DFW is to AA what ATL is to DL.

How about ORD and PHX, how would you describe those two hubs (other than the locations/area)? Also, do you think AA is drawing an overall preference for pmUS hubs over pmAA hubs? I seem to notice a nudge of routings through PHX and CLT vs. DFW, MIA, and ORD these days.

ashill

I think that of the hubs, the pmAA hubs generally have stronger demand than the pmUS hubs: four of the five pmAA hubs are the four largest metropolitan areas in the US. DCA is of course a strong O&D market as well though relatively unimportant as a connecting hub. The other pmUS hubs, especially PHX and CLT, were more reliant on connecting traffic than the pmAA hubs to begin with. The NYC market* in particular never made a lot of sense to me as a major connecting facility (because of the split airports, the cost of slots, and the strength of O&D traffic), but pmAA didn't have a better option to fill that geographical niche for connections. PHL is certainly better equipped to handle connecting traffic to Europe than JFK is. So yes, I think there are natural reasons for AA to route connecting traffic over the pmUS hubs, all else being equal, because of efficiencies rather than some bias for pmUS hubs (if that's what you're implying).

*Aside: AA always discussed the New York cornerstone as "New York", not JFK. LGA has always had plenty of service to non-hubs: in the cornerstone era, there were no other airports with more than a tiny smattering of service not to hubs, so I think it is more accurate to consider the cornerstone NYC, not just JFK.

Antarius

Agree with the bolded. I disagree with Parker on several things, but he isn't a fool who would direct route planning based on emotional ties to LUS.

The LAA hubs are in much larger cities and have higher O&D traffic (DFW, MIA, NYC, LAX, ORD) than LUS ones (PHL, CLT, PHX). DCA by virtue of design, rules and location is built for O&D. as a result, it wouldn't surprise me if AA is routing lower yield connecting pax to LUS hubs while pricing the LAA hubs more towards O&D traffic.

ashill

Or even high yield connecting pax (a relatively new focus of AA and US airlines in general, as I understand it). Might as well route a consultant flying two regional jets on an itinerary like MSN-JAX where WN doesn't compete on expensive Monday morning/Thursday afternoon fares over CLT as over ORD or DFW if AA can get more revenue out of DFW/ORD O&D traffic than they can out of CLT O&D traffic.

sdsearch

Was it really a decade ago? I thought it started only a few years before the merger, which wouldn't even be a full a decade ago yet.

Another way of looking at it:

1, Super-dominant major hub: DFW
2, it's the only domestic airline that considers it an int'l hub, but it has tons of foreign airline service (with an airside connector now to them): LAX
3, Dominant hub for pointing south: MIA
4, Dominant minor hub with better airside connections than JFK: PHL
5, Dominant minor hub: CLT
6, It's also a major hub for UA: ORD
7, It's also a hub for WN: PHX
8, It;s too close to PHL, and more closely associated perhaps with DL than AA, and has no airside connections to most OW partner airlines: JFK

DMPHL

I mean...maybe? The reason DFW has 900+ flights/day is not because of DFW-based origin or DFW destination traffic. It's because DFW is in a perfect spot: a large city hub that connects major East-to-West (almost any point on one coast to almost any point on the other coast), Southeast & mid-Atlantic-to-Asia, Midwest-to-Asia, Midwest-to-Europe, west of the Mississippi-to-South America, etc. traffic flows all year round, with no competition, and with a cost structure that makes it extremely profitable, and where the revenue growth for adding flights can be at or above the cost.

I'm not sure DFW is the best example. There are certain markets that, by virtue of sheer size can sustain a decent number of flights whose sole purpose is to carry passengers originating there and terminating there. LAX and NYC are two of those markets...and even then, it depends on the other market served. JFK-LHR, a huge percentage of people will be originating in New York and terminating in London or connecting on BA. JFK-EDI? Not enough people going solely between them to sustain a flight, and insufficient connecting flows into JFK to make it profitable.

reeg2

Also - DFW Is gigantic with room to grow.

SOBE ER DOC

CLT a minor hub? It's the second largest hub for AA. I'd hardly consider that minor.

sdsearch

Second largest in what terms? Certainly not for international flights, right?

DMPHL

Second largest in terms of number of passengers, number of flights, number of destinations and, apparently, profitability.

SOBE ER DOC

So, by your definition a hub is only major if it has significant international service? I suppose that is one way you could look at it, but it's not how most people evaluate the size and stature of a hub.

While international connections carry a certain cache for a hub, the majority of travelers are not using them and what is most valued is one-stop (or non-stop) options to as many destinations as possible. CLT offers more destinations, more seats and more flights than all other AA hubs with the exception of DFW. AA is planning to occupy the vacated gates in the A concourse with the recent opening of the new concourse and they are planning to expand B and C...all indicating that the second largest hub in the network is poised to grow even further (much to my chagrin as I do not care for CLT). Seems like a major hub to me.

BarrenLucidity

6th busiest in the world according to aircraft movements... CLT is the second largest hub for AA and will be the size of ATL once their new runway completes in 2024 with AA maintaining the vast majority of gates. It's already at 115 gates and handles something like 44 million passengers a year. 25% of the passengers in CLT now originate from its metropolitan area and they're expecting that number to be close to 40% in only a few years if growth patterns keep up.

It's really hard to believe when you're in the airport because it's not grandiose but I think once their multibillion dollar revamp completes it's going to be quite nice.

It needs more international flights but we probably wont see that until the 2024 runway completes and the 787 deliveries are satisfied. That'll mean they can use the lowest cost enplanement in the US for nonstop international travel to 85% of the globe.

CLT is my home airport, dire as the restaurant selection is and as cramped as those boarding areas can be (though better than PHL...), the facts about the airport speak for themselves.

GotCalcio4

I think this is spot on, and by any logic, is what SHOULD be the strategy.

The only thing I think the OP missed is the situation at CLT. CLT has continued to be the everything hub for the new AA, much as it was for LUS. It has actually built its TATL portfolio post-merger, and continues to offer a strong set of flights to the Caribbean and across the US (even some of the newer LUS routes to secondary west coast cities have remained, such as PDX, SMF, TUS, and SJC).

GotCalcio4

Honestly, love it or hate it, I think this is all pretty much accurate. I have no bias towards LUS or towards CLT; the facts just speak for themselves. Also agree that once cross-fleeting and crew contracts are integrated and AA is free to schedule aircraft over CLT in the most efficient way possible, we will potentially see a lot of pretty interesting international adds at CLT on 787s that it otherwise wouldn't have supported. Perhaps a re-entry to Brazil, more Europe, or who knows what else.