Officially WAS = DCA/IAD only. BWI is often included for convenience by search engines.

Similarly, NYC = JFK/LGA only. EWR is often included for convenience by search engines.

As for AA, LAX is most definitely a hub, with SJC being more of a focus city/connecting point.

I never said that a combined CO/UA would keep CLE in lieu of EWR, ORD, or IAD.

Agreed; LAX isn't solely a domestic connecting hub for AA, but certainly operates as an international connecting hub/gateway to connect AA's domestic routes with CX, QF, LA, JL and other AA partners.

SJC is now reduced to spoke+

Even though the two metro areas are close in terms of population, note that the Cleveland area is losing people whereas the Denver metro area is increasing in population. This must be considered in any discussion related to the relative merits of the two cities as hubs.

I would also venture to say that any discussion of relative merits of hubs these days has to include weather and traffic flow. DEN is a new efficient airport in airspace that's relatively empty. CLE is subject to winter weather problems far greater than DEN's, and it's in the northeast corridor which is overcrowded and getting more so.

One of the reasons I'm a fan of a UA/CO merger is because of the allure of connecting through IAH instead of (shudder) ORD.

The Chicago Tribune is now reporting negotiations between CO and UA are in the "advanced" stage. It also cites sources saying CO Management would be running the combined entity.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,3407037.story

I for one would welcome the opportunity for a heck of a lot more award opportunities to Asia, as well as E+. Hey LK, you better keep (and expand) E+...

Or not. I fail to see what the magic bullet will be that will spur growth there.

Hey, I respect that many love CLE. I respect that some think it makes sense as a hub. I, too, prefer connecting there to EWR. But the numbers absolutely do not support claims that it is anything more than a tertiary market and it serves as a hub only because all the more logical hubs in the area were taken. Frankly, I think it is the next PIT.

How is CLE subject to winter weather problems that are greater than those of DEN? Also, CLE is not located in the congested areas of the Northeast (i.e, those along the Eastern Seaboard) - while it may be closer to such areas than DEN, the only delays it experiences as a result thereof are departure delays to EWR, LGA, BOS, etc., which are caused by congested airspace near those cities, not CLE.

Trust us. Still, don't move here because it's a barren, tundra-like wasteland.

I agree. Cleveland might not be downsized immediately because O'Hare and Newark are both packed, but Dulles has room to grow, and it's a better market for international flights. Cleveland is just to close to the other three. The only thing it has going for it is the relative lack of competition in Cleveland proper.

IAD has some good routes and benefits from those "capital to capital" connections. Like IAD to Beijing. It's a big city (metro area 5 million) and probably carries more international traffic per capita than most other cities (Cleveland, I'm looking your direction again). And once again, since Newark and O'Hare are full, it's a good place to add international capacity.

The two losers I see in a UA/CO merger are Cleveland and Guam. Who wants to connect in Guam when there are so many direct flights to Japan out of SFO.

And whoever said something about Seattle being the perfect Pacific hub is totally right.

YOu obviously don't realize that CO has a monopoly on routes out of Guam, they print money there. Also, a lot of the US military in the pacific is going to move to GUM from Okinawa. GUM won't be downsized.

No one.

But, strange as this may sound, CO does not seem to regular connect passengers through GUM en route to SFO...yet it still functions as a viable hub. @:-)

Ditto for CLE; the CO operation there's not going anywhere. We may see changes to how traffic is routed through a consolidated network but CLE itself is here to stay.

The reason for this is CO is adamant that new service be based upon o/d traffic. Sure you'll see connecting traffic too, but CO has shied away from launching flights (much less a hub!) solely for the purposes of connecting folks. IMHO CO did not build CLE up to be a connecting operation; it was built up to meet o/d traffic from the CLE area. Granted traffic may connect there (just like IAH, and to a lesser extent, EWR) but new service would not have been launched without a firm o/d base...and this base is one of the bedrock reasons CLE will be kept on as a hub...at least IMHO.

So, you think CO/UA is going to keep 8 hubs? Because that is where I see your logic heading. If CLE, the smallest of the 8 hubs, will stay to support O/D traffic, then surely DEN and the 6 (much) larger hubs aren't going anywhere? And how would this logic jive with any other airports where, suddenly, a new combined entity felt it could capture enough market share?

Exactly. If anything, Guam will grown during the next five years.