FWAAA

It's not a binary either/or proposition. Every airline merger has resulted in some changes to the various airline hubs. CLT will not be shut down to the level of STL, RDU, PIT, DAY or MEM. But let's face reality: For example, since many of the passengers on the US flights from Brazil to CLT are actually connecting to MCO, those flights are a very inefficient connection. Not unlike BOS to RIC which would be a terribly inefficient connection at MIA.

If North Carolina was the optimum gateway to Latin America, then I suspect that AA would have kept the RDU hub instead of building the MIA hub to Latin America. CLT got as big as it is in part because those are the cards that US was dealt and did not discard.

CLT can remain a fairly big hub even if it does not retain its current slate of international flights. CLT excels at domestic connections up and down the east coast, and that role isn't diminished if some of the international flights are moved to gateways where higher average fares can be obtained.

Another looming issue is that US still flies 40 aging Dash 8s with no replacements in sight. More than half of the US regional fleet (including wholly-owned and outsourced) are 50 seat RJs or Dash 8s. On October 1, CLT had 613 daily US flights, 273 mainline and 340 express:

http://www.usairways.com/pv_obj_cach.../factsheet.pdf

As 50 seat (and smaller) planes are phased out, some of the smaller spokes may not retain their current air service, and thus the number of flights at CLT may shrink. Eventually, if a town can't support some 76-seaters, it may not have air service.

GTITAN

Agree with your point entirely FWAA, merely saying that I don't think MIA will replace for what CLT does domestically. Do I expect the Latin American flights to continue at CLT, doubt it. Do I think CLT will keep some transatlantic flights I do might keep a some Carribean flights too. Merely suggesting that CLT was not (as of yet) going the way of PIT, and if it were to, it is not because of MIA. YMMV

phlwookie

CLT and PIT are different in a number of key ways though:

- Costs are far less per passenger/per plane
- Less duplication with DCA/PHL/ORD/LGA/JFK vs PIT
- Growing metro in the middle of the growing SE US
- One of two main hubs in the busy SE, far less backtracking needed from MIA to most anywhere in the SE
- Airport management that seems to be better at helping US grow at CLT without extreme increases in cost

What would you have replace the 700+ flights daily at CLT? While a great portal to the Caribbean and much of South America, MIA isn't it for connections to the SE US originating in the US. ORD and DFW may replace some of the transcon connecting traffic, but not in a way that means CLT loses many hundreds of flights unless the new AA wants to cede the SE to Delta.

austin_res

CLT and MIA are not duplicate hubs. MIA works well as a gateway to Caribbean and most of Central and South America. CLT works well as a Southeastern hub. Some of CLT's Latin America and Caribbean flights will probably move to MIA, but CLT is a much better location for serving the southeast. CLT also has the banking industry and a growing local population. I expect only a small reduction at CLT.

6P&E

Agreed. CLT will probably lose its Latin America flights and its TA flights to places like FCO, DUB, MAD and BCN. It should be able to retain LHR, CDG, FRA. If a MUC flight is profitable, AA or OW partner may add it, if and when LH drops the route. It will probably keep some popular Caribbean destinations as well.

CLT will remain a strong domestic connecting hub for the Southeast.

FWAAA

Germany is an unusual situation. There's often no need for a hub at both ends of a TATL flight; witness all the BA flights from London to USA cities that are not AA hubs and thus get no feed on this end (SFO, BWI, IAH, DEN, etc). They survive on the huge O&D to/from London and the big BA hub to points beyond London. I would have guessed that with plenty of German businesses in North Carolina, LH could make flights work, but perhaps there just isn't enough O&D.

I see new AA keeping some flights to Germany despite US leaving Star for Oneworld. There will be more than enough feed on this end (from many points in the USA) plus some connections on Air Berlin in Germany. Premerger AA had scaled back flights to Germany due to its high costs and the Star Alliance domination of Germany. From old AA's perspective, traffic to Germany could connect at LHR or MAD.

BoeingBoy

You touch on an important point. For some reason FF, at least, tend to accept connecting in PHL/CLT but shun connecting in a European hub like LHR/MAD.

Just look at the number of people making connections on both sides of the Atlantic or in PHX & PHL/CLT. Would they be that reticent about connecting in DFW and LHR? ORD and MAD?

Jim

iahphx

Rubbish.

You do know that CLT is one of the most profitable hubs in the USA, right?

http://muckrack.com/tedreednc/status...82422701182977

With AA/US's now much larger network, it will be even more profitable.

PIT, on the other hand, wasn't profitable. I mean, just compare the geography and you'll see why. There are only 2 southern hubs in the USA.


Kirby said earlier this week that Jan. 7 will be the day the two airlines "become one" for customers, including frequent flyer reciprocity (whatever that actually means). How long customers can earn Star mileage remains to be seen. I suspect it will be after Jan. 7, but we don't really know yet.

dtremit

While I agree with your overall point, it's worth noting that one of the reasons CLT is so profitable today is that US' labor costs are low. Those costs will increase significantly after the merger -- which may change the economics of some routes through CLT. I don't think that will endanger CLT in the large scale, but it may not be quite as large.

burlax

They do that for a good reason - in terms of xfer convenience, PHX/CLT >>>> MAD > LHR. DFW is not terribly convenient, but AA terminal is at least . . . well . . . pretty. Whereas, there is NOTHING pretty about LHR.

FlyIgglesFly

DFW has the SkyTrain past security that makes transfers between terminals pretty simple. Compare that to the madness at LHR? Forget it.

McSam18

LHR is the bane of a lot of frequent fliers existence.

akelkar

The English apparently don't know how to make an airport whose terminals are physically connected to each other. MAN is the same way.

BoeingBoy

While it's certainly true that changing planes at a smaller hub is more hassle free compared to big hubs, as long as you don't have to change terminals at big airports much of the stress goes away. I remember when PI started flying to LGW - a massive airport compared to what I was used to and I wasn't connecting. But just getting/returning a rental car was a pain in the neck - go to the rental counter 2 terminals away because the one in the arriving terminal wasn't open at that hour.

Compared to that some 20+ years ago, DFW is a walk in the park. It may not be the best located for most US FF - having to go southwest to ultimately fly past PHL on the way to LHR - but it's in a convenient location for a good chunk of the U.S. Every hub has some problem - walking from the end of E to the end of B in CLT is something of a pain, likewise from F to Awest in PHL (and wait till the Express terminal is moved for expansion). DFW is no worse than most and better than some. Same goes for LHR if there's capacity for all the flights to be in one terminal. Heck, I'd put ORD at the worse end unless AA/BA/etc have room for international flights at the normal terminals. Schlepping to the international terminal from the domestic terminal can be a pain.

Jim

bubba99

I know this is not a consideration for most, but I'd appreciate any speculation on potential upcoming changes for Richmond?