BoeingBoy

This is all I can really quibble with. CLT yields are higher than PHL, partly because of lack of O&D for a market PHL's size - PHL always ranks lower as a hub than as a metropolitan area.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the future of CLT, however. It's value to "new" AA will be primarily as a east coast connecting point. Both MIA and NYC are ill located to offer convenient connections in the area from mid-Atlantic to north Florida and roughly east of the Mississippi. DCA could serve most of that role but for the artificial capacity constraints imposed by the government.

Jim

username

I was thinking that in the unlilely event the merger is not approved, would US stay in *A or move to OneWorld?

It almost seems they already saw each other naked so if marriage is not approved, just be domestic partners? However, it seems it would be better for US to stay in *A if the merger does not happen...

jspira

It's really unlikely, as in really really unlikely. The disclosure plan was approved by Judge Lane 2 weeks ago and voting will be completed by 29 July.

However, were that to happen, I would say it's a toss-up on which alliance would get US.

Judge Sends American-US Airways Merger Plan to Creditors For Vote, AA Passenger Traffic Up in May

ffI

NYC 2 hub operation is really bad for anyone who tries it.
LGA-JFK split is terrible for connections.

If Doug had not given up LGA to DL (losing >100 slots, there may be a case for keeping NYC and PHL would have shrunk a lot)- now PHL may survive.

PHL is a great airport for connections but has less O/D.
Interestingly the NJ traffic seems to go to EWR more than PHL.
No one in NJ wants to go to JFK by car.

CLT is for connecting southern traffic (and some EU traffic)
With the TATL JV with BA, I see JFK as a OW O/D only at JFK and more AA feeder traffic going to PHL.

MIA is an O/D like NYC.

ORD was once more AA than United - AA had more flights from ORD in the early 90s than UA (but those were the days, my friend ......). I do not think AA can ever recover much in ORD but with a few more slots from US can perhaps run a small shuttle to WAS.

LAS is a gone case.
PHX may survive for connections to small towns rather than Intl traffic

NiceLanding

You're probably right, but those of us who live near ORD can always hope. AA has a window of opportunity to capitalize on UA's lousy treatment of its loyal flyers, and many of us no longer view UA as our hometown airline.

I remember when AA greatly upgraded the regional experience here by going all-jet, later followed by UA. Now UA has reintroduced me to prop planes, while AA is bringing in the E75s (or E90s?).

There's plenty of O&D international traffic in all directions from here and we're centrally located, so it's not a bad place for expansion to locations on several continents. In a couple of years we'll have our 8th runway and there still seems to be ample terminal space for more AA flights (with a bit of remodeling, perhaps), so I'm hoping that AA will get serious about retaking the #1 spot at ORD.

Fanjet

IMO, ORD will see the greatest flight increases (with LAX and JFK also seeing some flight additions). And ORD's flight additions will come primarily at the expense of PHL, and to a lesser degree CLT. There a few sizeable airports in the NE that don't have AA service, but have a very large presence by US. The merger will allow some of that east-west traffic flow to be routed via ORD as opposed to PHL. There are a lot of destinations from the Central Time Zone to the Pacific that have flights from ORD, but do not from PHL. And don't forget that AA has recently signed an agreement with Republic to base a whole bunch of E175s at ORD. Yes, AA was on the retreat in ORD in the previous years. But now they are taking advantage of their new situation, as well as UA's new (and self made) vulnerability, at ORD.

NJTraveler

[QUOTE=USFlyer26;20796024]As a Chairman, I am totally happy with just about everything at US Airways.

I really like US's upgrade system. I'm 100% for upgrades so far this year on 48 segments that include a lot of hub to hub flights and quite a few trans-cons. I really do think as a Chairman, that you are the #1 priority. I've gotten excellent service during IRROPS, and I've always found the dedicated phone line to be awesome.

That being said, US lags behind the other legacy carriers with regards to technology. I'm fine with the elimination of PTVs and inflight entertainment, but give me a power port to charge my iPad or laptop, please.

And, can we please get a friggin' US Airways app?[/



I agree with all of the above. In addition to an app, need IFE!

eponymous_coward

Tell DL how terrible it is. They seem to like it just fine.

marlee1421

Philadelphia Inquirer Published Today

Posted: Wednesday, June 26, 2013, 3:01 AM

A government report suggests that New York City could edge out Philadelphia as a major hub and international gateway in the pending merger between US Airways Group and American Airlines.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report says the combined carrier would have five East Coast hubs, "and one could logically think that's too many," its author, Gerald Dillingham, said in an interview.

American's hubs include Miami and New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. US Airways' hubs are Philadelphia, Charlotte, N.C., and Washington.

"Our intent was to say if history is any teacher when large mergers occur, the merged airline will rationalize or adjust its operations," Dillingham said. "And that could include, as it has in the past, de-emphasizing one hub or another."

The GAO report, released June 19, the day of a Senate subcommittee hearing on the merger, said: "New York could serve as a better hub and international gateway than Philadelphia in the Northeast, while Miami could be a better hub than Charlotte in the Southeast." The analysis offered no data to back up the statement.

US Airways and American executives have said that all nine current hubs would remain, and that Philadelphia would be key because it connects passengers from across the country to major transatlantic destinations.

GNRMatt

Anyone else still holding out hope that this merger just does not happen? I read the other day that an industry expert has the chances of it getting government approval at 60/40 (don't remember the source to post here). That seems much lower than it once was. I still see practically zero benefit to this merger for anyone besides certain high level executives and certain debt holders.

fastflyer

Not NYC, but other northeastern and Mason-Dixon cities:

BDL, PWM, MHT, BOS, ALB, ROC, SYR, BWI, RDU, PIT, MDT, BUF, YYZ, YUL, CLE.

Travelling from these airports to other airports in the midwest and south, like:

BHM, CMH, IND, MSY, BNA, MEM, JAN, JAX, RIC, CVG, CHS, CRW, SAV.

It is an overshot to fly to Miami or Chicago or Dallas for many of these connections. The new AA needs Charlotte as a central, East coast connection point.

PHL could serve a similar role, and especially for New England O/D, but it's really too far east (and likely too congested) for someone travelling from Cincinnati to Birmingham, for example.

Fanjet

The GAO really wasted taxpayers dollars with this "finding". They seem to be clueless to the fact that AA can really only grow at JFK with capacity increases, as opposed to flight increases. They can probably add a dozen or so more flights between 4pm and 10 pm there, than what they currently have from what I understand. US has just under 500 flights from PHL, and just over 600 from CLT. So how does that work in the GAO's scope of things? JFK becomes an 8am to 4 pm megahub?

Yes, I see flight reductions at PHL and even at CLT because of streamlining domestic traffic flows. Yes, I see some international flights shifted up to JFK from PHL. But you cannot just eliminate those hubs there and shift those flights into the MIA and JFK hubs. Even if ORD is thrown into the equation. Which will probably see the most flight increases as a result of flight reductions at PHL. And the GAO seems to overlook the fact that PHX is most at risk of being dehubbed. It is the most duplicitous when LAX and DFW are brought into the equation. DFW will remain the largest hub in the network. And there is no way in hell that they would give up their presence at LAX (especially international) in favor of PHX. And PHX's uniqueness in the new network will only be for traffic into/out of AZ that neither DFW or LAX serve.

apeortdz

My opinion means nothing, but if the new airline de-hubs PHL, I will wean myself from the airline. I fly many times per year from PHL non-stop, both domestic and international, and I try to avoid connecting flights.

austin_res

I don't see PHL being dehubbed. It serves as the airline's northeast hub and is an international gateway. Dehubbing PHL would mean giving up a huge amount of customers.

PWMTrav

I fly US precisely because I do come from one of those small new england cities and they're hubbed at 3 of my most frequent destinations - DCA, PHL and PHX. Losing PHL or DCA would be a showstopper for me - UA and DL are getting aggressive with fares out of PWM and if I need to connect for 75-100% of my flights, US is no longer attractive. At that point, I may as well save $100 and fly UA via EWR or ORD wherever.