Forgive me if this has been asked (please direct me to the thread if so), but do you think we will see any US airline hub closures anytime soon? It seems DL in particular has a lot of hubs in close proximity to one another (MSP, DTW, CVG) and should probably close one of them (they have too many hubs overall IMO). AA too with PHL, JFK, LGA.

I think AA/UA/DL are in a good pace in terms of hubs, and DL seems to actually be adding hubs instead of eliminating them. Recently, DL cut MEM and UA cut CLE, both of which were never that large to begin with, did not have the O&D to support a hub, and were not profitable within the newly merged US3. The hub networks look pretty good to me currently:

AA: DFW/CLT/ORD/JFK/LGA/DCA/PHL/MIA/PHX/LAX
DL: ATL/CVG/DTW/MSP/SLC/LGA/JFK/LAX/SEA/BOS/NRT/AMS/CDG/LHR
UA: ORD/DEN/IAH/SFO/LAX/EWR/IAD/GUM/NRT

In the last 5 years, DL has established or reestablished hubs in SEA, LAX, and BOS. While not an official hub, they have also been building up RDU, which is very close to ATL/DTW/CVG/LGA/JFK. Plus, they have been growing in CVG again after over a decade of massive cuts.

AA has a lot of hubs, many of which are in close proximity (PHX/LAX + LGA/JFK/PHL/DCA), however, many of these hubs are in major cities that can support large hubs with their O&D already. Nothing has happened to any of their hubs since the merger, and I see no reason why they would dehub them in the near future.

The only US carrier hub cuts I see in the near future is NRT for both UA and DL.

cvgComair wrote:

I think AA/UA/DL are in a good pace in terms of hubs, and DL seems to actually be adding hubs instead of eliminating them. Recently, DL cut MEM and UA cut CLE, both of which were never that large to begin with, did not have the O&D to support a hub, and were not profitable within the newly merged US3. The hub networks look pretty good to me currently:

AA: DFW/CLT/ORD/JFK/LGA/DCA/PHL/MIA/PHX/LAX
DL: ATL/CVG/DTW/MSP/SLC/LGA/JFK/LAX/SEA/BOS/NRT/AMS/CDG/LHR
UA: ORD/DEN/IAH/SFO/LAX/EWR/IAD/GUM/NRT

In the last 5 years, DL has established or reestablished hubs in SEA, LAX, and BOS. While not an official hub, they have also been building up RDU, which is very close to ATL/DTW/CVG/LGA/JFK. Plus, they have been growing in CVG again after over a decade of massive cuts.

AA has a lot of hubs, many of which are in close proximity (PHX/LAX + LGA/JFK/PHL/DCA), however, many of these hubs are in major cities that can support large hubs with their O&D already. Nothing has happened to any of their hubs since the merger, and I see no reason why they would dehub them in the near future.

The only US carrier hub cuts I see in the near future is NRT for both UA and DL.

I think Delta should close CVG. You already have two viable Midwest hubs in MSP and DTW, plus it's not terribly far from Atlanta. Also, SLC seems pretty pointless (though it's probably just there to compete with UA in DEN).

CVG is definitely not a legitimate hub anymore and I still see BOS as more of focus city for DL and AA.

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

I think AA/UA/DL are in a good pace in terms of hubs, and DL seems to actually be adding hubs instead of eliminating them. Recently, DL cut MEM and UA cut CLE, both of which were never that large to begin with, did not have the O&D to support a hub, and were not profitable within the newly merged US3. The hub networks look pretty good to me currently:

AA: DFW/CLT/ORD/JFK/LGA/DCA/PHL/MIA/PHX/LAX
DL: ATL/CVG/DTW/MSP/SLC/LGA/JFK/LAX/SEA/BOS/NRT/AMS/CDG/LHR
UA: ORD/DEN/IAH/SFO/LAX/EWR/IAD/GUM/NRT

In the last 5 years, DL has established or reestablished hubs in SEA, LAX, and BOS. While not an official hub, they have also been building up RDU, which is very close to ATL/DTW/CVG/LGA/JFK. Plus, they have been growing in CVG again after over a decade of massive cuts.

AA has a lot of hubs, many of which are in close proximity (PHX/LAX + LGA/JFK/PHL/DCA), however, many of these hubs are in major cities that can support large hubs with their O&D already. Nothing has happened to any of their hubs since the merger, and I see no reason why they would dehub them in the near future.

The only US carrier hub cuts I see in the near future is NRT for both UA and DL.

I think Delta should close CVG. You already have two viable Midwest hubs in MSP and DTW, plus it's not terribly far from Atlanta. Also, SLC seems pretty pointless (though it's probably just there to compete with UA in DEN).

SLC gives DL a competitive position both geographically and in the business sense in the Mountain timezone. SLC is DL's Denver, although it seems to be a tad more isolated in terms of regions served in the country. It is a very capable hub in an important city and has been key in the DL system since the Western merger.

ADrum23 wrote:

Forgive me if this has been asked (please direct me to the thread if so), but do you think we will see any US airline hub closures anytime soon? It seems DL in particular has a lot of hubs in close proximity to one another (MSP, DTW, CVG) and should probably close one of them (they have too many hubs overall IMO). AA too with PHL, JFK, LGA.

CVG has been effectively de-hubbed (don't know if it's officially been de-hubbed or not, I know you can still get connections through there on some routes). Outside of that, I think the US3 have right sized themselves at this point. MSP and DTW really are not that close. JFK and LGA for AA serve different purposes, and AA doesn't have a slew of slots at either so much of what they seem to aim for there is O&D. PHL serves as a better connecter hub for new AA given the slot shortages at JFK/LGA. And I can't see AA willingly giving up slots in the #1 market in the country, despite the foolheaded LGA/DCA slot swap that former management did at US.

Sigh. CVG is still a hub, regardless of what people on the internet think. It's still banked, and has more daily departures than RDU or BOS.

Mainline: Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Tampa
Seasonal: Cancún, New York–JFK, New York–LaGuardia, Seattle/Tacoma, Washington–National

Delta Connection: Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago–O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Detroit, Fayetteville/Bentonville, Hartford, Houston–Intercontinental, Kansas City, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Nashville, New York–JFK, New York–LaGuardia, Newark, Philadelphia, Raleigh/Durham, St. Louis, Toronto–Pearson, Washington–National
Seasonal: Denver, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Tampa

DL maintains a small hub there due to strong O/D demand, along with some connection traffic (as high as 20%).

In terms of the topic, I previously thought that PHX would be at risk, but with LAX being a perpetual mess, and AA already having a weak presence in the western part of the country, I think it survives, and perhaps sees some expansion. AS being forced to distance itself from AA makes this even more likely IMO.

cvgComair wrote:

DL: ATL/CVG/DTW/MSP/SLC/LGA/JFK/LAX/SEA/BOS/NRT/AMS/CDG/LHR

While Delta does indeed include airports such as AMS, CDG, and LHR on its official list of hubs, they are of course the hubs of its European joint venture partners. You can't connect there between two flights on Delta metal (unless you want to return to the USA, a rather expensive way of getting between two US airports).

LHR isn't much of a hub for them on any definition because JV partner Virgin Atlantic has a very limited range of non-US destinations from there (just JNB. DXB, LOS, DEL, PVG and HKG on the current timetable) and the last two might well be more attractive as transpacific services from the USA. Eastbound, there are also very lengthy layovers between Delta arrivals (mostly mornings) and Virgin Atlantic departures (mostly late evenings).

If they're valid hubs for DL, then AA should be allowed LHR and MAD on its list, and UA be allowed FRA, MUC and BRU.

adamblang wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

The only US carrier hub cuts I see in the near future is NRT for both UA and DL.

Right now, United has DEN, EWR, GUM, HNL, IAD, IAH, ICN, LAX, ORD, and SFO from NRT. ICN ends October 27th. That leaves NRT-HNL as the only NRT flight not to a UA hub. I'd say NRT's already been de-hubbed by United.

Delta's slightly more robust at NRT with GUM, HNL, MNL, PDX, PVG, ROR, SIN, and SPN non-hub service. (In addition to ATL, DTW, and SEA service.)

You could call NRT a focus city for UA, given the numerous nonstop flights to the USA, but remember that UA and NH have a code share agreement in place which is what makes the focus at NRT still wok. Delta isn't more robust at NRT. If anything, it is taking the hub down to focus on ICN (recently announced improved and expanded partnership with Sky Team member Korean Air) and you'll see DL focus more on PVG as an Asia hub with connections on local carriers.

CVG is gone! Really no need talking about it but yes, it was redundant after the NW merger thus it was downgraded to the demise of Comair. Concourse C was a purpose built facility for Comair/Delta and CRJ's and sits idle today. Unless an airline such as DH comes around again the building will most likely be demolished eventually.

As far as dehubbing in the US I cannot see any further cuts coming in the near term unless major instability happens.

deltadawg wrote:

CVG is gone! Really no need talking about it but yes, it was redundant after the NW merger thus it was downgraded to the demise of Comair. Concourse C was a purpose built facility for Comair/Delta and CRJ's and sits idle today. Unless an airline such as DH comes around again the building will most likely be demolished eventually.

As far as dehubbing in the US I cannot see any further cuts coming in the near term unless major instability happens.

Sits idle? Concourse C is gone... Yet CVG is still a hub for DL and will remain to be, probably growing going forward, to compete with WN out of CVG.

I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as some people on this forum, I would think that airports with low O&D are the most likely to get cut (if an airline is looking to close a hub). Especially if there is already another hub in the same region.

No need for closures, the big 3 have pretty good equilibrium has noted up tread. I think the future growth for American Airlines and possibly even United Airlines will be in smaller focus cities small and little hubs. Delta is by means of needs doing this. AA and UA will catch on.

AA will not be closing PHL/LGA/JFK/DCA... they run the Eastern seaboard amongst the legacy carriers... although I could see some AA cuts potentially in CLT it will still be a prominent hub...

Is there a reason DL doesn't have a hub in Texas or anywhere between ATL and LA in the southern states? I think they used to have one in Dallas and it obviously didn't work. I am curious to what dynamics pushed it out. I would think there would be demand. The only reason I bring it up is because if I want to fly from the midwest MCI/STL/IND,etc to, in my case a few weeks ago, ABQ or Texas for that matter, I have to fly way out of way (ATL/MSP/SLC) to get there if I would want to fly DL. I like DL but I wasn't willing to take a long way around when I could fly WN/AA through Dallas or UA/WN through DEN. Even PHX on AA/WN would have been more direct.

I am newer to this site so I don't know much about the history of some of these airlines and where they used to be yet. Thanks

Jshank83 wrote:

Is there a reason DL doesn't have a hub in Texas...

WN hubs at DAL and HOU; AA at DFW; UA at IAH. They quite fully aggregate / serve the needs of smaller Texas communities as connecting points, as well as giving the major metros a great variety of non-stop flights.. There's no more room for another good-sized hub in Texas than there is for another one in CHI!

adamblang wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

The only US carrier hub cuts I see in the near future is NRT for both UA and DL.

Right now, United has DEN, EWR, GUM, HNL, IAD, IAH, ICN, LAX, ORD, and SFO from NRT. ICN ends October 27th. That leaves NRT-HNL as the only NRT flight not to a UA hub. I'd say NRT's already been de-hubbed by United.

Delta's slightly more robust at NRT with GUM, HNL, MNL, PDX, PVG, ROR, SIN, and SPN non-hub service. (In addition to ATL, DTW, and SEA service.)

You would be fooling yourself if you considered NRT a hub for DL. They have cut so many intra-Asia flights that only SIN and MNL will be left by next summer, and I would expect those to gone soon as well. The beach markets primarily run independently and offer limited connectivity from DL's US-NRT flights. UA at least has service to NRT from all its hubs. DL serves less than half of its hubs from NRT (MSP, JFK, LGA, SLC, LAX, BOS are without service), and has far fewer transpacific seats. UA calls NRT a "hub" in the sense that a significant portion of its passengers connect onto its JV partner, ANA on intra-Asia codeshares. NRT is a hub for United the same way AMS is a hub for Delta, one with a lot of connections and destinations on its JV partner, but only service to hubs on its own metal.

Andy33 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

DL: ATL/CVG/DTW/MSP/SLC/LGA/JFK/LAX/SEA/BOS/NRT/AMS/CDG/LHR

While Delta does indeed include airports such as AMS, CDG, and LHR on its official list of hubs, they are of course the hubs of its European joint venture partners. You can't connect there between two flights on Delta metal (unless you want to return to the USA, a rather expensive way of getting between two US airports).

LHR isn't much of a hub for them on any definition because JV partner Virgin Atlantic has a very limited range of non-US destinations from there (just JNB. DXB, LOS, DEL, PVG and HKG on the current timetable) and the last two might well be more attractive as transpacific services from the USA. Eastbound, there are also very lengthy layovers between Delta arrivals (mostly mornings) and Virgin Atlantic departures (mostly late evenings).

If they're valid hubs for DL, then AA should be allowed LHR and MAD on its list, and UA be allowed FRA, MUC and BRU.

I agree. It's nothing more than a marketing ploy on DL's part (or originally NW I suppose). The other JVs aren't any different really.

cvgComair wrote:

I think AA/UA/DL are in a good pace in terms of hubs

Agreed. At this point, all four of the nationwide U.S. carriers have fairly diverse and well-placed hubs oriented to cater to a variety of domestic and international traffic flows. There are some obvious gaps - like AA in the western U.S., Delta in Texas, United in the southeastern U.S., etc. but overall, the hub structure of the nation's largest carriers - like the broader industry structure overall - seemed to have reached a natural, sustainable equilibrium.

grbauc wrote:

I think the future growth for American Airlines and possibly even United Airlines will be in smaller focus cities small and little hubs. Delta is by means of needs doing this. AA and UA will catch on.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It's hard to imagine which markets would be profitable as "smaller focus cities" and/or "little hubs" for AA or United. I agree that there may well be markets where both carriers add a few targeted, opportunistic and strategically important non-hub routes (that cater primarily to O&D but also some select connections) - but I wouldn't then call those places "hubs" for AA or United, just like I don't think such markets (CVG, BOS, RDU) are "hubs" for Delta, either.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

Is there a reason DL doesn't have a hub in Texas...

WN hubs at DAL and HOU; AA at DFW; UA at IAH. They quite fully aggregate / serve the needs of smaller Texas communities as connecting points, as well as giving the major metros a great variety of non-stop flights.. There's no more room for another good-sized hub in Texas than there is for another one in CHI!

I do wonder whether we would see a third (or 5th, if you want to count DAL and HOU) major hub airport in Texas if Austin and San Antonio combined their airports mid way (such as in San Marcos). The drive time wouldn't be much further than DC to Dulles, and maybe even faster than getting to airports in major metro areas during rush hour if roads and transit were planned right. Certainly could lead to a big increase in destinations...

It would not make business sense for DL to consolidate their midwest operations at one hub, even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Geographically Chicago splits the midwest in two. Consolidating at either DTW or MSP would effectively gives the other half of the Midwest to UA/AA. Relocating DL to ORD would bring yields down due to crazy competition. Splitting between MSP and DTW gives DL better midwest coverage, and avoids the congestion problems at ORD. Plus both DTW and MSP are great airports, and generate a lot more O-D then most on A.net care to admit.

Jshank83 wrote:

Is there a reason DL doesn't have a hub in Texas or anywhere between ATL and LA in the southern states? I think they used to have one in Dallas and it obviously didn't work. I am curious to what dynamics pushed it out. I would think there would be demand.

Hub's work only if you can scale them up. At DFW, DL operated 1 concourse (E) plus a satellite. AA, on other hand, operated 2 and some.

DL moved their assets to other hubs such as ATL, JFK and so forth. Obviously, they have done very well for themselves. AA at DFW now operates 3 plus international. Like DL, lot of these assets were consolidated at DFW from other smaller hubs like SJC, RDU, BNA etc.

Hubs work well for certain areas like SE USA. Small communities are better served by a mega hub like ATL.

For large metro's, hub's dont really work because there is enough market for point-to-point service. PanAm's JFK hub therefore died. Neither DL nor AA operate 'true' hub's out of JFK. B6 does well but more as a point-to-point service.

Just for AA, hubs that have been shut-down include SJC, BNA, RDU, STL, SJU. For US Air, PIT. For HP(America West), LAS. Hubs likely to be down include PHL.

AA will probably scale back PHL and either PHX or LAX.

Since the subject is USA airlines and not just the USA per se, I suspect that NRT is as good as gone for DL, with its joint venture with KE taking effect, and UA will likely close its hub there since it has GUM to handle the Asia Pacific region where needed with narrow-body aircraft and can hand off traffic in Tokyo to NH. Domestically, I suspect that PHX may be in danger for American. JFK, LGA, PHL, and DCA are all American hubs, but 3 of the 4 are slot restricted.

Varsity1 wrote:

AA will probably scale back PHL and either PHX or LAX.

This whole PHX is the most vulnerable hub argument is starting to get old.

Here is a list of the top 25 metro areas in the US. Phoenix is #12. PHX has the O/D population to support a hub or large focus city.

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area 2016 Estimate 2010 Census % Change Encompassing Combined Statistical Area
1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 20,153,634 19,567,410 +3.00% New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 13,310,447 12,828,837 +3.75% Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Combined Statistical Area
3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,512,999 9,461,105 +0.55% Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,233,323 6,426,214 +12.56% Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK Combined Statistical Area
5 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,772,470 5,920,416 +14.39% Houston-The Woodlands, TX Combined Statistical Area
6 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,131,977 5,636,232 +8.80% Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area
7 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,070,500 5,965,343 +1.76% Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD Combined Statistical Area
8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 6,066,387 5,564,635 +9.02% Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL Combined Statistical Area
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,789,700 5,286,728 +9.51% Atlanta-Sandy Springs, GA Combined Statistical Area
10 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,794,447 4,552,402 +5.32% Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT Combined Statistical Area
11 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,679,166 4,335,391 +7.93% San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area
12 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,661,537 4,192,887 +11.18%
13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,527,837 4,224,851 +7.17% Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Combined Statistical Area
14 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,297,617 4,296,250 +0.03% Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI Combined Statistical Area
15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,798,902 3,439,809 +10.44% Seattle-Tacoma, WA Combined Statistical Area
16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,551,036 3,348,859 +6.04% Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI Combined Statistical Area
17 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,317,749 3,095,313 +7.19%
18 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 3,032,171 2,783,243 +8.94%
19 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,853,077 2,543,482 +12.17% Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area
20 St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,807,002 2,787,701 +0.69% St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL Combined Statistical Area
21 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,798,886 2,710,489 +3.26% Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area
22 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,474,314 2,217,012 +11.61% Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC Combined Statistical Area
23 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,441,257 2,134,411 +14.38% Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL Combined Statistical Area
24 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,429,609 2,142,508 +13.40%
25 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2,424,955 2,226,009 +8.94% Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA Combined Statistical Ar

Varsity1 wrote:

AA will probably scale back PHL and either PHX or LAX.

And the scale back at PHL will be welcome. Fewer flights means fewer delays and cancellations for this airport that can't grow anymore at all. People always cry about not having enough choices about flight times but honestly, I'd rather schedule my life around a scheduled flight rather than try to schedule my life in the midst of cancellations and delays; the former is much more easier to do than the latter.

grbauc wrote:

No need for closures, the big 3 have pretty good equilibrium has noted up tread. I think the future growth for American Airlines and possibly even United Airlines will be in smaller focus cities small and little hubs. Delta is by means of needs doing this. AA and UA will catch on.

AA and DL are currently going head-to-head in RDU and BOS. There aren't that many cities that can really merit a regional hub/focus city in the US. The 2 best I can think of that the US3 can take are PDX (could complement SFO well for UA which is weak in the PNW, AA could stand to make a run there also), AUS (has DL written all over it to make a run at another Texas hub, before the ULCCs take it over).

SAN and SAT could work as focus cities but SAN is horrible for connections for anywhere except to Australia and the South Pacific, and then you face the runway length issue; and SAT isn't as high yielding as AUS.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Since the subject is USA airlines and not just the USA per se, I suspect that NRT is as good as gone for DL, with its joint venture with KE taking effect, and UA will likely close its hub there since it has GUM to handle the Asia Pacific region where needed with narrow-body aircraft and can hand off traffic in Tokyo to NH. Domestically, I suspect that PHX may be in danger for American. JFK, LGA, PHL, and DCA are all American hubs, but 3 of the 4 are slot restricted.

DL still has some P2P routes from NRT including GUM, SPN, KOR, MNL, SIN, PDX, HNL and LAS. I'm not counting PVG because that is served nonstop from the US. It's still more of hub for DL than UA which only has service to its hubs and HNL with the ICN tag ending. NRT for UA is practically closed.

PHX for AA is interesting because it's a huge metro area, but is the only hub of the US3 without an intercontinental flight. And isnt that great geographically for connections, although AA and WN make their PHX ops work. PHXs best asset is good weather year-round. I always thought AA would use PHX as more of a reliever to LAX, but they seem to have kept it where it is for the most part since the merger. It's a good example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

flyfresno wrote:

I do wonder whether we would see a third (or 5th, if you want to count DAL and HOU) major hub airport in Texas if Austin and San Antonio combined their airports mid way (such as in San Marcos).

TWA772LR wrote:

There aren't that many cities that can really merit a regional hub/focus city in the US. The 2 best I can think of that the US3 can take are PDX (could complement SFO well for UA which is weak in the PNW, AA could stand to make a run there also), AUS (has DL written all over it to make a run at another Texas hub, before the ULCCs take it over).

A combined airport in San Marcos is the only way Central Texas could ever viably support a network carrier hub. Short of that, neither AUS nor SAT on their own is large enough - as a market - to viably serve such a role.

It is intriguing to think about such a prospect - with a single, regional airport serving a combined population approaching four million people, I completely agree that a single, unified airport could be a very, very attractive place for a Delta hub. It would fit well with Delta's recent emphasis on tech industry traffic, it has healthy O&D and plenty of business demand, and while far south for connections in the south-central U.S., it's no further south than IAH and fine for lots of east-west connections. All that said, though - I don't see it happening. I don't see a plausible chance, anytime soon, of AUS and SAT willingly shutting down their airports and building one huge one in between.

Jshank83 wrote:

Is there a reason DL doesn't have a hub in Texas or anywhere between ATL and LA in the southern states? I think they used to have one in Dallas and it obviously didn't work. I am curious to what dynamics pushed it out.

vadodara wrote:

Hub's work only if you can scale them up. At DFW, DL operated 1 concourse (E) plus a satellite.

Indeed. As has been oft commented in the U.S. airline industry, there is a difference between being a close #2 and a distant #2. Distant #2s in a 2-way race - Delta in DFW, United in MIA, Continental in DEN (at the end), etc. - typically don't work. In the case of Delta at DFW, specifically, this was also exacerbated by the fact that DFW wasn't, at that time, and frankly probably still isn't today, large enough to support two network carrier hubs, plus Southwest. There are really only a few markets in the U.S. sufficiently large and sufficiently well-situated geographically to support so much fragmentation as two or more hubs. NYC is one, along with LAX metro, SFO/Bay Area metro, CHI metro, WAS metro and possibly South Florida. At DFW, Delta never had the scale to seriously rival AA - in virtually every market outside the southeast, AA dominated Delta in terms of both frequency and capacity, and this was even more pronounced internationally.

Vctony wrote:

This whole PHX is the most vulnerable hub argument is starting to get old.

Here is a list of the top 25 metro areas in the US. Phoenix is #12. PHX has the O/D population to support a hub or large focus city.

TWA772LR wrote:

PHX for AA is interesting because it's a huge metro area, but is the only hub of the US3 without an intercontinental flight. And isnt that great geographically for connections, although AA and WN make their PHX ops work. PHXs best asset is good weather year-round. I always thought AA would use PHX as more of a reliever to LAX, but they seem to have kept it where it is for the most part since the merger. It's a good example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Personally, I still do think PHX is the "most vulnerable" among AA's hubs, although having said that, I'm heartened and happy to say that it has fared better than I initially thought after the merger. PHX has seen capacity and frequency reduced in a lot of markets, and volume overall is down post-merger - and I suspect there is still more of that coming. But on the flip side, PHX has benefited from the network synergies of being integrated into a far larger network, which has facilitated access to new, smaller spokes that can diversify PHX's connecting flows and, helpfully, often at higher yields and in places where Southwest cannot compete. That has helped. Personally, I still think PHX will ultimately end up looking more like other U.S. network carrier hubs circa 2017 - meaning a higher proportion of RJs to mainline - and will continue to shrink somewhat overall. But I also agree that it seems to compliment LAX and - perhaps more importantly - DFW well.

TWA772LR wrote:

AA and DL are currently going head-to-head in RDU and BOS.

AA and Delta aren't really "going head-to-head" in either of those cities - in both places, AA is turning both into essentially very large spokes with lots of flights and seats to AA's hubs (which, obviously, tend to be some of the largest O&D markets and business centers in the U.S.). Delta is going after O&D with lots of nonstop routes out of both cities. It will be interesting to see how each strategy fares in the next downturn.

I'm curious why Delta doesn't try to get more connecting traffic to go through CVG. Living back and forth between the Northeast and Florida, When I look at connecting flights CVG is never an option or if it is, it's $400-$800 more than connecting through ATL, RDU, MSP, DTW, or NYC.

Super80Fan wrote:

I'm curious why Delta doesn't try to get more connecting traffic to go through CVG. Living back and forth between the Northeast and Florida, When I look at connecting flights CVG is never an option or if it is, it's $400-$800 more than connecting through ATL, RDU, MSP, DTW, or NYC.

Because in all likelihood, CVG is typically, on average, a much more expensive place to route a connection versus a hub. The opportunity cost of displacing a local O&D passenger for a connecting passenger is much higher in CVG because the number of seats, overall, is so much lower. In the case of northeast to Florida, Delta literally has multiple - in some cases, 4-6 - different places where they can connect that person.

commavia wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

I'm curious why Delta doesn't try to get more connecting traffic to go through CVG. Living back and forth between the Northeast and Florida, When I look at connecting flights CVG is never an option or if it is, it's $400-$800 more than connecting through ATL, RDU, MSP, DTW, or NYC.

Because in all likelihood, CVG is typically, on average, a much more expensive place to route a connection versus a hub. The opportunity cost of displacing a local O&D passenger for a connecting passenger is much higher in CVG because the number of seats, overall, is so much lower. In the case of northeast to Florida, Delta literally has multiple - in some cases, 4-6 - different places where they can connect that person.

Right. Where the opportunity cost is zero (or at least very low) because O&D demand isn't as high, competitive connecting options can and do show up.

commavia wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

I'm curious why Delta doesn't try to get more connecting traffic to go through CVG. Living back and forth between the Northeast and Florida, When I look at connecting flights CVG is never an option or if it is, it's $400-$800 more than connecting through ATL, RDU, MSP, DTW, or NYC.

Because in all likelihood, CVG is typically, on average, a much more expensive place to route a connection versus a hub. The opportunity cost of displacing a local O&D passenger for a connecting passenger is much higher in CVG because the number of seats, overall, is so much lower. In the case of northeast to Florida, Delta literally has multiple - in some cases, 4-6 - different places where they can connect that person.

Makes sense, never thought of it that way.

commavia wrote:

grbauc wrote:

I think the future growth for American Airlines and possibly even United Airlines will be in smaller focus cities small and little hubs. Delta is by means of needs doing this. AA and UA will catch on.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It's hard to imagine which markets would be profitable as "smaller focus cities" and/or "little hubs" for AA or United. I agree that there may well be markets where both carriers add a few targeted, opportunistic and strategically important non-hub routes (that cater primarily to O&D but also some select connections) - but I wouldn't then call those places "hubs" for AA or United, just like I don't think such markets (CVG, BOS, RDU) are "hubs" for Delta, either.

You do not see AA possibly expanding at SFO? There is a lot of premium traffic ex- SFO, and with the slight paring back of the relationship with AS following the VX takeover, does that not present an opportunity for AA to expand flying from SFO on its own metal? Particularly once AA moves to the new T1 and acquires extra gates. I fly AA to/from SFO most weeks (mostly to ORD but also JFK and to DFW and CLT to make connections) and seemingly every flight I am on is full. I really think AA has a bigger potential market at SFO than they are currently tapping.

From what I've seen, connections via CVG aren't any more expensive than other hubs, and are sometimes cheaper (route-dependent of course). Lately I've also seen DL try to route pax originating at other hubs through CVG, by offering a much lower price on the 1-stop vs the nonstop. I regularly see ATL, MSP, DTW on the connections board when getting off a flight at CVG.

vhtje wrote:

You do not see AA possibly expanding at SFO? There is a lot of premium traffic ex- SFO, and with the slight paring back of the relationship with AS following the VX takeover, does that not present an opportunity for AA to expand flying from SFO on its own metal? Particularly once AA moves to the new T1 and acquires extra gates. I fly AA to/from SFO most weeks (mostly to ORD but also JFK and to DFW and CLT to make connections) and seemingly every flight I am on is full. I really think AA has a bigger potential market at SFO than they are currently tapping.

No, I don't see that happening. I'd love nothing more than to see AA grow its presence in SFO - but it just seems implausible given how intense the competition is today in the Bay Area. As I've said many times, the only additional market I truly think AA needs to be in out of SFO is BOS - I continue to find AA's absence from this route remarkable. Beyond that, virtually everything else at this point - especially north-south along the west coast - is so competitive, with, typically, 3-4 other airlines, that I just don't see it being worth it.

cvgComair wrote:

UA cut CLE did not have the O&D to support a hub.

CLE has more O&D than CVG. So does PIT. CLE and PIT are serving more total passengers by a good margin over CVG despite neither being a hub anymore.

vadodara wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

Is there a reason DL doesn't have a hub in Texas or anywhere between ATL and LA in the southern states? I think they used to have one in Dallas and it obviously didn't work. I am curious to what dynamics pushed it out. I would think there would be demand.

Hub's work only if you can scale them up. At DFW, DL operated 1 concourse (E) plus a satellite. AA, on other hand, operated 2 and some.

DL moved their assets to other hubs such as ATL, JFK and so forth. Obviously, they have done very well for themselves. AA at DFW now operates 3 plus international. Like DL, lot of these assets were consolidated at DFW from other smaller hubs like SJC, RDU, BNA etc.

Hubs work well for certain areas like SE USA. Small communities are better served by a mega hub like ATL.

For large metro's, hub's dont really work because there is enough market for point-to-point service. PanAm's JFK hub therefore died. Neither DL nor AA operate 'true' hub's out of JFK. B6 does well but more as a point-to-point service.

Just for AA, hubs that have been shut-down include SJC, BNA, RDU, STL, SJU. For US Air, PIT. For HP(America West), LAS. Hubs likely to be down include PHL.

The year 2000 called, they want your post for their forum

In 2017, Delta operates a full, banked, throughout-the-day hub at JFK.

Don't forget a "hub" means a crew domicile. CVG is a very senior DL domicile (for now, hut that will change quickly) meaning votes of the LEC tend to favor the company. CVG votes on contract issues could swing the contract issue more toward the company meaning savings far outweigh the costs. I arrived in CVG late at 4-ish PM; no onward departures! Hotel and missed Mother's Day.

GF

izbtmnhd wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

UA cut CLE did not have the O&D to support a hub.

CLE has more O&D than CVG. So does PIT. CLE and PIT are serving more total passengers by a good margin over CVG despite neither being a hub anymore.

The only reason PIT/CLE have more passengers than CVG, is that DL chocked the CVG market. PIT and CLE were both cut quite suddenly and quickly, CVG’s downturn lasted over a decade. However, unlike PIT/CLE where LCC’s rushed in, DL kept up service at CVG. Just three years ago, CVG had 0 LCC’s and AA/UA barely operated anything from CVG. Plus, Southwest only came to CVG a month ago. YOY, CVG’s passenger count is up 13% and up 21% in June alone. It will not be long before CVG is just as big as CLE/PIT.

Here's why PHL isn't going anywhere in the near future. Twenty years ago, AA have a very robust number of European destinations out of ORD, including the likes of Glasgow, Stockholm, and Zurich. If you go back further, AA flew wot Frankfurt, Munich, and Dusseldorf. All of those flights are gone, too.

If you start putting in European cities out of ORD, you wind up with one or more of the following routings:

A. AA or BA to LHR, connecting to BA
B. IB to MAD, connecting to MAD
C. AA to JFK, connecting to AA or another Oneworld carrier
D. AA to PHL, connecting to AA

In looking at flying AA from ORD to MUC, I got choices A, B, and D.

As AA takes deliveries of more 787s (although 767s will continue to leave the fleet), it will be interesting to see if AA adds to European flights out of ORD. But, with AA offering flights to European destinations out of PHL that aren't available out of ORD, I don't see PHL going away any time soon.

cvgComair wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

UA cut CLE did not have the O&D to support a hub.

CLE has more O&D than CVG. So does PIT. CLE and PIT are serving more total passengers by a good margin over CVG despite neither being a hub anymore.

The only reason PIT/CLE have more passengers than CVG, is that DL chocked the CVG market. PIT and CLE were both cut quite suddenly and quickly, CVG’s downturn lasted over a decade. However, unlike PIT/CLE where LCC’s rushed in, DL kept up service at CVG. Just three years ago, CVG has 0 LCC’s and AA/UA barely operated anything from CVG. Plus, Southwest only came to CVG a month ago. YOY, CVG’s passenger count is up 13% and up 21% in June alone. It will not be long before CVG is just as big as CLE/PIT.

This is great and all but you implied that CLE does not have O&D like CVG. That's clearly not the case.

Even if CVG gets to be just as big as CLE/PIT, which isn't a certainty, it will still have less O&D. CVG is still a transfer hub for DL. CLE and PIT are not legacy carrier hubs.

TWA772LR wrote:

grbauc wrote:

No need for closures, the big 3 have pretty good equilibrium has noted up tread. I think the future growth for American Airlines and possibly even United Airlines will be in smaller focus cities small and little hubs. Delta is by means of needs doing this. AA and UA will catch on.

AA and DL are currently going head-to-head in RDU and BOS. There aren't that many cities that can really merit a regional hub/focus city in the US. The 2 best I can think of that the US3 can take are PDX (could complement SFO well for UA which is weak in the PNW, AA could stand to make a run there also), AUS (has DL written all over it to make a run at another Texas hub, before the ULCCs take it over).

SAN and SAT could work as focus cities but SAN is horrible for connections for anywhere except to Australia and the South Pacific, and then you face the runway length issue; and SAT isn't as high yielding as AUS.

I'm thinking more of WN style mini flow hubs. Smaller for those directional holes where back tracking makes AA noncompetitive.


I wish AA would add to SFO or a small focus city in the PNW. It's so hard to fly up and down the coast on AA metal.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Don't forget a "hub" means a crew domicile.

It means whatever airline marketing people want it to mean. By that definition - a crew domicile - AA has a "hubs" in RDU and BOS. But that's obviously not true. To me, a network airline "hub" is an operation that has meaningful scale, and for which schedule is optimized primarily for connections. I do not consider CVG - let alone BOS, RDU, AMS, etc. - to be "hubs" for Delta.

ckfred wrote:

Here's why PHL isn't going anywhere in the near future. Twenty years ago, AA have a very robust number of European destinations out of ORD, including the likes of Glasgow, Stockholm, and Zurich. If you go back further, AA flew wot Frankfurt, Munich, and Dusseldorf. All of those flights are gone, too.

ckfred wrote:

As AA takes deliveries of more 787s (although 767s will continue to leave the fleet), it will be interesting to see if AA adds to European flights out of ORD. But, with AA offering flights to European destinations out of PHL that aren't available out of ORD, I don't see PHL going away any time soon.

Agreed. PHL is a great hub - both domestically and internationally - and it's not going anywhere. It will go through some optimization in the context of AA's now-larger network and fleet, including upgauging to more 2-class RJs, resulting decreasing frequency, and the elimination of some shorter stage length regional routes. But overall, I have no doubt that AA is in PHL for the long haul.

As for the 787 and ORD, I agree that it may well open up better opportunities for AA across the Atlantic, although I suspect it will likely come primarily in the form of routes transitioning back to year-round from seasonal. The transatlantic route I would most like to see restored for AA out of ORD is FRA - just because of the size and importance of the market - but that seems very unlikely, even with a 787, given United/Lufthansa hub-hub dominance.

grbauc wrote:

I'm thinking more of WN style mini flow hubs. Smaller for those directional holes where back tracking makes AA noncompetitive.

I wish AA would add to SFO or a small focus city in the PNW. It's so hard to fly up and down the coast on AA metal.

I'd be curious about which directional traffic flows, specifically, require "backtracking" on AA now but could plausibly be better-served by a hypothetical "mini flow hub." Is that referring to north-south along the west coast? If so, I see the point about AA's relative lack of presence, but also recognize that realistically that market is lost to AA at this point - it is simply too competitive with too many entrenched players. I think AA's best bet is focusing on a viable presence in and out of LAX - by far the largest single market on the west coast - and leave the remainder of north-south traffic to Alaska, Delta, Southwest and United.

jfklganyc wrote:

The year 2000 called, they want your post for their forum

Sorry, not following you.

jfklganyc wrote:

In 2017, Delta operates a full, banked, throughout-the-day hub at JFK.

Good for them; at one point, they concluded that shutting down both FRA and JFK was prudent. And same about NRT. If they feel starting banks at JFK is justifiable, no issues with me.

DAL would be more believable if they stopped whinning about ME3.

I do wonder whether we would see a third (or 5th, if you want to count DAL and HOU) major hub airport in Texas if Austin and San Antonio combined their airports mid way (such as in San Marcos). The drive time wouldn't be much further than DC to Dulles, and maybe even faster than getting to airports in major metro areas during rush hour if roads and transit were planned right. Certainly could lead to a big increase in destinations...

A combined airport in San Marcos is the only way Central Texas could ever viably support a network carrier hub. Short of that, neither AUS nor SAT on their own is large enough - as a market - to viably serve such a role.

It is intriguing to think about such a prospect - with a single, regional airport serving a combined population approaching four million people, I completely agree that a single, unified airport could be a very, very attractive place for a Delta hub. It would fit well with Delta's recent emphasis on tech industry traffic, it has healthy O&D and plenty of business demand, and while far south for connections in the south-central U.S., it's no further south than IAH and fine for lots of east-west connections. All that said, though - I don't see it happening. I don't see a plausible chance, anytime soon, of AUS and SAT willingly shutting down their airports and building one huge one in between.

Way back when Austin was looking for a new airport (Back when it was Mueller airport in the middle of the city), one of the proposal was actually building a Central Texas regional airport. That got shot down, of course, just b/c nobody in Austin or San Antonio are willing to drive that far just to catch a flight. And that was before Austin and San Antonio Metro Area grew to the size today.

And trust me, if you've ever live in that area, you'll know that I-35 is a giant mess and not fun to drive on.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Way back when Austin was looking for a new airport (Back when it was Mueller airport in the middle of the city), one of the proposal was actually building a Central Texas regional airport. That got shot down, of course, just b/c nobody in Austin or San Antonio are willing to drive that far just to catch a flight. And that was before Austin and San Antonio Metro Area grew to the size today.

And trust me, if you've ever live in that area, you'll know that I-35 is a giant mess and not fun to drive on.

Having lived in Austin myself, I totally agree that a combined regional airport is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. I personally do believe it would potentially facilitate an airport of sufficient scale, serving a combined market of sufficient scale, to support a full-fledged network carrier hub. But that would come at the cost of speed and convenience for travelers from both cities who would pretty much all then have to driver further to get to a nonstop flight. I can easily understand how many frequent AUS/SAT-area travelers rationalize simply connecting through DFW or IAH to reach smaller markets in about the same amount of time it would take to drive to San Marcos.

commavia wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Way back when Austin was looking for a new airport (Back when it was Mueller airport in the middle of the city), one of the proposal was actually building a Central Texas regional airport. That got shot down, of course, just b/c nobody in Austin or San Antonio are willing to drive that far just to catch a flight. And that was before Austin and San Antonio Metro Area grew to the size today.

And trust me, if you've ever live in that area, you'll know that I-35 is a giant mess and not fun to drive on.

Having lived in Austin myself, I totally agree that a combined regional airport is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. I personally do believe it would potentially facilitate an airport of sufficient scale, serving a combined market of sufficient scale, to support a full-fledged network carrier hub. But that would come at the cost of speed and convenience for travelers from both cities who would pretty much all then have to driver further to get to a nonstop flight. I can easily understand how many frequent AUS/SAT-area travelers rationalize simply connecting through DFW or IAH to reach smaller markets in about the same amount of time it would take to drive to San Marcos.

The idea *has* been thrown around quite a bit in both cities...but it will likely be a while if it ever does happen.

cvgComair wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

UA cut CLE did not have the O&D to support a hub.

CLE has more O&D than CVG. So does PIT. CLE and PIT are serving more total passengers by a good margin over CVG despite neither being a hub anymore.

The only reason PIT/CLE have more passengers than CVG, is that DL chocked the CVG market. PIT and CLE were both cut quite suddenly and quickly, CVG’s downturn lasted over a decade. However, unlike PIT/CLE where LCC’s rushed in, DL kept up service at CVG. Just three years ago, CVG had 0 LCC’s and AA/UA barely operated anything from CVG. Plus, Southwest only came to CVG a month ago. YOY, CVG’s passenger count is up 13% and up 21% in June alone. It will not be long before CVG is just as big as CLE/PIT.

Wasn't there a period where there were -zero- mainline United flights at CVG?