Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[kermit]

^ airport improvements are not part of the CIP, they are self-financed.

 

The airport authority thing might cause some delays however.....

[15895]

^ airport improvements are not part of the CIP, they are self-financed.

The airport authority thing might cause some delays however.....

I thought there were road improvements in the CIP at the airport? Must've been part of something else

[kermit]

The road improvments were to serve truck traffic into the new intermodal yard, I don't believe any of it was intended to facilitate passenger-side access.

Edited February 15, 2013 by kermit

[Dale]

Well, here's what I'm thinking. Traffic drives expansion. And reportedly,  the merger will boost traffic dramatically.

[Miesian Corners]

Nostrum, why so negative about the merger?  I work there, and from what we were told on a conference call yesterday morning, this bodes well for all.  Training Center, hangar remain and are and most likely expanded, hub flying increased to perhaps 700+ flights a day (reason given is the same one I've said all along--the merged airline must compete with DELTA and its mega hub in ATL).  Best part?  Quote: "We will be the biggest airline in the world and will be required to act the part".  Technology and other enhancements in the terminal will be huge.  Automated boarding (like Lufthansa in Frankfurt; you scan your boarding card and a turnstile opens to allow you on the jetbridge), new Flagship lounge for international customers (complete with showers and changing rooms), etc.  If the airline plans to reduce international service, why build a Flagship Lounge here?      

The only downside I see to this is One World; it's a far less exciting alliance than Star.  But, it could get Iberia and British Airways flying here.  

[15895]

Consolidation, Synergies, Optimization, etc.

AMR could keep the same market share a merger with LCC would provide but still consolidate some routes to Miami. CLT/PHL/DCA provide a lot more feed for the AMR network. They could upgrade flights out of MIA to larger aircraft and shift some CLT Latin destinations to MIA. Not all of them (CLT is a huge, giant hub and very low cost. So obviously we'd keep a good bit of flights)

Charlottes strength is Traffic Flows within and To the Southeast.

Some cities are not worth US Airways opening up to just have flights to Charlotte. But some American Airlines Cities such as Oklahoma City already have service to several cities, so it would only make sense to add Charlotte. Dallas/Chicago/Miami could never do what Charlotte does. So our Hub status is fine.

That's why I think the CLT hub would grow, but perhaps lose some flights to Latin America/South America.

I was really just giving a "worst case scenario"

But that argument falls flat once you consider American offers nonstop to basically any destination that has demand to GIG. Richmond, Raleigh, Norfolk, Greensboro, and Charleston all have nonstop service to Miami on American.

Charlotte has - I believe - 3 or 2 people a day flying to Rio D... Miami has one stop connections to any significant place that has people actually going to Rio D.

Edit: But... If Charlotte can have service to Dublin, 2 daily flights to Frankfurt + Munich, Rome, and Madrid... I wouldn't be surprised to see GIG service stay... Madrid would probably be upgraded considering AMR has a "hub" there (JV with Iberia)

Hm. I thought US Airways was topping out at ~710 Daily Flights this summer. This merger may be *net plus for Charlotte air traffic. With, as they say, an increase of new cities on the Gulf Coast and Midwest. On the flip side, Rio D and the the other Latin destinations may be in jeopardy.

We could get up to 700 daily flights to gulf coast and heartland cities and lose some of our prestigious long haul international routes. If some of you want to believe that we'll get a Tokyo flight (which Delta in ATL is nearly double US @ Charlotte and still has less connecting traffic and struggled with asian flights) and retain 3 peak time flights to Germany, that's yalls' opinion.

I'm not being doom and gloom, I haven't been since Last July... Meanwhile I think a lot of people are pessimistic and doom and gloom about streetcar. But this whole merger; I'm being realistic.

Charlotte has 2 PDEW, if I'm not mistaken, on CLT-GIG... CLT was the only viable station for GIG/GRU flights. Now we have Miami, Dallas, New York and Chicago who can Handle flights... With probably at least 15X the local traffic we do. On top of Dallas having ~150 more flights, NYC filling up local traffic, Chicago is bigger than US's PHL hub with tons of connections and lots of local demand, MIA connects all the South America generatig traffic connections (IAH, IAD, NYC, BOS, ORD, LAX, etc) and superior local demand.

Some longhual routes are seasonal. OKC would probably be 3x daily year round. More flights. I rather have my international flights. That's just me though.

The big winner here is PHL. I know they'll get Asian routes (it's a no brainer) and with US's strength to Germany (even without *A) I think JFK stands to get some more Euro routes maybe, AMR might haves some extra planes to play with in which case we might keep or gain long haul. But PHL will be the first place the big jets will head.

I could be wrong, but I'm not being cynical. I'm not Talking about an apocalypse. I was a huge advocate against naysayers on our longhual flights to GIG, MAD, Etc. Against a lot of people who thought it'd fail.

Edited February 20, 2013 by dubone

[cltbwimob]

We could get up to 700 daily flights to gulf coast and heartland cities and lose some of our prestigious long haul international routes. If some of you want to believe that we'll get a Tokyo flight (which Delta in ATL is nearly double US @ Charlotte and still has less connecting traffic and struggled with asian flights) and retain 3 peak time flights to Germany, that's yalls' opinion.

I'm not being doom and gloom, I haven't been since Last July... Meanwhile I think a lot of people are pessimistic and doom and gloom about streetcar. But this whole merger; I'm being realistic.

Charlotte has 2 PDEW, if I'm not mistaken, on CLT-GIG... CLT was the only viable station for GIG/GRU flights. Now we have Miami, Dallas, New York and Chicago who can Handle flights... With probably at least 15X the local traffic we do. On top of Dallas having ~150 more flights, NYC filling up local traffic, Chicago is bigger than US's PHL hub with tons of connections and lots of local demand, MIA connects all the South America generatig traffic connections (IAH, IAD, NYC, BOS, ORD, LAX, etc) and superior local demand.

Some longhual routes are seasonal. OKC would probably be 3x daily year round. More flights. I rather have my international flights. That's just me though.

Doug Parker said yesterday that International routes from Charlotte could grow as a result of this.  Mind you he is the CEO of the combined company and is arguably the smartest and most dynamic person in the industry, not some no-name analyst whose only claim to notoriety is their contrarian viewpoint regarding the future of US Airways hubs.  I would believe him before believing any of those analyst, since he will be the one making the decisions.

 

Some of those analysts have said that all the American hubs should be the big winners and US hubs the losers.  Just adding capacity at the cornerstone hubs in AA's network is essentially the same strategy Horton touted for the companies emergence as a standalone...Ironically, they are proposing the same strategy that was wholly rejected by the boards and the creditors will be the success story of AA.

[Miesian Corners]

Again, Nostrum, I have to disagree.  The one big plus here is (again) Charlotte's geography and cost structure.  Quite simply, it's FAR cheaper to fly connections through CLT than any other hub in North America and the fact the airline must compete with Delta.  And I'm not taking about CLT being the same size as the ATL hub, I'm saying (what he said yesterday), we have to be a viable alternative to ATL in terms of products, services, and desinations offered.  Parker has deep affinity for CLT and the operation here.  The hub makes money.  A LOT of money.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[15895]

Tell me what airline CEO announces at the start of a merger there will be capacity reductions...

Look what Mr. Parker Is saying about Phoenix... Look what Mr. Parker said about Pittsburg and Las Vegas... What about Mr. anderson in regards to Memphis and CVG...This merger will take months... No need to announce route reductions on the heels of this announcement.

[HopHead]

Again, Nostrum, I have to disagree.  The one big plus here is (again) Charlotte's geography and cost structure.  Quite simply, it's FAR cheaper to fly connections through CLT than any other hub in North America and the fact the airline must compete with Delta.  And I'm not taking about CLT being the same size as the ATL hub, I'm saying (what he said yesterday), we have to be a viable alternative to ATL in terms of products, services, and desinations offered.  Parker has deep affinity for CLT and the operation here.  The hub makes money.  A LOT of money.

 

To me these are the biggest reasons why Charlotte's hub will be minimally affected by this merger, if not grow. In order for this merger to be successful for American & US Airways, they HAVE to be able to compete with Atlanta's Delta hub. What's the old adage about real estate? Location, location, location. That's what Charlotte's hub provides to Atlanta. Philly and Miami do not. Throw in the cost of doing business here for the airline, especially compared to those two airports, it's a no brainer. Add on to the fact that the company's new CEO has been the biggest proponent of the Charlotte hub for US Airways. 

[ah59396]

So much quoting going on. I can't tell who said what anymore. Either way, I'm optimistic about what's going on.

[15895]

To me these are the biggest reasons why Charlotte's hub will be minimally affected by this merger, if not grow. In order for this merger to be successful for American & US Airways, they HAVE to be able to compete with Atlanta's Delta hub. What's the old adage about real estate? Location, location, location. That's what Charlotte's hub provides to Atlanta. Philly and Miami do not. Throw in the cost of doing business here for the airline, especially compared to those two airports, it's a no brainer. Add on to the fact that the company's new CEO has been the biggest proponent of the Charlotte hub for US Airways. 

But ATL and Miami DO compete (to South America). And Miami wins hands down over ATL (Recife, Belo Horizante, Brasilia, etc) And you are right; location is key. In Deltas network, Atlanta is the superior location. In US's network, its Charlotte. In a combined network, it's Miami. Plus Dallas and New York.

Despite Charlotte being cheaper to operate. A Charlotte flight ties up 2 aircraft. GIG was flown with. 767-200 (I believe upgraded to an A332). If you upgrade the aircraft that flies to GIG from MIA, JFK and DFW... You eliminate the cost of savings of having CLT flights.

If Charlotte lost a daily Rio De Janeiro flight but added 3x Oklahoma City flights... Extra flights. New destination. But as someone who loves aviation as I do... I rather see the exotic destinations.

And I would encourage everyone to see what Anderson said about Memphis when the Delta merger was announced... My guesses about this merger over all;

- Charlotte gains more daily flights; loses some International emphasis/long haul flights, gains new cities to the Midwest, Heartland, and Gulf coast. Probably more seats and flights to the west coast

- Philadelphia gains international flights probably at the expense of New Yorl City. PHL will 100% no doubt gain Tokyo and i couldn't see PHL not getting Moscow service and I'd say a good chance getting Beijing flights. PHL will gain more flights to the west coast and stands the most to gain.

- NYC will probably lose some international destinations to Philadelphia (competition from foreign airlines, Delta, and United on top of an inferior hub) and its long haul will be geared towards O&D. LGA is a wildcard that could be deemphasized in favor of JFK. NYC also might lose service to smaller cities that currently use NYC for connections.

- Chicago will remain the same. Probably gain more New England destinations and upgraded flights to Albany, Buffalo, etc.

- Dallas will probably remain the same and gain some flights to cities in GA, NC and SC.

- MIA will remain the same.

- LAX. I have no idea at all.

- PHX will slowly go the way of Pittsburg and Las Vegas. Which is sad considering the remnants of HP (America West) will be gone.

That's where I see Charlottes role in the combined carrier.

Regardless... Charlotte will gain flights and seats and employees and American (nor would have United, Northwest, US Airways, nor continental) would ever let CLT go. Charlotte has been cited repeatedly as the crown jewel in any of our potential mergers. United wanted US mainly for CLT and use it also as a south American gateway (and even a flight to I believe Australia). We now belong to American and will continue to grow...

That said; I'm done with my doom and gloom prophecies. I'll just sit back and keep my negative thoughts of Charlotte being dismantled, going up in flames, mass layoffs from losing less than daily (some flights 2x weekly) that aren't even operated year round and losing 3/4 of our 650 daily flights by ceasing ~5 seasonal longhaul flights...

Though I could see Madrid possibly being upgraded and London going 2x daily.

[kickazzz2000]

Nostrum, why so negative about the merger?  I work there, and from what we were told on a conference call yesterday morning, this bodes well for all.  Training Center, hangar remain and are and most likely expanded, hub flying increased to perhaps 700+ flights a day (reason given is the same one I've said all along--the merged airline must compete with DELTA and its mega hub in ATL).  Best part?  Quote: "We will be the biggest airline in the world and will be required to act the part".  Technology and other enhancements in the terminal will be huge.  Automated boarding (like Lufthansa in Frankfurt; you scan your boarding card and a turnstile opens to allow you on the jetbridge), new Flagship lounge for international customers (complete with showers and changing rooms), etc.  If the airline plans to reduce international service, why build a Flagship Lounge here?      

The only downside I see to this is One World; it's a far less exciting alliance than Star.  But, it could get Iberia and British Airways flying here.  

 

MC:  was this a conference call with the airline or the airport?  I'm guessing airline, which is a great sign.

[HopHead]

Actually a 50% stake of Virgin Atlantic is being acquired by Delta to strengthen their transatlantic operations to/from Heathrow.

 

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/delta-takes-49-stake-in-virgin-atlantic-for-360-million/

 

Yea, that is true (actually forgot about this when I was typing my post). This may open the possibility further of Virgin doing more domestic expansion with a domestic carrier, Delta, having such a large stake in them. Oddly enough, Virgin doesn't currently have service at Atlanta (but they do in numerous other East Coast cities, such at Orlando, Boston, New York, DC, etc). That will change I'm sure.

[rugger62]

http://online.wsj.com/article/APad176606166d48e284e12610db97d655.html

 

Not to be all gloom and doom, but the Chicago media thinks we are going to be getting the squeeze.

[HopHead]

http://online.wsj.com/article/APad176606166d48e284e12610db97d655.html

 

Not to be all gloom and doom, but the Chicago media thinks we are going to be getting the squeeze.

 

Actually, if you read the article, it makes the case for each of the US Airways hubs being at risk... Adie Tomer has been one of the analysts who hasn't been rosy, compared to most, about Charlotte's hub from the beginning. The article fails to mention the primary benefit for flying in and out of CLT... the cost. It's far cheaper to fly here than any of the other hubs. Population bases don't affect the bottom line like your overhead costs do at a given airport.

Edited February 19, 2013 by wend28

[ssh214]

I really believe that in the event of a worse case scenario of American Airlines pulling out of Charlotte I believe strongly that United will pick us up as a hub airport. They really don't have a proper hub to support South American flights, Houston is too far away from the Northeast population to support all of those flights. I am not concerned at all about the future of Charlotte's airport. Besides I know this is really overlooked but what about the prospects of setting up a base for African flights out of Charlotte. With the little passenger costs the city has it would make good sense given the geography of Charlotte. The only thing that has me a little concerned is the lack of talk recently about the new International Terminal; talk of it has kind of been neglected recently. 

[15895]

Actually, if you read the article, it makes the case for each of the US Airways hubs being at risk... Adie Tomer has been one of the analysts who hasn't been rosy, compared to most, about Charlotte's hub from the beginning. The article fails to mention the primary benefit for flying in and out of CLT... the cost. It's far cheaper to fly here than any of the other hubs. Population bases don't affect the bottom line like your overhead costs do at a given airport.

But you get more cost saving if you consolidate routes and upgrade aircraft than you would operating 2 flights from 2 cities operating similar flows. Then it comes down to which city you want to fly the route from (or the frequency)... Charlotte where well over the majority fly and have to connect or say Dallas where there is a lot of local demand who will not be connecting and not take up 2 seats on 2 flights for the same cost if not cheaper

Yes, Charlotte has cheap operating cost. But how much cheaper is it When taking into account a majority of fliers are connecting, it's lower yielding, etc.

That said, I think Charlotte will gain more flights than lose. For the simple fact it plays a different role than any of the other hubs.

[atlrvr]

It's funny that every article about Charlotte being in the most danger quotes Adie Tomer as the sole negative analyst.  One person in a dozen articles saying the same thing, which is Charlotte has a small origination/destination base.

 

Charlotte will be fine, especially for Europe.  It's so much closer than Miami or Dallas on a flight-time basis, plus better positioned to collect a greater & of the population.  I suppose South America could be at risk, but its still closer than Dallas or Houston and really only 10-15 mins behind Atlanta, so when looking at an all-in flight time for most of the population where a connection is required, Miami is optimal, but Charlotte is the 2nd best located hub in the country for South America, given how much further East most of South America relative to the US.

[HopHead]

But you get more cost saving if you consolidate routes and upgrade aircraft than you would operating 2 flights from 2 cities operating similar flows. Then it comes down to which city you want to fly the route from (or the frequency)... Charlotte where well over the majority fly and have to connect or say Dallas where there is a lot of local demand who will not be connecting and not take up 2 seats on 2 flights for the same cost if not cheaper

Yes, Charlotte has cheap operating cost. But how much cheaper is it When taking into account a majority of fliers are connecting, it's lower yielding, etc.

That said, I think Charlotte will gain more flights than lose. For the simple fact it plays a different role than any of the other hubs.

 

Higher operating costs are exactly what hurt Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, who are comparable in size to Charlotte, and ultimately led to their demise as hub airports. Not their population bases. Also, you can't compare efficiencies in routes between airports that are 1500 miles apart (CLT and DFW). Apples to Oranges comparison. I've said it before and will say it again (and others have said it to). Charlotte's biggest attribute is it's location. American needs the hub to compete with Delta's megahub in Atlanta.

Edited February 19, 2013 by wend28

[dubone]

Out of curiosity, would our 'low operating costs' be as low in the unlikely event that the hub did go away?   I wonder if we like to think we are low cost, but it is diluted across all of the hub passengers, but if the combined American drops us, then we would have to spread our costs over many fewer passengers, and then be more in line with other airports.

 

 

I think overall, the tea leaves are very strong for keeping things static or growing, and keeping Doug Parker is good for that aim.   I agree that if major cost cutting were a part of the deal, that they would not outright state the opposite.  They may downplay it, but wouldn't state that it wasn't.  

 

Somehow the new American branding is growing on me, but the key will be to revive the traveling experience.  USAirways has slowly improved over the last few years, but overall the reputations and actual experiences needs to be improved as part of the the symbolic status of being the largest. 

[uptownliving]

Yes if the hub went away and we only had our local traffic then the cost per passenger to the airlines would increase.

 

Here are some comparisons with other hub airports for cost per passenger:

 

CLT- $1.18

PHL- $9.50

Chicago- $9.50

LAX- $6.00

DFW- $3.00

MIA- $14.50

 

Something else to note is that the cost per passenger at CLT is continuing to decline. Jerry Orr's goal is to get it as close to Zero as possible.

[ah59396]

Is this not the WORST possible time for the state to consider taking over the airport, with the recent AA, US merger?  Don't we want to appear super stable as a hub, and not one that is in a power struggle?  Jerry Orr has done a great job from what I can tell....why mess with success?  Oh wait, it's the government.

 

Most of those questions aren't rhetorical...so I hope someone who is in the know can answer them.

[carolinagarnet]

This may be up in the air at the moment (no pun intended), but does anybody know if American plans to exercise its option to buy 465 aircraft from Boeing and Airbus (in addition to the 360 it already ordered from Airbus)? I think this would go a long way to modernizing the combined fleet, which seems key to competing against Delta and United.

[kickazzz2000]

Is this not the WORST possible time for the state to consider taking over the airport, with the recent AA, US merger?  Don't we want to appear super stable as a hub, and not one that is in a power struggle?  Jerry Orr has done a great job from what I can tell....why mess with success?  Oh wait, it's the government.

 

Most of those questions aren't rhetorical...so I hope someone who is in the know can answer them.

Yeah, I'm really concerned about this.  Why "fix" what's not broken?  I thought republicans were about small government?