Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[tozmervo]

I would expect Miami to have a particularly high percentage of people flying from Latin America to Miami, not connecting there. Would have to think that would protect a lot of those routes

[dubone]

I used to fly through Dallas and used to have horrible issues with delays.  I don't know the stats, but anecdotally, CLT seems like a much more reliable transfer location.   Then factor in costs, and it would seem to further support flights through CLT.

[15895]

There is nothing good going to come from this for Charlotte. Just brace we don't lose too much.

[HopHead]

There is nothing good going to come from this for Charlotte. Just brace we don't lose too much.

 

Why? Because one analyst from Colorado said so?

[15895]

Why? Because one analyst from Colorado said so?

No. I like having 3 daily flights to Germany, Paris, Rome, Rio and soon Sao.

Instead of sharing with Philadelphia, now we have to share traffic with NYC, Chicago, Dallas, LA, and Miami. Cities like Salt Lake city will have Chicago, Dallas, NYC, Philadelphia, and Charlotte to choose how to get. Everywhere on the east coast on top of Phoenix which connects larger east coast markets.

We will no longer be the only viable south American and superior hub to connect to Latin America. Now we'd have Dallas and Miami + NYC nonstop. Both are far superior than CLT. There's not a single city Charlotte serves that Miami doesn't that matters for south America

[Miesian Corners]

No. I like having 3 daily flights to Germany, Paris, Rome, Rio and soon Sao.

Instead of sharing with Philadelphia, now we have to share traffic with NYC, Chicago, Dallas, LA, and Miami. Cities like Salt Lake city will have Chicago, Dallas, NYC, Philadelphia, and Charlotte to choose how to get. Everywhere on the east coast on top of Phoenix which connects larger east coast markets.

We will no longer be the only viable south American and superior hub to connect to Latin America. Now we'd have Dallas and Miami + NYC nonstop. Both are far superior than CLT. There's not a single city Charlotte serves that Miami doesn't that matters for south America

I couldn't disagree more.  CLT is needed to compete with Delta in ATL.  There is no other city in the Southeast that offers Charlotte's superior geography.  We've argued over this before, MAD, but Jerry Orr has helped make CLT the 4th most profitable airline hub in America.  MIA is hemmed in by neighborhoods, freeways, and industrial development and cannot be expanded (not to mention it's the second most expensive airport per passenger in the US (JFK is first) and CLT is the least expensive of hubs).  CLT has three parallel runways with a fourth to be under construction in two years, and has thousands of acres available for expansion. But besides that, every other aviation analyst has said that CLT will benefit simply because AA needs the eastern US to compete with the other big two.  It cannot do that without CLT.  Period.

 

JFK and MIA are predominately O & D markets (or "origin and destination" traffic; meaning, they don't rely on connecting traffic to feed flights).  Neither JFK or MIA can accommodate a great deal more traffic.  CLT (much like ATL and MSP (Minneapolis/ St Paul)), is profitable because it feeds smaller airports into a big one that can accommodate large amounts of air traffic and equipment.  And again, CLT's superior geography is what keeps it relevant, merger or no merger.

 

Amusingly, Mike Boyd said in other articles (to both the Charlotte Observer and the Business Journal) that CLT is poised to gain from the merger.  He appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[ssh214]

One thing that we have to keep in mind that this is US Airways management taking over American Airlines... Although I am still pretty skeptical about this whole merger the US Airways management team taking over the combined airline is one aspect that is being overlooked.

[HopHead]

I couldn't disagree more.  CLT is needed to compete with Delta in ATL.  There is no other city in the Southeast that offers Charlotte's superior geography.  We've argued over this before, MAD, but Jerry Orr has helped make CLT the 4th most profitable airline hub in America.  MIA is hemmed in by neighborhoods, freeways, and industrial development and cannot be expanded (not to mention it's the second most expensive airport per passenger in the US (JFK is first) and CLT is the least expensive of hubs).  CLT has three parallel runways with a fourth to be under construction in two years, and has thousands of acres available for expansion. But besides that, every other aviation analyst has said that CLT will benefit simply because AA needs the eastern US to compete with the other big two.  It cannot do that without CLT.  Period.

 

JFK and MIA are predominately O & D markets (or "origin and destination" traffic; meaning, they don't rely on connecting traffic to feed flights).  Neither JFK or MIA can accommodate a great deal more traffic.  CLT (much like ATL and MSP (Minneapolis/ St Paul)), is profitable because it feeds smaller airports into a big one that can accommodate large amounts of air traffic and equipment.  And again, CLT's superior geography is what keeps it relevant, merger or no merger.

 

Amusingly, Mike Boyd said in other articles (to both the Charlotte Observer and the Business Journal) that CLT is poised to gain from the merger.  He appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

Thanks, Miesian Corners. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[ajfunder]

IMHO, I prefer the US Airways white paint scheme over the American silver, but I don't care which name is taken.

Alex

[Miesian Corners]

Just a note to clarify my earlier post.  American Airlines offers non-stop flights to only 44 US cities from its MIA hub.  US Airways offers non-stop service to 122 US cities from its CLT hub.  

[ah59396]

Man, looking at Google Maps of Miami's airport...that place has no where to go or grow....

 

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=25.79595,-80.287313&spn=0.044512,0.070381&t=h&z=14

[15895]

Miami doesn't need to expand if you're implying Miami as is couldn't handle US's South American ops. Or in other words Rio D daily flight.

Miami plays a different role than Charlotte. Charlotte connects the eastern sea board, Miami has a lot of passengers who fly to Miami for Miami plus acts as a transfer for international flights. The size of Miami vs. CLT as far as flights go and physical size go is irrelevant to Charlotte losing its South American flight and future flights to Dallas, New York and Miami

Edited January 25, 2013 by AirNostrumMAD

[ah59396]

I may be completely wrong, which is fine, it wouldn't be the first time.  But I can't imagine for the life of me that two companies preparing to merge for the long haul, and compete nationally and globally...wouldn't look at growth potential for an airport as a major factor in where they would operate more heavily out of.

 

Sure, right now we it's only Rio.  But what about in 20 years as South America further develops?  Will the restrictions of Miami's limited capacity effect it if say, flights are now consistently required to Guayaquil, Belo Horizonte, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Brasilia, Salvador and so on?

 

Again, I may completely off base here.  Can someone with some knowledge fill me in?

[Miesian Corners]

Miami doesn't need to expand if you're implying Miami as is couldn't handle US's South American ops. Or in other words Rio D daily flight.

Miami plays a different role than Charlotte. Charlotte connects the eastern sea board, Miami has a lot of passengers who fly to Miami for Miami plus acts as a transfer for international flights. The size of Miami vs. CLT as far as flights go and physical size go is irrelevant to Charlotte losing its South American flight and future flights to Dallas, New York and Miami

But it doesn't.  MIA as a hub is served primarily by American Eagle, the commuter.  Seat capacity of all domestic flights to/from MIA is less than half of what US Airways brings through CLT.  American simply doesn't need the feed from Raleigh/Durham and Lynchburg to make MIA flights to/from Latin and South America profitable.  

Edited January 25, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[15895]

But it doesn't. MIA as a hub is served primarily by American Eagle, the commuter. Seat capacity of all domestic flights to/from MIA is less than half of what US Airways brings through CLT. American simply doesn't need the feed from Raleigh/Durham and Lynchburg to make MIA flights to/from Latin and South America profitable.

Of course charlotte is going to have more seats in and out of domestic cities. Miami is a destination. Charlotte is a transfer point. Would people pay more for a nonstop to Miami or the hassle of a connection? Which do you think is more cost effective? The cheaper change planes flights or the more expensive nonstop flight?

I agree that Miami doesn't need feed from RDU and other smaller cities. But... Neither does CLT.... US connects a good amount of people to Miami and New York... Both of which have non stops. And then when you count that Washington DC, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, LA, Chicago, etc. all have good connections to South America via Miami, Dallas, and New York (I wonder if Chicago has an American nonstop?) then is Charlotte supposed to rely on Lynchberg and Greenville filling flights to Rio?

I believe Charlotte has 3 or so people a day flying to Rio D Janeiro. The numbers are much, much, much higher from Dallas, Miami, and New York.

Right now US forces people from Miami, New York, Houston, Dallas, etc. to Rio. That will change under an AMR scenario. Just like I don't expect Charlotte to get a flight to Tokyo despite AMRs relationship with JAL. At least with our European flights there is a lot more demand from Charlotte and the southeast that will make our European system somewhat viable.

My point is... We're way better off if US Airways doesn't merge. US wants to be a bigger player in South America... Charlotte is the only way to grow South America.

US wants to continue to build its Euro operations... Charlotte is the only other city to expand to Europe.

I don't want to compete with Chicago, LA, Dallas, New York, Miami and Philadelphia. We'll be a hub. A big hub. But I like being the 3rd largest hub and I'd like to see US continue to grow internationally out of CLT

Edited January 25, 2013 by AirNostrumMAD

[Urbanity]

My point is... We're way better off if US Airways doesn't merge. US wants to be a bigger player in South America... Charlotte is the only way to grow South America.

US wants to continue to build its Euro operations... Charlotte is the only other city to expand to Europe.

I don't want to compete with Chicago, LA, Dallas, New York, Miami and Philadelphia. We'll be a hub. A big hub. But I like being the 3rd largest hub and I'd like to see US continue to grow internationally out of CLT

 

Do you believe US Airways can survive on its own?  And if it doesn't  what happens to CLT?

 

I get what you are saying and do appreciate your points, but I think the writing is on the wall for this and U.S. Airways can not survive in its current form, nor can it grow much organically going further.  The competition is too tough.

 

I think we all want the best for CLT and since we don't have a headquarter based airline but a small airline with significant hub operations here we are all anxious on their future. 

 

Personally I think CLT in 5-10 years will have come out better due to being a hub for the combined AA-US much more than we will have made out if the merger doesn't happen and US Airways goes it alone.   We're too reliant on them.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Urbanity

[15895]

I believe US will be able to survive though a little nervous (because of fuel hedges). US is having record quarters and there is an article how JP Morgan believes " stand-alone investor pessimism to be significantly misplaced".

This is a very great article that states this is US's 7th consecutive quarterly profit, US has higher profit Margins than United and Southwest and just shy of Delta and the current condition of US.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1857955

I think there are better options for CLT. We will always be a hub. If US goes bankrupt, someone would take it over in pieces. US is the 10th largest airline in the world bigger than British Airways (2011 figures - don't know if that includes the Iberia Spanish Airlines merger) by passengers flown.

That said I see the concern of stand alone pessimism but I'm sure that there would be better options for CLT. Even if US goes down in flames; someone will pick up CLT.

But I know some people disagree and I'm fine and respect that. To each his own.

Edited January 25, 2013 by AirNostrumMAD

[Miesian Corners]

Likewise, I'll just agree to disagree with you.  I see big things in store for CLT with an American Airlines merger.  As an employee of the city's 8th biggest employer, I want to keep my job and I want my company and city to prosper.  But long term, without a merger, don't expect to see much growth here.  The fleet plan until 2016 basically keeps the company flying a static number of aircraft.  Every A321 that is delivered simply replaces a 737-400 that is being retired.  The only fleet growth comes from eight wide-body A330-200s that are scheduled for delivery between now and 2015.  They will likely be used to replace the airline's oldest 767-200s (most of which are 25 years old).  The only way the CLT hub gets bigger and can offer service to more international destinations is if a merger takes place and there are lots of airplanes capable of inter-continental flying at the company's disposal.  An AA/US merger does that.  

By the numbers:

US Airways wide-body fleet: 27

American Airlines wide-body fleet: 123

Edited January 25, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[dubone]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-amr-usairways-idUSBRE90O13420130125

 

We may be closer to this than we realized.

[ah59396]

Best line from that article:

"American has hubs in New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles and Dallas/Fort Worth, while US Airways has key operations in Phoenix, Philadelphia and Charlotte, North Carolina."

Oh...so that's where Charlotte is!?!?

[Guest]

Best line from that article:

"American has hubs in New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles and Dallas/Fort Worth, while US Airways has key operations in Phoenix, Philadelphia and Charlotte, North Carolina."

Oh...so that's where Charlotte is!?!?

I always wondered, thank god they told us!

[dubone]

Yeah, I really thought we were beyond this after the DNC, especially in articles about US Airways.

[jednc]

Yeah, I really thought we were beyond this after the DNC, especially in articles about US Airways.

At the risk of being told I'm off topic, I think Charlotte retains the NC because AP only recognizes certain cities  as stand alone (no state needed). Charlotte is not on this list. When a reporter is writing a story and the include a city, they usually check the AP standard to see which cities can be left as stand alone. NC gets added if that reporter checks (which most do). I contacted a reporter from the Washington Post once (about a year ago) after he had written Charlotte, NC. He explained the AP thing to me and said until AP changes it, it's unlikely it will get dropped. So, someone figure out how to contact AP and we can mount a campaign to get Charlotte added to the "no state needed" list.

[Miesian Corners]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/27/4577863/is-american-us-airways-merger.html

 

A good read from today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram: 

The combined company would have hubs in eight markets: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas/Fort Worth, Charlotte, Philadelphia and Phoenix.

Analysts expect capacity cuts at Phoenix, while DFW and Charlotte would see increased traffic.

"[Those two hubs] literally blanket Delta's megahub in Atlanta, and that opens up some interesting opportunities," Harteveldt said, adding that the combined entity could increase American's already strong presence in Latin America.

 

While a merger would certainly strengthen the domestic network, airline researcher Bill Swelbar believes that US Airways' hubs in Charlotte and Philadelphia are the jewels in a possible combination and would increase American's north-south traffic on the East Coast.  "Charlotte is a wonderful hub," Swelbar said. "It is profitable. It is efficient and US Airways has been growing that hub to where it is performing very, very well."

 

 

Edited January 31, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[dubone]

At the risk of being told I'm off topic, I think Charlotte retains the NC because AP only recognizes certain cities  as stand alone (no state needed). Charlotte is not on this list. When a reporter is writing a story and the include a city, they usually check the AP standard to see which cities can be left as stand alone. NC gets added if that reporter checks (which most do). I contacted a reporter from the Washington Post once (about a year ago) after he had written Charlotte, NC. He explained the AP thing to me and said until AP changes it, it's unlikely it will get dropped. So, someone figure out how to contact AP and we can mount a campaign to get Charlotte added to the "no state needed" list.

http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/APstates.htm

 

It seems there are 30 such cities.  Hopefully at some point we can aspire to be a top 30 city in the US, and given that there are no similarly named cities in other states of any size, we can hopefully get there.

 

 

________________

 

 

I'm glad to see the analysis still saying that a combined AA hub would increase in CLT.  I agree with earlier statements that assuming this is true or at least holding steady, we will be vastly more safe in this city if we are served by one of the big 3 airlines.   US Airways management, however, has done dramatically good things with the airline and its reputation over the last few years.  I hope that the management of the combined company will have a lot of the positive components that have helped them succeed versus those that seemed to allow AA to languish.  

 

It does seem like an inevitability, so given that, it is a huge relief that there is positive outlook for CLT, whereas it was almost universally negative at the point US tried to merge with Delta.