Future of Northwest Airlines

[cdarr]

I think MEM is the smallest hub with a nonstop European flight..

MEM is actually the smallest hub, period.

Bears, thanks for posting that site. I found it a few days ago and was meaning to post it. On another thread I was talking about that X-shaped terminal. I think we're a ways off from that being built, but it gives us something to dream about.

Meanwhile, there are a number of terminal expansion options available before embarking on "Concourse X" -

1. Extending the south end of Concourse C, as was done with A, to accommodate Regional Jets

2. Widen gaps in B to make the gates larger and aisleways less cramped.

3. Fill in gaps between gates in A and C. This would provide more gates, and allow jet aircraft to be parked closer together (the current gates were designed far enough apart to accommodate DC10-sized aircraft)

4. The north ends of A and C could be extended, although this would begin to create excessive walking distances.

5. Terminals A and C could be expanded to be as large as B. The airport planners left space for this - it's the reason you have those long walkways with the moving sidewalks after you pass through security.

[AmandaHugginkiss]

Nice find cdarr..

[Rural King]

The $800 tickets were for travel from Sept 15-Oct 31. Then the tickets go down to $700, probably b/c it's cold. Before 9/15, they're still $1000 and above. I heard they host a conference in early September. Maybe that's why they keep the rates that high into September.

I was inaccurate with my first post. Summer is the peak season in Europe, June to late September; the best time for Americans though, for both rates and weather, is in Spring and Fall. I think thats where I got off track. So those rates are in line more than likely. I checked the rates for April and May and they ranged between 750-850 as you state you have found in the fall, which is a good drop from the Summer prices.

@cdarr - So Memphis is the smallest hub in the nation? Interesting tidbit of information. Has this always been the case?

[Clobber]

I was inaccurate with my first post. Summer is the peak season in Europe, June to late September; the best time for Americans though, for both rates and weather, is in Spring and Fall. I think thats where I got off track. So those rates are in line more than likely. I checked the rates for April and May and they ranged between 750-850 as you state you have found in the fall, which is a good drop from the Summer prices.

@cdarr - So Memphis is the smallest hub in the nation? Interesting tidbit of information. Has this always been the case?

Can't speak for cdarr, but I would think it has been the case only since the 90s took cities out of the hub club such as Raleigh and Nashville. Remember, there used to be many more hubs because there were many more airlines. Consolidation closed a lot of hubs. So it's pretty remarkable that Memphis has retained its hub; but I don't know what the practical difference is between a hub and a focus city except for the sheer number of flights? Once you hit a critical mass of flights, you are no longer a focus city but you ascend to hub status?

[sleepy]

Can't speak for cdarr, but I would think it has been the case only since the 90s took cities out of the hub club such as Raleigh and Nashville. Remember, there used to be many more hubs because there were many more airlines. Consolidation closed a lot of hubs. So it's pretty remarkable that Memphis has retained its hub; but I don't know what the practical difference is between a hub and a focus city except for the sheer number of flights? Once you hit a critical mass of flights, you are no longer a focus city but you ascend to hub status?

Focus cities don't have the connecting schedules that a hub would have. I believe a focus city is just one that is dominated by a particular airline.

[cdarr]

Focus cities don't have the connecting schedules that a hub would have. I believe a focus city is just one that is dominated by a particular airline.

You're right, sleepy. In a hub-and-spoke system, most of the spoke cities only have non-stop flights to the hubs. For instance, if you fly NW out of Nashville you can only fly non-stop to the NW hubs at Memphis, Detroit and Minneapolis. Indianapolis, however, is a NW focus city and has direct flights to the three hubs plus major destinations like Boston, Washington, Orlando, and New York LaGuardia. But Indy doesn't have waves (banks) of flights from dozens of cities, arriving and departing together to make connections possible.

[Clobber]

You're right, sleepy. In a hub-and-spoke system, most of the spoke cities only have non-stop flights to the hubs. For instance, if you fly NW out of Nashville you can only fly non-stop to the NW hubs at Memphis, Detroit and Minneapolis. Indianapolis, however, is a NW focus city and has direct flights to the three hubs plus major destinations like Boston, Washington, Orlando, and New York LaGuardia. But Indy doesn't have waves (banks) of flights from dozens of cities, arriving and departing together to make connections possible.

Thanks for the clarification!

[cdarr]

Can't speak for cdarr, but I would think it has been the case only since the 90s took cities out of the hub club such as Raleigh and Nashville. Remember, there used to be many more hubs because there were many more airlines. Consolidation closed a lot of hubs.

American's hubs in Raleigh, Nashville, and San Jose were similar in size to the NW Memphis hub in the late 80s and early 90s. Nashville actually had a transatlantic flight before Memphis - starting in 1994, American flew a 767 between BNA and London Gatwick. Of course, it was discontinued around 1996 when the hub shut down.

[mr2448]

Focus cities don't have the connecting schedules that a hub would have. I believe a focus city is just one that is dominated by a particular airline.

It doesn't necessarily have to dominate. Boston is not a hub city for any airline, but is a focus city for USAirways, Delta and American. None of these airlines dominate the market.

Mark

[jmduke]

CDarr and Bears, good finds from both of you. CDarr has some good ideas on expansions and I'll add a couple of cents worth.

Right now, the best NWA can do without phyiscal changes to the airport is 6-7 banks of flights per day, or roughly 350 departures. That's plenty of room to expand for now, but the bank system is less efficient for an airline than a continuous-flow hub such as Atlanta or Detroit where the flow is based more on gate and aircraft utilization than passenger "sorting." NWA is currently paying rent on gates it's using fewer than 6 times daily. A continuous flow hub would allow NWA to use each gate 10-12 times daily, i.e., each gate could generate more revenue.

However, MEM currently cannot be configured to a continous flow operation because of the alleyways between A-B and B-C concourses. Those alleys are only wide enough for one aircraft to taxi at a time. I fly for one of the NWA regionals and it's a pain when we get off schedule and are trying to enter the alley when everyone else is leaving; ATC ground controllers have to stick us somewhere out of the way and the passengers don't understand why we are delayed getting into the gate.

That said, if NWA wants to expand to allow a continuous flow hub, the B-concourse should be eliminated, and the A & C concourses greatly expanded in both width and length. Let's say NWA wants to use the C-concourse for itself. It could expand north about 1000' without compromising much of the cargo ramp (even more if the airport authority moves cargo as they are considering). The north part of the concourse could be Saab's and regional jets and they take up less space (less than 100' wingspan), so you get a lot of utilization of space. Farther south would be the mainline gates and south of the main terminal you have the advantage of parking on the east and west sides of the terminal. Larger aircraft and widebodies could park in the new courtyard while 757s and A320s could park on the east side, allowing traffic to use Taxiway J east of the terminal. A widened C-concourse would allow for moving walkways, a customs facility built below the main floor, and if they raised the roof, a tram similar to that in DTW. To accomodate NWA's needs, the new C-councourse would be pretty long, about 4000', thus the consideration for a tram.

I mentioned the new courtyard a few sentences ago. The distance between the new A & C concourses would be about 1300', which is plenty to allow parking and widebody aircraft simultaneously entering and exiting the new courtyard. All other airlines would park on the new extended and widened A concourse, and most of them would be narrowbodies (B737-series/A320-series) or smaller anyway. A concourse would not have to be significantly extended either direction, although it would have to be straigtened to remove the RJ dogleg on the south end. It would allow plenty of room for expansion.

Taxi times to the new courtyard gates wouldn't be significantly longer. I used to fly into DTW quite a bit and it flows pretty well up there around their two long new terminals.

[cdarr]

jmduke, I remember us conversing before about the narrow alleyways. I was thinking about that when I created my post.

I never really considered the idea of converting MEM into a 2-concourse terminal as you suggested. Very interesting. That would certainly open up more room for movement than you have now. It would also be very scalable. As far as Air Cargo is concerned, I think the whole thing could be expendable. I've read comments from MEM suggesting that they would like to have a new cargo facility, probably to the west of the airfield south of UPS. I think the current cargo ramp gets pretty clogged up when DHL or Emery brings in an stretched DC-8 - not to mention when we (FedEx) charter those Kalitta 747s.

Making such an expansion could be done in phases without disrupting the NW operation too badly, I would think. C-Concourse could be widened and extended north first. After that opens, they could close and demolish the eastern side of B, then build the southern extension of C. Then NW could use it exclusively and the remainder of B would be torn down. Concourse A could stay as it is for use by non-NW traffic, being widened and expanded north and/or south as needed.

Since all this could be done without relocating the fuel farm, flight kitchen and post office, and with having to install an underground train, I imagine this option would be less costly than building "Terminal X" to the south. Of course, it would mean all the money they just spent on the rotunda would have been wasted!

[Bears]

Well the future for NWA looks good. They won Best Northwest Hub in 2005.

http://www.memphisairport.org/notes/

Cdarr, can you get any pictures of the rotunda? Where is it exactly? I haven't been to MEM in a long time but I'm coming in a few days and I want to catch a glimse of it.

[cdarr]

Well the future for NWA looks good. They won Best Northwest Hub in 2005.

http://www.memphisairport.org/notes/

Cdarr, can you get any pictures of the rotunda? Where is it exactly? I haven't been to MEM in a long time but I'm coming in a few days and I want to catch a glimse of it.

I searched around and can't find a good picture of the rotunda. But I'll tell you where it is. Go back up and look at the photo I posted of the airport. The rotunda is in the junction of the "Y" shaped B concourse, between the numbers 2s.

I'll keep looking for a photo.

[Clobber]

jmduke, I remember us conversing before about the narrow alleyways. I was thinking about that when I created my post.

I never really considered the idea of converting MEM into a 2-concourse terminal as you suggested. Very interesting. That would certainly open up more room for movement than you have now. It would also be very scalable. As far as Air Cargo is concerned, I think the whole thing could be expendable. I've read comments from MEM suggesting that they would like to have a new cargo facility, probably to the west of the airfield south of UPS. I think the current cargo ramp gets pretty clogged up when DHL or Emery brings in an stretched DC-8 - not to mention when we (FedEx) charter those Kalitta 747s.

Making such an expansion could be done in phases without disrupting the NW operation too badly, I would think. C-Concourse could be widened and extended north first. After that opens, they could close and demolish the eastern side of B, then build the southern extension of C. Then NW could use it exclusively and the remainder of B would be torn down. Concourse A could stay as it is for use by non-NW traffic, being widened and expanded north and/or south as needed.

Since all this could be done without relocating the fuel farm, flight kitchen and post office, and with having to install an underground train, I imagine this option would be less costly than building "Terminal X" to the south. Of course, it would mean all the money they just spent on the rotunda would have been wasted!

I think you read it in the long term plan for the airport. I read the same thing. I think there was a future hope of moving the industries that are to the direct east of the airport in that little cul de sac (north of UPS, south of TANG).

Re the rotunda, you can save it while getting rid of the gates in concourse B. With the length of an extended A and C, there might be a need for more than one crossing between the two. Regardless of what happens with the rotunda, I don't think it would be smart to just leave the space between A and C empty. Put bridges there or something to expedite transfers, although I know the plan was for all of NWA to be in either A or C, there might not be a need for such bridges. But, you never know.