Metro Orlando Airport News

[Camillo Sitte]

The Birmingham people made the argument 20 years ago why Hartsfield should get all the Delta traffic when Birmingham was more centrally located. Braniff of old, if I'm not mistaken, was a Texas-based airline. That airline went under like Eastern, etc. MCO's current terminal opened in, what, 1980 or so? MCO as of a couple of years ago is one of the Top 5 O&D airports in the US (along with ATL, ORD, JFK, LAX, etc...). I don't think that just b/c Braniff as an airline failed like 20 years ago should be the litmus test as to why MCO won't work as a hub in the future. Even MIA is somewhat of a hub for American.

I think it's easier to be a hub airport than an O&D airport. O'Hare is nowhere near being centrally located to have to always connect there on United. Neither is Detroit if you want to take NW to places like Amsterdam. There's too many screwy routes b/c of the decision making on hub traffic. It just is what it is.

At least Orlando is a top destination for hub travelers to have the option to stop off and visit.

Look, words mean things. A hub in airline terms has a specific meaning regardless of whether or not you want to agree with that.

Birmingham - WTF? Dallas is far more centrally located than is Birmingham and it has a significantly larger amount of O&D traffic.

Hubs need both significant O&D traffic and good geography in order to be profitable. Kansas City is ideally located geographically to be a hub but has terrible OD traffic thus neither Braniff I, II, or III, or Eastern could make a go of it there and Midwest and American couldn

Edited January 9, 2008 by Camillo Sitte

[Camillo Sitte]

Net jets was looking to relocate here form up north (Columbus, OH ?) but recently eliminated Orlando as a player! Now looking at Raleigh (Why???) and somewhere else (I've forgotten).

Orlando's incentive package was not as generous as was the other candidates.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Camillo Sitte

[neon9]

At least Orlando is a top destination for hub travelers to have the option to stop off and visit.

Speaking of Amsterdam, two hours after getting off the plane I was walking out of Centraal Station downtown.

When I arrived back in the US, after 2 hours I was just getting out of the airport to get in the shuttle, and then after that I get to drive home.

Let's face it, until the airport and customs gets more efficent, and we get some reliable mass transit system, who would want to stop here for a day, much less a few hours?

[JRS1]

^^

when I went to Amsterdam 2 years ago, I literally walked thru their customs, triggered the alarm, backed up, and the agent motioned me thru. I could've been carrying weapons grade plutonium for all they knew. NW connected out of Detroit. On the way back, NW connected out of Memphis' customs office. that's where the big delay was. When I got to MCO, it was like a local flight.

^^

the Birmingham example was posed to me back then;

Hub traffic makes no sense. Why should I have to connect with LAX from Las Vegas if I'm flying to Orlando, and end up on a 737 to boot non-stop? Why go thru LAX for Portland Oregon? That makes as much sense as connecting thru MCO from San Diego just to end up in Boston.

I can see MCO to DFW to Vegas on American. But I don't see MCO to DFW to ORD. If DFW makes more sense than Birmingham, then Houston makes way more sense than Dallas (location-wise, not infrastructure-wise of the airport). US Airways at Newark could just as easily be operating out of JFK.

If airlines are banking on local O&D traffic (originating from the hub city) packing these connecting flights which leave the hub as opposed to passengers connecting from other connecting flight that have no other purpose to be there than to connect, then fine, the hub can only work in those cities. But, if most of the passengers on the connecting flights leaving these hubs come from other connecting flights then that hub can trandfer its operations to another airport (all other things being equal).

Take Hartsfield. 40M connecting flight travelers for God's sake, and roughly 30M or less O&D traffic. MCO has roughly the same O&D traffic they do. So does ORD and JFK. Delta became a hub for Hartsfield back in the late '70's. ATL had a pop. of maybe 2M back then; if that. Chicago has always had perhaps double the population base and at least 4X the business power of Atlanta, yet Hartfield overtook ORD in traffic--- connecting flights mainly being the reason.

The flight time from ATL to MCO is minimal at best. In this day and age one of the major carriers could get a way with making MCO a decent sized hub

that's my $.02 (might only be worth $.01)

[Camillo Sitte]

Hub traffic makes no sense. Why should I have to connect with LAX from Las Vegas if I'm flying to Orlando, and end up on a 737 to boot non-stop? Why go thru LAX for Portland Oregon? That makes as much sense as connecting thru MCO from San Diego just to end up in Boston.

Oy, hub traffic makes perfect sense when you understand and accept that the hub system was not designed for passenger convenience but so that each airline could serve more individual cities more efficiently

Edited January 9, 2008 by Camillo Sitte

[bic]

Good post, Camillo. After reading JRS1's post, I thought to myself "man, there are a lot of points that need to be addressed but I'm not in the mood to type out one of those long counter-argument posts." So thank you for doing it for me.

[bic]

[deleted]

Edited January 9, 2008 by bic

[JRS1]

So, what, Bic and Camillo are teaming up against me, b/c I said MCO could work as a hub? Are you kidding me?

^^

Out of all your posts, Bic, this last one has got to be the worst investment in time I have ever seen; all in an attempt to illustrate something that I never said. What it does do is prove the point that I DID make, that a non-stop flight to Portland, Oregon from MCO is quicker and shorter than connecting with LAX. If you got confused with Portland, ME, re-read Camillo's post b/c he's the one who mentioned it, not me. If my post made you laugh a little, your response has got me shaking my head wondering WTF you're talking about.

^^

Camillo, as for the other issue concerning hubs:

If it is mostly connecting traffic that fills jets at the hubs vs O&D traffic (to maximize ridership and $$$), then they can move the hub to another location and it would still work, b/c those extra passengers are all coming from other connecting cities anyway and have no O&D ties to the host airport. Because of that logistic fact, MCO could work as a major hub if connecting flights were re-routed to MCO from elsewhere, other issues aside.

I already said this in my last post, yet you both chose to ignore it and instead wrote long-winded responses (or at least considered doing so (Bic)), for what? Did I step on someone's toes by commenting?

Grow up.

[JRS1]

[deleted]

Awe, gee, Bic, you deleted your post... that pretty graph showing Portland, ME or something... sorry your lack of detail caused you to waste your time like that.

well, you might as well go back and delete your prior post as well, Bic. My mistake is that I should have copied it so that everyone can see what happens when you respond to a post- with attitude mind you (attitude?) without reading it first, trying to make that person look like a jack@ss when it's apparent that the inverse is the case.

my only question is what's with the attitude from both of you?

[bic]

Awe, gee, Bic, you deleted your post... that pretty graph showing Portland, ME or something... sorry your lack of detail caused you to waste your time like that.

well, you might as well go back and delete your prior post as well, Bic. My mistake is that I should have copied it so that everyone can see what happens when you respond to a post- with attitude mind you (attitude?) without reading it first, trying to make that person look like a jack@ss when it's apparent that the inverse is the case.

my only question is what's with the attitude from both of you?

No need to take everything so personal...it's only an internet forum. I simply didn't agree with your original post and excessive hyperbole and apparently I wasn't the only one, as evidenced by Camillo's detailed response to it. It's not a crime to congratulate somebody on writing a good post, is it?

As far as the post that I deleted, I created those two maps in literally seconds using the Great Circle Mapper tool to prove you wrong on a point you made about connecting different cities (which I noted didn't make sense to me). Then I upon re-reading your post I realized that I made a mistake (thanks in part to how confusing you explained the different city pairs) and that now it was my post that didn't make sense. So I deleted it. No harm, no foul. And for the record, they were maps, not graphs, and neither of them had anything to do with Portland, ME.

Edited January 10, 2008 by bic

[Camillo Sitte]

Awe, gee, Bic, you deleted your post... that pretty graph showing Portland, ME or something... sorry your lack of detail caused you to waste your time like that.

well, you might as well go back and delete your prior post as well, Bic. My mistake is that I should have copied it so that everyone can see what happens when you respond to a post- with attitude mind you (attitude?) without reading it first, trying to make that person look like a jack@ss when it's apparent that the inverse is the case.

my only question is what's with the attitude from both of you?

"Attitude"?

"Team-up against"?

"Grow up"?

I mean come on

[speck76]

So, what, Bic and Camillo are teaming up against me, b/c I said MCO could work as a hub? Are you kidding me?

^^

Out of all your posts, Bic, this last one has got to be the worst investment in time I have ever seen; all in an attempt to illustrate something that I never said. What it does do is prove the point that I DID make, that a non-stop flight to Portland, Oregon from MCO is quicker and shorter than connecting with LAX. If you got confused with Portland, ME, re-read Camillo's post b/c he's the one who mentioned it, not me. If my post made you laugh a little, your response has got me shaking my head wondering WTF you're talking about.

^^

Camillo, as for the other issue concerning hubs:

If it is mostly connecting traffic that fills jets at the hubs vs O&D traffic (to maximize ridership and $$$), then they can move the hub to another location and it would still work, b/c those extra passengers are all coming from other connecting cities anyway and have no O&D ties to the host airport. Because of that logistic fact, MCO could work as a major hub if connecting flights were re-routed to MCO from elsewhere, other issues aside.

I already said this in my last post, yet you both chose to ignore it and instead wrote long-winded responses (or at least considered doing so (Bic)), for what? Did I step on someone's toes by commenting?

Grow up.

Yes....Delta could pick-up from Atlanta and move ALL operations to Orlando, and the system would still work.....except that Orlando is about 400 miles in the wrong direction for the majority of Delta's flights...which simply means that for 90%+ of the fligths to/from the hub, Delta would need 800 more miles of fuel.....and fuel is not free.

Furthermore....it would add about 1 hours on to all flights....each way....which would not be enjoyed by the travelers.

Again.....Orlando is not a good choice for a hub.

Edited January 10, 2008 by speck76

[RedStar25]

If you have nothing nice to say.....

[sunshine]

We can be the hub between the caribbean & south america to east coast. Miami is out of the way.

[Camillo Sitte]

Honestly Orlando could theoretically make a decent hub airport. You have to think this through - not just generic city pairs.

No, it couldn't. Not by any definition of what a "hub" really means with the exception of Latin America which I have mentioned several times.

Here is a close approximation of American Airlines hub and focus city system. Notice that each hub has spokes coming from one direction, through the hub, and out the other direction - the definition of a "hub".

Let's assume that one single airline had flights to Orlando from every major and mid-major city in the U.S. Remember that a hub is run by one single airline. A hub is not a large airport with many airlines having many flights from many places like Orlando does - it means that one [or rarely more that one airline such as in Chicago and Dallas before Delta pulled out] individual airlines operate their own hub in a given city.

Now, where do all of these flights go once they get here?

The ONLY way an airline can make any money with a hub - the ONLY way - is to send in-coming flights back out in roughly the opposite direction and full. Period.

Once again

[Migman]

Period. End of story.

GREAT concluding statement.

[scottb411]

Removed post

Edited January 11, 2008 by scottb411

[gibby]

I thought that United had been destroyed in Miami and walked out with their tail between their legs a few years ago.

[Camillo Sitte]

I thought that United had been destroyed in Miami and walked out with their tail between their legs a few years ago.

Yep, United's presence in Miami is significantly less than it was a few years ago. Most if not all of UAs international flight's xMiami are on *Alliance codeshare partners.

[shardoon]

No, it couldn't. Not by any definition of what a "hub" really means with the exception of Latin America which I have mentioned several times.

Here is a close approximation of American Airlines hub and focus city system. Notice that each hub has spokes coming from one direction, through the hub, and out the other direction - the definition of a "hub".

Let's assume that one single airline had flights to Orlando from every major and mid-major city in the U.S. Remember that a hub is run by one single airline. A hub is not a large airport with many airlines having many flights from many places like Orlando does - it means that one [or rarely more that one airline such as in Chicago and Dallas before Delta pulled out] individual airlines operate their own hub in a given city.

Now, where do all of these flights go once they get here?

The ONLY way an airline can make any money with a hub - the ONLY way - is to send in-coming flights back out in roughly the opposite direction and full. Period.

Once again

Edited January 11, 2008 by shardoon

[Camillo Sitte]

i dont want to beat a dead horse here, but i think your map illustrating a hub for orlando is a little too extreme to prove your point. this map that you created pretends as if an airline made orlando its nationwide hub (something no airline has)......most airlines have regional hubs.

looking at your map of the AA's hubs...... orlando could work as regional hub for united just like LAX already works as a regional hub for american. im sure it could work for other airlines as well that use the regional hub system but have no hub presence in the south.

No, it couldn

[shardoon]

No, it couldn

Edited January 11, 2008 by shardoon

[shardoon]

no other airport in the south including texas is better suited/capable to adding a hub the size united would need than orlando.

look at their route map. its obvious. there are many more cities that orlando would serve than i even stated in the previous post. dont forget that united also has a caribbean network. an example is that the SXM flights are packed, but you can only fly from dulles or chi-town. what do the people that live in atlanta, new orleans, texas do? simple, they fly another airline..... united loses them as passengers because of the need for a south hub. so the orlando hub would work well domestically, as per my previous post, and internationally (latin america/carib).

Edited January 12, 2008 by shardoon

[shardoon]

OK, I think I see the confusion here. I think you are confusing hubs and wayports.

A hub is an airport that an airline uses to connect a large number of flights. A hub is connected to a number of other cities by direct flights, and flight arrival and departure times are coordinated so that passengers arriving on one flight are able to board a flight departing for another city within reasonable times. Most airlines utilize a number of hubs.

a wayport is one central airport in which ALL flights would theoretically fly into. Passengers from one flight would have to board a flight bound for a destination city, as a wayport does not serve local communities. Most wayport concepts involve one airline per wayport, although this is not absolutely required. Currently there are no real wayports in existence.

The big difference between a hub and a wayport, is that a hub serves both a local community AND as a connection point. A hub may be dominated by a particular carrier, but is not exclusive to that carrier. Some airports serve as a hub to multiple airlines. The other big difference between the most common forms of hubs and wayports is that an airline would have multiple hubs, serving different regions, while they would only have one wayport, centrally located.

So in our example, AirMerica, with a hub in Orlando, would connect flights in the souther united states to Orlando. It would also serve a number of more popular destinations outside the region, as well as to other hubs. If you were flying from a southern airport to a major city, or from a major city to a southern airport, you would connect through Orlando. If, on the other hand, you were maybe flying from Spokane, WA to Phoenix, AZ, you might connect through their San Diego hub. Anotherwords, a hub does not connect every last airport, and does not provide the sole location of connection.

Keep in mind that a hub is not a profit device. An airline cannot charge a passenger for flying through a hub (well, not over handedly). A hub is a way to to take a small number of passengers flying from one airport to another, and consolidate them with passengers from other regional airports flying to that same destination. Although it involves flying more miles, it can consolidate and cut costs.

you make my point about united airlines. in the south, atlanta is perfectly located to be a hub. unfortunetely, for an airline like united, atlanta can not support another major airline hub. orlando is the only other logical choice that can serve as a hub for a major airline. memphis, dallas, houston, atlanta...... while all centrally located cities, cannot support a hub for another major airline. therefore, orlando is a logical choice with room to expand.

even though orlando is not the "best" geographically located city for a hub..... it is a much better choice than having an airline with NO hub in the south at all. the southern cities would go through orlando. their costs would go down dramatically.

Edited January 12, 2008 by shardoon

[Camillo Sitte]

no other airport in the south including texas is better suited/capable to adding a hub the size united would need than orlando.

Jesus H. Christ!

United just came out of bankruptcy, what in the HELL does United need another hub for? With their arrangement with US Air, United/US Air now have hubs in Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and San Francisco.

look at their route map. its obvious. there are many more cities that orlando would serve than i even stated in the previous post. dont forget that united also has a caribbean network. an example is that the SXM flights are packed, but you can only fly from dulles or chi-town. what do the people that live in atlanta, new orleans, texas do? Simple, they fly another airline..... united loses them as passengers because of the need for a south hub. so the orlando hub would work well domestically, as per my previous post, and internationally (latin america/carib).

United passengers in the Orlando area wanting to fly to SXM now fly to Charlotte, change to a US Air plane, and fly to SXM. Their tickets and baggage are all handled as if by United, they get United frequent flier miles, pay United Prices, and the detour to Charlotte is not very far.

Don

Edited January 12, 2008 by Camillo Sitte