Airport traffic up again (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: rental car, rental, home)

[BrianTH]

Being a hub has its downsides, most notably in terms of higher airfare. Most people would probably support rehubbing PIT just for the employment benefits, but for local fliers, I think it is likely better to have continued competitive growth.

[escilade18]

Originally Posted by BettyTheHun

This may not be a practical idea, so please shoot it down, maybe it's been brought up before, just trying to think out of the box:

What if the security checkpoints were moved to airside, perhaps one each at gate A and B (and perhaps C if those two couldn't handle all flights). Gates C and D along with part of the center core would serve as the airmall, where non-passengers could lollygag.

I realize that increasing the number of flights would ultimately be better, but I don't see it happening.

Sounds a lot like LAX. I prefer how they have security for every airline there, that way they are not overloaded and the TSA members are A LOT more pleasant. Although it still isn't to where one can go to the shops there since they are past security by the gates

[escilade18]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I wish they would do something. Pittsburgh Airport is such a drag not having it be a hub of any major airlines. I travel to NYC and the Tampa area and both places I have THREE airports to choose from. It is not very impressive to get to Pittsburgh due to such a low volume of flights considering I have so many destination cities to choose from. Wish they would get their act together. When I was in college out of state we had it great with USAir. I could pick and choose flights with ease. Tons of nonstop flights to Pittsburgh. Even out of Tampa now, it is very hard to get a nonstop flight! Of course from NYC it is pretty easy since it is a 45 minute flight, but PIT still sucks compared to the old days. Oh well.

Thing is, flights are significantly cheaper now than they were say back in the 90's. Just last year I got round trip tickets to L.A. (had to connect in Detroit which was all of a half hour) for 160 after taxes. Out of a hub airport such as JFK, that would have been all but impossible to find

[BrianTH]

A few more direct West Coast flights would be nice, but I guess the demand isn't there (yet).

[h_curtis]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Being a hub has its downsides, most notably in terms of higher airfare. Most people would probably support rehubbing PIT just for the employment benefits, but for local fliers, I think it is likely better to have continued competitive growth.

Only you would think direct flights are a downside. You sure live to find anything I say as some downside. It is a f'n joke. Yeah, right brian having Pittsburgh as a hub is some downside. You are out of your mind. Jobs, more flights and much more!! Downside. ha ha ha You are too silly sometimes!

[BrianTH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...version-t.html

Passengers flying to or from airports that are dominated by a single carrier — like Memphis, Newark or Dallas/Fort Worth — pay fares 20 or 30 percent higher than at non-hub airports.

[h_curtis]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...version-t.html

I'll pay more for nonstop flights. Transfers are a drag. I have ALSO missed connecting flights which in turn costs me a nights stay at a hotel and a full day from my destination. Airlines just blame the weather and then you have to pay the cost of the hotel. Where is the savings there oh argumentative brian? I missed an international connection as well, which is a real pain to say the least. I drive to DC to get direct international flights, because it is much easier and it takes the risk away.

You can keep living in your rah, rah land of all is great no matter what, but you haven't a clue what it is like to deal with an airport that has so few flights. You are dead wrong on thinking having no hub is better. I mean what about the employment??? Money for the airport? Sometimes I really have to wonder if you just like to hear yourself argue for something to do because you are so bored with life?

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I missed an international connection as well, which is a real pain to say the least. I drive to DC to get direct international flights, because it is much easier and it takes the risk away.

Yes, anyone who thinks the non-hub is better is not a frequent business traveler. If you travel for business the extra 10-20% isn't a big deal, as you're not paying it. The lack of destinations is a big deal though. No direct flight to Seattle? Come on. We're suppose to be a high tech city but we don't have a direct flight to one of the tech meccas? United with it's flights to LA, SF, and Denver were the only thing keeping the airport afloat for me for a long while. If you fly once a year for vacation the new downsized airport might be a blessing, but you're part of the reason for that downsizing as well.

[SteelCityRising]

Vacation? What's that?

[BrianTH]

I agreed previously that a few more direct flights the West Coast would be nice, but of course if there was a great demand for such flights they would already exist. And a 20-30% tax on all local fliers--or their employers, which may be fine with the employee but is still a burden on the local economy--is a pretty high price to pay for subsidizing flights for which there is not much local demand.

Which is not to say the status quo is just fine. With the benefit of hindsight, of course the County would never have overinvested in the airport, and it likely would not have been dominated by USAir in the early period. So in this alternate reality, the airport debt and therefore landing fees would be a lot lower, and very likely by now there would be more direct routes being offered by competing carriers.

And we'll get there eventually, as in fact these stories are relating. But it is too bad we started down a different path, lured by a promise of jobs that was wiped out in bankruptcy.