Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The economics of the hub system are indeed complicated, but one pretty good rule of thumb is that fewer big airlines (say through consolidation) means fewer hubs. And with the consolidation we have had already, plus its proximity to the East Coast airports with much better O&D, Pittsburgh is off the list and very likely won't be getting back on it.
Incidentally, there are an increasing number of people making the argument this more or less inevitable evolution of the U.S. air system given the economics of the situation represents a failure of deregulation, and that maybe the federal government will need to step in to try to fix it. I tend to think that is not the logical first step, and that it would be preferable to start by looking at alternative modes (like HSR) to provide intercity connectivity where the economics of air travel are not as favorable (not, for example, that $10 billion would buy you a lot of HSR for the state of Pennsylvania and beyond). But in any event, it is becoming a bigger and bigger issue with more and more metros joining Pittsburgh in terms of losing a lot of air service.
Incidentally, there are an increasing number of people making the argument this more or less inevitable evolution of the U.S. air system given the economics of the situation represents a failure of deregulation, and that maybe the federal government will need to step in to try to fix it.
Because PIT (and similar cities) lost their hub status is not indicative of a failure of deregulation, as it was under deregulation that these cities became a hub in the first place. Perhaps that they became a hub in the first place is the real failure? In which I might agree, but during those times the increased service did have its positive effects on the region.
Deregulation is more like an ongoing realization of market dynamics IMHO. In the mean time, it costs only 6 cab rides between downtown and Oakland to equal an airline ticket to Orlando (even via a connection), so I don't see it as a loss to the consumer.
Under deregulation the average cost of air travel has decreased SUBSTANTIALLY nationwide when adjusted for inflation. So.. if the federal gov't steps in and fixes it, what are they fixing? The overinflated service of Pittsburgh in the 80's, or the current taxicab fares via air to Florida?
The "economics of the situation" are not a failure as much as an ongoing evolution for air service demand/capacity/costs/evolving network dynamics/etc.
Quote:
I tend to think that is not the logical first step, and that it would be preferable to start by looking at alternative modes (like HSR) to provide intercity connectivity where the economics of air travel are not as favorable (not, for example, that $10 billion would buy you a lot of HSR for the state of Pennsylvania and beyond).
$10 billion at Philadelphia airport, which would be paid in large part by the users (the airlines) to maintain and increase the connections of the city to the rest of N. America and the world (and they will, be it US, AA, or any combination); or $10 billion in or near Philadelphia, which would be paid in large part by the taxpayer for HSR to connect it with regional destinations.. which they already have with Acela, other rail, highways, and regional airlines.
If I had the power to decide I know what it would be.
Last edited by PITairport; 04-26-2012 at 08:29 AM..
Because PIT (and similar cities) lost their hub status is not indicative of a failure of deregulation, as it was under deregulation that these cities became a hub in the first place. Perhaps that they became a hub in the first place is the real failure? In which I might agree, but during those times the increased service did have its positive effects on the region.
Deregulation is more like an ongoing realization of market dynamics IMHO. In the mean time, it costs only 6 cab rides between downtown and Oakland to equal an airline ticket to Orlando (even via a connection), so I don't see it as a loss to the consumer.
Under deregulation the average cost of air travel has decreased SUBSTANTIALLY nationwide when adjusted for inflation. So.. if the federal gov't steps in and fixes it, what are they fixing? The overinflated service of Pittsburgh in the 80's, or the current taxicab fares via air to Florida?
The "economics of the situation" are not a failure as much as an ongoing evolution for air service demand/capacity/costs/evolving network dynamics/etc.
$10 billion at Philadelphia airport, which would be paid in large part by the users (the airlines) to maintain and increase the connections of the city to the rest of N. America and the world (and they will, be it US, AA, or any combination); or $10 billion in or near Philadelphia, which would be paid in large part by the taxpayer for HSR to connect it with regional destinations.. which they already have with Acela, other rail, highways, and regional airlines.
If I had the power to decide I know what it would be.
These people and HSR. Its not the answer people. We are not Europe. We are too big and too spread out of a country.
These people and HSR. Its not the answer people. We are not Europe. We are too big and too spread out of a country.
A) Europeans don't use HSR to cover huge distances either. They still fly across the continent. And their discount airlines are waaaay cheaper than ours.
B) HSR would alleviate crowding at hubs by reducing REGIONAL air travel. Connecting the crowded northeastern United States with true HSR would take a lot of planes out of the sky and reduce a ton of traffic at places like PHL, Newark and JFK.
Comparing Acela to true HSR is like comparing a Kia to a Ferrari.
A) Europeans don't use HSR to cover huge distances either. They still fly across the continent. And their discount airlines are waaaay cheaper than ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
B) HSR would alleviate crowding at hubs by reducing REGIONAL air travel. Connecting the crowded northeastern United States with true HSR would take a lot of planes out of the sky and reduce a ton of traffic at places like PHL, Newark and JFK.
That’s exactly it, all air traffic between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (or most) would be connecting traffic rather than O&D with a 2 or even 2.5 hr ride. Also note that fares are cheaper there (in Europe) so high speed travel is more accessible but on the flip side, higher speed trains are generally cheaper to run (fewer labor hours per mile, expresses consume les energy per mile with fewer stops, higher demand, etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Incidentally, there are an increasing number of people making the argument this more or less inevitable evolution of the U.S. air system given the economics of the situation represents a failure of deregulation, and that maybe the federal government will need to step in to try to fix it. I tend to think that is not the logical first step, and that it would be preferable to start by looking at alternative modes (like HSR) to provide intercity connectivity where the economics of air travel are not as favorable (not, for example, that $10 billion would buy you a lot of HSR for the state of Pennsylvania and beyond). But in any event, it is becoming a bigger and bigger issue with more and more metros joining Pittsburgh in terms of losing a lot of air service.
[quote=PITairport;24033984] Because PIT (and similar cities) lost their hub status is not indicative of a failure of deregulation, as it was under deregulation that these cities became a hub in the first place. Perhaps that they became a hub in the first place is the real failure? In which I might agree, but during those times the increased service did have its positive effects on the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITairport
Deregulation is more like an ongoing realization of market dynamics IMHO. In the mean time, it costs only 6 cab rides between downtown and Oakland to equal an airline ticket to Orlando (even via a connection), so I don't see it as a loss to the consumer.
Under deregulation the average cost of air travel has decreased SUBSTANTIALLY nationwide when adjusted for inflation. So.. if the federal gov't steps in and fixes it, what are they fixing? The overinflated service of Pittsburgh in the 80's, or the current taxicab fares via air to Florida? The "economics of the situation" are not a failure as much as an ongoing evolution for air service demand/capacity/costs/evolving network dynamics/etc.
This is very well stated. I’d further suggest that it’s mostly people who were already anti-deregulation just making their case again because they think the time is right. I think Brian has it right though, those people are misreading the transportation market. You can’t simply look at airlines separate from trains, planes, and automobiles (and boats!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITairport
$10 billion at Philadelphia airport, which would be paid in large part by the users (the airlines) to maintain and increase the connections of the city to the rest of N. America and the world (and they will, be it US, AA, or any combination); or $10 billion in or near Philadelphia, which would be paid in large part by the taxpayer for HSR to connect it with regional destinations.. which they already have with Acela, other rail, highways, and regional airlines. If I had the power to decide I know what it would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
(not, for example, that $10 billion would buy you a lot of HSR for the state of Pennsylvania and beyond). But in any event, it is becoming a bigger and bigger issue with more and more metros joining Pittsburgh in terms of losing a lot of air service.
It has yet to be decided whether $10 bn dollars is worth it or not as the users are protesting. If you look at PIT, Pittsburgh is paying by having sub-par air service due to high fees. Of course, you still are raising a good point about rail. In Europe they truly believe these connections are profitable when one includes economic development (increased property values), fares, long term depreciation. The problem is often that the private sector is no longer capable (for a number of reasons) of building century long assets (Amtrak uses tunnels in Baltimore built during the civil war)…if you’re ROI calculation assumes a return in 30 years, it might look a lot different than 100 years. Anyway, what’s interesting is that in Europe where fast trains have largely taken over the market between large cities, now deregulated airlines have been forced to look to different ways to make money…airlines there now provide better service to small cities from big ones as far as I can tell. It stands to reason that airlines would be better at moving smaller amounts of people to disparate locations since the inherent advantage of trains is moving large numbers. I’d also note that European safety regulations are more flexible than American ones that have not been updated in decades, making it comparatively expensive to run trains in the US.
$10 billion at Philadelphia airport, which would be paid in large part by the users (the airlines) to maintain and increase the connections of the city to the rest of N. America and the world (and they will, be it US, AA, or any combination); or $10 billion in or near Philadelphia, which would be paid in large part by the taxpayer for HSR to connect it with regional destinations.. which they already have with Acela, other rail, highways, and regional airlines.
Philadelphia is an absolute flustercluck of an airport. I only had occasion to fly out of Pittsburgh once, but I was impressed with its cleanliness, selection of shops and restaurants, and organization. PHL is just a mess.
Seriously, how many on this forum have ever ridden on a train?
I traveled across Europe exclusively by train over two summers. I took French and German classes and with my Eurorail pass and using Grenoble and Cologne as my home bases, I went all over Europe. I even commuted, on a whim, by TGV from Grenoble to Paris and back in a day. 3 hours there and 3 hours back. If it weren't for the Alps, the time of travel would have been shorter.
I definitely got my money's worth. And I'm sure my trips were subsidized by the respective governments. Europe kept their train system as they are averse to giving the old ways up. Plus Europe makes owning a car more of a burden than in the US. It'd be nice to have HSR here but I do question its economic and practical sense.
Yes, PIT has the infrastructure, airspace, gates, etc., but the one amenity that it doesn't have is the most important one: O&D.
As far as a secondary hub for US Airways, consider that they have been a major hub, medium hub, small hub, and focus city for US Airways during their local downsizing. They would have stopped the downsizing at a smaller hub or focus city if it made sense. It didn't then, and I don't think it would now.
That probably was because they could shift it to PHL at that time. With talk of expanding PHL at a cost up to $10 billion, that suggests PHL is either running out of space or is already maxed. So the choice is either invest $10 billion which will take years to complete and pay off. Or take advantage of PIT now with its debt retirement in sight.
Quote:
With AA, they would have hubs at DCA, PHL, JFK, and ORD. PIT being in the middle of that triangle would be the last place they will focus on for a major expansion.
That's true, but again, it depends if they are maxed out. Pittsburgh at its peak moved 20 million passengers so it's not like Pittsburgh hasn't done it before, and when the debt is retired soon, it would be more profitable. I mean, does Charlotte have a lot of O&D? Charlotte brags about their lower costs. More O&D is preferred but so long as it can be profitable, why not bring back PIT if US Airways is looking for more space?
Quote:
7,600 feet is plenty for the role of ABE, even if they play more of a reliever role for PHL. It also has the benefit of not only drawing from Philadelphia, but also from Northern NJ as well. But even with all that, the airport still hasn't really taken off.
I don't know the limits for what aircraft but no serious airport has its main runway just that long. Even PIT's shortest runway is 500 feet longer. And is ABE's runway engineered to land bigger aircraft?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.