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.
since hub airports offer a lot more flights to more cities, they are also going to have higher O&D numbers. it would be interesting to see the O&D numbers for the cities the year before and then the year after they got a hub.
That's not necessarily true. PIT has more O&D now than when it was a fortress hub without any low fare competition. The same can be said about Nashville and Raleigh/Durham. While I agree that the mere existence of a nonstop route will stimulate that market (esp int'l routes), there comes a point when an airline dominates its hub - allowing it (and the other airlines in the market) to charge very high airfares which in turn suppresses the market. When that happens the O&D pendulum swings the other way. That's what we had in PIT for many years during the hub. Many people drive, or just don't go at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronPGH
We don't need a new hub. We just need new carriers to start picking up point to point routes, lower average ticket prices, and more solid TATL service. Some of that is feasible – although I'm not sure about ticket prices with the current state of the airline industry. None of these big three mergers should have been approved.
We don't need a new hub. We just need new carriers to start picking up point to point routes, lower average ticket prices, and more solid TATL service. Some of that is feasible – although I'm not sure about ticket prices with the current state of the airline industry. None of these big three mergers should have been approved.
in most countries Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-NY would have been a high speed rail route rendering the need for air service minimal. hsr dominates city pairs of this length where planes have trouble making a go of it when fuel prices aren't rock bottom (one thing going against a declineni fuel prices is that it was the 90's that was an aberration when comparing historical fuel prices)
in most countries Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-NY would have been a high speed rail route rendering the need for air service minimal. hsr dominates city pairs of this length where planes have trouble making a go of it when fuel prices aren't rock bottom (one thing going against a declineni fuel prices is that it was the 90's that was an aberration when comparing historical fuel prices)
I think we could use Europe as the example of the best high speed rail network. But has it rendered air service needs there minimal? Not at all. In Europe rail may have taken away from the auto (it seems fewer people there own cars compared to the US), but it has not taken away significantly from air service. There remains a very robust and growing network of short haul flights in Europe. In fact, in 2012 scheduled passenger traffic increased by 4.4% in Europe compared to 2.3% in North America. Not only that; even with Europe's excellent rail network they now board more airline passengers than in the N America, and is forecast to grow more than N America in the next 20 years.
Switzerland has one of the best rail networks in the world. Yet there are 9 daily flights between Zurich and Geneva, a distance similar to Harrisburg - Pittsburgh.
Due to consolidation in the US, Europe now has more network carriers and more low fare carriers.
So I don't think one can point to Europe as an example of how rail can or should replace air service in the US, or between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Why spend $10 billion on a HSR line to Philly when you don't have to spend one cent on new aviation infrastructure.... and you will still get there faster on an airplane. Yes, you can add the time it takes to get to and from the airport, but then you must take that in consideration wrt getting to/from the downtown train station as well. Only a tiny portion of inter-regional travelers live in downtowns, whereas airports are already in or near the suburbs.
---------
Switching gears, previously I mentioned one item Fitzgerald should discuss with Emirates Airline next month is making PIT a stop in their cargo network because such a flight can be fed by trucks from other regions. Just out today, Cathay Pacific of Hong Kong will be serving Columbus 2x weekly with freighters. Same idea happening there. To their credit though, Columbus has developed a logistics industry made possible by their vastly superior Interstate highway system. Nonetheless, this is the kind of airline business Allegheny County should be pursuing.
Cathay Pacific Airways today announced that it will boost its freighter services into the United States by launching a twice-weekly scheduled service to Columbus, Ohio on 21 March 2014.
Columbus will be Cathay Pacific's 12th freighter destination in North America. The new service will offer shippers more choice and flexibility when moving commodities between Asia and North America. Meanwhile, the fully operational, state-of-the-art Cathay Pacific Cargo Terminal in the Hong Kong hub will further improve onward connections with Cathay Pacific's extensive international cargo network.
Cathay Pacific Director Cargo James Woodrow said: "Cathay Pacific is delighted to further strengthen our industry leading Trans-pacific service by adding Columbus to our network. Our 13 Boeing 747-8F freighters are the ideal aircraft to link Hong Kong with the Americas giving a reliable and fuel efficient service to our customers."
Cathay Pacific will operate the Columbus service on a Hong Kong – Anchorage – Columbus – New York (JFK) – Vancouver – Hong Kong routing every Wednesday and Friday, using its newest and biggest freighter, the Boeing 747-8F.
you have misunderstood. im not saying theres no nees for short haul air service just not on the philly pittsburgh route.
hsr moat certainly impacts air service and generally takes the majority of the market served. that still leaves huge holes in the transportation network best filled by air. air is incapable of adequately serving the pgh-phl-nyp market. moreover a new high speed rail link between harrisburg and pittsburgh could also be utilized by trains stopping in harriaburf, lancaster , western suburbs , even places like reading or bethelhem. far kore convenient to peoples homes than phl. air service has failed to have a dramatic impact while hsr would almost certainly change the transportation landscape in favor of pittsburgh
you have misunderstood. im not saying theres no nees for short haul air service just not on the philly pittsburgh route.
hsr moat certainly impacts air service and generally takes the majority of the market served. that still leaves huge holes in the transportation network best filled by air. air is incapable of adequately serving the pgh-phl-nyp market. moreover a new high speed rail link between harrisburg and pittsburgh could also be utilized by trains stopping in harriaburf, lancaster , western suburbs , even places like reading or bethelhem. far kore convenient to peoples homes than phl. air service has failed to have a dramatic impact while hsr would almost certainly change the transportation landscape in favor of pittsburgh
It would be incredible to have a rail system like China has. I've traveled over most of the east coast on their high speed line, it beats air travel any day. Plus the cost is cheaper than a plane ticket, and that was for a private room. Unfortunately that would likely never exist here. Even if they built it, the ticket would cost $3000 one way.
in most countries Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-NY would have been a high speed rail route rendering the need for air service minimal. hsr dominates city pairs of this length where planes have trouble making a go of it when fuel prices aren't rock bottom (one thing going against a declineni fuel prices is that it was the 90's that was an aberration when comparing historical fuel prices)
I don't know about how "minimal" the demand for air service would be with high speed rail.
A lot of people find the trek to and from the airport to be easier than to a rail station in town, depending on where they are coming from of course. Maybe the key is to transition Pittsburgh International into a bi-modal transportation center enabling people to move from a railroad to a jet in the same station.
I don't know about how "minimal" the demand for air service would be with high speed rail.
A lot of people find the trek to and from the airport to be easier than to a rail station in town, depending on where they are coming from of course. Maybe the key is to transition Pittsburgh International into a bi-modal transportation center enabling people to move from a railroad to a jet in the same station.
You can have a local connection spur to the airport but not having a downtown stop negates one of the largest benefits of HSR of arriving into the heart of a city without the hassle of finding alternate transport to get there.
you have misunderstood. im not saying theres no nees for short haul air service just not on the philly pittsburgh route.
hsr moat certainly impacts air service and generally takes the majority of the market served. that still leaves huge holes in the transportation network best filled by air. air is incapable of adequately serving the pgh-phl-nyp market. moreover a new high speed rail link between harrisburg and pittsburgh could also be utilized by trains stopping in harriaburf, lancaster , western suburbs , even places like reading or bethelhem. far kore convenient to peoples homes than phl. air service has failed to have a dramatic impact while hsr would almost certainly change the transportation landscape in favor of pittsburgh
The headline of that blog seems very alarmist. When you get to the data contained within, it shows the airlines' revenue was down 1-2% (hardly "crashing"), and was attributed to a number of factors including:
All of the carrier’s 30 weekly services from Guangzhou to Australia and New Zealand are profitable, the result of the carrier’s strategic transformation into an international network carrier (Xinhua, 06-Feb-2013). According to Mr Tan, the majority of Chinese carrier’s international routes are making losses.
Quote:
The situation has been made worse by airlines boosting capacity in expectation of a brisk Chinese New Year. Now, rock-bottom prices are in the system to try and fill seats.
While lagging, aviation analysts CAPA say growth will more than make up for short-term sluggishness. They says airlines can absorb a 3 per cent capacity cut in 2013.
If the 3% drop in capacity is entirely correlated to HSR, the one-year drop would be made up for in coming years with higher growth.
And from the actual news article that blog sourced:
Quote:
The drop in passenger demand was partly due to seasonal factors, given that the Lunar New Year holiday fell in January last year, leading to a higher base for comparison.
Quote:
At the same time, capacity expansion was in top gear at the major carriers during the holidays, weighing on ticket prices.
"Capacity expansion was less flexible because of the contracts with the aircraft manufacturers," said Patrick Xu, a transport analyst at Barclays. "The near-term hope lies mainly with a sharp recovery in demand, which seems lacking in distinct catalysts."
Passenger demand is expected to be sluggish during the off-peak period in the rest of this quarter. Carriers are offering rock-bottom fares to boost demand
So it seems there were a few different factors going on there, of which high speed rail is but one.
I'm not suggesting high speed rail doesn't have any affect on air travel, because that is not true. I just don't think the effect is very dramatic, except for a very few select markets that are very close to one another such as Amsterdam - Brussels.
China has had explosive growth in most sectors over the past few decades, and the airlines and airports there could not keep up. High speed rail was built out of necessity. In the US however, the economy is matured and slow growth. We don't have the growth problems China has experienced so therefore I think the need for high speed rail here is less prevalent.
Getting back to Pgh-Philly/NYC, I'm not sure why you feel air service is incapable of adequately serving the market. It has been doing so since the 1930s, and safer than other modes as well.
Sure, there were times when air service in the market have been better, such as when Southwest served the route which really increased the market through competition. And no doubt PIT is in some funk right now with its level of service. But that does not mean we need to spend billions on a new form of transport.
Other than DC-PHL-NYC-BOS, and a couple other corridors in the US, I'm just not sold on HSR in the US, including in Pittsburgh. Especially considering the cost. I just don't see the logic in spending $10 billion (or whatever it would end up costing) on what would only be one line. Then of course after construction it would still need to be subsidized like most passenger rail services seem to be. Why do all that when a Boeing 737 using existing infrastructure is just fine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
europe has a far more competitive passenger travel market. not only do airlines compete with each other but there is healthy competition between modes
One thing I do like about Europe is the interface between rail and the airports and airlines. Some of the busiest rail stations are under airports, and the airlines code share with the rail lines when it makes sense to do so. If main HSR stations in the US were at the airport instead of downtown I might warm up to the idea because at least then the two modes could be complimentary to one another in some markets. But the cost just seems awfully high.
I also agree about the European travel market. Europeans have a much higher propensity for travel than Americans. This is most likely why they can support both a highly developed rail network and airline network. I'm not sure that would be the case in the US... not until Americans start traveling much more often.
Last edited by PITairport; 02-28-2014 at 12:19 PM..
I also agree about the European travel market. Europeans have a much higher propensity for travel than Americans. This is most likely why they can support both a highly developed rail network and airline network. I'm not sure that would be the case in the US... not until Americans start traveling much more often.
Aren't US citizens some of the biggest travelers to Europe? Seems that Americans will travel to other countries to see their cities, but within the US they mainly just want to go to a beach town.
I think Europe in general has a very large tourism contingent, way more established than that of the US. No surprise given the history, central location to the continents, and wide variety of cultures and terrains.
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.
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.
