Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-19-2014, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,912 posts, read 24,645,588 times
Reputation: 5163

Advertisements

There's basically no such thing as low fare anymore, except occasional sales for flying on Tuesday and Wednesday. Otherwise can't get much of anywhere below 300 bucks RT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2014, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Umbrosa Regio
1,334 posts, read 1,806,421 times
Reputation: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITairport View Post
Well I guess it was a 'riposte' to the general notion that Southwest is a low fare carrier.. because I feel when compared to legacy airlines they are not. In fact Southwest often charges more than the others. Since we are using Houston as an example, I just did a quick search on US Airways. Sure enough, if you book a round trip ticket to Houston leaving tomorrow on US Airways, you will save about $500 over Southwest Airlines (although you would be using Houston's other airport - IAH).

As far as "far in advance" being disingenuous... - it is mid-February - the absolutely slowest time of the year for travel. So while "Wanna Get Away" fares kick in in only about a week ahead, I'd wager that during the busier times of the year those fares are available only by booking far more ahead of time. The reality is yield management systems will adjust the fare based on the flight's demand (seats sold) to date, not on an arbitrary date before the flight departs.

Please don't take my post as cutting on Southwest, because I'm not. I just don't think they are 'low fare' in relation to the other airlines like they used to be. Due to bankruptcy proceedings, the legacies have gotten their cost structures down to that of Southwest.
I agree with the Airport's post.

Southwest never actually was a "low-fare" airline, it was only a "low-cost" airline, which enabled them to offer lower fares than the airlines that had a higher cost structure. Therefore, Southwest was able to expand because people were buying the cheaper fares and Southwest was still able to make a profit. As PITairport pointed out, the cost structure of Southwest is no longer significantly lower than the other airlines, therefore it's fares will tend not to be any different from the other airlines. Also, direct flights will still generally be more expensive than connections, though not always, because of the convenience factor putting them more in demand.

There really has never been a "low fare" airline because it's really the cost that matters. If your fares do not cover the cost of operations, you're going to go out of business pretty quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2014, 01:26 PM
 
Location: South Hills
632 posts, read 853,042 times
Reputation: 432
For many years after the new airport opened, county leadership deliberately conspired to keep low-fare airlines away. It was part of the deal to protect US Air from competition in exchange for the jobs.

As a result Pittsburgh ended up with some of the highest airfares in the country. More than a few drove the two hours up the turnpike to fly from Cleveland and save some money. Including former Mayor Tom Murphy when he went to the National Mayors Conference.

There was a low-cost carrier who wanted to fly out of Allegheny County Airport in West Mifflin in the mid-90's. In order to stop them the County Commissioners killed funding for the airport's fire brigade. Without an onsite fire department the FAA pulled their certificate for commercial flights. Mission accomplished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:21 PM
 
7,112 posts, read 10,129,067 times
Reputation: 1781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Burgher View Post
For many years after the new airport opened, county leadership deliberately conspired to keep low-fare airlines away. It was part of the deal to protect US Air from competition in exchange for the jobs.

As a result Pittsburgh ended up with some of the highest airfares in the country. More than a few drove the two hours up the turnpike to fly from Cleveland and save some money. Including former Mayor Tom Murphy when he went to the National Mayors Conference.

There was a low-cost carrier who wanted to fly out of Allegheny County Airport in West Mifflin in the mid-90's. In order to stop them the County Commissioners killed funding for the airport's fire brigade. Without an onsite fire department the FAA pulled their certificate for commercial flights. Mission accomplished.
County leadership had been trying to get low-fare airlines, but fortress hubs like PIT don't fit their business models. I think it was Air Tran that was successfully lured in but US Airways, cut rates to drive them out. That's why it required a US Airways pullout to make PIT attractive to Southwest and other such airlines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh/Anchorage
369 posts, read 462,596 times
Reputation: 361
This is borrowed from another forum, but thought some of you would find it interesting. It is a comparison of origin and destination (O&D) figures among the nation's largest CSAs (Combined Statistical Areas). O&D only, not connections.

This is domestic travel only, and does not include travel to/from AK, HI, PR, Guam, and other US territories. Lower 48 only.

These figures group airports into CSAs (Combined Statistical Areas), which I think is a pretty good metric to use, as an airport's catchment area extends beyond the immediate metro area.

Figures are for the 3rd quarter of 2013.

Source: Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report | Department of Transportation
-Table 7, column "F"


Quote:
Here's the list ranked by O&D, total O&D, raking of CSA population, CSA population, and passengers per 1,000 residents in the quarter.

rank O&D rank CSA pop passengers per 1000 residents CSA

1 ….. 13,319,802 ….. 1 ….. 23,362,099 ….. 570 … NY(LGA/EWR/JFK/ISP/HPN/ABE/TTN/SWF/HVN)
2 ….. 11,675,670 ….. 2 ….. 18,238,998 ….. 640 … Los Angeles (LAX+LGB+BUR+ONT+SNA+PSP)
3 ……. 9,480,216 ….. 5 ……. 8,370,967 .. 1,133 … San Francisco (SFO+OAK+SJC+STS+SCK)
4 ……. 8,781,600 ….. 3 ……. 9,899,902 ….. 887 … Chicago (ORD+MDW)
5 ……. 8,331,696 ….. 4 ……. 9,331,587 ….. 893 … Washington DC (DCA+BWI+IAD+HGR)
6 ……. 6,719,600 ….. 6 ……. 7,991,371 ….. 841 … Boston (BOS+PVD+MHT)
7 ……. 6,422,580 ….. 30 ….. 2,247,056 .. 2,858 … Las Vegas
8 ……. 6,385,310 ….. 17 ….. 3,214,218 .. 1,987 … Denver
9 ……. 6,183,600 ….. 8 ……. 7,095,411 ….. 871 … Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW+DAL)
10 ….. 5,806,080 ….. 9 ……. 6,375,434 ….. 911 … Miami/Fort Lauderdale (MIA+FLL+PBI)
11 ….. 5,426,630 ….. 20 ….. 2,920,603 .. 1,858 … Orlando (MCO+SFB+DAB)
12 ….. 5,228,640 ….. 11 ….. 6,092,295 ….. 858 … Atlanta
13 ….. 4,963,370 ….. 13 ….. 4,399,332 .. 1,128 … Seattle
14 ….. 4,284,080 ….. 10 ….. 6,371,677 ….. 672 … Houston (IAH+HOU)
15 ….. 3,902,782 ….. 14 ….. 4,329,534 ….. 901 … Phoenix (PHX+AZA)
16 ….. 3,686,990 ….. 7 ……. 7,129,428 ….. 517 … Philadelphia (PHL+ILG+ACY)
17 ….. 3,463,706 ….. 18 ….. 3,177,063 .. 1,090 … San Diego (SAN+CLD)
18 ….. 3,378,240 ….. 15 ….. 3,759,978 ….. 898 … Minneapolis/St Paul
19 ….. 3,021,126 ….. 12 ….. 5,311,449 ….. 569 … Detroit (DTW+FNT)
20 ….. 2,790,100 ….. 22 ….. 2,872,878 ….. 971 … Tampa (TPA+PIE)
21 ….. 2,660,310 ….. 19 ….. 2,992,924 ….. 889 … Portland
22 ….. 2,195,030 ….. 25 ….. 2,454,619 ….. 894 … Charlotte
23 ….. 2,026,302 ….. 27 ….. 2,350,274 ….. 862 … Salt Lake City (SLC+PVU+OGD)
24 ….. 1,986,846 ….. 21 ….. 2,900,605 ….. 685 … St Louis (STL+BLV)
25 ….. 1,834,760 ….. 26 ….. 2,376,631 ….. 772 … Kansas City
26 ….. 1,830,620 ….. 37 ….. 1,834,303 ….. 998 … Austin
27 ….. 1,682,670 ….. 36 ….. 1,845,235 ….. 912 … Nashville
28 ….. 1,647,550 ….. 24 ….. 2,462,722 ….. 669 … Sacramento
29 ….. 1,624,340 ….. 35 ….. 1,998,808 ….. 813 … Raleigh/Durham
30 ….. 1,558,260 ….. 42 ….. 1,452,502 .. 1,073 … New Orleans
31 ….. 1,483,090 ….. 16 ….. 3,497,711 ….. 424 … Cleveland (CLE+CAK)
32 ….. 1,477,480 ….. 23 ….. 2,661,369 ….. 555 … Pittsburgh (PIT+LBE)
33 ….. 1,372,310 ….. 31 ….. 2,234,003 ….. 614 … San Antonio
34 ….. 1,319,860 ….. 34 ….. 2,037,542 ….. 648 … Milwaukee
35 ….. 1,295,290 ….. 29 ….. 2,310,360 ….. 561 … Indianapolis
36 ….. 1,146,516 ….. 28 ….. 2,348,495 ….. 488 … Columbus (CMH+LCK)
37 ….. 1,097,706 ….. 50 ….. 1,213,668 ….. 904 … Buffalo (BUF+IAG)
38 ….. 1,024,690 ….. 33 ….. 2,185,828 ….. 469 … Hartford/Springfield
39 ……. 963,684 ….. 53 ….. 1,162,777 ….. 829 … Albuquerque (ABQ+SAF)
40 ……. 931,700 ….. 40 ….. 1,502,515 ….. 620 … Jacksonville
41 ……. 898,280 ….. 60 ……. 977,720 ….. 919 … Fort Myers
42 ……. 764,970 ….. 62 ……. 922,051 ….. 830 … Omaha
43 ……. 722,910 ….. 32 ….. 2,188,001 ….. 330 … Cincinnati
44 ……. 718,980 ….. 38 ….. 1,803,080 ….. 399 … Norfolk (ORF+PHF)
45 ……. 673,610 ….. 00 ……. 433,843 .. 1,553 … Reno
46 ……. 644,210 ….. 46 ….. 1,367,325 ….. 471 … Oklahoma City
47 ……. 597,170 ….. 41 ….. 1,478,637 ….. 404 … Louisville
48 ……. 577,080 ….. 48 ….. 1,231,980 ….. 468 … Richmond
49 ……. 573,420 ….. 77 ……. 697,439 ….. 822 … Charleston SC
50 ……. 573,150 ….. 45 ….. 1,369,548 ….. 418 … Memphis
51 ……. 567,720 ….. 79 ……. 674,610 ….. 842 … Spokane
52 ……. 503,790 ….. 59 ….. 1,039,697 ….. 485 … Tucson
53 ……. 485,980 ….. 74 ……. 717,388 ….. 677 … Boise
54 ……. 476,560 ….. 58 ….. 1,045,180 ….. 456 … El Paso
55 ……. 471,130 ….. 47 ….. 1,309,818 ….. 360 … Birmingham
56 ……. 467,370 ….. 00 ……. 454,371 .. 1,029 … Myrtle Beach
57 ……. 460,340 ….. 52 ….. 1,170,483 ….. 393 … Albany
58 ……. 459,100 ….. 54 ….. 1,122,259 ….. 409 … Tulsa
59 ……. 444,440 ….. 57 ….. 1,079,417 ….. 412 … Dayton
60 ……. 440,760 ….. 51 ….. 1,177,566 ….. 374 … Rochester
61 ……. 404,550 ….. 00 ……. 625,727 ….. 647 … Portland ME
62 ……. 381,370 ….. 71 ……. 742,936 ….. 513 … Des Moines
63 ……. 380,680 ….. 43 ….. 1,395,128 ….. 273 … Grand Rapids (GRR+MKG)
64 ……. 373,200 ….. 65 ……. 893,610 ….. 418 … Little Rock
65 ……. 345,620 ….. 72 ……. 740,486 ….. 467 … Syracuse
66 ……. 320,712 ….. 68 ……. 843,793 ….. 380 … Madison
67 ……. 312,900 ….. 44 ….. 1,384,996 ….. 226 … Greenville/Spartanburg
68 ……. 279,312 ….. 56 ….. 1,091,370 ….. 256 … Knoxville
69 ……. 272,220 ….. 39 ….. 1,611,243 ….. 169 … Greensboro/Winston Salem
70 ……. 267,440 ….. 00 ……. 516,154 ….. 518 … Savannah
71 ……. 260,420 ….. 80 ……. 672,393 ….. 387 … Wichita
72 ……. 250,140 ….. 00 ……. 213,701 .. 1,171 … Burlington

Here are the same 72 markets sorted by population -- the population rank is the 3rd column. Note that these are not the 72 largest metro areas. The handful of metro areas under 600,000 show "00" as ranking because I didn't figure out how they stack up in population rank.

1 ….. 13,319,802 ….. 1 ….. 23,362,099 ….. 570 … NY (LGA/EWR/JFK/ISP/HPN/ABE/TTN/SWF/HVN)
2 ….. 11,675,670 ….. 2 ….. 18,238,998 ….. 640 … Los Angeles (LAX+LGB+BUR+ONT+SNA+PSP)
4 ……. 8,781,600 ….. 3 ……. 9,899,902 ….. 887 … Chicago (ORD+MDW)
5 ……. 8,331,696 ….. 4 ……. 9,331,587 ….. 893 … Washington DC (DCA+BWI+IAD+HGR)
3 ……. 9,480,216 ….. 5 ……. 8,370,967 .. 1,133 … San Francisco (SFO+OAK+SJC+STS+SCK)
6 ……. 6,719,600 ….. 6 ……. 7,991,371 ….. 841 … Boston (BOS+PVD+MHT)
16 ….. 3,686,990 ….. 7 ……. 7,129,428 ….. 517 … Philadelphia (PHL+ILG+ACY)
9 ……. 6,183,600 ….. 8 ……. 7,095,411 ….. 871 … Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW+DAL)
10 ….. 5,806,080 ….. 9 ……. 6,375,434 ….. 911 … Miami/Fort Lauderdale (MIA+FLL+PBI)
14 ….. 4,284,080 ….. 10 ….. 6,371,677 ….. 672 … Houston (IAH+HOU)
12 ….. 5,228,640 ….. 11 ….. 6,092,295 ….. 858 … Atlanta
19 ….. 3,021,126 ….. 12 ….. 5,311,449 ….. 569 … Detroit (DTW+FNT)
13 ….. 4,963,370 ….. 13 ….. 4,399,332 .. 1,128 … Seattle
15 ….. 3,902,782 ….. 14 ….. 4,329,534 ….. 901 … Phoenix (PHX+AZA)
18 ….. 3,378,240 ….. 15 ….. 3,759,978 ….. 898 … Minneapolis/St Paul
31 ….. 1,483,090 ….. 16 ….. 3,497,711 ….. 424 … Cleveland (CLE+CAK)
8 ……. 6,385,310 ….. 17 ….. 3,214,218 .. 1,987 … Denver
17 ….. 3,463,706 ….. 18 ….. 3,177,063 .. 1,090 … San Diego (SAN+CLD)
21 ….. 2,660,310 ….. 19 ….. 2,992,924 ….. 889 … Portland
11 ….. 5,426,630 ….. 20 ….. 2,920,603 .. 1,858 … Orlando (MCO+SFB+DAB)
24 ….. 1,986,846 ….. 21 ….. 2,900,605 ….. 685 … St Louis (STL+BLV)
20 ….. 2,790,100 ….. 22 ….. 2,872,878 ….. 971 … Tampa (TPA+PIE)
32 ….. 1,477,480 ….. 23 ….. 2,661,369 ….. 555 … Pittsburgh (PIT+LBE)
28 ….. 1,647,550 ….. 24 ….. 2,462,722 ….. 669 … Sacramento
22 ….. 2,195,030 ….. 25 ….. 2,454,619 ….. 894 … Charlotte
25 ….. 1,834,760 ….. 26 ….. 2,376,631 ….. 772 … Kansas City
23 ….. 2,026,302 ….. 27 ….. 2,350,274 ….. 862 … Salt Lake City (SLC+PVU+OGD)
36 ….. 1,146,516 ….. 28 ….. 2,348,495 ….. 488 … Columbus (CMH+LCK)
35 ….. 1,295,290 ….. 29 ….. 2,310,360 ….. 561 … Indianapolis
7 ……. 6,422,580 ….. 30 ….. 2,247,056 .. 2,858 … Las Vegas
33 ….. 1,372,310 ….. 31 ….. 2,234,003 ….. 614 … San Antonio
43 ……. 722,910 ….. 32 ….. 2,188,001 ….. 330 … Cincinnati
38 ….. 1,024,690 ….. 33 ….. 2,185,828 ….. 469 … Hartford/Springfield
34 ….. 1,319,860 ….. 34 ….. 2,037,542 ….. 648 … Milwaukee
29 ….. 1,624,340 ….. 35 ….. 1,998,808 ….. 813 … Raleigh/Durham
27 ….. 1,682,670 ….. 36 ….. 1,845,235 ….. 912 … Nashville
26 ….. 1,830,620 ….. 37 ….. 1,834,303 ….. 998 … Austin
44 ……. 718,980 ….. 38 ….. 1,803,080 ….. 399 … Norfolk (ORF+PHF)
69 ……. 272,220 ….. 39 ….. 1,611,243 ….. 169 … Greensboro/Winston Salem
40 ……. 931,700 ….. 40 ….. 1,502,515 ….. 620 … Jacksonville
47 ……. 597,170 ….. 41 ….. 1,478,637 ….. 404 … Louisville
30 ….. 1,558,260 ….. 42 ….. 1,452,502 .. 1,073 … New Orleans
63 ……. 380,680 ….. 43 ….. 1,395,128 ….. 273 … Grand Rapids (GRR+MKG)
67 ……. 312,900 ….. 44 ….. 1,384,996 ….. 226 … Greenville/Spartanburg
50 ……. 573,150 ….. 45 ….. 1,369,548 ….. 418 … Memphis
46 ……. 644,210 ….. 46 ….. 1,367,325 ….. 471 … Oklahoma City
55 ……. 471,130 ….. 47 ….. 1,309,818 ….. 360 … Birmingham
48 ……. 577,080 ….. 48 ….. 1,231,980 ….. 468 … Richmond
37 ….. 1,097,706 ….. 50 ….. 1,213,668 ….. 904 … Buffalo (BUF+IAG)
60 ……. 440,760 ….. 51 ….. 1,177,566 ….. 374 … Rochester
57 ……. 460,340 ….. 52 ….. 1,170,483 ….. 393 … Albany
39 ……. 963,684 ….. 53 ….. 1,162,777 ….. 829 … Albuquerque (ABQ+SAF)
58 ……. 459,100 ….. 54 ….. 1,122,259 ….. 409 … Tulsa
68 ……. 279,312 ….. 56 ….. 1,091,370 ….. 256 … Knoxville
59 ……. 444,440 ….. 57 ….. 1,079,417 ….. 412 … Dayton
54 ……. 476,560 ….. 58 ….. 1,045,180 ….. 456 … El Paso
52 ……. 503,790 ….. 59 ….. 1,039,697 ….. 485 … Tucson
41 ……. 898,280 ….. 60 ……. 977,720 ….. 919 … Fort Myers
42 ……. 764,970 ….. 62 ……. 922,051 ….. 830 … Omaha
64 ……. 373,200 ….. 65 ……. 893,610 ….. 418 … Little Rock
66 ……. 320,712 ….. 68 ……. 843,793 ….. 380 … Madison
62 ……. 381,370 ….. 71 ……. 742,936 ….. 513 … Des Moines
65 ……. 345,620 ….. 72 ……. 740,486 ….. 467 … Syracuse
53 ……. 485,980 ….. 74 ……. 717,388 ….. 677 … Boise
49 ……. 573,420 ….. 77 ……. 697,439 ….. 822 … Charleston SC
51 ……. 567,720 ….. 79 ……. 674,610 ….. 842 … Spokane
71 ……. 260,420 ….. 80 ……. 672,393 ….. 387 … Wichita
45 ……. 673,610 ….. 00 ……. 433,843 .. 1,553 … Reno
56 ……. 467,370 ….. 00 ……. 454,371 .. 1,029 … Myrtle Beach
61 ……. 404,550 ….. 00 ……. 625,727 ….. 647 … Portland ME
70 ……. 267,440 ….. 00 ……. 516,154 ….. 518 … Savannah
72 ……. 250,140 ….. 00 ……. 213,701 .. 1,171 … Burlington

Finally, here are those 72 sorted by passengers in the quarter per 1,000 population.

1....2,858 … Las Vegas
2....1,987 … Denver
3....1,858 … Orlando (MCO+SFB+DAB)
4....1,553 … Reno
5....1,171 … Burlington
6....1,133 … San Francisco (SFO+OAK+SJC+STS+SCK)
7....1,128 … Seattle
8....1,090 … San Diego (SAN+CLD)
9....1,073 … New Orleans
10...1,029 … Myrtle Beach
11...998 … Austin
12...971 … Tampa (TPA+PIE)
13...919 … Fort Myers
14...912 … Nashville
15...911 … Miami/Fort Lauderdale (MIA+FLL+PBI)
16...904 … Buffalo (BUF+IAG)
17...901 … Phoenix (PHX+AZA)
18...898 … Minneapolis/St Paul
19...894 … Charlotte
20...893 … Washington DC (DCA+BWI+IAD+HGR)
21...889 … Portland
22...887 … Chicago (ORD+MDW)
23...871 … Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW+DAL)
24...862 … Salt Lake City (SLC+PVU+OGD)
25...858 … Atlanta
26...842 … Spokane
27...841 … Boston (BOS+PVD+MHT)
28...830 … Omaha
29...829 … Albuquerque (ABQ+SAF)
30...822 … Charleston SC
31...813 … Raleigh/Durham
32...772 … Kansas City
33...685 … St Louis (STL+BLV)
34...677 … Boise
35...672 … Houston (IAH+HOU)
36...669 … Sacramento
37...648 … Milwaukee
38...647 … Portland ME
39...640 … Los Angeles (LAX+LGB+BUR+ONT+SNA+PSP)
40...620 … Jacksonville
41...614 … San Antonio
42...570 … NY (LGA/EWR/JFK/ISP/HPN/ABE/TTN/SWF/HVN)
43...569 … Detroit (DTW+FNT)
44...561 … Indianapolis
45...555 … Pittsburgh (PIT+LBE)
46...518 … Savannah
47...517 … Philadelphia (PHL+ILG+ACY)
48...513 … Des Moines
49...488 … Columbus (CMH+LCK)
50...485 … Tucson
51...471 … Oklahoma City
52...469 … Hartford/Springfield
53...468 … Richmond
54...467 … Syracuse
55...456 … El Paso
56...424 … Cleveland (CLE+CAK)
57...418 … Memphis
58...418 … Little Rock
59...412 … Dayton
60...409 … Tulsa
61...404 … Louisville
62...399 … Norfolk (ORF+PHF)
63...393 … Albany
64...387 … Wichita
65...380 … Madison
66...374 … Rochester
67...360 … Birmingham
68...330 … Cincinnati
69...273 … Grand Rapids (GRR+MKG)
70...256 … Knoxville
71...226 … Greenville/Spartanburg
72...169 … Greensboro/Winston Salem[/SIZE][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
As we can see, the Pittsburgh CSA is 23rd largest, but in terms of air travel demand we are only ranked 32nd. When compared by number of passengers/1000 residents, we are even lower at #45.

So why are we much lower than our regional population would otherwise suggest?

1) For one thing, many of our major travel markets are within an easy drive, such as Washington, Baltimore, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and even Philly and Detroit.

2) As a whole it seems like folks living in the Pittsburgh region just do not travel that much compared to other regions. I have nothing to back that up statistically and this is purely anecdotal but it is the vibe I get. I've actually met several people who have never been outside the region at all.

The #45 ranking of passengers/1000 residents is really something when you look at some of the cities which rank above us. Some have higher air service demand, yet are smaller. In fact, using this metric, the only significant major metros doing worse are (surprisingly) Philly, and Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. I'm sure issue 1) above has something to do with those markets as well. At any rate, I hope this data puts to rest the notion that Charlotte and Pittsburgh have the same level of O&D, because as we can see CLT is quite a bit higher.


3) Finally, consolidation in the airline industry has caused fares in the Pittsburgh market to creep back up and the number of flights to many popular destinations decrease. I'm talking about all within the post hub era. For example, as we can see from the data above, in the 3rd quarter of 2013 the total O&D at PIT/LBE was 1,477,480. But in the 3rd quarter of 2008 (also post hub) it was 1,640,640. So for the entire year that is about 600,000 less O&D passengers in the Pittsburgh CSA now than in 2008 - all while the local Pittsburgh economy is much better now than then. So why is that? In 2008 we had Southwest Airlines to PHL and JetBlue to NYC offering lower fares which stimulated demand to those markets, and we had Southwest, AirTran and USA3000 to the major Florida markets. All that service is all gone except for Southwest's service to Florida. Technically AirTran is still here at the moment, although is being integrated into Southwest - and the combined flights from PIT to Florida has really been consolidated.


All things considered, this should show why it has been so hard to get increased flights at PIT. You will not change Pittsburgh's location in relation to other drivable markets, and you most likely will not change people's travel habits. But I don't see why we can't reclaim the higher levels of O&D we had in 2007 and 2008 after the airport's fees come down, hopefully after the terminal's debt is paid off in 2018. Then grow steadily from there as the region continues its turn around and grows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Umbrosa Regio
1,334 posts, read 1,806,421 times
Reputation: 970
What this tells me is that people yearning for a PIT-based hub will yearn indefinitely. With the (based on the numbers shown) very strange exception of CVG (Cincinnati), all of the remaining hub airports have greater O&D numbers than PIT by at least 500,000 passengers. The fact that CLE has near identical numbers and is in the process of being de-hubbed tells me that the PIT hub was doomed no matter the airline and no matter how high the landing fees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:34 PM
 
3,291 posts, read 2,768,878 times
Reputation: 3375
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 05:23 PM
 
7,112 posts, read 10,129,067 times
Reputation: 1781
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIRefugee View Post
What this tells me is that people yearning for a PIT-based hub will yearn indefinitely. With the (based on the numbers shown) very strange exception of CVG (Cincinnati), all of the remaining hub airports have greater O&D numbers than PIT by at least 500,000 passengers. The fact that CLE has near identical numbers and is in the process of being de-hubbed tells me that the PIT hub was doomed no matter the airline and no matter how high the landing fees.
It's not hopeless. Atlanta has almost 100 million passengers, yet its O&D is a small percentage of that. If your location is good, with low landing fees, and the facilities, you might get a hub airline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Umbrosa Regio
1,334 posts, read 1,806,421 times
Reputation: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
It's not hopeless. Atlanta has almost 100 million passengers, yet its O&D is a small percentage of that. If your location is good, with low landing fees, and the facilities, you might get a hub airline.
Not correct. Atlanta may have a smallish PERCENTAGE of O&D numbers, but it is the absolute numbers that matter generally.

Atlanta: 5,228,640
Pittsburgh/Latrobe: 1,477,480

It's not even close.

No major airline is going to create a hub anytime soon unless there is a seismic shift in the economics of air travel, such as a radical collapse of oil prices or some ultra billionaire who creates an airline and doesn't care about losing money for many years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
1,776 posts, read 2,696,843 times
Reputation: 1741
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top