Originally Posted by
robthree
I remember a couple decades ago, in a previous life, a CEO was having a town hall meeting at a hub. The question came up "Why do we fly into XXX? Its an old, raggedy airfield, with an old raggedy terminal, everything that goes there gets messed up!" The answer of course was "That's where the money is. Our flights to XXX are the most profitable in the whole airline. So despite all those faults you listed, which are all very real, it still makes us more money than doing something else with those planes and people."
So, does closing IAD or LAX (or IAH or EWR or DEN) make any sense? Only if there is more money to be made by moving those resources somewhere else. And if it does make sense, I won't cry about it.
But then again, I don't live in base.
The IAD and LAX closure thing was actually something Jamie Baker floated out there at least a year ago. The reality is, airlines are measured more by PRASM and margin than total profit figures. Been that way for awhile.
If UAL has the numbers to support closing hubs and reallocate the assets where it makes a huge jump in PRASM and margin, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Apparently those numbers aren't supporting that move at this point. In the future, who knows.
Lee