Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
(Post 3411843)
Your point earlier about the headaches closing bases is really a good one. For those without blue shirts the company had to close our LGB base and open a LAX base. It seemed like it would be a simple enough bid, but caused massive repercussions through the system and training cycles.
Despite the hot air I spewed earlier, BD is right that it would likely be cheaper to keep all of the bases open and path of least re$i$tance is usually how it goes.
|
I think the big question is the big hub and spoke model or the point to point model. JB despite claiming to be primarily point-to-point, appears to operate more hub and spoke, with large bases generally. Network still claims a point-to-point model, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
But what happens when you suddenly acquire several other bases with around 30 flights a day each? You claim to be point-to-point, are there not 30 destinations that have high enough revenue and demand to support the flights? Network claims that despite having what appears to be large connecting hubs, connections actually make up a small percentage of the itineraries. Of the ones that do connect, connecting onto an international partner is big part of that. If it's true that only a small proportion connect, then I see some truth in the point-to-point model and see how they could run many smaller bases from large metros, and then it isn't really a factor that DTW and ORD are close together, as it isn't intended to be a connecting hub for the region. Although, they could chose one of the two to be a connecting hub for the region, and still keep the other as a point-to-point base.
There is a growing recognition that limited bases means limited recruitment and retention of pilots. Yet another reason to keep some smaller bases. And of course the cost of closing them.
With ATL, from a point-to-point standpoint, it again doesn't matter that it's close to FLL/MCO. JB has large hubs in NY/EWR/BOS, but is increasing non-base flying from Hartford, for example. I think there are many point-to-point markets from ATL that could work with a best-in-class product at a LCC fare.
I still see this as trying to move towards nationalizing the brand, and closing bases in large metros doesn't do that. From a hub and spoke standpoint it would be necessary, but not from a point-to-point frame. Yes, it's also about FLL, which I see a little less as removing a competitor, and a little more as creating something approaching, or something that smells a little bit like a fortress hub, but knowing full well it wouldn't truly be a fortress hub.
And if one of these bases happens to be a hub for the Evil Empire that copies everything we do, I see it as even less likely to be closed.
Will be interesting to watch for sure.
