where would u hub a new airline
 

I'm beginning research on an extra credit project, but i was curious, what would be the best place to hub a new airline, probably composed of emb 190's, st. louis, las vegas, phoenix, palm springs, or any recommendations on the west coast? The East Coast in my opinoin is already loaded with lcc's, and firm feeder carriers. From what I understand, the only big guys on the west coast are america west + horizon. The reason i choose vegas + phoenix is because they have been the 2 fasted growing suburbs in the past 15 years, and are expected to grow substantially in the next 20. I was thinking about st. louis because it is a surpisingly quiet airport (ive flown in numerous times), and many of the facilities are quite nice, and already exsisting. My airline target market would be to fly emb 190's in a low cost market place. However, if i was hubbed out of palm springs i would raise prices at a hub there. A flight into and out of palm springs is exactly where flying should be priced (think if regulation was around pricing), and I feel if i offered service at a slightly reduced price, i would sell. Any thoughts on this are much appreciated. Thanks!

start a hub and spoke right in the F'n middle of the country, then people wouldnt complain about going backwards before going forwards

KC or Nashville. Each has plenty of space, runways(4), and labor force.

Well, STL has 4 runways now, and no traffic whatsoever. The city has over 50 gates that aren't being used at present, and could easily fit E-190s into the terminal space they have dormant.

My vote----STL. TWA had 365 mainline jet flight per day in/out of STL, to over 100 destinations. AA has only 48 jet flights today, to only 10 destinations. AA abandoned it, just like they did at BNA/SJC/RDU; gave away the market share and decided to let some other carrier reap the benefits of that market and make those profits!

Have you ever been to the Palm Springs airport?? I have flown in there multiple times. Mostly on EMB-120 Brasilias! There is a reason why there are many 30 seat turbo props and 50 seat RJ's on these routes. Palm Springs does not have that much demand. It is actually somewhat of a trick for flying standby on United. To get to vegas, fly SFO,LAX,DEN TO PSP, and then connect PSP-LAS. Worked for me last memorial day, when they were using denied boardings on my direct flight.

Pretty much you got United from SFO,LAX,DEN,LAS on 30 and 50 seat commuters. US Air from PHX, and like one flight from LAS. American from LAX, and Alaska from SFO on MD-80'S, and Delta from SLC on RJ's. And these flights are not full. Palm Springs is a relatively small town. I went there on vacation at least once a year for 5 or 6 years, and I love the town, but it is pretty darn small.


Now that I have shot down your PSP idea (it's for the better), I have two recommendations for your hubs.
San Diego
Sacramento

San Diego (SAN) is the second largest city in California, (one of the largest on the west coast), an amazing vacation town, and perfect for a low cost carrier. No carriers are currently hubbed there.

Sacramento is the capital of California, and the suburbs are growing rapidly. This city can definately support an airline hub, and no airlines are currently hubbed there. The nice thing about Sacramento (SMF) is you are centrally located on the west coast. For instance, you can have a plane originate in SEA, fly to SMF, and continue on to SAN. Passengers can stay on the same plane, and the flight time is only slightly longer than a nonstop. However, the flight time will be significantly less than going, say (SEA-SLC, (change planes) SLC-SAN).

Both of these airports are not terribly busy and weather delays do not seem to be much of a problem (occassional valley fog for SMF).
LAS and PHX are TERRIBLE ideas. First, you already have US Air hubbed there. Next, you are competing in Southwest's strong holds. Yes, these airports are busy, but literally every airline flies from everywhere to Vegas. And these fares are already pretty low. Plus, with all the MOA's around Vegas, it is not unusual to fly a long detour at low altitudes (FL 270 or so) to get to your destination. Not a lot of direct routing is allowed into Vegas. Also, the last few times I have flown there we have had busy related delays. I would not recommend these two airports.

Only a FOOL would start a scheduled airline in todays enviroment.

I would agree with BNA(Nashville)...City Managers are user friendly when it comes to the airport since AA pulled out...But I would stay away from the RJ size aircraft if you want to make money...The yeilds of the profit margin are too close and you could loose your bum fast...Examples...Midway and Independance Air tried to use those types as a primary aircraft and lost money with them....I would look into contacting airport managers and get info from there...You'll be surprised how expensive it is to utlize an airport as a hub...Some places charge ramp parking at different rates if it's lighted!...Good luck with your reasearch project.

Why hub? When you hub you need more gates because everything is there at the same time. When you have more gates, you need more equipment. When all of those gates are occupied with your airplanes, you have to have employees to staff every gate. Then, after all those planes head out those employees are sitting idle until the next push. When something bad happens at the hub and delays occur, it screws up your airline up system wide, which adds expenses.

I really think this is what makes Southwest work. Sure, the fuel hedging, single aircraft type, and other factors contribute but this was there before the fuel savings. Other airlines have also gone to "rolling hub" concepts to try and increase utilization and minimize ground time and it has worked for them too.

If all else fails, go for STL. I'm looking at an empty D concourse and the biggest thing sitting on C is a 757. The new runway is spiffy too. We now have the capability of using both parallells in bad weather which will really be a big boost.

Did you not read the original post? Was there anything said about starting a new airline? Or was there something said about an EXTRA CREDIT project? Yes EXTRA CREDIT project was said.

Gary Chicago Indiana

Don't forget to ask a city who needs to fill empty gates like Nashville/STL for tax breaks and other incentives to hub there. They need to fill those holes and create jobs plus increase fare competition for their citizens etc. Could mean big savings that a start-up really needs to get going. There's and old saying. If you want to take alot of money and turn it into a little money, start an airline.

Well AA is kinda the monster at DFW, but DFW does have lots of empty gates AND they'll give you free rent for a year! Thats because Delta de-hubbed there. I'd also say BNA or MCI are good ones. SAT or AUS might be ok, because SAT especially is one the biggest cities in the nation without a hub. SAN being the only other. San Antonio is bigger than Dallas now actually with just over 1 million. But with Houston and Dallas not far, it may be hard to do this. I'm just biased cause I'm a Texan.

That's so stupid. Why don't you just drive to OAK and fly out to Vegas. There are plenty of flights out of there, and you'll save money rather than flying out of SFO. Do you ever read on the airliners.net forum about how KSAN is so pressed for space? It's a tiny airport, they only have one runway and gate space is very tight and demanding over there. SAN would be an absolute mess if they got a hub there. Until they find another area for an airport in San Diego, there will never be a hub over there. I don't get your logic. There are plenty of flights from SEA-OAK and then you can just continue onto SAN. OAK is only an hour and a half from Sacramento, that's not that bad of a drive. My two votes for new hubs are STL and ABQ. STL because of what others say, TWA moving out makes it very dead and it is a very underserved market, ABQ because it is growing very rapidly and there are plenty of job opportunities sprouting up out there, I think it was the number one place to start a business in Forbes Magazine, and there are a lot of big names sprouting there, Eclipse Jet being a notable one. Southwest does have a nice operation going there, but ABQ is a huge airport and it has plenty of room for expansion.

MCI had Vangard Airlines and it fizzled. AUS.... too small of a market, plus too close to DFW and IAH/HOB. I'd go with DFW. (Biased too. Born and raised in FTW). ;)

Remember a small airport called Stapelton. Downtown Denver. So pressed for space. It's a tiny airport, they only had two runways and gate space is very tight and demanding overthere.....
And two airlines were hubbed there (United and Continental). Continetal moved out. DIA was built (one of the nicest airports in the country). And Frontier moved in. And how are they going?? GREAT!
San Diego is HUGE. It is the best vacation spot on the west coast (and that's saying a lot, being you have all of Socal, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Francisco, Napa, Tahoe, Truckee........). It is a huge city. And people who live there have a lot more $$$$$ than St. Louis.

No, you are stupid, because I would have to pay money to fly OAK-LAS, where as SFO-PSP-LAS is FREE!!! Dumb@$$.

What about the fact that SAN is in the southwest corner of the country? It's not really along the path to any other cities. Would it be convenient for connecting pax? I like STL because of the brand new rwy, empty gate space, and the lack of flights that go there now. And it's also near the middle of the country, which is good for coast-to-coast or north-to-south connections. BTW, I'm originally from STL so I may be biased as well.

Alaska has a hub in Seattle. American has a hub in Miami. American, JetBlue, Delta, and Continental have hubs in New York/Newark. United has a hub in LAX.

These are not that "strategically located" for connecting flights, but they do work. I see your principle, but I think there are a lot more important things to base your airlines hub city on than geography alone. It would make for great connections to Mexico.

You don't get it man. Denver was a much different situation I suggest you do some research and get your facts straight about how difficult it is to get a big airport in San Diego, and one rwy is a lot different than two rwys man. The fact that you think San Diego is the best vacation spot in the west coast is entirely an opinion, I think San Diego is overcrowded, over rated, and tiresome, there's plenty of better smaller getaways i think in Cali. And wow people have more money there than they do in St. Louis big fn deal, it still changes nothing in the fact that KSAN cannot support a hub with it's size and the enormous amount of traffic flying along Southern Cali. Back to Denver, great DIA came around, big and nice airport, modernized, but it's almost an inconvenience for many people because it's so freakin far from the city itself. Could you imagine building a new San Diego airport that far away from the city. Think about how bad traffic is there and it would be hell for many folks trying to get home. You need to think about the big picture before you go mouthing off and comparing something completely different, Denver is a totally different situation than San Diego, sorry man a hub in KSAN is not going to happen.
Ok if I remember correctly you said SFO-LAX-DEN-PSP-LAS that you had on your original post and you never said it was FREE regardless, most people aren't willing to fly around all day backtracking just to get to Vegas from the Bay area I don't know how you got free airfare but good for you, i hoped you enjoyed sitting in airports all day.

Alaska Seattle hub is for connecting the states with the state of Alaska.
American in Miami is for all the South America/caribbean routes they run. Have you been to Miami? I think everyone there is from S. America/Carib. JFK/EWR hubs are to connect the states to the European routes. Would take more gas to fly nonstop from st louis to London as opposed to JFK and london. Also, the population density in the Northeast corridor of the US is really packed. United in LAX is big there because they run a lot of Asian/pacific routes, here again, makes sense to have a hub closest to that part of the country.

I would vote for STL becuase of the vacant space there, formerly used by TWA, and the fact that the most populated 2/3 of the country is a short flight or drive away. Of course, the eastern part of the US is also home to some fierce airline competition.:o

Does anyone remember Western Pacific Airlines? They had a hub in COS, during their brief existence. With DIA such a long drive from some parts of Denver, it actually made sense to fly out of COS sometimes. Now that the suburban sprawl on the front range has nearly completely linked all of the cities, it might be time to take a look at that idea again.

I said from either SFO or LAX or DEN
Choose one of those 3 cities
Then fly from that city to PSP, and then on to LAS.

Flying stand-by is never great, but I have saved tens of thousands of dollars doing it, and have received lots of first class seats and free meals in the process.

Lol why didn't you just say that the first time...

BNA not STL
 

I have been to both, and spent some time in each. I lived near Nashville for a while.
I think that Nashville might be a better bet because it is a newer city and its people are more cosmopolitan (and thats a stretch).
STL is NOT a good idea. St. Louis is a run down dying city, and its VERY conservative. By that I mean that they are just like Memphis, over a million people, but no one travels. Its just churches and gas stations. Talk about seeing the world and experience life, and they hit ya over the head with a bible and try to "save you". There is not enough originating traffic in STL, just like Memphis. Yes, NWA has a mini hub there but it is strictly to move people from one place to another through there. If there was enough traffic, AA would not have left STL to begin with. And STL sucks! Gates are run down, JUST LIKE THE CITY.
I think BNA, but alternately, I really think that culturally, environmentally, population-wise, and economically (weather related costs, labor costs) I'd hedge my bets for San Antonio!

1- Over a million people. WHO travel and appreciate something "different"
2- Revitalized town - along with a revitalized culture and attitude.
3- Weather related costs would be low - no snow, or fog. Watch out for thunderstorms.
4- Major military installations = lots of traveling soldiers.
5- Ethnic diversity = people who want to visit their origins, their families come visit.
6- Facilities. I've been there, the terminal is really nice, new, and BIG!
7- Resources - San Antonio Aerospace is there and could be contracted to provide maintenance so you dont have to be held captive by your own workforce or spread the work between both (remember SWA has its own MX, but it contracts out its very heavy MX C and D checks to the lowest bidder)
8- Labor costs. It is the South after all, and they are pretty much anti union; save for the pilots of course. But if youre looking at using EMB-190's youre already looking at lower-time entry level pilots anyway.

My $.02

I grew up in STL and I can say that yes, even Christians there like to travel when they have the time and the money to do so.:eek: I don't know how much time you've spent there, but it seems as if your reasons for not being in favor of STL only come from overgeneralizations and stereotypes. Every major city in America has its older and/or less desirable areas. Can't judge the whole city from only what you see off of I-70.

But anyway...

SAT is an interesting choice. I've never been there but I've heard mostly good things about it. Don't know anything about the airport.

No doubt, Kansas City.

You would only have YX and WN, both of them have interests elsewhere right now. The airport has major potential with prior hub occupents being TWA, Eastern, Braniff, and a short lived U.S. Airways jont ,not foregetting Vanguard. Vanguard was a failure from the beginning due to the fact that they were trying to target the LCC market with inefficiant aircraft from a city where the market was controlled by a dieing and desperate Legacy carrier that had a history of fighting wars with the largest carriers on the planet, and not losing. TWA wasn't afraid to throw weight around like water, and they sure did. That's why they ended up in the financial situation that they were in.

If you want to talk about city population (which dosn't play that much anyways,

San Antonio is a city full of young, poor citizens. Which cannot afford extensive air travel.

San Antonio 1,256,509
Median resident age: 31.7 years
Median household income: $36,214 (year 2000)
Median house value: $68,800

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio

Kansas City 1,947,694
Median resident age: 34.0 years
Median household income: $37,198 (year 2000)
Median house value: $84,000 (year 2000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_...ropolitan_Area

LOTS of companies are allready HQ'd in Kansas City

The following companies and organizations are headquarted in the area:

American Century Companies, an investment firm
AMC Theatres, a movie theater chain
Andrews McMeel Universal, a syndication and publication company which represents features such as Dear Abby, Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes and Doonesbury
Applebee's restaurant chain
Aquila, Inc., a major energy company
Black & Veatch, Major engineering firm
Burns & McDonnell, an architectural firm
Cerner, leading supplier of healthcare information technology solutions.
Church of the Nazarene church
Commerce Bancshares, bank serving Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois
Community of Christ church (Mormon RLDS)
DST Systems, Inc., global provider of sophisticated information processing and computer software services and products
Ferrellgas, the nation's largest retailer and distributor of natural gas
Garmin, makers of GPS-based electronics
Hallmark Cards
HOK Sport + Venue + Event, world leader in sports architecture
H&R Block, financial corporation and former parent company of CompuServe
Inergy, LP, one of the nation's largest retailers and distributors of natural gas
Interstate Bakeries Corporation, makers of Twinkies and Wonder Bread
J.E. Dunn Construction Group, major construction contractor.
Kansas City Power & Light Company, a leading regulated provider of electricity and energy-related products and services
Kansas City Southern Industries, operators of a Class I railroad
Lockton Companies, the largest privately held insurance brokerage in the nation
Premium Standard Farms, provider of pork products, producing pork products for the retail, wholesale, foodservice, further processor and export markets
Russell Stover Candies
Sprint Nextel Corporation, one of the world's largest telecommunication companies.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America
Wolferman's bakery
YRC Worldwide Inc., one of the largest transportation service providers in the world.
Kansas City has a Federal Reserve Bank.

Other major employers are AT&T, BNSF Railway, Hallmark Cards, Harley-Davidson, General Motors, Honeywell, and Ford Motor Company.

Kansas City is the 27th largest metropolitan area in the U.S. at 2million, San Antonio is ranked 30th with 1.5 million

Furthermore Kansas City and St. Louis are far from "bible belt" cities, they have some of the highest crime rates in the country and are popular with the mafia. Kansas City proves to be 4x as dangerous as San Antonio, with St. Louis being 6x.

As far as Commercial operations go, Kansas City currently has 3 Airports avalible, I also know of some quiet talks on a fourth, which I could see becoming a reality in the future.

KMCI : two runways 9,500ft a piece, and a third just south of 11,000 then again if Airport X dosn't happen they will build a fourth at 15,100ft.

KMKC : right up on the city, dedicated terminal and little delays subject to traffic

KIXD : Building up slowly but surely, In Johnson County which is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, also in Olathe which is the county seat.

Now SAT, I only see 24 gates? A new airline would have to build it's own terminal which would be expensive for a start-up, as oposed to KMCI's 90 gates. Which are largly avalible.

Kansas City would be a clear winner, SAT might look good from a distance but close up their is no competition.

Oh and the clear point that it is in the center of the country, litterally!

my first post and $.04 (took awile the write)

BTW, a hub works by connecting people from one city to another, through a single city to minumise ops costs, so local population dosn't play in as a huge factor, You could make a hub at ICT or DSM work with the right people involved.

BNA is an interesting choice, as the city has grown by leaps and bounds in the last few years. With all of the automobile assembly plants and associated businesses that have popped up in Middle Tennessee in the last 15 years or so, I would have to say that business travel there is doing well. Of course, a start up there would be toe to toe with Southwest.

I dont remember all of the facts, but it seems to me that AA killed the former TWA operation in St. Louis because it didnt make sense to their ORD and DFW operations.

Cut cargo doors in them and build hubs in YIP and ELP.

Ok YIP makes sense because I know that a fair share of cargo ops are based out of there, but ELP, what are you smoking dude?

ELP is like the southwestern equivalent of YIP. A lot of cargo moves between their and Mexico. Also, a lot of cago originates in southern Texas and Mexico with destinations bound for the north. A lot of smaller freight outfits base aircraft and crews there.

There is a lot of north-south traffic in the cargo business, specifically with auto parts.

I don't know labrat if it's the southwestern equivalent then why aren't there the same amount of cargo ops going on there compared to YIP? Hmmm looking at cargo ops in 2005 ELP had 86,235 tons of cargo go through and YPI has about 200,000 tons based from both of the airport sites. About the only thing El Paso is good for is cargo movement between the US and Mexico, there are a ton of cities in Texas that cargo carriers can be based at to move freight up north, so I don't see your logic. A lot of smaller freight outfits base there ops out of there? who? Anyways, there are plenty of places in the country where small air cargo ops are based out of, I don't think that should make it a cargo hub. The airport cargo site listing the carriers has airborne, bax, dhl, fedex, egl, emery, and ups, seems pretty standard for an airport of that size. I don't know man, I'm not convinced nor is the air cargo industry yet obviously that ELP should be a cargo "hub" of the southwest.

:D When asked about where you would hub a new airline, I answered either San Diego or Sacramento.

Well, ExpressJet has announced that they are beginning their own branded flying. Their three large cities are, you guessed it:
San Diego
Ontario
Sacramento

Out of every city ExpressJet branded flying flies to west of the Mississippi, two or three of the routes are through SAN, ONT, and SMF.

The NEWEST airline hub's in the country since this post was written are in Sacramento and San Diego. INTERESTING!!! Maybe the 22 year old CFI is not so dumb afterall. I love it when people call me wrong, and then they are COMPLETELY wrong!
Ok, rant over.

Hong Kong Baby,

Good facilities, impossible departure and engine -out procedures, and Disney Land. At night, the union meetings could be held at Sticky Fingers.

Just my 2 cents

TWA, Braniff, Eastern, USair (the old one), all tried to make KCI a HUB............................conceptually it makes sense, but see a PATTERN?

Its not about the airport, its a "local" thing, Ever hear of "O and D"
 

WRONG!!!!

As any current or former Airline Exec. and they will tell you the first thing that an airline looks at when deciding to make a particular airport a hub is "O and D" which stands for, Origin and Destination. This is the number of passengers (or potential # of passengers), who will originate or terminate their travel at that airport, meaning the 'local traffic base.' Most airlines (including Southwest), want a hub to be supported by 2/3 local traffic.

Many cities mentioned in this thread so far do not have the local traffic base (local feed) to support a 'hub' operation, as they just don't have a large enough local population base, not enough business travel, etc. Why do you think at least 2-3 major airlines have tried to have a hub operation at KMCI (just to pick one mentioned), and was not successful as a good hub operation. Eastern and Braniff failed, but talk to the people who worked there at the time (or read up on the companies), it was not a 'profitable or good' operation for either. US Air Finally (thank god they came to their senses), and closed PIT as a hub. Excellent facilities, nice runways, taxi-ways, nice terminal; however, PIT as a city does not have the local traffic base (not a large enough population base, tooooo many old industries, steel, etc), to support a 'major hub' operation. US Air still has a major presence there, but it was officially closed as a hub some time ago.

And they don't just look at the surrounding population base (but that is a major factor), but the amount of business/industry to generate business travelers.

Just think for a minute, and look at all the the 'major hub airports' in this country and even without doing any research, think about the population base around most of these airports: JFK/EWR, ORD, DTW, CLT, ORD, DEN, DFW, IAH, and so on. About the only one mentioned in this whole thread that 'could' have potential would be STL. Problems, airport authority wants (from what I have heard), really high fees (lease rates, gates etc, to pay for the money invested in the new facilities), and also two automatic competitors who already have a 'footing' there, SWA and AA. Either or both of whom could easily increase operations there to hurt longterm growth.

Well, that's enough, but you get the point, (and it only took what 4 pages), its not just about 'connecting' people on planes. If the business (locally) is not there, it will NEVER be a successful hub.

DA

P.S. And, just to add, why do you think NWA has downsized MEM, and virtually closed that as 'hub,' Not enough local traffic.