Author
Message
Boofer
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:23:20 pm
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Carmel, IN
http://news.cincypost.com/apps...AID=/20050817/NEWS01/508170352
Good article that discusses the likely fate of CVG if DL goes into bankruptcy. Interesting to note that 72 percent of passengers departing CVG are connecting pax.
ATAIndy
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 04:26:40 pm
Member
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 728
Location: West Lafayette, IN
Interesting to note that 72 percent of passengers departing CVG are connecting pax.
That doesn't surprise me, 60+% of the arrivals and departures from CVG are CRJ's, and the number of mainline jets is a lot lower.
-Feister
http://web01.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=16657
http://myaviation.net/search/search.php?uid=8779
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ataindy/
Indy
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 06:31:04 pm
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 2316
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Given today's fuel prices having 72% of your passengers connecting makes for a very unprofitable hub. O/D is the money maker. Connections should be used only to fill in the gaps. Not the other way around.
Food4Geeks.com - Even Geeks Like To Eat.Boofer
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 08:11:01 pm
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Carmel, IN
Given today's fuel prices having 72% of your passengers connecting makes for a very unprofitable hub. O/D is the money maker.
Not sure I'd agree with that entirely. The hub and spoke system is still the most efficient way for a large airline to operate, particularly with service between smaller cities and larger ones. The trick is getting the volume of seats to match the demand on each route and to do it in a very competitive environment where pax often have many choices from point A to point B. Much is made of WN and B6 and other airlines that have non-hub, point-to-point operations. But in reality, even WN operates hubs of a sort to transfer pax to connecting flights - MDW, DAL, BWI, etc.
The difference in the case of CVG is it's a secondary hub, with much lower o&d than DL's primary hub at ATL. It was designed, as was SLC, to act as a "domestic" hub for transferring pax across country as the operation at ATL grew. The thing they have to do with CVG is size that operation correctly to make o&d a higher percentage of the traffic. It's the same thing that US looked at with regards to PIT, and they decided to totally dehub there. That's the parallel example I look at when it comes to the future of CVG.