Memphis International Airport

[tennreb]

I hope we lose Northwest they charge far too much as it is. I welcome Southwest or any other carrier to come into our market ASAP.

That statement is just plain idiotic. Our city would take a huge blow just so you could save a few bucks on airfare, which you probably wouldn't anyway because we'd lose 75% of our nonstop flights. You will only be able to fly to a handful of major cities. Otherwise, you'll have to connect in Atlanta or Dallas.

[crossroad]

That statement is just plain idiotic. Our city would take a huge blow just so you could save a few bucks on airfare, which you probably wouldn't anyway because we'd lose 75% of our nonstop flights. You will only be able to fly to a handful of major cities. Otherwise, you'll have to connect in Atlanta or Dallas.

I understand what you say. However, the 2.5 Million people in Memphis metro are paying a lot more for travelling due to the dominance of NWA. With less monopoly of NWA, more convention business will come to Memphis. So will tourist and entrepreneurs. I am really not sure whether NWA's monopoly is good or bad for the entire region. But one thing is, for sure, we WILL NOT LOSE 75% of our nonstop flights. Other carriers will add memphis to their map or fly more frequency, as long as there is demand. I don't like monopoly in a free market!!!!!!!!!! It hurts everyone!

[northernbizzkit1]

I understand what you say. However, the 2.5 Million people in Memphis metro are paying a lot more for travelling due to the dominance of NWA. With less monopoly of NWA, more convention business will come to Memphis. So will tourist and entrepreneurs. I am really not sure whether NWA's monopoly is good or bad for the entire region. But one thing is, for sure, we WILL NOT LOSE 75% of our nonstop flights. Other carriers will add memphis to their map or fly more frequency, as long as there is demand. I don't like monopoly in a free market!!!!!!!!!! It hurts everyone!

this isn't exactly true either...a lot of companies use the hub status as an asset. While private jets are becoming the trend, it is still a valuable asset to have non-stop access to numerous cities across the country...not to mention several international destinations. Southwest definitely can't give us the latter.

[tennreb]

I understand what you say. However, the 2.5 Million people in Memphis metro are paying a lot more for travelling due to the dominance of NWA. With less monopoly of NWA, more convention business will come to Memphis. So will tourist and entrepreneurs. I am really not sure whether NWA's monopoly is good or bad for the entire region. But one thing is, for sure, we WILL NOT LOSE 75% of our nonstop flights. Other carriers will add memphis to their map or fly more frequency, as long as there is demand. I don't like monopoly in a free market!!!!!!!!!! It hurts everyone!

What you don't understand is that only 30% of the passengers at MEM are local. The other 70% are just connecting. That means that 70% of the passengers will disappear. And while lower airfares may get more locals to fly, the far fewer nonstop flights will keep people from flying. More people will take a quick trip if it is just one short flight away. Businesspeople don't want to have to connect. They want to be in that morning and out that evening. To them, paying more is easily worth the convenience and decreased time of lost productivity. This also means less leisure passengers. The Destin, Panama City, Pensacola, Mobile, and Biloxi flights will all disappear along with the Cancun, Montego Bay, Cozumel, and Amsterdam flights. You still be able to get to DFW, ATL, HOU, LGA, LAX, ORD and other major hubs nonstop, but if it isn't a major hub, you'll have to connect to it. Furthermore, the airport has enormous debt that is paid for by landing fees and passenger fees. To continue to pay for that debt, it will all have to be shifted to FedEx and the other cargo carriers. That means their costs will increase, and MEM won't be as attractive place to do business. It will be cheaper to operate out of DFW. That means you can forget about cargo expansion and will likely see it shrink. Then you have to remember all the companies here that rely on express shipping to get their products to their customers. Memphis won't be attractive to them either. Also, local companies will be more likely to move out of Memphis because it is easier to conduct business in a hub city where they have access to far greater flights. As you can see, losing the NWA would be a disaster. All this so you can save a few bucks.

[gatesofmemphis]

I'm glad that Northwest is here and hope they stay. The question for me: are they really forcing Memphis officials (using perhaps the post-apocalyptic post-NWA world described by TennReb above) to keep low fare carriers out of the Memphis market? If so, they stink! They're extorting local monopoly power from Memphis, to its citizens disadvantage, to not move free about the country, for a measly sum. After all, only 30% of their traffic is local. Anyway, I don't know if Northwest has done this. It could be SWA and others aren't here for their own strategic reasons.

[Lexy]

But one thing is, for sure, we WILL NOT LOSE 75% of our nonstop flights. Other carriers will add memphis to their map or fly more frequency, as long as there is demand. I don't like monopoly in a free market!!!!!!!!!! It hurts everyone!

Yes you will because a number of those flights are to small cities in places like Western Kentucky, East Tennessee, NW Arkansas. There isn't enough passengers flying from those places, just to destinate in MEM. That's common sense here. You would lose them just like BNA lost it's useless flights to places like Knoxville when AA left. All flights like that are is connecting flights for people originating in those respective markets.

And to all those that hate Southwest, ask anyone here in Nashville if they like them and they will certainly tell you yes. Why? Because I can fly to Chicago for nearly $60 round trip many times of the year. Nashville was able to recoup a large number of flights on Southwest that AA left after they left here. It really helps that Nashville has a very strong Originating and Destination status. That is why Southwest has around 90 flights a day from here to places that most southern cities our size don't get on their non-stop flights. AA still retains a large number of flights daily and the other carriers have stepped up, or are stepping up, to fill any voids still left behind. BNA has had success in various places, but getting PAX back has been the most noticable success since the AA debacle. Now, other carriers are rumored to be looking at the airport for expansion or new routes so we'll see what happens. But understand this, having a hub means nothing to many companies because on the average, airfare is still cheaper now than it was years ago.

[crossroad]

What you don't understand is that only 30% of the passengers at MEM are local. The other 70% are just connecting. That means that 70% of the passengers will disappear. And while lower airfares may get more locals to fly, the far fewer nonstop flights will keep people from flying. More people will take a quick trip if it is just one short flight away. Businesspeople don't want to have to connect. They want to be in that morning and out that evening. To them, paying more is easily worth the convenience and decreased time of lost productivity. This also means less leisure passengers. The Destin, Panama City, Pensacola, Mobile, and Biloxi flights will all disappear along with the Cancun, Montego Bay, Cozumel, and Amsterdam flights. You still be able to get to DFW, ATL, HOU, LGA, LAX, ORD and other major hubs nonstop, but if it isn't a major hub, you'll have to connect to it. Furthermore, the airport has enormous debt that is paid for by landing fees and passenger fees. To continue to pay for that debt, it will all have to be shifted to FedEx and the other cargo carriers. That means their costs will increase, and MEM won't be as attractive place to do business. It will be cheaper to operate out of DFW. That means you can forget about cargo expansion and will likely see it shrink. Then you have to remember all the companies here that rely on express shipping to get their products to their customers. Memphis won't be attractive to them either. Also, local companies will be more likely to move out of Memphis because it is easier to conduct business in a hub city where they have access to far greater flights. As you can see, losing the NWA would be a disaster. All this so you can save a few bucks.

It's macroeconomics, not "you can save a few bucks".

I understand every benefit of having a hub here and the economic repercussions of de-hubbing it. However, I was not suggesting to de-hub MEM. It does offer a lot of convenience plus the hub city status where its residents can brag about (no offense, at the expense of high cost of doing business for local economy and residents and visitors alike)...

I was saying that the monopolistic situation at MEM by NWA is hurting everyone due to the high fares that every Memphian business and visitor are ENJOYING. If you look at major cities in the country, it is hard to find a Memphis-sized metro without decent low cost carrier operations. It's called OPTIONS for the travelers and firms, people. Introduction of low cost carriers will break the monopoly of ONE CARRIER, lower the cost of firms' doing business, send out a signal of free competition/market economy, and attract more business relocations. IN that sense, more traffic through the airport means more passengers can utilize the hub for transfer so that the hub could even be built stronger. In one word, I am not a fan of monopoly.

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH A HUB AND MORE LOW COST CARRIER OPERATION TO ACHIEVE A BETTER FUTURE?

By the way, do you have source of your 30%local 70%connecting statistics? I thought the O/D traffic should be higher considering MEM only handles a few millions passengers a year. Thanks.

[Lexy]

LCC's do not codeshare with Legacy carriers, so what traffic that uses the LCC's to fly into MEM on cannot connect without paying FULL PRICE for a flight to where ever they are going. you would have to buy two seperate tickets on two seperate carriers.

You can't have both because one would pull from the other (sans ATL). And MEM just isn't a big O&D market.

[Clobber]

I'm glad that Northwest is here and hope they stay. The question for me: are they really forcing Memphis officials (using perhaps the post-apocalyptic post-NWA world described by TennReb above) to keep low fare carriers out of the Memphis market? If so, they stink! They're extorting local monopoly power from Memphis, to its citizens disadvantage, to not move free about the country, for a measly sum. After all, only 30% of their traffic is local. Anyway, I don't know if Northwest has done this. It could be SWA and others aren't here for their own strategic reasons.

If Northwest were doing so, then MEM wouldn't be courting SW and JetBlue, yet they are. There's no question that MEM wants NW to remain hubbed here. If NW were exerting pressure, I don't think MEM would be sending BBQ packages to Dallas to reach out and at least test the waters (same with JetBlue). If there are threats, it's pretty clear that MEM isn't really backing down. It would have to work for all sides, but MEM is exploring their options and I put a lot of faith in the leadership there -- it's one of the best-run airports in the nation, particularly for its size; there's a reason the head here was elected to head the national airport organization a while back.

[cdarr]

By the way, do you have source of your 30%local 70%connecting statistics? I thought the O/D traffic should be higher considering MEM only handles a few millions passengers a year. Thanks.

Local traffic is a little higher than that - around 39% according to the 2005 Memphis International Airport Financial Report. See page 14 of the statistics section. Out of 5.5 million enplanements, 2.1 million were local passengers.

That would suggest that Memphis would have only about 4.2 million annual passengers if there was no hub and, therefore, no connecting traffic. But I believe that origin & destination (O&D) traffic at MEM would go up from this level if the hub closed and airfares moderated.

[gatesofmemphis]

If Northwest were doing so, then MEM wouldn't be courting SW and JetBlue, yet they are. There's no question that MEM wants NW to remain hubbed here. If NW were exerting pressure, I don't think MEM would be sending BBQ packages to Dallas to reach out and at least test the waters (same with JetBlue). If there are threats, it's pretty clear that MEM isn't really backing down. It would have to work for all sides, but MEM is exploring their options and I put a lot of faith in the leadership there -- it's one of the best-run airports in the nation, particularly for its size; there's a reason the head here was elected to head the national airport organization a while back.

Question answered. Thanks.

The next question: why wouldn't it work for MEM, and why wouldn't it work for Southwest, or Jet Blue?

[cdarr]

I started to consider what nonstop flights we would be left with if the Delta/NW merge occurs and we lost the hub. Surprisingly, we would still have service to many major markets and perhaps a few new destinations. Here's my guess at destinations and frequencies (not including new entrants such as SW or Jetblue):

Delta/NW: 42 daily flights (vs 236 today)

Atlanta (12)

Detroit (8)

Minneapolis (6)

Salt Lake City (3)

Cincinnati (3)

NY LaGuardia (2)

Washington-Reagan (2)

Boston (2)

Los Angeles (2)

Orlando (1)

Tampa (1)

American:22 daily flights (vs 16)

Dallas/Ft. Worth (10)

Chicago O'Hare (6)

St. Louis (4)

Miami (2)

US Airways: 16 daily flights (vs 8)

Charlotte (6)

Phoenix (4)

Las Vegas (3)

Washington-Reagan (3)

Continental: 15 daily flights (vs 10)

Houston Bush (6)

Newark (6)

Cleveland (3)

United - 12 daily flights (vs 7)

Chicago O'Hare (6)

Denver (3)

Washington Dulles (3)

Airtran: 10 daily flights (vs 5)

ATL (8)

Orlando (2)

Total - 117 daily flights (compared to about 282 now) Note that this would put us at about 41% of current flight levels, which makes sense considering 39% of our existing passenger loads are local traffic.

One other consequence of the change would be that some routes now served only with regional jets for American, United, Continental and US Airways would be upgraded to mainline aircraft. This would especially be true for flights to Atlanta, DFW and Chicago. I could see Delta and American going mostly to MD80, 737 and even some 757 service to handle all the additional passengers forced to use their hubs to get to the destinations once served by nonstops.

[Clobber]

Question answered. Thanks.

The next question: why wouldn't it work for MEM, and why wouldn't it work for Southwest, or Jet Blue?

B/c of their smaller size, LCC's tend to fear price wars at hubs. Normally the bigger airlines can survive a short-term price war if it evicts their competition.

The question is finding the strategy so LCCs and the hub can coexist (I don't know enough about the routes NW flies, and whether any of those could be sustained with an LCC).

[Lexy]

I could see Delta and American going mostly to MD80, 737 and even some 757 service to handle all the additional passengers forced to use their hubs to get to the destinations once served by nonstops.

Why? If you only have around 4 or 5 million O&D, why would you need such large aircraft (B757) for passengers? Seems like the frequencies would go up, but the types of aircraft would most likely remain the same. When you lose the hub, all the traffic is gone except for local traffic. Hell, BNA has quite a bit of service on AA (considerably larger service than MEM or other cities our size) and we just get MD80's and 737-800's on them. Their 757's are pretty much used on flights to LAX, Vegas, NYC, and other larger cities where ther is a large amount of connecting & destinating flights for them.

The one airline that would most likely step up with some greater point-to-point service in MEM would be Airtran. Atleast if they were smart they would do that to stem an apparent arrival of Southwest into the market.

[tennreb]

It's macroeconomics, not "you can save a few bucks".

I understand every benefit of having a hub here and the economic repercussions of de-hubbing it. However, I was not suggesting to de-hub MEM. It does offer a lot of convenience plus the hub city status where its residents can brag about (no offense, at the expense of high cost of doing business for local economy and residents and visitors alike)...

I was saying that the monopolistic situation at MEM by NWA is hurting everyone due to the high fares that every Memphian business and visitor are ENJOYING. If you look at major cities in the country, it is hard to find a Memphis-sized metro without decent low cost carrier operations. It's called OPTIONS for the travelers and firms, people. Introduction of low cost carriers will break the monopoly of ONE CARRIER, lower the cost of firms' doing business, send out a signal of free competition/market economy, and attract more business relocations. IN that sense, more traffic through the airport means more passengers can utilize the hub for transfer so that the hub could even be built stronger. In one word, I am not a fan of monopoly.

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH A HUB AND MORE LOW COST CARRIER OPERATION TO ACHIEVE A BETTER FUTURE?

By the way, do you have source of your 30%local 70%connecting statistics? I thought the O/D traffic should be higher considering MEM only handles a few millions passengers a year. Thanks.

My source is the director of the Airport quoted this week by the CA or the MBJ, I can't remember which. We already have a low cost carrier in AirTran. To have more LCC, we need to grow as a city. If we could support both a major hub and a significant LCC, it would have already happened. It is one or the other until Memphis breaks out economically and population wise. Southwest isn't going to fly six flights a day to DAL when there are already six flights a day to DFW. There isn't enough demand for both. In reality, the Wright Amendment is a non-argument because Southwest could easily from MEM to Hobby, which has a bigger Southwest presence than Love. The economics just aren't there.

[tennreb]

I started to consider what nonstop flights we would be left with if the Delta/NW merge occurs and we lost the hub. Surprisingly, we would still have service to many major markets and perhaps a few new destinations. Here's my guess at destinations and frequencies (not including new entrants such as SW or Jetblue):

Delta/NW: 42 daily flights (vs 236 today)

Atlanta (12)

Detroit (8)

Minneapolis (6)

Salt Lake City (3)

Cincinnati (3)

NY LaGuardia (2)

Washington-Reagan (2)

Boston (2)

Los Angeles (2)

Orlando (1)

Tampa (1)

American:22 daily flights (vs 16)

Dallas/Ft. Worth (10)

Chicago O'Hare (6)

St. Louis (4)

Miami (2)

US Airways: 16 daily flights (vs 8)

Charlotte (6)

Phoenix (4)

Las Vegas (3)

Washington-Reagan (3)

Continental: 15 daily flights (vs 10)

Houston Bush (6)

Newark (6)

Cleveland (3)

United - 12 daily flights (vs 7)

Chicago O'Hare (6)

Denver (3)

Washington Dulles (3)

Airtran: 10 daily flights (vs 5)

ATL (8)

Orlando (2)

Total - 117 daily flights (compared to about 282 now) Note that this would put us at about 41% of current flight levels, which makes sense considering 39% of our existing passenger loads are local traffic.

One other consequence of the change would be that some routes now served only with regional jets for American, United, Continental and US Airways would be upgraded to mainline aircraft. This would especially be true for flights to Atlanta, DFW and Chicago. I could see Delta and American going mostly to MD80, 737 and even some 757 service to handle all the additional passengers forced to use their hubs to get to the destinations once served by nonstops.

Excellent analysis. I think your predictions are pretty close to what would happen. However, I would expect JetBlue to add six flight to JFK and Delta to add an equal amount to drive them out. I also could see Southwest adding flights to LAS and HOB. AA might add three to LAX.

We also have to think about what would happen to Pinnacle. If MEM lost its hub status, one of Memphis' largest companies would be immediately out of business and 1000 local people would be out of a job.

[cdarr]

Why? If you only have around 4 or 5 million O&D, why would you need such large aircraft (B757) for passengers? Seems like the frequencies would go up, but the types of aircraft would most likely remain the same. When you lose the hub, all the traffic is gone except for local traffic. Hell, BNA has quite a bit of service on AA (considerably larger service than MEM or other cities our size) and we just get MD80's and 737-800's on them. Their 757's are pretty much used on flights to LAX, Vegas, NYC, and other larger cities where ther is a large amount of connecting & destinating flights for them.

First of all, I said "maybe some 757s". I wouldn't expect to see 757 after 757 flying in here from ATL. During peak times, however, the passenger loads may be sufficient between MEM and some major hubs (esp. ATL, DTW an DFW) to justify use of larger equipment. Without all those direct flights to 70-80 destinations anymore, passenger loads between MEM and the hubs will actually increase.

Second, you cannot compare a de-hubbed MEM to the situation at BNA. BNA has a mini-hub or, at the very least, focus city status with SWA. The frequencies and selection of destinations offered by SWA decreases the amount of traffic that would otherwise have to go through the legacy carriers hubs. Thus, AA, DL etc. don't need the larger gauge 757s. MEM, by contrast, would have to rely more on the hubs.

Third, use of 757 for short-haul service between hubs and midsized markets is not unheard of. AA currently has 757 service from DFW to Austin and Tulsa. DL uses them between ATL and Jacksonville, New Orleans, Pensacola, Raleigh-Durham, Richmond and Savannah. In fact, I believe Nashville had 757 service to ATL within the past few years. If you zoom into the BNA terminal on Google Earth, you'll see a Delta 757 parked at the B Concourse.

[Lexy]

First of all, I said "maybe some 757s". I wouldn't expect to see 757 after 757 flying in here from ATL. During peak times, however, the passenger loads may be sufficient between MEM and some major hubs (esp. ATL, DTW an DFW) to justify use of larger equipment. Without all those direct flights to 70-80 destinations anymore, passenger loads between MEM and the hubs will actually increase.

Second, you cannot compare a de-hubbed MEM to the situation at BNA. BNA has a mini-hub or, at the very least, focus city status with SWA. The frequencies and selection of destinations offered by SWA decreases the amount of traffic that would otherwise have to go through the legacy carriers hubs. Thus, AA, DL etc. don't need the larger gauge 757s. MEM, by contrast, would have to rely more on the hubs.

Third, use of 757 for short-haul service between hubs and midsized markets is not unheard of. AA currently has 757 service from DFW to Austin and Tulsa. DL uses them between ATL and Jacksonville, New Orleans, Pensacola, Raleigh-Durham, Richmond and Savannah. In fact, I believe Nashville had 757 service to ATL within the past few years. If you zoom into the BNA terminal on Google Earth, you'll see a Delta 757 parked at the B Concourse.

You totally took what I said and made it something it's not. How much do you honestly know about the airline industry (or BNA for that matter)??? I did not say it wouldn't happen, but come on here. MEM hasn't got a large O & D, and that's WITH A HUB! How in the heck would traffic increase when it can do it now, but doesn't??? People just sit back and say, "well NWA is gone, let's fly from now on!!!"? No. If there isn't traffic now, there won't be after a hub leaves. Unless major growth starts occuring or Memphis becomes more of a destination, O & D traffic will remain about the same. And to be honest, you CAN compare a de-hubbed MEM to a de-hubbed BNA almost perfectly. Read your history about AA here and you would clearly see the similarities between MEM now, and AA @ BNA then. For the record, Delta has more 757's than any other air carrier in the US, so it is easier for them to throw one on a route than other carriers.

And yes, we have a 757 flight to ATL @ BNA. I never said they wouldn't fly a 757 between a hub and a non-hub, I don't know where you read that. I said that AMERICAN AIRLINES uses their 757's for routes to bigger cities in their hub network. For example, American flies 757's between Dallas and Las Vegas, or Dallas and New York. Not Dallas and Nashville, so on and so forth. American is tight with their aircraft and unless they almost run 90% capacity on a certain route, they don't fly larger aircraft on it (or don't fly it at all). Plain and simple. MEM needs to get it's passenger O & D up before they start thinking about larger aircraft post Northwest Airlines Hub. Anyone will tell you that.

All of the legacies have good traffic numbers here in Nashville. Why? Because it has become a bigger destination. With or without Southwest here, we still have vastly larger services on Legacies than many cities our size. I can post the stats if need be. It's all about marketing yourself and making it happen on the local level with the airport. A de-hubbed MEM will be fine in the long run. And so will the city.

[northernbizzkit1]

For any of you who view the fact of MEM losing NW as a good thing...

Also, while you may want to take airliners.net as a grain of salt, there are some interesting comments on that board:

* MEM has such a low operating cost due to FX that a possible NW/DL may keep it as a low-cost reliever to ATL since the current flight load out of MEM is small in comparison to other hubs.

* NW/DL may face obstacles out of the DOT because of the fact that it would leave several airports throughout the South with only one airline

* MEM remaining and being freed up with as much NW strangulation while opening up a few gates for new airlines.

My thoughts on this would be...if NW pulls out of here drastically, I'd be in favor of handing over the commercial portion of the airport to FX to develop as an expansion for cargo and then going into northern Shelby County or elsewhere and building a new commercial airport for the area. This would eliminate most of the "Modernize MEM!!" arguments and create a appropriately-sized commercial airport for our city after the loss of NW, if it does indeed happen. I personally view this as a greater need than a new football stadium.

[Lexy]

For any of you who view the fact of MEM losing NW as a good thing...

LOL!! It's a status thing these days and really nothing more. Having a hub, or not having one, really doesn't mean much anymore due to the availablity to connect so easily. Ask the cities that are growing leaps and bounds that don't have a hub if it really matters in the long run and they'll tell you no.

[northernbizzkit1]

LOL!! It's a status thing these days and really nothing more. Having a hub, or not having one, really doesn't mean much anymore due to the availablity to connect so easily. Ask the cities that are growing leaps and bounds that don't have a hub if it really matters in the long run and they'll tell you no.

yes, however, ask folks in CLT, ATL, CVG, DTW, etc and they'll sing a different tune. The cities without a hub have had time to grow around the loss/lack of a hub and gain more O&D presence out of LCCs...MEM and CVG would have to start with a drastic loss in service...sure, airlines will fill in the gap, but it wouldn't be the next day after a loss of a NW hub. Furthermore, how many cities without airline hubs are growing without leaps and bounds? Even Nashville has a good-size focus city with Southwest. IND has two: NW and Airtran.

[Lexy]

yes, however, ask folks in CLT, ATL, CVG, DTW, etc and they'll sing a different tune. The cities without a hub have had time to grow around the loss/lack of a hub and gain more O&D presence out of LCCs...MEM and CVG would have to start with a drastic loss in service...sure, airlines will fill in the gap, but it wouldn't be the next day after a loss of a NW hub. Furthermore, how many cities without airline hubs are growing without leaps and bounds? Even Nashville has a good-size focus city with Southwest. IND has two: NW and Airtran.

All good points. But having a hub is simply a burden on the passengers from your locale anymore. Hubs jack the prices up, monopolize the market, and squash the competition out of the airport. It does take years to build it back up, like you said, and even then it most likely isn't what it "used to be". But it could also be better in the long run. You have to think ten years out on things like this.

I can see the pros and the cons and both have very good points.

[cdarr]

You totally took what I said and made it something it's not. How much do you honestly know about the airline industry (or BNA for that matter)???

I make a nice living in the airline industry, for whatever that's worth.

Lexy, I did not make your comments into something they were not. You were cleary dumbfounded that I could think a carrier would fly something as big as a 757 into MEM post-NW. As I tried to demonstrate in my follow-up, it is not only possible but in fact is happening in other mid-sized markets.

How in the heck would traffic increase when it can do it now, but doesn't??? People just sit back and say, "well NWA is gone, let's fly from now on!!!"? No. If there isn't traffic now, there won't be after a hub leaves. Unless major growth starts occuring or Memphis becomes more of a destination, O & D traffic will remain about the same. And to be honest, you CAN compare a de-hubbed MEM to a de-hubbed BNA almost perfectly. Read your history about AA here and you would clearly see the similarities between MEM now, and AA @ BNA then.

I never said MEM would have larger aircraft because of higher O&D...I said it was possible because MEM-to-hub passenger loads would go up. This is absolutely true because, without all the NW hub non-stops, MEM-to-hub flights would be about the only way to get anywhere! If you're flying MEM-JAX, MEM-IND, MEM-AUS or any number of other routes today via a NW nonstop, you will have to fly through ATL, DFW, DTW etc. if/when the NW hub goes away.

Your earlier message attempted to compare BNA's current situation (i.e. no AA 757s) to MEM's situation immediately post-NW hub. My argument was that you cannot use the current BNA situation to refute the possibility of larger-gauged aircraft flying into MEM. The availability of SWA direct flights to multiple destinations certainly diminishes the need for BNA passengers to go through legacy hubs. MEM will not have that benefit immediately after de-hubbing.

[northernbizzkit1]

All good points. But having a hub is simply a burden on the passengers from your locale anymore. Hubs jack the prices up, monopolize the market, and squash the competition out of the airport. It does take years to build it back up, like you said, and even then it most likely isn't what it "used to be". But it could also be better in the long run. You have to think ten years out on things like this.

I can see the pros and the cons and both have very good points.

Did BNA have much feeder traffic when it was a hub for AA? As in, Tupelo, Greensville, etc...the really small places. Not as in Knoxville, etc.

I dunno...I think MEM still has it fairly well. AirTran provides pretty good fares and even NW holds pretty good fare sales. I managed to fly MEM-LGW for under $500 last summer, and I know a few people who did this as well at other times. Yeah, MEM is kinda monopolized by NW, but more carriers are hinted at entering the market this year, and prices are actually lower than they used to be due to lower landing fees. Ten years from now, I like the idea of a hub better than a LCC dominated market simply because a hub promises more international routes. Memphis is popular in Japan because of Elvis and Northwest actually does market the city in Tokyo through billboards and signs through the NRT hub. Furthermore, MEM has fame in Europe in London through taxis painted in Memphis ads as well as in Amsterdam because of...yup...Northwest. I just like the fact that a legacy hub provides much more benefits on the global scene than a LCC can give a city.

[cdarr]

Ten years from now, I like the idea of a hub better than a LCC dominated market simply because a hub promises more international routes. Memphis is popular in Japan because of Elvis and Northwest actually does market the city in Tokyo through billboards and signs through the NRT hub. Furthermore, MEM has fame in Europe in London through taxis painted in Memphis ads as well as in Amsterdam because of...yup...Northwest. I just like the fact that a legacy hub provides much more benefits on the global scene than a LCC can give a city.

I totally agree. Losing direct international service would be the worst long-term affect of losing the hub.

MEM-AMS has been an unquestioned success. The flight has averaged load factors of 80-90% since its inception in 1995, and the recent switch to A330 equipment has only increased its popularity. Also not widely discussed is that about half of the daily passengers on that flight are going to/from Memphis, rather than connecting. Unfortunately, the 150 or so local passengers on the flight wouldn't be enough to keep it going - we still need the connecting passengers that the hub provides.