すべて
← Back to Squawk list
Memphis Airport May Close Terminals
(Memphis) Big changes are coming to the Memphis airport. There’s a new leader and there will likely be a new look. For the first time, the airport is discussing possibly shutting down one, maybe two, of its terminals. The Memphis airport once proudly displayed the label ‘international;’ now it’s focusing on local travelers. (wreg.com) さらに...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I have lived here all my life & we can thank the folks in charge for what has happened to the airport. Instead of letting other airlines come to MEM & stay here years ago they were all ran out by Northwest/Delta which Cox could have put a stop to it. Southwest wanted to come here years ago but we were in bed with Northwest/Delta...well look what happens they pull out and we have nothing & no one wants to come here. Everyone was so use to the out of hand ticket prices they travel to LIT, BHM, or BNA to get somewhere at a reasonable price and they will continue. Memphis is DEAD.
Welcome to the Pittsburgh problem! At least MEM wasn't suckered into building a new terminal on the promise of keeping all of the traffic. PIT at least appears to be doing a good job of looking for new traffic/routes. While the concourses are nowhere near as busy as they used to be, it is cheaper and easier to fly in to now (I used to fly Cleveland to get home to PIT due to fares. Only one concourse was shut down last year. USAir used the excuse that there was not enough originating/terminating traffic to keep PIT viable, which appeared to be part of the problem for MEM. At least USAir kept a heavy maint base at PIT. Will be interested to see how this plays out after the AA-US merger.
I had PIT on the brain during this entire discussion of MEM's de-hubbing and downsizing, with the need to mothball terminals.
Airports should be wary of taking on large expensive projects that substantially increase fees to passengers and airlines, when in danger of losing service. The completed project may not prevent the loss of service. However, the increase in fees may accelerate the loss of service.
Brockman will definitely have his hands full. Just like a Harlot when a long term John leaves, the easy ride is over and time to go to work, if all the other Johns haven't left town.
Airport operators and regulators would do well to foster non hub-airline business at all major and secondary hubs.
A vibrant mix of airlines is important the entire time of hub status at airport, and continues to be important after the hub carrier has decided to drop the airport as a hub.
It makes sense from an airline's perspective to have fewer larger hubs, with the greatest number of connections available and requiring the least number of connections per itinerary, for passenger convenience.
Airlines are not respinsible to be the economic engine of any city, nor the sole base for their economic development. It is the job of airlines to offer as many flights for which the local market of passengers is willing to pay.
Fostering a vibrant mix of airlines is the airport operator's responsibility. Hopefully the owner/city governance provide the airport with policies that are supportive of a vibrant airport operation. This involves providing the necessary services at the most competitive landing fees.
There's a trade-off. The more cash cities try to extract from their airports, the fewer the flights and the less vibrant the economic development impact of the airport and the fewer choices of direct destinations available for local businesses and other passengers.
Must choose wisely the role of airport in the life if the city. Cash cow or economic engine. Unusual for both to be possible simultaneously, particularly if there is not substantial O&D traffic.
With FedEx's biggest operation, I wouldn't exactly call it dead. But secondary hubs in smaller cities, once lost, tend not to come back. But lots of traffic volume can return with the decreased fares from greater LCC carrier penetration at the airport (just not hub-level traffic).
A vibrant mix of airlines is important the entire time of hub status at airport, and continues to be important after the hub carrier has decided to drop the airport as a hub.
It makes sense from an airline's perspective to have fewer larger hubs, with the greatest number of connections available and requiring the least number of connections per itinerary, for passenger convenience.
Airlines are not respinsible to be the economic engine of any city, nor the sole base for their economic development. It is the job of airlines to offer as many flights for which the local market of passengers is willing to pay.
Fostering a vibrant mix of airlines is the airport operator's responsibility. Hopefully the owner/city governance provide the airport with policies that are supportive of a vibrant airport operation. This involves providing the necessary services at the most competitive landing fees.
There's a trade-off. The more cash cities try to extract from their airports, the fewer the flights and the less vibrant the economic development impact of the airport and the fewer choices of direct destinations available for local businesses and other passengers.
Must choose wisely the role of airport in the life if the city. Cash cow or economic engine. Unusual for both to be possible simultaneously, particularly if there is not substantial O&D traffic.
With FedEx's biggest operation, I wouldn't exactly call it dead. But secondary hubs in smaller cities, once lost, tend not to come back. But lots of traffic volume can return with the decreased fares from greater LCC carrier penetration at the airport (just not hub-level traffic).
They really won't have any trouble keeping the runways busy. It's the terminal that will be the problem, and how much O&D traffic is in MEM and surrounding are remains to be seen.
Probably not too much local O&D traffic. Which is why becoming a hub again is unlikely.
But they can get a nice mix of LCC flights available as well as policies that bring down landing fees and ticket prices. This way fewer people will make hour long rides or further to othet further airports in order to avoid the higher fares at MEM.
You can't penalize every passenger who considers purchasing a MEM fare or any airline that considers adding a MEM flight for the sunk costs of building a hub for Delta/Northwest that is no longer being used as such.
If you do, they just won't come.
But they can get a nice mix of LCC flights available as well as policies that bring down landing fees and ticket prices. This way fewer people will make hour long rides or further to othet further airports in order to avoid the higher fares at MEM.
You can't penalize every passenger who considers purchasing a MEM fare or any airline that considers adding a MEM flight for the sunk costs of building a hub for Delta/Northwest that is no longer being used as such.
If you do, they just won't come.
