Metro

It remains to be seen which nonstop routes, if any, get pulled by UA. We can only speculate on the impact on planned routes, although one of the graphics in UA's report did show a few unidentified intercontinental routes (trans-Pacific and Atlantic) as future possibilities that could be at risk. The problem comparing the Houston situation with Miami is on a couple of levels. Primarily, MIA has MUCH larger demand to/from Latin America - no other US city is close. So even though FLL competes with Miami, Miami's Latin dominance is large enough to more than offset the competition. And the connecting AA hub at MIA is just an extra benefit, since Miami can support most of its Latin destinations on local traffic alone. This is why even though Houston is arguably the #2 hub city for Latin America, it doesn't have nearly the same capacity or extent of destinations (outside of small RJ destinations in Mexico) that Miami does. Where it gets very risky for Houston is that Houston's O&D (Origin and Destination) traffic numbers are relatively small for a city of its size, and the array of nonstop destinations served from IAH are largely a result of the artificial connecting hub Continental built here. This is similar to ATL and DFW, which are also overserved in nonstop destinations for their city cizes due to large connecting complexes. However, even Atlanta and Dallas have more O&D traffic than Houston - and all of Atlanta's traffic and DFW's international traffic is constrained to one airport. So if United does decide it needs to pull back routes, Houston could very well find the loss of nonstop options that are not supported by O&D numbers alone. Another carrier is not likely to serve a low O&D destination nonstop unless it feeds a connecting hub for them, so nonstop destinations that currently only exist due to connecting possibilities could certainly be at risk of being lost and not replaced. This same situation doesn't exist in other multi-hub cities like NY, LA, the Bay Area, Miami, Chicago, or DC since the O&D traffic is so much greater in those cities that massive connecting fotress hubs aren't as necessary to support their various non-stop destinations.

The Terminal B expansion is/was(?) to include a new FIS facility to accommodate future international growth by Continental, then United. United is saying that since the plans and funding were based on the understanding that IAH would be the only international facility, they will have to scale back the expansion in light of the new reality. Hard to argue with this particular point... Would you still contribute the same $700M+ to a project when the landscape/original assumptions have changed? At the very least, they will probably delay that part of the expansion until they have a better idea how their hub dynamics are affected by a new intl facility across town. It remains to be seen what, if any, service United cuts at IAH when the Hobby expansion is inevitably approved. The timing of the Denver-Tokyo annoucement was very interesting. Is this now the first 787 route? It's not scheduled until next March, but it's already showing in their schedule and out for sale, while Houston-Auckland still hasn't been loaded.

The study United commissioned is finally available. Some of the main points not already hashed by the media - United has added more flts to IAH than any of its other hubs since the merger and IAH has grown more since 1996 alone than Hobby has in total current flying. The comparison to the MIA/FLL situation is invalid because it neglects the fact that AA dismantled its San Juan hub during the same period to increase MIA, and that AA Latin traffic is actually down overall from where it was. The comparison to ORD/MDW is also invalid since it ignores that Mexicana ceased operation in this period, that carriers were only backfilling, and total Latin traffic is actually down. Comparison of multi-international airport cities in both Europe and the US show that multi-international airport cities have seen no growth or actually shrunk, while single international airport cities have seen growth. United would pull 6% of current capacity and 4% of planned capacity as a result of loss of connecting traffic to support routes that Houston O&D doesn't warrant and/or are already unprofitable but supported by overall network. Future planned routes that would not be flown include Asia/Pacific, Transatlantic, and South America. Auckland and China are specifically cited as examples of routes that cannot be supported by Houston O&D alone, and would be harmed by shifting connecitng traffic on network supporting flights. Other details include refutations of fare assumptions and traffic stimulation. link: http://keepiahstrong.com/docs/UnitedStudyMay3.pdf

DFW's terminal D is indeed very impressive, but as alluded to above, IAH currently receives more international traffic, as well as foreign flag carriers than DFW. Compare major foreign flag carriers: DFW British Airways 7X weekly B777-200 Lufthansa 7X weekly A340-300 Korean Airlines 4X weekly B777-200 KLM 7X weekly A330 IAH British Airways 14X weekly B777-200 (moving to 747-400s in fall) Lufthansa 7X weekly B747-400 KLM 13X weekly (B747 / BBJ 737) Air France ~12X weekly (777-200 / A330) Emirates 7X weekly 777-200 Singapore 4X weekly 777-300 Qatar (starts in fall) 3X -> 7X weekly 777-200 IAH Terminal D may not be as pretty as DFW's, but she's winning the popularity contest right now.