Continental & United Merger

[Houston19514]

The Denver Airport was a good idea on paper and then 9-11 happened. Having one central terminal makes going through security a NIGHTMARE. Seriously, everyone who flies United (large hub), Frontier (large hub), Southwest (large operation), Continental, American, Delta, Air Canada, Lufthansa, Air Tran, Jet Blue, etc... has to go through security in the same building and then take a train to their terminal. HORRIBLE IDEA, Homies.

It really should not matter if all passengers have to go through the same security area, if the security is properly designed and equipped (with the appropriate number of lanes) and properly staffed. In fact, if properly equipped and staffed, it should provide better, more efficient service overall than if the same equipment and staff were scattered among 4 or more screening stations in multiple terminals.

[RedScare]

It really should not matter if all passengers have to go through the same security area, if the security is properly designed and equipped (with the appropriate number of lanes) and properly staffed. In fact, if properly equipped and staffed, it should provide better, more efficient service overall than if the same equipment and staff were scattered among 4 or more screening stations in multiple terminals.

Bottlenecks are not efficient in any other traffic setting (freeways, stadiums, etc.). There is no reason to believe that they would be more efficient at airports. It may make security easier to enforce, since there is only one entrance to watch, but for passengers entering the facility, it is worse. This same bottleneck effect can be seen at courthouses everywhere.

[TheNiche]

Bottlenecks are not efficient in any other traffic setting (freeways, stadiums, etc.). There is no reason to believe that they would be more efficient at airports. It may make security easier to enforce, since there is only one entrance to watch, but for passengers entering the facility, it is worse. This same bottleneck effect can be seen at courthouses everywhere.

A better analogy than a freeway or stadium is a Wal-Mart. They have maximum allowable times that customers are supposed to stand in line that guide their staffing policy at any given time of day in any given season. When the lines start to back up, they add more staff and open more lanes, thus alleviating the problem. And when assistance is required from outside of one cashier's lane, it's easy for management to move around amongst the one bank of lanes (the lone garden center checkout notwithstanding) than it is for them to try to move all over the store.

The problem with airports and courthouses is that bureaucrats operating an effective monopoly have no respect for the value of our time must operate on a budget crafted by lawmakers that ask for things like "across the board budget cuts" when targeted budget cuts would've been more appropriate but less politically convenient.

[C2H]

All you hating on DIA. The place kills IAH as far as asthetics go!

[AtticaFlinch]

A better analogy than a freeway or stadium is a Wal-Mart. They have maximum allowable times that customers are supposed to stand in line that guide their staffing policy at any given time of day in any given season. When the lines start to back up, they add more staff and open more lanes, thus alleviating the problem.

You must never shop at the Dunvale Wal-Mart.

[dcdude]

All you hating on DIA. The place kills IAH as far as asthetics go!

DIA looks like a circus tent out in the middle of nowhere!

[20thStDad]

All you hating on DIA. The place kills IAH as far as asthetics go!

Yes, it is a very pretty and inefficient nightmare of an experience.

[Hartmann]

I'm wondering who DL paid off...

It appears the DoT did not award any of the slots for HND to Continental or United: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot9210.htm

The one that makes no sense is Hawaiian getting a slot.

[LTAWACS]

This is not good.

[editor]

No shame at all!!! lol, sad. Just can't shake the old Chicago ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/business/05united.html?src=busln

I don't think Daley fought all that hard for it. The Olympics were supposed to be the crowning achievement of his administration, and when he lost those he stopped caring about a lot of things. All of his old pals have turned on him, organized labor has turned on him, the minority groups have turned on him (you pretty much don't get elected in Chicago without support from the Hispanic Democratic Organization), the county board has turned on him. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't run again. I do expect, however, for O'Hare airport to be renamed in his honor after he leaves office.

The comments from the suburban mayor are just outdated sour grapes.

As for why United in Chicago instead of Houston? I have no idea. As far as I can tell, it's not based on logic. All the numbers point to Houston. I saw an article in the Times that said that it will costs an extra $20,000 per employee to have United in Chicago.

The one that makes no sense is Hawaiian getting a slot.

That totally makes sense. Hawaii is awash in Japanese tourists. I know of at least one minor global retail chain that opened a store in Hawaii specifically for the convenience of its Japanese clientele, and encourages its Hawaiian staff to learn Japanese.

For the Japanese, going to Hawaii has all the benefits of a vacation in America without the time or expense of a 15-hour flight to New York.

[LTAWACS]

I don't think Daley fought all that hard for it. The Olympics were supposed to be the crowning achievement of his administration, and when he lost those he stopped caring about a lot of things. All of his old pals have turned on him, organized labor has turned on him, the minority groups have turned on him (you pretty much don't get elected in Chicago without support from the Hispanic Democratic Organization), the county board has turned on him. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't run again. I do expect, however, for O'Hare airport to be renamed in his honor after he leaves office.

The comments from the suburban mayor are just outdated sour grapes.

As for why United in Chicago instead of Houston? I have no idea. As far as I can tell, it's not based on logic. All the numbers point to Houston. I saw an article in the Times that said that it will costs an extra $20,000 per employee to have United in Chicago.

I heard about that too. I was looking for their link.

[Houston19514]

Bottlenecks are not efficient in any other traffic setting (freeways, stadiums, etc.). There is no reason to believe that they would be more efficient at airports. It may make security easier to enforce, since there is only one entrance to watch, but for passengers entering the facility, it is worse. This same bottleneck effect can be seen at courthouses everywhere.

If properly designed, equipped and staffed, there will be no bottleneck.

[Trae]

As for why United in Chicago instead of Houston? I have no idea. As far as I can tell, it's not based on logic. All the numbers point to Houston. I saw an article in the Times that said that it will costs an extra $20,000 per employee to have United in Chicago.

Other than being the more popular city, I don't know what advantage Chicago has over Houston. It's cheaper to have the HQ in Houston. Not to mention IAH would be the largest hub and more profitable airport than O'Hare. Oh well.

[20thStDad]

I think the way they decided was to develop an algorithm that monitored the negative and positive internet chatter about each city over a certain time period, and Chicago came out with a more favorable score than Houston did. That would make the most sense.

[RedScare]

If properly designed, equipped and staffed, there will be no bottleneck.

How about a few suggestions? How do you design a central entry point that is close to both Terminal A and Terminals D and E? How do you design drop off points so that arriving vehicles and buses from the rental car lots do not end up in gridlock? Where do you place the short term parking areas for arriving passengers to unload their luggage? How many would you need for 44 million passengers annually? How do the passengers who parked in the various parking garages get through security and back to their terminal in an efficient manner? Remember, you said a central location would work better than one per terminal if properly designed and equipped, so be sure to explain how it would work better than one at each terminal.

While you are explaining this properly designed system, please estimate the walking distance from the security area to each trminal, and from the parking garages to the security area.

[TheNiche]

How about a few suggestions? How do you design a central entry point that is close to both Terminal A and Terminals D and E? How do you design drop off points so that arriving vehicles and buses from the rental car lots do not end up in gridlock? Where do you place the short term parking areas for arriving passengers to unload their luggage? How many would you need for 44 million passengers annually? How do the passengers who parked in the various parking garages get through security and back to their terminal in an efficient manner? Remember, you said a central location would work better than one per terminal if properly designed and equipped, so be sure to explain how it would work better than one at each terminal.

While you are explaining this properly designed system, please estimate the walking distance from the security area to each trminal, and from the parking garages to the security area.

44 million passengers per year equates to 120,548 per day...fewer enplanements than there are workers in downtown Houston over an entire 24-hour period. Exclude enplanements that are merely layovers and I have no idea what that works out to, but it's a whole lot less.

Although I would concur with someone citing a legacy issue and the cost of a "properly designed" airport as a reason to stick with the current system, it is exceedingly difficult for me to say with confidence that a "properly designed, equipped and staffed" security checkpoint poses any reasonable chance of creating a bottleneck.

I think that to disagree with me, you'd have to admit that mass transit doesn't work for airports (which would imply that it wouldn't work for much more complicated and spread-out central business districts). And I don't think that you're going to make that claim. Are you?

[RedScare]

44 million passengers per year equates to 120,548 per day...fewer enplanements than there are workers in downtown Houston over an entire 24-hour period. Exclude enplanements that are merely layovers and I have no idea what that works out to, but it's a whole lot less.

Although I would concur with someone citing a legacy issue and the cost of a "properly designed" airport as a reason to stick with the current system, it is exceedingly difficult for me to say with confidence that a "properly designed, equipped and staffed" security checkpoint poses any reasonable chance of creating a bottleneck.

I think that to disagree with me, you'd have to admit that mass transit doesn't work for airports (which would imply that it wouldn't work for much more complicated and spread-out central business districts). And I don't think that you're going to make that claim. Are you?

Wow, Niche, I expect completely nonsensical analogies from other posters, but not you. Let's compare the two, shall we? You are incorrect that more people work downtown than fly into or out of IAH. If you figure 175,000 workers in downtown (probably guessing high) Monday through Friday, that equals 45 million trips to downtown annually, about the same as IAH, which is also busiest on Monday through Friday. Now, let's look at the two layouts. Downtown is approximately 325 square blocks of buildings served by 3 freeways, 2 parkways and a street grid. Those freeways have 7 exit ramps that allow entry into downtown on dozens of streets. Given that Downtown is at least 16 blocks wide and 20 blocks long, there are upwards of 90 or more additional entry points on the various streets.

IAH is served by 2 parkways and no freeways or street grid. Additionally, those 2 parkways merge at the airport onto one loop. Think all of downtown traffic merging onto Travis and looping back up Fannin.

Additionally, Downtown makes MY point, not yours. To make this a proper 'apples to apples' comparison, let's assume that we needed airport style security in downtown. To achieve the centralized security checkpoint that you and Houston 19514 envision as efficient, all downtown workers would be required to enter downtown through a central location...say City Hall...and then continue on to their destination, presumably on foot or an underground tram. Even those executives with parking next to their building would have to walk to City Hall, go through security, and walk back to their office. Even if there was no wait at the security checkpoints, I fail to see how that could be considered efficient. IAH is a mile long, about as wide as downtown. Even the rail line has 4 stations within downtown proper.

While I can certainly envision the increased level of security by having all travelers and workers entering a 'secure zone' through one checkpoint, and the tram could be upgraded and expanded to get all of those people to their respective terminals eventually, to suggest that this could be made anywhere near as efficient as checkpoints at each terminal, especially considering the alternating terminal and parking garage layout, is simply ignoring reality.

BTW, starting from scratch, I too, could design a reasonably efficient one-entry system, but that is neither what the plan is, nor what houston19514 suggested.

[TheNiche]

Wow, Niche, I expect completely nonsensical analogies from other posters, but not you. Let's compare the two, shall we? You are incorrect that more people work downtown than fly into or out of IAH. If you figure 175,000 workers in downtown (probably guessing high) Monday through Friday, that equals 45 million trips to downtown annually, about the same as IAH, which is also busiest on Monday through Friday.

Wow, RedScare, I expect completely nonsensical analysis from other posters, but not you.

According to the Houston Airport System, IAH saw 20,041,360 enplanements and 19,965,994 deplanements during 2009, totaling only 40,007,354 passengers...not the 44 million that you cited. And as I pointed out earlier (and you apparently ignored) not every enplanement requires a trip through security; IAH is a hub, and hubs have many layovers. The HAS data indicates that only 9,171,970 originating passenger enplanements occured in 2009.

So that's an average of 25,129 people who have to check in through security per day.

That is so many fewer than I thought was the case that I must completely withdraw any comparisons to the downtown workforce. I'm reverting to analogies involving high-volume retailers. (That's what I get for taking your crap data at face value.)

While I can certainly envision the increased level of security by having all travelers and workers entering a 'secure zone' through one checkpoint, and the tram could be upgraded and expanded to get all of those people to their respective terminals eventually, to suggest that this could be made anywhere near as efficient as checkpoints at each terminal, especially considering the alternating terminal and parking garage layout, is simply ignoring reality.

BTW, starting from scratch, I too, could design a reasonably efficient one-entry system, but that is neither what the plan is, nor what houston19514 suggested.

Let me say this again, because apparently you aren't reading before posting a reply:

"Although I would concur with someone citing a legacy issue and the cost of a "properly designed" airport as a reason to stick with the current system, it is exceedingly difficult for me to say with confidence that a "properly designed, equipped and staffed" security checkpoint poses any reasonable chance of creating a bottleneck."

[Houston19514]

How about a few suggestions? How do you design a central entry point that is close to both Terminal A and Terminals D and E? How do you design drop off points so that arriving vehicles and buses from the rental car lots do not end up in gridlock? Where do you place the short term parking areas for arriving passengers to unload their luggage? How many would you need for 44 million passengers annually? How do the passengers who parked in the various parking garages get through security and back to their terminal in an efficient manner? Remember, you said a central location would work better than one per terminal if properly designed and equipped, so be sure to explain how it would work better than one at each terminal.

While you are explaining this properly designed system, please estimate the walking distance from the security area to each trminal, and from the parking garages to the security area.

I think it was pretty clear I was referring to the security clearance areas, not parking, automobile traffic, baggage claims etc.

No one is speaking of building a central terminal for Terminals A, D and E as they stand, without out massive other changes.

You seem to be speaking of some imaginary plan to retain the existing parking and terminals, where passengers would park at, e.g., Terminal A, go to a central terminal for security screening and then return to Terminal A for their flight. NOBODY has planned, suggested, or implied any such thing.

The master plan for IAH calls for the existing A, B, AB and C parking to disappear. The A, B, and C terminals themselves would be completely reconfigured (although Continental's plans for Terminal B may have changed some of this) and there would be no parking or vehicular access to the airside terminals. All parking and vehicular access would be at the central terminal. I see no reason that a central terminal could not be designed to handle the traffic and parking needs without significant bottlenecks. (and fwiw, you may have noticed that our existing airport configuration with traffic and parking disperse, has some significant bottlenecks. It's not about dispersal vs. non-dispersal; it's about being adequately designed to handle the expected traffic)

Back to the security clearance area. I say again, that given a specified amount of equipment, and a specified number of employees, the most efficient security operation should be one where there is one central clearing hall. With a central security clearance, the ebbs and flows of various flight schedules can balance each other out. With a dispersed operation, you are much more likely to have one station twiddling their thumbs while another station is overwhelmed.

I saw this in action at the Tulsa airport (which of course is miniscule compared to IAH, but the theory is the same). They used to have separate security clearance for each of their two concourses. It was common to see a LONG line at one while the other was empty. They wisely went to a central clearing station between the two concourses and one is much less likely to encounter bottlenecks.

[RedScare]

Whether using the recession dampened 40 million figure or the pre-recession 43.3 million figure, is of no consequence, unless one wishes to ignore the point of my post, which is that the current layout will not allow a single checkpoint without severe inconvenience to passengers, regardless whether it is 40 million passengers or 44. Getting around that problem by suggesting that IAH could demolish the entire multi-billion dollar complex and start over is simply changing the question, as well as reality.

I'll pose the same question to you as houston19514. What would YOU do with the current setup to achieve a single checkpoint, and how would passengers reach Terminals A through E more efficiently, bearing in mind that the parking garages are interspersed throughout the complex?

[Houston19514]

Whether using the recession dampened 40 million figure or the pre-recession 43.3 million figure, is of no consequence, unless one wishes to ignore the point of my post, which is that the current layout will not allow a single checkpoint without severe inconvenience to passengers, regardless whether it is 40 million passengers or 44. Getting around that problem by suggesting that IAH could demolish the entire multi-billion dollar complex and start over is simply changing the question, as well as reality.

I'll pose the same question to you as houston19514. What would YOU do with the current setup to achieve a single checkpoint, and how would passengers reach Terminals A through E more efficiently, bearing in mind that the parking garages are interspersed throughout the complex?

Please see my earlier reply.

And please see the Houston Airports System master plan for George Bush Intercontinental.

[TheNiche]

Whether using the recession dampened 40 million figure or the pre-recession 43.3 million figure, is of no consequence, unless one wishes to ignore the point of my post, which is that the current layout will not allow a single checkpoint without severe inconvenience to passengers, regardless whether it is 40 million passengers or 44. Getting around that problem by suggesting that IAH could demolish the entire multi-billion dollar complex and start over is simply changing the question, as well as reality.

Stop using crap data.

Stop suggesting that we aren't cognizant of legacy issues.

[rsb320]

Now that I've had a full dose of Sunday morning laughter and eye-rolling, can we get back to the projected increase of UA/CO hub traffic through IAH? Without using crap data, of course.

What is the projected traffic volume increase to be for IAH after the merger - regardless how/where people get on or off da-plane? Also, how will this (assumed) increase affect Houston financially?

[Trae]

Now that I've had a full dose of Sunday morning laughter and eye-rolling, can we get back to the projected increase of UA/CO hub traffic through IAH? Without using crap data, of course.

What is the projected traffic volume increase to be for IAH after the merger - regardless how/where people get on or off da-plane? Also, how will this (assumed) increase affect Houston financially?

You come in on your high horse to request something that no one knows yet.

[rsb320]

You come in on your high horse to request something that no one knows yet.

Actually, it's a low-rider art car.

Point taken. Guess I should've realized that when such questions were posed to a CO Exec friend of mine. All I got was hands in the air and "I dunno".

...still hungry for updates and trust this will be the site to find the latest.

[LTAWACS]

Let us know what you find.

[VicMan]

I wonder if Continental is moving the HQ to Chicago as a concession to the "United" side to make the United side of the merger feel included?

Maybe 5 or 10 years after the HQ is moved to Chicago, when the leases are almost up and the airline merger has been thoroughly digested, the airline could decide that it wants to move the HQ back to Houston (maybe this time in a newly-built corporate campus by Bush Airport?)

[TheNiche]

I wonder if Continental is moving the HQ to Chicago as a concession to the "United" side to make the United side of the merger feel included?

Maybe 5 or 10 years after the HQ is moved to Chicago, when the leases are almost up and the airline merger has been thoroughly digested, the airline could decide that it wants to move the HQ back to Houston (maybe this time in a newly-built corporate campus by Bush Airport?)

That may depend on whether they can turn United's corporate culture around. If they have success in that area, then it seems unlikely that they'd want to endure the high levels of attrition that come with a corporate relocation to another part of the country. If they're unable to transform United into a more sustainable company, then I'd expect that they would consider coming home whenever their lease and incentive agreements expire at Willis Tower.

Even still, I'd say that the odds of success are low.

[VicMan]

The headquarters of United are in a different building (77 West Wacker), so they have two buildings in Chicago with two separate leases. I don't know which one expires first, but I know they occupied 77 West Wacker before occupying the Willis Tower.

That may depend on whether they can turn United's corporate culture around. If they have success in that area, then it seems unlikely that they'd want to endure the high levels of attrition that come with a corporate relocation to another part of the country. If they're unable to transform United into a more sustainable company, then I'd expect that they would consider coming home whenever their lease and incentive agreements expire at Willis Tower.

Even still, I'd say that the odds of success are low.

[Houston19514]

The headquarters of United are in a different building (77 West Wacker), so they have two buildings in Chicago with two separate leases. I don't know which one expires first, but I know they occupied 77 West Wacker before occupying the Willis Tower.

Yes, you are quite right. And their headquarters is in the 77 West Wacker Building. The space in Willis Tower is the Operations Center. There is no reason they could not move the headquarters and leave the operations center.