Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 2006 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4940 times:
Hello all. After reading some passionate discussions in other threads here, with several candidates to be "the biggest hubbing airport", or "the best O&D destination", it looks very clear ( to my limited knowledge ) that almost every major airport have a majority of traffic for one side or the other, but it is not so clear ( again, to me ) who has the best balance between this two "types" of traffic, which I guess will be the best possible scenario for an airport ( because this will provide some protection if a big downturn affects one of the "types" of traffic ).
In some threads I read, I get the impression, for example, that LHR has its best numbers due to O&D traffic, and hubbing goes behind. Other airports with an *apparent imbalance* are MAD, FRA, CDG, DXB and IST.
One could think that JFK could have a good balance since a lot of people has New York as final destination, but also a big number of people can use JFK to make connections to other U.S. cities....
So, according to your very informed and generous insight : Who has the best balance between O&D // Hubbing ??
And, is really and advantage to have that balance ?? Or is not that relevant ??
gabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3566 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4019 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): Other airports with an *apparent imbalance* are MAD, FRA, CDG, DXB and IST.
I think CDG like LHR have a good mix of O&D and hubbing. London and Paris are both hugely popular destinations, but both also have big airlines. NRT is probably similar, with lots of inbound tourists and business to Tokyo, as well as lots of US-Asia pax passing through. Same again with HKG (lots of O&D, but a massive airline busy hubbing).
FRA, the only other European heavyweight, I think has a lot more hubbing than O&D. IST and DXB are heavily skewed towards hubbing (possibly with a stopover though).
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): And, is really and advantage to have that balance ?? Or is not that relevant ??
Whislt it's generally true that O&D bring more $$$, it's good not to reply totally on one or the other. Maybe 75:25% skewed towards O&D would be a good mix.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26900 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4005 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter): And, is really an advantage to have that balance ?? Or is not that relevant ??
I'm assuming you are referring to advantages for the airport, not the airlines? I don't really see why an airport would care much whether it's traffic is O&D or hub-and-spoke as they're still generating basically the same revenue from every flight (landing fees, terminal charges etc.) It does makea difference in terms of airport facilities, for example an airport with mostly connecting traffic doesn't need to devote as much space to check-in, baggage claim, customs/immigration etc..
If most passengers are connecting they need more space for lounges, food services and simiilar facilities since passengers are spending more time at the airport.