DeltaBoy777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 411 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4455 times:
With all the airlines seeing meager profits and a downturn in revenue, do you think they should try a different prospective?? Southwest, for example, does not utilize a "hub and spoke" route system, and have turned a profit every year, year after year. I understand the major airlines utilize hubs to service certain International routes, etc., but what about the Domestic traveller?? They have already voiced their opinions....MORE Frequencies...LESS Money...HASSLE FREE reservations and check-in. By utilizing a more diverse route system of 10 or more cities to offset 2 or 3 base cities could promise a greater profit. For example, Southwest flys a DAL-ELP then a ELP-SAN, then a SAN-ABQ and so on with no distinct hub city. This would offer customers more convience and would be less of a strain on employees at hub cities. This is my opinion. Hub and spoke routes were very effective pre 9-11, but now I think it is time or a change.
WMUPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1473 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4411 times:
ATA seems to run a pretty well hub and spoke system in MDW. I'll admit though that we are starting to "connect the dots" with our larger cities like Southwest. Like the addition of EWR-SFO and PIE-LAX and such. I think for some people they like being able to get to their destination with only making one stop unlike in the example you gave if a passenger wanted to get on that Southwest flight to ABQ but had to make stops in ELP and SAN. Plus a hub-and-spoke allows some smaller markets to be serviced.
WNfan From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 203 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4409 times:
In addition to hub-and-spoke, I think just keeping their planes in the air more hours of the day is a big part of their success. Turning around a plane in 30 minutes is, in my opinion, is what does the trick for them.
jetBlue also is making a profit, and since they have red-eye flights, their aircraft in the air even longer than those of WN. I think I read here that the average legacy hub-and-spoke carrier's planes fly 9 hours per day, WN 11, and B6 13, something like that. If anyone has more accurate figures, please post them.
DeltaBoy777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 411 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4280 times:
The example of trying to get to get ABQ from DAL was purely an example, WN does fly flights into ABQ with just one stop. I was just trying to make a point that passengers would have more choices if it weren't a hub spoke situation. Most times Southwest flys from small town point A to small town point B without a stop, whereas the major carriers all pretty much force you to make a stop or two. Purely trivial, but important issues.
WMUPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1473 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4232 times:
In my opinion it's not which system you use, hub and spoke or point to point, but how well you utilize you aircraft. If you use you aircraft as much as possible and spend as little time on the ground as possible then either system can be used with great effectiveness.
Airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1151 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4106 times:
The hub system is the most efficient use of available resources and allows them to serve more cities with greater frequency then would be possible otherwise.
If the number of passengers from Omaha to LA everyday is 40 people max, it really doesn't justify having anymore than one flight a day if at all. However, by sending them to ORD or DFW or STL, and since they're are 20 Omaha pax that want to go to New York, 40 that want to go to MIA, 80 that want to go to Cancun etc instead of having flights that go to all of those place half filled with one flight a day, the majors can have several frequencies giving more flexibility to the travelers and fill each departure to the hub city with many connecting passengers. If hubs were not employed the fares generally would be higher in smaller city pairs to compensate for lower demand with less flexibility and options. (Look during Regulation time).
Although WN doesn't have "hubs" they effectively run many little hubs. They certainly don't market connections or people wanting to fly from FLL to LAX, but if pax are willing to put up with many stops, no meals, and a really long day let them do it. How many O&D pax are there a day between New Orleans and Birmingham, Al. I would guess not many but WN still flies something like 9 flights a day. I bet if you looked at the traffic pax would be connecting to FLL, MCO, HOU, BWI etc.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31810 posts, RR: 72 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4073 times:
How many O&D pax are there a day between New Orleans and Birmingham, Al. I would guess not many but WN still flies something like 9 flights a day. I bet if you looked at the traffic pax would be connecting to FLL, MCO, HOU, BWI etc.
321 daily passengers O&D between MSY and BHM, so, yes there is obviously a lot of connecting traffic.
However, what Southwest also does is create a market. Before the advent of Southwest, there was likely a minimal market between TPA and ABQ. Now there are 131 daily O&D passengers.