Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hub & Spoke Vs. Point-to-Point  
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8853 times:

I am doing and arguement paper on this, and I have read the previous threads on this topic but I'd like to know more about it. Everyone's knowledge and opinions will be acknowledge gratefully.

I read that both will complement each other well in the future, as with the A380 and the B7E7 coming out, as well with present aircrafts.

But in terms of the overall aspect, which is the more beneficial idea in the present time of commercial air travel?

My question is: What are the advantages AND disadvantages of these ideas? I.E.; Technical aspects like in operating costs? Frequecies? People friendliness? Overall? Whatever, etc. . .???

Please include facts and statistics if possible, and websites would be nice, too!

THANKS!


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8837 times:

Sounds like your trying to get someone or someones to write your paper. What are your ideas on this subject?

User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8827 times:

I certainly need opinions from those working in the field. That's all I need.


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8801 times:

I would like to help, but I really do not understand your questions or the information that you are looking for.....maybe, try again, with more specific questions and the members here will provide some valuable information and insights.

User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8777 times:

The advantages of both concepts that I can think of are:

  • Hub-and-Spoke: flight pairs that would never have a chance as point-to-point are sustainable, because pax from other origins are put on one plane at the hub

  • Hub-and-Spoke: less planes are needed because less actual flight pairs are flown (this is actually just speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is true)

  • Hub-and-Spoke: because, as mentioned before, people from several origin-points are combined, higher frequencies can be sustained more easily

  • Point-to-Point: takes away the hassle of connecting at one (or more) hub(s), is the preferred option for (most) travellers

  • Point-to-Point: will not create the logistical nightmare of having to schedule banks of incoming and outgoing flights to maximise the amount of possible connections



Well, that's what I could think of at the moment - don't know how valid these arguments are, but they seem somewhat reasonable to me...

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8769 times:

Here's my opinion, but like Bobnwa said, its just an opinion not a paper-

I feel that point-to-point will be highly successful, and (sorry Airbus) the A380 will not be considered a success. Quick reasons why-

1. Oil exploration will peak in 2015. After that, large and fuel thirsty aircraft will become more expensive to operate. I believe by 2030-2040 the bulk of international travel will be over high-speed rail while 7E7-like aircraft fly the smaller routes where rail is impractical.

2. P2P reduces the miles and segments an aircraft must fly, better for the passenger. I sure as hell don't want to fly DFW-JFK, JFK-LHR, LHR-ATH aboard an A380 when a 7E7 could just fly DFW-ATH.

3. P2P theoretically reduces airport congestion

Regards and good luck with the paper,
DFW


User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8761 times:

Okay... Let me re-state.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the "hub & spoke" idea?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the "point-to-point" idea?
But what idea is the best overall for the future?

*I am referring to long-haul travel.



Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8742 times:

Kalakaua, I guess the answer to the "But what idea is the best overall for the future" is something that will only be answerable as soon as "the future" is here...

There are several routes not served on a point-to-point basis at the moment because it would simply be too expensive - something that the 7e7 might change... then again, it might not: it really depends on the routes.

What is, I think, without doubt is that there are many, many more routes that will never be served on a point to point basis - the example that DfwRevolution used (DFW-ATH) is not one of those... but imagine routes like, for example, HAM-SIN, MKE-HKG, NCE-UTN (Upington, South Africa): sure, there are people flying those routes every day, but are they enough to fill an entire plane? Probably not... Would an airline operating these segments actually make money on them? Very, very unlikely.

Those routes, and I don't have numbers on them, I just selected them since none of them are served on a point-to-point basis, will always have to rely on hub-and-spoke flights.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8728 times:

Hub & Spoke:
Advantages - a strong hub system provides connnections between hundreds of city pairs, and can offer seemless transportation from small cities to large cities that would otherwise not be available. Example, getting from Mobile to Milan could be very difficult if DL did not have a huge hub in ATL.
Disadvantages - Many cities that would otherwise be connected with nonstop service must now travel via the hub, adding travel time. Hubs are big and expensive to operate, and do not optimize aircraft usage (lots of planes sitting around waiting for a flight complex to depart), weather or delays can upset the entire airline system.

Point to Point:
Advantages - Quick, easy and effecient connections between major cities. Reduces travel time and eliminates connections. Nuch easier to schedule and optimizes aircraft usage.
Disadvantages - Many city pairs cannot support nonstop service, smaller cities lose vital airline connections, reduction in frequency on flights to major destinations.

The Future:
Hubs are here to stay, its the only way for a large airline to provide service through out its network and maintain connections to cities large and small world-wide. That being said, we will see some fragmentation in the airline system, with flights being offered to more destinations from various hubs plus there will be flights that by-pass hubs altogether.

The airline industry is slowly changing to traditional carriers, offering world wide service via hubs and to the new LCC carriers, based on a point to point system but only offering service in markets where there is a profit to be made. Short-haul flying (which is point to point) is more and more dominated by lower fare airlines.


User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8683 times:

Oil exploration will peak in 2015. After that, large and fuel thirsty aircraft will become more expensive to operate. I believe by 2030-2040 the bulk of international travel will be over high-speed rail while 7E7-like aircraft fly the smaller routes where rail is impractical.

Finally! Someone who gets it!!!!

It will be all about fuel. I would however add that heavy interest is now gathering for Maglev projects (finally). Up and out of the way and faster.


User currently offlineFlySC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 8643 times:

Hey I was wondering what school you go to. I think that a couple of people in one of my classes are doing a paper on the same subject.
Fly Safely,
Jason D.



I do not fail!!! I succede at finding what does not work!!!
User currently offlineDeltaMIA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1672 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 8610 times:

"Disadvantages - Many cities that would otherwise be connected with nonstop service must now travel via the hub, adding travel time. Hubs are big and expensive to operate, and do not optimize aircraft usage (lots of planes sitting around waiting for a flight complex to depart), weather or delays can upset the entire airline system."

Outside of the weather issue I don't see the others being such a disadvantage. Cities like MOB need the hub despite their ability to support a few nonstops. For every nonstop to cities like LGA/MCO/DCA is one less flight the airline would operate to their hub which while it is positive for those going to those cities it does not benefit the rest who are fighting for low fares on the already limited seats. While some hubs are expensive others are not. ATL is the cash cow for Delta as hardly any domestic aircraft sits idle for more than 90 minutes. DL has a push at every hour. The disadvantage in this case would be for the travelers (at times) who may arrive at 2pm and can't leave until 5pm waiting on the flight to their particular destination.




It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8562 times:

Hubs are here to stay, its the only way for a large airline to provide service through out its network and maintain connections to cities large and small world-wide.

The problem is, aviation is a temporal means of transportation. By 2050, this will be Trains.net, many of us could out live air travel. Refined oil is probably the only energy source dense enough to power a jet turbine, hydrogen is too weak and too difficult to handle. Hubs will not last forever.

What will happen is a serious integration of rail and air. I suspect current airports will become air-to-rail transfer stations. A single high-speed maglev, possibly hypersonic, will loop from LAX-JFK-LHR-Dubai-DEL-SIN-NRT. A single train could wisk 1500 passengers from New York to London in less than an hour, all using electricity. Light rail and TGV-like trains then carry passengers to their final destinations. The only remaining air routes are those flights feeding the rail hubs and between non-connected cities.

The beginning of this trend is smaller, efficent aircraft. The A380 will not last 30 years like the 747.

Regards,
DFW

[Edited 2004-03-28 04:42:15]

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6122 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8489 times:

"A single high-speed maglev, possibly hypersonic, will loop from LAX-JFK-LHR-Dubai-DEL-SIN-NRT. A single train could wisk 1500 passengers from New York to London in less than an hour, all using electricity."

You obviously just read the latest issue of Pop Sci. and we know just how accurate they are in prediciting the future - flying cars in everyone's driveway comes to mind...

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,599827-2,00.html

The Acela isn't even running properly - and that is old technology! How long have TGV proposals in Texas, California, and Florida been up and down State budgets with no action? A hypersonic train to London by 2030-2040... the EU and US can't even re-negotiate an Air Treaty.

And the world in not running out of oil... only "cheap" oil. If you read J. Rifkin's "The Hydrogen Economy", he says that the worse case scenario is 60 years before we run out of "cheap" oil (and he's a pessimist.) He's talking about the freee flowing oil from the Middle East. At current oil prices, the oil sands in Canada (reserves which the US Dept. of Energy estimate at more than Saudi Arabia's) are profitable to exploit. With oil at $50 barrel, shale oil (with a 200 year US domestic reserve) is profitable to exploit.

Far more likely than hypersonic intercontinental rail (with the HUGE costs, technical and legal issues that would be involved) is hydrogen fuel aircraft - at least there have already been flying prototypes... and there is no scarcity of hydrogen.

[Edited 2004-03-28 05:59:21]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8453 times:

What's sad is that today's transportation planners are still stuck on the assumption that to have a great port you need air, sea and rail co-located. Not so true anymore. I'm all for them connecting high speed rail/Maglev to airports to cut down on the number of flights. Maglev is the new kid on the block in terms of a viable solution, if more environmentally friendly, and cheaper in the long term. Someone is working on a perpetual motion version using rare-earth magnets. The vehicle needs a little juice to get going and the magnets take over. I think it's General Atomics and Boeing working on this, but don't hold me too that one. Just read a blurb about a year ago. 60 years on the cheap oil is a pretty short time frame to find a solution. No cheap oil = economic problems.

How long have TGV proposals in Texas, California, and Florida been up and down State budgets with no action?

So long that they are all looking at Maglev as the answer. Southwest manages to put up one heck of a fight every time this comes around. The airlines as a whole haven't said much on CalMaglev or Florida, but I'm sure they will. They'll be on the gravy routes like Los Angeles-Las Vegas, Dallas-Austin-Houston, Tampa-Orlando-Miami etc...


Back to our regulalry scheduled program....

H&S vs. PTP....

H&S Pluses:

- Maximum options for pax
- Potential for Dynamic Scheduling (match AC size to bookings on the fly)
- Allowance for "disjointed operations" (one hub goes down to weather, the others can keep on moving) - non one does this however
- Lower fares

H&S Minuses-

- Poor Labor efficiency due to traffic peaks (De-peaking solves this)
- Airlines don't operate hub independent from each other leaving the entire system vulnerable to weather and other problems
- Connecting times

PTP Pluses-

- Better utlization of aircraft and personnel
- Great if they fly where you want to go

PTP Minuses-

- Can't always get where you want
- Higher fares (I know, SWA, but SWA doesn't fly Fargo to Spokane)
- Limited market potential (Usually large hub and upper 10 medium hub cities)






[Edited 2004-03-28 06:35:02]

[Edited 2004-03-28 06:38:43]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8379 times:

You obviously just read the latest issue of Pop Sci. and we know just how accurate they are in prediciting the future - flying cars in everyone's driveway comes to mind...

I did read it, but it was complete bs. Why would a hypersonic train traveling in a vacume be sleak and aerodynamic? In a vacume, it could be boxy as a 1980 Volvo. And the 100 billion price tag is a shot-in-the-dark if best.

The Acela isn't even running properly - and that is old technology! How long have TGV proposals in Texas, California, and Florida been up and down State budgets with no action?

The Acela is not old technology. You can't run a TGV along the Washington-New York-Boston corridor. The Acela must take sharp turns and weave along existing tracks, the TGV is as close to a straight shot as possible.

And if you ripped up I-45, I-35, and I-10 you'd be suprised how fast an interstate rail system would be built in Texas.

And the world in not running out of oil... only "cheap" oil.

Hahaha.. "cheap" oil. That is hillarious. Gasoline prices in the United States spike a quarter and the economy nearly goes into recession again. The reason Americans became hooked on oil was the fact that it was cheap. If a gallon of regular gasoline stayed consistantly over $2.50, the vast majority of Americans could not afford to keep their cars. Ditto for aviation.

Regards,
DFW


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8345 times:

While somewhat off topic, how do aviation-fuel prices vary between Europe and the US? When I look at DfwRevolution's comment "If a gallon of regular gasoline stayed consistantly over $2.50, the vast majority of Americans could not afford to keep their cars", that makes me think:
1 gallon = 3.7854118 liters
US price per liter = $0.66 (using the $2.50 value)
US price converted to Euros = €0.54 (using €1 = $1.2122)

Current price of regular gasoline here in Germany: around €1.06 per liter, which equals $1.28 per liter, or $4,85 per gallon... almost twice the US price.

I guess that the difference won't be that steep in the case of aviation, or is it?

Thanks for any insight into that...

Happy contrails,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2368 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8310 times:

The A380 and 7E7 planes are opposites. They represent two ways of thinking: hub-and-spoke vs. point-to-point. At least that's what Boeing sales dpt. is telling the world.

Irony is that the 7E7 could be the best thing for the A380 program. Past has shown that the smaller aircraft that were designed to minimise hub use [767, 330 but also the RJ's] actually increased the strength of the hub. The small efficient plane [7E7] will open up a load of new routes that can now be connected to a hub efficiently, therby making the hub even more attractive. The hub system is attractive becasue it connects so many places to each other, many more than the point-to point system can cater for. The more spokes the more effective the hub, provided the hub has the infrastructure in place to handle the traffic [terminal, gates, runway capacity etc].

The 767 is now seen as a fragmentor. It greatly reduced the percentage of hub-to-hub flights. However most [if not virtually all] 767 flights today still connect to a hub on one end of the flight. The same will be seen with the 7E7. I still don't expect HAM-MCY flights with a 7E7. However FRA/CDG/AMS - MCY may become attractive with a super efficient twin. This will greatly help the hub system.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16999 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8279 times:

Advantage of P2P: Cool planes like the 7E7 are developed.
Advantage of HaS: Cool planes like the 380 are developed.



:D



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAlphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 937 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8276 times:

DFWRev:

Have fun on your DAL/NYC train ride. I stick to flying, meet with your client, win the business and be back at DFW before you get to ATL. Train travel is not an efficent means of transportation for passengers in areas where there is a great distance between O&D points.

Think of trying to lay enought track to handle the passenger loads in the US. Just getting around the environmental laws would be enough of a barrier to make it a bad economic investment.



"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6122 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8212 times:

"Hahaha.. "cheap" oil. If a gallon of regular gasoline stayed consistantly over $2.50, the vast majority of Americans could not afford to keep their cars. Ditto for aviation."

Before laughing I would suggest that you travel outside of the USA... or do an internet search, or at least watch CNN International every once in a while. As a university student you really have little excuse for posting such baseless statements.

Without even going to Europe (Leskova says that German prices are around $4.85/gal) or Asia, where gas is even more expensive, you just have to look a bit north to Canada where their gas prices are $2.50 a gallon, and yet they still happily drive the very same gas guzzling SUV's, pickups and vans that Americans drive (in fact, the Ford F150 and Windstar are built in Ontario!)

Yes, you can forget about hypersonic transpacific rail. The high speed EuroStar was to obliterate air traffic between London and Paris... not only has it been a financial fiasco, but since it was introduced there are even more air options from London to Paris.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6122 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8171 times:

Leskova:

The variation of "at the pump" gas prices is obviously due to government "policy" (taxes) since a refined barrel of oil is more or less the same price around the world.

Here are some Mar 19/03 Spot prices of jet fuel (cents per gallon) posted by the Energy Information Administration:

New York -- 99.45
Los Angeles -- 105.50
Rotterdam -- 107.69
Singapore -- 91.67



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8165 times:

there will probably be a mix. Hub & spoke to use economies of scale, point to point to reduce travel times where enough high yield passengers are avilable.

Continentals strategy, KLM?NWA and BA/LHR and LH/PrivatAir are interesting examples of different but succesfull approaches ..


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8145 times:

Planemaker, I'm aware of the prices "at the pump" being influenced mainly by taxes - especially since the current government of Germany has raised the taxes (for car fuel) by 6 cents per year for the last 3, 4 or 5 years (not quite sure how many times they did this): what I mainly wanted to show by that was that the definition of "cheap oil", or in this case "cheap fuel" is somewhat relative: sure, practically no-one here thinks that $4.85/gallon is cheap, but $2.50 would be considered "dumping"...

Thanks for the prices for jet fuel - good to know that at least aviation doesn't suffer from the drastic price differences that car-owners have to live with... but seeing that some members of the German government want to change that as well, I guess that that'll also just be a matter of time...

Happy contrails,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hub & Spoke V Point To Point posted Wed Jan 19 2005 02:15:29 by Gearup
Hub 'n' Spoke Vs Point To Point posted Tue Jul 15 2003 15:48:18 by AngelAirways
Hub And Spoke Versus Point To Point posted Tue Sep 12 2006 17:39:36 by Ikarus2006
Did 'Hub & Spoke' Ops Hurt USA Legacy Airliners? posted Fri Mar 11 2005 17:06:01 by LTBEWR
WN - Ultimate Hub & Spoke Carrier posted Sat Dec 20 2003 21:22:24 by TxAgKuwait
Hub-and-Spoke Vs. Network posted Fri Nov 7 2003 14:07:01 by Avion346
Bethune On The Hub & Spoke, And The B6 Advantage posted Mon Sep 29 2003 16:24:30 by STT757
Hub And Spoke Vs. Southwest Style posted Mon Aug 4 2003 07:23:41 by DeltaBoy777
KLM: No Hub & Spoke posted Thu May 30 2002 07:21:35 by RogueTrader
Hub & Spoke posted Tue Mar 12 2002 03:11:58 by MEA
Hub And Spoke Vs. Southwest Style posted Mon Aug 4 2003 07:23:41 by DeltaBoy777
KLM: No Hub & Spoke posted Thu May 30 2002 07:21:35 by RogueTrader