Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mulally: Hub-And-Spoke Causes Airport Congestion  
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3731 times:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aviationdaily_story.jsp?id=news/mul05264.xml

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3707 times:

>>>Mulally: Hub-And-Spoke Causes Airport Congestion

Wow! He figured that out all by himself?  Insane

(Oh, BTW, I have an aircraft that can bypass hubs...)  Big grin


User currently offlineAtcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3679 times:

Yep

ATC knows banks of flights at hubs causes delays.

I think Boeing is going the right way. Or maybe I should say the better way (than a bigger 747) in developing a smaller, fuel efficient air craft.

Id love to see this thing flying some routes like BOS,PDX or DFW to Hong Kong. Or how about SAN, PDX, HNL or to London or MIA, STL, PHL or PHX to NRT.

I think well be seeing some new and interesting routes open up with this plane.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2325 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

Off course Alan conveniently forgot to mention that most of his 7E7 flights will operate to/from a hub at one end or the other . . .  Innocent The 7E7 might be hub bypassing on one end of its flight, but not on both ends . . .



I can see it operate ORD/JFK/LAX/ATL/IAD/etc to HAM/GVA/MAN/STR/NCE/etc;

I can see it operate LHR/CDG/AMS/MAD/MUC/etc to SAN/OAK/STL/PIT/MSY/etc

I can't see it operate SAN/OAK/STL/PIT/MSY/etc to HAM/GVA/MAN/STR/NCE/etc

Well you get the point I guess. If at all, the 7E7 will make the superhub even more attractive by allowing smaller O&D cities/aiports to be connected to a [super]hub, and therefore will increase congestion at hub airports rather than alleviate it . . .



PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

1) No duh.

2) I don't think the 7E7 is going to allow airlines to bypass hubs any more than they would have, anyway. The economics of it suggest they will simply lower the fares to the point where the 7E7 will be flying into the hubs.

3) Airlines that have moved to de-peaked hubs have found that their operations move much better. ATC likes it this way, too.

4) This is kind of a sham of a press release from Boeing. It's really just a way of engineering goodwill, which it will probably succeed in a minimal way, but since it's minimal effort, I guess that fits.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineCowboy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

Actually, airlines that schedule more flights into a hub than what the airport and ATC can safely operate, is the cause of airport congestion. The reason FAA asked AA and UA to reduce their flight schedule into ORD was the fact that from 2pm to 8pm they had scheduled more flights than could be handled. Before their flight increases, ORD operated at 100 AAR. That's what it was desinged to handle. When UA and AA went mano a mano, they flight schedule was more like a DFW'ish 125 AAR, and not possible. Thats why on clear and a million days, ORD is in a GDP from the get go.

User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

yipee this wonderful argument has arisen again

Off course Alan conveniently forgot to mention that most of his 7E7 flights will operate to/from a hub at one end or the other . . . The 7E7 might be hub bypassing on one end of its flight, but not on both ends . . .

basically hit the nail on the head there

I take it this is also a stab at the A380

True, the A380 could increase congestion at big airports by encouraging hub and spoke systems and therefore attacting more feeder flights. But if airlines start using the A380 at overcrowded hub airports and want to start offering more feeder flights they going to have themselves a problem, they wont be able to get many more slots to operate more feeder flights.

So 3 options are

a) Reduce L/haul frequencies and use larger A/C to free up slots

b) Maintain L/haul frequencies but use larger aircraft, thus allowing more O&D traffic through

c) Maintain L/haul frequencies and increase the A/C size of feeder flights, meaning no additional flights have been added but more pax will flow through.

just my theory

[Edited 2004-05-27 22:34:48]

User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 695 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3436 times:

Yeah, but at slot controlled airports, the A380 won't ease congestion. No aircraft would.

Let's say airline X has 16 slots at ORD.

They buy and put in service the A380 which means they cut frequency.

Instead of 16 flights they operate 8 now.

Who here thinks they'll give those slots up for a competitor to snag?

Those other 8 slots will be used to add frequency or new service with other aircraft types, probably Rjs.

Congestion is here to stay, we're not going to see FEWER flights even with larger aircraft. Maybe fewer flights to a particular destination, but not overall. Even if every airline out of ORD converted to the A380, those extra slots would be gobbled up for RJ service of additional mainline service. The answer to the congestion problem is newer, more advanced ATC systems and runway reconfiguration in the case of O'Hare. Not larger planes.



Go Cubs!
User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3430 times:

yeh it wont relieve congestion but it will allow more pax to go through at no extra aircraft movement cost.

User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 695 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Perhaps, but this problem is pertaining to the number of aircraft moving through the sky, not the number of passengers moving around.


Go Cubs!
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 And Spoke Versus Point To Point posted Tue Sep 12 2006 17:39:36 by Ikarus2006
Who Started "Hub And Spoke" System posted Thu Jun 9 2005 04:06:26 by Toksans
AA Or DL Vs. Jblu Hub And Spoke posted Fri May 27 2005 20:38:06 by Pmg1704
Point To Point Or Hub And Spoke? posted Sat May 22 2004 04:32:01 by KcrwFlyer
Hub And Spoke: Victim Of Its Own Success? posted Sat Jan 17 2004 08:23:42 by HB-IWC
Hub-and-Spoke Vs. Network posted Fri Nov 7 2003 14:07:01 by Avion346
Hub And Spoke For SkyTeam posted Mon Oct 6 2003 00:00:48 by Dtwintlflyer
Hub And Spoke Vs. Southwest Style posted Mon Aug 4 2003 07:23:41 by DeltaBoy777
Hub And Spoke History posted Fri Sep 27 2002 18:29:00 by AM744
Will 'Hub And Spoke' Survive? posted Sun Nov 11 2001 21:42:17 by Stratofish