Dhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1976 times:
One of the bedrock justifications for construction of the A380 has been the idea that major hubs either are, or will soon be, slot-constrained. This mantra has been repeated ad nauseum in many a.net threads. I believe this assumption needs further discussion and questioning. Since the vast majority of flights into the major hubs are feeder flights by smaller aircraft, one could also say that VLA aircraft tend to increase congestion and that point-to-point (non-hub) flying is preferable for the traveler and the carrier. London Heathrow is often cited. Why couldn't LHR be restricted to twin-aisle operations, for example? What do you think about the recent comments on this site www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2005/05/kangaroo_hop.html ?
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
Dhefty, with respect I dont pay any serious attention to articles like this on either airbus or boeing sites. They are not an independant opinion and always have underlying agenda's behind them. My opionion on the whole congestion & point2point topic is they will both will work in harmony. The demand for big jets at big hubs will remain, partly because point2point can only be taken so far, ie there still wont be sufficient demand for direct flights from most small/medium cities to other small/medium cities and so connecting flights at places like LHR will always be needed. That said point2point flights will also become more and more common as the critical mass of the travelers continues to boom.
Dhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
EI321, I agree that hubs will remain and VLA jets will not disappear. But getting back to the original idea behind this post, is slot-constraint a real, or an imagined condition, conjured up to underpin a $16 billion investment which may never pay off? Because, if you shoo-off a few feeder flights, it doesn't seem to me that slot-constraints really exist. There are many secondary airports that could handle point-to-point traffic with smaller aircraft.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
Quoting Dhefty (Thread starter): Why couldn't LHR be restricted to twin-aisle operations, for example?
Meaning nothing smaller than 767s if I understand correctly. Which would mean that connectivity at LHR would essentially be limited to intercontinental destinations from other intercontinental destinations; no connections -- or virtually none -- to points within the UK or continental Europe. To say nothing of the 100s of daily London services by Europe's legacy airlines being forced to move elsewhere.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5989 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
"One of the bedrock justifications for construction of the A380 has been the idea that major hubs either are, or will soon be, slot-constrained. This mantra has been repeated ad nauseum in many a.net threads. I believe this assumption needs further discussion and questioning."
"Since the vast majority of flights into the major hubs are feeder flights by smaller aircraft,one could also say that VLA aircraft tend to increase congestion "
Really? Can you support this statement? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "smaller aircraft" One major hub where this is definitely not true is HND, where the vast bulk of traffic is O&D. If you mean single aisle, then I would suggest, (but only from personal observation, I have no empirical data either), that it is NOT true at NRT, LHR & SIN and probably CDG, at least.
"and that point-to-point (non-hub) flying is preferable for the traveler"
"and the carrier."
Disagree. It depends on a lot of variables of course, but it is not ALWAYS that what you say is true.
"London Heathrow is often cited. Why couldn't LHR be restricted to twin-aisle operations, for example?"
If you limited this restriction to flights originating outside Europe, you may very well get away with it as it would not affect many flights BUT geographical limits are always difficult, eg when in the 60/70s the UK government tried to restrict "European flights" to LGW and intercontinental flights to LHR. The screams and moans were loud and long, Turkey, for example, threatening to break off diplomatic relations over the issue. It really came apart because it meant, after retaliatory action by other European governments, BEA would be restricted to LGW and BOAC to LHR, which of course would prevent any interchange.
NO credibility at all! Would say the same about report on the Airbus site favoring VLAs.
Your post seems to be saying that connecting traffic is the only justification for VLAs. This I strongly disagree with.
Two other reasons are:
1) City pairs where O&D traffic alone warrants VLAs eg and/or they are so far apart that frequency is not an issue, eg LHR-SYD/MEL, SYD-LAX.
2) Parts of the world with isolated, but concentrated populations, eg the whole South Pacific region, where there will never be enough traffic to justify much p2p.
I think BOTH points of view are correct and will occur. Which, if either will dominate I do not know, but I do think the A380 will break even (300 or so) and almost certainly earn a real rate of return (500 or so, as per the Economist article) ASSUMING it meets or exceeds it performances specifications.