COEWR777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 428 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4702 times:
I Find it as American carriers are busier ( arrs and Deps ) at there 2nd or 3rd hub then most European carriers are at there main hub. IS this mostly b/c American carriers usually have a larger fleet #
I would say no. The traveling public in the USA is substantial. Also the country is fairly big in size and populated and, for the most part, people can afford to fly. US carriers have a larger fleet because they need those planes to move the masses - although the argument can be made we now have too many seats, but let's stick to the topic at hand.
When you think about all of the US airlines serving domestically and the fact that a lot of them currently have 70-80% load factors this summer, the number of people flying is staggering. US hubs are busier because the demand is higher.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 13189 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4663 times:
Quoting COEWR777 (Thread starter): I Find it as American carriers are busier ( arrs and Deps ) at there 2nd or 3rd hub then most European carriers are at there main hub. IS this mostly b/c American carriers usually have a larger fleet #
IMO, it's because U.S. carriers are simply just bigger than European airlines. AA alone is twice as large as BA, AF/KL and LH combined. And the U.S. has five other airlines like AA. In addition, air hubs in the U.S. are far more important than in Europe. Because of America's size, air travel is far more important here than in Europe, where trains are extremely common in inter-city markets. In the U.S., our joke of a train system, Amtrak, is almost nonexistent and has virtually no real market presence anywhere (except maybe on the northeast corridor).
Jfrworld From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4558 times:
Also, you have to consider that in Europe or the UK, based on the smaller sizes of the countries, a bulk of your flights become international (not sure now with the EU), as opposed to domestic. It becomes more difficult to have mass frequencies with international flights (even short haul) because of the facilities.
Second, in the UK (e.g. London) almost all of your flights become long haul which also decreases the amount of frequencies that you can offer.
I think the differences in hub airport operations has to do more with
1. the frequencies of flights offered to a smiliar number of destinations.
2. more long haul operations international vs short haul
3. less commuter/small city feeder frequencies because of the train system
4. less commuter/small city destinations offered
These are just my initial thoughts without knowing the detail of the market.
Kyril From France, joined Jun 2002, 124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4585 times:
I had a look on the airport council website to catch some numbers:
Here are the traffic movements for 2004:
Rank City (Airport) Total Movements
1 CHICAGO, IL (ORD) 992 427
2 ATLANTA, GA (ATL) 964 858
3 DALLAS/FT WORTH AIRPORT, TX (DFW) 801 941
4 LOS ANGELES, CA (LAX) 654 677
5 DENVER, CO (DEN) 558 609
6 PHOENIX, AZ (PHX) 546 763
7 LAS VEGAS, NV (LAS) 544 679
8 MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL, MN (MSP) 540 645
9 PARIS, FR (CDG) 534 561
10 DETROIT, MI (DTW) 519 624
11 CINCINNATI, OH (CVG) 517 520
12 HOUSTON, TX (IAH) 517 197
13 PHILADELPHIA, PA (PHL) 486 164
14 FRANKFURT, DE (FRA) 477 475
15 LONDON, GB (LHR) 475 999
16 WASHINGTON, DC (IAD) 469 634
17 CHARLOTTE, NC (CLT) 468 464
18 LOS ANGELES, CA (VNY) 448 681
19 NEWARK, NJ (EWR) 433 296
20 AMSTERDAM, NL (AMS) 418 611
21 SALT LAKE CITY, UT (SLC) 411 978
22 BOSTON, MA (BOS) 405 263
23 TORONTO, ON, CA (YYZ) 403 424
24 MADRID, ES (MAD) 401 514
25 MIAMI, FL (MIA) 400 864
26 NEW YORK, NY (LGA) 395 198
27 MEMPHIS, TN (MEM) 387 968
28 MUNICH, DE (MUC) 383 110
29 SEATTLE/TACOMA, WA (SEA) 357 434
30 SANFORD, FL (SFB) 357 076
You wan clearly see the 1st european airport in terms of movements is Paris but only at the 9th position.
When you look at the passenger rank it's really different:
Rank City (Airport) Total Passengers
1 ATLANTA, GA (ATL) 83 578 906
2 CHICAGO, IL (ORD) 75 534 692
3 LONDON, GB (LHR) 67 343 960
4 TOKYO, JP (HND) 62 320 968
5 LOS ANGELES, CA (LAX) 60 710 830
6 DALLAS/FT WORTH AIRPORT, TX (DFW) 59 412 217
7 PARIS, FR (CDG) 51 260 363
8 FRANKFURT, DE (FRA) 51 098 271
9 AMSTERDAM, NL (AMS) 42 541 180
10 DENVER, CO (DEN) 42 393 693
11 LAS VEGAS, NV (LAS) 41 436 571
12 PHOENIX, AZ (PHX) 39 493 519
13 MADRID, ES (MAD) 38 525 899
14 BANGKOK, TH (BKK) 37 960 169
15 NEW YORK, NY (JFK) 37 362 010
16 MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL, MN (MSP) 36 748 577
17 HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 36 713 000
18 HOUSTON, TX (IAH) 36 490 828
19 DETROIT, MI (DTW) 35 199 307
20 BEIJING, CN (PEK) 34 883 190
21 SAN FRANCISCO, CA (SFO) 33 497 084
22 NEWARK, NJ (EWR) 31 847 280
23 LONDON, GB (LGW) 31 461 523
24 ORLANDO, FL (MCO) 31 110 852
25 TOKYO, JP (NRT) 31 106 264
26 SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 30 353 565
27 MIAMI, FL (MIA) 30 156 727
28 SEATTLE/TACOMA, WA (SEA) 28 703 352
29 TORONTO, ON, CA (YYZ) 28 655 526
30 PHILADELPHIA, PA (PHL) 28 508 510
Biggest European hubs CDG, LHR, FRA and AMS have a lot of international and wide body aircraft traffic, that's why they are not on the top list for aircraft movements.
Another point is that those 4 hubs are all located in the "European Megalopolis" a rhombus shaped 700km (450 miles) east to west and 500km (300 miles) from north to south. I'm not good at geography but seems to be the size of Oregon or Wyoming states...
All of these 4 hubs are "capital financial centers", 2 of them nation capitals, etc... LHR and CDG are also supported by secondary intl airports like ORY for Paris and LGW and LCY for London
I don't know the facts for LGW and LCY but for ORY
movements / year : between 250 000 and 300 000
Pax / year : around 28M
Last point: In Europe a train station can be called a hub!
The Eurostar, Thalys, TGV, ICE, AVE trains are for some destinations a lot faster than planes! Paris - London 2h30, Brussels - Paris 1h15 city center to city center. Plus some airports like CDG, FRA or LYS have high speed train stations in their hurt, thus enabling passengers to connect to a train.
A little answer:
Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 1): I would say no. The traveling public in the USA is substantial. Also the country is fairly big in size and populated and, for the most part, people can afford to fly. US carriers have a larger fleet because they need those planes to move the masses - although the argument can be made we now have too many seats, but let's stick to the topic at hand.
I don't think it's only a matter of travelling public, and if it can "afford" to fly.
UE is one of the richest place on earth and certainly one of the most densified.
It's a matter of where the travelling public is and where it needs to go.
As half of the traffic (all means included) in whole western europe is located here is this small rhombus area.