Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
HUB And Spoke System, The End Is Near?  
User currently offlineIAHFLYER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 320 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9514 times:

With the EU-US open sky system, will we see the end of the hub and spoke system?


Little airports with the big jets are the best!! Floyd
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9499 times:

Not in my life time well at least I do not see AA leaving MIA with a 2.5 billion dollar terminal that will be done after my life time.Just kidding (sort of) the hub and spoke will always be around to some degree.I can remember 7 or 8 years ago on this forum the same subject and we still have them today.

User currently offlinePacifica From Canada, joined May 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9462 times:

Regardless, there are always going to be those small towns across the world that can only support air service to one or two major cities. Simply put, without the hub and spoke system, how would people from these towns travel about? The entire system might not be the most efficient for connecting from ex. Chicago to New York to London, but it definitely is the only option for people travlling from ex. "Small Town USA" to New York to London.

Quite frankly I don't see the Hub and Spoke system dissappearing for a very long time, for this very reason. IMHO, it would leave too many people "hanging out to dry".


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not a chance. While the 73GER could support very small O&D demand between two cities, there will often be more profit in funneling folks into a hub from a spoke and sending them on to more spokes.

User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9413 times:

No, there will always be a need for hubs. But planes like the 787 might eliminate one stop from a three stop trip. Instead of going point-hub-hub-point, you may be able to travel point-hub-point.

Open Skies will not end the hub system, but it's another nail in the coffin of the A380.  tombstone 


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 900 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9391 times:

Many have heralded the end of the hub and spoke system, many have been wrong. Likewise, Open Skies will do nothing to change this. The hub and spoke system will only expand further. HOWEVER, the big difference we shall see is that markets with significant OD will see increased point to point service and you may see more focus city type operations (witness FL's recent weekend only MCO-SAN service which is almost entirely local). However, in the grand scheme of things, hub and spoke will only strength and be enhanced further by greater international hub and spoke presence between Alliance partners.

User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9381 times:

The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

So far we hardly see any point to point flights over the Atlantic. Hub to hub and hub to point dominate.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9351 times:

The combination of open skies and alliances definitely cuts spokes out. Folks in cities like BDL and SEA, for example, can get to Europe non-stop on a US flag carrier (talking about NW here) and get pretty much anywhere in the world with only one stop, but only because of both liberal air traffic rights AND the NW-KL partnership. Both parts of this equation are necessary for the streamlining that liberalization will bring.

This is particularly true because, with the exception of Ireland and London, very little change will result from open skies. If US wanted to start flying WAW-PHL, for example, they could start that within a couple of months. And with respect to Ireland, there's not really sufficient O&D on the US end for a US carrier to start service other than to a hub. Might EI expand a little? Sure, but that's still service to their hub at DUB.

With respect to London, there are certainly possibilities in this country, but ask yourself who would really start new service. Most of the routes being tossed around, things like DEN-LHR, involve a carrier's hub. BA isn't going to start ORD-LGW service for sport, for example (and even so, LGW is a hub for them). I wouldn't look for IND-LHR on NW or anything like that.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9342 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):
No, there will always be a need for hubs. But planes like the 787 might eliminate one stop from a three stop trip. Instead of going point-hub-hub-point, you may be able to travel point-hub-point.

Open Skies will not end the hub system, but it's another nail in the coffin of the A380.



Quoting Danny (Reply 6):
The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

So far we hardly see any point to point flights over the Atlantic. Hub to hub and hub to point dominate.

Well, one could argue that a mix will work... personally, from a network perspective, AA or WN has a nice stance compared to the rest of the carriers (not to say that it's better but more diverse), I would argue that as traffic increases we will see more point to point flying (being cheaper) provided revenue justifies it, but we will still continue to see some hubs due to small markets which can't sustain it... honestly, I like AA"s Approach with few hubs, and multiple focus cities.. focusing on O/D traffic has allowed them to keep capacity there for the locals and cut down on Conx given that atleast one hub (ORD) is prone to delays...



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4674 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9285 times:

There will always be a need for hubs, just not as many.

Right now we have Hubs and focus cities, i feel that we will move to something like this:

Primary Hubs... airports with the appropriate infrastrure to support it, ATL, DFW, DEN, ORD, IAH

Secondary hubs, places like PHX, PHL, SLC, CVG, JFK, MSP,

Primary Focus or gateway cities, places like CLE, MKE, CVG, MCO, LAX, MIA

Secondary focus, places like BOS, FLL, SEA

Obviously in this system the focus city is much larger than todays idea of a focus city, the focus city today as we see it such as DL @ CMH, is more fo the shift to point to point rather than a "true focus"

Examples:

Delta
Primary - ATL
Secondary - JFK SLC
Primary Focus CVG, LAX
Secondary Focus BOS

American
Primary - DFW
Secondary - ORD...(MIA if they add more cities/network, tough from the location)
Primary Focus STL JFK MIA LAX
Secondary Focus RDU



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9208 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9259 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 6):
The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

I think this too.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 9):
Primary Focus or gateway cities, places like CLE, MKE, CVG, MCO, LAX, MIA

Would PIT fit into this category with 150-160 daily flights for US, or would it be more of a secondary focus city?

How about CLT or LAS? Where would such airports fit this?

All the same, I think this is an interesting way of putting it, describing what the future of air travel may come to. To me it makes sense...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineMatt1167 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9258 times:

And, we have to remember that even airlines which use point-to-point route systems, like WN, still have some "form" of a hub and spoke system, although on a domestic level.

Think of WN at MDW, LAS, MCI, etc .. it's pretty likely that one would have to transfer at one of these airports for a cross country flight, despite WN's overall point-to-point nature.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4674 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9228 times:

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 10):
Would PIT fit into this category with 150-160 daily flights for US, or would it be more of a secondary focus city?

How about CLT or LAS? Where would such airports fit this?

Id say Primary focus for LAS, secondary for PIT

If CLT can get a 3rd parallel they can be a primary hub, but thei O&D sucks, so maybe only a secondary level hub.

The airports with the proper facilities today (3 simultaneous ILS approaches) will be the key hubs of tommorrow
ATL, DFW, DEN, IAH, ORD (post modermization)

Some current hubs shouldnt be hubs because they lack the airside infrastructure, but the O&D is just so good the airlines get sucked in:
EWR and PHL



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9218 times:

Quoting IAHFLYER (Thread starter):
With the EU-US open sky system, will we see the end of the hub and spoke system?

It will increase fragmentation which will drive the widebodies smaller and the narrowbodies bigger, but it won't kill hub and spoke. You will see Hub to Hub replaced with Hub to Point (so instead of 2x777 daily to ORD from LHR being fed by 5 737s into LHR, you instead will see 2x787 to ORD, 1x787 to DEN, being fed by 4 737s into LHR) . You will see the expansion and/or fragmentation of alliances which will try to work in the 4 major LCC carriers (WN, B6, FL, F9) and capitalize off of smaller hubs in addition to the old mega hubs.

You will also see more competition on the mega routes. B6 sooner or later will have a LHR or LGW service out of LGA. There will be more international at the second largest hub in each system (with the probably exception of DL). DEN, PIT, IAH will all see more international service that will leach traffic out of ORD, CLT and EWR.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9208 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9170 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 13):
DEN, PIT, IAH will all see more international service that will leach traffic out of ORD, CLT and EWR.

This will be decent. How will IAH see more international traffic leach out of ORD CLT or EWR, or are you referring to different airlines' respective hubs, like PIT with CLT for US, DEN with ORD for UA, and IAH with EWR for CO? What about CLE with EWR?

Come to think of it, I guess you are referring to three airlines' respective hubs the way you worded that statement  Smile



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineCV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9111 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 12):
If CLT can get a 3rd parallel they can be a primary hub, but thei O&D sucks, so maybe only a secondary level hub.

CLT 3rd Parallel construction now starting, O&D previously sucked due to locals running to RDU/GSO for lower fares.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9082 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 9):
There will always be a need for hubs, just not as many.

Not sure I agree with this. As markets grow, so to is hub capacity diminished which will probably drive new hubs.


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9065 times:

Quoting IAHFLYER (Thread starter):
With the EU-US open sky system, will we see the end of the hub and spoke system?

certainly not... keep in mind, if you want to have point to point connections ONLY you would have to connect EVERY airport in Europe to EVERY airport in the US.... now that's quite unrealistic, isn't it?



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8994 times:

Focus city is just another word for a small-scale hub... no difference in its basic functions. Give passenger the opportunity to connect from A to B. Thus most carriers have a far more extensive hub-and-spoke system than advertized.


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8907 times:

I think you will see "mega" hubs slowly dissolve as traffic moves more and more from starting where people are and ending where they want to go, with little to no stops between.

There is just far too many smaller and medium sized airports that can support becoming "mini-hubs" if needed so that you can get from anywhere major to anywhere major in only 1 stop each way. Even more so with aircraft like the 787 where the trip costs are low enough that you can dump 1/2 the plane after a transatlantic at one airport, then carry the other 1/2 to another airport and make your money no question.

Basicly I'm thinking over time more and more airlines will route more and more like WN does if for no other reason than some airports will be unable/unwilling to support new or smaller airlines for reasons from political (DFW), capacity (LHR), or whatever. So if you are late to the party that is transatlantic flights, you don't have a choice but to avoid the large airports and service other airports, even for "hubbing". Then as these new flights move passengers from the major hubs to the secondary airports the traffic flow to the major hubs diminished, thus over time the major hub gets reduced in overall size compared to the other airports... thus a Mega-hub over time is no longer a mega hub.


User currently offlineJasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8874 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 6):
The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

Absolutely spot on Danny, a network is a network and can encapsulate both models happily from a variety of perspectives especially the market orientated one, in fact one could not exist without the other, they are not mutually exclusive.


User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8656 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 18):
Focus city is just another word for a small-scale hub

Not necessarily.

Many have called PIT a focus city for US. In fact, it still functions as a hub, the main idea there is service to local and regional markets with connections to larger markets farther away (as opposed to large-scale transcontinental operations - that's what PHL, CLT, and PHX are for). Same with AA at STL, with major connecting hubs at ORD and DFW.

In contrast, AA, DL, and US each have sizeable operations at LGA sometimes called a small hub. In fact, LGA has very little connecting traffic, and most flights there are full just from O+D traffic.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8615 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 6):
The major misconception of this forum is putting point to point against hub and spoke as alternatives. With traffic tripling over next 20 year we will basically need both.

The misconception is even greater : Hub and spoke and point to point can't be compared.
-Point to point is from a passenger perspective.
-Hub & Spoke is from an operational perspective.

For example, most of the point to point traffic is actually carried between cities with hubs (like Paris-New york).

[Edited 2007-03-29 15:21:24]


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4674 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8554 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16):
Not sure I agree with this. As markets grow, so to is hub capacity diminished which will probably drive new hubs.

Not sure that it would drive new HUBS (the way we see them today) but this could likely drive more focus city ops like what we see at places like PIT and RDU.

Places like CMH IND PDX SMF SAT and AUS could all see ehanced growth as hub capacity is diminished, but i dont see them becomming all-out hubs.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8510 times:

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 10):

How about CLT or LAS? Where would such airports fit this?

At 550 daily flights, CLT is certainly a large hub.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 InnocuousFox : I can't see how the two are that related. 80% of the locations in the US aren't going to support direct flights to anywhere to the EU, are they? They
26 Steeler83 : That was my thinking. Somebody said that above that PIT would be a secondary hub, but I am not sure about that. It is US' fourth largest station, beh
27 RL757PVD : Those primary/secondary hub and primary secondary focus cities were terms that i myself made up and arent exactly parallel to what we call them today,
28 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Technically incorrect, though functionally realistic. A hub is a location where banks of flights are specifically timed for connecting to each other.
29 Aither : Airbus in their forecast publication have a route development chapter. They seem to use a list of 32 big hub cities.
30 Aircellist : Funny that, by this runway definition, LHR would be a primary focus city, as well as YUL...
31 SSRJ : Ohhh Man. My brain almost exploded when I saw this topic. The hub and spoke system is the best and greatest and most efficient system of air service p
32 Post contains images ORDagent : Any reason to trash the 380! Regardless if you call LHR/ORD/LAX/FRA/CDG hubs or not they only have so much space and slots and as has been stated ad
33 HighFlyer9790 : Dont forget BOS- its one of AA's current domicililes and has a large operation out of there.
34 DesertAir : I like the rolling hub that AA has initiated in which flights arrive and depart for various destinations instead of the bank system. I hope I understa
35 Post contains images Swissy : Hub & spoke was developed because of .......... lessons learned from the aviation "history", if you look at the "predicted growing rates of pax in the
36 Jbernie : When i was growing up in Australia I didn't understand the hub & spoke system here in the USA, now that I have been living here for about 8 years and
37 Scouse : if I look at my travel requirements over the last 5 years I need hub and spoke. I am lucky as I live close to a hub (MSP) but I have travelled over th
38 Post contains images Steeler83 : Amen!!! and how about if I wanted to fly from LNS or MDT to LAX... um... the last time I checked, a turboprop cannot fly 2600 miles, but a flight to
39 DiscoverCSG : More like an ERJ-145XXXXR.
40 Burkhard : We are just at the beginning of a huge concentration process. Number of airlines will reduce to half or a third within a few years, and less airports
41 Post contains links and images InnocuousFox : On this note, there is a poll on our site asking about your preferences. This isn't necessarily which is the "best", but which one you like (for whate
42 Bmacleod : Smaller towns and cities just don't have the market or airport infrastructure needed to fly to Europe or Asia the hub/spoke systems will likely stay f
43 RDUDDJI : So if we use that rationale, DEN is the only primary hub! (or does ATL qualify now w/ 10/28?).
44 Post contains images Steeler83 : Anyone for US opening a hub at COS? So what does this mean then, for airports like LAX, ORD, PHL, and JFK, particularly JFK and PHL, airports that al
45 RL757PVD : Actually there are a handful of capable (3x simultaneous ILS approaches) airports now ATL DEN MCO DFW IAH i think CVG and eventually ORD, and maybe I
46 LAXdude1023 : AMEN TO THAT!!!! Quite frankly the Aviation system cannot survive without the hub and spoke. The thing I dont understand about this post is why some
47 Steeler83 : I think PIT would be another good example of point2point flying, but that has been argued to death...
48 Steeler83 : I think PIT would be another good example of point2point flying, but that has been argued to death...
49 Post contains images LAXdude1023 : Youre right, it would be.
50 InnocuousFox : ORD: 4R + 9R + 14L
51 Keesje : 80 % of all long haul travel is between the top 25 hubs. Lets assume this goes to 65% is the next 20 years. Airtraffic is supposed to tripple in that
52 RDUDDJI : IAD cannot utilize triple simult APCHs. 30's MAP would intersect 19R's I don't believe that's an "all weather" capability though (i.e. they can't be
53 Steeler83 : Does PIT fall into this category, as well as DTW, MCO, LAX, etc? I know it's mostly an O&D point to point market...
54 RDUDDJI : Correcting myself, I meant that IAD cannot use 12 and 19R in IFR due MAP intersection. Actually what I said is almost true, but it isn't what I meant
55 Steeler83 : That's almost a mile of space between them... That is crazy!! But I suppose it is necessary...
56 Luketenley : There's not enough space between parellels at PIT? I thought there was a mile or so between 28R/10L and 28C/ 10C??
57 Steeler83 : I am still finding it hard to believe myself. PIT was designed to handle something along the lines of ATL; the runways can handle any kind of aircraf
58 Post contains links InnocuousFox : Looks like PIT has at least 4000' between the outside pair.
59 Steeler83 : So then I guess this confirms that PIT has the capabilities/facilities to function as a primary hub, but it lacks the pax market to support some 1,20
60 InnocuousFox : These flight count numbers and rules are completely arbitrary and therefore useless. It's all a matter of the function that is being served for an ai
61 RL757PVD : Partially true...i clearly stated that those were terms and benchmarks i developed myself after working on several statewide airport system plans and
62 InnocuousFox : Again, you have some undefined premises about 1) the size of the airline in question and 2) the resultant requirements definition of a "primary hub".
63 RL757PVD : I said this is not from the airline perspective, this is looking at the airport as a whole, in terms of total output and capacity. The current criter
64 EXAAUADL : How pray tell is a PAX suppose to get from PIA where CAT is HDQ to their plants/facilites in Europe without hte hub spoke system
65 JayinKitsap : WN appears to be using multiple rolling hubs in the US, with their hubs (or focus cities) being airports where there is a good amount of O&D traffice.
66 InnocuousFox : This illustrates the importance of hub positioning. NW, for example, can't connect from the west to the south as well since they have to go through ei
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...
The End Is Near For Air France's B743 ... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 22:15:38 by FlySSC
The End Is Near For The 717 posted Sun Mar 5 2006 19:13:26 by Bruce
First Air 727-100s...The End Is Near posted Mon Oct 31 2005 17:17:18 by Yow
Olympic- The End Is Near? posted Fri Jul 22 2005 19:44:19 by Beaucaire
Independence Air-the End Is Near? posted Sat Apr 16 2005 02:59:32 by IADPax
757---The End Is Near posted Fri Oct 22 2004 01:36:08 by Isitsafenow
Boeing 757 Production Line: The End Is Near. posted Mon May 3 2004 23:47:11 by American 767
Who Started "Hub And Spoke" System posted Thu Jun 9 2005 04:06:26 by Toksans
Hub And Spoke Versus Point To Point posted Tue Sep 12 2006 17:39:36 by Ikarus2006
Ryanair 737-200s - The End Is Nigh! posted Fri Dec 9 2005 19:46:12 by Irish251