Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oil Price: Is Hub And Spoke The Answer?  
User currently offlineA320211 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 13 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

Firstly may I say that I am NOT an armchair CEO. As my interest in aviation is high, but my knowledge is low, I am a newly created a.net member who will be contributing little by way of facts but hopefully some questions and opinions.

I have had the misfortune to visit other forums which relate to my profession, and it makes me gasp as to how much utter rubbish is posted by their equivalent of armchair CEOs. I will not fall into that trap, airline professionals!

So, to my question: With the oil price as it is, and assuming that there are still airlines in business in five years time purchasing new aircraft, do you think that Airbus or Boeing will be laughing all the way to the bank? Is the A380 the future, of high density low frequency routes, or will the 787's superior fuel burn mitigate the oil price rises, and allow the status quo to continue?

I have been around a.net long enough to see zillions of A vs B threads, but none to my knowledge with this particular slant. Apologies in advance if I am wrong.

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineKPHXFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 413 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

As long as you have airlines that have as core element of their business model, the point-to-point system, as well as a smart fuel management team, you will not see the point-to-point model disappear. In this instance, I'm referring to WN.

Will WN ever order anything larger than a 737? Not likely.

I think Airbus and Boeing both will have good business growth with their divergent products (just speaking the A380 and the B787) and for different reasons.

I don't think that the 787 will be used as much P2P as it might seem to be. Domestic US, I just don't see the 787 making replacements for the 767s that are flying the transcons (the longest domestic flights outside of Hawaii) and I don't see airlines up-sizing the 757s or A321s that fly transcons or transatlantic to the 787. The 787 will probably find its best mission in the transpacific range as the 767 did with the transatlantic.

As for the A380, I think the application to high-volume long-range Hub & Spoke will be the one of the few missions that it will be truly successful with. High volume short-range domestic service in the Asian and Middle Eastern countries is also another good mission. These missions are what the A380 is made for though...

User currently offlineXtoler From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 970 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

As an armchair CEO/PIC welcome aboard!

If you get anything out of reading these threads, you've learned alot. Like most blogs everything is opinion oriented, but what's great about this site is there are a lot of experienced members here. Don't take everything from this site as gospel, but there is a lot of truth to what members contirbute. With that said...

IMHO, I don't think either manufacturer is laughing to the bank between Airbus and Boeing. On both sides they have a group of engineers who are actually dedicated to their jobs and striving to make a better aircraft. As far as engines go though, the aircraft manufacturer doesn't build the actual engine. Maybe your question should be more pointed to either GE or PW or RR. Then again, I'm no aircraft engineer, but I'm thinking once you get the engines you want, how do you distribute the power, especially two engined aircraft?

Well, A320211, I hope you get better answers than I could give you. Hmm, I didn't really give you an answer as I closed with a question.

EMB145 F/A, F/E, J41 F/A, F/E, because my wife clipped my wings, armchair captain
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 22175 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

Hub and spoke has always been the answer.

What you are really asking is if "spoke-hub-hub-spoke" is the answer or "spoke-hub-spoke + hub-hub-spoke" is the answer.

Is flying people from medium city to hub to medium city less efficient than medium city to hub to hub to medium city if there is enough traffic on any one route to avoid this?

And which airlines around the world can take you all the way spoke-hub-hub-spoke without trading you off to another carrier?

And how much bigger does the hub airport have to be to handle ALL through traffic for the country? How can passengers all land within a small window and all then connect and take off for everwhere within a small window? Do NRT and JFK and LHR and FRA have this extra capacity lying around, A380 or not? Answer, no.

Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
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 System, The End Is Near? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 04:38:43 by IAHFLYER
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
Mulally: Hub-And-Spoke Causes Airport Congestion posted Wed May 26 2004 23:53:41 by AvObserver
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