Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If You Build It, Will They Come?  
User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

The Ryanair / Southwest effect applied to airports? They say you should not serve a city unless there is demand. But what if you could "create" demand by building a world class airport in a good location with good connections? Would it work? Is there an Emirates / Dubai effect?

HKG, DXB & SIN are a few examples of where airports play a critical role in the economy. They rank 3rd, 5th & 7th worldwide in terms of international passenger traffic. Their 3 airlines CX, EK & SQ are considered among the best in the industry. Their GDP per capita is also among the highest in the world. Of course it helps to have a nice harbour, a good location & a business minded government. But assuming that a place has that, could an airport be the catalyst for major economic growth in the region?

Take DXB. I remember as a child landing at DXB in 1987. There were maybe a few international carriers there. I got a free promotional magazine which outlined the start of an airline in the Emirate. You could probably play football inside the terminal building it was so empty. When I returned to DXB in 2010, it was completely different. While of course the oil helped to establish DXB & EK, today revenue from oil is less than 6% of Dubai's economy overall. Oil has little to do with the success of HKG & SIN. My question is can this be repeated elsewhere?

Take the islands in the Atlantic or Pacific. We have places that are temperate, located centrally & are natural harbours. Many of the islands like Hawaii & the Canaries already attract lots of tourism. If their governments were to get on board, could we see places like these turn into business hubs in the future as well? Or have these places missed their opportunity due to the arrival of ultra long range aircraft? In other words if they started this program in the 1950s or 1960s when stopovers were inevitable, would they be economic centers today? Is there still a chance for islands like these or other centers to use an airport to attract business to the city?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6399 times:

One thing that helps DBX, SIN and HKG is that they all have very low corporate and banking taxes, limited regulations and were long major trading ports going back to ship days. They also have a lot of money to invest in airlines and airports, they don't need to borrow money so can get their investments back more quickly. They are also long-term in their investments unlike many other countries/cities. They, along with many already existing such corporate, insurance, financial and banking domicals which offer access to sound laws and respected courts like Switzerland with their banking and corporate secrety policies, Bermuda, BVI and other UK territories and Commonwealth island-states, already makes it difficult for any new domicle states to be created.

Add in the costs to develop any new such business states. You have to create sufficient infrastructure from phone lines, satallite capacity, roads, buildings as well as the needs for the staffing at all levels of such from stores, to housing, construction and maintence, it can cost more than you can make or cannot be done with borrowing monies. Just building an airport is not enough, but it must be part of a much larger plan.


User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6338 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1):
Just building an airport is not enough, but it must be part of a much larger plan.

Agreed. Of course I wasn't suggesting that an airport would be the only part of the plan but I think more & more governments see the importance of having a world-class gateway to complement any plan for growth. What I was wondering is the viability of Hawaii, Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores or even Mauritius & Seychelles as potential business destinations a generation from now.

Could we be talking about Air Mauritius or Air Seychelles the way we are now talking about EK? It sounds ridiculous now but consider how ridiculous EK would have sounded in 1985. Of course this assumes that their respective governments adopt similar policies.

Also, if not an island, what about remote locations (remote in the sense of underserved air traffic)? Say an airport in West Africa. Considering there is little competition around them. What if LOS or ACC decides it will be the hub for the region & somehow manages to build a top airport, would airlines fly there with the intention of serving the greater region? Think about it, Africa is only really served on the North coast & in South Africa. There are good airports in NBO & ADD but that's it. All of West Africa with a rising middle class has very poor connections.


User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6195 times:

Also consider geographic location relative to massive populations. HKG/SIN are perfectly located to capitalize on the Asia growth, and DXB is in a great spot to capitalize on Europe to India/Asia traffic.


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2130 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6123 times:

Agree with all that has been said above, especially the attractiveness of these places to corporations wanting to set up there.

However, don't forget that Singapore and Hong Kong (and I believe the UAE too, but I am not too familiar with Middle Eastern history) have been very successful trading posts for many centuries, thanks to the British, Portuguese, and Dutch.

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: SQ SYD-SIN-DEL-SIN-SYD | VA SYD-DPS-SYD
User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 3):
Also consider geographic location relative to massive populations. HKG/SIN are perfectly located to capitalize on the Asia growth, and DXB is in a great spot to capitalize on Europe to India/Asia traffic.

Agreed. This is why I think LOS or ACC has potential. LOS is around 2000 nm from both Lisbon & Lusaka. It is only 364 nm from SSG. There is a very large population within 2000 nm of LOS / ACC. I think as Africa grows economically, this could be more viable as an O&D destination for economy & business traffic.

Another value is the connector hub. The Canaries / Madeira are within short range of Europe & North Africa. Not only could they market to tourists in Europe but they could market connections from Asia to North America. Icelandair / Finnair are starting to promote their hubs as connection hubs. This strategy could also work for the Canaries / Madeira. As hubs in Europe become slot restricted & crowded, I think it can offer a good alternative.


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5905 times:

People want to get from A to B. Airports like HKG, SIN and DXB are hubs for the Europe-Asian/Australian route. Single carriers operating into the destinations have difficulties in filling up the aircraft, for example to generate a route between a major European city and a major Asian city. EK for example picks up a B773-load of people in Hamburg, carries them to Dubai and then ships them elsewhere. On the other hand, Hamburg never managed to generate enough traffic for a direct route to any other major city outside Europe (except for the small connection to New Jersey).

Aircraft are also more efficient and robust when not operated on the limit of their range. The EK-concept utilizes the aircraft mostly at the point of maximum payload. The Hamburg-Dubai route for example is operated by B777-300(ER), which is able to go full passenger and cargo on this route. The distance is ~3000nm (2640 great circle, but you always have some detours), which allows max payload and good cruise altitude. DXB has >60% of the world population within 4000nm.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Thanks for your reply! I found it quite insightful. I did not know that EK mostly operated max payload routes.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 6):
People want to get from A to B.
Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 6):
EK for example picks up a B773-load of people in Hamburg, carries them to Dubai and then ships them elsewhere.

That is true for many (especially business travellers) but there are also many like myself who actually prefer a stop to a 12+ hour journey on an aircraft. As long as the connection is smooth (FRA was the best by far with BRU second). Plus having a stop with 5th freedom traffic rights allows an airline to serve routes like HAM that they otherwise could not do on O&D. Your HAM-DXB example illustrates the power of having a connecting hub. AY & FI are using this concept in HEL & KEF. My question is why could this not work in say FNC or for that matter LIS? What if TP wishes to market LIS into a connecting hub, why could it not work?

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 6):
DXB has >60% of the world population within 4000nm.

I do not doubt that there are inherent advantages with DXB / EK. I thank you for highlighting them. That is exactly what I'm looking for! Basically what are the reasons these places are successful? The FR/WN model is fairly obvious. The EK/AY/FI model is less obvious but still successful. I want to dig deeper  


User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5783 times:

Also isnt DXB privately owned? In the US most of our airports are government controlled/operated and that can really mess with the expansion opportunities. Also the amount of government taxes on airlines in the US can really take a bite out of profits (Europe as well, see Carbon Emissions Scheme). Throw in the fact that unions are outlawed in the Emirates and you have a winning combo for unlimited expansion and investments in the airline industry.


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

Very interesting thread and especially interesting and thoughtful posts. I think it is also a subject to guard not going overboard on (I say that on it's own, and in no way regarding any posts whatsoever)....in the sense that, whilst seemingly important, I have never seen any real evidence on an economy expliticly reliant on/needing a state-of-the-art gateway airport. One perfect example, IMO, of this is LHR......how many stories do we hear here on seemingly so much of the worlds population detesting it, and avoiding it 'where possible'? Yet, LHR still remains the world's premier airport, nor does is economy of the United Kingdom (in growth or whatever form you wish to state) certainly in any way reliant on the functions of LHR. There are many reasons indeed for building new airports, very varied reasons, but the growth/economy of a country is certainly not any priority. Irrespective of a lot of the blather you here on here, if someone wants/needs to travel to a destination they will do so and, in actuality, the arrival airport plays very little in that decision and equally applies whether that visit be for business, pleasure or both.

User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 8):
Also isnt DXB privately owned?

I guess it depends on your point of view. DXB is owned by Dubai Airports. There are some in the west who feel that because Dubai Airports is chaired by HH Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al Maktoum (also the chairman of EK) that it is therefore a property of the Emirati Royal Family. This is not entirely accurate & does disservice to the complex manner in which organizations are structured in many other countries. Sheikh Ahmed is no doubt an integral part of both organizations but he is more of the government's overseer of these 2 private enterprises, actually run by Tim Clark (EK) & Paul Griffiths (Dubai Airports). Sheikh Ahmed is the national face of these & other enterprises like Dubai World.

Having been to Dubai I can tell you that free market is what operates here, much more so than in the west. It seems like everything is paid for by the government because in other Gulf states it is like that. The reality in Dubai is that it's more that everything comes with a price. Look at the vastly different responses to the financial crisis that hit both. Many US banks were bailed out by the government directly. It is only because Dubai World owed the Dubai government money that the loan was converted to equity. That also only covered a portion of the debt. Dubai World was expected to restructure the rest on it's own. Several smaller financial institutions in Dubai failed.

The government is an investor / shareholder in Dubai like anyone else. You can succeed or fail but they won't help you. It is a very basic brand of capitalism here. When EK was founded, the Dubai government set up a loan for aircraft but refused to grant EK any favourable status. This continues today. Any airline around the world is allowed to land in DXB & have 5th freedom rights. This is rarely found elsewhere. People believe that EK does not pay market price for jet fuel but if they want to point out an advantage for EK it's not that. Rather as flyby519 identified accurately it is that they don't have to pay regulatory fees, they don't have to wait for authorization & they don't have to pay union wages. Like I said it is capitalism or bust in Dubai.


User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5622 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
One perfect example, IMO, of this is LHR......how many stories do we hear here on seemingly so much of the worlds population detesting it, and avoiding it 'where possible'? Yet, LHR still remains the world's premier airport, nor does is economy of the United Kingdom (in growth or whatever form you wish to state) certainly in any way reliant on the functions of LHR.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
There are many reasons indeed for building new airports, very varied reasons, but the growth/economy of a country is certainly not any priority

First of all I was one of the 12 people who had no problem with LHR! :p
I've used T3, T4 & T5 in the past few years & I thought it was alright. The only complaint was the slow security checks but other than that the experience was fine. Secondly I need to clarify that I did not suggest the airport was enough, it is part of the package that includes a business hungry government, an airline with the capability & desire to offer a connecting hub & the right location. What I'm saying is that taking the example of DXB, can this not be repeated elsewhere? If yes or no, then why yes or why no? Why can't SEZ be the connector between South America & Africa to the Far East for example? Let's say tomorrow Seychelles decided to follow the example of Dubai. Could it work? Will Iceland's experiment work to market KEF as the connector between North America & Europe? Can AY pull off HEL as the connector between North America & Asia? Why or why not? This is what I want to know  


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5367 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 11):
Secondly I need to clarify that I did not suggest the airport was enough, it is part of the package that includes a business hungry government, an airline with the capability & desire to offer a connecting hub & the right location

No no, I wasn't suggesting you did. In fact I clearly stated that it was a very interesting topic with very interesting posts, and none of which where in any way reflected in my post. I was just pointing out, like you clarified there, that there is much more to be considered than just an airport. I'm not disagreeing with you at all.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 7):
there are also many like myself who actually prefer a stop to a 12 hour journey on an aircraft.

In my opinion, that should read "very few", not "many". Air travel has become such a hassle that most people want to reach their destination as quickly and directly as possible. Every additional stop and connection increases the chance of delays, lost baggage, plus additional security hassles. And even the fastest connection normally adds at least 2 to 3 hours to the elapsed time for a longhaul trip.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 7):
Plus having a stop with 5th freedom traffic rights allows an airline to serve routes like HAM that they otherwise could not do on O&D. Your HAM-DXB example illustrates the power of having a connecting hub. AY & FI are using this concept in HEL & KEF.

None of those services involve 5th freedom traffic. Selling connecting traffic via your own hub is 6th freedom, which is rarely regulated in bilaterals. You can normally do that automatically. You're just combining your 3rd and 4th freedom rights to/from your own country.

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 8):
Also isnt DXB privately owned?

It's 100% government owned.


User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 12):
No no, I wasn't suggesting you did. In fact I clearly stated that it was a very interesting topic with very interesting posts, and none of which where in any way reflected in my post. I was just pointing out, like you clarified there, that there is much more to be considered than just an airport. I'm not disagreeing with you at all.

Just wanted to clarify my position AirNZ  
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
Air travel has become such a hassle that most people want to reach their destination as quickly and directly as possible. Every additional stop and connection increases the chance of delays, lost baggage, plus additional security hassles. And even the fastest connection normally adds at least 2 to 3 hours to the elapsed time for a longhaul trip.

This is true in general that air travel has become a hassle. But please keep in mind that most of the people that I have spoken to are VFR traffic going from North America to Asia. They prefer one stop to nonstop 12+ hours because for them it is not a frequent journey. They like the chance to stretch their legs, buy some duty free & refresh before the onward journey to their final destinations. Flights under 12 hours are bearable & should be nonstop!

For Canadians it is easy to go out & about in the cities of Europe without a visa during the stopover, so it's a mini-trip unto itself. Our bags are transferred on to our connecting flight so we don't have to worry about picking them up at the stop. This has allowed me to see London & Frankfurt on multiple occasions & to be honest it was a great experience!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
None of those services involve 5th freedom traffic. Selling connecting traffic via your own hub is 6th freedom, which is rarely regulated in bilaterals. You can normally do that automatically. You're just combining your 3rd and 4th freedom rights to/from your own country.

I was not able to edit the post past the 60 minute mark, I knew this was wrong after I read it later. I know that HAM-DXB & DXB-Elsewhere is 6th freedom. What I meant to also include was the 9W scissor hub operation in BRU whereby they can board pax on for EWR & JFK. Those 2 examples (EK & 9W) are what I think are the best ways to expand the network worldwide without adding overcapacity because you can use smaller aircraft & serve markets like HAM which normally would not have service as mentioned earlier by SchorschNG.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
It's 100% government owned.

As I mentioned in detail it depends on your point of view. By western standards, the government owns it. By their standards the government is one of many private shareholders. As HSBC says "Different people, different views".

But AirNZ, Viscount724, SchorschNG et al. The question is what cities can duplicate the success of DXB / EK in the future? Will there be any more successful scissor hubs like 9W in BRU? These are the questions I humbly ask. Thanks so much for your insights!

[Edited 2011-06-18 22:09:53]

User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
nor does is economy of the United Kingdom (in growth or whatever form you wish to state) certainly in any way reliant on the functions of LHR.

I think the British Chamber Of Commerce would disagree. According to them a third runway alone at LHR for example would add £30B annually to the UK economy.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
There are many reasons indeed for building new airports, very varied reasons, but the growth/economy of a country is certainly not any priority. Irrespective of a lot of the blather you here on here, if someone wants/needs to travel to a destination they will do so and, in actuality, the arrival airport plays very little in that decision and equally applies whether that visit be for business, pleasure or both.

Well some might argue that people that live in a country with a poor economy wouldn't be able to afford or need air travel en masse anyway. I think the economy and air travel are ''inextricably'' linked.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
Irrespective of a lot of the blather you here on here, if someone wants/needs to travel to a destination they will do so

Not if they cannot afford it they won't !!



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinesignol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 3024 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 4518 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter):
The Ryanair / Southwest effect applied to airports? They say you should not serve a city unless there is demand. But what if you could "create" demand by building a world class airport in a good location with good connections? Would it work?

Not necessarily. Look at Ciudad Real in Speain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Real_Central_Airport

Brand new airport built from scratch, and there is one airline serving 2 destinations (Vueling to BCN and CDG - each only twice per week). They did have a 3x week Ryanair service, but even that has stopped.

signol

[Edited 2011-06-19 03:24:33]


Flights booked: none :(
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 4482 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 14):
The question is what cities can duplicate the success of DXB / EK in the future?

Nobody can answer that because the world is a constantly changing economical and physical environment. At the moment the world simply isn't big enough for another airline similar in size and strategy to a fully grown EK.

Heaven only knows what the result of the economic turmoil in Europe will be.

Look what's just happened in Japan.

What impact would a similar quake have on the U.S west coast ? God forbid.

What will be the result of the unrest in the middle east ?

How long is a piece of string ?



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinerobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 4333 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 14):
The question is what cities can duplicate the success of DXB / EK in the future?

Maybe TK / IST?


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 4324 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):
I think the British Chamber Of Commerce would disagree. According to them a third runway alone at LHR for example would add £30B annually to the UK economy.

Once again, you really do need to get your facts correct. According to them a 3rd runway might add £30B to the economy.......my argument was that the United Kingdom does not revolve around, or is in any way exclusively reliant, on LHR. That is a different thing entirely to what you are 'commenting' on. Furthermore, the economy of the United Kingdom is substantially more than £30B (or don't you realise that and merely head turned by 'big' figures). So, if you think otherwise, please provide us with us with evidence/figures to clearly show the entire GNP of the United Kingdom flows through LHR, and I'll be more than happy to see that evidence from you.


Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):
Well some might argue that people that live in a country with a poor economy wouldn't be able to afford or need air travel en masse anyway. I think the economy and air travel are ''inextricably'' linked.

Okay, and your point with that in relation to thread is....what exactly? By the way, if "inextricably linked" how did the world economy function before the advent of commercial air travel, and which really only came to pass in the last 4 or 5 decades? A country's/world economy is produced by the movement/supply/demand of commerce.....please tell me what commerce can only be obtained by air travel and by no other means?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):
Not if they cannot afford it they won't !!

Hmmm, sorry, but once again, your comment is in relation to what regarding the thread???? With the topic of this quite interesting thread I would have thought that it was naturally safe to assume that we were discussing passengers travelling to various destinations/airports as opposed to choosing others, thereby naturally assuming that the said passengers could somehow afford to travel in the first place. Am I somehow wrong in this assumption? However, if you are now implanting people who perhaps can't afford to travel from say London to Brighton......why then are we discussing the building of airports/hubs at various places around the world? Indeed, being extremely curious, may I ask why you chose to only quote one part of my sentence in order to make, in my opinion, a rather irrelevant comment? I mean, the entire sentence was quite self-evident but if perhaps there was something in it you didn't quite understand, please advise and I'll gladly re-phrase it.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
In my opinion, that should read "very few", not "many". Air travel has become such a hassle that most people want to reach their destination as quickly and directly as possible. Every additional stop and connection increases the chance of delays, lost baggage, plus additional security hassles. And even the fastest connection normally adds at least 2 to 3 hours to the elapsed time for a longhaul trip.

Have to completely disagree and say that the OP was correct in saying "many"......indeed, I'll go further and say the vast majority. Too many on a.net seem to forget/ignore that the vast maojrity of air passengers have no need to reach their destination in a matter of mere hours and, by their choice, wish to stop on a long journey. One must acknowledge that it's largely only here on a.net that it is 'assumed' that everyone travels on 'business' and pretends the importance of time. Reality is most certainly not that whatsoever.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 14):
But AirNZ, Viscount724, SchorschNG et al. The question is what cities can duplicate the success of DXB / EK in the future? Will there be any more successful scissor hubs like 9W in BRU? These are the questions I humbly ask. Thanks so much for your insights!

Yes, your questions are very valid and, as I have previously said, I find them extremely interesting. However, to 'duplicate the success' of DXB/EK is going to be rather difficult as written and, by duplication, I assume you mean from here on. Essentially, the world's major hubs have been established for a considerable time because of strategic geographical position. DXB is relatively new because the govt of UAE built a purposeful infrastructure to ensure Dubai was more than just a transfer airport......it is correctly a very huge destination in it's own right (too many here wrongly see it only as only a transfer airport). Prior to the 1990's the Middle East stops to India/Far East were Beirut, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Cairo, Oman etc but these were essentially only fuel stops. DXB changed that concept entirely. Whilst 9W has successfully built a base in Brussels, it's not really a true hub, and which I honestly really can't see any more developing due to lack of real opportunity.......where are they going to be where none is already in place? However, if given a choice, I could perhaps see the real possibility of Milan or Rome.


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1308 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter):
Take the islands in the Atlantic or Pacific. We have places that are temperate, located centrally & are natural harbours. Many of the islands like Hawaii & the Canaries already attract lots of tourism. If their governments were to get on board, could we see places like these turn into business hubs in the future as well?

I don't think so. What would they connect? If you look at the current middle east and asia hubs the form the connection between Europe and Australia. What would you connect with these Islands?



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):
Essentially, the world's major hubs have been established for a considerable time because of strategic geographical position. DXB is relatively new because the govt of UAE built a purposeful infrastructure to ensure Dubai was more than just a transfer airport......it is correctly a very huge destination in it's own right (too many here wrongly see it only as only a transfer airport).

A key point in this entire discussion, one either creates the business or one takes advantage of a business oppertunity. After 9/11 a huge option existed for travel around the Caribbean and Central America to bypass the USA, JM actually tried but as can now be seen, the other forces required to make it work actually worked against them.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 14):
The question is what cities can duplicate the success of DXB / EK in the future?

I would start by looking at a map of the world, identifying the region when a nation exist under or close to the flight path of a popular long haul route.
Some folk will always elect to take a stop versus an 8 - 9 hour flight if the stop adds benefit, this applies to the busines travellers - business options - leisure pax - more sites to see, visit and shop, its an uphill battle but it can be done. In relation to Dubai, ask yourself this question, how did the oil revenue initially assist in creating the mecca that exist today, they recognized that oil would not last forever and embarked on a second revenue stream, other world hubs were created by being in the right place like stop over points where fuel was required. Anchorage used to be a bustling airport for pax traffic, now they see mainly cargo.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 21):
A key point in this entire discussion, one either creates the business or one takes advantage of a business oppertunity. After 9/11 a huge option existed for travel around the Caribbean and Central America to bypass the USA, JM actually tried but as can now be seen, the other forces required to make it work actually worked against them.

Absolutely, and agree entirely. Because of this aspect is why I said I can't realistically see any substantial movement in establishing hubs which aren't already in place.

Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter):
Take the islands in the Atlantic or Pacific. We have places that are temperate, located centrally & are natural harbours. Many of the islands like Hawaii & the Canaries already attract lots of tourism

I really don't see how, or why. The two examples you quote are essentially leisure/O&D destinations......what incentive would there be, or for what reason, would they be converted into business-type hubs. Whilst I find your questions very interesting I am, however, somewhat losing sight of what exactly you mean by hubs. A hub is an entity for the 'alleged' efficient movement of aircraft/passengers......it is not the exclusive domain of any 'business' orientation, unless you mean business as in the business model of the airline.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):
Once again, you really do need to get your facts correct. According to them a 3rd runway might add £30B to the economy.......my argument was that the United Kingdom does not revolve around, or is in any way exclusively reliant, on LHR. That is a different thing entirely to what you are 'commenting' on.

You're not really making much of a point at all then are you ? Of course it isn't exlusively reliant but LHR is one of several very importants cogs that together keep the economy turning.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
Yet, LHR still remains the world's premier airport,

To use your words 'the world's premier airport' must pack quite an economic punch.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):
With the topic of this quite interesting thread I would have thought that it was naturally safe to assume that we were discussing passengers travelling to various destinations/airports as opposed to choosing others, thereby naturally assuming that the said passengers could somehow afford to travel in the first place.

The thread is about areas imitating what EK has done for DXB. If 'most' of the destinations EK connects via DXB could suddenly economically support direct daily non-stop service EK would fall apart over night. It's got everything to do with what percentage of the population of an area can afford to fly.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 23):
You're not really making much of a point at all then are you ? Of course it isn't exlusively reliant but LHR is one of several very importants cogs that together keep the economy turning.

The point I'm making is correcting your asumption that the United Kingdom economy somehow revolves around, and is reliant upon, LHR and that is certainly not the case at all. It is an important 'cog' regarding transportation to/from but it doesn't keep the economy turning and I'm curious why you think it does.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 23):
To use your words 'the world's premier airport' must pack quite an economic punch.

As the world's premier airport I'm referring to the fact of it's popularity and demand from passengers, as outlined by the airlines that fly/want to fly there. It has to do with demand, and which is not what you are attempting to turn it in to. Of course it has an economic punch, who would deny that? However, it is a privately owned business so the economic punch is primarily paid into the UK indirectly by numerous taxes. It's financial contribution, in and of itself, is minor compared to the United Kingdom economy.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 23):
The thread is about areas imitating what EK has done for DXB. If 'most' of the destinations EK connects via DXB could suddenly economically support direct daily non-stop service EK would fall apart over night. It's got everything to do with what percentage of the population of an area can afford to fly.

Sorry, but if you think this thread, and the TS questions, is exclusively about what EK/DXB did then you are misunderstanding something very important. How on earth do you conclude it would fall apart overnight......are you forgetting that it is a massive O&D destination in it's own right for a start? Also, pray tell, when are you envisaging that 'most' of the destinations fron DXB would become possible by direct flights. There are also ample routes to destinations which have nothing whatever to do with transiting DXB, are you ignoring that aspect too? Okay, I'll bite....tell me exactly what the substance of this thread is about that has "everything to do with what percentage of the population of an area can afford to fly"? Please correct me, but this thread is a very sensible/credible discussion on where other hubs could possibly be situated to enlarge on those already in existance.......what has that got to do with people being able to afford to fly? If they can't afford to fly in the first place then it makes damn little difference where a hub, or even airport, is! The massive international hubs around the world have been in existance for decades, so how have they been sustainable if all your emphasis is on people being able to afford to fly? Has something changed overnight that I'm missing?


25 Viscount724 : If you're saying that the"vast majority" of passengers who could take a nonstop flight, prefer to use connecting services with all the related inconv
26 Post contains images pnd100 : Good example but IMO I feel that CQM suffered like YMX, it was unnecessary. After all CQM is only 100 nm from MAD. Perhaps a more remote location wou
27 mikey72 : Well seeing as it's about someone recreating what EK/DXB did I would say it was. Unfortunately it is the middle east that is falling apart through so
28 Post contains links and images BNAOWB : Instead of starting from scratch in the Seychelles, perhaps NBO or ADD have the potential to serve this role to some extent since they already have A
29 Post contains images pnd100 : Great point. Based on your map, NBO / ADD certainly does seem ideally suited. The reason I picked SEZ or LPA or PDL is because of population & lo
30 r2rho : To me IST, or rather the future new Istambul airport that is being planned, is a prime candidate. With EU Emissions Trading starting in 2012, plus va
31 seabosdca : Long-haul operations are very challenging from both NBO and ADD because of those fields' altitude. My pick for an African megahub would be LOS, but t
32 BNAOWB : As we consider whether EK's success at DXB could be duplicated elsewhere, a couple of questions come to mind: 1) What percentage of EK connecting pass
33 AirNZ : Then let's debate the point in question in a straightforward and logical manner. Millions of passengers enter the United Kingdom for various reasons
34 2travel2know2 : PTY / CM ? TK could be a tough competitor to EK/QR/EH, Turkey may not have The UAE or Qatar cash, but surely they do have the will to make its own ai
35 Post contains images pnd100 : Good points. I have always been impressed with TK. I definitely think IST can be a good connector hub See I thought so too! If for no other reason th
36 mikey72 : Hey I'm just going by what EK said was to blame for a 7% drop in load factor. For EK that's unprecedented.
37 AirNZ : Yes indeed, and not doubting that's what you were referring to, but I was answering your post in more specific terms. One has to remember that any ai
38 goblin211 : Bottom line, you can't create demand...you can only serve it.
39 pnd100 : I would partially agree. You can't "create" demand for an airline specifically but you can create a destination for tourists & business. That is
40 2travel2know2 : With the exception of selected non-stop flights between southeastern Southamerica and northwestern Northamerica markets, yes, but there's a huge numb
41 pnd100 : Your case is building! Can you provide some examples of routes that could be served from PTY?
42 2travel2know2 : There are some destinations yet not served by CM in North America and South America which may support flights to its hub. Airports like SEA, SFO, LAS
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...
Re: See If You Get It - Dlshut posted Mon Mar 29 1999 15:01:44 by Lindy
B6 At ORD: When/If/How Will They Grow? posted Wed Nov 3 2010 14:45:04 by LHUSA
UA/CO Merger Livery. Will They Change It? posted Fri May 21 2010 11:50:21 by TOMMY767
E-Mail Commending AA Employee--Will They Read It? posted Sun Mar 23 2008 19:41:37 by Ualcsr
DayJet: Will They Succeed; Have You Flown Them? posted Wed Feb 20 2008 09:29:32 by Congaboy
Emirates, Qatar, Etihad - Will They All Make It? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 15:16:03 by Vfw614
News Story - Boeing Announces It Will Build The New 7E7 (!) posted Sun Jul 9 2006 04:05:21 by Grantcv
If SQ Gets Aus-US Rights, Will They Hub At SYD or MEL? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 17:25:39 by Daddy1
1 Day Left For 200 7E7s, Will They Make It? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 21:54:04 by Nyc777
SAS: Will They Ever Come To SFO Like Planned? posted Thu May 27 2004 21:28:54 by As739x