MCOtoATL From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 474 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
Southwest is the best example of point-to-point, and they have done very well with it. Most airlines use the hub and spoke method because it brings passengers into a central location.
This morning I was flying from Orlando to Atlanta, and I was hoping the flight would be rather empty. After all, I thought, how many people in Orlando really are going to Atlanta? But what you must realize is that the plane was full of people going elsewhere, but were funnelled through Delta's Atlanta hub. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense, which is why most of the major carriers use this method.
SJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
I was watching a show about baggage last night, and the show was being shot at Atlanta-Hartsfield and one guy from Delta was quoted as saying that 70% of Delta passengers coming in to Atlanta are connecting on to some other destination.
Trickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
The same way Southwest is a good example of a point to point operation, UAL is a perfect example of the hub and spoke system. United can feed any passenger regardless of location to and from their major hubs. Obviously, assistence is needed from their regionals to transport the more remotely located passengers.
Its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than be in the air wishing you were on the ground. Fly safe!
Ual777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
trickijedi said it best,united can indeed feed the hub cities by using the smaller commuter flights.they say that one reason they(UAL) went to the hub and spoke system,so that they could feed passengers throughout the world with only one connection.obviously that isnt going to happen all the time,but from my experience this system of transfers and connections has worked out wonderfully.
Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
Yeah, like you all said, most airlines use a central hub. On a different note, I'm probably one of the few people who actually have ATL as their final destination when they fly here. That's because I live in Atlanta though. It's nice to be able to fly to a lot of places, but I like more flights on a trip and because I can fly so many places from ATL on Delta, most of my flights are nonstops which is not ideal for me.
ThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1638 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1116 times:
What is impossible in hub-and-spoke is any kind of personalized service. After 2 trips in one month through Islip on WN, the ticket agent knew me by NAME. That hasn't happened to me since my last trip in a DC-3. Try that one going through ATL. Lets hear it for Herb and have a shot of Wild Turkey.
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5454 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1067 times:
For me, living at an AA hub, it is very convenient for me as I can go to a ton of places non-stop. However, somebody living in a non-hub city probably does not like it as they have to connect to get everywhere. All in all, funnelling people through hubs probably produces more pax than point to point.
I have been on oversold flights where my family and a few other people are the only ones not transferring. I am sure airlines make more money off of it.
Not only that, but it is probably easier operational wise so you can decide where to put a maintenance base and hanger. The answer is simple- at your select hubs. For point to point airlines, you run into that problem a little bit more.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Spark From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1066 times:
From an economic view, Hub and Spoke is a much more efficient system (just look at the Cargo Airlines, but then again your package doesn't care that it has to fly from Oakland to Denver through Memphis). Rather than hoping to find 150 passengers flying from San Francisco to Milwaukee on a given day, you can package all the people going to Milwaukee and offer multiple flights to Milwaukee each day (just an example).
WN route system is a modified Hub and Spoke, and then they offer point to point in each city's most likely destination. Most flights from Southern Cal to the Northwest have a stop over in Oakland. However, most WN cities in the Northwest have non-stop service to Seattle. I think there is also a non-stop flight from Boise to Spokane (I doubt any other airline has a similar example).
Barney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 825 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
On one note I can see a certain economy with hub and spoke, but in a far greater sense, vast inefficiencies. The entire "system" gets pushed beyond it's capacity during any bank of flights, and then sits like a virtual ghost town for the next 2 hours. Try getting in to any major hub during a bank arrival and it's major delays. Case in point; SFO. If we had arrivals during the "down time", regardless of the weather, rarely any delays. During a UA bank, regardless of weather, you can count on anything from holding to ground stops. The same argument holds true for the ground workers and airport facilities as well. You need the staff and airport infrastructure in place to attempt to handle 75 flights at once, then that same staff sits until the next bank along with unused gates. During the first bank of departures at IAH, CO has over 90 departures scheduled during 1 hour. Allowing for NO arrivals and NO OTHER airline operations, in perfect weather, this guarantees that the last departure will already be 30 min late. One reason we at SWA tend to have at least decent on time performance is because we're not "fighting ourselves" all trying to get in to and out the same airport during the same 60 min window.
SJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1013 times:
The show I was watching spoke interestingly about that. They called it a "Push"... they said that they needed 300 drivers for baggage carts during each "Push" because of all the transfers of bags that needed to be made.
Like many of you said though, living near SFO (UA semi-hub) and SJC (AA focus city), there are alot of non-stop flights to alot of different places, very convienient. It also turns out that its easier to pick up the cheap fares that way especially on routes like SFO-JFK.
Recently though, I've had problems with that. AA wants to charge me a five hundred bucks to go from SJC to JFK with this routing
San Jose - Santa Ana
Santa Ana- St Louis
St Louis - JFK
The return trip is absolutely hilarious
SFO - Santa Ana
Santa Ana - San Jose
I think i'll just take the non-stop in and out of OAK where I can get the $277 fare that they have to compete with JB!!! muahhaha... the wonders of competition..