gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:15 am

There has been a lot of debate concerning the merits of Airbus' view of the market versus the declared different position that Boeing is taking with the 7E7. Anyone who has had to endure the hassle of hanging around a large hub airport waiting for a connecting flight can see the appeal in Boeing's contention that people prefer more non-stops between City pairs. On the other hand, when you consider the issues of congestion at terminal Gates, runways and taxiways, and the air lanes themselves you can see the appeal of Airbus' position of the need for a VLA, a la A380 or 747ADV especially as air travel is not likely to decline. It is obvious that both manufacturers actually see both as a real possibility at least when you look beyond the marketing hype. Airbus must agree with Boeing at least to a point, or they would not commit themselves to building a new type on the eve of the A380's first flight. Boeing must also see a market for a large aircraft to compete with the A380 or else they would not be talking about a new advanced 747. It is interesting to note that both manufacturers concede a little to the other's views but both are offering derivatives of existing airframes to answer the 'possible' market.
I recently booked flights between Toronto and Dublin for travel in early march. There is, however, no direct flight between Canada and Ireland at this time of the year. So I booked Air Transat to LGW and Ryanair to DUB with a change in London with all the attendant messing around with baggage claim etc. I would love to have been able to book YYZ to DUB directly but no cigar! Where is there a 7E7 when you need one? In view of this I was thinking: If the 7E7 made travel between YYZ and DUB a profitable venture taking into account the ludicrous Shannon stop-over rules and during the winter months, and was able to open other similar city pairs, Boeing will not be able to build enough of them! I really see that efficiency is the key to any such achievement. If the 7E7 meets it's efficiency goals, maybe we will see unheard of city pairs with direct flights. Perhaps the future will look like this: Airports like Heathrow, O'Hare, DFW and many others large airports full of 380's and many many smaller airports full of 7E7's and A350's. I do personally think that there is much merit in the plans of both Airbus and Boeing and both can do well and make money either way.

G
I have no memory of this place.
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:20 am

There is, however, no direct flight between Canada and Ireland at this time of the year.
And if the 7E7 existed now, do you think there would be a direct flight? I doubt it.

But YYZ-LHR loads are always high - so better for the A380, worse for the 7E7 on that route. Remember, LHR is slot-restricted too.
7E7, perhaps for charter flight in this case to Ireland during tourist season.
Just my .0000002 cents  Wink/being sarcastic

/Milan320
I accept bribes ... :-)
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:24 am

It depends upon your market. You could say that the 380 is restricted to major hubs, while the 7E7 allows you to avoid them and hit two destinations rather than one and waiting on connecting traffic, assuming your origin airport has the capacity. It all depends on the market needs for a particular airline. Some have limited slot capacity which favors the 380, others are more open or have less demand, which favors the 7E7/350.

For the US carriers, the greatest international expanse will be to the South of it's borders and China (Point to Point open markets) so the 7E7 will serve that quite well. For slot constrained Europe and single flight a day South Asia, the 380 will serve quite well.

[Edited 2005-01-19 02:30:47]
 
doug_or
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:41 am

I don't think you'll see much change in the routes or freqs being flown over the Atlantic, because the market has already been fairly fragmented. Remember since the dawn of transatlantic travel there have been narrowbodies flying the pond- they were first! If a route can't support a 752 or 762, theres no reason it would be able to support a 787. Likewise, right now most routes the 747 is flown on have multiple freqs per day often sharing the route with other a/c types. While the A380 will do a good job replaceing the 747 by adding capacity at peak times and lowering seat costs, it won't exactly be a revolution.

The Pacific is where the real change seems likely (altough some west coast-europe routes might spring up as a result of the 787). With super congested airports like NRT and HKG there's obviously a market for the 380. Likewise, the larger distances (especaily to NA) will allow the 787 to open up markets not previously possible due to the range restrictions of smaller a/c.


It will certainly be intersteing to see to what extent the 787 ends up poaching hub traffic. If it is succesful in this, it will obviously harm the 380 market. However, if it is used to open up new spokes from large hubs, it could potentialy increase feed at the hubs and therefore increase demand to A380 levels for more routes.

my .$02
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
USairways16BWI
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 4:58 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:44 am

i think hub and spoke is better because it provides more options to more destinations from one place.
 
doug_or
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:51 am

...which is good for Grand Forks and Albany. Buttttttttttttttt it less convient and more expensive, so its possible to profitably operate a n/s on a route, travelers and airlines are better off.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:53 am

So big cities are all that should be permitted air service?

Nice.
 
USairways16BWI
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 4:58 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:00 am

well i guess a mixture of both point to point and hub and spoke would be good. but it would cost an airline more( lets take CO for example) to fly from EWR-MCI and then on from MCI-COS, even though it may be profitable...but doesnt it cost more to operate some flights from an airport that is not that airlines hub??
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:01 am

Big Difference between the 380 and the 787 is that the 380 can basically ONLY be used for large markets.. where the 787 can be used for large and medium markets, ie..more P2P .. the 380 is definitely a HUB aircraft.

[Edited 2005-01-19 03:01:48]
Aiming High and going far..
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:25 am

the 7e7 plays its role in hub and spoke and point to point. The fact is that these aircraft suit different markets and will be able to coexist as some airlines will more then likley need both.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:26 am

Agreed Doug_Or...

But I do think that Airbus is betting that the airports that are slot constrained will always be slot constrained. I think it's a kind of static vs dynamic analysis in some respects. If there is advantage in increasing slots some way will be found to do so, weather it be with new runways or the implementation of advanced technology in the future. However, I do not think it will go the other way. The world is not going to pull back into the hub and spoke universe so greater fragmentation is an inevitability. The only question is to the speed and degree with which it will happen.

The application of 7E7 technologies to smaller aircraft will allow them greater range and efficiencies making them more attractive to operators to use on longer segments. Also there is no investment in new airport infrastructure needed to accept 7E7 so the potential routes are waiting for the aircraft and not the other way 'round. Smaller, lighter, longer ranged aircraft will be the legacy of 7E7, but I don't see the basic A380 concepts of bigger and more capacious carrying on much beyond the A380 itself.

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:45 am

Big Difference between the 380 and the 787 is that the 380 can basically ONLY be used for large markets.. where the 787 can be used for large and medium markets, ie..more P2P .. the 380 is definitely a HUB aircraft

Smartest thing I've heard all day.
Delete this User
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:52 am

Introducing a 7e7 might make routes which are unprofitable now profitable, but in turn it will make routes which were profitable using say a 767, even more profitable, so the route structure may not actually change that much.

If we made every aircraft around today 20% more efficient, the structure would pretty much stay exactly the same.

Because the 7e7 and A380 are the more advanced planes around, more advanced than what's inbetween, it may encourage both small P2P and large megahub systems. This may polarise the market and medium sized hubs which are normally served by less advanced planes ie 777 A340. These may become less fashionable when it becomes more profitable to either introduce a mega hub or a P2P network over a midi-hub.

So instead of saying the market is going to swing one way or the other, i think its going to be subtly stretched in the middle.

My £0.02  Smokin cool
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:56 am

RJ111:

The thing you're leaving out of your assessment is the fact that the 7E7 has more range than the 767.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
PVG
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:03 pm

I don't know about anyone else, but as someone who flies long-haul regularly, I can tell you that direct service beats going through a hub anytime. Why would anyone prefer to waste a few hours sitting in airport when they can get to where they are going and feel more refreshed after a long flight. While there may be a need in certain slot constrained airports, I just don't see how airlines are going to fill a 550 seat plane on a daily basis.

Do most 747 operators fill their seats daily? I don't know, but would be interested in some stats. if anyone knows.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:07 pm

Because the 7e7 and A380 are the more advanced planes around, more advanced than what's inbetween

Hold on a second. Let's fast forward to 2010, and make a somewhat bold assumption that the 747-Adv will be launched.

If this does indeed happen, the 747-Adv will no doubt benefit from a next-generation engine relative to the Trent 900/GP7000 and improved seat/mile cost via a 3-meter stretch. The 747-Adv will obviously be no match for the A380's payload, but is it unreasonable to assume the -12% efficency improvement the A388 enjoys over the 744 will be seriously (if not completly) marganalized? I'm inclined to think so, thus your picture is skewed. In 2010, not that far away people, the A380 is the fourth most advanced airframe behind the: 7E7, A350, and 747-Adv, likely in that order.

Historically, airline capital gravitates toward the newest product on the market, regardless of size. Of course the 7E7 and A380 compete! An airline only has X dollars to buy Y number of airframes. Boeing and Airbus are competing over an airline's money be it in the form of 100, 200, 300, or 800 seat airplanes. Again, airline capital gravitates toward the most modern/cost effective airplane on the market...

Now if the A380 is the fourth most modern airframe on the market, the 7E7/A350 offer better seat/mile cost (and they will), the 747-Adv offers equal seat/mile cost (and it could), where will the airline capital flow? Sure H2H will live on, but will the A388 necessarily be doing it? The A388 undoubtably won several orders on the basis that, regardless of capacity, it was more modern than the 744. Obviously this wasn't SQ and other LHR bound carriers, but LH who almost held out on a 747-X proposal??

Point is (1) the A388 will continue to slaughter the 747 on the mega-capacity routes, but (2) don't be suprised when CX and others start lining up in Seattle for a 747-sized aircraft with A388 economics. and (3) airlines could make 767/A330 replacement a higher priority than aquring A388/747-Adv given the superior economics of the smaller 7E7/A350...

[Edited 2005-01-19 04:08:24]
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:21 pm

DFWrev there are so many crazy assumptions in your post, it's a waste of time considering what will happen as a result of them. This one takes the cherry though...

the 7E7/A350 offer better seat/mile cost (and they will),

 Laugh out loud

[Edited 2005-01-19 04:27:20]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:24 pm

Now if the A380 is the fourth most modern airframe on the market, the 7E7/A350 offer better seat/mile cost (and they will)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

N
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:14 pm

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

7E7-9 versus identically configured A388? Might want to check your numbers, because that was the message Boeing was giving not just a few months ago...

We only need mental math to show how the 7E7-9 is better off against A388 than the 767 was against the 744. For example, the A388 offers about 12% educed seat costs relative to the 744. If the 7E7-8 is 10% better than a 763ER and the 7E7-9 is 10% better than the -8, the B7E9 will be 20% better than a 763ER. We know without any in-depth measurments that the 7E7-9 is a stronger competitor to the A388 than the 763ER was to the B744. Email coming your way.

Are these a definite indicator of the 7E7's economics, of course not, but it is well within the real of possibility that the 7E7 meet or exceed the A388's economics.

DFWrev there are so many crazy assumptions in your post, it's a waste of time considering what will happen as a result of them

What... my assumption that airlines have finite resources and cannot buy every airplane under the sun like some A.netters want? Or the historical trend toward the most modern aircraft which can be proven so many times its mind-numbing? Or the fact that the 7E7's goal is in fact, to match or exceed A388 seat cost?

About the most absurd thing I suggested was 747-Adv launch which is hardly assured at this point...

[Edited 2005-01-19 05:16:57]
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7867
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:21 pm

And if the 7E7 existed now, do you think there would be a direct flight? I doubt it.

But YYZ-LHR loads are always high - so better for the A380, worse for the 7E7 on that route. Remember, LHR is slot-restricted too.


Or, AC could have 7e7 flights to LHR, MAN, and Ireland?

... or, one more time, 7e7 flights to MAN and Ireland, and an A350 (higher capacity) to LHR.

AC wouldn't like that? Well, what if BA starts doing that? AC might loose lot's of business... survival of the fittest.

Cheers,

PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:07 am

And if the 7E7 existed now, do you think there would be a direct flight? I doubt it.

You may be right but I think the 7E7 would be an attractive aircraft to the likes of Air Transat and for that matter other charter/inclusive tour airlines because of it's efficiency and profit potential. If they had them in the fleet, it just might be viable to maintain YYZ/DUB year round! Just a thought.

G
I have no memory of this place.
 
ATLhomeCMH
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:25 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:17 am

I remember a news article several months ago in which a DL executive correctly stated that there are passengers in Savannah, GA that need to get to Spokane, WA. The only way to do this is through the hub-and-spoke method.

This method is still the most effective way of getting people where they need to go.

Point to point routes also make sense, however. LCCs like WN who thrive on point-to-point routes, also (whether they admit it or not) have hubs...the three off the top of my head being MDW, DAL, and BWI...I'm sure someone could also make an argument to include PHX and LAX as well. FL has ATL.

Hub-and-spoke is still the best way to transport people who may not live in the big cities. But diversifying your customer base and service options through profitable point-to-point routes can't hurt you.



"The most terrifying words in the Engligh language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"-Ronald Reagan
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:00 am

Remember that European carriers generally have only 1 international gateway, although they may offer some international service from their no. 2 and no. 3 airports. So, they can fly very large aircraft, such as a 747 or A380 on some routes.

On the other hand, most U.S. carriers offer similar amounts of international service from serveral gateways. AA flies to Europe from BOS, JFK, ORD, MIA, ORD, DFW, and LAX. It flies to Latin America from MIA, DFW, and LAX. And the U.S. carriers have built their schedules on the premise that business travelers want several departures. AA flies 4 times a day on ORD-LHR, with a 5th flight during the summer. UA is adding a 2nd flight between ORD and HKG.

For U.S. carriers, an A380 is way too big. Even a 747 is too big, except for Asian routes and possibly service to London. So for the U.S., the 7E7 makes sense.

From what I've read, the A380 will be flying mostly routes from European capitals to Asian cities. Slot constraints are a consideration. But I don't see European carriers flying the A380 to the U.S. Back when most service to Europe was departing JFK or ORD, it made sense. But even the European carriers are flying to places like MSP, ATL, and IAH, so that passengers can connect with an alliance carrier.
 
ATLhomeCMH
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:25 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:56 am

But I don't see European carriers flying the A380 to the U.S.

I am betting that you'll see A380s at the major, MAJOR hub gateways like LAX and ORD, (maybe even JFK and ATL???).

I agree though that for U.S. carriers, the 7E7 is a much better fit.
"The most terrifying words in the Engligh language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"-Ronald Reagan
 
agill
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:03 am

ATLhomeCMH: Haven't Air France already announced to run CDG-JFK with the 380?
 
LongbowPilot
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:16 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:10 am

FYI you all. The hub and spoke system is the most efficient. Look at Southwest, once a point to point, but now they are doing more of a hub and spoke operation with some point to point service. Look a BWI, they get a rear end load of Southwest aircraft, and then branch. Looks like the larger a carrier gets the more it molds to a hub and spoke

Chris
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:56 am


or, one more time, 7e7 flights to MAN and Ireland, and an A350 (higher capacity) to LHR.

Trust me, YYZ-LHR loads are high. Even YYZ-CDG, or YUL-CDG during the tourist season. Only back in April, I was flying YUL-YYZ-CDG. YYZ-CDG was on a 767 with AC. They had trouble getting people even on the next day flight due to demand. I think an A380 would fit nicely there - but I doubt we'll see it in AC colours.

It's in the airlines best interest to have less flights and more capacity to to slot-restricted airports.

You may be right but I think the 7E7 would be an attractive aircraft to the likes of Air Transat and for that matter other charter/inclusive tour airlines because of it's efficiency and profit potential.

Charter companies, I can see their appeal for the 7E7, but equally for the A380. It all depends on demand. If they don't mind owning two different types, then an A380 and a 7E7 might be good (or A350 for fleet commonality).
Remember, pack them in like sardines, that's their mentality most of the time.

As for Air Transat, I think they're probably going to an all Airbus fleet (if they're not there already).

As for point-to-point, who says that the plane, even a smaller one like the 7E7 will be full all the time, when flown from non-HUB airports? Especially in the off-seasons? I think airlines could lose money.
I don't think a daily flight from Winnipeg to London would be full at all, but that's just my guess.

However, maybe the threat of a point-to-point system might worry some airports and in turn perhaps they'll lower their landing fees - but that's just a stab at YYZ and the GTAA  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Cheers!
/Milan320

[Edited 2005-01-19 21:58:23] - spelling

[Edited 2005-01-19 22:00:09]
I accept bribes ... :-)
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:49 am

Various threads keep touching on the future of aviation and which system (Hub
and Spoke or point to point) will work. As such B and A have bet upon different
ideas. IMHO I believe it will be a mix of both, but the key will be on the
flexibility to perform both. Also geographical considerations must be made to
understand the face of future markets. I think both A and B bet upon the system
of their home country and not the over all picture in the world. Take the US
which has numerous airports both international and domestic. It covers a vast
area serving various markets. Flexibility is key, a plane may have to make a
short hop and then an international hop to keep a system functioning. Hub and
spoke systems are here to stay because of the support factors involved in
keeping an airline flying. Without a hub how many maintenance facilities would
you need to keep up with the flight schedules? Counties without the large area
and vastly different markets will function best with th!
e hub system only. The key to the analysis is to keep the following in mind:
1- Most countries outside the US understood and had in place security measures
prior to 9/11. The current low in the US market is in part due to the costs of
catching up to the rest of the world.
2- Is China going to resemble the US system of the UK system?
3- Countries with many international airports will not combine them into 1-4
major airports as seen in the UK.
4- Will ground transportation in the UK and Japan evolve in the next few decades
to relieve the air system? If the ground system evolves as we know is will what
will the need be for inter-country aviation in the UK and Japan?
5- The amount of premium traffic out of traditional hubs in the US. How much of
that is fixed? Could an airline provide a short leg from a traditional
international airport to a non-traditional international airport (and then
International) to save congestion? (Small plane premium seats (A320/737 sized)
to connect to a larger plane in a less crowed airport)
6- With the fact that larger countries air systems demand more flexibility out
of an airplane will airlines be able to use 747/A380/A340/777 in this manor?
IMHO The A380 will meet the needs of the UK regardless of opinion. The 7E7 will
work in larger countries such as the US and China. The over all picture depends
upon airlines that function out of geographically limited areas.
Maybe both A and B have got it 1/2 right. Maybe a true solution would to be
able to provide a few large planes on major routes with many flexible planes
providing support?
BK
 
kl662
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:39 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:32 am

My belief is that what Boeing's arguing (for better or worse) is not that hubs will disappear; rather, that hubs will develop more, longer spokes. If this is the case, I suppose terminology should be that hub-to-hub is on the decline, and hub-to-longhaul point is on the rise.

CO's "European gateway" at EWR is changing a few things. It's basically turning travel between smaller markets from two-stop trips into one-stop. For example, for me to get to Bristol, England from San Diego at the moment, I'd probably do stops in both New York and London (since BA no longer flies here). Once CO begins their 757 service to Bristol from EWR, it'll eliminate the London stop for me. (BA resuming their LHR-SAN service with a more economical plane that could make the route work would have the same effect.)

What I think Boeing is betting the farm on is that large international hubs will increase the number of long-haul destinations they serve. Perhaps with the 7E7 we'll start to see an "Asian gateway" pop up on the west coast that serves a dozen or two smaller transpacific destinations, making that trip to Okinawa (or wherever) a one-stop affair.

Of course, the busiest and slot-restricted airports may have trouble adding a bunch of destinations. But, for example, the EWR flights to the rest of England serve to relieve LHR of some of the connecting traffic. Likewise with NRT if more flights to various points within Japan/Asia from the US become economical.
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Hub & Spoke V Point To Point

Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:58 am

I don't know, in the end I think I prefer the hub-spoke system, especially when travelling
on business. It takes a bit longer, and I get paid more for that.
Plus, I can have a smoke break between flights  Smile/happy/getting dizzy (and some airports here in Canada do allow smoking
still).
Finally, the chance to fly on more than one plane in a day is probably the best part of it.

/Milan320
I accept bribes ... :-)