mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

ULR - The Reinvigoration Of "Point-to-Point"?

Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:23 am

Hey peoples,

One question that strikes me a little..:

Brief review of History of Aviation Economics:

1.) Prime Strategy was point-to-point demand

2.) 80-90s: Enhancement of Hub-and-Spoke operations

3.) Thereafter: Alliance networks

See also this wonderful paper by Yergin, Vietor et al:

http://www.air-transport.org/econ/files/FetteredFlight.pdf


Now, do you also think that with the induction of ULR Jets, the point-to-point strategy is reinvigorating (i.e. campaigns like NY - SIN in 18 hrs, focus on non-stops instead of hub-operations etc)? Of course, the one does not exclude the other - however, I somehow have the impression that ULRs could lead to the enhancement of routes that primarily target O&D instead of 6th freedom pax.. Personally I believe that ULRs will not really be that successful in the future (I might well be wrong), as long they do not reach the supersonic speed... but that is only a sidenote..

Comments to these so far nascent thoughts welcome!  Wink
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
incitatus
Posts: 2691
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: ULR - The Reinvigoration Of "Point-to-Point"?

Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:45 am

The "brief review" is way simplyfied.

In the 50s, 60s and part 70s, many longhaul routes were multistop because there was no demand and range. Flights that were point to point didn't serve point to point demand only. Even NY to London contained a large share of connecting traffic with travelers carrying around those neat travel agent paper tickets with lots of interline service to go from San Diego to Istambul on multiple airlines. Meanwhile other routes like BOAC to Asia or Africa were done with multiple stops. Check http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/ba5205i.htm. Even in the mid-80s several longhaul routes still had many stops.

Longhaul services were add-ons to hubs in the US after they were established to move domestic traffic.

Ultra longhaul is just a few more hours of flying. Pre A340-500 and 777-200LR there was capability to fly 14-15 hours. Now that capability goes to 18-19 hours. It will not mean mostly point-to-point demand because most very distant city pairs either do not have large demand or have a variety of one-stop alternatives - save few exceptions. I think most ULR flights will be safely anchored in hubs on one end at least.
Stop pop up ads
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: ULR - The Reinvigoration Of "Point-to-Point"?

Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:54 pm

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 1):
The "brief review" is way simplyfied.

In the 50s, 60s and part 70s, many longhaul routes were multistop because there was no demand and range. Flights that were point to point didn't serve point to point demand only.

Yes, I am aware that it ws simplified. Thanks for your great reply! I thought about the same (multi-stops), and is my assumption correct that in the 50s-70s, the obtenance of 5th freedom was easier? Or were these solely 2nd fereedom (technical) stops?

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 1):
I think most ULR flights will be safely anchored in hubs on one end at least.

I thought about the same. however it will be interesting to see in how far the customers will accept/not accept 15-16 hrs flights

Thanks
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)