Page 1 of 1

More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm
by WeatherPilot
In my opinion as the major airports airlines use to function as their hubs continue to become more congested leading to delays becoming more frequent and unacceptable it would make sense that carriers would start shifting their focus to point-to-point routes. There’s only so much room at any airport and any new expansion to alleviate congestion just begets more traffic.
With the advent of even more fuel efficient aircraft I think the future is not in hubs but point-to-point. This not only will alleviate congestion but also the crippling effect bad weather has on one hub which in turn affects an airline’s entire network. Yes, there will still be hubs in the future as demand for air travel continuously increases year-over-year, but to the extent the current hubs can handle the increased traffic is already showing its’ perils.
Whether increased demand can be handled through the hubs with bigger planes or more flights the airlines have a logistical problem I can only see being solved by going around the hubs.
Thoughts?

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:16 pm
by KlimaBXsst
Domestically in the US, the 737’s MAX range and payload capabilities are way more than most airlines need.

So yes I AGREE. Something of the sort of a modern DC-9-30 range and capacity is really what is needed.

Question is, has this aircraft already been made. Maybe the airlines are just finding themselves too invested in established types, pilot supply, and regional SCOPE manipulation at the present are my thoughts.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:19 pm
by AlexBrewster03
May I present the A220, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations within the US?

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:41 pm
by EBiafore99
I'm not so sure on this. I think the future will show that both are equally important. We're in a period of increasing demand, so it makes sense the rage is PTP. However, profitability on a PTP is dependent on demand between only two cities.

In a downturn (economic, terrorism, etc.), PTPs could become unprofitable quickly, so I could see airlines turn back to hub flights and eliminate PTP.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:46 pm
by casinterest
Both are equally important. I think the real question is , what will the average plane size be going forward, and will auxiliary airports take on more traffic? The EMB-170/E190/A220 are all good airports to offload hub traffic to point to point traffic for markets that demand it. , but at the same time , hubs have a system of efficiency of concentrating multiple route choices within one to two hops of any given destination.

Does it make sense to expand infrastructure for point to point in less dense areas? Probably not. Maybe they just need bigger planes and more hub options.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:01 pm
by drdisque
Remember that every airline doesn't have to have the same strategy. In fact the best solution is for some airlines to focus on Hub & Spoke to effectively serve small market pairs that don't have sufficient O&D to support a nonstop while other airlines focus more on PTP to serve routes with enough traffic to support a nonstop more efficiently.

One airline cannot and should not be everything to everyone.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:08 pm
by Amiga500
I think we can already say the classical system of
regional --> spoke --> hub ------> hub --> spoke --> regional
is largely dead.

The system of
regional ---> spoke ---> hub ---> spoke ---> regional
is alive and works very well on making longer haul markets that wouldn't be worthwhile trying to run point2point (P2P).

P2P obviously has its place, the smaller the mission length, the more attractive P2P becomes. But some markets will never justify P2P, so the single spoke will always exist in some form alongside P2P.

[leaving aside the leisure market factor by where a few day stopover in the hub can be a quasi-destination in itself]

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:17 pm
by Revelation
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Domestically in the US, the 737’s MAX range and payload capabilities are way more than most airlines need.

So yes I AGREE. Something of the sort of a modern DC-9-30 range and capacity is really what is needed.

Question is, has this aircraft already been made. Maybe the airlines are just finding themselves too invested in established types, pilot supply, and regional SCOPE manipulation at the present are my thoughts.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:
May I present the A220, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations within the US?

Yes, I agree the A220 is a DC-9 with plastic wings, and the best fit for the market space being discussed.

While DL has shown it can make the DC-9/A220 size work, it seems the rest of the US4 cannot.

In fact WN had state-of-the-art 717s in house that they could not get to work, so they ended up paying for DL to take them off their hands.

The scope issue is real, the cost per seat goes up way too much compared to regional 76 seaters, and the pilot shortage means this is not likely to change.

The real wild card is Neeleman's "Moxy" enterprise.

If he makes it work it could be a real game changer.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:40 pm
by KlimaBXsst
Revelation wrote:
...The real wild card is Neeleman's "Moxy" enterprise. If he makes it work it could be a real game changer.


Any new well financed, start-up using a mixed JetBlue-Alaska-Frontier-Southwest model should do well with the A220.

Just as long as the start-up is not ill-timed, poorly executed, not in a recessionary turn, or not plagued early on with a technical flaw with the aircraft, or national air travel event sparked by disease, or oddball political extremism behavior affecting perceptions of safety.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:43 pm
by astuteman
Revelation wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Domestically in the US, the 737’s MAX range and payload capabilities are way more than most airlines need.

So yes I AGREE. Something of the sort of a modern DC-9-30 range and capacity is really what is needed.

Question is, has this aircraft already been made. Maybe the airlines are just finding themselves too invested in established types, pilot supply, and regional SCOPE manipulation at the present are my thoughts.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:
May I present the A220, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations within the US?

Yes, I agree the A220 is a DC-9 with plastic wings, and the best fit for the market space being discussed.

While DL has shown it can make the DC-9/A220 size work, it seems the rest of the US4 cannot.

In fact WN had state-of-the-art 717s in house that they could not get to work, so they ended up paying for DL to take them off their hands.

The scope issue is real, the cost per seat goes up way too much compared to regional 76 seaters, and the pilot shortage means this is not likely to change.

The real wild card is Neeleman's "Moxy" enterprise.

If he makes it work it could be a real game changer.


There was a post earlier (now removed) that referenced the 767, 787 and A380.

I think the A220/DC9/717 conversation is closer to the reality that fragmentation and point-to-point is predominantly a function of the huge numbers of ever more capable narrowbodys that have exploded onto the air transport market in this century.
It's sexy to talk widebodys, and yes, the new efficient twins have role to play in point-to-point/fragmentation. But in truth it's a sideshow.

Narrowbodys have narrowed the space in which widebodys are economic to operate, and have driven the smallest ones (767, A300, A310) out of existence (which of course is why we all watch NMA with rapt fascination).

Put into that context, the answer to the OP is that point-to-point/fragmentation is absolutely the future, driven by A32X/737/NSA/NMA, irrespective of what happens to the A380 and 77X

Rgds

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:49 pm
by Revelation
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Any new well financed, start-up using a mixed JetBlue-Alaska-Frontier-Southwest model should do well with the A220.

Just as long as the start-up is not ill-timed, poorly executed, not in a recessionary turn, or not plagued early on with a technical flaw with the aircraft, or national air travel event sparked by disease, or oddball political extremism behavior affecting perceptions of safety.

Neeleman has telegraphed the game plan already.

He is well financed, well enough to convince CSALP to hold sixty slots in the A220 production line open for them.

This is the same size as the JetBlue order and only second in size to DL's 90 ship order.

They won't have mainline union pilot contracts to deal with, their targeting of under-served routes and their approach to IT appears to be game changing.

To me their risk isn't the exceptional event, it's more about executing, especially with regard to staffing the air and ground crews.

Yet I don't think they'll have too difficult a time finding people buying in to the buzz around the airline.

If not, they will have to throw money at the problem, and that could be quite problematic, IMHO.

astuteman wrote:
It's sexy to talk widebodys, and yes, the new efficient twins have role to play in point-to-point/fragmentation. But in truth it's a sideshow.

Narrowbodys have narrowed the space in which widebodys are economic to operate, and have driven the smallest ones (767, A300, A310) out of existence (which of course is why we all watch NMA with rapt fascination).

Put into that context, the answer to the OP is that point-to-point/fragmentation is absolutely the future, driven by A32X/737/NSA/NMA, irrespective of what happens to the A380 and 77X

Rgds

Spot on as always, and add to the mix a few different approaches to business models, especially a new airline created by someone with a good track record of innovation and all the right aviation and financial industry contacts, and we do live in exciting times.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:11 pm
by umichman
Revelation wrote:
They won't have mainline union pilot contracts to deal with, their targeting of under-served routes and their approach to IT appears to be game changing.



But they'll have to deal with recruiting the same pilots who are also eyeing those lucrative mainline contracts. I suspect competition for pilots is going to be an increasingly challenging issue for any new start-up. If they start getting into a bidding war for them, it could quickly sink their business model and value proposition.

As for P2P vs. legacy hub/spoke model, there have been numerous papers written on the topic and they generally find value in both. There's been an ongoing shift to P2P over the years if you look at the growth rates of airlines like WN or NK vs. the legacy carriers. I suspect there is still some room for hub-and-spoke model and the market (not regulators) should ultimately decide how much room remains for it (if any).

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:16 pm
by peterinlisbon
Moving forward there has to be a combination of both. There is certainly plenty of spare capacity at regional airports so it's cheaper to expand there than to try to cram everything through the hubs. However the hubs are still required for connecting to international flights, for example, and traffic is always increasing.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:19 pm
by Antarius
Revelation wrote:
AlexBrewster03 wrote:
May I present the A220, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations within the US?

Yes, I agree the A220 is a DC-9 with plastic wings, and the best fit for the market space being discussed.

While DL has shown it can make the DC-9/A220 size work, it seems the rest of the US4 cannot.


But DL isn't running their A220 on P2P routes and I doubt they will.

IMO, airplanes like the A220 (on the NB side) and 787 (on the WB side) are advantageous as they eliminate the double connection. For example, P to Hub to Hub to P becomes P-Hub-P. It allows thinner routes to be served from more hubs; for example someone going from Newcastle to Charleston SC can now go NCL-LHR-CHS, vs the prior double connection.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:20 pm
by Revelation
umichman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
They won't have mainline union pilot contracts to deal with, their targeting of under-served routes and their approach to IT appears to be game changing.

But they'll have to deal with recruiting the same pilots who are also eyeing those lucrative mainline contracts. I suspect competition for pilots is going to be an increasingly challenging issue for any new start-up. If they start getting into a bidding war for them, it could quickly sink their business model and value proposition.

I agree, which is why I wrote:

Revelation wrote:
Yet I don't think they'll have too difficult a time finding people buying in to the buzz around the airline.

If not, they will have to throw money at the problem, and that could be quite problematic, IMHO.

The whole topic of whether an available pilot would aim for a speculative buzzy start up like Moxy or head for an apparently safe and lucrative mainline outfit is an interesting one, but probably best steered to its own thread. If nothing else, Moxy should provide some interesting data points soon. As per the A220 production thread they will be getting six A220s in 2020 so they should be staffing up relatively soon.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:57 pm
by sabby
In my opinion, point to point would never work on long hauls, due to MX, crew base etc. It works on short/medium haul as the frames and crews can be rotated on cyclic/W routes and can be based from a hub for MX and crew station. Hub to Point is on the rise and would become norm over time. Hub to Hub would majorly be O&D and some connecting pax starting/ending from one of the hubs.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:08 pm
by Revelation
sabby wrote:
In my opinion, point to point would never work on long hauls, due to MX, crew base etc. It works on short/medium haul as the frames and crews can be rotated on cyclic/W routes and can be based from a hub for MX and crew station. Hub to Point is on the rise and would become norm over time. Hub to Hub would majorly be O&D and some connecting pax starting/ending from one of the hubs.

Never is a long time, as things change all the time.

Consider now that A321XLR will come off the same 60/month production lines as the rest of the family and is now reported by Leeham to deliver ORD-FRA or LHR-DEL range with 200 pax in two class seating or 150 pax in true three class seating.

Since it is a narrow body, it can be slid into second tier contracts as we see happening in various outfits already.

It's interesting to consider what a new entrant could do with such a platform without legacy labor agreements in place.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:19 pm
by airlinepeanuts
I think this’ll be Moxy’s business model.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:20 pm
by sabby
Revelation wrote:
sabby wrote:
In my opinion, point to point would never work on long hauls, due to MX, crew base etc. It works on short/medium haul as the frames and crews can be rotated on cyclic/W routes and can be based from a hub for MX and crew station. Hub to Point is on the rise and would become norm over time. Hub to Hub would majorly be O&D and some connecting pax starting/ending from one of the hubs.

Never is a long time, as things change all the time.

Consider now that A321XLR will come off the same 60/month production lines as the rest of the family and is now reported by Leeham to deliver ORD-FRA or LHR-DEL range with 200 pax in two class seating or 150 pax in true three class seating.

Since it is a narrow body, it can be slid into second tier contracts as we see happening in various outfits already.

It's interesting to consider what a new entrant could do with such a platform without legacy labor agreements in place.


Those routes are <3800nm so not long haul routes. My point was more about the time and turn around required for long hauls, nothing specific with frames unless maintenance free and/or supersonic long haul capable aircraft become a thing :ugeek: I don't see the sense of basing 2-4 wide body jets from a city for point to point routes due to the need of maintaining MX and crew base for cost optimization. Any city with 6+ long haul routes is bound have a significant short and medium haul operations and by definition it becomes a hub.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:22 pm
by c933103
umichman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
They won't have mainline union pilot contracts to deal with, their targeting of under-served routes and their approach to IT appears to be game changing.



But they'll have to deal with recruiting the same pilots who are also eyeing those lucrative mainline contracts. I suspect competition for pilots is going to be an increasingly challenging issue for any new start-up. If they start getting into a bidding war for them, it could quickly sink their business model and value proposition.

As for P2P vs. legacy hub/spoke model, there have been numerous papers written on the topic and they generally find value in both. There's been an ongoing shift to P2P over the years if you look at the growth rates of airlines like WN or NK vs. the legacy carriers. I suspect there is still some room for hub-and-spoke model and the market (not regulators) should ultimately decide how much room remains for it (if any).

What is there to stop them from hiring regional pilots at a rate higher than what typical regional airlines offer a bit?

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:25 pm
by lightsaber
AlexBrewster03 wrote:
May I present the A220, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations within the US?

So says Moxie, JetBlue.

I have hopes DL goes that route, I haven't seen it.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:57 pm
by Revelation
sabby wrote:
Those routes are <3800nm so not long haul routes.

Hmm, there is no actual definition, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_length suggests anything greater than 2,600 nmi is considered long haul.

For me, I feel anything that goes beyond 8-9 hours flight time becomes long haul because crew rest issues start kicking in ( https://www.dailybreeze.com/2014/01/03/ ... ilot-rest/ ) , and the Leeham piece ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/06/06/how-u ... s-a321xlr/ ) suggests A321XLR can do 10.5 hours.

sabby wrote:
My point was more about the time and turn around required for long hauls, nothing specific with frames unless maintenance free and/or supersonic long haul capable aircraft become a thing :ugeek: I don't see the sense of basing 2-4 wide body jets from a city for point to point routes due to the need of maintaining MX and crew base for cost optimization. Any city with 6+ long haul routes is bound have a significant short and medium haul operations and by definition it becomes a hub.

Yes, these are all big considerations, but I think (a) maintenance requirements are going down over time and (b) a future disruptive new entrant could find ways to deal with crew base expectations.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:57 am
by astuteman
sabby wrote:
Revelation wrote:
sabby wrote:
In my opinion, point to point would never work on long hauls, due to MX, crew base etc. It works on short/medium haul as the frames and crews can be rotated on cyclic/W routes and can be based from a hub for MX and crew station. Hub to Point is on the rise and would become norm over time. Hub to Hub would majorly be O&D and some connecting pax starting/ending from one of the hubs.

Never is a long time, as things change all the time.

Consider now that A321XLR will come off the same 60/month production lines as the rest of the family and is now reported by Leeham to deliver ORD-FRA or LHR-DEL range with 200 pax in two class seating or 150 pax in true three class seating.

Since it is a narrow body, it can be slid into second tier contracts as we see happening in various outfits already.

It's interesting to consider what a new entrant could do with such a platform without legacy labor agreements in place.


Those routes are <3800nm so not long haul routes. My point was more about the time and turn around required for long hauls, nothing specific with frames unless maintenance free and/or supersonic long haul capable aircraft become a thing :ugeek: I don't see the sense of basing 2-4 wide body jets from a city for point to point routes due to the need of maintaining MX and crew base for cost optimization. Any city with 6+ long haul routes is bound have a significant short and medium haul operations and by definition it becomes a hub.


3 800 Nm is a pretty long way.
And as Revelation says, the proposed XLR is likely to be a 10 hour capable plane. That is not short haul in my book.
It would be interesting to see again what percentage of widebody flights sit within 4 000Nm, say - easily within the capability of the proposed XLR

Rgds

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:45 am
by Hornberger
Are there any statistics / research on the percentage of air travel that is direct vs 1 stop vs 2 stops vs 3+ stops, and how that compares to 10, 20 or 30 years ago?

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:53 am
by JayinKitsap
If there is enough traffic from an O to a D, including the regionals feeding O & D, to fill a NB profitably it will happen. Alaska flies from SEA to the following East Coast non-stop: ATL, BOS, BWI, DCA, IAD, TPA, FLL, MCO, EWR, JFK, LGA, PHL, PIT, and CHS. There are 3 cities in this group that AS serves 3 airports relatively close to each other. Often they are the only direct flight and they can charge 20% or more for the non-stop. That is point to point, and or where SEA is the hub for all the alaska spokes. These are 5 hour flights, there are a lot of 6, 7, 10 hour flights that have P-P. There must be over a dozen US cities with flights to LHR.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:28 am
by WorldspotterPL
Hornberger wrote:
Are there any statistics / research on the percentage of air travel that is direct vs 1 stop vs 2 stops vs 3+ stops, and how that compares to 10, 20 or 30 years ago?


I recently looked it up, in 2017 it was roughly 3 billion direct pax and 1 billion connecting that made up the 4.1 billion global pax. As always in pax data, those 1 billion connecting pax are in fact around 500 million actual humans counted double. This includes multi stops which I did not look up specifically. In my experience from that sort of data, 2 and 3 stops are a (ca. 10%) fraction of the 1 stops, but please anyone with data correct me.

As for our topic at hand, I believe hubs won't go anywhere unless we invent planes that can fly short haul, let alone long haul, with 5 pax economically. Most of the large global hubs cater for tens of thousands of city pairs with 0,1 to 3 or 4 passengers per day each way, a city pair via a hub with more than, say, 25 pax per day is actually quite rare and even in Asia, where cities and city pairs and by far the thickest, top hubs only have a two digit number of flows above 40 or 50 pax per day. Just to give you an idea, Star Alliance's MUC hub' s largest route in 2017 was the very unspectacular HAM-ATH at 23 pax per day each way. And MUC is not a small hub by any means, it is within the top 20 globally.

Cheers,
PL

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:06 pm
by max999
WeatherPilot wrote:
In my opinion as the major airports airlines use to function as their hubs continue to become more congested leading to delays becoming more frequent and unacceptable it would make sense that carriers would start shifting their focus to point-to-point routes. There’s only so much room at any airport and any new expansion to alleviate congestion just begets more traffic.
With the advent of even more fuel efficient aircraft I think the future is not in hubs but point-to-point. This not only will alleviate congestion but also the crippling effect bad weather has on one hub which in turn affects an airline’s entire network. Yes, there will still be hubs in the future as demand for air travel continuously increases year-over-year, but to the extent the current hubs can handle the increased traffic is already showing its’ perils.
Whether increased demand can be handled through the hubs with bigger planes or more flights the airlines have a logistical problem I can only see being solved by going around the hubs.
Thoughts?


If you're referring to LCCs, they have been doing point to point for years now before the current generation of aircraft even came into existence. The newest generation of aircraft have made longer distance point to point flying less costly and more efficient. Example: 737 NGs and A320s allow LCCs to efficiently fly transcon routes, but many years ago, only the network carriers had the right aircraft to fly transcons.

If you're referring to network carriers, I really don't see them shifting to many point to point routes even with aircraft like the 787. Network carriers are using the new aircraft to fly hub to smaller spokes. For example: BA is using the 787 to fly London to Charleston and London to New Orleans. These routes are noteworthy, but they are still hub to spoke routes. Theoretically, the 787 could fly a true point to point route like Edinburgh to New Orleans, but it's highly unlikely BA or any other network carrier would fly point to point intercontinental routes.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:44 pm
by gunnerman
Most airlines won't operate from non-bases, but BA CityFlyer has been doing something interesting for some years: utilising under-used E190s and crews based at LCY to operate weekend flights to European destinations. The E190s have been flown to a variety of UK regional airports such as BRS, BHX, STN and EDI, worked hard for a couple of days to places like Florence, Faro, Malaga and Palma and retuned to LCY in time for weekday operations.

The situation with LCY is that it's only permitted to operate flights between 0630 and 1300 on Saturdays and 1230 and 2230 on Sundays in order to minimise the impact on local residents.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:40 pm
by Sokes
WorldspotterPL wrote:
I recently looked it up, in 2017 it was roughly 3 billion direct pax and 1 billion connecting that made up the 4.1 billion global pax.
...
Most of the large global hubs cater for tens of thousands of city pairs with 0,1 to 3 or 4 passengers per day each way, a city pair via a hub with more than, say, 25 pax per day is actually quite rare and even in Asia, where cities and city pairs and by far the thickest, top hubs only have a two digit number of flows above 40 or 50 pax per day. Just to give you an idea, Star Alliance's MUC hub' s largest route in 2017 was the very unspectacular HAM-ATH at 23 pax per day each way. And MUC is not a small hub by any means, it is within the top 20 globally.

Cheers,
PL

If most city pairs have so few pax/ day, how comes that 75% of pax were direct pax? Do people use the car/ bus to the nearest airport which has a direct connection to their destination? Or do people which can't get direct connections prefer car/ bus/ train over plane? Are there so many charter flights? I live close to a hub, so your numbers really surprise me. I know I should specify the country.
Your numbers suggest to me that airports should have good train and long distance bus connections. Frankfurt has long distance trains stopping at the airport.
I couldn't believe what you wrote about HAM-ATH. For the 21.6.19 I can't find a single direct flight from Hamburg to Athens, the 15.8.19 (holiday time, but no school holidays) shows one direct flight. I'm surprised. Great post of yours.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:14 pm
by Bluegrass60
Great topic. From what have read...Moxy might be attempting this. Curious if perhaps this P2P model is sorta back-to-the-future....back in the days when a one stop or even two stop with short turns at each stop and online connections available along the route. PIT-CMH-SDF-MEM-DFW as an AA example from a long time ago? The short-haul flying that WN used to do is the type of flying that is neglected today. Maybe economics don't work for this type of short-haul P2P model...but...there would be lots of business travelers that would happily get off the road if these were available at right fare and getting thru TSA made more efficient.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:41 pm
by SilverwingSpttr
Hub & spoke became threatened years ago when planes designed connect hubs (757, 767, A320, and737NG)became able to bypass them. I don't really see us heading back that way. Case in point, I can now fly LAX-BCN direct on a Dreamliner vs flying through LHR and potentially losing my luggage at T5 again, etc.

And some airlines have figured out ways to use wide bodies on short haul/domestic runs. While these are few and far between, they aren't all gone. DL does so well running multiple heavies on LAX-JFK that UA had to start flying the 772 and now the 78X from EWR, twice daily. AA still has all its eggs in the A321 basket, and good luck to them.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:42 pm
by airplaneboy
Bluegrass60 wrote:
Great topic. From what have read...Moxy might be attempting this. Curious if perhaps this P2P model is sorta back-to-the-future....back in the days when a one stop or even two stop with short turns at each stop and online connections available along the route. PIT-CMH-SDF-MEM-DFW as an AA example from a long time ago? The short-haul flying that WN used to do is the type of flying that is neglected today. Maybe economics don't work for this type of short-haul P2P model...but...there would be lots of business travelers that would happily get off the road if these were available at right fare and getting thru TSA made more efficient.


That type of short haul and point to point flying is still very much a part of WN’s schedule today. However, as the company has grown so has the number of longer segments. If you look up the routing of any particular aircraft in their fleet today, you will still see a lot of point to point flying.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:31 am
by RJMAZ
People are probably sick of me talking about point to point. But yes it is the future.

Two stop flights become one stop flights. One stop flights become non stop flights.

As more secondary cities start connecting we will see less traffic flowing into hubs. So it will balance out. This is all driven by customers demanding and paying a premium for less stops and wanting increased freuency.

This demand has led to the 787 being produced and soon the A321XLR and 797.

Carrying additional cargo is probably the biggest thing that reduces an aircrafts range. As these secondary cities will not have big freight demand these smaller aircraft can fly extremely far.

I expect the A321XLR to open up many new transatlantic routes. I expect the 797 to open up new transpacific routes.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:17 am
by 9Patch
AlexBrewster03 wrote:
May I present the A220, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations within the US?

May I present the 787, perhaps the perfect aircraft for point to point operations internationally?

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:52 am
by grbauc
sabby wrote:
In my opinion, point to point would never work on long hauls, due to MX, crew base etc. It works on short/medium haul as the frames and crews can be rotated on cyclic/W routes and can be based from a hub for MX and crew station. Hub to Point is on the rise and would become norm over time. Hub to Hub would majorly be O&D and some connecting pax starting/ending from one of the hubs.



I think you hit it right on.... Spoke/regional> Hub >to End point. Less spoke/regional>Hub->Hub>spoke/regional

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:55 am
by avtcle
Delta definitely got a head start on this — they’ve very healthily spread out their traffic throughout the US in hubs and focus cities, while even operating some PTP routes in non-hub or focus operations like IND-CDG, IND-MCO, CLE-BDL, etc. American and United have EXTREMELY limited PTP service. I know AA flies PIT-RDU, RDU-LHR, and the few regional routes they fly in and out of Boston. United has
CLE-MCO, CLE-LGA, CLE-DCA, CLE-RSW, CLE-FLL, CLE-CHS, CLE-CUN & CLE-TPA. I think they also fly to MSY, AUS & SAT from CUN.

Re: More Point-to-Point The Path Forward?

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:58 am
by Sokes
RJMAZ wrote:
...
Two stop flights become one stop flights. One stop flights become non stop flights.
...
I expect the A321XLR to open up many new transatlantic routes. I expect the 797 to open up new transpacific routes.


Assumption 1:
For flying cargo transpacific a stop in Anchorage is good. Flying cargo transatlantic I assume is better done in belly space.
So if Boeing wants to build a plane without much cargo capacity and with considerable less seating capacity than the existing widebodies, why have a range from 4500-5000nm? (Beijing-San Francisco = 5133nm)

Assumption 2:
To fly from a big town (no hub) in one continent to a big town (no hub) in another continent flying transpacific is too long for economical viable one stop connections. However many transatlantic connections can be done with one stop connections, probably via New York, London or Paris (I assume high O+D).
Therefore the B797 should be optimised for transatlantic. But why not to take cargo?

Assumption3:
Two stop connections remain, but thanks to the lower seating of the A321/ B797 even smaller European hubs can now offer connections to all American hubs and big cities. Big hubs continue to use cargo capable long range planes. Small hubs grow, big hubs shrink. But how many B797 would that require?
Wikipedia: 2015 had 44 million seats offered on transatlantic routes, 22 million each way or around 60.000 seats/ day and direction.
Theoretically = 286 B767-300ER with 210 seats
Even if all transatlantic planes would be replaced by non-cargo carrying B797, that would require around 300 or 400 of it.

The main selling point for the B797 in this scenario is seating capacity, not range. If an airline at a certain time needs 250 seats for a 5 hour flight an added aisle is a necessary cost, even if CASM is worse than in an A321. CASM just needs to be better than of (two) A319.
Beside pilots salary I guess the main CASM advantage comes from economy of scale in engine manufacturing and maintainance. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Which is why I believe the B797 after a few years (when development costs are mostly paid) would achieve CASM better than even A320. I doubt better than A321. But not all city pairs have daily seat requirements in exact multiples of A321 seat capacity. And a 7-abreast plane has a high comfort.
As the B797 is designed for longer ranges (wing) than the A321 it may beat the A321 on CASM transatlantic.

I assume the A321XLR will open many new transatlantic and other long distance city pairs, enabling many one stop connections. Once the B797 arrives it will take over some of these city pairs. Probably not routes whose daily requirements can be served by A321 and not on routes which can fill a B787 / A330 with passengers and cargo.
Overall I assume the B797 is 80% about seating capacity and CASM and not about opening new routes.