Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
WorldspotterPL
Topic Author
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:37 pm

Hi there,

First: I know the A321neo(X)LR has been discussed a lot, and I apologise for further discussing it. Yet, I keep reading about new routes and new airlines getting the plane, and I felt like I needed an overview.
Second: I have to disappoint you, unlike my recent analysis on Airline Hub Benchmarking this is no spectacular data driven analysis, quite the contrary.

I am trying to answer the question of how the introduction of the A321neo(X)LR is similar or not similar to the introduction of the 787 in terms of pure P2P flying or 'hub-busting' (which data strongly suggests the 787 hasn't done). Of course I am aware that the 787 came in much bigger numbers, but I still think it is interesting to compare how airlines are using the respective planes.

To approach the question I gathered all the routes the (X)LR's (and regular A321's) are currently flying on long haul-ish sectors and what routes have been announced. I know it's nothing spectacular or new, just an (incomplete) gathering of data I thought some of you might find as interesting as I do. Sources range from routesonline to news articles etc. as I don't have access to FlightGlobal or anything. I still need help with frequencies.


Aer Lingus:
DUB-BDL (used to be B757)
DUB-IAD (used to be A330, frequency?)
DUB-PHL (used to be B757)
DUB-EWR (used to be A330, frequency?)
SNN-BOS (used to be B757)

SAS:
CPH-BOS (used to be A330 on lower frequency)

TAP:
LIS-MCZ (new route)
LIS-YUL (new route)
PDL-BOS (new route)
OPO-EWR (used to be A330, frequency?)

La Compagnie:
ORY-EWR (used to be B757)
NCE-EWR (used to be B757)

Air Transat (couldn't find data what routes are new and which ones used to be A310/330)
YUL-BSL
YUL-BOD
YUL-BRU
YUL-LIS
YUL-LGW
YUL-AGP
YUL-MRS
YUL-NTE
YUL-NCE
YUL-OPO
YYZ-LGW


Did I forget any/did I make any mistakes? Does anyone have any insights how frequencies have changed with the introduction of the (X)LR apart from the SAS CPH-BOS example?

Similar to what historically the 767, 757, 330, or 787 have done, the (X)LR seems to make hub flights to smaller spokes viable, such as Maceió or Montreal from TAP's Lisbon hub. Mainly, however, it replaces larger aircraft on existing routes and/or adds frequency on existing routes, or it simply replaces similarly sized aircraft such as the Air Transat A310s and Aer Lingus' and La Compagnie's 757s. What is your take on the similarities between the introductions of new, smaller long haul planes in history?

It will be interesting to see on what routes the different airlines will use the plane in the future (especially the network carriers). Especially for an airport like my home airport Hamburg the plane could open up lots of new possibilities.

Best regards,
Paul
 
User avatar
ChrisNH38
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:45 pm

I think it will be a fine aircraft going forward. In Boston, the Terminal E expansion will include dual-aircraft piers, which is terrific for planes like the A321. The wingspan is way less than the 787, so for a given footprint that the expanded terminal will occupy, a pair of A321s can comfortably fit at one pier. Let's not forget JetBlue and their upcoming plans, which will have an impact at Boston.
https://my.flightradar24.com/ChrisNH
 
WorldspotterPL
Topic Author
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:52 pm

thanks for your reply, has B6 already announced any specific routes?
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:01 pm

B6 should start to announce a lot of secondary UK, German (including DUS), and French destinations along with (seasonal) PRG or if in range, KRK. A lot of the point of sale could be European to avoid the large hubs, for which B6 could charge a premium.

This will be a hub buster even more than the Dreamliner.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8049
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:04 pm

Any route that's been flown regularly by a 757 or smaller (321/321LR/Neo, any 737 variant) shouldn't count. You should be capturing effects of:

- a noticeably smaller increment of capacity vs. 767/A330

- the incremental range vs. 757
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:05 pm

The A321 is becoming the new 757-200 extremely quickly I’ve noticed recently.
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7281
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:10 pm

Both planes can hub just. Its just the airlines that have ordered them dont have that business model so they serve Hub-2nd/3rd tier city, think of CO and the 757 out of EWR.

It will still be a while before an airline/airplane combo comes in and offers routes like CLE-AGP or Da Nang-BLR.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
VFRonTop
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:02 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:10 pm

WorldspotterPL wrote:
Hi there,

I am trying to answer the question of how the introduction of the A321neo(X)LR is similar or not similar to the introduction of the 787 in terms of pure P2P flying or 'hub-busting' (which data strongly suggests the 787 hasn't done). Of course I am aware that the 787 came in much bigger numbers, but I still think it is interesting to compare how airlines are using the respective planes.

Paul


I'd argue that the A321xlr is far from being a hub-buster, it is more a hub-maker for both smaller secondary carriers ( think EI in DUB, TP in LIS and TS in YUL.) as well as the majors. I think the A321xlr will be used build established hubs (and focus cities) with service to longer thinner routes rather than P2P connections outside the hub network.
 
mapimi
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:21 pm

While I'm also curious in the effects the a321 will have on hubs, and I could see it working in quite a few places, it doesn't seem to occupy that role for the moment in airline fleets. In your example of Hamburg, I'm sure the a321(X)LR could enable airlines like Lufthansa to operate the aircraft from non hub airports in Germany to major cities like New York for example. The issue with the hub model, especially in Europe is that I feel like legacy carriers are loosing market shares in their home markets because the country's hub might not be the closest to where you live (ex: in France, CDG is not the convenient hub for many people, and they choose to fly out of other hubs than Air France's). Aircrafts like the A321 could enable direct flights from secondary airports to a few main long haul destinations enabling legacy carriers to capture larger parts of their home markets.

In the examples you gave of current fleet usage however, the plane is used to open new routes from hub airports for airlines (or replace 757s). Therefore it is at the moment strengthening hubs instead of busting them. Legacy airlines do seem attached to the hub model at the moment, but I'm sure they are closely looking at TAP and Aer Lingus' operations in secondary cities. That might start a domino effect where we might see secondary cities gaining new routes thanks to the aircraft.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:29 pm

Recent events are equivalent to a perfect storm for Boeing while at the same time presenting a rare golden opportunity for Airbus.

I’m not at all a fan of being a passenger on any single-aisle jet flying trans-Atlantic, but the A321neo is quietly yet aggressively winning this battle.

While Boeing is still struggling to get the 737 MAX recertified and back in service, Airbus is stealing the midsize/midrange single-aisle market. All the while, we still are no closer to seeing any meaningful progress on the MoM/NMA. We need a true market innovator to deliver a clean sheet design. Everyone is tired of evolutionary designs. It’s time to let the 737 die. It’s time for a revolutionary new design.
Last edited by DL747400 on Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5012
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:32 pm

I really don't see the A321 as hub busting as the only thing that is going on is these aircraft are used to restrict capacity on the routes that were previously served by widebodies. We only see the usual suspects getting new markets added the over saturated east coast. Real hub busting is when they start expanding into other markets outside of the usual go to markets.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13956
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:34 pm

Maybe strenghtening hubs by adding more spokes. Opportunistic & defensive.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9305
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:34 pm

WorldspotterPL wrote:
Did I forget any/did I make any mistakes?


For starters, you are making a claim which you say is "strongly supported by data" without actually providing that data:

I am trying to answer the question of how the introduction of the A321neo(X)LR is similar or not similar to the introduction of the 787 in terms of pure P2P flying or 'hub-busting' (which data strongly suggests the 787 hasn't done). Of course I am aware that the 787 came in much bigger numbers, but I still think it is interesting to compare how airlines are using the respective planes.

The 787 has opened a long list of new routes. If your counterpoint is a semantic argument about what is a "hub-to-point" versus "point-to-point," then I'm just going to laugh.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:36 pm

Most of the routes listed by the OP start at a hub. They aren't P2P routes, just longer hub-spoke routes.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3374
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:43 pm

Does an "hub-buster" exist? I don't think so. The vast majority of aircraft of any given type is deployed around a hub. Their percent presence in point-to-point markets is at best in the low single digits.

Hub-buster is in the category of twin-aisle narrow-body: An a.net myth.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
LX2990
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:19 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:45 pm

WorldspotterPL wrote:

Air Transat (couldn't find data what routes are new and which ones used to be A310/330)
YUL-BSL

A310 1x weekly
A21N 2x weekly

both seasonally
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:56 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Both planes can hub just. Its just the airlines that have ordered them dont have that business model so they serve Hub-2nd/3rd tier city, think of CO and the 757 out of EWR.

It will still be a while before an airline/airplane combo comes in and offers routes like CLE-AGP or Da Nang-BLR.
If by a while you mean never, than I agree.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19115
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:58 pm

IMHO, we're more likely to see real 'hub busting' from the A321LR/XLR than we've seen from the 787 so far. The vast majority of 787 routes have a hub at one end if not both. With the A321LR/XLR I think we'll see many more routes with secondary airports at both ends.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
efpmeneses
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:39 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:01 pm

You can add:
LIS-BEL (used to be A330 and now ia A321LR)
LIS-NAT (Is now A330 and will and become A321LR 1st quarter 2020)
LIS-IAD (Now A321LR and A330 on summer IATA)

Enviado do meu ASUS_X017DA através do Tapatalk
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:32 pm

These aircraft aren't "busting" hubs so much as creating new ones. Look at the routes proposed. Most of them have a hub at one end. They are facilitating the hub/spoke model at a lower threshold of demand. Whereas you might need 200-250 PDEW to justify a daily 788 or 332, you can now launch a route with 150-200 PDEW with the 321LR/XLR. This has the effect of bolstering a lot of secondary hubs with newly serviceable destinations and possibly turning some destinations themselves into mini-hubs.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5012
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:50 pm

These planes will become hub busters when they start opening up opportunities for places like CLE, DTW, CMH, STL, MKE and the like. Will still don't see any LUX long haul service.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:02 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
B6 should start to announce a lot of secondary UK, German (including DUS), and French destinations along with (seasonal) PRG or if in range, KRK. A lot of the point of sale could be European to avoid the large hubs, for which B6 could charge a premium.

This will be a hub buster even more than the Dreamliner.


While the airplane is a game changer is is not a magic wand. I am sure B6 will focus on larger European markets (IE,!London, Paris) before getting too creative with secondary cities in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
YouGeeElWhy
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:32 pm

chepos wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
B6 should start to announce a lot of secondary UK, German (including DUS), and French destinations along with (seasonal) PRG or if in range, KRK. A lot of the point of sale could be European to avoid the large hubs, for which B6 could charge a premium.

This will be a hub buster even more than the Dreamliner.


While the airplane is a game changer is is not a magic wand. I am sure B6 will focus on larger European markets (IE,!London, Paris) before getting too creative with secondary cities in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most of the expected European airports are within range of JFK and BOS for the LR. Maybe the XLR will be used at FLL for Europe and Deep South America.
 
YouGeeElWhy
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:43 pm

Of all the airliners that have it on order in the US only Frontier has the potential to do some "hub busting". B6 is not hub busting, they are just doing what they have to do. AA is really just going to deploy them as replacements for the 757 and some kind of growth in hubs like PHL and MIA to new long/thin routes that were not economical with the 757.
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:45 pm

YouGeeElWhy wrote:
chepos wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
B6 should start to announce a lot of secondary UK, German (including DUS), and French destinations along with (seasonal) PRG or if in range, KRK. A lot of the point of sale could be European to avoid the large hubs, for which B6 could charge a premium.

This will be a hub buster even more than the Dreamliner.


While the airplane is a game changer is is not a magic wand. I am sure B6 will focus on larger European markets (IE,!London, Paris) before getting too creative with secondary cities in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most of the expected European airports are within range of JFK and BOS for the LR. Maybe the XLR will be used at FLL for Europe and Deep South America.


Still not hub-busting if those flights end at a hub. Also, operating 321s with 160 pax (MINT config) out of JFK or BOS on TCON isn't going to a justifiable use of a slot at those busy airports unless the destination on the other end is higher yielding.

klm617 wrote:
These planes will become hub busters when they start opening up opportunities for places like CLE, DTW, CMH, STL, MKE and the like. Will still don't see any LUX long haul service.


And those services will all go to an existing hub in Europe. What' the likelihood, for example, that those cities end up connected to a secondary European city like MRS, LYS, MAN or LIS?
 
Antarius
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:45 pm

scbriml wrote:
IMHO, we're more likely to see real 'hub busting' from the A321LR/XLR than we've seen from the 787 so far. The vast majority of 787 routes have a hub at one end if not both. With the A321LR/XLR I think we'll see many more routes with secondary airports at both ends.


I'm not so sure. I think the a321LR/XLR will grow the market the 757 had, but the vast majority will still be hub based on one end.

With regards to the phrase "hub busting", I think it is misused with regards to the 787/a330neo (and the a330 before it). By cutting out having to connect at a hub on the destination side, these aircraft achieved their goal. The a321LR/XLR will do the same.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
Starfuryt
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:58 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:48 pm

TAP is doing LIS-IAD on A321LR right now. I think this is winter only but still.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5012
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:50 pm

TObound wrote:
YouGeeElWhy wrote:
chepos wrote:

While the airplane is a game changer is is not a magic wand. I am sure B6 will focus on larger European markets (IE,!London, Paris) before getting too creative with secondary cities in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most of the expected European airports are within range of JFK and BOS for the LR. Maybe the XLR will be used at FLL for Europe and Deep South America.


Still not hub-busting if those flights end at a hub. Also, operating 321s with 160 pax (MINT config) out of JFK or BOS on TCON isn't going to a justifiable use of a slot at those busy airports unless the destination on the other end is higher yielding.

klm617 wrote:
These planes will become hub busters when they start opening up opportunities for places like CLE, DTW, CMH, STL, MKE and the like. Will still don't see any LUX long haul service.


And those services will all go to an existing hub in Europe. What' the likelihood, for example, that those cities end up connected to a secondary European city like MRS, LYS, MAN or LIS?



DTW-MAN maybe but all the rest no.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:05 pm

scbriml wrote:
IMHO, we're more likely to see real 'hub busting' from the A321LR/XLR than we've seen from the 787 so far. The vast majority of 787 routes have a hub at one end if not both. With the A321LR/XLR I think we'll see many more routes with secondary airports at both ends.


Possible. Just as likely you'd see the elevation of secondary and tertiary hubs. Think of an airline like AC for example. If it bought two dozen LR/XLR, the bulk of their ops would be from YOW and YUL. YOW would basically grow from focus city to secondary hub. YUL would grow further as a major hub.
 
User avatar
Frontier14
Posts: 669
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:14 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:05 pm

Frontier will not receive their 321XLRs until 2024. With that said, I can see the Hawaiian islands from DEN and LAS being a real possibility. If such a route would materialize, it would impact the UA hub in Denver.

Frontier 14
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:39 pm

Frontier14 wrote:
Frontier will not receive their 321XLRs until 2024. With that said, I can see the Hawaiian islands from DEN and LAS being a real possibility. If such a route would materialize, it would impact the UA hub in Denver.


Hawaiian Airlines is going to start LAS to Maui ( Kahului) on December 15, 2019 with a regular A321neo that I believe has already been delivered.

With an advertised range of 5400 miles (under ideal conditions) other destinations will be possible.

HNL/OGG
LAS 2,762 mi / 2,695 mi
DEN 3,364 mi / 3,302 mi
AUS 3,763 mi / 3,686 mi (no nonstop service)
ORD 4,243 mi / 4,184 m (Frontier focus city)
CVG 4,433 mi / 4,369 mi (Frontier focus city)
CLE 4,559 mi / 4,499 mi (Frontier focus city)
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:48 pm

incitatus wrote:
Does an "hub-buster" exist?


I think "hub-buster" is a marketing term. Airline travel is expanding so rapidly that point to point over longer ranges just slightly degrades the potential growth rate of hubs.

The MAX and even the regular A321neo was supposed to have a strong impact on TATL to Britain and Ireland especially to smaller airports like Cork, Belfast, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow in Europe and Newburgh, Hartford, Providence and Manchester in New England along with other Mid-Atlantic airports.

So far all we have are mostly failed routes and failed airlines.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:26 am

the A321 is nothing more than a "Pathfinder".. if that's the lead airplane to establish a route? And the route is a HIT? Then somebody else will be on that route with a bigger airplane PDQ. unless the yield can only support that airplane in which case? the route isn't any route to grow on in the first place. the A321 is a plane who's saving grace is the 757 is no longer in production. Were Boeing to reintroduce the 757 tomorrow? the A321 might not even be viable.
 
gloom
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:14 am

I guess there are two effects to be foreseen, in the context of question asked by OP.

One is 321 replacing standard widebodies at hubs and bringing new thin routes (so, as people call it above, hub-spoke model). This definitely is more of a raiser for hub model - there will be more destinations to raise switch pump. As long as you don't have all slots depleted, this will be an opportunity to make a hub stronger.

On the other hand, 321 has the ability to operate on thin routes between secondary cities. The ones that are not yet strong enough for regular widebody ops, but could support regular service with 321 size plane. Secondary airports on a given city, or smaller cities using transfer to hubs are the primary target, I guess.

Sometimes you will see both in one connection. Someone mentioned NewYork to Krakow above - excellent example. Opportunity to serve thin line from NY, and also OD from Krakow that would take away traffic from hubs like Warsaw, Frankfurt or Munich.

Still, I expect it will not be a game changer at all. Airlines will adapt, and use them on a number of routes, since it's going to reduce cost and risk on new routes. Hubs will compensate - by lowering prices, or getting new feeds from the very same plane. Maybe, some hubs will find themselves "out of range" for 321, and traffic will be redirected/business model for a hub changed. But it happens anyways all the time, with any new airplane opening new possibilities, and I don't see any special there. Then, there are ways to shape traffic. With new route O&D, you'll want to charge premium. Give a few bucks more or less, and shape split direct/hub.

Nothing new here, I guess. Plane will help airlines, but will not affect hubs too much, I guess. At least not in the way OP intended.

Cheers,
Adam
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2216
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:15 am

The move toward p-p, in its basic form is 'non-stop', '1 stop' at a hub, or '2 stop' at two hubs. It basically means how many destinations can I get to from my airport without a stop. For SEA, the number of destinations seems to have doubled over 30 years. The NB market in the US clearly shows the change.

The 727 era, the 732 era, the Classic 737 era, the NG era, and the neo/MAX era each saw the planes capabilities grow substantially. Until the NGs, 737's didn't fly transcon the 738 was great at it, with the A320's shorter range kept it off the longest ones. Well with the neo/MAX transcon is easy for the 321 and OK for the 73X.

Southwest route maps tell the growth of this, they didn't hub as in coordinate to waves rather fit the max flights in for the plane. At first it was all 3 hour or shorter flights, later each of their major destinations added flights to more cities. Coverage is coming soon to the entire nation by WN. Yes Delta covers more cities, but a lot is RJ's spoking out from their hubs.

PacoMartin wrote:
Hawaiian Airlines is going to start LAS to Maui ( Kahului) on December 15, 2019 with a regular A321neo that I believe has already been delivered.

With an advertised range of 5400 miles (under ideal conditions) other destinations will be possible.


The perfect example! 15 years ago the 737 was not doing mainland to Hawaii, it was 757, 767, A330 planes on the routes. With the NG's the coastal cities could reach but the extra time to get to LAS, Reno and PHX. With some pips the A321neo could make Salt Lake. A lot of routes just beyond reach are now doable, the only drawback is if there are enough customers to fill the plane.


On Long Haul, the 763ER and the A330 were covering lots of cities within their capabilities. Beyond that it was the A340, A380, 747, and 777. The 787 and 77W came in and allowed the airlines to skip the VLA's, by offering a 2nd city beside the original hub

The capacity of the NB keeps increasing, the average plane capacity is increasing also, but the average WB capacity is decreasing
 
JonesNL
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:25 am

How does the XLR actually compare to the hub feeder of Airbus the A380? I think 3 A321XLR can compare against 1 A380 pax wise. But I wonder if the revenue potential of the A380 with suites gives it an edge when considering the bottom line...
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:22 am

strfyr51 wrote:
the A321 is nothing more than a "Pathfinder".. if that's the lead airplane to establish a route? And the route is a HIT? Then somebody else will be on that route with a bigger airplane PDQ. unless the yield can only support that airplane in which case? the route isn't any route to grow on in the first place. the A321 is a plane who's saving grace is the 757 is no longer in production. Were Boeing to reintroduce the 757 tomorrow? the A321 might not even be viable.


So what you're saying in essence is that the A321 is a good temporary pathfinder because of its small size, it works well in this role. But if the 757 (which is the same size) was available it wouldn't be viable.

So the "pathfinder" business model for the A321LR only works because the 757 isn't in production? Why does it cease to be viable if the 757 is still available?

Sorry mate you'll have to explain that one - not sure I follow your logic. ;)
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8358
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:04 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
WorldspotterPL wrote:
Did I forget any/did I make any mistakes?


For starters, you are making a claim which you say is "strongly supported by data" without actually providing that data:

I am trying to answer the question of how the introduction of the A321neo(X)LR is similar or not similar to the introduction of the 787 in terms of pure P2P flying or 'hub-busting' (which data strongly suggests the 787 hasn't done). Of course I am aware that the 787 came in much bigger numbers, but I still think it is interesting to compare how airlines are using the respective planes.

The 787 has opened a long list of new routes. If your counterpoint is a semantic argument about what is a "hub-to-point" versus "point-to-point," then I'm just going to laugh.


The bolded words are important as the OP clearly has misunderstood the term "hub busting", which is entirely a marketing term dreamed up by someone at Boeing circa 2005.

There is no such thing as a P2P "hub buster" outside of a very limited, largely LCC, market. There is, however, hub-secondary city. The OP's own list shows a hub at one end of the route.

Before the 787 there was no NRT-SAN/SJC/DEN/BOS etc.

The 787 has opened up new long haul markets and the 321neo will do the same with medium haul markets.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
WorldspotterPL
Topic Author
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:28 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
WorldspotterPL wrote:
Did I forget any/did I make any mistakes?


For starters, you are making a claim which you say is "strongly supported by data" without actually providing that data:

I am trying to answer the question of how the introduction of the A321neo(X)LR is similar or not similar to the introduction of the 787 in terms of pure P2P flying or 'hub-busting' (which data strongly suggests the 787 hasn't done). Of course I am aware that the 787 came in much bigger numbers, but I still think it is interesting to compare how airlines are using the respective planes.

The 787 has opened a long list of new routes. If your counterpoint is a semantic argument about what is a "hub-to-point" versus "point-to-point," then I'm just going to laugh.


The bolded words are important as the OP clearly has misunderstood the term "hub busting", which is entirely a marketing term dreamed up by someone at Boeing circa 2005.

There is no such thing as a P2P "hub buster" outside of a very limited, largely LCC, market. There is, however, hub-secondary city. The OP's own list shows a hub at one end of the route.

Before the 787 there was no NRT-SAN/SJC/DEN/BOS etc.

The 787 has opened up new long haul markets and the 321neo will do the same with medium haul markets.


Of course one can debate whether the Boeing marketing team at the time meant hub-to-spoke or spoke-to-spoke. Many thought the latter (see sources below), and so do I.

I thought I wouldn't need the data proving the 787 is no point-to-point aircraft, but here it is: like routesonline (2016) among others have analysed, 'Only four so called spoke-to-spoke services were identified based on current schedules' (source https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/254417/broken-dreams-has-the-hub-buster-been-busted-at-routes-europe/). CAPA agrees 'Boeing's 'hub-buster' is mostly used by airlines to feed, not bypass, hubs' (https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/787-network-analysis-boeings-hub-buster-is-mostly-used-by-airlines-to-feed-not-bypass-hubs-293741).

Of course I am aware that the term 'hub-buster' was marketing talk initially, but why should there never be such thing as a real 'hub-buster'? If TAP started flying Porto to non-Star hubs in the US, that would definitely somewhat 'bust' its Lisbon hub, don't you agree? And what about Shannon - Boston on Aer Lingus, where is the hub in this route? The smaller long haul planes become, the more likely a true 'hub-buster' becomes.

Best regards,
Paul
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8049
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:38 pm

WorldspotterPL wrote:
Of course I am aware that the term 'hub-buster' was marketing talk initially, but why should there never be such thing as a real 'hub-buster'? If TAP started flying Porto to non-Star hubs in the US, that would definitely somewhat 'bust' its Lisbon hub, don't you agree? And what about Shannon - Boston on Aer Lingus, where is the hub in this route? The smaller long haul planes become, the more likely a true 'hub-buster' becomes.


Those are great examples. How many of that type do you think will come to pass? Hub carriers don't have much incentive to weaken their own hubs (look at how ATL/DFW/CLT have been grown - I won't include LHR because it's been capacity-constrained for a long time). Look at the paucity of point-to-point flying by AA/DL/UA in a large, open domestic market. Look at the very low fraction of flying where WN uses max range of a 738, let alone have use for another 1,500sm.

Norwegian has been good a trying point-to-point. It's also been exceptionally good at losing money.

The CEO of Lufthansa said the XLR was not a game-changer. Believe it. It will be useful to some carriers (particularly those operating big fleets of 32Xneos, so the incremental type cost is small) on some routes. It isn't the game-changer that 767 ETOPS was, killing TATL DC-10s and, as a lower increment of capacity, enabling many new TATL and deep S America routes.
 
sagechan
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:48 pm

Hub based airlines will use the 321xlr to add additional long & thin routes and to extend seasons or add year round service to reduced winter demand areas. Unlike the 787, which hasn't been profitable for P2P long haul ULCC, the 321xlr will be able to slot into many ULCC fleets seamlessly and allow for more experimenting of P2P.

The idea of hubbusting isnt really important though, most airlines either strongly hub or are P2P with focus cities that allow some hubbing. The useage of the new 321s will depend on the nature of the airline operating it.
717, 733, 734, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 772, 77W, 789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A359, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH1, DH2, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS, SK, VY, LA, QF, AR, AV, MH, KA, AS
 
JonesNL
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:03 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
WorldspotterPL wrote:
Of course I am aware that the term 'hub-buster' was marketing talk initially, but why should there never be such thing as a real 'hub-buster'? If TAP started flying Porto to non-Star hubs in the US, that would definitely somewhat 'bust' its Lisbon hub, don't you agree? And what about Shannon - Boston on Aer Lingus, where is the hub in this route? The smaller long haul planes become, the more likely a true 'hub-buster' becomes.


Those are great examples. How many of that type do you think will come to pass? Hub carriers don't have much incentive to weaken their own hubs (look at how ATL/DFW/CLT have been grown - I won't include LHR because it's been capacity-constrained for a long time). Look at the paucity of point-to-point flying by AA/DL/UA in a large, open domestic market. Look at the very low fraction of flying where WN uses max range of a 738, let alone have use for another 1,500sm.

Norwegian has been good a trying point-to-point. It's also been exceptionally good at losing money.

The CEO of Lufthansa said the XLR was not a game-changer. Believe it. It will be useful to some carriers (particularly those operating big fleets of 32Xneos, so the incremental type cost is small) on some routes. It isn't the game-changer that 767 ETOPS was, killing TATL DC-10s and, as a lower increment of capacity, enabling many new TATL and deep S America routes.


Depends who you are asking. For Airliners who predominantly use the hub and spoke model, the A321XLR does not do much other than adding another thin spoke to their hub. But for Airliners who have a more point to point approach like Wizz Air, easyJet and Sprint, the XLR is a big opportunity creator enabling routes that were impossible with a single type narrowbody fleet. EasyJet can now do flights that Ryan Air can't even think about. So, they will have zero competition on these routes.
Gamechanger? Yes, but not for the hub and spoke Airliners...
 
alo2yyz
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:53 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:01 pm

WorldspotterPL wrote:

Of course one can debate whether the Boeing marketing team at the time meant hub-to-spoke or spoke-to-spoke. Many thought the latter (see sources below), and so do I.


Hm, but must a 'hub-buster' be on both sides?

as a hypothetical: if one used to have to go MEM--ATL/DTW--AMS/CDG--LOS, but could now go MEM-CDG/AMS-LOS, isn't that some flavour of 'hub-busting'?
 
reltney
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:10 am

    TheWorm123 wrote:
    The A321 is becoming the new 757-200 extremely quickly I’ve noticed recently.


    Delta was prompt in saying the 321 with all the mods still can’t do what the 757 does on the same route but the pax prefer the larger cabin. Notice how the 757 is more a Florida plane and will still be on the routes the 321 with all the mods can’t quite cut it. That was at an August pilot meeting. Throw your darts but facts are facts and the airline crunches the numbers better than the armchair CEOs. Boeing will loose out because they dropped the 757 with nothing ready to jump in....

    FYI ....321 with all the mods compared to a 787 is like comparing a 747 to a DC-8. Two different planes in two different categories .....

    Cheers
    Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
    OUTLAW KNIVES.

    I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
     
    User avatar
    MrHMSH
    Posts: 2646
    Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

    Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

    Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:27 am

    reltney wrote:
      TheWorm123 wrote:
      The A321 is becoming the new 757-200 extremely quickly I’ve noticed recently.


      Delta was prompt in saying the 321 with all the mods still can’t do what the 757 does on the same route but the pax prefer the larger cabin. Notice how the 757 is more a Florida plane and will still be on the routes the 321 with all the mods can’t quite cut it. That was at an August pilot meeting. Throw your darts but facts are facts and the airline crunches the numbers better than the armchair CEOs. Boeing will loose out because they dropped the 757 with nothing ready to jump in....

      FYI ....321 with all the mods compared to a 787 is like comparing a 747 to a DC-8. Two different planes in two different categories .....

      Cheers


      You hear words to this effect quite often, but the market for the 757 had dried up, airlines were not interested in it and I'd imagine not a new replacement either because Boeing didn't come close to launching one (I don't think!). The simple reality is that the A321 and 737-900ER (latter more US market though) could do enough of the 757's missions that they were popular, and that little niche where they couldn't was simply too slim to launch a new product for. Airbus made their own niche by updating and increasing the capabilities of the A321, but that doesn't mean there's a market for a new plane, or at least enough of one to justify it.

      More on topic: true hub-busters don't really exist, aircraft like the A321neo and 787 will generally make a less busy destination viable within their ranges, eliminating the need for that destination to be connected though. BA's LHR-AUS for example eliminates a stop in DFW, JFK, ORD or wherever for example. It'll be a very long while before we see long haul flights have true P2P like we have on short haul (in general).
       
      User avatar
      RyanairGuru
      Posts: 8358
      Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

      Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

      Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:23 am

      WorldspotterPL wrote:
      RyanairGuru wrote:
      DfwRevolution wrote:

      For starters, you are making a claim which you say is "strongly supported by data" without actually providing that data:

      I am trying to answer the question of how the introduction of the A321neo(X)LR is similar or not similar to the introduction of the 787 in terms of pure P2P flying or 'hub-busting' (which data strongly suggests the 787 hasn't done). Of course I am aware that the 787 came in much bigger numbers, but I still think it is interesting to compare how airlines are using the respective planes.

      The 787 has opened a long list of new routes. If your counterpoint is a semantic argument about what is a "hub-to-point" versus "point-to-point," then I'm just going to laugh.


      The bolded words are important as the OP clearly has misunderstood the term "hub busting", which is entirely a marketing term dreamed up by someone at Boeing circa 2005.

      There is no such thing as a P2P "hub buster" outside of a very limited, largely LCC, market. There is, however, hub-secondary city. The OP's own list shows a hub at one end of the route.

      Before the 787 there was no NRT-SAN/SJC/DEN/BOS etc.

      The 787 has opened up new long haul markets and the 321neo will do the same with medium haul markets.


      Of course one can debate whether the Boeing marketing team at the time meant hub-to-spoke or spoke-to-spoke. Many thought the latter (see sources below), and so do I.

      I thought I wouldn't need the data proving the 787 is no point-to-point aircraft, but here it is: like routesonline (2016) among others have analysed, 'Only four so called spoke-to-spoke services were identified based on current schedules' (source https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/254417/broken-dreams-has-the-hub-buster-been-busted-at-routes-europe/). CAPA agrees 'Boeing's 'hub-buster' is mostly used by airlines to feed, not bypass, hubs' (https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/787-network-analysis-boeings-hub-buster-is-mostly-used-by-airlines-to-feed-not-bypass-hubs-293741).

      Of course I am aware that the term 'hub-buster' was marketing talk initially, but why should there never be such thing as a real 'hub-buster'? If TAP started flying Porto to non-Star hubs in the US, that would definitely somewhat 'bust' its Lisbon hub, don't you agree? And what about Shannon - Boston on Aer Lingus, where is the hub in this route? The smaller long haul planes become, the more likely a true 'hub-buster' becomes.

      Best regards,
      Paul


      I acknowledged there was a limited niche for non-hub routes, admittedly I said most would be LCC driven, but PDL-BOS falls squarely in this niche. It is a large ethnic market with significant VFR traffic. Yes it is avoiding the LIS hub, but I wouldn't look to that market as proof that TAP (or anyone else) is about to launch masses of flights that don't touch a hub at either end.

      I honestly don't understand why people thought that the 787 would launch spoke-spoke routes. There is no market for routes like CLE-DAD and SVQ-MEM. What the 787 has done (and 321 will accelerate in the TATL market) is reduce the number of double-connects.
      Worked Hard, Flew Right
       
      Dominion301
      Posts: 2809
      Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

      Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

      Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:38 am

      TObound wrote:
      scbriml wrote:
      IMHO, we're more likely to see real 'hub busting' from the A321LR/XLR than we've seen from the 787 so far. The vast majority of 787 routes have a hub at one end if not both. With the A321LR/XLR I think we'll see many more routes with secondary airports at both ends.


      Possible. Just as likely you'd see the elevation of secondary and tertiary hubs. Think of an airline like AC for example. If it bought two dozen LR/XLR, the bulk of their ops would be from YOW and YUL. YOW would basically grow from focus city to secondary hub. YUL would grow further as a major hub.


      Maybe the 321XLR/LR (if this happens in the next 10 years) could be dubbed the “double-hub buster”. Sticking with YOW as an example, currently to fly YOW-CDG, you need to double hub, be it at LHR, YUL, FRA, EWR or even backtracking to YYZ. If an airline were to introduce YOW-CDG nonstop, it would eliminate the double hub scenario that currently exists between these two capitals.

      While AC will never admit to it, I wonder how much AC are regretting going MAX vs NEO?
       
      jfk777
      Posts: 7353
      Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

      Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

      Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:44 am

      The basic difference between an A321 LR and a 787-9 is the 787 can fly double the distance and carry close to 400 passengers in an all nearly all economy configuration like Scoot's 787-9. The A321 LR is the new "hot thing" since TAP, Aer Lingus, JetBlue and SAS are using them, or soon will, on the Atlantic. The A321 LR is a great plane for nonstop flights for smaller cities not able to support an A330 or 787 on an international flight. ORD to Edinburgh can happen but don't count on LAX to EDI.

      The 787-9 is an incredible machine able to fly nonstop for 17 hours connecting very distant places not viable with a 777 or an A380. Qantas and Air New Zealand have shown us how the 787-9 is helping connect Oceania to the USA east coast and midwest plus of course Qantas with their pioneering Perth to London Heathrow flight. The 787-9 has changed the world.
       
      User avatar
      MrHMSH
      Posts: 2646
      Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

      Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

      Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:24 am

      jfk777 wrote:
      The basic difference between an A321 LR and a 787-9 is the 787 can fly double the distance and carry close to 400 passengers in an all nearly all economy configuration like Scoot's 787-9. The A321 LR is the new "hot thing" since TAP, Aer Lingus, JetBlue and SAS are using them, or soon will, on the Atlantic. The A321 LR is a great plane for nonstop flights for smaller cities not able to support an A330 or 787 on an international flight. ORD to Edinburgh can happen but don't count on LAX to EDI.

      The 787-9 is an incredible machine able to fly nonstop for 17 hours connecting very distant places not viable with a 777 or an A380. Qantas and Air New Zealand have shown us how the 787-9 is helping connect Oceania to the USA east coast and midwest plus of course Qantas with their pioneering Perth to London Heathrow flight. The 787-9 has changed the world.


      No need for the hyperbole, the 787-9 has made some new routes viable, but that is not changing the world, it's an evolution that comes with virtually every new generation of aircraft. The boom of LCCs is world-changing, not really a few new long-haul routes.
       
      User avatar
      JetBuddy
      Posts: 2567
      Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

      Re: 'Hub-busting' effect of A321(X)LR compared to 787

      Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:59 am

      SAS' first A321LR will fly CPH - BOS.

      There's been some speculation if they would be used from hub (CPH) to various secondary markets in the US, or if they would be flown from secondary markets in Scandinavia to hubs in the US.

      I think the most economical thing to do is to fly from hub in CPH to secondary markets in the US. Because that's when you sell tickets for both legs inside the same airline.

      However, SAS needs to improve the feeder shuttles from secondary Scandinavian cities to CPH, because KLM is practically vacuuming pax from the entire coast and sending them through AMS.

      Popular Searches On Airliners.net

      Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

      Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

      Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

      Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

      Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

      Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

      Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

      Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

      Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

      Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

      Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

      Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

      Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

      Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

      Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos