In my example, the total traffic on either side of the equation is the same. Yours isn't
it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I really didn't care. Just change the feeder flight sizes and maybe MAN
) (MNL / RPLL), Philippines">MNL (which could probably not fill an RJ
in reality)until it works out even
I think where are arguments differ is that you say feeding more people to a hub will increase flight frequency whereas I am arguing that feeding more people to a hub will increase aircraft size. The reason I say this is that Hub system generally have to be synchronized, eg all L/haul planes and feeder flight have to arrive and leave similtaneously so connections can be made. Also the Feeder traffic compromises highly of O&D, say to LHR
it will be about 70%. Regional O&D flights demand high frequency to maintain competitiveness. If people flying long haul began to fly to Manchester they would probably reduce the size of the A/C to LHR
but IMO not
the frequency. There are very few RJ
's at LHR
unlike in the US but if hub bypasses began to exist in Europe I think we would see more over here.
Also I question the amount of passengers who want to fly L/haul from secondary airports, perhaps in the US there is less centralization (ie lots of intermediate sized cities) but in Europe and far east Asia there is, mostly due to small country size. This means that 1 city in the country takes the majority of O&D traffic from the whole nation. Like London in the UK, Paris in France, Athens in Greece, Dubai in UAE, Sydney in Aus.
(again). Here is a list of services which could support a MAN
service considering MAN
O&D traffic and connections to/from MAN
(these are generous)
so if you implement these services you will bypass LHR
and you could cut feeder frequencies (although I would argue aircraft size) and there would be say 250 less people needing to fly LHR
. But look at the other end of the flight. The airports are all major destinations too, so you have to add another service to another hub. And people are still going to need to travel Via LHR
to get to other important destinations like GIG
, LOS, LAX
. The airports listed in the MAN
example are only a fraction of BA
's long haul network. You could not divide one of these flights to GIG
ect between two hubs as there would simply not be the demand at MAN
for it. So you are still going to have to provide frequent services to LHR
just with smaller planes for those wishing to fly from the UK to GIG
I have come up with an example to support the argument.
Bypassing hubs will drastically reduce the number of feeder flights. Unfortunately, airlines like BA, SQ, AF, LH, etc. need to maintain their business volume and hub status. Therefore, they will need bigger planes to continue their hub dominance. Without a hub-and-spoke network, airlines like SQ will shrink significantly. These airlines may say that they order the 380 to help alleviate congestion at their airports. But the truth is that they want to strengthen their hub dominance. Do you really believe SQ will replace three 744 flights to LHR with two 380 flights? No they won't. For one thing, it will mean a reduction in capacity. They will eventually replace the three 744 flights with probably three 380 flights. Can the SIN-LHR O&D traffic support the increased capacity? Most likely not. Then, where will the traffic be coming from? From regional feeds. How do you get the additional regional feeds? By placing more regional flights? What's the end effect? There are far more flights coming in and out of SIN and LHR.
You example is really degraded by the fact that you have chose SQ
. An airline which could not not use Hub and Spoke even if they wanted to.
They will eventually replace the three 744 flights with probably three 380 flights. Can the SIN-LHR O&D traffic support the increased capacity? Most likely not. Then, where will the traffic be coming from? From regional feeds. How do you get the additional regional feeds? By placing more regional flights?
First of all if SQ
were as unbusiness-minded to put too many seats on a LHR
sector, surely they would do the same with but with 4 747's insead of 3 A380's, if the A380 did not exist.
You cannot force more people out of the overall traffic flow system than there already is, simply buy adding more feeder routes. At this moment if SQ
expanded there feeder system they would have to 'steal' pax flying Far East-LHR
from other airlines like CX
ect and not create new passengers. why the heck would passengers necessarily want to fly via SIN
(ignore passenger service) they may be fairly content flying via BKK
HNK or DBX, as flights may be quicker and even if they do want to fly SQ
for their in-flight service, they will be reducing pax flow to another hub like BKK
and DBX. The A380 will simply allows traffic to grow into the bigger seat offering. Much like when you are young and you buy a slightly oversized pair of shoes so you can grow into them.
Without a hub-and-spoke network, airlines like SQ will shrink significantly. These airlines may say that they order the 380 to help alleviate congestion at their airports. But the truth is that they want to strengthen their hub dominance
but strengthening their hub dominance is the only way SQ
buy more planes and increase routewide trafficflow=SQ strenghten their hub dominance.
arent just going to decide to stop expanding.
Surely the A380 has
to alleviate aircraft traffic at SIN
because 1 A380 can carry more Pax than a 744, therefore less planes are required to shift X-amount of people long-haul.
I think your examples have been pretty lame.
I just hate people who blindly believe Airbus's assertion that the 380 will be the savior for congested hubs like LHR
So tell me the truth, do you actually profoundly believe the A380 will increase aircraft congestion at Airports or are you just trying to slash Airbus' predictions because you dislike the company and/or the concept and want to rebel against their 'assertiveness'. Maybe its because Airbus are giving Boeing a run for their money. Why have Boeing not disputed Airbus' reduced airport congestion claim, or have they? Maybe you should go work for Boeing
No. At least Roberta tried, but Roberta wasn't too successful at it as I explained above.
Says who? you, obviously. Well duh
Saying things like that turn a good discussion into an argument, well done.
Oh brother, another post that has turned into a Boeing versus Airbus debate.
this aint A vrs B. I'd just like to clarify i hav nothing aganst the 7E7 (apart from it spells the end of the 757/767
)and am quite looking foward to more direct flights and i think it is a goo idea but i just dont see how the A380 will increase traffic at congested airports