avi8
Topic Author
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:36 am

Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:28 pm

So I've always wondered how hubs such as MAD get substantial feed from their hub, excluding long haul. To be more thorough, I don't think anyone would fly: OSLO-MADRID-PARIS for example. I know MAD connects several domestic cities. But with domestic traffic and local demand, is that enough to make it one lf Europe's largest hubs?
avi8
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:33 pm

MAD is ideally located for South America flights. That's about it.

Another bad hub location is BER, away from the cross roads. It's like McDee#s opening in a side street.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
zrs70
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 4:08 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:34 pm

Is MAD considered one of the largest hubs? IB has a much smaller operation than BA/LH/AF.
20 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2020
 
avi8
Topic Author
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:36 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:51 pm

It's atleast in the top 10 biggest hibs in Europe.
avi8
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3483
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:53 pm

MAD is the fifth largest metro area in Europe (3rd if you don't include Moscow or Istanbul) and generates significant O/D traffic to support its routes. It really does not see much intra-european connecting traffic except to/from Spain and Portugal.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10595
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:48 pm

Quoting avi8 (Thread starter):

So I've always wondered how hubs such as MAD get substantial feed from their hub, excluding long haul.

Well you simply can't exclude long haul from the equation for a start. It's the South and Central American long haul connections which help make it such a large hub

Quoting avi8 (Thread starter):
To be more thorough, I don't think anyone would fly: OSLO-MADRID-PARIS for example.

There is little reason for Iberia or Air Europa to offer attractive connections on such routes, so no. Hubs play to their strengths which, as mentioned, is international LatAm traffic.

Quoting avi8 (Thread starter):
I know MAD connects several domestic cities. But with domestic traffic and local demand, is that enough to make it one lf Europe's largest hubs?

A little more than several; Iberia, Air Nostrum and now Iberia Express have an extensive domestic (and international) route network from MAD. Routes to BCN, PMI, TFN, LPA and VLC all see in excess of 1 million pax annually, with almost a dozen other domestic routes seeing half a million. In this respect MAD is in the perfect position; right in the middle of Spain and also in a good position to offer connections from all of Europe to South and Central America, plus most of Africa if desired.

I can't think of a hub which is badly positioned, because there are always reasons for the positioning, even if they may not immediately be clear. There are those with unfortunate set ups like EZE/AEP and others which are relatively isolated like JNB, but it's obvious why that is the case.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14176
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:49 pm

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 4):
It really does not see much intra-european connecting traffic except to/from Spain and Portugal.

I've found it difficult to book Europe-US connections over MAD as well to destinations not on the Iberian peninsula, even when such connections wouldn't be that out of the way (e.g. Italy or Greece).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3483
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:04 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):

I've found it difficult to book Europe-US connections over MAD as well to destinations not on the Iberian peninsula, even when such connections wouldn't be that out of the way (e.g. Italy or Greece).

I haven't had that problem. I have flown IB from the US to both IST and VCE via MAD.
 
idlewildchild
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:05 am

I love T4 and T4S at Barajas. And let's face it, especially with Spanair gone, if you're going to any city other than Madrid in Spain, eg ALC, VLC, etc. from the US, Central or South America, or Africa for that matter, you're going through Madrid. Not only is the T4/T4S beautiful there always seems to be little to no waiting for take-off and never, at least I haven't, circling for arrival though with as slow as those A340-600s descend you do get a nice Spanish countrywide tour on the way down, especially if it's dawn after an overnight from the US.
 
dw9115
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:54 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:42 am

I think in the US Miami is kind of 50/50 it works well for Central (include Caribbean) and South America and for Florida visitors. On the other hand though anything else Europe, Asia, even most of the domestic US it is in a bad spot. I guess you could say it works ok for parts of Africa also but it's really not in the best spot for most connecting traffic for a hub and spoke operation.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2618
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:57 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 1):
Another bad hub location is BER, away from the cross roads.

Well if LH, AB or any other carrier decided to build a hub, it is perfectly located for Asian and Russian connections to most of Europe. The problem was that for the longest time, traffic was split into three airports.

In the US, I suppose PIT & CVG is (were) badly positioned hubs.
Geographically, not too bad but the local metropolis is too small.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:38 am

Quoting carpethead (Reply 10):
Well if LH, AB or any other carrier decided to build a hub, it is perfectly located for Asian and Russian connections to most of Europe. The problem was that for the longest time, traffic was split into three airports.

AB starts a hub in its namesake city, for LH it is a focus city right now. Germany is polycentric, people prefer direct flights and will not go to BER before they go to Russia. Eastern European cities are available in numbers from FRA/MUC/VIE. Why should Far East long distance flights relocate to BER when they work perfectly from FRA and MUC?
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6987
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:06 am

You can add MEM and STL to the bad hub location list as well.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
tonystan
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:39 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:28 am

Id love to see a list of great locations that should have been bigger Hubs.....

Dublin as one example!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:52 am

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 4):

MAD is the fifth largest metro area in Europe (3rd if you don't include Moscow or Istanbul) and generates significant O/D traffic to support its routes. It really does not see much intra-european connecting traffic except to/from Spain and Portugal.

Partially true. Analysing Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe) list of Polycentric metropolitan areas in Europe, Madrid only tops #7.
 
Tolmachevo
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:49 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:53 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 11):
AB starts a hub in its namesake city, for LH it is a focus city right now. Germany is poly-centric, people prefer direct flights and will not go to BER before they go to Russia. Eastern European cities are available in numbers from FRA/MUC/VIE. Why should Far East long distance flights relocate to BER when they work perfectly from FRA and MUC?

So the disadvantage of BER is not actually its location in Europe, but rather its very close location to FRA (ca. 450km) and MUC (ca. 480km)?

BER has a much better chance of being a hub for Europe, rather than being a hub for Germany. You are right in saying that Germany is poly-centric, and yes, why would anyone fly from NUR-BER-SVO when they could drive to MUC and fly direct or take the train to FRA and fly direct from there. However what about PMI-BER-SVO, BGO-BER-AUH or ARN-BER-LIS?

I would say that if you look at a map of Europe, BER is ideal a a hub for North-East Europe to Western / Southern Europe. Whether demand is there is another question, but its location is not vastly different than FRA, MUC or CPH and if a hub can work in such locations then there is no reason why it could not work in BER which is one of the few airports in Europe with approved planning permission to double its capacity from its current 25 million to 50 million, something which is (unfortunately) very rare in Europe these days.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:58 am

Quoting tolmachevo (Reply 15):
So the disadvantage of BER is not actually its location in Europe,

No, the disadvantage of BER is its location in Europe. It is too far from the demographic and geographic centre. If AB offers the routings you mentioned, fine. But on most of these routings people have a choice aqs well, via VIE FRA or MUC.

A hub has to rely on its own O&D for which the share of hoigh yield traffic should be large enough and the rest is transit. Without sustainable O&D traffic you can forget about transit.

the other point is, when you hear the NIMBYs here in FRA saying that the eastern European traffic should relocate to BER, this is BS. You cannot split hubs. Period. An airline can build a second hub, which LH has done very successfully with MUC and is doing now even with a third hub at DUS.

AB has three hubs, they are taking advantage of BER and the new facilities there. But new facilities alone do not create traffic and the pax from PMI to DME can also fly via VIE, on AB
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
Tolmachevo
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:49 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:21 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
It is too far from the demographic and geographic centre

But HEL, MAD and IST are also far from the demographic and geographic center and they work as hubs, and BER is in flight time only 30-45 mins away from MUC and FRA. I am not saying these wont continue to exist as hubs, but as they cannot grow, airlines and passengers will look for alternatives. That is how MUC became a hub in the first place wasn't it?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
A hub has to rely on its own O&D

FRA has about 50% transit which equates to 28 mil. O&D / 28 mil. transit.

MUC has about 37% transit which equates to 22 mil. O&D / 13 mil. transit.

TXL / SXF have about 4% transit which equates to 23 mil. O&D / 1 mil. transit.

So we can see that O&D is already quite strong in BER within a German context, and with the infrastructure soon being in place (a single terminal complex), and huge capacity to grow in the future, (something lacking at most other airports in Europe), the conditions to create a hub are very strong - regardless of airline or alliance. Growth in air travel is there in Europe, what limits it is lack of infrastructure.
 
fn1001
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:36 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:42 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
...No, the disadvantage of BER is its location in Europe. It is too far from the demographic and geographic centre...

Let me contradict you! BER has a very good location in Europe. Just consider Europe not only the western part, where the money is, consider also the eastern part, where the growth is. And like VIE for Star Alliance (have you seen the dimensions of the new terminal?), BER will be for One World a very strong link between "old" and "new" Europe and between "new" Europe and the long haul destinations from BER.

The only bat thing about positioning BER are the villages surrounding it, with the discussion about a curfew. But I guess the OP did not mean this positioning.
Mai bine să-ţi fie rău decît să-ţi pară rău.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:58 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5):
It's the South and Central American long haul connections which help make it such a large hub

In addition, I believe MAD would be very well placed as an Africa gateway; IB has started a few routes but I think this is an area to be further developed.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
I've found it difficult to book Europe-US connections over MAD as well to destinations not on the Iberian peninsula, even when such connections wouldn't be that out of the way (e.g. Italy or Greece).

Me too, and I think this is an aspect that IB overlooks, too focused on LatAm connections. They don't seem to promote those type of connections at all, a pity.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:02 am

Quoting tolmachevo (Reply 17):
But HEL, MAD and IST are also far from the demographic and geographic center and they work as hubs, and BER is

well, we are discussing bad posiitoned hubs here and ;MAD was the prime example. HEL is a niche hub.

I don't get your reason why BER should be a hub because it is 40 or 45 minutes away from FRA and mUC.

As a German hub, BER has no flight cnnections form major population centres like HAM, LEJ, DRS BRE HAJ and will not have these, since the distances are too short. These are less than optimal conditions for a hub. FRA and MUC connect all these centres.

Next a lot of the O&D traffic at BER is low cost which is not hub traffic. LCCs do not offer connections.

I am not saying that BER cannot develop a hub, AB is trying exactly that, it remains to be seen if they will succeed.

Quoting FN1001 (Reply 18):
Just consider Europe not only the western part, where the money is, consider also the eastern part, where the growth is. And like VIE for Star Alliance (have you seen the dimensions of the new terminal?), BER will be for One World a very strong link between "old" and "new" Eu

you cannot split that You cannot say that FRA serves the western part of Europe, MUC the southern and BER the eastern part. A hub has to serve all markets in order to be successful. For LH FRA is the # 1 hub and MUC is second. A distant third is DUS with a small amount of long distance flights and when you look at the destinations served from/to DUS you will see that all parts of Europe are on the map and all these flights serve the LD flights.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
vfw614
Posts: 3809
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:04 am

You cannot discuss the location of a hub without analysing the alliance that operates from the hub.

BER, for example, is part of the oneworld hub system that includes LHR, MAD and HEL. These three hubs already cover - and are in a better geographic position for - North (LHR), Central (MAD) and South America (MAD) and the Caribbean (LHR/LGW), the Far East (HEL) and, to some extent, Africa (MAD). BER pretty much is trestricted to being a hub for continental traffic patterns like Western Europe Eastern Europe and Scandinavia Southern Europe. Theoretically, it could also be oneworld's hub for Asia, but as Etihad now pretty much dictates what airberlin can do, no chances in that department either.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:26 am

Quoting tolmachevo (Reply 17):
But HEL, MAD and IST are also far from the demographic and geographic cente

sorry I forgot to reflect an your mentioning of IST. IST is an excellent location for a hub, just look at the map, connecting all of Europe with the Middle east, the Far East and the former CIS countries. Almost better located than the Gulf airports.

Quoting FN1001 (Reply 18):
The only bat thing about positioning BER are the villages surrounding it, with the discussion about a curfew

you cannot build a runway anywhere in Germany without getting these protesters, even if its only a flock of sheep living there-. The real ad thing about BER is that they did not keep either THF or TXL as a GA airport without commercial airline activities. TXL could have kept the government flights as well.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:27 am

There are virtually no perfect hubs on this world I think. Every hub has it's disadvantages. Even a hub like ATL with is perfectly placed for American domestic operations is not suitable for Europe - North East USA connections, a pretty big and important markets. A hub like HEL is useless for any European connections but is perfectly located for Europe to the northern side of Asia flights, something AY is slowly discovering at the moment.

With any hub, there is a flow of traffic that cannot be catched in that location. LIS is on the edge of Europe, which makes it a very weak European hub, but at the same time it is the ideal place for Europe - South America, as it can cater for all of Europe.

The worst located hub with strong operations is probably SCL, which is only useful for connection South America to Oceania, not the biggest market there is. Still, LAN is doing very well there.
 
Gingersnap
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:09 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:50 am

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 23):

There are virtually no perfect hubs on this world I think. Every hub has it's disadvantages. Even a hub like ATL with is perfectly placed for American domestic operations is not suitable for Europe - North East USA connections, a pretty big and important markets. A hub like HEL is useless for any European connections but is perfectly located for Europe to the northern side of Asia flights, something AY is slowly discovering at the moment.

I'd say DXB could be the only place that could be considered the "perfect hub".
Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W B788 C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:53 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
LCCs do not offer connections.

I do not think this is strictly correct. It depends on the LCC's business model. And no two LCC's have exactly the same model.

For example AB is already code sharing on BA's five daily LHR-TXL flights and will continue to code share on them when they transfer to BER in early June:

BA982 is also AB5000
BA984 is also AB5002
BA988 is also AB5006
BA990 is also AB5008
BA992 is also AB5010

These are only a small selection of the many flights that BA and AB have had as code share flights since June of last year. Admittedly I am assuming that the reason for these code shares is practical and not purely for publicity purposes. But this assumption is supported by this extract from the BA Press Release dated 2 February:

"British Airways customers are already benefiting from links with airberlin, as the airline signed a codeshare agreement last June on more than 40 routes around Europe."

as well as by another release on 20 March when AB joined oneworld.

The full 2 February release is at:

http://press.ba.com/?p=2134

It is also worth noting that Iberia Express becomes operational today (25 March). As it expands and takes over more and more of IB's short haul routes, MAD's future as a hub would be looking pretty bleak if there are no connections on offer between IB and its oneworld partners and this new LCC.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3809
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:04 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 25):
I do not think this is strictly correct. It depends on the LCC's business model. And no two LCC's have exactly the same model.

airbelrin is no LCC. It is a full service carrier that has created the image to be low fares. That is something different from a LCC.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:09 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 25):
I do not think this is strictly correct. It depends on the LCC's business model. And no two LCC's have exactly the same model.

has been said already but AB is no longer a LCC, never actually was. Could be called a hybrid eventually but with the entrance into OW it became a full service carrier running leisure routes and offereing low fares like any other FSC as well

.

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 23):
There are virtually no perfect hubs on this world I think

There are natural hubs, not only for air but for other modes of transport as well. A natural hub must not necessarily serve the global market. Some do, like FRA which always has been a naturalhub even in the medieval age and is a road and rail hiu for that reason as well.

ORD, better CHI, is a natural tri-modal hub. The list can be continued....
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:04 pm

Quoting Gingersnap (Reply 24):
I'd say DXB could be the only place that could be considered the "perfect hub".

Unless your flying trans Atlantic
...or trans Pacific
...or Europe to South America
....or Australia to the Far East
.... Or you have any concerns about your next door neighbor getting an atomic bomb and being a wee bit mental.
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:28 pm

SYD is a bad positioned hub, no one would fly to SYD as a transit port..
When is my next holiday?
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:20 pm

Quoting C680 (Reply 28):

Unless your flying trans Atlantic
...or trans Pacific
...or Europe to South America
....or Australia to the Far East
.... Or you have any concerns about your next door neighbor getting an atomic bomb and being a wee bit mental.

The last comment is without any style and probably on EK you have the lowest chance out of all airlines of meeting such a person.

Quoting Gingersnap (Reply 24):
I'd say DXB could be the only place that could be considered the "perfect hub".

For Asia -> Africa and Europe -> Southern Asia / Oceania yes. It's overvalued as a hub for Europe -> northern Asia in my opinion. Still, indeed it's ideally placed between three continents indeed.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:37 pm

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 30):
The last comment is without any style and probably on EK you have the lowest chance out of all airlines of meeting such a person.

He meant geographic neighbor, not a suicide bomber ie. Iran and potential destabilization of the region due to their policies and the reactions of their neighbors and other countries to those policies. The argument of that should be saved for another thread. I'm only posting for clarification.  

Johannesburg is a pretty lousy hub location. EZE and SCL have geographic disadvantages as well. EZE has the further disadvantage of having no train link to the city and most of the domestic operation at a separate airport.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5466
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:33 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 12):


You can add MEM and STL to the bad hub location list as well.

It's not their locations that are bad, it's the relatively weak O&D numbers. The mean population center of the US is currently in Texas County Missouri, within 300 miles of both MEM and STL, as well as MCI and TUL. If hub demographics resorted solely on population access, STL/MEM as well as TUL/MCI would be in far better positions than such hubs as ATL/DEN/ORD etc...
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:52 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 31):
He meant geographic neighbor, not a suicide bomber ie. Iran and potential destabilization of the region due to their policies and the reactions of their neighbors and other countries to those policies. The argument of that should be saved for another thread. I'm only posting for clarification.  

In that case I happily stand corrected  
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:57 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 22):
IST is an excellent location for a hub, just look at the map, connecting all of Europe with the Middle east, the Far East and the former CIS countries

HEL is almost invariably a more efficient hub to use if flying from most of Europe to the Far East. Just look at these comparative great circle distances:

HEL-NRT 4,877 miles
IST-NRT 5,503 miles
Difference 626 miles (+13 per cent)

HEL-ICN 4,381 miles
IST-ICN 4,944 miles
Difference 563 miles (+13 per cent)

HEL-PEK 3,930 miles
IST-PEK 4,405 miles
Difference 475 miles (+12 per cent)

Indeed even for the Balkan Peninsula HEL can sometimes be a marginally better choice. For example BEG-HEL-NRT is 5,966 miles on the great circle routes while BEG-IST-NRT is 6,009 miles.

If the Russians ever start to exploit it, DME could also be as good a hub for travel from Europe to the Far East as is HEL. For example:

MUC-DME-NRT is 5,890 miles
MUC-HEL-NRT is 5,857 miles (-0 per cent)
MUC-IST-NRT is is 6,481 miles (+10 per cent)
MUC-DXB-NRT is is 7,806 miles (+33 per cent)

However product and marketing could well decide any future battles of the hubs as EK have already demonstrated.
 
leftyboarder
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:38 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:12 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 34):
Indeed even for the Balkan Peninsula HEL can sometimes be a marginally better choice. For example BEG-HEL-NRT is 5,966 miles on the great circle routes while BEG-IST-NRT is 6,009 miles.

If the Russians ever start to exploit it, DME could also be as good a hub for travel from Europe to the Far East as is HEL.

Well, the problem is I guess, connecting traffic can easily shift to other carriers or dry up for various reasons, and hence a solid O&D is helpful in establishing some form of hub. HEL may not have the O&D to neither BEG nor NRT as opposed to MUC or IST. So although efficient, it might never be a Dubai.
 
RobertS975
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:38 pm

In the spirit of the thread's title, let me submit that there are several hubs in the USA that are poorly positioned simply because of air traffic density issues... PHL, EWR and JFK. The airways in and out of these hubs are so tightly packed and allow for no deviations, hence their vulnerability to storms located even hundreds of miles away. EWR also has an issue when there are very gusty NW winds due to limited runways.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 34):
HEL is almost invariably a more efficient hub to use if flying from most of Europe to the Far East. Just look at these comparative great circle distances:

at the end of the day it depends where the passenger originates and the Far east is not only NRT ICN and PEK. I have made a general statement, not specifying any routes.

As far as Germany is concerned, IST is in an excelent location to many destinations, TK serves even smaller airports due to the ehtnic traffic available. Transit traffic goes almost for free which is something AY does not have.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:51 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
the Far east is not only NRT ICN and PEK. I have made a general statement, not specifying any routes.

I chose NRT, ICN and PEK at random. Of course I could have chosen PVG instead of PEK or, perhaps HKG instead of ICN. But the result would have been very nearly the same - see below.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
As far as Germany is concerned, IST is in an excelent location to many destinations

Here is some randomly selected data for flights from Germany to the Far East:

FRA-HEL-HND 5,833 miles
FRA-IST-HND 6,749 miles (+16 per cent)

TXL-HEL-PVG 5,301 miles
TXL-IST-PVG 6,083 miles (+15 per cent)

MUC-HEL-HKG 5,839 miles
MUC-IST-HKG 5,963 miles (+2 per cent)

So in distance and therefore potentially in both cost and elapsed time, HEL is better as a hub than IST for Germany to Far East flights. This can be clearly seen by the routings of LH direct flights from FRA and MUC to the Far East. They take a northerly route over Poland, Belarus, Russia and China going much closer to HEL than they do to IST.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:01 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 34):
HEL is almost invariably a more efficient hub to use if flying from most of Europe to the Far East. Just look at these comparative great circle distances:

The problem with HEL is that Europe-HEL is a small O&D market which makes it difficult to justify operating enough Europe-HEL flights that connect to/from Asia. And the resulting schedules of the flights that do connect aren't very attractive for the local Europe to HEL O&D market.
 
leftyboarder
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:38 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:50 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):

The problem with HEL is that Europe-HEL is a small O&D market which makes it difficult to justify operating enough Europe-HEL flights that connect to/from Asia. And the resulting schedules of the flights that do connect aren't very attractive for the local Europe to HEL O&D market.

What I was trying to say.   

TK runs 4, 5 even 6 dailies to FRA, MUC, AMS, CDG, LHR and up to 3 dailies to MAD, BCN, FCO, MXP, ZRH, VIE, BRU, TXL, HAJ... I doubt AY has enough flights to HEL to provide convenient connectivity.
 
rogercamel
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:41 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:42 am

Personally speaking, hub positioning is less important that having good connections and price.

For example, I used to fly to RIC quite often from the UK - but used to route BHX-AMS-DTW-RIC as it provided the shortest door to door travel time despite being 1000nm longer than alternatives through LHR.
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:11 am

A lot of the comments on "bad hubs" can be boiled down to this misunderstanding:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
A hub has to serve all markets in order to be successful.

/

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
You cannot split hubs. Period.

and to the importance of O&D and national traffic.

Let me explain. First of all, a hub does not have to serve "all markets". The purpose of a hub is to take in not only O&D traffic, but also connecting traffic from a certain radius, and then re-distribute that traffic on -- primarily to long-distance destinations that smaller markets could not sustain routes to on their own. Many US airlines have multiple hubs, serving different regions -- most emphatically NOT "all markets". For some very rare routes, this may result in a need for two connections (from small city to nearest hub to hub with the desired flight), but more often results in more efficient routings without the need to backtrack across North America.

Second of all, many of the "remote" hubs here, like SYD, AKL, or JNB, serve to collect and distribute national/regional traffic for connection with far-flung international destinations. No, they're not ideal locations for trying to cover the whole globe, but they're INEVITABLE hubs, and thoroughly necessary.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 11):
Germany is polycentric, people prefer direct flights and will not go to BER before they go to Russia.

Hate to break it to you, but I don't think Germans are the only nationality of people who prefer direct flights.  
Quoting tolmachevo (Reply 17):
So we can see that O&D is already quite strong in BER within a German context, and with the infrastructure soon being in place (a single terminal complex), and huge capacity to grow in the future, (something lacking at most other airports in Europe), the conditions to create a hub are very strong - regardless of airline or alliance. Growth in air travel is there in Europe, what limits it is lack of infrastructure.

I'm a big fan of BER, and hoping for the best with it. BER is a growth market. True, it's lacking in the premium traffic FRA and MUC can command from their O&D markets, but Berlin is also much more dynamic and rapidly changing than those two cities -- in many ways like much of Eastern Europe. Banking (Frankfurt), heavy manufacturing and insurance (Munich) are very mature industries, and not likely to change dramatically in size or shape. Berlin has its small core of government and leisure traffic, but it's experiencing a boom in new media and creative industries -- in large part because the lack of a "mature" dominant market makes it relatively cheap and easy to start out there. The growth of the economy in Berlin has outpaced that of Germany as a whole... while it still has a long way to go, I think positioning a hub there is more than feasible in the present with connecting and leisure traffic, and has nothing but upside as the region grows economically. Add to that the quality and expandability of BER's facilities, and I think 10-15 years from now, no one will imagine mentioning BER as a "poorly located hub"  
(or so I hope)
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:53 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 38):
I chose NRT, ICN and PEK at random. Of course I could have chosen PVG instead of PEK or, perhaps HKG instead of ICN. But the result would have been very nearly the same - see below.

Not all paqssengers originate from larger airports. TK has an advantage of large ethnic traffic allowing them to serve even small markets in Germany, they now have direct flights BRE-IST. Of course HEL is closer by distance and I have been flying to the far east many times and I know the routing. BTW, I never flew via HEL.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 42):
Let me explain. First of all, a hub does not have to serve "all markets". T

It is up to the hub carrier which markets he wants to serve. You take a sentence out of context and write your stiry. My remark was for those (not necessarily in this discussion here) who think that they can take three locations in Germany at random and make BER a hub for Eastern Europe, MUC for the south and FRA for the rest of it. This is BS. An international carrier must offer to his passengers who arrive in the early morning bank from somewhere in Asia, Africa and North America all destinations available not only in Europe but all over the world.Only that makes it a global hub.


You do not have global hubs in the USA , one of the reasons is that passengers would hjave to enter the USA first before they embark to anoher destination. Nobody needs that, so it does not happen and US carriers have to lose that market.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
ocracoke
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:15 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:47 am

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 8):

I love T4 and T4S at Barajas. And let's face it, especially with Spanair gone, if you're going to any city other than Madrid in Spain, eg ALC, VLC, etc. from the US, Central or South America, or Africa for that matter, you're going through Madrid.

At least from the US, why bother with a connection in MAD when you can get to BCN, VLC, and AGP on non-stop flights?

Quoting carpethead (Reply 10):
In the US, I suppose PIT & CVG is (were) badly positioned hubs.
Geographically, not too bad but the local metropolis is too small.

The saving grace for CVG is that it is the home airport to some very busy corporations. In fact, the number one travel account in the US (P&G) uses CVG as their home airport. Sometimes it's better to have a hub in a smaller city where you know business are going to spend money to fly, than in a city with millions more inhabitants, where the average person is simply too poor to afford tickets.


Quoting Gingersnap (Reply 24):
I'd say DXB could be the only place that could be considered the "perfect hub".

As mentioned by others, DXB is great for some applications, but if I want to fly LAX-NRT, DXB does nothing for me.
 
Airvan00
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:06 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:00 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 29):

SYD is a bad positioned hub, no one would fly to SYD as a transit port..


Why do people use it as a hub? You obviously haven't read much of this thread. It is about the geographical position of various hubs. SYD and BNE are perfect as hubs for flights from North and South America and the Pacific to most of Australia. The ease of transfer at an individual hub has not been discussed in this thread.
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:41 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
The problem with HEL is that Europe-HEL is a small O&D market which makes it difficult to justify operating enough Europe-HEL flights that connect to/from Asia.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 43):
Not all paqssengers originate from larger airports. TK has an advantage of large ethnic traffic allowing them to serve even small markets in Germany, they now have direct flights BRE-IST.

Sorry. I thought from its title that we were discussing the geographic POSITION of hubs and not their operational efficiency. On this basis the evidence I have presented more than strongly suggests that HEL is more suitably POSITIONED as a hub between most of Europe and all of the Far East than are either IST or DXB. Apart from ATH and some other airports on the Balkan Peninsula, I have not found any route from any European airport to any Far East destination through either of these hubs that is shorter than a routing through and therefore better POSITIONED than HEL.

However if we you now wish to broaden the thread then wherever you start in Europe and wherever your final destination is located, the likes of AMS, CDG, FRA and LHR are likely to be prime contenders as significant hubs from an operational efficiency point of view. For example consider the flights between LHR and NYC. AA and BA virtually operate a shuttle service with eleven flights on the LHR-JFK route spread across the day with departures from 08:30 to 20:00, most often at approximately hourly intervals.

The frequency of these AA/BA long haul flights means that there is not a single originating airport in Europe that has flights to LHR that does not also have a very good connecting flight to JFK through LHR. This is significantly more important than the number of flights into LHR from other major European airports as they are also likely to have direct flights to NYC. What is key here is that even with only one or two flights a day to LHR, second-level European airports all have convenient, operationally efficient connecting flights to NYC. This operational efficiency is further expanded by the other flights operated to NYC by the likes of DL, UA and VS.

Put another way it is not the number of short haul flights on routes into a hub or potential hub that is key to operational efficiency. What is key is the number of and frequency of long haul flights on key routes out of that hub that results in operational efficiency through providing timely connections from seconnd and third third level airports.

Finally from an operating efficiency perspective you can ignore my earlier suggestion that DME is well POSITIONED as a hub between Europe and the Far East. Clearly it has significant geographic potential. But as a hub it is currently operationally inefficient from most European airports. However as the Russian economy grows its operational efficiency as a hub could well change. Its suitability as a hub from a geographic POSITION obviously will not
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:52 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 22):

sorry I forgot to reflect an your mentioning of IST. IST is an excellent location for a hub, just look at the map, connecting all of Europe with the Middle east, the Far East and the former CIS countries. Almost better located than the Gulf airpor

This was my answer aqn the below reply # 17

Quoting tolmachevo (Reply 17):
But HEL, MAD and IST are also far from the demographic and geographic center and they work as hubs

I could have said that HEL is an excellent location for a hub for flights to the Far east. Now, I don't have to say averything other people might find important.

I reflected on IST because it is actually a better location than DXB or AUH or DOH. TK can offer services to far more European destinations or departure point than the Gulf carriers ever can. TK flies to virtually every airport in Germany , sometimes 4 or more frquencies. Supported by ethnic traffic, transit traffic is easy to build up TK is a far greater threat to LH tnan EK.

Although IST is not anywhere near the demographic or geographic centre of Europe, it is a cross roads between the occident and the orient. Now you can figure out your mileage, mate.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
leftyboarder
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:38 pm

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:18 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 46):
Sorry. I thought from its title that we were discussing the geographic POSITION of hubs and not their operational efficiency. On this basis the evidence I have presented more than strongly suggests that HEL is more suitably POSITIONED as a hub between most of Europe and all of the Far East than are either IST or DXB. Apart from ATH and some other airports on the Balkan Peninsula, I have not found any route from any European airport to any Far East destination through either of these hubs that is shorter than a routing through and therefore better POSITIONED than HEL.

You may be right when it comes to Europe - Far East (northern portion of it that is, since it would be shorter to fly Europe - IST - BKK / SIN / HKG for example). But that is just a fraction of the market, and in fact a better served fraction. There are many nonstops already between Japan / Korea / China and Europe. IST / AUH / DXB / DOH are much more convenient for Europe to India / Thailand / Africa / Middle East. SO yes, HEL might be a slightly better positioned hub for a rather small percentage of Europe originating passengers.
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Bad Positioned Hubs?

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:44 pm

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 48):
You may be right when it comes to Europe - Far East (northern portion of it that is, since it would be shorter to fly Europe - IST - BKK / SIN / HKG for example).

Not quite. Note the following from my earlier analysis:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 38):
MUC-HEL-HKG 5,839 miles
MUC-IST-HKG 5,963 miles ( 2 per cent)

There is not much in it. But we can deduce that from any airport in Europe that is either north or west of MUC flying to HKG via HEL is shorter than flying via IST. This is also true for some airports to the south and east of MUC. So, for example, VIE-IST-HKG (5,763 miles) is just a little further than VIE-HEL-HKG (5,637 miles). Again it is only from the Balkan Peninsula that IST has a geographic advantage.

As far as SIN and BKK are concerned things become very much more marginal. For example DUS-IST-BKK (5,937 miles) is a little longer than DUS-HEL-BKK (5,855 miles) while DUS-IST-SIN (6,656 miles) is a little shorter than DUS-HEL-SIN (6,701 miles). So it really depends on precisely where the journey starts whether HEL or IST is the better positioned hub. The further west and north your starting point the more favourable the positioning of HEL becomes. So OSL-HEL-SIN (6,238 miles) is 11 per cent shorter than OSL-IST-SIN (6,917 miles).

Certainly IST is ideally situated for flights to and from Middle East and Indian sub-continent destinations. Indeed I have flown DAM-IST-LHR, DHA-IST-LHR as well as ESB-IST-LHR.

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