RyanairGuru wrote:

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

We call it the Dreamliner effect. The airplane's unparalleled fuel efficiency and range flexibility enables carriers to profitably open new routes as well as optimize fleet and network performance.

Boeing credits the Dreamliner with the following new routes (36 routes from Western USA, Canada and Mexico)
Los Angeles: Changsha, China | Qingdao, China | Xi'an, China | Xiamen, China| Lome, Togo | Addis Ababa, Ethiopia |
Copenhagen, Denmark |London, England | Oslo, Norway | Stockholm, Sweden | Warsaw, Poland
San Francisco: Chengdu, China | Guangzhou, China | Hangzhou, China | Xi'an, China | London, England | Melbourne, Australia
San Jose: Beijing, China | Tokyo, Japan
Seattle: Chongqing, China | London, England | Shenzhen, China | Xiamen, China
Las Vegas: Copenhagen, Denmark | Oslo, Norway | Stockholm, Sweden | Tel Aviv, Israel
Denver: London, England
Vancouver: Brisbane, Australia | Delhi, India | Melbourne, Australia | Shenzhen, China | Tianjin, China | Xiamen, China
Calgary: Dublin, Ireland
Tijuana: Beijing, China

An impressive collection, but how many of these routes would have been met with another jet if the Dreamliner was not available. Did they really bust any hubs?

I have to question Boeing's methodology in naming some of these routes. I could have sworn flights existed from LAX and SFO before the Dreamliner existed (I don't know about Seattle). I believe that Denver to London probably debuted with the Dreamliner.
Los Angeles: London, England
San Francisco: London, England
Seattle: London, England
Denver: London, England

Aeroméxico purchased 4 B777-200ER in the 2006-2007 time frame which allowed them to fly from Mexico City to Tokyo.
In order to fly from Mexico City to Shanghai–Pudong nonstop (6,975 nm) they would have had to upgauge to the B777-300ER, which was probably out of their price range and their ability to fill the larger jet. The far less expensive B787-8 with smalller capacity filled the bill.
$306.6 777-200ER
$375.5 777-300ER
$248.3 787-8
Now you could say that it reduced reliance on LAX as the obvious hub to make the flight from Mexico city to Shanghai. Instead AeroMexico could make the westbound trip with a refueling stop in Tijuana, and nonstop to Mexico City on the eastbound trip.

So AeroMexico retired the 4 B777-200ERs (along with their 16 B767s) and flies only Dreamliners as their sole dual aisle jets
9 Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner
10 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner

But the cumulative effect of these types of decisions did not really bust any hubs.

CO started a multitude of routes using 757. Lot of the routes attributed to 321’s could be managed by 757’s.

Why Boeing has not come with a replacement with a tad lower capacity and longer range is a surprise.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ei-lrc

That is a very busy A321LR. It is hopping across the Atlantic and doing some intra-european work every day. It is barely on the ground.

There is no such thing as hub-busting.

The hub busting theory ignores the customer for these airlines: mostly regular network carriers. What incentive do these carriers have to weaken their own hubs? Opening pt-2-pt for these carriers means weakening their own hubs and bypassing those of their partners in the other side.

The more likely possibility is the bolstering of secondary hubs and the creation of more of them. More TATL from PHL and CLT with AA. More Brazil from OPO with TAP. More TATL from YOW and YUL with TS (or AC after merger). More of Asia out of cities not named Sydney and Melbourne with Qantas. Etc.

IMHO the plane could help smaller companies to develop smaller hubs (Bt? Sk? Tp?)

Am I the only one here that doesn't know what "hub busting" means?

MrHMSH wrote:

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.

This. Plus, I'd say the (X)LR is/will be even more revolutionary, considering it really presents the ability for true long haul service to/from much smaller cities than what we've seen so far. Who knows, maybe in 10 years we'll be seeing regular year-round TATL flights from places like LUX, MLA, MKE, CLE etc. not to mention how attractive it's gonna be to LCCs considering they'll have to fill 100 less seats, and the narrowbody economics are probably more suitable to the model. I'd say that's much more of a revolution than the 789 connecting Australia and the UK, or NZ and the East Coast, aka big population centres that are already very well connected with a single stop in between that only adds a couple of hours to the journey.

PacoMartin wrote:

An impressive collection, but how many of these routes would have been met with another jet if the Dreamliner was not available. Did they really bust any hubs?

There is good reason to question if many these are the result of the 787 in particular. Many of the opened routes were by startups who merely ordered the latest plane, Norwegian in particular. But many of those routes were also operated by airlines who had up until the 787 arrived relied on the rather short-legged 767. The A330-200, especially late HGW variants, could do a lot of those new routes credited to the 787. If we look at airlines with these routes, very few were A330 operators previously. It is safe to say the 787 improved upon the A330, but it isn't exactly revolutionary.

To know if hubs are being “busted”, you would have to check if travellers now in general need to connect less than in the past.
I don’t have the numbers, but am quite confident that this is the case indeed.

Then what planes are contributing to this? Surely every type smaller than a 747 plays it role.

To know if the 321 is contributing more than the 787, one should quite simply look at how many previously unserved routes they manage to operate profitably. And it probably is far too soon to tell...

VSMUT wrote:

There is good reason to question if many these are the result of the 787 in particular. Many of the opened routes were by startups who merely ordered the latest plane, Norwegian in particular. But many of those routes were also operated by airlines who had up until the 787 arrived relied on the rather short-legged 767. The A330-200, especially late HGW variants, could do a lot of those new routes credited to the 787. If we look at airlines with these routes, very few were A330 operators previously. It is safe to say the 787 improved upon the A330, but it isn't exactly revolutionary.

On 29 March 2006 Aeroméxico inaugurated of direct flights between Japan and Mexico City via Tijuana with the purchase of two Boeing 777-200ERs. In one sense they were "hub busting" because prior to that time you had to fly to Asia via a US hub (probably LAX). When ANA began flying to Mexico City from Tokyo, AeroMexico wanted to start flying to China, but the 200ER had range limitations and would require a stop in TIJ both inbound and outbound. The 300ER was too expensive to purchase and to big to profitably operate.

Aeroméxico resumed its Mexico City-Tijuana-Shanghai route twice a week as of 30 March 2010 using a much cheaper and smaller Dreamliner B787-8. which has the same range as a B777-300ER.

MTOW 656,000 lb | OEW 304,500 lb | Fuel capacity 45,220 US gal | range 7,065 nmi |B777-200ER
MTOW 775,000 lb | OEW 370,000 lb | Fuel capacity 47,890 US gal | range 7,370 nmi |B777-300ER
MTOW 502,500 lb | OEW 264,500 lb | Fuel capacity 33,340 US gal | range 7,355 nmi |B787-8

Shanghai ( 6,974 nm) | Tokyo (6,086 nm ) to Mexico City
MEX is so high and dry that outbound flights must stop to refuel in Tijuana, but return flights can be nonstop.

The route would have existed without the B787 but it would have been less attractive with having to stop in Tijuana both directions. Improvements in the Dreamliner may allow AeroMexico to skip Tijuana in both directions.

AeroMexico has retired it's two B777s and all of it's 16 B767s and now flies 19 Dreamliners.

You have to give the jet it's proper credit. But it annoys me when people call it a hub-buster, or they imply that it singlhandedly brought the end of four engine jets,

DFW great circle range to major South American airports in nautical miles
2119 BOG
2917 LIM
4055 BSB
4231 SCL
4442 GRU
4593 EZE

The A321 XLR may actually increase the concentration in some US domestic hubs. For instance there may be more tendency for American Airlines to fly greater frequency to Latin America using the single-aisle jet instead of dual aisle jets. Instead of flying from Miami, they may start to move Latin American operations to Dallas Fort Worth where there is a more extensive domestic network for connections.

Top Domestic Markets (Sep 2018 - Aug 2019) for each of the four major airlines (plus Alaska Airlines just Seattle). Millions of passengers boarding.
34.14 DL Atlanta, GA
20.51 AA Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
12.84 AA Charlotte, NC
10.81 UA Chicago, IL
9.84 UA Denver, CO
9.40 WN Chicago, IL
9.23 AS Seattle, WA
9.17 DL Minneapolis, MN
9.08 WN Denver, CO
8.82 AA Chicago, IL
8.63 WN Las Vegas, NV
8.56 UA San Francisco, CA
8.50 UA Houston, TX
8.24 WN Baltimore, MD
8.15 UA Newark, NJ
7.89 DL New York, NY
7.78 AA Phoenix, AZ
7.77 DL Detroit, MI
7.56 WN Phoenix, AZ
7.42 AA Miami, FL
6.31 DL Salt Lake City, UT

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.

for the A321 to do any damage at those stations? The Airline flying them would need a hub to be established, DTW is a Delta Hub, STL was am American hub and to date nobody has yet replaced them, Unless some Express Carriers like an Air Wisconsin elect to go long haul? I would doubt there will be much Hub Busting in the near future. At Best? the A321 will be a good off peak Trans-Atlantic airplane as it is working from Hawaii to the Mainland.

DL747400 wrote:

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.

For the part about clean sheet designs I agree, although I am not into the Boeing vs. Airbus stuff. I think both (with exception to the max) build good reliable a/c. In fact the max itself I don't believe to be a total dud. Attempting to bypass training and a longer certification process they hid automation which was a big no no to do and then still not be fully forthcoming with it. The 737 went one step too far with taking 1960's technology and adding size and automation bandaids to it.

They tried to make it into the abilities of the 757, which most everyone likes, or liked since it started flying. If not a clean sheet you'd think they could have at least work on the 757 and the 767.

Airbus is more or less equally as guilty with neo's. People who like to fly like flying on their wide bodies, especially the A380 and the A340. The problem is they are not as profitable as expected or for as long as expected. Both companies are running into the problem of not having enough clean sheet designs. The modern planes of today take years to design and then years to go from the drawing board to being in service. I don't expect either to be able to push out new products at the rate that we had from the 1940' through the early 70's, but I do think the process could be made more efficient and less costly. These planes shouldn't be as expensive as they are. Not that they should be cheap, but everyone has their hand out for monster profits, including the passengers. The days of yore as far as flying... the tickets at the cost adjustment for inflation would be in many cases double what they are.

Yes, it was mainly white wealthy people who flew, at least routinely. It wasn't for the lower classes of people. Now, it is, in the economy sections. Most anyone can afford to fly at least a couple times a year in the economy sections. Whereas before commercial flying was expensive and designed for upper class people. Stop and think about it, 1st class offers more now than ever.

It never ceases to amaze me of the expectation game. Flying is safer than it's ever been why? Because they are built so much better with layer upon layer of redundancy. To build that, including the automation of today's modern airliner people complain about the very thing that has made flying safer than any mode of transportation by a practically infinite amount. Far more people and planes are in the air and every once in a great while they still crash. The reason it crashed if its automation its because there's too much of it. Pilot error. Because pilots don't know how to fly anymore due to automation. If it's mechanical then it's the greedy corps who put out unsafe planes to save money and don't care that people die.

Before all of the automation what caused such a greater amount of crashes?? Pilot error, (back when pilots knew how to fly) or mechanical issues (back when companies cared about a safe product and peoples lives.

Airbus and Boeing want or expect thousands of their newest dreamliners, or redone 40 y/o designs. But, they cost millions upon millions to be built therefore in order to make billions upon billions in profit sell these things at tremendous prices. Airline companies can't afford to buy them in the mass quantity they used to, so the planes they have are flying a good decade or more than they used to while at the same time are in the air 24/7

People are getting what they want as are the companies who build them and the companies who fly them companies make billions, just about everyone can afford to fly at least a little. They are safer than ever and EVERYONE COMPLAINS when a couple crashes in the space of 6 months. Boeing was at fault yes, although so was the airlines for putting these planes in the air despite a known problem, pilots could have made better choices as one crew did.

The complaining though, and I see and hear it so much from friends who don't know what they are talking about. Those whom I've flown with, same thing. A fair amount on this forum... lately I've been reading a little on a pilot's forum. Likely some of the drivers on this forum may be members of that forum too. Anyway, in just the delta section there is a 20ish page thread titled things passengers say. And it has given me much humor. The amount of ignorance of the flying public is just staggering. No doubt plane types and age come up. Pilots are too young, too old... it goes on and on one hit after another.

I'll end this as I've gotten a bit off track, but the relevance is still there. We want more clean sheet planes instead of 40+ y/o designs with modern tech and abilities far beyond what it was originally designed for. I do agree, but to get there, less complaining and realistic expectations would help.

UpNAWAy wrote:

Am I the only one here that doesn't know what "hub busting" means?

Boeing positioned its 787 as a “hub-buster” that would not require passengers to transfer through hubs. Yet 73% of 787 flights are between hubs, among those operated by airlines with more than hub. Hub-to-secondary flights are few, but demonstrate some of Boeing's objectives with the 787: new routes and more frequencies. While hubs dominate, the 787 has given rise to smaller hubs like Denver and Calgary. Partnerships also help explain 787 network deployment: 66% of 787 flights are on routes without a partnership, perhaps indicating airline preference for a lower-risk aircraft.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ubs-293741

Americans and Mexicans fly to the same airports in europe (with the exception of Dublin ). Rank is shown as a percentage of the dominant destination for US and MX.

Americans flying to Europe top 6 destinations
100% London, United Kingdom
41% Paris, France
33% Frankfurt, Germany
21% Amsterdam, Netherlands
17% Dublin, Ireland
15% Madrid, Spain

Mexicans flying to Europe top 5 destinations (from Mexico City)
100% Madrid, Spain
65% Paris, France
43% Amsterdam, Netherlands
32% London, United Kingdom
28% Frankfurt, Germany

A while ago I was flying to Málaga Airport, the 4th largest airport in Spain which is a popular tourist destination. Málaga Airport has nonstops to over 100 destinations throughout Europe and the Middle East, but no nonstop flights to US, Latin America, Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. To go there I must fly through a European hub.

The A321xlr is considerably cheaper to capitilize than dual aisle jets, and will probably make it economical to fly from US cities to Málaga Airport and not rely on a European hub. The term "hub-busting" was popularized to mean that airlines would bypass hubs to get to smaller destinations because of longer range of less expensive single aisle jets.

Purchase price in millions
$129.5 A321neo
$296.4 A330-900 (neo)
$317.4 A350-900
$366.5 A350-1000

Air Arabia are flying Sharjah-Kuala Lumpur and Indigo are flying Delhi-Istanbul with their A321 neos. In these two cases it's not that they are busting hubs, but what were previously short-haul airlines are stretching their wings and I think we'll see more of this.

I think it may be instructive to read what Boeing was actually saying back in 2004:

Nicole Piasecki, vice president, Business Strategies and Marketing for Commercial Airplanes, also noted passengers prefer the convenience of frequent departures and don't want to travel on circuitous routings through one or two connecting hubs. "More frequencies and point-to-point services: these two market conditions are what we call 'fragmentation,' and data shows passengers prefer it," Piasecki said.

In other words, the market demands more new and more frequent nonstop flights, not increased airplane capacity or double-decker flight decks.

"Growth in air travel over the past 15 years has been met entirely by an increase in new nonstop markets and by frequency growth—not by an increase in average airplane size. This is the fundamental essence of Boeing Commercial Airplanes' product strategy," Piasecki said.

Ref: http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/ar ... i_ca1.html

It seems to me "hub busting" is an inaccurate representation of what was being pushed.

We've had this argument on a.net a lot, but IMO Boeing didn't say hubs would be busted, they said more non-stop point to point services and greater frequencies would happen, and yes, these flights often originate and/or terminate at a hub.

The main idea being advocated is that it made more sense in 2004 to invest in a 787 sized product than an A380 sized product, and on this, Boeing was correct.

As pointed out the 787 does make a lot of hub to hub flights, yet this corresponds to Ms Piasecki's statements about reducing flights through hubs not flights terminating at hubs.

Clearly A321 does find itself in a similar role of flying more point-to-point flights at higher frequency relative to the VLAs of the past.

As someone living in the NE USA, I'm looking forward to services being offered on A321XLR.

Clearly airlines like DY tried to pioneer a lot of these routes and is failing, but IMO that's more of a statement about how they chose to approach the market rather than the lack of a profitable market.

I'm confident that eventually someone will come along and be successful enough to force the legacies to lower their prices in order to address the new competitive environment.

IMO there's just too much money to be made on the TATL market for someone to not figure out a way how to undermine the legacies.

Two things: I agree that the 321 Neo and XLR will eliminate one hub stopover on a previously 2-stop trip (ie YOW-YUL-LHR -BUD could now be YOW-LHR-BUD. Second, there are some new routes or routes that haven't been around for a long time come back. OK (Czech Airlines) has said they hope to come back on PRG-JFK, for example, when they get their 2 ordered 321XLR's; obviously PRG is their hub, and they will try and leverage SkyTeam partner Delta's operation at JFK (but OK is not a major SkyTeam partner of Delta). OK last flew PRG-JFK using A310's years ago.

The A321LR will, one, replace 757-200 on long flights, two, upgrade longish flights done on smaller frames and first when we see the A321LR in numbers lead to hub bypassing, but there is nothing it can do, that could not have been done on current frames.

First, with the A321XLR we see the possibility of new thin routes, that would not have born up a wide body frame.

mjoelnir wrote:

but there is nothing it can do, that could not have been done on current frames.

Aer Lingus would suggest otherwise. Their A321LR is being used for an additional trip each day that would not be cost effective with a conventional larger long distance plane.

The neo and max NB's with their improved engines make it quite easy to serve cities 6 hours or less apart with a need coming in basically 180 seat increments, with type selection allowing for 160 to 220 able to be inserted to adjust capacity. Far easier to manage profitability in that manner.

Many cities now are mini-hubs serving their native population on each of its spokes. 30 years ago there were a few big hubs, with nearly all spokes having a limited number of direct flight cities. Now there are a lot of cities that have greater than 40 destinations. It is probable this cover 80% or more of the traffic out of the city.

Dominion301 wrote:

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?

I think for Eastern Canada, the neoXLR and LR have a ton of potential, be it at AC, TS or in a very weird world, WS. It has the flexibility to run services from hubs to smaller European spokes, and from smaller cities like YOW to European Hubs. In the off seasons, they can do the same, except down south and on transcons.

I wouldn't say it's out of the picture for AC just yet, even WS. AC doesn't have an A321 replacement yet, the few max 9 orders they have are just fillers, remnants of the previous order plan. I would not be surprised to see them order between 20 and 30 A321neos, configure them with lie flats and about 190 total seats and do exactly what you mentionned with them, plus signature service transcon flying and maybe some higher yielding southern stuff/Hawaii in the winter. Even WS could do something like that, they already have a fairly diverse long haul portfolio and are diversifying pretty extensively.

leghorn wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

but there is nothing it can do, that could not have been done on current frames.

Aer Lingus would suggest otherwise. Their A321LR is being used for an additional trip each day that would not be cost effective with a conventional larger long distance plane.

They could have done it with a 757-200.

Revelation wrote:

I think it may be instructive to read what Boeing was actually saying back in 2004:

Nicole Piasecki, vice president, Business Strategies and Marketing for Commercial Airplanes, also noted passengers prefer the convenience of frequent departures and don't want to travel on circuitous routings through one or two connecting hubs. "More frequencies and point-to-point services: these two market conditions are what we call 'fragmentation,' and data shows passengers prefer it," Piasecki said.

In other words, the market demands more new and more frequent nonstop flights, not increased airplane capacity or double-decker flight decks.

"Growth in air travel over the past 15 years has been met entirely by an increase in new nonstop markets and by frequency growth—not by an increase in average airplane size. This is the fundamental essence of Boeing Commercial Airplanes' product strategy," Piasecki said.

Ref: http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/ar ... i_ca1.html

It seems to me "hub busting" is an inaccurate representation of what was being pushed.

We've had this argument on a.net a lot, but IMO Boeing didn't say hubs would be busted, they said more non-stop point to point services and greater frequencies would happen, and yes, these flights often originate and/or terminate at a hub.

The main idea being advocated is that it made more sense in 2004 to invest in a 787 sized product than an A380 sized product, and on this, Boeing was correct.

As pointed out the 787 does make a lot of hub to hub flights, yet this corresponds to Ms Piasecki's statements about reducing flights through hubs not flights terminating at hubs.

Clearly A321 does find itself in a similar role of flying more point-to-point flights at higher frequency relative to the VLAs of the past.

As someone living in the NE USA, I'm looking forward to services being offered on A321XLR.

Clearly airlines like DY tried to pioneer a lot of these routes and is failing, but IMO that's more of a statement about how they chose to approach the market rather than the lack of a profitable market.

I'm confident that eventually someone will come along and be successful enough to force the legacies to lower their prices in order to address the new competitive environment.

IMO there's just too much money to be made on the TATL market for someone to not figure out a way how to undermine the legacies.

What in this discussions is so oft forgotten, that Boeing had the 747 and invested in it to bring the 747-8 and Airbus had the mid sized twin, the A330, and sold about 1300 and delivered 1150 since 2004. Not including the frames ordered and delivered before 2004.
Boeing had the VLA covered and Airbus the mid sized twin. Both went to develop a frame for the hole in their respective programs.

VSMUT wrote:

PacoMartin wrote:

An impressive collection, but how many of these routes would have been met with another jet if the Dreamliner was not available. Did they really bust any hubs?

There is good reason to question if many these are the result of the 787 in particular. Many of the opened routes were by startups who merely ordered the latest plane, Norwegian in particular. But many of those routes were also operated by airlines who had up until the 787 arrived relied on the rather short-legged 767. The A330-200, especially late HGW variants, could do a lot of those new routes credited to the 787. If we look at airlines with these routes, very few were A330 operators previously. It is safe to say the 787 improved upon the A330, but it isn't exactly revolutionary.

The point is not the range to operate these routes, but the economics to operate the routes with payloads that made economics sense. If the A330 for these airlines would have made the economics sense, especially the A332, we would see them in operation in much greater numbers.

airzona11 wrote:

The point is not the range to operate these routes, but the economics to operate the routes with payloads that made economics sense.

Absolutely agree.
The same thing happened to domestic US flying in the 1990s when inexpensive aircraft capable of flying over 3000 nmi became widely available and you no longer needed a B757 or B767. The hubs at STL , CLE, and PIT, were busted when it became economical to fly any route nonstop in the continental US.

2,151 nmi great circle from LAX to JFK
733 2,255 nmi max range, first delivered in November 1984
320 3,300 nmi max range, first delivered in March 1988

mjoelnir wrote:

leghorn wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

but there is nothing it can do, that could not have been done on current frames.

Aer Lingus would suggest otherwise. Their A321LR is being used for an additional trip each day that would not be cost effective with a conventional larger long distance plane.

They could have done it with a 757-200.

They could have done it with a 757-200 and turned a profit?

leghorn wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Aer Lingus would suggest otherwise. Their A321LR is being used for an additional trip each day that would not be cost effective with a conventional larger long distance plane.

They could have done it with a 757-200.

They could have done it with a 757-200 and turned a profit?

Indeed.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/02/12/boein ... -not-work/


The 757 would never make these routes work commercially, even if it could technically fly them without problem.

I like to think A321LR will facilitate reducing a [ spoke #1 -> Hub #1 -> Hub #2 -> Spoke #2 ] itinerary to a [ spoke #1 -> Hub #2 -> Spoke #2 ] or a [ spoke #1 -> Hub #1 -> Spoke #2 ] rather than "hub busting".

I am doubtful that the majority of point-to-point routes, such as [ Cleveland -> Toulouse ] are high-demand enough to be self-sustaining.

brianK73 wrote:

I like to think A321LR will facilitate reducing a [ spoke #1 -> Hub #1 -> Hub #2 -> Spoke #2 ] itinerary to a [ spoke #1 -> Hub #2 -> Spoke #2 ] or a [ spoke #1 -> Hub #1 -> Spoke #2 ] rather than "hub busting".

I am doubtful that the majority of point-to-point routes, such as [ Cleveland -> Toulouse ] are high-demand enough to be self-sustaining.

I agree most of the flights will be from a hub. But take Hawaiian, Maui is seeing spoke #1 (OGG) to Spoke #2 (LGB and others) as well as Hub#1 or #2 (LAS, Bay area, LAX).

Bridge hubbing is detested. By enabling more hub to spoke flights, less hubbing will occur.

My analogy is single isle flying TCON. Hubbing with my children is a hassle, so much I pay extra for the new (since 1980s) single isle TCON flights, in particular to Florida. There will now be mid-thin flights from major airports to new destinations. For example when JetBlue starts hubbing from Boston, while the first flights will be to popular cities, I fully expect a few new destinations. Same as IAG at DUB. As my sister often is in Boston and loves to visit Dublin, she will use the flight as a direct vacation.

Lightsaber

Those A321s in the Aer Lingus fleet that aren't doing a hop across the Atlantic but stay on the ground longer can serve as emergency cover for an A320 which might go Tech on a flight to London or Paris and still get back in time to serve the US trip that day. Keeping a 757 in the fleet with trained pilots on that type just in case is an awful waste which no airline will do.