3 ms·

For example, you have Norwegian Airlines recently offering direct nonstop service from Oslo Norway to Orlando, Florida on the 787. I'd consider Norwegian a bad

For example, you have Norwegian Airlines recently offering direct nonstop service from Oslo Norway to Orlando, Florida on the 787. I'd consider Norwegian a bad example since they position themselves as an ultra low cost carrier. The economics there are somewhat different in that they don't usually offer connecting flights via one of their hubs. Ryanair just recently and very tentatively even began offering connecting flights, but it's not necessarily their business model, which is no frills direct connections. As for major European hubs. Note that they are not necessarilly used by ULC carriers. I don't know if this is still the case, but when you took Ryanair to Barcelona you wound up in Girona and Stockholm wasn't really Stockholm. Second (or third or fourth) tier airports sometimes offer very attractive conditions to airlines just to get passengers, which make the attractive to ULC carriers.

saryant 9y ago
Isn't that just more evidence of the rise of point-to-point airlines? Ryanair mostly don't have hubs and Boeing is selling them massive orders of 737s. Same with AirAsia, which does have some focus cities (KUL) but can largely be considered point-to-point. Now that long-haul LCCs are becoming a thing, they're buying up 787s, like Norweigian and AirAsiaX. By not using hubs, they need more aircraft like the 787 and 737MAX. Then there are all the mainland Chinese carriers who are effectively taking this strategy out of necessity. Chinese aviation authorities prohibit a given international city pair from being served by more than one Chinese airline, which is part of why we're seeing a lot of those airlines show up in second tier cities even if the route doesn't serve their own hub in China. E.g., XiamenAir serving Seattle-Shenzen and Hainan Airlines serving Chongqing-Rome.
- skgoa 9y ago
  The issue with this entire line of discussion is that growth in the number of p2p routes alone isn't what we should be looking at, but the market share of those routes compared to total numbers of passengers. When you look at the entire picture, you quickly see that the hub-2-hub trunk routes have also grown rapidly. And when you look deeper, you can see that many trunk routes are more or less maxed out on flights. That's because many major airports can't handle more starts/landings or they don't grand more starting/landing slots to airlines to schedule new flights. The only way to grow these routes is through going to bigger planes. tl;dr: There are more flights happening all over the place, but p2p routes' passenger numbers aren't outgrowing h2h routes' numbers.
jasode 9y ago
> I'd consider Norwegian a bad example since they position themselves as an ultra low cost carrier. [...] European hubs [...] not necessarilly used by ULC carriers. It's not necessary to start the analysis with "ultra low cost carrier" that doesn't use a hub. Instead, we work backward from the "missing" 900 A380 orders that Airbus thought they'd get but didn't. (If Airbus predicted 1200 sales but only got 300 orders, they were way off on their assumptions.) By flipping the cause & effect around, we can see the following: 1) The Boeing 787 makes it possible for a ULC like Norwegian Air to not have to partner with British Airways A380 to get their Norway customers from LHR London to JFK New York. 2) the Boeing 787 makes it possible for a ULC like Norwegian Airlines to offer p2p service themselves without buying hub slots Whether British Airways doesn't buy an additional A380 because Norwegian Airlines isn't sending them any Oslo connecting passengers -- or -- Norwegian doesn't buy an A380 because they don't use hub slots in their ULC business model, the end result is the same: it's an unsold A380.
ryguytilidie 9y ago
Okay I'll add a few more: San Jose to Manchester Oakland to Oslo London to Calgary I've definitely seen a trend of 787s making these routes possible. Dunno where the "point to point is marketing speak" comes from.
- andyana 9y ago
  London <-> Calgary has been happening for at least 10 years, way before the 787s time.
  - ryguytilidie 9y ago
    I was under the impression that the route used to be very seasonal and is now year round because of the 787s.
    - andyana 9y ago
      That could be.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - switch007 9y ago
    Westjet fly a 767-300 LGW-YYC.

saryant 9y ago

Isn't that just more evidence of the rise of point-to-point airlines? Ryanair mostly don't have hubs and Boeing is selling them massive orders of 737s. Same with AirAsia, which does have some focus cities (KUL) but can largely be considered point-to-point. Now that long-haul LCCs are becoming a thing, they're buying up 787s, like Norweigian and AirAsiaX. By not using hubs, they need more aircraft like the 787 and 737MAX. Then there are all the mainland Chinese carriers who are effectively taking this strategy out of necessity. Chinese aviation authorities prohibit a given international city pair from being served by more than one Chinese airline, which is part of why we're seeing a lot of those airlines show up in second tier cities even if the route doesn't serve their own hub in China. E.g., XiamenAir serving Seattle-Shenzen and Hainan Airlines serving Chongqing-Rome.

skgoa 9y ago
The issue with this entire line of discussion is that growth in the number of p2p routes alone isn't what we should be looking at, but the market share of those routes compared to total numbers of passengers. When you look at the entire picture, you quickly see that the hub-2-hub trunk routes have also grown rapidly. And when you look deeper, you can see that many trunk routes are more or less maxed out on flights. That's because many major airports can't handle more starts/landings or they don't grand more starting/landing slots to airlines to schedule new flights. The only way to grow these routes is through going to bigger planes. tl;dr: There are more flights happening all over the place, but p2p routes' passenger numbers aren't outgrowing h2h routes' numbers.

jasode 9y ago

> I'd consider Norwegian a bad example since they position themselves as an ultra low cost carrier. [...] European hubs [...] not necessarilly used by ULC carriers. It's not necessary to start the analysis with "ultra low cost carrier" that doesn't use a hub. Instead, we work backward from the "missing" 900 A380 orders that Airbus thought they'd get but didn't. (If Airbus predicted 1200 sales but only got 300 orders, they were way off on their assumptions.) By flipping the cause & effect around, we can see the following: 1) The Boeing 787 makes it possible for a ULC like Norwegian Air to not have to partner with British Airways A380 to get their Norway customers from LHR London to JFK New York. 2) the Boeing 787 makes it possible for a ULC like Norwegian Airlines to offer p2p service themselves without buying hub slots Whether British Airways doesn't buy an additional A380 because Norwegian Airlines isn't sending them any Oslo connecting passengers -- or -- Norwegian doesn't buy an A380 because they don't use hub slots in their ULC business model, the end result is the same: it's an unsold A380.

ryguytilidie 9y ago

Okay I'll add a few more: San Jose to Manchester Oakland to Oslo London to Calgary I've definitely seen a trend of 787s making these routes possible. Dunno where the "point to point is marketing speak" comes from.

andyana 9y ago
London <-> Calgary has been happening for at least 10 years, way before the 787s time.
- ryguytilidie 9y ago
  I was under the impression that the route used to be very seasonal and is now year round because of the 787s.
  - andyana 9y ago
    That could be.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- switch007 9y ago
  Westjet fly a 767-300 LGW-YYC.