3 ms·

> The overall trend in aviation is point-to-point routes and frequent flights on smaller planes. Just today it was announced that Sydney-Melbourne is now the wo

> The overall trend in aviation is point-to-point routes and frequent flights on smaller planes. Just today it was announced that Sydney-Melbourne is now the world's second busiest air route, even though it's almost entirely served by "small" 737/A320s: This is only true regionally or domestically. The hub and spoke model is more alive than ever on international routes. There are more direct routes today, but that is a consequence of having more hubs and more airlines, not because the airlines have figured out some advantage in point to point routes. For the long range widebody market, the largest planes don't save you much on fuel economy, even running full. A common saying in the industry is that it takes a lot of fuel to fly a lot of fuel; with fuel economy there are diminishing returns to aircraft size. Given they weren't saving much on fuel, the A380 and 747 only made sense at megahubs, because it reduced demand for landing and departure time slots. But the airlines responded to that problem in a different way: they increased the number of their hubs. This made them more flexible by not tying them into very expensive fleet decisions with new and unproven aircraft with hard staffing and infrastructural investments to go along with them, and it gives the advantage of having more direct routes.

njarboe 9y ago
"not because the airlines have figured out some advantage in point to point routes." Southwest has figured out the advantage. People want point to point and the profits and continued expansion of Southwest will hopefully clue the other airlines onto that fact. I fear the day when Southwest no longer has any competition and decides to convert over to a hub system to save on costs. Using current accounting methods, airlines see huge advantages in using a hub system. If they had to charge all the wasted time the hub system costs its passengers, they might see why Southwest keeps getting bigger and bigger. When looking to fly, I always sort for non-stops only and consider that as the price to fly to my destination (luckily I live in the Bay Area that has airport competition). Only when no non-stop flights exist, do I consider multiple stop flights.
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  As I said, that is only true regionally or domestically. Even then, Southwest has minihubs in order to connect the routes that don't have enough volume to justify direct flights. You can see this yourself: if you track their flight numbers, each "flight" is typically 3 to 4 legs, at least one of which is a southwest hub. For example, Seattle's only point to point route on Southwest is to San Jose where Seattle has a lot of cultural and business connections due to the tech industry. Anywhere else from Seattle is either direct because Southwest happens to operate a hub there, or it transfers through a hub. Unique to southwest (I'd say it's a strategic advantage, but only viable regionally) is the use of focus cities like Sacramento. These operate essentially as hubs, but aren't called hubs because they don't have maintenance operations there. Southwest's route planning model within regions is quite unique, and you can see how it works by tracking a flight number. Almost all of their regional flights are 3 leg flights: (Spoke -> Hub -> Focus City -> Spoke) or (Spoke -> Focus City -> Hub -> Spoke). This allows them to have lots of hubs (which allows for a lot of direct flights), while still allowing nearly all of their fleet to have access to a hub's maintenance operations, which is probably the most expensive part of operating a hub. This gives the popular illusion of having an extensive point to point network, but in reality nearly all flights connect to a hub or pseudo hub. There is absolutely no doubt that people prefer direct flights. Airlines running hubs have basically resigned themselves to the fact that if southwest opens a direct route between any of their non-hub cities, they've lost almost all of their non-frequent-flier customers on that specific city pairing to Southwest. That means that direct flights only make sense if there is enough volume on the specific corridor, and that only ever happens regionally, because that is where all the cultural and business connections are.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    So a city is a hub when the airline does maintenance at that location? How often does an airplane require maintenance? Then you talk about minihubs, pseudo hubs, and Focus Cities. What does point to point mean for someone in the business? Seems to me with all of this contorted vocab to keep Southwest in the hub system it might mean it really is a different type of airline. Not hub based but something else (as you say it is not a point to point airline)? Maybe the word I should use is non-stop for the type of flight that people want. "point to point" seems to have some technical meaning that I don't grok. What makes the Seattle to San Jose a point to point route but other Seattle flights by Southwest not point to point?

njarboe 9y ago

"not because the airlines have figured out some advantage in point to point routes." Southwest has figured out the advantage. People want point to point and the profits and continued expansion of Southwest will hopefully clue the other airlines onto that fact. I fear the day when Southwest no longer has any competition and decides to convert over to a hub system to save on costs. Using current accounting methods, airlines see huge advantages in using a hub system. If they had to charge all the wasted time the hub system costs its passengers, they might see why Southwest keeps getting bigger and bigger. When looking to fly, I always sort for non-stops only and consider that as the price to fly to my destination (luckily I live in the Bay Area that has airport competition). Only when no non-stop flights exist, do I consider multiple stop flights.

saosebastiao 9y ago
As I said, that is only true regionally or domestically. Even then, Southwest has minihubs in order to connect the routes that don't have enough volume to justify direct flights. You can see this yourself: if you track their flight numbers, each "flight" is typically 3 to 4 legs, at least one of which is a southwest hub. For example, Seattle's only point to point route on Southwest is to San Jose where Seattle has a lot of cultural and business connections due to the tech industry. Anywhere else from Seattle is either direct because Southwest happens to operate a hub there, or it transfers through a hub. Unique to southwest (I'd say it's a strategic advantage, but only viable regionally) is the use of focus cities like Sacramento. These operate essentially as hubs, but aren't called hubs because they don't have maintenance operations there. Southwest's route planning model within regions is quite unique, and you can see how it works by tracking a flight number. Almost all of their regional flights are 3 leg flights: (Spoke -> Hub -> Focus City -> Spoke) or (Spoke -> Focus City -> Hub -> Spoke). This allows them to have lots of hubs (which allows for a lot of direct flights), while still allowing nearly all of their fleet to have access to a hub's maintenance operations, which is probably the most expensive part of operating a hub. This gives the popular illusion of having an extensive point to point network, but in reality nearly all flights connect to a hub or pseudo hub. There is absolutely no doubt that people prefer direct flights. Airlines running hubs have basically resigned themselves to the fact that if southwest opens a direct route between any of their non-hub cities, they've lost almost all of their non-frequent-flier customers on that specific city pairing to Southwest. That means that direct flights only make sense if there is enough volume on the specific corridor, and that only ever happens regionally, because that is where all the cultural and business connections are.
- njarboe 9y ago
  So a city is a hub when the airline does maintenance at that location? How often does an airplane require maintenance? Then you talk about minihubs, pseudo hubs, and Focus Cities. What does point to point mean for someone in the business? Seems to me with all of this contorted vocab to keep Southwest in the hub system it might mean it really is a different type of airline. Not hub based but something else (as you say it is not a point to point airline)? Maybe the word I should use is non-stop for the type of flight that people want. "point to point" seems to have some technical meaning that I don't grok. What makes the Seattle to San Jose a point to point route but other Seattle flights by Southwest not point to point?