8 ms·

The problem is not technical. The problem is government. You have 2 types of aircraft carriers: direct and hub-and-spoke. Direct means that they either have a

The problem is not technical. The problem is government. You have 2 types of aircraft carriers: direct and hub-and-spoke. Direct means that they either have a direct flight between A and B, or have no way to get from A to B at all (in most cases, of course no carrier is 100% hub or 100% direct). Since A and B tend to be routes like Marseille to New York there aren't going to be enough passengers to fill an A380, so smaller more efficient airplanes are where it's at. In short: Big, huge airplanes make sense for hub-and-spoke carriers and don't for direct carriers. Small airplanes, lots of them, make sense for direct carriers. For consumers, the difference is twofold. Direct carriers are faster, and they will be more expensive, because a number of costs can't be shared between as many passengers as in the hub networks. Hub carriers are slower, but a (lot) cheaper. But that doesn't even really matter. Governments have decided that most airports won't be upgraded to support more planes and/or more passengers. This has resulted in airports that would normally be hub airports, like London, Paris or New York aren't hubs, because they are incredibly oversubscribed. For the same reason they become very expensive, very slow, and generally bad for passengers. But there is no competition, because only the government can approve airports, and they don't. This means that unless you're a carrier that happens to be in a location where such government concerns don't exist, like in the UAE where the government is the carrier and doesn't care about the local population at all, you can't have a hub network. So superjumbo's are threatened. Despite, of course, the market clearly pointing out that the cheaper flight almost always wins, if it's up to the customers, and therefore hub networks should win. I would say that therefore it is pretty correct to say that customers want A380s. But governments are standing in the way. For no good reason. But governments have decided that having everyone pay significantly more for every flight, and generally have an utterly awful experience flying is absolutely worth it. After all, the alternatives would mean slightly more work for them ...

_ph_ 9y ago
Things aren't just black and white. London and Paris, also Frankfurt are partially hub airports. Many long-distance flights from Europe will relay via those airports. Additionally you have direct flights. And with the raising passenger counts, there is a need for large airplanes on point-to-point connections too. Of course only on the important ones, but there is a need. A shortage in runway capacity also limits the amount of flights you can have from an airport, so to raise the capacity, you have to go bigger too. Right now, there is obviously no large demand for the A380, but I could see how that changes again - especially once the 747s in use got retired.
Chriky 9y ago
It must be cool to be a Libertarian because you are an immediate expert at everything.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  That was a detailed comment that didn't say "government is bad." It laid out a pretty reasonable interpretation of why that decision might have taken place, including quite clearly pointing out that some governments care less about the effects of airports on local populations, which could explain why some markets still have hub airports. It definitely tallies with the impression I have – looking at London Heathrow, for example, where the controversy about expanding the airport has been rumbling on for an age, and governments are consistently jittery about taking an obvious view on it. I'd say there are pretty good reasons for avoiding expansion, but obviously this other comment disagrees. There's nothing here that screams "libertarian," just a possibly inaccurate, but hardly unreasonable, point of view.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    > that didn't say "government is bad." Yet it did start with "The problem is government".
    - maehwasu 9y ago
      It turns out, shockingly enough, that there are many situations in which government creates problems. If a poster lays out his/her reasoning as to WHY the government is the problem in a specific instance, simply yelling "libertarian" as a refutation doesn't look great.
      - mcv 9y ago
        > It turns out, shockingly enough, that there are many situations in which government creates problems. True of course, but not in this case. Many governments want their airports to expand, but they simply can't, because there's no space for it, and they're not totalitarian enough to screw over the millions of people living in those areas. It's not a case of governments being unreasonably obstructive, it's a case of governments actually caring about the interests of the people for a change.
shadowbantruth 9y ago
Sucks to see one liners with no info upvoted and detailed answers like this downvoted with little explanation. People calm down. This is a good answer
joosters 9y ago
Perhaps governments might be considering the implications for more people than just the airlines and the airport owners? Like, for example, all the people who would lose their homes in the airport expansions or have their lives ruined by the increased airplane noise and pollution? But oh no, it's just them stupid lazy governments, of course.
- avar 9y ago
  Lives aren't ruined by airport noise. The housing price around major airports is lower than it otherwise would be, but still higher than housing even further away from the city requiring a longer commute.
  - skgoa 9y ago
    From personal experience I know that hearing planes take off every couple of minutes while you are having a BBQ doesn't ruin your day either. I know quite a number of people, including close family members, who voluntarily moved close to the airport for financial reasons. It's not for everyone, especially when night starts and landings are allowed (hich luckily isn't the case at most airports in Germany), but many people really aren't affected negatively. Also, modern windows etc. can eliminate the noise almost entirely when you are inside. Airports often even pay for these upgrades.
  - mcv 9y ago
    Life quality is about more than housing prices.
    - avar 9y ago
      Of course, but the context here is GPs claim that people will have "their lives ruined" by the presence of an airport. That's easily shown to be hyperbolic nonsense if you look at housing prices in the "worst" (some people like it) possible places near runways at busy international airports. There's a drop for sure, but it's marginal. Now compare that marginal drop to the overall positive impact on the local economy from more tourism, better access to travel from people who live within hours driving distance of the city etc., and it becomes easy to make the case that the lack of airport expansion is more a case of NIMBY-ism than some optimization for the common good.
dx034 9y ago
The problem you describe mostly exists for London. JFK is crowded but not as overcrowded as LHR. And FRA just (7 years ago) got a new runway, they're not close to runway capacity. Other hubs in Europe (e.g. AMS) are also below capacity.
- mcv 9y ago
  AMS below capacity? Then why are they already eyeing the small (hobby/sports) airport Lelystad for expansion? I think the Dutch government is a bit too concerned with turning Schiphol into a major European hub.
  - tallanvor 9y ago
    I believe the main problem with AMS is terminal capacity. The runways can handle plenty of traffic, but they're constrained by terminal space. They're building, but the current plans are only increasing capacity by around 10%. It sounds like the Dutch government is trying to reduce the need for AMS to grow further by making it possible for tour operators and maintenance operations to take place at Lelystad.
- TillE 9y ago
  My experience with transferring at Heathrow is that they shove everybody into one insanely crowded terminal, and then about fifteen minutes before boarding you have to rush to another terminal. I'm sure there's some weird justification for that, but it's incredibly bad design.
  - dx034 9y ago
    I assume you talk about terminal 5. I'm not a fan departing from 5B or 5C but in most cases that's announced at least 20 min before boarding and you can easily make it there in 5-10 min (most of which is spent waiting for the train). I experienced twice that the announcement came a bit later but then they kept the gate open later to ensure everyone makes it.
  - willyt 9y ago
    They will probably have certain contractual obligations regarding dwell times in the main terminal building for the shops and restaurants to extract maximum cash from passengers before they go out to the satellite buildings. Privately operated airports like T5 are massive shopping malls, the planes are an afterthought.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
For no good reason I take issue with this. Airport expansion has obvious effects on local populations, like you've pointed out the UAE doesn't care about. Expansion of hubs can itself be expensive, disruptive, and environmentally damaging. I'd also dispute that "the cheapest flight always wins", otherwise every flight would be run by a low-cost carrier.
- distances 9y ago
  > I'd also dispute that "the cheapest flight always wins", otherwise every flight would be run by a low-cost carrier. For many popular routes the low-cost carriers would love to participate but can't, as there are no slots available. The incumbents get a major advantage for the fact they've been there long enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_slot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_slot
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
68c12c16 9y ago
I just did a bit search... in 2009, there were roughly 40 airports worldwide could handle A380 [1]...until 2009, the number of accumulative A380 orders worldwide was 202 planes [3]. and in 2015 there were roughly 48 airports worldwide could handle A380 [2]...between 2010 and 2015, the number of accumulative A380 orders worldwide was 87 planes [3]... there was a 20% increase of A380 capable airports between 2010 to 2015 and a 40% increase of A380 planes in the same period...apparently, so far for A380, the airport construction lagged far behind its production... Note that almost all A380 flights are international flights (and usually covering long distance), with the exceptions of some less than 10 domestic flights which are all flying within China... No Russian flight (international or domestic) uses A380; and no US domestic flight uses A380 either... Given the current international travel climate, I just do not see there would be a lot of potential changes for the current A380 market within the next 5 or even 10 years... -- source [1] http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=339455 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=339455 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160402062354/http://www.a380flights.net/Airports.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160402062354/http://www.a380fl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and...
- merb 9y ago
  there are more airports worldwide that could handle the a380. I live in germany near freiburg and there is a small city called "lahr" it has a airport with a big enough runway. it also has a terminal and could handle most passenger flights. but it's not in use (except for europa park flights) because the city didn't wanted that a airline could fly from there (except some exceptions like europa park from/to + freight or political flights). it currently was build by the canadians after the second world war. (http://airport-lahr.de/en/airport-lahr/ http://airport-lahr.de/en/airport-lahr/) I expect more airports like that were passenger flight is not allowed directly so they are not officially listed as airports that could handle it. (Edit: Lahr actually bidded for the manufacturing process of the A380 (but never gotten it): http://www.airports-worldwide.com/germany/lahr_germany.htm http://www.airports-worldwide.com/germany/lahr_germany.htm)
  - 9y ago
mcv 9y ago
"For no good reason"? I thought you just explained that for the hub model to work, airports need to grow in places where there's no space for them (near major cities). That sounds like a pretty good reason. That said, Dutch governments seem determined to make Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) a hub, and from what I understand, they've succeeded in becoming a hub for not just Netherland, but also the UK, because Heathrow is unable to become a hub due to space constraints. Schiphol, on the other hand, has seen major expansion (a fifth take-off lane in the 1990s), and the Dutch government is considering turning a small airport in the vicinity (Lelystad) into an extension of Schiphol. Most people don't like that idea. Frankfurt is also a major hub. There are plenty of hubs, but there isn't always space for them (like in London), and other concerns are often deemed more important than sacrificing all space to an airport.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  Schiphol has really long taxi times. Like 20 minutes from touchdown to doors opening. If it's a hub then you can multiply taxi time by two which means the best part of an hour is spent just taxiing when many flights across Europe only take about an hour or two anyway.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    The long taxi is really only from the Polderbaan, the far away runway to the NW of the terminal.
  - mcv 9y ago
    That's unavoidable with a big hub. Some runways are going to be further away from the terminal. In Frankfurt, I've actually had a bus take us from the terminal to the plane. And for short trips, most time is wasted by having to check in two hours in advance. High speed trains are better for short trips in my opinion. But as far as I understand, the point of a hub is to concentrate traffic for the long trips. Those 20 minutes suddenly don't matter all that much anymore.
    - waqf 9y ago
Yizahi 9y ago
I highly suspect that there are not enough direct connections that can't use one ~600 seat flight instead of several ~200 seat flights in the same day. When I look for big city to big city flight I usually see several different flights there (when spaced in 1-2 hours that's definitely different plans) - they can be served with one 380 easily, (ignoring other factors).
cup-of-tea 9y ago
Surely in a hub and spoke model the hubs should be in places in the middle of nowhere that nobody actually wants to go to. Why does it makes sense to have the hubs in London, Paris or New York? They should be significantly far away from the city that they can grow easily (not really possible in the UK, though).
- candiodari 9y ago
  I thought so too at one point. However, airports need tens of thousands of employees, so middle of nowhere, nope. Doesn't work. Everything from "drag this box here" employees, waiters/waitresses to highly specialized engineers to accountants. Also, it is a big advantage for hubs to have a steady flow of traffic to the hub. Thirdly, most carriers don't just get a hub from the government, the government cheats further. So in practice most carriers have tax advantages in their hub, as well as preferential treatment. Although getting governments to approve middle of nowhere airports also doesn't seem to work too well. Why ? No idea. Perhaps issue is that they too would need to get personnel into the middle of nowhere. But the current situation means a number of things. One, aircraft carriers will buy lots of little planes and won't do well. Second, they won't be matching Emirates or Etihad on pricing or customer conditions any time soon. Emirates and Etihad and a few others will do well.
- bluGill 9y ago
  No, hubs need to be big cities. The cheapest flight is direct a to b when the flight is large and full. When one of A or B is a large city that means there are more people who want to take the flight. New York will have direct flights to everywhere in North America even without being a hub because it is large enough live there that direct flights make sense. Then it becomes a hub by accident as people who want to get from small city to small city without a direct flight discover they can make New York a hub and get there. They would prefer a direct flight, but not enough people live in either to make it worthwhile.
- 7952 9y ago
  Surely Dubai works like this.
devit 9y ago
But how about routes between big cities with lots of travellers? E.g. couldn't something like London-New York or New York-Los Angeles have enough passenger to fill A380s even for direct traffic? Or are direct traffic numbers actually always too low even for such pairs?
- CamTin 9y ago
  I'm not in the airline business so I'm just spitballing, but I would suspect you capture more business along routes like London-LA if you have a variety of departure times throughout the day. While the total volume might make sense to fill an A380, you'd lose business to somebody with smaller planes but more scheduling options. Again, just spitballing, but I know I probably wouldn't delay or move up my departure for a few hours just to get on an A380 if there's an A320 that can get me there and leaves at a more convenient time.

_ph_ 9y ago

Things aren't just black and white. London and Paris, also Frankfurt are partially hub airports. Many long-distance flights from Europe will relay via those airports. Additionally you have direct flights. And with the raising passenger counts, there is a need for large airplanes on point-to-point connections too. Of course only on the important ones, but there is a need. A shortage in runway capacity also limits the amount of flights you can have from an airport, so to raise the capacity, you have to go bigger too. Right now, there is obviously no large demand for the A380, but I could see how that changes again - especially once the 747s in use got retired.

Chriky 9y ago

It must be cool to be a Libertarian because you are an immediate expert at everything.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
That was a detailed comment that didn't say "government is bad." It laid out a pretty reasonable interpretation of why that decision might have taken place, including quite clearly pointing out that some governments care less about the effects of airports on local populations, which could explain why some markets still have hub airports. It definitely tallies with the impression I have – looking at London Heathrow, for example, where the controversy about expanding the airport has been rumbling on for an age, and governments are consistently jittery about taking an obvious view on it. I'd say there are pretty good reasons for avoiding expansion, but obviously this other comment disagrees. There's nothing here that screams "libertarian," just a possibly inaccurate, but hardly unreasonable, point of view.
- matt4077 9y ago
  > that didn't say "government is bad." Yet it did start with "The problem is government".
  - maehwasu 9y ago
    It turns out, shockingly enough, that there are many situations in which government creates problems. If a poster lays out his/her reasoning as to WHY the government is the problem in a specific instance, simply yelling "libertarian" as a refutation doesn't look great.
    - mcv 9y ago
      > It turns out, shockingly enough, that there are many situations in which government creates problems. True of course, but not in this case. Many governments want their airports to expand, but they simply can't, because there's no space for it, and they're not totalitarian enough to screw over the millions of people living in those areas. It's not a case of governments being unreasonably obstructive, it's a case of governments actually caring about the interests of the people for a change.

shadowbantruth 9y ago

Sucks to see one liners with no info upvoted and detailed answers like this downvoted with little explanation. People calm down. This is a good answer

joosters 9y ago

Perhaps governments might be considering the implications for more people than just the airlines and the airport owners? Like, for example, all the people who would lose their homes in the airport expansions or have their lives ruined by the increased airplane noise and pollution? But oh no, it's just them stupid lazy governments, of course.

avar 9y ago
Lives aren't ruined by airport noise. The housing price around major airports is lower than it otherwise would be, but still higher than housing even further away from the city requiring a longer commute.
- skgoa 9y ago
  From personal experience I know that hearing planes take off every couple of minutes while you are having a BBQ doesn't ruin your day either. I know quite a number of people, including close family members, who voluntarily moved close to the airport for financial reasons. It's not for everyone, especially when night starts and landings are allowed (hich luckily isn't the case at most airports in Germany), but many people really aren't affected negatively. Also, modern windows etc. can eliminate the noise almost entirely when you are inside. Airports often even pay for these upgrades.
- mcv 9y ago
  Life quality is about more than housing prices.
  - avar 9y ago
    Of course, but the context here is GPs claim that people will have "their lives ruined" by the presence of an airport. That's easily shown to be hyperbolic nonsense if you look at housing prices in the "worst" (some people like it) possible places near runways at busy international airports. There's a drop for sure, but it's marginal. Now compare that marginal drop to the overall positive impact on the local economy from more tourism, better access to travel from people who live within hours driving distance of the city etc., and it becomes easy to make the case that the lack of airport expansion is more a case of NIMBY-ism than some optimization for the common good.

dx034 9y ago

The problem you describe mostly exists for London. JFK is crowded but not as overcrowded as LHR. And FRA just (7 years ago) got a new runway, they're not close to runway capacity. Other hubs in Europe (e.g. AMS) are also below capacity.

mcv 9y ago
AMS below capacity? Then why are they already eyeing the small (hobby/sports) airport Lelystad for expansion? I think the Dutch government is a bit too concerned with turning Schiphol into a major European hub.
- tallanvor 9y ago
  I believe the main problem with AMS is terminal capacity. The runways can handle plenty of traffic, but they're constrained by terminal space. They're building, but the current plans are only increasing capacity by around 10%. It sounds like the Dutch government is trying to reduce the need for AMS to grow further by making it possible for tour operators and maintenance operations to take place at Lelystad.
TillE 9y ago
My experience with transferring at Heathrow is that they shove everybody into one insanely crowded terminal, and then about fifteen minutes before boarding you have to rush to another terminal. I'm sure there's some weird justification for that, but it's incredibly bad design.
- dx034 9y ago
  I assume you talk about terminal 5. I'm not a fan departing from 5B or 5C but in most cases that's announced at least 20 min before boarding and you can easily make it there in 5-10 min (most of which is spent waiting for the train). I experienced twice that the announcement came a bit later but then they kept the gate open later to ensure everyone makes it.
- willyt 9y ago
  They will probably have certain contractual obligations regarding dwell times in the main terminal building for the shops and restaurants to extract maximum cash from passengers before they go out to the satellite buildings. Privately operated airports like T5 are massive shopping malls, the planes are an afterthought.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

For no good reason I take issue with this. Airport expansion has obvious effects on local populations, like you've pointed out the UAE doesn't care about. Expansion of hubs can itself be expensive, disruptive, and environmentally damaging. I'd also dispute that "the cheapest flight always wins", otherwise every flight would be run by a low-cost carrier.

distances 9y ago
> I'd also dispute that "the cheapest flight always wins", otherwise every flight would be run by a low-cost carrier. For many popular routes the low-cost carriers would love to participate but can't, as there are no slots available. The incumbents get a major advantage for the fact they've been there long enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_slot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_slot

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

68c12c16 9y ago

I just did a bit search... in 2009, there were roughly 40 airports worldwide could handle A380 [1]...until 2009, the number of accumulative A380 orders worldwide was 202 planes [3]. and in 2015 there were roughly 48 airports worldwide could handle A380 [2]...between 2010 and 2015, the number of accumulative A380 orders worldwide was 87 planes [3]... there was a 20% increase of A380 capable airports between 2010 to 2015 and a 40% increase of A380 planes in the same period...apparently, so far for A380, the airport construction lagged far behind its production... Note that almost all A380 flights are international flights (and usually covering long distance), with the exceptions of some less than 10 domestic flights which are all flying within China... No Russian flight (international or domestic) uses A380; and no US domestic flight uses A380 either... Given the current international travel climate, I just do not see there would be a lot of potential changes for the current A380 market within the next 5 or even 10 years... -- source [1] http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=339455 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=339455 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160402062354/http://www.a380flights.net/Airports.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160402062354/http://www.a380fl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and...

merb 9y ago
there are more airports worldwide that could handle the a380. I live in germany near freiburg and there is a small city called "lahr" it has a airport with a big enough runway. it also has a terminal and could handle most passenger flights. but it's not in use (except for europa park flights) because the city didn't wanted that a airline could fly from there (except some exceptions like europa park from/to + freight or political flights). it currently was build by the canadians after the second world war. (http://airport-lahr.de/en/airport-lahr/ http://airport-lahr.de/en/airport-lahr/) I expect more airports like that were passenger flight is not allowed directly so they are not officially listed as airports that could handle it. (Edit: Lahr actually bidded for the manufacturing process of the A380 (but never gotten it): http://www.airports-worldwide.com/germany/lahr_germany.htm http://www.airports-worldwide.com/germany/lahr_germany.htm)
- 9y ago

mcv 9y ago

"For no good reason"? I thought you just explained that for the hub model to work, airports need to grow in places where there's no space for them (near major cities). That sounds like a pretty good reason. That said, Dutch governments seem determined to make Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) a hub, and from what I understand, they've succeeded in becoming a hub for not just Netherland, but also the UK, because Heathrow is unable to become a hub due to space constraints. Schiphol, on the other hand, has seen major expansion (a fifth take-off lane in the 1990s), and the Dutch government is considering turning a small airport in the vicinity (Lelystad) into an extension of Schiphol. Most people don't like that idea. Frankfurt is also a major hub. There are plenty of hubs, but there isn't always space for them (like in London), and other concerns are often deemed more important than sacrificing all space to an airport.

cup-of-tea 9y ago
Schiphol has really long taxi times. Like 20 minutes from touchdown to doors opening. If it's a hub then you can multiply taxi time by two which means the best part of an hour is spent just taxiing when many flights across Europe only take about an hour or two anyway.
- cr1895 9y ago
  The long taxi is really only from the Polderbaan, the far away runway to the NW of the terminal.
- mcv 9y ago
  That's unavoidable with a big hub. Some runways are going to be further away from the terminal. In Frankfurt, I've actually had a bus take us from the terminal to the plane. And for short trips, most time is wasted by having to check in two hours in advance. High speed trains are better for short trips in my opinion. But as far as I understand, the point of a hub is to concentrate traffic for the long trips. Those 20 minutes suddenly don't matter all that much anymore.
  - waqf 9y ago

Yizahi 9y ago

I highly suspect that there are not enough direct connections that can't use one ~600 seat flight instead of several ~200 seat flights in the same day. When I look for big city to big city flight I usually see several different flights there (when spaced in 1-2 hours that's definitely different plans) - they can be served with one 380 easily, (ignoring other factors).

cup-of-tea 9y ago

Surely in a hub and spoke model the hubs should be in places in the middle of nowhere that nobody actually wants to go to. Why does it makes sense to have the hubs in London, Paris or New York? They should be significantly far away from the city that they can grow easily (not really possible in the UK, though).

candiodari 9y ago
I thought so too at one point. However, airports need tens of thousands of employees, so middle of nowhere, nope. Doesn't work. Everything from "drag this box here" employees, waiters/waitresses to highly specialized engineers to accountants. Also, it is a big advantage for hubs to have a steady flow of traffic to the hub. Thirdly, most carriers don't just get a hub from the government, the government cheats further. So in practice most carriers have tax advantages in their hub, as well as preferential treatment. Although getting governments to approve middle of nowhere airports also doesn't seem to work too well. Why ? No idea. Perhaps issue is that they too would need to get personnel into the middle of nowhere. But the current situation means a number of things. One, aircraft carriers will buy lots of little planes and won't do well. Second, they won't be matching Emirates or Etihad on pricing or customer conditions any time soon. Emirates and Etihad and a few others will do well.
bluGill 9y ago
No, hubs need to be big cities. The cheapest flight is direct a to b when the flight is large and full. When one of A or B is a large city that means there are more people who want to take the flight. New York will have direct flights to everywhere in North America even without being a hub because it is large enough live there that direct flights make sense. Then it becomes a hub by accident as people who want to get from small city to small city without a direct flight discover they can make New York a hub and get there. They would prefer a direct flight, but not enough people live in either to make it worthwhile.
7952 9y ago
Surely Dubai works like this.

devit 9y ago

But how about routes between big cities with lots of travellers? E.g. couldn't something like London-New York or New York-Los Angeles have enough passenger to fill A380s even for direct traffic? Or are direct traffic numbers actually always too low even for such pairs?

CamTin 9y ago
I'm not in the airline business so I'm just spitballing, but I would suspect you capture more business along routes like London-LA if you have a variety of departure times throughout the day. While the total volume might make sense to fill an A380, you'd lose business to somebody with smaller planes but more scheduling options. Again, just spitballing, but I know I probably wouldn't delay or move up my departure for a few hours just to get on an A380 if there's an A320 that can get me there and leaves at a more convenient time.