6 ms·

It's a good point. I suspect there's an argument that a newer design could be more fuel-efficient, but I haven't read anything on that. (The only things that

It's a good point. I suspect there's an argument that a newer design could be more fuel-efficient, but I haven't read anything on that. (The only things that operators care about are fuel efficiency and operating cost/commonality, and will the lenders finance it. Passenger comfort has no bearing.)

kortilla 6y ago
No, the killer was the move away from hub and spoke model to directs between secondary cities. This was exacerbated more by ETOPS allowing narrow body jets to cover ocean flights. No point in Southwest funneling all passengers to LAX to board an A380 to HNL when they can just have directs on 737s from every west coast city.
- p_l 6y ago
  That's, however, specific more to USA. Intercontinental flights (and not only) seem to me to always go through hubs, and within Europe also through hubs, if maybe a bit smaller.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Not even in Europe. The growth didn’t happen because so many point to point flights displaced the need. LHR hasn’t become significantly larger since the late 90s, which was what the A380 (and 747 passenger for that matter) depended on to really compete. Look at an airport like Naples. It has over 100 direct flight destinations.
    - p_l 6y ago
      Just took a look - most of the point-to-point are short-distance low cost flights. Which fly A320 and 737, not 787 nor A380. When you look at connections involving distances where one would use a long-range plane, it's pretty much always with a hub at one end - at least that's what cursory glance shows me. non-low cost airlines will schedule intra-european flights through hubs as well, the hub you will fly through depends on airline used (so Lufthansa will put your through MUC or FRA, LOT will do everything through Warsaw with few long-range flights from Cracow, BA will do Gatwick and Heathrow depending on the flights, etc.)
      - kortilla 6y ago
        The point is that you can get to every major city in Europe from Naples directly. Of course they aren’t going to be serviced by A380s, that’s part of the point I’m making. The hub model didn’t continue to grow like it was supposed to. The A380 was supposed to service the mega hub to hub routes (e.g. JFK-CDG) as gates became coveted at those airports. Instead, it turns out that a bunch of that demand was relieved by adding in other smaller (e.g. a 757) directs that previously depended on a bunch of double layovers. (e.g. ATL-JFK-CDG-FCO becomes ATL-FCO). The A380 was built on a dream that everyone would pack into one of a few major hubs and all of the long flights between hubs would obviously be perfect A380 material. The surge in point to point flights destroyed the economics of that. Gate fees didn’t rise like they were supposed to, passenger counts at the hubs didn’t rise, etc, etc.

kortilla 6y ago

No, the killer was the move away from hub and spoke model to directs between secondary cities. This was exacerbated more by ETOPS allowing narrow body jets to cover ocean flights. No point in Southwest funneling all passengers to LAX to board an A380 to HNL when they can just have directs on 737s from every west coast city.

p_l 6y ago
That's, however, specific more to USA. Intercontinental flights (and not only) seem to me to always go through hubs, and within Europe also through hubs, if maybe a bit smaller.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Not even in Europe. The growth didn’t happen because so many point to point flights displaced the need. LHR hasn’t become significantly larger since the late 90s, which was what the A380 (and 747 passenger for that matter) depended on to really compete. Look at an airport like Naples. It has over 100 direct flight destinations.
  - p_l 6y ago
    Just took a look - most of the point-to-point are short-distance low cost flights. Which fly A320 and 737, not 787 nor A380. When you look at connections involving distances where one would use a long-range plane, it's pretty much always with a hub at one end - at least that's what cursory glance shows me. non-low cost airlines will schedule intra-european flights through hubs as well, the hub you will fly through depends on airline used (so Lufthansa will put your through MUC or FRA, LOT will do everything through Warsaw with few long-range flights from Cracow, BA will do Gatwick and Heathrow depending on the flights, etc.)
    - kortilla 6y ago
      The point is that you can get to every major city in Europe from Naples directly. Of course they aren’t going to be serviced by A380s, that’s part of the point I’m making. The hub model didn’t continue to grow like it was supposed to. The A380 was supposed to service the mega hub to hub routes (e.g. JFK-CDG) as gates became coveted at those airports. Instead, it turns out that a bunch of that demand was relieved by adding in other smaller (e.g. a 757) directs that previously depended on a bunch of double layovers. (e.g. ATL-JFK-CDG-FCO becomes ATL-FCO). The A380 was built on a dream that everyone would pack into one of a few major hubs and all of the long flights between hubs would obviously be perfect A380 material. The surge in point to point flights destroyed the economics of that. Gate fees didn’t rise like they were supposed to, passenger counts at the hubs didn’t rise, etc, etc.