2 ms·
Point-to-point can lower cost as well. Cheaper to take off from a smaller airport and less fuel used since you skip an expensive take-off from the hub.
by filleokus 2y ago
Point-to-point can lower cost as well. Cheaper to take off from a smaller airport and less fuel used since you skip an expensive take-off from the hub.
- pc86 2y agoThe hassle in incomparable. There are certainly exceptions but almost always the smaller the airport the easier and faster it is to get through security. The easier and cheaper it is to park. You can just call an Uber from the sidewalk in front of the terminal instead of walking to some obscure pickup spot 3/4 of a mile away. Going through small 5-gate airports is a dream as long as they're appropriately staffed at security, which is not just a small airport problem. Going through living nightmares like Denver makes me seriously consider sepukku. If both flights are nonstop I'd probably pay 20% more for the smaller airport even if the flight itself is longer.
- kuschku 2y agoThe only reason point-to-point is successful is because regional airports are cheaper than larger airports. By economy of scale, larger airports should be cheaper. The reason they're not is that regional airports are heavily subsidized. If air travel subsidies would spontaneously end tomorrow, we'd see a return to the hub- and spoke model, more A380 flights, less 737-MAX8/A320neo demand, lower air travel emissions, and better competitiveness for trains.
- bluGill 2y agoIf you don't live in a hub you pay for two flights anywhere, one to a hub and one to where you want to go. this is double the cost in many cases.