3 ms·

I would be curious to know exactly _why_ you think my argument is wrong, especially when I have proposed a decent mechanism relating to population density: chea

I would be curious to know exactly _why_ you think my argument is wrong, especially when I have proposed a decent mechanism relating to population density: cheap semirural airports and short flights. Frankfurt-Hahn or Paris Beauvais or Girona or Weeze have millions of people living right next door and are dirt cheap (multiple orders of magnitude cheaper than US airports.) Meanwhile, there are far more small rural airports in the US than in Europe, by approximately a factor of three [0] [1], but not enough people live by them to make regular flights efficient. For a great example of this, look at the Essential Air Service and how many taxpayer dollars the US spends to serve the many rural communities that would otherwise have no flights at all. [0] https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/airports_with_paved_runways.html https://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/airports_with_paved... [1] https://www.indexmundi.com/european_union/airports_with_paved_runways.html https://www.indexmundi.com/european_union/airports_with_pave...

robocat 2y ago
The concept is that it is fundamentally wrong to smear the population of NY across the total area of the US. You make a point to back an argument - the argument might be correct but your point is not. > Frankfurt-Hahn or Paris Beauvais Note that they are close to dense population areas Frankfurt and Paris. Not part of average density areas. I am just saying I have seen the pattern occur repeatedly where "population density" is used to attempt to prop an argument: density is averaging and is often meaningless.
- gessha 2y ago
  I think a better measure would be an average of averages of adjacent populations. Define a node as a population center (say NYC) and then edges as cities (Boston, Philly, DC, Pittsburgh) with the weight being the population of the respective city. Average the populations for each mode and then average those averages. The idea of this number is it would represent the average population of points of interest.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I think transport in the US might be a factor, though. While Frankfurt-Hahn and Beauvais are particularly extreme examples (they're further from the notional place than most budget airports) you can still get to the the relevant city relatively cheaply (if not particularly _quickly_, in the case of those two; about two hours). In many parts of the US, I suspect you'd really have no option but to hire a car, which instantly wipes out any price advantage of the budget airline.
- owenversteeg 2y ago
  Hmm. So you don't disagree that cheap semirural airports with a population base and short flights are important parts of the model, but you don't think they are related to population density? I don't see how those could be unrelated. Perhaps a simpler way to convince you of the importance of population density to today's LCC model: Take a look at a map of where Ryanair flies. Under the 58th parallel, on the entire European continent, there is only one place over 250km from a Ryanair airport! Look at all the tiny airports, Limoges or Valladolid or Brive or Osijek or anywhere really. Ryanair flies to 250 airports and they do it with hundreds of 737s operating like clockwork, one short flight to another, not a tiny regional plane to be seen. Meanwhile, Delta flies to a similar number of airports in the US (in the 200s) but the majority of those are with small regional jets which are way less cost-effective than 737s; if you're an LCC, that means that you can forget about flying there. Obviously Delta is flying all those regional jets not for fun, but because they can't fill a 737, because the local population is not large enough to support one. I don't see how population density is not a core part of the issue here.
wkat4242 2y ago
Ryanair doesn't really fly to those anymore though. They just fly to the low cost terminals at the major airports now. Here in Barcelona they just go to El Prat, not Girona.
- owenversteeg 2y ago
  Hmm... no? They still fly plenty out of all of those airports. Beauvais has 33 Ryanair departures on the board, Hahn has 8, Weeze has 15, and I see eight Ryanair flights for the day on the Girona departures board right now, in the off-season when most flights there don't operate. Less than El Prat, sure, but way more than you could ever imagine Spirit doing from a comparable area in the US, which is my point.

robocat 2y ago

The concept is that it is fundamentally wrong to smear the population of NY across the total area of the US. You make a point to back an argument - the argument might be correct but your point is not. > Frankfurt-Hahn or Paris Beauvais Note that they are close to dense population areas Frankfurt and Paris. Not part of average density areas. I am just saying I have seen the pattern occur repeatedly where "population density" is used to attempt to prop an argument: density is averaging and is often meaningless.

gessha 2y ago
I think a better measure would be an average of averages of adjacent populations. Define a node as a population center (say NYC) and then edges as cities (Boston, Philly, DC, Pittsburgh) with the weight being the population of the respective city. Average the populations for each mode and then average those averages. The idea of this number is it would represent the average population of points of interest.
rsynnott 2y ago
I think transport in the US might be a factor, though. While Frankfurt-Hahn and Beauvais are particularly extreme examples (they're further from the notional place than most budget airports) you can still get to the the relevant city relatively cheaply (if not particularly _quickly_, in the case of those two; about two hours). In many parts of the US, I suspect you'd really have no option but to hire a car, which instantly wipes out any price advantage of the budget airline.
owenversteeg 2y ago
Hmm. So you don't disagree that cheap semirural airports with a population base and short flights are important parts of the model, but you don't think they are related to population density? I don't see how those could be unrelated. Perhaps a simpler way to convince you of the importance of population density to today's LCC model: Take a look at a map of where Ryanair flies. Under the 58th parallel, on the entire European continent, there is only one place over 250km from a Ryanair airport! Look at all the tiny airports, Limoges or Valladolid or Brive or Osijek or anywhere really. Ryanair flies to 250 airports and they do it with hundreds of 737s operating like clockwork, one short flight to another, not a tiny regional plane to be seen. Meanwhile, Delta flies to a similar number of airports in the US (in the 200s) but the majority of those are with small regional jets which are way less cost-effective than 737s; if you're an LCC, that means that you can forget about flying there. Obviously Delta is flying all those regional jets not for fun, but because they can't fill a 737, because the local population is not large enough to support one. I don't see how population density is not a core part of the issue here.

wkat4242 2y ago

Ryanair doesn't really fly to those anymore though. They just fly to the low cost terminals at the major airports now. Here in Barcelona they just go to El Prat, not Girona.

owenversteeg 2y ago
Hmm... no? They still fly plenty out of all of those airports. Beauvais has 33 Ryanair departures on the board, Hahn has 8, Weeze has 15, and I see eight Ryanair flights for the day on the Girona departures board right now, in the off-season when most flights there don't operate. Less than El Prat, sure, but way more than you could ever imagine Spirit doing from a comparable area in the US, which is my point.