In the past few years Boeing has begun talk about point to point travel. This consist of a system where planes can fly directly to a destination without having to go to a “hub.” Today, most airlines use smaller aircraft to take their passengers to their main hub, and then place them on a larger aircraft that then go to the far-off destination. My question is, is point to point practical. When thinking about I realized that it would take a great amount of aircraft, and it would stretch out the airlines resources; therefore, increasing operating cost. Now, i am only 14 and my views are not the best, but i am looking for any comment, correction, or answer to my question.
Thanks for any help-
By: tenthije - 24th May 2003 at 18:18
Flying point-to-point will probably never really kick of. Not in Europe anyway. The reasons I think so is:
* Shortage of capacity, airways, ATC etc
* Environmental lobby is very strong around here. This has restricted a lot of airports. Schiphol for instance could handle more flights and passengers if the laws were not soo strict. Also, take offs and landings are not allowed during the night.
* Too much competition with other forms of transport. In the US you do not have an alternative to long distance travel. In Europe you can take the high speed trains. Often the trains are even faster than the plane (often not cheaper though). As a consequence in Air France has had to cut most of its domestic network.
* Airlines want to save costs. By using a hub you can do with less flights. This saves wages, planes, fuel etc… It’s all about obtaining larger economies of scale.
* Europe is divided in countries. Yes, every European carrier can fly everywere in Europe, but that does not mean it is easily accepted. A lot of passengers still stick to what they know. Often this means their respective flag carrier and/or local charter companies.
* Even if local passengers will step on the foreign carrier there are local autorities that are still in a mindset to favour local carriers. Only few countries are really open for all carriers.
By: greekdude1 - 24th May 2003 at 18:14
Prior to deregulation in the U.S., everything was pretty much point to point. Then Delta revolutionized the hub concept with ATL, which is also why it is currently the busiest airport in the world, in terms of pax (not sure about movements). Some airlines in the U.S. still have a few point to point services, for instance, I flew EWR-SAN (San Diego) on UA once, and neither can remotely be considered a hub for the airline. Mind you, this was back in ’98, and that route might have been scrapped after 9/11. It’s easier to funnel everybody through the hub, and feed them through the spokes. However, if a particular service warrants point to point, there’s nothing wrong with an airline serving that market, subject to approval, of course.
By: mongu - 24th May 2003 at 17:24
No right and no wrong answer on that.
Hubs mean less duplication of costs and there will be efficiency savings using the hub system.
Another angle is ATC. Aircraft are not allowed to opt for “free flight” yes, even though it is perfectly feasible technically. If we have to stick to air ways, then p2p motivation is a bit dampened.
By: keltic - 24th May 2003 at 14:27
Initially Hubs are prefered by airlines since costs are reduced and point to point flights (prefered by passengers) implies extra crews, extra costs….But both systems are complentary since each airport varies and sometimes a mixed concept is useful.
By: Bhoy - 24th May 2003 at 14:22
point to point is probably more feasible in the States than in Europe, purely because of the slot restrictions this side of the pond.
Sure, I’d rather travel point to point, but the reality of travel in Europe is generally via a hub.
That’s why I think Airbus have probably got the slightly better long term strategy with the A380 than Boeing with the (proposed) 7E7.
On the whole, I think you are correct, though.
Sign In
May 23, 2003 at 11:57 pm