Hub airports

[edwin_m]

I've just twigged what has been bugging me about the debate on London airports.

Most people seem to agree we need a "hub airport". This is one big and important enough to have a lot of long and short haul flights so that people can access lesser airports by changing there. Hence people who have easy access to the hub airport have a good choice of destinations to fly to.

The quoted reason why the "hub airport" needs to have extra capacity is usually something to do with needing direct flights to emerging destinations, which are nearly always to the east. But is a London airport (any London airport) well located to serve this market?

London is towards the west of the most populated part of Europe. Comparing with a notional hub towards the east, say Warsaw, most people who didn't have easy surface access to either hub would have significantly more flying time (and costs and emissions) to double back via London. For example someone in Berlin would face a connecting flight about an hour longer to London than to Warsaw, and then another hour on the long-haul flight which might pass roughly over Berlin and Warsaw on its way east.

I think this means that any London airport will struggle to compete for new traffic with a comparable hub airport further east. London does better as a hub for journeys to America and other places to the west, but these markets are largely static. So does the main reason to want extra airport capacity in London actually stand up to scrutiny?

 

[ECML180]

Very good points, but it comes down to supply and demand. Heathrow (and Gatwick?) are at capacity and airlines still want slots, as long as there is a valid case stating that in the long term demand will remain static or grow...may as well increase supply!

 

[Nym]

Indeedy, you can postulate all you want about demand and hubs, but the simple fact is, airlines want slots, none left...

 

[34D]

But don't certain airlines have empty slots into Heathrow and Gatwick (and others?) which they fill with empty planes?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Moscow & Dubai are better eastern hubs than Warsaw

 

[AndyW33]

Has happened in the past, most famously when Qantas hired in a smallish plane to fly between Heathrow and Manchester empty to keep a slot open.
BA have their main heavy overhaul facilities for long-haul planes at Cardiff, but they don't operate any services to Cardiff, so planes going for overhaul, or returning, will be empty.
Towards the end of bmi they were using 50 seat planes from their regional fleet on domestic flights from Heathrow as loads were so poor but the slots were worth more than the rest of the airline put together. Air France have used small 40 seat planes from their regional fleet between LHR and Paris to keep slots open cheaply, but the flights were on public sale in both cases.
Of course it's always possible that a flight will leave empty or almost empty from its home base so it can return full or vice versa. With Gatwick having such a lot of "sunshine" flights this always happens at the beginning or end of the season on routes.

 

[telstarbox]

Moscow & Dubai are better eastern hubs than Warsaw

Perhaps Western European hubs (London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam) are seen by airlines as more safe or stable than Moscow or locations in the Middle East?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Dubai is doing very well

 

[WatcherZero]

Dubai has the positioning going for it, its the perfect place geographically and with the royal familys money to finance it in the middle of a desert.

Realistically though you need a Western Europe hub to manage flights to North and South America in either the UK, France or Spain and to provide the ongoing connections to other regional hubs.

 

[fowler9]

Most of the major American Airlines seem to be drifting away from big planes going to big hubs. That is one solution. There is plenty of spare capacity for similar flights at Manchester.

 

[transmanche]

Realistically though you need a Western Europe hub to manage flights to North and South America in either the UK, France or Spain and to provide the ongoing connections to other regional hubs.

Amsterdam makes a good hub airport.

For example, there are about half a dozen flights a day from Newcastle to both Heathrow and Amsterdam - the flight time to either hub is pretty much the same. As a result I know quite a few people that prefer to fly via Amsterdam, as on a trans-Atlantic journey you wouldn't notice if the flight time was longer than an equivalent flight from Heathrow. Plus unless your onward international flight also departs from T5, Heathrow can be a right PITA. Whereas, changing between flights at Schipol is a breeze.

I don't know if a Spain-based hub would be good for flights to South America; but for flights between Europe and North America, I think you'd really want to have your hub further north - as the Great Circle route to the US west coast sees aircraft heading off towards Iceland.

 

[starrymarkb]

BA does very well on connections from North America to Europe and Asia. Of Course Europe to Asia via Heathrow doesn't make much sense. IIRC OneWorld (BA's Alliance) routes Europe to Asia through Helsinki on Finnair.

 

[fowler9]

BA does very well on connections from North America to Europe and Asia. Of Course Europe to Asia via Heathrow doesn't make much sense. IIRC OneWorld (BA's Alliance) routes Europe to Asia through Helsinki on Finnair.

Ooh. Good point. Don't Finnair still use A340's as well?