Is the hub and spoke airline system more stable?

I would figure that connecting traffic would be more stable for airlines compared to point to point traffic. What do you guys think?

"Stable" in what way? It's definitely annoying for passengers.

Not at all.

You set up your hub and spoke system… Using big aircraft so that you can maximize revenue from all of the passengers who have to go to the hub no matter where they are going…

And I'll start up a competitor with smaller regional jets doing direct service with more frequent flights to make up for volume.

As a passenger… Which one are you going to choose?

Hub and spoke makes sense for things that don't care about time… Like parcels. That's why everything Fedex goes through Memphis.

Hub and spoke has lots of advantages. Load factors are more manageable, crew and equipment scheduling is exponentially easier. Equipment failure isn't as disruptive, and fewer aircraft are required to serve the same number of markets. Domiciles and maintenance facilities can be localized, and better utilized. In spite of frequent passenger complaints, they usually get more and better service from a hub and spoke system, than from random flights, to and from individual locations, that don't connect or even arrive at optimal times.

No stables involved since horses are not used anymore.

It is more stable in that you are more likely to have planes filled with passengers. However it concentrates a lot of flights in a small area and greatly increases the risk of collisions. Plus most people flat out do not like it. They much rather would like to fly non-stop, even if the plane is smaller.

Add Comment