PDA

View Full Version : Has the Middle East Peaked as a Hub ?


krismiler
7th Jun 2020, 15:17
Prior to the 1990s the ME was simply a refueling stop rather than a transit hub. The latest generation of aircraft with increased range allowed it to be overflown, however they also allowed non stop from the ME to anywhere enabling any two airports to be connected through that location. EK, EY and QR took full advantage of this and built themselves into major hub airlines with a global reach.

The COVID - 19 pandemic has brought all that to a crashing halt, and even as the recovery starts, the hub model of bringing in passengers from all over the world to a central location and then redistributing them all across the network will be out for a long time to come as travel bubbles will favour non stop flights or fuel stops only where this isn't possible. Governments will want to assist their national airlines by permitting their direct flights whilst placing heavy restrictions on other countries airlines connecting flights. One case of COVID - 19 in the cabin crew accommodation would be disastrous for any ME airline as crews typically share apartments in a few common locations.

The A380 concept hasn't worked and possibly the days of the mega international hubs are numbered as well. The latest generation of aircraft, B787 and A320neo have better range and economics than earlier series and allow greater flexibility and more point to point routes. Hubs will still be needed but are likely to be smaller, more numerous, more widely spread out and focused on less distant destinations. One stop connections will still be possible but will likely involve a hub in a more direct line and smaller aircraft.

Filling B773s will be difficult enough, and filling of them enough to maintain frequency and reduce connecting times will be even harder. Moving 800 pax takes 2x B777 or 5x A320/B737, if the loads drop removing 1 B777 flight is a 50% capacity cut and a 2 hour connection turns into an 8 hour one whereas removing one narrowbody is a 20% cut with a much smaller increase in the transit time.

Various locations have risen to prominence and then fallen again as aircraft capabilities increased, Shannon Ireland was once a vital fuel stop for aircraft making the Atlantic crossing but was bypased as range increased.

Are the best days of the ME hubs now behind them with growth turning into a very slow decline ?

bluewhy
7th Jun 2020, 17:00
Anchorage in Alaska was until the 1990s a major passenger hub purely due to its location. It was
once known as the crossroads of the world handling 500 747's a week.

Times and technologies change and its glory days are now over.

With regards to the ME hub we are talking about a harsh new reality that no one was prepared for.

Yes I agree this crisis might very well be the beginning of the end.

The Range
7th Jun 2020, 19:48
Probably the best days of the ME are over. I don't know. But there will be a lot of city-pairs between Europe and Asia, and between Africa and Asia that won't justify a daily non-stop flight.

gear lever
7th Jun 2020, 21:47
I thinking the best days of any routing, whether the transatlantic market, the Kangaroo route or the ME hubs are over. Sure, they will all return o some degree, but never to 2019 levels again.

lucille
7th Jun 2020, 22:59
Maybe, maybe not.
Thing is, to change the present model requires airlines to replace existing fleet prematurely. Presuming passenger loads are slow to return to pre-Covid19 levels then it may be hard to justify this cost. Cheaper to run what you’ve got until things pick up, by which time those older airframes will have paid for themselves.

The M.E. airlines have the advantage of cheap fuel, cheap labor, no pesky unions and are government owned. Quite a formidable combination to compete against.

bringbackthe80s
7th Jun 2020, 23:42
I thinking the best days of any routing, whether the transatlantic market, the Kangaroo route or the ME hubs are over. Sure, they will all return o some degree, but never to 2019 levels again.

yeah yeah sure.

krismiler
8th Jun 2020, 00:57
Anchorage in Alaska is still a major hub but for cargo, not passengers. Any change is likely to be gradual and EK seem to have realised this with the new fleet shifting towards smaller A350s and B787s. The line on the growth graph may be shifting from steady and upward into a slow decline.

Unfortunately there isn't much for the ME 3 in the immediate surrounding area, and they rely on connecting people from cities which are a considerable distance from their main base. The long haul and premium traveller segments have been hit hardest and will take the longest to recover. Where non stop flights aren't possible, transits are likely to be restricted to virus free countries with strong controls. Taiwan is one of the least affected countries in the world and there would be little concern about joining pax or crew layovers in Taipei for example.

The ME 3 are global airlines and a large portion of their networks will be off limits for some time to come, airlines which are more focused towards regions which are virus free will be less affected as a smaller proportion of their networks will remain closed.

Ethiopian Airlines will be even worse off due to their location and focus on Africa. China Airlines and EVA Air may experience a surge in demand. Vietnam was largely spared from the virus and could be an increasingly popular destination. Fiji could replace Bali for Australian holiday makers.

The next couple of years will see some major changes in travel patterns.

White Knight
8th Jun 2020, 03:50
In a Nutshell?


No.......

fatbus
8th Jun 2020, 04:14
WK why not ? ME is done ! Dubai is about to be reclaimed by the desert and not just because of air travel . Hang on to your hats ! And by the way there are some good buys on Dubai properties.

White Knight
8th Jun 2020, 04:43
And by the way there are some good buys on Dubai properties.

Thanks but already been there and done that:}

White Knight
8th Jun 2020, 04:49
ME is done ! Dubai is about to be reclaimed by the desert and not just because of air travel

How do you come up with this little gem?:rolleyes:

aviation_enthus
8th Jun 2020, 05:08
Even before Covid there was plenty of experts predicting the end of the ME super hub due to the 787/350.

Anchorage may have been a hub in the past but it clearly lost out when longer range aircraft appeared.

Geography never changes. Regardless of what aircraft are in service or will come in the future, the fact remains, the ME is within 8 hours of 2/3rds of the world’s population. Despite the USA being so awesome, Anchorage did not have that advantage. It has been mentioned many times by industry experts that the ‘sweet spot’ for most wide body flights is around 8 hours. This is because the extra fuel required to go further starts to become exponentially more expensive.

Something most of you don’t seem to understand is the mix of passengers on any EK/QR service. It is very rare to see more than 20 passengers on any flight travelling between two destinations. For example a flight from SEA-DXB, would have passengers connecting to over 40 destinations, so the average is 7.5 pax per connection.

That means a direct flight between most parts of the world WILL NEVER HAPPEN. There just isn’t enough demand. So hubs will always exist. Hubs are designed to bring together passengers travelling to one destination to make the whole flight profitable.

Direct point to point flights WILL take some of the demand away from the ME. But it will never kill the business model as you are suggesting. Geography and pure economics will always win.

EchoKilla
8th Jun 2020, 05:13
well said - do you work for EK Government Affairs aka OpenSky Magazine?

Even before Covid there was plenty of experts predicting the end of the ME super hub due to the 787/350.

Anchorage may have been a hub in the past but it clearly lost out when longer range aircraft appeared.

Geography never changes. Regardless of what aircraft are in service or will come in the future, the fact remains, the ME is within 8 hours of 2/3rds of the world’s population. Despite the USA being so awesome, Anchorage did not have that advantage. It has been mentioned many times by industry experts that the ‘sweet spot’ for most wide body flights is around 8 hours. This is because the extra fuel required to go further starts to become exponentially more expensive.

Something most of you don’t seem to understand is the mix of passengers on any EK/QR service. It is very rare to see more than 20 passengers on any flight travelling between two destinations. For example a flight from SEA-DXB, would have passengers connecting to over 40 destinations, so the average is 7.5 pax per connection.

That means a direct flight between most parts of the world WILL NEVER HAPPEN. There just isn’t enough demand. So hubs will always exist. Hubs are designed to bring together passengers travelling to one destination to make the whole flight profitable.

Direct point to point flights WILL take some of the demand away from the ME. But it will never kill the business model as you are suggesting. Geography and pure economics will always win.

cruisepower
8th Jun 2020, 06:30
WK why not ? ME is done ! Dubai is about to be reclaimed by the desert and not just because of air travel . Hang on to your hats ! And by the way there are some good buys on Dubai properties.

same was said in 2008! They will find a way.

brianj
8th Jun 2020, 07:05
Ideally as a passenger I would prefer to fly direct to my chosen destination. Flying east long haul from the UK, unless I fly from Heathrow or Manchester, and with the exception of TUI, ME carriers are the most practical choice. They offer a wide choice of destinations beyond their hubs, good aircraft and service, multiple services from UK airports and of course competition to keep prices at an acceptable level. No sign of this changing in my view for many years. And not forgetting that Dubai for one has become a destination Itself.

SaulGoodman
8th Jun 2020, 07:06
I certainly hope so! Airlines funded by Dictatorial regimes were modern slavery is still in practice. Capital punishment for gay people and basically no form of human rights.

but to answer the question: nope. Its geography in combination with cheap labour, cheap “loans” etc will make sure the ME still has a future. Maybe not in its current shape and form and maybe the unmentionable will be merged into EK but we have definitely not seen the end of the ME as a hub. Insh’allah

Fluke
8th Jun 2020, 07:20
Anchorage in Alaska is still a major hub but for cargo, not passengers. Any change is likely to be gradual and EK seem to have realised this with the new fleet shifting towards smaller A350s and B787s. The line on the growth graph may be shifting from steady and upward into a slow decline.

Unfortunately there isn't much for the ME 3 in the immediate surrounding area, and they rely on connecting people from cities which are a considerable distance from their main base.

Well I would say Pakistan and India are in the " immediate surrounding area ". While these countries with huge populations struggle to find seats on their on their own carriers the ME 3 will have a large role to play.

aviation_enthus
8th Jun 2020, 11:10
well said - do you work for EK Government Affairs aka OpenSky Magazine?


HAHAHAHA!!! Whatever mate. ‘Cause anyone that disagrees with the original post is a paid troll??

I’ll make it simple for you:

Any airline based in the Middle East has similar advantages. Look at the history of Iran Air pre 1979 and you’ll see these things never change. The problem is the countries they’re based in aren’t as stable or nice as Singapore (and the old Hong Kong).

10 DME ARC
8th Jun 2020, 11:31
I still see the long haul hub business going on! Airlines are chopping routes left right and centre together with crews and aircraft! Direct city pairs with shrink and that's where EK & QR will pick up the extra, mix it in the ME and push out as they've done for years! I cannot see the other, not to be mentioned one, seriously competing mind you! I thinks it will take 2-3 years to get near 2019 levels mind you!

krismiler
8th Jun 2020, 12:20
The hub business will certainly go on, some will gain in importance and some will reduce as new travel patterns emerge. Addis would be the natural one for Africa, Singapore for SE Asia, London for Europe to North America etc. Turkey is very well positioned between Europe and Asia, and Turkish Airlines fly to more destinations than any other.

A single location may be unable to support three mega carriers all chasing the same market, an EK/EY merger would make sense, even just code sharing and coordinating schedules would go a long way.

Survival over the next few years will depend on who has the deepest pockets and gets the most support.

White Knight
8th Jun 2020, 13:39
support three mega carriers all chasing the same market, an EK/EY merger would make sense, even just code sharing

I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve touted this over the last two months? Any reason for the obsessive posting about EK/EY? Personally I don’t see it ever happening........

EchoKilla
8th Jun 2020, 16:15
I was just pulling your leg :O HAHAHAHA!!! Whatever mate. ‘Cause anyone that disagrees with the original post is a paid troll??

I’ll make it simple for you:

Any airline based in the Middle East has similar advantages. Look at the history of Iran Air pre 1979 and you’ll see these things never change. The problem is the countries they’re based in aren’t as stable or nice as Singapore (and the old Hong Kong).

krismiler
9th Jun 2020, 00:33
I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve touted this over the last two months? Any reason for the obsessive posting about EK/EY? Personally I don’t see it ever happening........

If nationalistic pride wouldn't allow a merger, which would effectively be an EK take over of EY, then code sharing and an alliance would make sense particularly at the moment. Co-ordinate schedules, a full B777 for each airline is better than two half empty ones each, uneconomic routes for two might be profitable for one, connection times could be minimised and even if an airport transfer is needed the two hubs aren't that far apart. DWC reduces that distance even further.

Allow FF mile usage between either airline and lounge access to the other partners facilities. Both airlines are of a similar high standard so arriving at the airport and finding your flight is being operated by the other partner wouldn't bother the pax. An alliance would strengthen both airlines and it's difficult to find reasons against the idea, even QR are in one. EK already partner with QF, and EY have numerous code shares with other airlines. With everything put together, a ME alliance could rival the current OneWorld/Star Alliance/Skyteam trio and strengthen the regions hub position.

exfocx
9th Jun 2020, 16:33
If nationalistic pride wouldn't allow a merger, which would effectively be an EK take over of EY, ...................

This is just too funny, EK effectively taking over EY! Dubai is the very poor cousin of Abu Dhabi and in fact I think Abu Dhabi made a loan to EK just recently, which is also what happened during the GFC. Abu Dhabi has nearly all the oil and the gas, which is why EK was started, to diversify its economy.

krismiler
9th Jun 2020, 23:36
Abu Dhabi has the money but Dubai has the Emirates brand recognition. EK was profitable where as EY was losing billions. Almost all of EYs investments in foreign airlines have lost money. In the extremely unlikely event of a merger, which name would be retained and which management team would run the new entity ?

exfocx
10th Jun 2020, 00:28
No. You said a TAKEOVER, not naming or brand recognition. If they were to merge it will be Abu Dhabi that would in the drivers seat. And it would be because EK has no cash.

krismiler
10th Jun 2020, 01:01
Abu Dhabi would be in the back seat of the limo smoking a cigar, EK would be in the driver's seat wearing a peaked cap and dealing with the traffic. Unlikely to happen but at the moment, who knows ?

Even if they just codeshare and co-ordinate the schedules so they don't compete head on with each other, the benefits to each side would be enormous.

exfocx
10th Jun 2020, 02:20
That I would agree with, but it would not be under EK branding. Have a look at any takeover and that's what it would be, and you will see that the company doing the taking over wins the day when it comes to naming. There may be dual branding for a while, but eventually it would be EY. EGO.

Jet II
10th Jun 2020, 04:03
Having worked for both airlines I would have to disagree with that. EK through their years of sports sponsorship have become a world renowned brand - EY are unknown outside of aviation. Abu Dhabi has pumped Billions into EY to try and replicate the brand success at EK but totally failed. So if a merger is on the cards (and I can see the issues with local egos) then it will because it is a last throw of the dice and even Abu Dhabi are not going to throw away even more money on a failed enterprise.

Emirates is after all what Abu Dhabi and Dubai are both part of - it's not as though EK is called Fly Dubai...;)

exfocx
10th Jun 2020, 06:53
So what your saying is that Al Nahyan is going to take the loss of face and merge EY into EK, with their branding, when he has no financial reason to do so, i.e. he can afford to continue to pour money down the toilet, while Maktoum looks like the winner and is the one who actually needs the money. Yeah, nah!

My guess is no merger, but another loan to EK to tide them over.

reverserunlocked
10th Jun 2020, 20:25
For any potential merger, first you'd need to get past the egos and willy waving about EK having the stronger brand and EY having the cash (well the AD govt having the cash - EY has basically been a cash furnace) and all the machinations of what it would be called - United Emirates?

The next issue is simply one of logistics in that Dubai and Abu Dhabi airports are still a relatively long way from each other. Would AD pax want to drive to Dubai to fly to Paris, or New York? Or would Dubai pax want to have to schlep to AD to fly to Manila? There would still be a lot of replication at each hub. You could shift all the DXB flying to DWC to move things closer to AD but it's still well over an hour to downtown from there, as well as being less convenient for DXB pax.

Smarter minds than mine would have to figure out how the flying program would work with two hubs so far apart. One option would be to have say a DXB-AUH-LHR or CDG-AUH-DXB routing that loops in both hubs but flying widebodies on short hops like this is horribly inefficient. Not to mention that it would be impossible to tag an additional AUH rotation on the end of a LAX-DXB sector without a fresh crew. Shhh, I shouldn't give them ideas.

4eoe
11th Jun 2020, 04:32
Perhaps a high speed rail between the airports?

Oceanic
11th Jun 2020, 13:21
Glider, It’s always a good idea not to post when inebriated. If you are from the U.K. your English language is very poor.

SOPS
11th Jun 2020, 13:33
37 K for Wizz Air. You have to be making this up. You could not live on 37k in the ME .. or probably anywhere else . If it’s true .. the race to the bottom has truely begun.

FlyingCroc
12th Jun 2020, 11:36
I think the most difficult part for the ME carriers is that Asia is practically closed. China, India, Thailand Australia made the bulk of the passengers. With these countries closed and Africa were the virus just begins to spread it will be extremely difficult to fill an A380 or even a B777.

Jet II
12th Jun 2020, 13:04
I think the most difficult part for the ME carriers is that Asia is practically closed. China, India, Thailand Australia made the bulk of the passengers. With these countries closed and Africa were the virus just begins to spread it will be extremely difficult to fill an A380 or even a B777.

True, but at some point the virus will end either by a vaccine or just burning itself out - then the natural advantages associated with of location of the ME will reassert themselves. The airlines in the ME didnt grow into what they were by accident, there were specific reasons that made that growth possible and those reasons remain.

That being said, when they do come back I doubt that we will see the return of the generous 'expat' packages that we have seen in the past - I suspect that the present pay cuts will be with us for many years to come and will become the new normal.

Jack330
13th Jun 2020, 10:21
Middle East airlines are suffering a lot because of the covid consequences and, thanks to the latest wrong decisions of various governments (see useless quarantine and useless restrictions) the loss will go deeper in the next months, that being said I think that there is no comparison with any other airlines in the world, those ME carriers are the best option for travellers in terms of quality, safety and network so I guess they will never stop being the most convenient option for years to come, once the crisis is gone (nobody knows exaclty when) they'll go back stronger than before because they have the capitals to do so (like Qatar with endless money) and they will pick up all the passengers of the failed airlines.
Some of them will suffer more than others (see Emirates) because of the wrong fleet choice, way too many A380's that are amazing for passengers but a blood bath for Airlines, they were ok 10 years ago but 115 of them ??? Come on...
Unfortunately the package for pilots will not be the same for a while, unless things recover faster than anticipated but the damage is unfortunately done.

SaulGoodman
13th Jun 2020, 11:04
I think that there is no comparison with any other airlines in the world, those ME carriers are the best option for travellers in terms of quality, safety and network so I guess they will never stop being the most convenient option for years to come

No mate. It is cost and geographical location that makes the ME carriers sometimes the best option.

Long haul business travel will be the hardest hit. That will be a serious issue for any airline that relies on this segment, but probably even more for the ME3.

However the ME3 will continue to be a hub. Maybe not as huge as it was a few months ago. Maybe we see one airline not continuing under its current name or in its current form. Nevertheless the hub function will stay.

Jack330
13th Jun 2020, 16:11
I agree, they’ll continue to operate at a reduced pace, nobody knows for how long but among the three, considering that all of them are not making any profit ( except for Cargo ) since a long time, the only one with a better fleet and with more money is Qatar Airways, Emirates is too big and has the most uneconomical fleet of all, Ethiad is a mess, Saudia is a complete disaster.
When passengers will start traveling again, for business or pleasure they’ll chose the best option, price and quality wise and no airline in the world can compete with them.
only time will tell.... Let’s wait and see.

Jet II
13th Jun 2020, 18:07
Not sure about that. Both airlines have similar fleet sizes but Qatar have 6 different types in service compared with only 2 for EK thus leaving them with much larger fixed costs and inflexibility. Average age of the fleet isn't a lot different either at 6 and 7 years. OK presently EK cannot fill the A380 but given the size of the 777 fleet it will be a long time before they run out of capacity on any route.

fatbus
13th Jun 2020, 18:53
Many countries did not realize EK/QR were stealing market share before it was too late . As countries recover their first priority will be to protect there national carrier and review and restrict EK/QR basically unrestricted axcess . 787/350 can now skip the hub . EK/QR are going to be big targets as we emerge from this crisis , with no one having sympathy for STC or his counterparts.

Jack330
13th Jun 2020, 21:04
A fleet of A380's cannot compare with a mix fleet of A350 B777 B787, Qatar will dismiss all A380 with immediate effect, A350 and B787 burn almost the same fuel of an A321 and the B777 is one of the most successful machines ever, it carries a huge amount of cargo in the belly making it profitable even when flying with no pax, carrying only cargo.
A fleet of 120 and more A380's is a suicide, they are the less profitable machines ever built, you cannot compare at all, imho qatar is a winner no doubt.
A380 is not even good for cargo, it's only amazing for passenger comfort.. Emirates is in deep s.... It was ok many years ago, those times are long gone, it was a very bad planning, they have a large number of B777 that maybe will save the company otherwise...

Jet II
13th Jun 2020, 21:59
Jack - I think you are missing the point a bit. The 380's are not flying and wont be for a very long time. EK have enough 777's to be able to service their route network on a schedule that will fit foreseeable demand well into the future. The 380's will only be brought back into service when the demand exists and when that happens then they will be profitable. What you also have to bear in mind is that Qatar were losing millions and needing a bailout even before the Coronavirus shut down international travel - the 'norm' for Qatar is losing around $500 million a year.

krismiler
14th Jun 2020, 08:12
Saudi aren't really in the hub airline market. They provide a domestic network, flights to neighbouring countries, international routes tailored towards their migrant workers and rich locals going shopping or doing business. Now and again they will pop up in a search as a possible option for a connecting flight but it's not their bread and butter. Riyadh and Jeddah aren't the best of airports to transit through, there is no alcohol allowed and until very recently entry requirements were highly restrictive. Kuwait Airways are the same but without the domestic part. These airlines aren't reliant on connecting passengers and will be much less affected as they don't need to worry about filling three A380s a day into Bangkok with pax joining from other cities on the network.

The ME3 all have common problems with the reduction in demand for long haul international travel, particularly in the premium cabins. Transit restrictions and pax preference will be for direct flights and it will be easy for governments to assist their own airlines by placing restrictions on the ME3 for "health reasons". Cabin crew in particular tend to live in shared accommodation in a few common buildings and would flag up as a high risk straight away. Large parts of their networks will remain off limits for some time to come and keeping out of the Indian subcontinent which is a major market for both pax and migrant workers will be costly and difficult.

Emirates aircraft are now too big and they will find it difficult to fill them up and maintain reasonable connection times. They don't have the flexibility of smaller aircraft which allow capacity and frequency to be more finely adjusted to match supply and demand across the network.

EY have managed to lose money even in the best of times and now it will only get worse.

Qatar were losing money due to the blockade, however their mix of aircraft was better and downsizing to A320/B787 is an option which could give them a head start. The lifting of the blockade is a huge factor in this case.

Airlines such as Finnair or EVA Air which offer transits through low risk countries could grab market share in the meantime. Vietnam Airlines could become a major operator on the London to Australia route. Airlines such as these will have a head start as restrictions are lifted.

The Middle East offers many advantages such as location, tax and labour laws. The question isn't about if it's finished as a hub, but if it will retain the same level of importance in the future.

White Knight
14th Jun 2020, 12:02
The 380's are not flying and wont be for a very long time.

July 1st a very long time? AFAIK that's the current planned date to restart 380 ops!

Jet II
14th Jun 2020, 13:04
To where?. No point flying it to London if the UK's 14 day quarantine is still in operation, North America is still banning leisure travel as is OZ and NZ.

If all you have is a smattering of PAX and a lot of freight then putting the whale back in the air is lunacy.

glofish
14th Jun 2020, 14:04
Jet
You are barking up the most dyed-in-the-wood tree here. It's pure desperation from the poor guys who ignored It for years when others told them that their toy is good for pretty days, but those never lasted long. In catastrophic times it will be the first to be ditched and here we are.
Twins will reign the world in recovery.
Concerning protectionism, i think fatty is right, EK will face it big time. No one will shed a tear for EK, even less for TC, but unfortunately no one will for its pilots either. We were mainly considered scabs, as we tried that mercenary route. By doing so, we all knew that we were at the mercy of the new masters, and we knew how little morality existed among them. So all that lamenting about the ways we're served off seems a little hypocritical, it was already written on the wall when we signed up.
The culling is inevitable, the method is questionable, but not unexpected.

White Knight
14th Jun 2020, 14:24
You are barking up the most dyed-in-the-wood tree here.

We don't all become bitter and twisted after decades in flying gloey.... Chin up old bean!

FlyingCroc
14th Jun 2020, 15:18
Point to point and travel bubbles will be the first airtravel openings, therefore it will be very difficult to get enough passengers to fill those huge planes in the ME. What is getting now daily worse is the coronavirus situation in the ME prime market: India, Pakistan, Africa and Brazil. It will become even more difficult to fill these large planes and the competition will increase sharply between the 3 rivals. I believe for the moment QR has the best opportunities, a rich country supporting its national carrier and having no burden of the A380 , it has a diverse fleet of fuel efficient aircraft from longrange to short hops, using A320, A350, B787 and on top of it a large cargo fleet of A330, B777, B747 and a new lucrative 2 year contract with tHe UN.

glofish
15th Jun 2020, 04:05
We don't all become bitter and twisted after decades in flying gloey.... Chin up old bean!
I dare pretend not being bitter, but realistic.
Left at the right time.

lederhosen
15th Jun 2020, 11:18
There is of course the counter argument that fuel is cheap. Spare parts for the A380 are going to be a lot cheaper after all the parting out of retired airframes and what better aircraft to allow some element of social distancing? There is no certainty that the A380 is finished. Although for it to have a chance some degree of innovative thinking is going to be required.

B727aviator
9th Jul 2020, 14:31
Anchorage in Alaska was until the 1990s a major passenger hub purely due to its location. It was
once known as the crossroads of the world handling 500 747's a week.

Times and technologies change and its glory days are now over.

With regards to the ME hub we are talking about a harsh new reality that no one was prepared for.

Yes I agree this crisis might very well be the beginning of the end.
On the contrary, I believe that Gulf companies will be among the first to come from the crisis. Australia is an example of witness and thought

B727aviator
10th Jul 2020, 00:38
On the contrary, I believe that Gulf companies will be among the first to come from the crisis. Australia is an example of witness and thought

bringbackthe80s
10th Jul 2020, 01:38
Highly highly unlikely I’d say

Kennytheking
10th Jul 2020, 04:27
I dunno, I reckon the hub is here to stay. When it comes to Point to Point, I would argue that, unless you live in a point city, P2P does not exist. Take UK for example, an airline might only offer a P2P flight from London to Perth. If you want to go from Glasgow to Perth, you are going to go VIA London anyway......if that is P2P then they can keep it. It requires an uncoordinated local flight, quite possibly with a change in terminals. Yuk, I'm sorry but I will still prefer the flight from GLA that goes via DXB with possible a cheap stay-over thrown in or, at worst, a well coordinated connection.

Nah, IMHO, we can argue about when it will recover but the ME hub is here to stay.

B727aviator
10th Jul 2020, 11:07
Yes that's the idea. Actually it's made longhoul travel easier cheaper it's asussful model also its doesn't mean that the direct flight will not be their. Look at the pax numbers how increasing every year and we'll be market for both models. Thanks

WB1900
10th Jul 2020, 16:14
a p2p network requires multiple bases unless that you will always be trapped in a hub operation
LH does P2P ex FRA, DUS, MUC,ZRH,VIE, BRU
without basing AC and crew you cannot start p2p
and even that requires feeding into the long haul operation
EK does everything without feeders still they don’t operat direct Perth for e.g
P2P is nearly impossible outside of domestic areas a fact which many airlines realized once started going long range
norwegian, Air Berlin , ltu just to be named
mix flying long rang and short haul requires hub operation unless you have a strong enough business to effort having 3 airplanes there and 2 here - not in such cost intense times where multi BN $ business runs chewing gum margins per seat

B727aviator
10th Jul 2020, 17:03
👍100% Actually, you explain the process clearly and easily