Hub and Spoke...who wins?
I had an arsehole transplant but the arsehole rejected me, which is why I write such rubbish
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hub and Spoke...who wins?
All;
I understand the concept of "Hub and Spoke" and the benefits for the airlines and customers, but I have to ask after my 3 previous trips, who really benefits?
For the airlines, there are lots of planes in 1 place ensuring a quick replacement of equipment if necessary, many passengers ensuring full loads and a multitude of available staff to fly these planes.
For the customer, cheaper fares, longer commutes and longer flight times as opposed to flying non-stop to one's destination.
Who wins? Tough to say. Last week in Denver, I was stuck on the plane with United for over 2 1/2 hours due to weather (lightening, hail etc). Not the sort of weather I want to take-off in. Having said that, United had over 100 planes awaiting take-off and equally as many waiting for a gate which they couldn't get as no planes were leaving.
United didn't benefit by this much like Delta wouldn't benefit if it happened in Atlanta or American in Dallas. When this happens, the repercussions are felt nationwide which I am sure leaves the airlines and the customers with equally bad feelings.
Conversely, a fleet like Southwest who flies from Point-to-Point. While there is a greater chance they'll experience bad weather at least in 1 location, the weather doesn't take down a complete network of flights much like one of the majors can experience in the U.S.
All comments appreciated;
Thanks
Whatshouldiuse
I understand the concept of "Hub and Spoke" and the benefits for the airlines and customers, but I have to ask after my 3 previous trips, who really benefits?
For the airlines, there are lots of planes in 1 place ensuring a quick replacement of equipment if necessary, many passengers ensuring full loads and a multitude of available staff to fly these planes.
For the customer, cheaper fares, longer commutes and longer flight times as opposed to flying non-stop to one's destination.
Who wins? Tough to say. Last week in Denver, I was stuck on the plane with United for over 2 1/2 hours due to weather (lightening, hail etc). Not the sort of weather I want to take-off in. Having said that, United had over 100 planes awaiting take-off and equally as many waiting for a gate which they couldn't get as no planes were leaving.
United didn't benefit by this much like Delta wouldn't benefit if it happened in Atlanta or American in Dallas. When this happens, the repercussions are felt nationwide which I am sure leaves the airlines and the customers with equally bad feelings.
Conversely, a fleet like Southwest who flies from Point-to-Point. While there is a greater chance they'll experience bad weather at least in 1 location, the weather doesn't take down a complete network of flights much like one of the majors can experience in the U.S.
All comments appreciated;
Thanks
Whatshouldiuse
