[Anonymous]

[Swissdiver]

The sales of BMI and its slots to BA raised some interesting points in another thread. Let’s focus here on the future of long haul flights.

Will we have in the future 5 hubs in Europe (LHR, CDG, FRA, MAD and AMS, in the order, passenger numbers wise) for long haul flights with most of the long haul traffic going via these (the “Airbus vision”)?

Or will we have more point to point long haul flights (from among many others MUC, BCN, ZRH, DUB, MAN…) using therefore smaller aircrafts such as the B787 (the “Boeing approach”)?

Of course when Boeing and Airbus drafted their respective strategies, the European landscape what somewhat different. The Eastbound long haul business wasn’t yet partially taken over by the Middle Eastern airlines that are precisely grabbing the clients where they are (EK, for instance: http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/West_Asia/Emirates_europe_america.shtml or QR: http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/West_Asia/Qatar_Airways.shtml).

So how do you see it?

[LPPSKrisflyer]

I think the answer is it will be a mixture of both.

There will always be a demand for travel between the major hubs because apart from anything else they are major centres of population.

Travel on some routes where time constraints come in to play will also demand aircraft of A380 proportions or larger and I’m thinking here of routes like LHR-SIN where the opportunities in terms of the operating window are relatively small and there is no real demand for services to be any more frequent than they are now.

Some other services will operate between relatively minor hubs using the A350 and planes of similar ilk. This will be where time constraints are not so important and while there is a volume it is not significant. The way EK have been able to break in to almost every regional airport in the UK, initially with their A330s and build sometimes right up to the A380 says that routes which may appear relatively minor to start with can develop in to something much more important.

[AMcWhirter]

I would have thought you could add MUC to the list of major hubs. The airport plans a third runway so the authorities must have high hopes of it becoming a close second to FRA.

As for the future, I tend to go along with LPPSKrisflyer in that we will see a mixture of both and it’s interesting to note that EK -arguably the world’s most successful long distance carrier – has not ordered the B787.

Like EK, QR is also successful in developing routes. It starts off with narrow-bodied A319s then progessing to larger wide-bodied aircraft.

In Europe I also believe it is more efficient for airlines to use large planes to feed major hubs and then for passengers to proceed by high-speed rail.

Granted, this concept doesn’t yet work in the UK (there are plans for HS2 to serve LHR but these are many years away) but note that major hubs in mainland Europe like CDG, AMS and FRA are all plumbed into the high-speed rail network.

[KeaneJohn]

I think the European Hubs will definitely have a place.

I used to live in Southampton close to the airport and be in the air within an hour of leaving home and on a transatlantic connecting flight out of AMS or CDG within 3 hours avoiding the hassle of going to Heathrow or Gatwick. Being home within 40 mins of landing is also great.

Now I live close to London City and again enjoy leaving home so soon to departure and being home not long after landing despite promising myself never to fly via FRA after being bussed halfway round Germany before arriving at the terminal.

I know I can’t be the only one that appreciates these conveniences.

[Swissdiver]

@LPPS: Almost agree with your population centre point, but for FRA (less than 700k)…

@LondonCity: MUC is still well behind (7th with 34m passengers while AMS, 5th, shows 45m). That said, LH tend to maintain it as a kind of secondary hub, like for ZRH.

EK, like for anything when it comes to Dubai, goes with leverage! QR and EY are servicing GVA, hardly daily and sometimes when it comes to QR, with a A319 (they dropped it now). When EK decided to come too, they started with a B777-200LR straight. And it works apparently since I could not find a business class seat available last week…

Of course at the end of the day, it will be a mix. But shall we see more or less hubs in Europe in the coming 5-7 years? I don’t think we will see more…

[Swissdiver]

@KeaneJohn: Anyone away from a hub has a choice since in most of the case will have to connect. In the order for me, LHR, AMS, CDG, MUC, ZRH, and if really unavoidable, FRA.

[RichHI1]

A lot of thinner routes are operated with 2 class aircraft (business and coach). Some 767’s and 330’s are operated 3 class, some 2 class. Would a move to secondary airports with direct services using medium size equipment hasten the demise of First Class on those carriers that still have it? The model of all premium as per BA LCY-JFK has not worked for many. Do LH still have their All business from DUS?

[AMcWhirter]

Swissdiver “But shall we see more or less hubs in Europe in the coming 5-7 yrs ? I don’t think we will see more … “

It depends on the economic situation and how much growth, if any, is seen in air passenger traffic.

But there is room for more hubs. For example, MXP (if the Italians can get their act together) could be a marvellous hub for S Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Likewise MAN has the potential to become a transatlantic hub feeding passengers between mainland Europe and N America.

But maybe 5-7 yrs is too soon for these developments.

[Swissdiver]

LondonCity

MXP is rather going down than up with AZ’s decision to concentrate long haul business in FCO… And FCO is not an example of efficiency… MAD is quite strong when it comes to southbound flights…

MAN faces tough competition from LHR of course but also from DUB and AMS… That said, given the size of the region, I expect more long haul players operating MAN in the future.

[Senator]

RichHI1,

LH had PrivatAir rebuild the B737-800s into two-class offerings. I’ve seen them on routes to Pune, Riyadh, and some African destinations. LX uses a business only B737-800 on the ZRH-EWR route, but plan to change this to A340-300 from S12 time table.

So far, it seems like the A318 LCY-FRA is working better.

I also agree with the comments above; you will see a mix. Looking what CO did using the B757-200s in two-class allowing for New York to secondary markets makes me believe there will be a market for 150-200 seats into major markets like LON and NYC.

[Scandinavian]

As stated we will continue to see a two tiered development in Europe. The main five or six hubs will continue to grow with new long-haul destinations in growth markets added in the coming years. LHR, FRA, MUC, CDG, AMS, MAD and maybe ZRH belong to this list.

We will also continue to see added long-haul routes from secondary European cities. However, aside EK, EQ and EY adding routes to their hubs in the Middle East, this growth will be limited routes to with profitable local traffic flows e.g. Dublin to the US. If local traffic flows do not exist in full then it becomes near impossible to support profitable long-haul growth, from such airports.

The larger hub carriers can cross subsidise limited profitability on their European networks with their profitable long-haul networks, where the low cost model works less well. For second tier airlines both their short-haul and long-haul networks must be profitable for growth to ensue. They simply have not the margins or the scale on long-haul to cross-
subsidise.

Having a hub system designed to support long-haul traffic is expensive and operationally inefficient. Much of Finnair’s European schedule is timetabled to feed into its 1,5 long-haul waves. If this short-haul is traffic is highly exposed to LCCs then it can become too expensive to support long-haul traffic. In such a case maximising operational efficiency can only come by breaking with the long-haul waves. In other words there is a difficult trade off. Finnair is lucky. No LCC has really cracked the Finnish market. This has allowed Finnair to maintain market dominance on its short-haul routes. Austrian, on the other hand, has been exposed to Niki/Air Berlin at Vienna plus Ryanair from Bratislava. Hence its terrible financial position.

150-220 seats is ideal for long-haul routes from secondary European Airports. Filling a B777 or even an A330-300 year round can be very difficult outside of the peak summer months. The demand simply does not exist! Hence CO’s much documented use of B757s on its European network.

[AMcWhirter]

Swissdiver

I realise that MXP is “going down.” The point I was trying to make is that if the Italians could get their act together (ie a strong national airline, no labour disputes etc) then MXP and FCO could become powerful hubs in mainland Europe owing to their gifted geographical location.

Indeed it’s worth noting that hub airports encounter changing fortunes.
Some of the most important hub airports of the 1970s lost their status.

In those days, as strange as it seems today, FCO and ATH were big hubs in S Europe. Alitalia and Olympic were strong carriers in the 1970s and, at a time when these airlines offered more consistency, they provided N European passengers with connections to Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia.

It’s even more interesting to recall that BEY and THR were the two leading Middle East hubs at that time.

Gulf airports like BAH and DXB only began to take over from BEY and THR because of the civil war in Lebanon and the revolution in Iran which disrupted air traffic through those countries.

[Swissdiver]

At the time, flight ranges were limited… It was the time when Dakar, Colombo and Shannon were key… Nowadays, it is not a concern any more. The South Europe hub in addition is now MAD that became larger than JFK, passengers-wise… I don’t see AZ and FCO/MXP back in the long haul picture soon.

That said, I agree that in facts we have no clue what will be the situation in 50 years…

[RichHI1]

Given the ineptitude of successive British governenments to address long term integrated transport policy in favor of baby kissinf and going for the Sipson vote, would there not be an opportunity to promote a new transport policy of:
New airport for South East built with 4 – 6 full runways and good transport links to capital and rest of UK
Three or four regional hubs with regional and some long haul service a (Glasgow/ Prestwick or Edinburgh, b Manchester, c maybe Birmingham, d Bristol or Cardiff (Belfast would remain as Regional hub for NI).
Construction of improved rail and road connections to make nowhere in UK more than 2 hours from a main international airport.
To stimulate this policy, I would suggest that UKAPD would be withdrawn from all UK airports except London (Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead, Farnborough, Biggin Hill, Southend and City) with immediate effect. UKAPD for London not being increased and phased out over the length of this parliament as the fiscal state and need for revenue permits.
Further I would grant investment grants for the setting up of Duty Free Industrial Centers around these regional hubs and allow Airlines investment allowances for the setting up and operationalizing (say 7 year period) bases and facilties at these regional centres.
Stimulating demand outside of the South East through incentive and improved infrastructure shoul help balance our infrastructure needs, traffic flows and promote growth in jobs and world trade.

[Author]

Posts