Embattled Hubs

[Borescope]

Well, the subdivision where I own a home is directly across FM1960 from the northern boundary of the IAH property--it's the subdivision that complains most about the noise from the new runway.

You know, anyone who would not do their due diligance when buying a house deserves the noise. The people who complain most about the noise are the ones who know the airport is there but buy anyway. You should have done some checking with the city before you moved in there.

 

[Busdrvr]

You know, anyone who would not do their due diligance when buying a house deserves the noise. The people who complain most about the noise are the ones who know the airport is there but buy anyway. You should have done some checking with the city before you moved in there.

Scope, I'd love to let you sit in the cockpit for a John Wayne noise abatement departure. The levels we go to to keep the noise down for rich idiots borders on the ludicrous

 

[jimntx]

You know, anyone who would not do their due diligance when buying a house deserves the noise. The people who complain most about the noise are the ones who know the airport is there but buy anyway. You should have done some checking with the city before you moved in there.

Did you see me post that I complained of the noise? I bought the house in 1976. The nearest runway was over 1 mile from the entrance to the subdivision and there was a forest of solid old-growth trees between that runway and the subdivision. The airport plans at that time did NOT include a runway where the latest one opened. Oh, and the airport cut down all the trees and then replanted little ones about 2 feet high.

All I said was that the subdivision complained. I don't need "due diligence' lectures from you. I like my house and my subdivision and intend to keep it.

 

[Borescope]

All I said was that the subdivision complained.

Since you live in the "subdivision", logic would follow that you are one of the complainers. Even if the city had no plans, "at the time" they built the airport to add another runway. Prudent shoppers would look at all possibilities. At least they planted trees and not shrubs. It may take a while but you will have a forest again some day. Unless, that is they put another runway in.

 

[mweiss]

Contrary to what you may think, Borescope, not everyone that lives in a neighborhood shares the same opinion.

And they won't be adding another runway on that side of the airport without removing the subdivision itself.

 

[jimntx]

Since you live in the "subdivision", logic would follow that you are one of the complainers. Even if the city had no plans, "at the time" they built the airport to add another runway. Prudent shoppers would look at all possibilities. At least they planted trees and not shrubs. It may take a while but you will have a forest again some day. Unless, that is they put another runway in.

Borescope, you really should be more careful. You are going to strain a ligament with all this jumping to conclusions that you are doing.

I never said I live in the subdivision. I said I own a house there and I intend to keep it. I live in Dallas.

 

[Captain Ed]

The HUB concept seemed like a very bright idea at first, but I now I think it is time to abandon it.

For PAX, hubs are a nightmare, and usually require going a long distance to get to their intended destinations. Instead of going from A to B, one must fly to C, the hub, first. Congestions, tight connections, and a good chance of missing your flight.

Time to re-think it all. People, i.e. PAX, see HUBS as a nightmare, and I don't blame them. They want Non-Stops, and the airlines that can accomodate them like Jet Blue, will get the PAX. Many HUB airports are located in what are now slums. EWR, STL, ORD, MIA, etc. Who wants to go their on their way? No thinking travelers.

 

[GuppyPup]

The lure of the hub concept is that it allows for greater economies of scale (some bean counter babble).

It also allows the bread winner at the hub, to have the largest market share, the winner of the largest market share typically gains a revenue premium at that hub.

This whole concept could be turning on its head, when the bread winner is bankrupt, and is forced to lower its ticket$ (and revenue) to attract more passengers and compete, ie keeping up the cash flow.

The other reason this hub concept could potentially be a dud at certain cities, the hub is saturated, and any small wx event causes costly delays, that ©ripple across the entire system.

The question that needs to be debated, is the additional revenue premium gained, by having a mega-hub, worth the delay costs that typically result, due to over saturation.

GP

 

[Borescope]

Scope, I'd love to let you sit in the cockpit for a John Wayne noise abatement departure. The levels we go to to keep the noise down for rich idiots borders on the ludicrous

Bus,
There's a big difference between the rich snobs for the OC and the good ole boys of Texas.

 

[Borescope]

You are going to strain a ligament with all this jumping to conclusions that you are doing.

Keeps me on my toes. Doesn't it?????

 

[mweiss]

The lure of the hub concept is that it allows for greater economies of scale (some bean counter babble).

To be more precise, it allows for greater economies of scope. Except for WN, I haven't seen much use of hubs to increase scale. Increasing scale would have, say, twice as many passengers but only a 50% increase in staffing, gates, tugs, etc., etc. In fact, quite the opposite is true, since hubs tend to have wide swings in load over the day, resulting in lower efficiency of the people and equipment on the ground.

The increase in scope comes from allowing more city pairs to be served with fewer aircraft and fewer empty seats.

But you're right on target about the revenue premiums. Those come from a couple of sources. One is the increased value of a nonstop over a connection. The other is the "loyalty" that is gained through the frequent flyer programs.

The question that needs to be debated, is the additional revenue premium gained, by having a mega-hub, worth the delay costs that typically result, due to over saturation.

That's one question, to be sure. There are others to be asked regarding the profitability of the hub system.

 

[Borescope]

People, i.e. PAX, see HUBS as a nightmare, and I don't blame them. They want Non-Stops, and the airlines that can accomodate them like Jet Blue, will get the PAX.

Hey Capin'
JB is mostly a HUB airline. If you want to go OAK to MIA for instance, you probably have to go thru JFK. But then again maybe OAK to JFK is point to point and JFK to MIA is point to point. :unsure:

 

[GuppyPup]

Scope-
I'd say JFK for JBU is more of an O or D market. U can connect thru JFK, but most of the pax are O or D'ing from the Big Apple.
Doesn't JBU do OAK-LGB-FLL?
GP

 

[mweiss]

B6 currently uses both JFK and LGB as hubs.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

To be more precise, it allows for greater economies of scope. Except for WN, I haven't seen much use of hubs to increase scale. Increasing scale would have, say, twice as many passengers but only a 50% increase in staffing, gates, tugs, etc., etc. In fact, quite the opposite is true, since hubs tend to have wide swings in load over the day, resulting in lower efficiency of the people and equipment on the ground.

The increase in scope comes from allowing more city pairs to be served with fewer aircraft and fewer empty seats.

But you're right on target about the revenue premiums. Those come from a couple of sources. One is the increased value of a nonstop over a connection. The other is the "loyalty" that is gained through the frequent flyer programs.

That's one question, to be sure. There are others to be asked regarding the profitability of the hub system.

LOL... mweiss... you beat me to it. We must have read some of the same books.