Hub airports are, hopefully, the closest the majority of members of us will ever get to purgatory. They are giant diabolical machines that heighten the stress of what is already a naturally stressful experience, flying. None of the great railway terminals was ever this chaotic and so full of abrasive encounters–indeed, in the whole history of modern traveling the hub airport has no equal as a deliberate impedimentum to comfort and ease of movement.
And it now seems that its day has passed. It won’t disappear overnight, but it is, for sure, in the early stages of a slow death–thanks largely to the arrival of a new generation of jets.
To begin with, the hub was never intended to be for the convenience of people–that is, unless you are nuts enough to consider corporations as people, because the hub was established and exists only for the convenience of the airline companies.
The concept first took hold in the wake of airline deregulation 40 years ago, when the Civil Aeronautics Board that fixed fares, roads, and schedules was abolished by the Carter administration.
In this instance ” deregulation ” is a misinforming word, implying that airlines became unregulated. They remain heavily governed, particularly for safety reasons, but “deregulation” was more like an anti-trust move, it broke up what had been an internationally sanctioned cartel in which costs were rigged and price-busting invention was discouraged.
This did not exactly work up as intended–as a result a number of U.S. airlines went bust and there was subsequently a consolidation that has left us with a more stealthy form of cartel in which a” market rate” fixed by algorithms rather than people leads to mysteriously similar ticket prices on many routes across America.
The other unforeseen outcome was the agony of the hub.
As regional airlines like Eastern, Braniff, and Piedmont disappeared, more roads were captured by fewer airlines. Before long, it became obvious that if whole clusters of those roads could be funneled through a single mega-airport in which one airline was dominant the operations might be more rationally managed and competition discouraged or killed off. At least, that was the theory.
The theory was, to give it its full name, “hub-and-spoke.” For example, by funneling 30 flights( the spokes) into a hub and the other 30 out an airline could offer 900 different road patterns using only 30 airplanes.
The idea was sold to passengers in the phrase,” Go from anywhere to everywhere .”
The trouble was that pretty soon passengers get wise to a different meaning:” To get there from here you first have to go somewhere else .”
Thus if you were flying on Delta, tell, from Miami to San Diego, a five hour nonstop flight, you detected yourself without that the nonstop alternative and, instead, routed via Atlanta Hartsfield, taking a journey that if the connection worked took 7 hours and 25 minutes.
Note the caveat: “ if the connection ran .” This addresses the inescapable flaw in the entire strategy. For the hub-and-spoke principle to run day is critical.
Connections were based on the presumption of a guaranteed on-time arrival of the first flight leg. That also went for the luggage transfers from one airliner to another while, at the same day, passengers often had to build great treks through a terminal from one gate to another and often from one concourse to another.
That could involve a marathon. At St. Louis, to take one case, the distance between the farthest gate in Concourse B to the farthest gate in Concourse D was more than half a mile. Even employing moving walkways and shuttle buses that could take up to 22 minutes.
And I haven’t yet included the weather in this equation.
Hubs are, of course, extremely vulnerable to ricochet impact: Bad weather in one part of the country can screw up the connections all over the rest of an airline’s network, with flights often delayed for hours. A monster hub like Chicago’s O’Hare, located where the winter weather can be particularly disruptive, easily becomes a traveler’s nightmare. Or, as in the case of the world’s largest hub, Atlanta Hartsfield, if you get a computer glitch the rolled effects can lead to days of cancellations.
For most of us flying in America, the hub is often inescapable. Only 40 percentage of passengers utilizing hubs are flying from one hub to another–in effect making a nonstop journey. The other 60 percentage of passengers are connecting. With around 70 million domestic passengers passing through our airports every month that’s an nasty plenty of potential pain.
There was always an inherent weakness in the idea that hubs made flying more cost-efficient for the airlines. Flying two legs rather than one to get from one city to another consumes a lot more gasoline than on a direct flight: The airliner has to take off and land twice, and these are the gas-gulping the stages of a flight. It also involves doubled the staff time for gate handling and luggage handling.
Another increasingly harmful consequence of the hubs is that they are potent and gigantic carbon emissions bombs, concentrating road and aviation deplete pollution, as well as noise pollution, often close to dense urban populations.
It was the high costs of operating through the hub system that was spotted by the man who can rightly be called the parent of the budget airline. Herb Kelleher, a young lawyer in Texas, launched Southwest Airlines in 1971 with a flight from Dallas to San Antonio after the major established airlines lost a fight to kill the project at birth.
Kelleher had three fundamental principles: avoid hubs, provide only direct flights between cities that lacked them, and operate only one type of airplane–the Boeing 737. Given that model, and a “no frills” service, Southwest could offer the cheapest fares.
But over and above his business model Kelleher had a basically decent and civilized notion. He recognized that his challengers had compounded the stress of hub by hiring staff who were often as bad tempered as the passengers.
Kelleher told,” bad attitudes metastasize throughout your organization no matter where they are located” and he insisted that all his people, from the pilots to the gate personnel, had good attitudes. It ran. For an unbroken run of 43 years Southwest was profitable as it steadily grew to become a fully national network, and is often ranked as one of the best companies to work for.
Southwest still avoids hubs, although women does operate” mega stations” with more than 200 flights a day where crew changes occur, including Chicago Midway, Baltimore, and Las Vegas.( This can cause hub-type problems when delays at the base airports bouncing through the rest of the road system .)
JetBlue and other budget airlines across the world has been successful in emulated much of the Southwest formula and avoided hubs but now there is a new reasons for the logic of the hub is under threat.
Budget airlines basically adopted either the Boeing 737 or, like JetBlue, the rival Airbus A3 20. They carry between 150 and 220 seats. Cities too small to fill that number of seats, if they had airline service at all, were confined to the smaller, slower, and noisier turboprops.
That choice will change rapidly over the next few years.
New small airplanes with between 80 and 120 seats will bring the consolation and velocity of the larger airplanes as well as much lower ga costs to more and more cities. These new jets will also have longer scope, and that means that smaller cities that are long distances apart–say, for example, Savannah, Georgia, and Santa Barbara, California–will abruptly be a viable option for direct flights. That kind of pairing could be repeated many times over without ever involving a hub.
Just how promising this new marketplace is has been indicated by the response of the duopoly of the world’s two largest airliner makers, Boeing and Airbus. Neither of them produces planes of this sizing, but both are getting involved with two companies that do.
The Canadian company Bombardier makes the CS300, a highly advanced plane that so rattled Boeing that they sought a U.S. government action to impose a massive tariff on any sold to U.S. airlines, on the basis that the program was subsidized by the Canadian government. That move backfired seriously. The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled against the tariffs–and, ensuring the future of the airplane, Airbus took a 50.1 percentage majority holding in the CS300 program.
The other somewhat smaller competitor is the Brazilian Embraer E2, an upgrade of the company’s ubiquitous E planes, with the same fuel efficiencies as the CS300. Boeing is entering a partnership with Embraer that will greatly help to sell the jets across the globe–the total marketplace for these mini-jets is estimated at 6,000 over the next 20 years.
Once those jets reach the airlines they will have the same hub-killing consequence in the rest of the world as here. Given the choice of flying a straight line from A to B instead of having to change airliners on the way is a no-brainer in any language. And that option is also becoming more and more available for long-haul international flights.
The most spectacular harbinger of this is the Australian airline Qantas. They only inaugurated the first nonstop flights between Perth and London. This is a real time zone mind masher: On the westbound flights you leave Perth at 6:45 p.m. and arrived here Heathrow at 5:20 a.m. the same day, with a total of 17 hours in the air.
The physical effects of this are ameliorated by the improved cabin climate on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner that flies the road: less dry air and more individual control of the lighting. But even this record distance for a nonstop flight will shortly be beaten by Singapore Airlines with a 19 -hour flight between New York and Singapore, use the Airbus A3 50 with similarly improved cabin climate.
There is also a greatly increasing choice of city-to-city nonstops across the Atlantic. The low-cost airline Norwegian Air now flies the Dreamliner from 12 U.S. cities to Europe with one-way fares as low as $229 on its latest road from Los Angeles to Madrid and Milan. Its novel city pairings include Stockholm to Oakland, California, and Oslo to Las Vegas.
Norwegian’s innovative routes have got the attention( and concern) of the European airline conglomerate, the International Airline Group, parent of British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingus, and Vueling. They have just launched a rival low-price airline, Level, beginning with direct flights between Barcelona and Boston and Barcelona and Oakland, with more flights to follow between New York Newark and Paris.
These are all what are called the” horizontal routes” between Europe, Asia, and North America. But a similar pattern is beginning with the” horizontal routes “– flights between South America and the U.S ., and is bound to grow.
This November the Brazilian airline GOL begins new nonstop flights from the capital, Brasilia, and from the coastal city of Fortaleza, to Miami and Orlando, a distance of up to 3,778 miles, equal to traversing the Atlantic. This has been stimulated possible by a new long-range version of the Boeing 737, and will be the longest road ever flown by 737 s.
The hub airports were conceived in a different age, when airplanes were relatively unrefined gas-guzzlers. There were also a lot fewer people flying–Airbus has estimated that the global number of airline passengers doubles every 15 years, and there is no way that big city hubs can–or should–handle that volume of flights. Moreover, since more than half the world’s population now lives in cities, the idea that flights should continue to be fed into a handful of airports in capital cities and large metropolitan areas eludes reason–and geography. It just doesn’t fly anymore.
Read more: www.thedailybeast.com