racercoup
Topic Author
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:07 pm

"But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it."

The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes. I would argue it has done more to alleviate congestion at hubs than the A380 has. The A380 encourages travel through a hub, the 787 encourages passengers to eliminate going through the hub.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2112
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:26 pm

racercoup wrote:
"But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it."

The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes. I would argue it has done more to alleviate congestion at hubs than the A380 has. The A380 encourages travel through a hub, the 787 encourages passengers to eliminate going through the hub.


first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:02 pm

jumbojet wrote:
racercoup wrote:
"But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it."

The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes. I would argue it has done more to alleviate congestion at hubs than the A380 has. The A380 encourages travel through a hub, the 787 encourages passengers to eliminate going through the hub.


first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.


Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2112
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:14 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
racercoup wrote:
"But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it."

The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes. I would argue it has done more to alleviate congestion at hubs than the A380 has. The A380 encourages travel through a hub, the 787 encourages passengers to eliminate going through the hub.


first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.


Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.


I haven't checked Boeing.com or Airbus's website to check actual #'s but I am pretty sure the 787 family of jets is far outselling the A380 family of jets. Whatever the mission is, its sales that count the most at the end of the day. Nobody can deny that.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:19 pm

jumbojet wrote:
I haven't checked Boeing.com or Airbus's website to check actual #'s but I am pretty sure the 787 family of jets is far outselling the A380 family of jets. Whatever the mission is, its sales that count the most at the end of the day. Nobody can deny that.


You're missing the point :) We were discussing the mission.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:44 pm

Many of you are taking Boeing's point-to-point terminology way too literally. They didn't actually mean nonhub-to-nonhub flights. They meant hub-to-spoke overflying other major hubs. "Point-to-point" was just a great contrast for "hub-to-hub," they obviously were not saying airlines would get rid of hubs.

In "Hub-to-hub" you fly to the nearest major hub, on a regional jet service (I mean in terms of configuration, not necessarily a RJ, but things like 737s/A320s/regional A330s), then fly to the nearest hub closest to your destination (if it is not your final destination) with typical international service, then take a flight to your final destination on a smaller regional jet service again. So A->B->C->D where B and C are both major hubs.

In "point-to-point" you likely fly to the nearest major hub ("RJ service"), then fly directly to your destination ("international service"). So A->B->D completely overflying Hub C.

Obviously this is more for longer range international flights. Here is some reading that might shock some people:
http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archiv ... f_p2p.html
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/ar ... i_ca1.html

SEA-GVA, MIA-TPE, LAX-SIN :o They don't mean flights like OMA-CTU. Boeing would argue flights like DFW-HKG or AUS-LHR are "point-to-point," and would have if you asked them 10 years ago (when those linked articles were written) before those services started.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:04 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Denver Tokyo, UAL. San Francisco to secondary cities in China UAL. Singapore to San Francisco, UAL. Auckland to Houston, Air New Zealand. San Francisco to Tel Aviv, United Airlines. Perth to London, non-stop, Qantas. To name a few.

The only one of those that could even remotely be referred to as P2P are PER-LON for QF.

Not only are the rest Hub2Spoke for the respective airlines, but some of them are Hub2Hub.

O beg to differ. Denver to Tokyo is brand new as are the secondary cities in China. San Francisco Tel Aviv is new. Prior to the 787, most travel to Israel would be through New York. Perth to London is completely brand new. Prior, most Australia Europe traffic had to stop in the Middle East.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:17 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Denver Tokyo, UAL. San Francisco to secondary cities in China UAL. Singapore to San Francisco, UAL. Auckland to Houston, Air New Zealand. San Francisco to Tel Aviv, United Airlines. Perth to London, non-stop, Qantas. To name a few.

The only one of those that could even remotely be referred to as P2P are PER-LON for QF.

Not only are the rest Hub2Spoke for the respective airlines, but some of them are Hub2Hub.

Oh I beg to differ. Denver to Tokyo is brand new as are the secondary cities in China. San Francisco Tel Aviv is new. Prior to the 787, most travel to Israel would be through New York. Perth to London is completely brand new. Prior, most Australia Europe traffic had to stop in the Middle East. The promise of the 787 was to serve long thin routes and open up more direct flights to markets that could not sustain them with current aircraft. Denver has always been a major hub for United, but it was a domestic hub, for the most part. No longer. In China, I suspect that the flights to the secondary cities would have had to go to a major Chinese city or Tokyo. Due to the 787 and similar aircraft, fifth freedom flights through Japan are not as important as they used to be. The A-380 was premised on the idea that almost all long haul international flying, would go through mega hubs, (Denver is not an international mega hub). The bet failed. Airbus knows the bet failed. Just look at the A-350, which I expect will be successful. If you want further proof look at the order books and compare A-380 orders to A-350 orders and 787 orders. That should speak for itself.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:17 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Denver Tokyo, UAL. San Francisco to secondary cities in China UAL. Singapore to San Francisco, UAL. Auckland to Houston, Air New Zealand. San Francisco to Tel Aviv, United Airlines. Perth to London, non-stop, Qantas. To name a few.

The only one of those that could even remotely be referred to as P2P are PER-LON for QF.

Not only are the rest Hub2Spoke for the respective airlines, but some of them are Hub2Hub.

O beg to differ. Denver to Tokyo is brand new as are the secondary cities in China. San Francisco Tel Aviv is new. Prior to the 787, most travel to Israel would be through New York. Perth to London is completely brand new. Prior, most Australia Europe traffic had to stop in the Middle East.

All fine and dandy, but has nothing to do with what I just said.

No one said they weren't new. What they aren't, are point-to-point operations. Just large hubs (SFO, DEN, etc) to additional spokes. Nothing p2p about them.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:21 pm

barney captain wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

The only one of those that you mentioned that could be even remotely accurately labeled "p2p" would be MAN-PVR.

The other three are just spokes to two of the largest hubs on the planet. Absolutely nothing point to point about them.[/quote]

I think I haven't quoted correctly, im also trying to quote LAX772lr

I suggested a while back that having a hub on one end was not what the hype was all about with the 787. I was quickly shot down because 'a hub was a point to people who lived near said hub'. So a hub was a point, just a big one. I guess thats true but dudnt fit the hype. There is no doubt it will open some p2p routes but the majority will be hub to spoke.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:33 pm

racercoup wrote:
The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes.

And yet you can not tick of the fingers of one single hand naming them . . .

Bald1983 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.


Denver Tokyo, UAL. San Francisco to secondary cities in China UAL. Singapore to San Francisco, UAL. Auckland to Houston, Air New Zealand. San Francisco to Tel Aviv, United Airlines. Perth to London, non-stop, Qantas. To name a few.


Remarkable . . . SFO was a big hub for UA. Right until they started operating 787 there, then all of a sudden it miraculously is no longer a hub, qualifying for p2p . . . opportunity argument?

The vast majority of these "p2p" routes really are h2p routes. The more of these routes make a stronger hub. Ironically, a stronger the hub would not hurt A380 market potential . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
M564038
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:46 pm

Strato2 wrote:
rotating14 wrote:
His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off. One isn't better than the other, one just beat the other to the punch.


But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.


Haha! Who knows? Maybe you should ask Bjørn Kjos?
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:04 am

PW100 wrote:
racercoup wrote:
The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes.

And yet you can not tick of the fingers of one single hand naming them . . .

Bald1983 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.


Denver Tokyo, UAL. San Francisco to secondary cities in China UAL. Singapore to San Francisco, UAL. Auckland to Houston, Air New Zealand. San Francisco to Tel Aviv, United Airlines. Perth to London, non-stop, Qantas. To name a few.


Remarkable . . . SFO was a big hub for UA. Right until they started operating 787 there, then all of a sudden it miraculously is no longer a hub, qualifying for p2p . . . opportunity argument?

The vast majority of these "p2p" routes really are h2p routes. The more of these routes make a stronger hub. Ironically, a stronger the hub would not hurt A380 market potential . . .


In the past, the flying would be from Mega Hub to Mega Hub then connect on both sides. The A-380 was built on that premise. That is no longer the case, thanks to the 787 and the A-350. SFO is not the biggest hub for UAL but, again, thanks to the 787, is getting bigger. Are you expecting Boise to Bristol? The A-380 lost.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:06 am

KarelXWB wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
racercoup wrote:
"But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it."

The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes. I would argue it has done more to alleviate congestion at hubs than the A380 has. The A380 encourages travel through a hub, the 787 encourages passengers to eliminate going through the hub.


first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.


Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.



Boeing said long thin routes.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:08 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
The only one of those that could even remotely be referred to as P2P are PER-LON for QF.

Not only are the rest Hub2Spoke for the respective airlines, but some of them are Hub2Hub.

O beg to differ. Denver to Tokyo is brand new as are the secondary cities in China. San Francisco Tel Aviv is new. Prior to the 787, most travel to Israel would be through New York. Perth to London is completely brand new. Prior, most Australia Europe traffic had to stop in the Middle East.

All fine and dandy, but has nothing to do with what I just said.

No one said they weren't new. What they aren't, are point-to-point operations. Just large hubs (SFO, DEN, etc) to additional spokes. Nothing p2p about them.


Boeing said long thin routes. Hub to point, instead of mega hub to mega hum then connecting is a definite improvement.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16642
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:50 am

KarelXWB wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.

Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.


You are misstating what Boeing actually was saying.

Here is a great example of what they were saying back in 2006, from their VP of marketing/sales for the 787:

Boeing doesn’t take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world’s airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.

Marketplace insight is at the core of 787 product development. “Our strategy has been to design and build an airplane that will take passengers where they want to go, when they want to go, without intermediate stops; do it efficiently while providing the utmost comfort to passengers; and make it simple and cost-effective for airlines to operate,” Bentrott says.


Ref: https://www.forbes.com/2006/05/23/unsol ... oeing.html

So it's not about spoke to spoke as you say, it's about eliminating intermediate stops, increasing the number of city-pairs served (regardless of one being a hub), increasing frequencies, and following the trend of ASKs increasing whilst average airplane size decreases.

It's simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. If you need to keep it simple, you should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.
Last edited by Revelation on Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.

Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.


You are misstating what Boeing actually was saying.

Here is a great example of what they were saying back in 2006, from their VP of marketing/sales for the 787:

Boeing doesn’t take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world’s airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.

Marketplace insight is at the core of 787 product development. “Our strategy has been to design and build an airplane that will take passengers where they want to go, when they want to go, without intermediate stops; do it efficiently while providing the utmost comfort to passengers; and make it simple and cost-effective for airlines to operate,” Bentrott says.


Ref: https://www.forbes.com/2006/05/23/unsol ... oeing.html

So it's not about spoke to spoke as you say, it's about eliminating intermediate stops, increasing the number of city-pairs served (regardless of one being a hub), increasing frequencies, and following the trend of ASKs increasing whilst average airplane size decreases.

It's simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. If you need to keep it simple, you should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.


A flight HAM - LHR - AUS (or any ABCD-E-F-QWERTYZ) still has an "intermediate stop". And it still goes through a hub.

Note that I fully understand what you're saying. And I do not disagree.

What is happening with the 787 (and 350, 330, 330neo) is that quite a lot of routes get direct access to a hub on the other side of the pond, thereby reducing relative importance of the major hub-hub trunk routes. What is also happening is that these light twins create a lot more hubs, on either end. 25 Years ago we only had a handful of hubs in Europe with more than a couple of trans-Atlantic flights. Today we are in double digit numbers.

Note that trans-Atlantic p2p might be just around the corner with A321neoLR, and perhaps MOM mid next decade. These planes should trigger a new, heavy round of trans-Atlantic fragmentation.

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Whalejet
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:31 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:15 am

There was a thread that went where this is going a few weeks back, and the consensus appeared to be that the Aspect Ratio was too short. That's the engineering side of things.

In regards to the whole Hub-Hub/P2P thing, there is no P2P route on Earth that is flown by a 787. Its Hub-Spoke. But not just any Hub to any spoke: It's large hubs to small spokes (LHR-AUS comes to mind). With the 380 (I'll get to EK in a moment) you have Hub-Megacity connections, like KUL-LHR. With EK, you have Hub-Megacity (DXB-JFK, DXB-NRT) but also have Hub-Small spoke. The difference is that said small spoke has millions of pax worth of traffic that can get there with one stop.
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:08 am

Whalejet wrote:
In regards to the whole Hub-Hub/P2P thing, there is no P2P route on Earth that is flown by a 787.


Hey mate,
Jetstar seasonally flies Dreamliners Gold Coast (Australia) to Wuhan (China). Yes, I know it's by arrangement with a Chinese developer but tickets are generally on sale to the public, as far as I know.
Neither of them are hubs by any stretch of the imagination...
Cheers
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:05 am

PW100 wrote:
racercoup wrote:
The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes.

And yet you can not tick of the fingers of one single hand naming them . . .

Bald1983 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.


Denver Tokyo, UAL. San Francisco to secondary cities in China UAL. Singapore to San Francisco, UAL. Auckland to Houston, Air New Zealand. San Francisco to Tel Aviv, United Airlines. Perth to London, non-stop, Qantas. To name a few.


Remarkable . . . SFO was a big hub for UA. Right until they started operating 787 there, then all of a sudden it miraculously is no longer a hub, qualifying for p2p . . . opportunity argument?

The vast majority of these "p2p" routes really are h2p routes. The more of these routes make a stronger hub. Ironically, a stronger the hub would not hurt A380 market potential . . .


There is no A-380 potential which is why sales have lagged and not a single United States carrier has ordered one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardabo ... c8cc86553d
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.

Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.


You are misstating what Boeing actually was saying.

Here is a great example of what they were saying back in 2006, from their VP of marketing/sales for the 787:

Boeing doesn’t take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world’s airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.

Marketplace insight is at the core of 787 product development. “Our strategy has been to design and build an airplane that will take passengers where they want to go, when they want to go, without intermediate stops; do it efficiently while providing the utmost comfort to passengers; and make it simple and cost-effective for airlines to operate,” Bentrott says.


Ref: https://www.forbes.com/2006/05/23/unsol ... oeing.html

So it's not about spoke to spoke as you say, it's about eliminating intermediate stops, increasing the number of city-pairs served (regardless of one being a hub), increasing frequencies, and following the trend of ASKs increasing whilst average airplane size decreases.

It's simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. If you need to keep it simple, you should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.


The quoted lines are just one part of the story. Back in 2006 lots of people, including Boeing PR, claimed the 787 could make hubs to disappear as more airlines would deploy the aircraft from and to secondary airports (i.e. spoke to spoke). That clearly hasn't happened. Major hubs like LHR still exist and have only become bigger.

Aither wrote:
racercoup wrote:
The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes.


A330s have opened more routes in the last 5 years. It's just called "market growth"...


Don't say it too loud, some people may choke on their food tonight.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Back in 2006 lots of people, including Boeing PR, claimed the 787 could make hubs to disappear as more airlines would deploy the aircraft from and to secondary airports (i.e. spoke to spoke).

If Boeing PR was saying that "the 787 could make hubs to disappear" then it should be easy to find some actual references/quotes for that. I doubt you can find a credible one. I found a very credible statement to refute it, right from the Boeing VP of sales/marketing and in-service support for the 787, made in a major business magazine. I feel quite confident saying that you are simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. You should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.


Time to drag out the links I posted ~200 replies ago in reply 79:
http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archiv ... f_p2p.html
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/ar ... i_ca1.html

There is a frequent misunderstanding of "point-to-point" on A.net. As you say, Boeing (nor Airbus for that matter) never argued p2p meant no more hubs. "Point-to-point" is just a better marketing foil to "hub-to-hub" than "hub-to-smaller-and-further-away-spoke-bypassing-other-major-hubs-enroute." One rolls of the tongue easier.

These terms are all directed towards the layman anyways, not aviation enthusiasts. "Hub-to-hub," to the general public, reinforces the use of the plane on existing routes (up gauging capacity), while "point-to-point" suggests the introduction of new previously unserved routes with the plane.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
If Boeing PR was saying that "the 787 could make hubs to disappear" then it should be easy to find some actual references/quotes for that. I doubt you can find a credible one. I found a very credible statement to refute it, right from the Boeing VP of sales/marketing and in-service support for the 787, made in a major business magazine. I feel quite confident saying that you are simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. You should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.


Sure we can call it a "point to point strategy" instead of a "spoke to spoke system", but that doesn't change what I meant.

The photo below shows the current hub-to-point system:

Image

The 787 was supposed to bypass the hub and connect the points together, like narrowbody aircraft do.

Image

But that's not really happening.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:47 pm

Karel,

I believe your diagram is not quite like it should be. The hub in the left image is also worthy of its own flights, else it would not be a hub… I submit that the second image should include the hub, and then count 9 points and 36 routes.
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1729
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:52 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Sure we can call it a "point to point strategy" instead of a "spoke to spoke system", but that doesn't change what I meant.



There is no confusion what you meant. Others are arguing that you may be confused over what Boeing meant.

Unless the graphics you posted were provided by Boeing as an indication of what the 787 would mean for airline route networks, they are irrelevant to the discussion.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2021
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:59 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
But that's not really happening.

True but many people don't want to believe it.

Regardless of whether you want to call it point-to-point, spoke-to-spoke, P2P, P2H, or anything else, the 787 was most definitely marketed as going to enable huge numbers of new city pairs to be operated non-stop.

The fact is, it has not made any difference at all to the trend. Since ~2002 (i.e. well before 787 EIS), there has been a steady increase in the unique city pairs being flown. If anything, the rate of increase has actually slowed very slightly since 787 EIS:

Image

Compare that to the general increase in RPKs and you'll find that the rate of growth in unique city pairs is considerably slower than the rate of growth of traffic in general.

Source:
https://www.iata.org/publications/Docum ... w-2016.pdf
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16642
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:21 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If Boeing PR was saying that "the 787 could make hubs to disappear" then it should be easy to find some actual references/quotes for that. I doubt you can find a credible one. I found a very credible statement to refute it, right from the Boeing VP of sales/marketing and in-service support for the 787, made in a major business magazine. I feel quite confident saying that you are simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. You should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.


Sure we can call it a "point to point strategy" instead of a "spoke to spoke system", but that doesn't change what I meant.

The photo below shows the current hub-to-point system:


I'm sorry, but all I see on my screen is the word 'Image' and using the links provided in new tabs doesn't work either. This is with a Firefox that's a few months old. When I reply I see that there is img tags around the image and that is inside of url tags in the bbcode. Not sure why the outer url tags are present but they could be what is preventing the image display. Actually cutting and pasting the links into new tabs doesn't work either, so it's probably a Firefox thing. Now, going to Chrome and opening them in new tabs there is working.

In any case, you are STILL not showing me where Boeing PR spoke to the "hubs disappearing" strategy you are describing. You're giving some textbook definitions that are fine, but you aren't showing where Boeing PR is saying that their strategy is based on hubs disappearing.

Polot's first link is Randy talking about how desirable hub bypass is, but never says that hubs will disappear. It gives one example, SEA-GVA, where you can argue both sides are not hubs (but some would argue back) and the other example, MIA-TPE, where MIA has been a hub since the days of the flying boats and in many peoples eyes TPE is a hub as well.

Polot's second link gives us:

"Growth in air travel over the past 15 years has been met entirely by an increase in new nonstop markets and by frequency growth—not by an increase in average airplane size. This is the fundamental essence of Boeing Commercial Airplanes' product strategy," Piasecki said.


The strategy is new non-stop markets ( non-stop markets doesn't mean both sides are non-hubs ), frequency growth and constant or decreasing average airplane size.

It also gives us:

As an example, U.S. domestic airlines historically brought transoceanic travelers from the U.S. interior to gateway airports such as New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International. From there, travelers flew to overseas locales on low-seat-mile-cost 747s operated by carriers such as Pan Am and TWA. With deregulation, airlines previously limited to domestic flights began to offer more scheduled choices to international destinations by using smaller 767s, and later 777s, from their U.S. hubs.

Nonstop to the future"Naturally, air travelers chose to fly these nonstop flights to Europe rather than the more indirect connecting flights with Pan Am's or TWA's Europe-bound New York flights," Baseler said.


Even gives an example where one side is a hub.

I still think you are mis-characterizing what Boeing said, and I don't see where you are giving me a quote to refute it.

The 787 was supposed to bypass the hub and connect the points together, like narrowbody aircraft do.

Image

But that's not really happening.


I think you and others are making a strawman ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) argument: saying something Boeing didn't say then using that false statement to poke holes into an argument that wasn't being made in the first place.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:44 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If Boeing PR was saying that "the 787 could make hubs to disappear" then it should be easy to find some actual references/quotes for that. I doubt you can find a credible one. I found a very credible statement to refute it, right from the Boeing VP of sales/marketing and in-service support for the 787, made in a major business magazine. I feel quite confident saying that you are simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. You should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.


Sure we can call it a "point to point strategy" instead of a "spoke to spoke system", but that doesn't change what I meant.

The photo below shows the current hub-to-point system:

Image

The 787 was supposed to bypass the hub and connect the points together, like narrowbody aircraft do.

Image

But that's not really happening.


The 787 was supposed to service long and thinner routes. The A-380 was supposed to service mega hub to mega hub.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4635
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:25 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Image

But that's not really happening.


We'd all go by business jet.
Fully P2P fragments the demand for each P2P route to 1/Nth of the traffic
demand if you go only PHP.

PHP traffic gains quite a bit from the Hub sitting "under" the major traffic flow.
MAN-DXB-FRA doesn't make sense.

P2P makes sense when distance is short and hubs would introduce detours.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:41 am

Revelation wrote:
I think you and others are making a strawman ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) argument: saying something Boeing didn't say then using that false statement to poke holes into an argument that wasn't being made in the first place.


hehe this is getting amusing. Honestly at this point of this discussion, I have no idea what the "Boeing argument" was supposed to be, with all the back-and-forth between "a-spoke-is-a-point-but-a-point-is-a-spoke-except-when-it's-not-yet-it-is-but-actually-not-really" :smile:

Actually, the whole thing can go on in circles forever because the premice is flawed. The "vision for the A380" as proposed by 1 party here is that it flies the H-H segment on the standard Spoke-Hub-Hub-Spoke journey.
Problem is, S-H-H-S journeys have been the minority since at least 30 years. Most flying is single-stop S-H-S, and the trend has been increasing, due in part to better aircraft performance but much more importantly due to better distribution of airline hubs around the world (especially in the Middle East)
20 years back I often flew out of LYS (not a big airport), yet could get just about anywhere with 1 stop. To get to a faraway place like Perth might require 2 stops, but even today LYS-PER can be done with 1 stop in Dubai.
Even Randy's examples are 1 stop S-H-S journeys.

On the other hand, the cost of setting up and maintaining direct routes is much greater than the cost of storing and sorting passengers in a hub. So simple network theory says that a fully decentralised network of direct air links will lose out to a semi-centralised node netowrk.

So the argument is trying to portray Airbus as adressing a business model that doesn't exist vs Boeing trying to address a business model which has no chance to work....
No wonder it's going in circles. ;)


Honestly, I'd say the 787 and 380 were both developed to plug holes in the respective OEM's line-up, and just happened to be developed at about the same time. And that's about all there is to it.
This whole Hub vs Point business was just a PR exercice to try to create a confrontation between the 2 projects which otherwise have nothing in common. As mentioned before, the OEM behaviors don't even support their supposed "philosophies" : Boeing went on to build the 747-8 and 777X, Airbus has done a lot of work on the A330 and launched the A321LR.

And if anyone clings on to this black-and-white "philosophy" discussion, then the simple outcome is that both OEMs...were wrong !
Obviously the market has not desired bigger aircraft like the A380, and as pointed out somewhere above, neither has P2P really increased more than "usual" in long haul operations.
Actually, a big chunk of the growth since the 1980s can be accounted for by the combination of increased seating densities in the good old same airplanes, and increased load factors through booking management strategies. So basically, squeezing more people on the same airplanes flying the same routes.
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:28 am

airmagnac wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think you and others are making a strawman ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) argument: saying something Boeing didn't say then using that false statement to poke holes into an argument that wasn't being made in the first place.


hehe this is getting amusing. Honestly at this point of this discussion, I have no idea what the "Boeing argument" was supposed to be, with all the back-and-forth between "a-spoke-is-a-point-but-a-point-is-a-spoke-except-when-it's-not-yet-it-is-but-actually-not-really" :smile:

Actually, the whole thing can go on in circles forever because the premice is flawed. The "vision for the A380" as proposed by 1 party here is that it flies the H-H segment on the standard Spoke-Hub-Hub-Spoke journey.
Problem is, S-H-H-S journeys have been the minority since at least 30 years. Most flying is single-stop S-H-S, and the trend has been increasing, due in part to better aircraft performance but much more importantly due to better distribution of airline hubs around the world (especially in the Middle East)
20 years back I often flew out of LYS (not a big airport), yet could get just about anywhere with 1 stop. To get to a faraway place like Perth might require 2 stops, but even today LYS-PER can be done with 1 stop in Dubai.
Even Randy's examples are 1 stop S-H-S journeys.

On the other hand, the cost of setting up and maintaining direct routes is much greater than the cost of storing and sorting passengers in a hub. So simple network theory says that a fully decentralised network of direct air links will lose out to a semi-centralised node netowrk.

So the argument is trying to portray Airbus as adressing a business model that doesn't exist vs Boeing trying to address a business model which has no chance to work....
No wonder it's going in circles. ;)


Honestly, I'd say the 787 and 380 were both developed to plug holes in the respective OEM's line-up, and just happened to be developed at about the same time. And that's about all there is to it.
This whole Hub vs Point business was just a PR exercice to try to create a confrontation between the 2 projects which otherwise have nothing in common. As mentioned before, the OEM behaviors don't even support their supposed "philosophies" : Boeing went on to build the 747-8 and 777X, Airbus has done a lot of work on the A330 and launched the A321LR.

And if anyone clings on to this black-and-white "philosophy" discussion, then the simple outcome is that both OEMs...were wrong !
Obviously the market has not desired bigger aircraft like the A380, and as pointed out somewhere above, neither has P2P really increased more than "usual" in long haul operations.
Actually, a big chunk of the growth since the 1980s can be accounted for by the combination of increased seating densities in the good old same airplanes, and increased load factors through booking management strategies. So basically, squeezing more people on the same airplanes flying the same routes.


Well put. Our revelating friend is always clutching at straws with falsehoods. :) Both aircraft have sort of done what's new over what they were built to do but essentially have just continued what we saw over a decade over anyway.
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16642
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:51 am

airmagnac wrote:
hehe this is getting amusing. Honestly at this point of this discussion, I have no idea what the "Boeing argument" was supposed to be, with all the back-and-forth between "a-spoke-is-a-point-but-a-point-is-a-spoke-except-when-it's-not-yet-it-is-but-actually-not-really" :smile:

The thing is, I've provided the exact words Boeing was saying at the time, not this parody of paraphrasing that we find here so often on a.net. No matter how many times the correct information is provided, the parody is more easy to grab than the more subtle truth, so people cling to the parody.

The parody started early on. We'd have posters saying Boeing's strategy meant we'd have non-stop wide-body flights from Lyon to Lesotho or Little Rock upon demand, and if that didn't happen, Boeing was wrong. That never was the argument, but the parody fit many agendas, so many people went with it, and seemingly still are.

airmagnac wrote:
Actually, the whole thing can go on in circles forever because the premice is flawed. The "vision for the A380" as proposed by 1 party here is that it flies the H-H segment on the standard Spoke-Hub-Hub-Spoke journey.
Problem is, S-H-H-S journeys have been the minority since at least 30 years. Most flying is single-stop S-H-S, and the trend has been increasing, due in part to better aircraft performance but much more importantly due to better distribution of airline hubs around the world (especially in the Middle East)

Another way of looking at it was that Boeing was even more right than they imagined back in the 90s/00s because even the A380 is largely doing point to point flying at its biggest customer, EK, and that was something no one anticipated. Everyone anticipated the A380 would be used the way we see BA and AF and QF and SQ using it, no one was projecting that someone like EK would come along and fly VLAs on point to point routes on the scale they do. Don't forget, EK wasn't even a launch customer for the A380! So the point to point model is even more dominant than imagined, and even with the inclusion of VLAs it could be that average plane size is still decreasing while frequency is still increasing.

Fortunately for the A380 program, EK had the vision and the financial resources and the governmental support and the geography that made it all work at an unbelievable level. Unfortunately for the A380 program, EK's gains have largely come at the cost of the previous champions of long range VLA flying so the total number of airframes sold have not met projections and other than EK very few customers can sustain an interest in the program.

As per the subject of this thread, Airbus's main avenue of improvement in the A380 is to add even more seats. The current proposal adds 40-50 seats. It's well known that the a/c was designed with a stretch in mind. EK is flying the current sized a/c at 600 or so passengers in 2 classes. The evacuation plan was tested to 850 or so passengers. I don't think we're seeing the volume to sustain the higher passenger counts even 15+ years after the A380 program was launched. It makes me think Airbus was thinking of massive trunk routes when they designed the A380 and makes me wonder how much better the A380 would be doing if a smaller more efficient design was chosen, because the thought of adding more seats doesn't seem to have much traction even at this late date.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:35 am

Revelation wrote:
The parody started early on. We'd have posters saying Boeing's strategy meant we'd have non-stop wide-body flights from Lyon to Lesotho or Little Rock upon demand, and if that didn't happen, Boeing was wrong. That never was the argument, but the parody fit many agendas, so many people went with it, and seemingly still are.


Yes, it was. You even called it "point to point strategy". It was basically THE marketing slogan for the 787.

The discussion started when someone claimed the 787 opened 130 new P2P routes.

That's wrong, because most 787s are flying hub-to-point or hub-to-hub. I'm seeing only a handful spoke-to-spoke routes.

Boeing marketed the 787 as a P2P aircraft (i.e. spoke-to-spoke) but that never really happened, no matter how hard marketing tries to spin it.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5817
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:43 am

The debate is a bit pointless, if you look at predictions made at times when the rise of the ME3 was not predicted.

If all the traffic routing between America and the Indian region would route through the European hubs, A380s would be saviours for exploding hubs, 787 and 777LR would be adding needed P2P connections avoiding overflowing hubs.

Reality saw the rise of the ME3, with changed traffic flow and 3 new mega hub airports.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
The debate is a bit pointless,


I agree the debate is pointless. Nevertheless, I found the original post inaccurate and felt it needed to be challenged. That's all.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 13208
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:39 pm

seahawk wrote:
The debate is a bit pointless, if you look at predictions made at times when the rise of the ME3 was not predicted.

If all the traffic routing between America and the Indian region would route through the European hubs, A380s would be saviours for exploding hubs, 787 and 777LR would be adding needed P2P connections avoiding overflowing hubs.

Reality saw the rise of the ME3, with changed traffic flow and 3 new mega hub airports.

Your point is worth expanding.

The globe is short on hub capacity. There is some thought that the new passengers will somehow forgo convenient flight times to go through an existing hub.

Instead, the new hubs (ME3+TK, +Ethiopian, +China) have changed everything. EK was first to seize the opportunity and thus needs A380s to not only feed hubs, but major spikes too.

I prefer the minimum connections, but I personally will only pay so much to avoid a connection. I'm also constrained in flight times as without fail, flying at another time means seeing less of my children or doing less with them. So direct flights win.


The theory played out. It is just the old school airlines didn't expect such a rewriting of the competitive landscape.

The NEO, MAX, and 797 will continue to change the game. Any metropolitan area that has impacted airport capacity with must expand or watch business go elsewhere. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:01 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
racercoup wrote:
"But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it."

The Dreamliner is responsible for 130 new p2p routes. I would argue it has done more to alleviate congestion at hubs than the A380 has. The A380 encourages travel through a hub, the 787 encourages passengers to eliminate going through the hub.


first off, this isn't a thread about 787 P2P routes, its a thread about trying to keep the A380 from being just a memory. Second, the 787 has opened up tons of routes that would never have been considered before. Just look at what UA has done with the 788 out of SFO, flying thin, long haul routes to 2ndary Chinese airports that weren't possible before the 788 and the 789, flying non-stop from cities like SFO to SIN. There are other 78 examples but those easily come to mind.


Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.
Boing advertises. The 787 has done that and is doing that even more. Look at Denver Tokyo, SFO and points in China, just to get started. The A-380 was designed fro a few mega hubs to a few mega hubs. The 787 has done better in reaching its projected sales targets then the A-380.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:03 pm

WIederling wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Image

But that's not really happening.


We'd all go by business jet.
Fully P2P fragments the demand for each P2P route to 1/Nth of the traffic
demand if you go only PHP.

PHP traffic gains quite a bit from the Hub sitting "under" the major traffic flow.
MAN-DXB-FRA doesn't make sense.

P2P makes sense when distance is short and hubs would introduce detours.


But another hub on the other side of your diagram, then spokes running from that hub, and you have what the A-380 was designed for. However, now you have a hub on one side, sometimes a medium sized hub, when you factor in the 787 and, I would suggest the A-350.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16642
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:05 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The parody started early on. We'd have posters saying Boeing's strategy meant we'd have non-stop wide-body flights from Lyon to Lesotho or Little Rock upon demand, and if that didn't happen, Boeing was wrong. That never was the argument, but the parody fit many agendas, so many people went with it, and seemingly still are.


Yes, it was. You even called it "point to point strategy". It was basically THE marketing slogan for the 787.

You have yet to provide evidence that it was Boeing's actual strategy/slogan, as opposed to the a.net spin of the actual strategy.

I have provided quotes from actual 787 marketing people about the actual 787 strategy, and they are saying different things than you are.

KarelXWB wrote:
The discussion started when someone claimed the 787 opened 130 new P2P routes.

That's wrong, because most 787s are flying hub-to-point or hub-to-hub. I'm seeing only a handful spoke-to-spoke routes.

Boeing marketed the 787 as a P2P aircraft (i.e. spoke-to-spoke) but that never really happened, no matter how hard marketing tries to spin it.

You are wrong. I've provided quotes that make it clear that point-to-point is NOT the same as spoke-to-spoke yet you keep posting as if it is. Please read what I've posted.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25771
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Yes, it was. You even called it "point to point strategy". It was basically THE marketing slogan for the 787.

You have yet to provide evidence that it was Boeing's actual strategy/slogan, as opposed to the a.net spin of the actual strategy.


Point to point was the strategy/slogan for the 787, everyone knows that. Randy's Journal is full with it.

Revelation wrote:
You are wrong. I've provided quotes that make it clear that point-to-point is NOT the same as spoke-to-spoke yet you keep posting as if it is. Please read what I've posted.


The evidence was posted by yourself:

Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.


Point to point is a synonym for spoke to spoke. A hub is not a "point".
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:19 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
You are wrong. I've provided quotes that make it clear that point-to-point is NOT the same as spoke-to-spoke yet you keep posting as if it is. Please read what I've posted.


The evidence was posted by yourself:

Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.


Point to point is a synonym for spoke to spoke. A hub is not a "point".

A hub is still a point. Just that it acts in a manner where its point-point-point or even point-point-point-point. Its quite an elementary concept which can be understood easily by kids. Eg, to get to Point B from Point A, you have to go through Point C (hub).

The 787's aim is to eliminate as many intermediate points as possible, in contrast to the A380 keeping the intermediate points intact.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:01 pm

You cannot use a metaphor as a logic statement. It is about as bad as dividing by zero. And dragging the 330 into the argument as proof that the 787 and P2P is wrong is simply an oddity. The 330 has improved to the point that it is a powerful 787 competitor. In 1990 terms P2P versus Hub/hub/spoke are obsolete. They are acquiring new meanings. And the 787, 350, and the 330 are instrumental in making it happen. What no one expected was EK doing the same thing with the 380/777. Boeing was 'righter' than Airbus, but Airbus has transitioned well.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:41 pm

KarelWXB wrote:
The evidence was posted by yourself:

Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.


Point to point is a synonym for spoke to spoke. A hub is not a "point".


Revelation specifically rebutted your contention that Boeing used "spoke" and "point" interchangeably. Please respond.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:55 pm

KarelXWB wrote:

Nobody denies that. The point is, those are all hub to hub or hub to spoke routes. Spoke to spoke routes as Boeing advertised the 787 for are limited.


It is enough to severely impact traditional hub airlines. Not on its own, but in conjunction with other factors. I think the 787 is the perfect plane for this time going forward. You can already see how an airline like Cathay Pacific is struggling badly because more and more Chinese cities are seeing direct services and bypass Hong Kong.
Now, are those routes profitable on their own and would they be there if Chinese cities weren't subsidizing them in order to grow their footprint on the international map? In the end it doesn't matter, all that matters is those routes would likely not be there if not for the 787.

Also, I never go this A380 vs 787 philosophy battle. Even if Airbus had been spot on about the A380 (which they haven't); there would still have to be (has to be) a smaller airliner for the less demanded routes. Always. No way around it. So the 787 was always bound to be the winner in that would-be battle. It was a fait-accompli from the beginning.
 
User avatar
canadianpylon
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:06 pm

I think what Boeing was marketing was an option to bypass hub to hub flying to get to your destination. Airbus was using the A380 as a way to reduce frequency and increase capacity on hub to hub flying.

For example, my home airport is Winnipeg. If I wanted to go to Oslo, Norway, I would have to fly Winnipeg(Spoke)-Toronto(Hub)-London(Hub)/Frankfurt(Hub)-Oslo(Spoke) on AC/LH/SK, at ~5200 miles. A 787 could (possibly) make a Winnipeg to London route profitable enough that a better routing is Winnipeg(Spoke)-London(Hub)-Oslo(Spoke). It is shorter(~4700miles), and could be a more attractive option (and therefore more willing to pay a premium) due to less flying time, and connection times at airports. The 787, however, wouldn't make a Winnipeg-Oslo flight justifiable all of a sudden.

I don't think it's fair to compare Apples to oranges in this case by comparing the 787 to A380. They were designed to satisfy very different needs, and had very different ways of trying to reduce airline costs.
Always looking for the longest route with the most transfers.
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:26 pm

Can anyone point me to the 130 P2P routes the 787 has opened? I've got time
 
IADCA
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:28 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Point to point is a synonym for spoke to spoke. A hub is not a "point".


You keep saying that, but you provide no evidence except your own personal view of the language. Please see this link from 2007 in which Randy Tinseth at Boeing describes LAX-BNE as "point to point", which is described as "nonstop vs. flying through a large hub first." (http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archiv ... light.html)

If Boeing itself is describing LAX-BNE as "point to point" then I don't think it's fair to say a point can only equal a spoke. Indeed, he also used the description "an efficient, twin-engine airplane capable of making long-distance point-to-point travel possible" to describe...the 777. (http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archiv ... 8/777.html). As the 777 is not exactly flying LYS-GSO, I think it's again clear that "point to point" means exactly what it says - two points, not two hubs or two spokes.
 
B752OS
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:46 pm

A market like Boston has benefited a good amount thanks to the 787 regarding its service to Asia. First it was JL when they launched year round, daily NRT-BOS flights in April 2012. The HU came in and launched year round PEK-BOS flights in June 2014. That route started out 4 x weekly year round and is now daily year round. Then in June 2015 HU added year round PVG-BOS flights - the route operates 3 x weekly year round.
 
barney captain
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Boeing 787 P2P marketing claims

Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:00 pm

I have always interpreted p2p as the many long, thin routes the 787 has been focused on - not spoke to spoke.

SFO-KIX are MAN-PVR perfect examples imo.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4985
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:03 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The parody started early on. We'd have posters saying Boeing's strategy meant we'd have non-stop wide-body flights from Lyon to Lesotho or Little Rock upon demand, and if that didn't happen, Boeing was wrong. That never was the argument, but the parody fit many agendas, so many people went with it, and seemingly still are.


Yes, it was. You even called it "point to point strategy". It was basically THE marketing slogan for the 787.

The discussion started when someone claimed the 787 opened 130 new P2P routes.

That's wrong, because most 787s are flying hub-to-point or hub-to-hub. I'm seeing only a handful spoke-to-spoke routes.

Boeing marketed the 787 as a P2P aircraft (i.e. spoke-to-spoke) but that never really happened, no matter how hard marketing tries to spin it.


So technically any airport/airfield/airstrip with flights to two destinations is a hub.

As long as B787 reduces the need for more Super Hubs, it achieved its goal.

BA's HYD-LHR-AUS (vs) EK's HYD-DXB-JFK-AUS

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos