Would it work dimensionally? I know the ME3 only have one airport to operate from but if you look at networks and ranges couldn't DFW or IAH technically be AUH, DXB, or DOH? They can already reach SE Asia, Australia, MIddle East.
And for sure as far as Luanda in Africa, maybe Johannesburg? And again not saying the US big3 would copy that model but is it realistic?

Billions of people live within 7 hours flying time out of the ME. Can't say the same about any airport in North America, a continent flanked by two large oceans to the East and the West plus a very thinly populated country to the North.

Also never going to happen as long as America requires a visa just to transit.

Absolutely impossible due to the silly immigration rules for transit passengers. Can you imagine the mess of 30 million transit passengers a year all going to immigration,, collecting luggage, checking in again and and then the next wall of TSA security checks. I will lead to 6+ transit stops.

And as pbody said, this is even without the the transit visa requirements - that adds another layer of impossibility.

BreezyIAH wrote:

Would it work dimensionally?

Do you mean gaining the same sort of INTL scale? DFW is one of the largest hubs in the world already. Given that the ME3 runs all of their capacity through one hub, I think it's impressive where they are today. Think about how much publicity and pomp and other bs EK gets, and then think about the fact that AA @ DFW alone carries nearly as many passengers as their whole airline.

It's even starker in comparison to the smaller ME3 carriers.

Scheduled departing seats Aug16-July17:
DL @ ATL - 47.48M
EK @ DXB - 37.75M
AA @ DFW - 33..06M
AA @ CLT - 24.96M
QR @ DOH - 22.76M
UA @ IAH - 18.65M
EY @ AUH - 11.75M

BreezyIAH wrote:

Would it work dimensionally? I know the ME3 only have one airport to operate from but if you look at networks and ranges couldn't DFW or IAH technically be AUH, DXB, or DOH? They can already reach SE Asia, Australia, MIddle East.
And for sure as far as Luanda in Africa, maybe Johannesburg? And again not saying the US big3 would copy that model but is it realistic?

Have you not just described in many ways ATL (with the exception of an Oceanic nonstop), which is already a much larger hub than any of the ME3?

I meant more geographically could it possibly be feasible including range, like with an EK fleet, not necessarily pax numbers but a center point to connect around the world

BreezyIAH wrote:

I meant more geographically could it possibly be feasible including range, like with an EK fleet, not necessarily pax numbers but a center point to connect around the world

In what way does DFW not already do this?

BreezyIAH wrote:

I meant more geographically could it possibly be feasible including range, like with an EK fleet, not necessarily pax numbers but a center point to connect around the world

To fly to where? DFW already has service to five continents. It's not going to turn into a cnx hub for pax doing Asia-DFW-South America. As posted before, the Middle Eastern airports have a distinct advantage in that allows service to a large amount to the worlds population centers.

Rdh3e wrote:

DFW is one of the largest hubs in the world already. Given that the ME3 runs all of their capacity through one hub, I think it's impressive where they are today. Think about how much publicity and pomp and other bs EK gets, and then think about the fact that AA @ DFW alone carries nearly as many passengers as their whole airline.

It's even starker in comparison to the smaller ME3 carriers.

Scheduled departing seats Aug16-July17:
DL @ ATL - 47.48M
EK @ DXB - 37.75M
AA @ DFW - 33..06M
AA @ CLT - 24.96M
QR @ DOH - 22.76M
UA @ IAH - 18.65M
EY @ AUH - 11.75M

Very well put. The sheer scale of the largest U.S. network carriers hubs - as highlighted above, ATL and DFW in particular, is pretty incredible. I agree that, to at least some extent, the sheer enormity of these operations sometimes gets obscured by the fact that they function within networks that are even larger still. It's easier to focus on the scale of many other globally-recognized airline brands' main hubs since, in all but a very few cases, those airlines only really have one major hub.

DfwAussie wrote:

It's not going to turn into a cnx hub for pax doing Asia-DFW-South America.

DFW actually does, indeed, already function as a meaningful connecting point between Asia and South America. AA does substantial business at DFW linking the five nonstop Asian destinations (NRT, ICN, PEK, PVG and HKG) on one side of the hub with the five nonstop South America destinations (BOG, UIO, LIM, SCL, EZE, GRU and soon GIG) on the other side of the hub. (And that is all, of course, before even considering the additional, also quite substantial, business AA does connecting Asia with Mexico over DFW.)

At DFW it would be theoretically possible to add a new top floor onto Terminal D to allow sterile international to international connections. This would require a lot of coordination with DHS on how to do this and it's likely that you'd have to board from both the transit lounge and the regular lounge simultaneously (or maybe board the transit pax first and then the US-originating pax). DFW already has ITI baggage.

drdisque wrote:

At DFW it would be theoretically possible to add a new top floor onto Terminal D to allow sterile international to international connections. This would require a lot of coordination with DHS on how to do this and it's likely that you'd have to board from both the transit lounge and the regular lounge simultaneously (or maybe board the transit pax first and then the US-originating pax). DFW already has ITI baggage.

No need to add anything - that infrastructure already exists, and arriving international travelers already pass right by the sterile transit lounge when walking from their gate to customs. As said, the airport obviously does not have the ability to actually use those facilities - but they were built into D's design for potential future use.

CriticalPoint wrote:

This is why UA only keeps major cities in IAH like LHR/ NRT

Or FRA, MUC, AMS, EZE, GIG, GRU to name a few. Or that it's UAs second largest hub. But yeah, not much going on down there. UA certainly doesn't fly to any international destinations from IAH like BOG, LIM, CCS, UIO, SCL, AUA, GCM, HAV, NAS, POS, PUJ, BZE, GUA, LIR, PTY, MGA, SAL, SJO, RTB, SAP, TGU, ACA, AGU, CUN, CUU, CZM, GDL, ZIH, BJX, MID, MEX, MTY, MLM, YYC, YYZ, OAX, PVR, QRO, SJD, SLP, TAM, YVR, VSA. So out of the way

bgm wrote:

On a serious note, the real reason despite being geographically unfavorable would be:

pbody wrote:

never going to happen as long as America requires a visa just to transit.

I agree. Even as a US citizen, international-to-domestic connections are such a pain that I always try to arrive at my final destination so that I don't have to put up with that silliness. I would much rather connect in Europe or Asia instead of anywhere in the US.

ATL is probably the closest comparison to a DXB-type hub in terms of omnidirectional connecting flows. DFW and IAH are a bit far west and south of the US population center to take full advantage of domestic, domestic-to-international, and (absent transit visas) international-to-international traffic flows.

I would argue that DFW is pretty close to that as it is.

commavia wrote:

Very well put. The sheer scale of the largest U.S. network carriers hubs - as highlighted above, ATL and DFW in particular, is pretty incredible. I agree that, to at least some extent, the sheer enormity of these operations sometimes gets obscured by the fact that they function within networks that are even larger still. It's easier to focus on the scale of many other globally-recognized airline brands' main hubs since, in all but a very few cases, those airlines only really have one major hub.

I pulled the same data as before but added a % of total and pulled all hubs over 10M seats for the year ending July 2017. The US carriers are really the only ones with their largest hubs having percentages under 50. I was a bit surprised how high ATL is, but I did "double count" in the percentages in that the hub-hub counts under each hub. Essentially this is "percent of capacity that touches the hub"

Carr….Arp….Seats….% of AL TTL….Destinations (destinations with more than 12 deps in period)
DL…..ATL…..47.5M…..42%…..234
EK…..DXB…..37.8M…..94%…..133
AA…..DFW…..33.1M…..26%…..208
TK…..IST…..30.6M…..74%…..264
NH…..HND…..27.1M…..62%…..65
LH…..FRA…..26.2M…..63%…..177
AA…..CLT…..25.0M…..20%…..153
BA…..LHR…..24.4M…..76%…..154
CA…..PEK…..22.8M…..56%…..149
QR…..DOH…..22.8M…..98%…..151
AF…..CDG…..20.7M…..73%…..155
UA…..ORD…..20.6M…..23%…..187
SU…..SVO…..20.0M…..79%…..138
UA…..IAH…..18.7M…..21%…..169
CZ…..CAN…..18.4M…..31%…..128
KL…..AMS…..18.3M…..97%…..150
JL…..HND…..17.7M…..69%…..47
AA…..MIA…..17.3M…..14%…..132
UA…..EWR…..16.9M…..19%…..165
AA…..ORD…..16.5M…..13%…..139
LH…..MUC…..16.4M…..39%…..138
AC…..YYZ…..16.1M…..54%…..159
DL…..MSP…..15.6M…..14%…..149
DL…..DTW…..15.3M…..14%…..133
UA…..DEN…..14.6M…..16%…..135
UA…..SFO…..14.2M…..16%…..103
CX…..HKG…..13.7M…..93%…..55
AS…..SEA…..13.3M…..60%…..89
IB…..MAD…..12.9M…..93%…..126
WN…..MDW…..12.8M…..13%…..67
AA…..PHL…..12.7M…..10%…..123
AA…..PHX…..12.1M…..10%…..89
TG…..BKK…..12.1M…..96%…..62
PC…..SAW…..12.0M…..78%…..101
GA…..CGK…..11.9M…..70%…..50
AV…..BOG…..11.9M…..66%…..57
AK…..KUL…..11.9M…..77%…..71
SQ…..SIN…..11.8M…..95%…..56
MU…..PVG…..11.8M…..21%…..113
EY…..AUH…..11.7M…..99%…..89
JT…..CGK…..11.6M…..46%…..34
SV…..JED…..11.4M…..56%…..84
WN…..LAS…..11.3M…..11%…..60
FR…..STN…..11.3M…..17%…..146
WN…..BWI…..11.2M…..11%…..64
AM…..MEX…..11.0M…..85%…..82
AZ…..FCO…..10.6M…..74%…..92
WN…..DEN…..10.5M…..10%…..63
MU…..KMG…..10.3M…..18%…..91
LX…..ZRH…..10.2M…..88%…..90
VY…..BCN…..10.2M…..59%…..139
U2…..LGW…..10.2M…..24%…..109
KE…..ICN…..10.1M…..59%…..99
6E…..DEL…..10.0M…..35%…..34

All the AA ads in HK, position the DFW flight as the best way to South America. There are no ads stating the greatness and fun of going to Dallas, eating a steak or hanging out at a honky-tonk.

The only airport in the US with TWOV is ANC. Seeing as deep SA and east asia are practically antipodal, ANC on paper is the best connecting point in the US for those regions. However, for obvious reasons, it's not used as such.

hz747300 wrote:

All the AA ads in HK, position the
DFW flight as the best way to South America. There are no ads stating the greatness and fun of going to Dallas, eating a steak or hanging out at a honky-tonk.

There's nothing fun about going to Dallas.

Wow. It didn't take long for the cynics of a.net to dump on the OP's idea.

It's "fiction" clearly described as such in the title. I dunno why - maybe he wants to write a crime thriller set in ATL or maybe a love story. I guess he wants a big, crowded place with a lot of people from foreign countries, but he didn't get a lot of help here.

mariner

I think airports in this part of America are the worst geographically located to be any sort of transfer hub other than between South and North America. The coastal airports and somewhere further north like Chicago create far smaller distances.

mariner wrote:

Wow. It didn't take long for the cynics of a.net to dump on the OP's idea.

It's "fiction" clearly described as such in the title. I dunno why - maybe he wants to write a crime thriller set in ATL or maybe a love story. I guess he wants a big, crowded place with a lot of people from foreign countries, but he didn't get a lot of help here.

mariner

Yeah, I tend to agree with your point Mariner... It's very cynical around here...
There's something to be said about the bitterness and hate that goes around in this forum, and I really don't know why. I happen to frequent other fora, but none show the level of pent up bitterness -resentment even, as displayed here. It's as is if everybody is so keen to display their own knowledge to the detriment of others, and hardly ever knowledge is shared in a benign, fruitful, cohesive manner. Very sad. What a hugely missed opportunity.

BreezyIAH wrote:

Would it work dimensionally? I know the ME3 only have one airport to operate from but if you look at networks and ranges couldn't DFW or IAH technically be AUH, DXB, or DOH? They can already reach SE Asia, Australia, MIddle East.
And for sure as far as Luanda in Africa, maybe Johannesburg? And again not saying the US big3 would copy that model but is it realistic?

I have been wondering about this my self. And if you may, I would also include LAX and to a lesser extent SFO as good candidates. When traveling to New Zealand and Pacific Islands, I prefer to connect @LAX. I know a lot of people says it is a pain, and that you need to re-check luggage and so on, but it is actually very convenient. For example Oslo to New Zealand is shorter connecting @LAX than @DXB. going through IAH or DFW would also be sort of equal distance as Oslo to AKL through DXB. I know this is just one routing. flying through DFW and IAH to connect to South-America from Europe would be a big detour and is also more expensive than flying directly from Europe to South-America.

oldannyboy wrote:

mariner wrote:

Wow. It didn't take long for the cynics of a.net to dump on the OP's idea.

It's "fiction" clearly described as such in the title. I dunno why - maybe he wants to write a crime thriller set in ATL or maybe a love story. I guess he wants a big, crowded place with a lot of people from foreign countries, but he didn't get a lot of help here.

mariner

Yeah, I tend to agree with your point Mariner... It's very cynical around here...
There's something to be said about the bitterness and hate that goes around in this forum, and I really don't know why. I happen to frequent other fora, but none show the level of pent up bitterness -resentment even, as displayed here. It's as is if everybody is so keen to display their own knowledge to the detriment of others, and hardly ever knowledge is shared in a benign, fruitful, cohesive manner. Very sad. What a hugely missed opportunity.

I think part of the problem is that we do not really understand the question, which may suggest that it was not very well thought out in the first place. What would make DFW more like DXB? More 380s? More destinations? As shown upthread, the passenger count is not drastically different, and DFW is actually ahead in movements.

TWA772LR wrote:

The only airport in the US with TWOV is ANC. Seeing as deep SA and east asia are practically antipodal, ANC on paper is the best connecting point in the US for those regions. However, for obvious reasons, it's not used as such.

hz747300 wrote:

All the AA ads in HK, position the
DFW flight as the best way to South America. There are no ads stating the greatness and fun of going to Dallas, eating a steak or hanging out at a honky-tonk.

There's nothing fun about going to Dallas.

Don't know what you're talking about. The nightlife in Dallas is way better than Houston. Houston does have better food though.

Geographically ANC was such a hub for fights between NE Asia and Europe when China and Russia airspace was closed. Now those airspace are accessible to western airlines and longer range airliners have been developed ANC have ceased to function this way.
For Contential US, it only really make sense for travellers travelling into or out of Latin America, or traffic between Pacific and Europe. That is probably only very tiny amount of traffic in the grand scale of thing. MIA, ATL, LAX, etc. already act in this way for those relevant travellers.

commavia wrote:

DFW actually does, indeed, already function as a meaningful connecting point between Asia and South America. AA does substantial business at DFW linking the five nonstop Asian destinations (NRT, ICN, PEK, PVG and HKG) on one side of the hub with the five nonstop South America destinations (BOG, UIO, LIM, SCL, EZE, GRU and soon GIG) on the other side of the hub. (And that is all, of course, before even considering the additional, also quite substantial, business AA does connecting Asia with Mexico over DFW.)

DFW also takes some traffic from LHR to Australia, although probably not a significant amount compared to the eastbound traffic. It's one data point, but when I was coming back from LHR a few years ago on AA, there was a family connecting to the Qantas flight there in DFW.

commavia wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

DFW is one of the largest hubs in the world already. Given that the ME3 runs all of their capacity through one hub, I think it's impressive where they are today. Think about how much publicity and pomp and other bs EK gets, and then think about the fact that AA @ DFW alone carries nearly as many passengers as their whole airline.

It's even starker in comparison to the smaller ME3 carriers.

Scheduled departing seats Aug16-July17:
DL @ ATL - 47.48M
EK @ DXB - 37.75M
AA @ DFW - 33..06M
AA @ CLT - 24.96M
QR @ DOH - 22.76M
UA @ IAH - 18.65M
EY @ AUH - 11.75M

Very well put. The sheer scale of the largest U.S. network carriers hubs - as highlighted above, ATL and DFW in particular, is pretty incredible. I agree that, to at least some extent, the sheer enormity of these operations sometimes gets obscured by the fact that they function within networks that are even larger still. It's easier to focus on the scale of many other globally-recognized airline brands' main hubs since, in all but a very few cases, those airlines only really have one major hub.

DfwAussie wrote:

It's not going to turn into a cnx hub for pax doing Asia-DFW-South America.

DFW actually does, indeed, already function as a meaningful connecting point between Asia and South America. AA does substantial business at DFW linking the five nonstop Asian destinations (NRT, ICN, PEK, PVG and HKG) on one side of the hub with the five nonstop South America destinations (BOG, UIO, LIM, SCL, EZE, GRU and soon GIG) on the other side of the hub. (And that is all, of course, before even considering the additional, also quite substantial, business AA does connecting Asia with Mexico over DFW.)

I'm aware they do connect some pax over DFW between Asia and Latin America. Per the title, I took ti mean something of a superhub, like EK has at DXB. We know that won't happen.

TWA772LR wrote:

The only airport in the US with TWOV is ANC. Seeing as deep SA and east asia are practically antipodal, ANC on paper is the best connecting point in the US for those regions. However, for obvious reasons, it's not used as such.

hz747300 wrote:

All the AA ads in HK, position the
DFW flight as the best way to South America. There are no ads stating the greatness and fun of going to Dallas, eating a steak or hanging out at a honky-tonk.

There's nothing fun about going to Dallas.

Dallas used to be a fun place. Now however the nutty politicians and hipsters have made it quite less fun.

Rdh3e wrote:

In what way does DFW not already do this?

winginit wrote:

Have you not just described in many ways ATL (with the exception of an Oceanic nonstop), which is already a much larger hub than any of the ME3

LAXDude1023 wrote:

I would argue that DFW is pretty close to that as it is.

Less than 1 million international-international connections at DFW, IAH, and ATL (probably more like 500k) versus more than 20 million is not something any American airport is anywhere close to.

Sixth freedom connecting traffic is not big in the U.S. due to visa restrictions.

commavia wrote:

No need to add anything - that infrastructure already exists, and arriving international travelers already pass right by the sterile transit lounge when walking from their gate to customs. As said, the airport obviously does not have the ability to actually use those facilities - but they were built into D's design for potential future use.

Lots would need to be added to make CBP transit lounges at any U.S. airport, including DFW, remotely attractive for an international-international connecting passenger and therefore to be competitive with essentially most of the rest of global airlines, especially the ME3.

The above said, "Could a possibility become a fiction?" As with all of this type of threads, sure.

jetero wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

In what way does DFW not already do this?

winginit wrote:

Have you not just described in many ways ATL (with the exception of an Oceanic nonstop), which is already a much larger hub than any of the ME3

LAXDude1023 wrote:

I would argue that DFW is pretty close to that as it is.

Less than 1 million international-international connections at DFW, IAH, and ATL (probably more like 500k) versus more than 20 million is not something any American airport is anywhere close to.

Sixth freedom connecting traffic is not big in the U.S. due to visa restrictions.

commavia wrote:

No need to add anything - that infrastructure already exists, and arriving international travelers already pass right by the sterile transit lounge when walking from their gate to customs. As said, the airport obviously does not have the ability to actually use those facilities - but they were built into D's design for potential future use.

Lots would need to be added to make CBP transit lounges at any U.S. airport, including DFW, remotely attractive for an international-international connecting passenger and therefore to be competitive with essentially most of the rest of global airlines, especially the ME3.

The above said, "Could a possibility become a fiction?" As with all of this type of threads, sure.

Well the UAE only really has 3 intl gateways (Sharjah, DXB, and AUH) with very little domestic service. And Qatar only has 1 international gateway. What LAXdude means is DFW is as close you can get to a DXB-type hub in the US.

jetero wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

In what way does DFW not already do this?

winginit wrote:

Have you not just described in many ways ATL (with the exception of an Oceanic nonstop), which is already a much larger hub than any of the ME3

LAXDude1023 wrote:

I would argue that DFW is pretty close to that as it is.

Less than 1 million international-international connections at DFW, IAH, and ATL (probably more like 500k) versus more than 20 million is not something any American airport is anywhere close to.

Sixth freedom connecting traffic is not big in the U.S. due to visa restrictions.

Okay, but what is the practical difference on the ground between a WAW-DXB-BLR connection and a BOS-DFW-ELP connection?

BreezyIAH wrote:

Would it work dimensionally? I know the ME3 only have one airport to operate from but if you look at networks and ranges couldn't DFW or IAH technically be AUH, DXB, or DOH? They can already reach SE Asia, Australia, MIddle East.
And for sure as far as Luanda in Africa, maybe Johannesburg? And again not saying the US big3 would copy that model but is it realistic?

Perhaps, the question could be worded differently.

Similar to ME3, both DFW/IAH work for certain cases. Qantas flight to DFW with spokes to continental US. Even here, as others have pointed out, the requirement to pass thru immigration exists. However, on a small scale, this could be expanded to likes of Melbourne, Perth, and so forth.

But you reach the limits very quickly. For example, IAH is a great hub for secondary Mexico cities. However, it will always be under threat from competing point to point services.

TWA772LR wrote:

Well the UAE only really has 3 intl gateways (Sharjah, DXB, and AUH) with very little domestic service. And Qatar only has 1 international gateway. What LAXdude means is DFW is as close you can get to a DXB-type hub in the US.

Well sure. So why isn't the question then, "Could DFW or IAH fictionally become as busy as international gateways as JFK, LAX, or MIA?" Of, if Houston were a city-state like Dubai, would IAH become a hub like DXB because all the people connecting from MSY, AUS, SAT, ORD, etc. would then be counted as international?

DXB has large population centers in every direction, more often than not in countries not served well by a subsidized national airline. But the DXB/AMS/FRA/HKG/SIN (list goes on and on) business model is very different than any other U.S. hub, essentially entirely because of the regulatory environment. Go up north to YYZ and YVR and it's a different story. If the regulatory environment changed, sure, ATL, DFW, IAH, and MIA would probably be best positioned to capitalize given the comparatively unconstrained facilities (a la JFK and LAX).

Anyway, as OP posted in the original title, it's a fiction.

The only reason for a Transfer HUB in the US would be to get to SA from Europe or Asia. Don't see much use for that at all. Also my guess is the vast majority of thsoe would want to do a stop over in the US anyway.

UpNAWAy wrote:

The only reason for a Transfer HUB in the US would be to get to SA from Europe or Asia. Don't see much use for that at all. Also my guess is the vast majority of thsoe would want to do a stop over in the US anyway.

Asia, sure there is. Europe from anywhere south of Central America? No. And attractive only to airlines looking to fill otherwise empty seats for what they could charge for.

jetero wrote:

Less than 1 million international-international connections at DFW, IAH, and ATL (probably more like 500k) versus more than 20 million is not something any American airport is anywhere close to.

So the relevant quality is strictly I to I cnx as opposed to other passenger flows? If that's the case, then no US airport, be it DFW, IAH, or any other hub, would ever have the incentive to prioritize I to I connecting traffic over the existing D to D and D to I connections. So fictionally or otherwise, the answer to your question is no on account of the domestic US air travel market being the most refined and financially lucrative one in the world. No need to cast that traffic to the wayside in favor of I to I.

TWA772LR wrote:

Well the UAE only really has 3 intl gateways (Sharjah, DXB, and AUH) with very little domestic service.

Ha, yeah. It's a fairly meaningless comparison given that the UAE has essentially zero domestic air travel market and Qatar has literally zero, and thus, unsurprisingly, the percentage of connections at these hubs that are domestic is ... low. No different that virtually any other air hub from any airline on earth not located in China, India or maybe HND in Japan. The U.S. domestic air travel market is obviously vast, and thus - again, unsurprisingly - domestic connections will constitute a far larger percentage of overall hub connections versus just about any hub in Europe, let alone the Mid East.

winginit wrote:

jetero wrote:

Less than 1 million international-international connections at DFW, IAH, and ATL (probably more like 500k) versus more than 20 million is not something any American airport is anywhere close to.

So the relevant quality is strictly I to I cnx as opposed to other passenger flows? If that's the case, then no US airport, be it DFW, IAH, or any other hub, would ever have the incentive to prioritize I to I connecting traffic over the existing D to D and D to I connections. So fictionally or otherwise, the answer to your question is no on account of the domestic US air travel market being the most refined and financially lucrative one in the world. No need to cast that traffic to the wayside in favor of I to I.

Maybe not in favor, but as a supplement, sure. A filled seat is a filled seat. Especially if a business can be made whereby it can be charged at attractive-enough fares. And there is enough of that going on today, even more so than before with the joint ventures. It just pales in comparison to a sixth-freedom connecting hub like DXB, AMS, SIN, HKG, etc.

Again, look up north to YYZ and YVR. Is AC able to connect less dense international markets to its hubs nonstop and charge attractive fares for the relatively few people flying from, say YYZ-BOG, on a given day than it otherwise would be if it weren't also able to attract sixth-freedom connecting traffic?

What you're saying is like saying "Well, why does Delta need to bother with connecting traffic in ATL when it has the originating traffic because the originating traffic is more valuable anyway?"

Geography is the ME3's greatest advantage while being the US3's (or any airline in the Americas) biggest disadvantage. The ME is in the perfect location to draw connecting traffic from 4 continents. The hubs in the US? Not so much.

jetero wrote:

winginit wrote:

jetero wrote:

Less than 1 million international-international connections at DFW, IAH, and ATL (probably more like 500k) versus more than 20 million is not something any American airport is anywhere close to.

So the relevant quality is strictly I to I cnx as opposed to other passenger flows? If that's the case, then no US airport, be it DFW, IAH, or any other hub, would ever have the incentive to prioritize I to I connecting traffic over the existing D to D and D to I connections. So fictionally or otherwise, the answer to your question is no on account of the domestic US air travel market being the most refined and financially lucrative one in the world. No need to cast that traffic to the wayside in favor of I to I.

Maybe not in favor, but as a supplement, sure. A filled seat is a filled seat. Especially if a business can be made whereby it can be charged at attractive-enough fares. And there is enough of that going on today, even more so than before with the joint ventures. It just pales in comparison to a sixth-freedom connecting hub like DXB, AMS, SIN, HKG, etc.

Again, look up north to YYZ and YVR. Is AC able to connect less dense international markets to its hubs nonstop and charge attractive fares for the relatively few people flying from, say YYZ-BOG, on a given day than it otherwise would be if it weren't also able to attract sixth-freedom connecting traffic?

What you're saying is like saying "Well, why does Delta need to bother with connecting traffic in ATL when it has the originating traffic because the originating traffic is more valuable anyway?"

Outside of the obvious transit visa obstacles that have already been discussed, to supplement existing flows with more I to I connectivity would require infrastructure investments; and to justify those investments an airport like DFW or IAH would once again be in the position of weighing the ability to handle more D to D and D to I flows versus I to I. You can probably guess which path would be chosen again on account of the economics and the stability of the marketplace.

Cubsrule wrote:

I think part of the problem is that we do not really understand the question, which may suggest that it was not very well thought out in the first place. What would make DFW more like DXB? More 380s? More destinations? As shown upthread, the passenger count is not drastically different, and DFW is actually ahead in movements.

Then it would be more helpful (and kinder) to the OP to say that - that you don't understand the question. Or worst case, ignore it, there is no law that you have to respond to every thread on a.net, especially one you don't understand - LOL.

mariner

winginit wrote:

jetero wrote:

winginit wrote:

So the relevant quality is strictly I to I cnx as opposed to other passenger flows? If that's the case, then no US airport, be it DFW, IAH, or any other hub, would ever have the incentive to prioritize I to I connecting traffic over the existing D to D and D to I connections. So fictionally or otherwise, the answer to your question is no on account of the domestic US air travel market being the most refined and financially lucrative one in the world. No need to cast that traffic to the wayside in favor of I to I.

Maybe not in favor, but as a supplement, sure. A filled seat is a filled seat. Especially if a business can be made whereby it can be charged at attractive-enough fares. And there is enough of that going on today, even more so than before with the joint ventures. It just pales in comparison to a sixth-freedom connecting hub like DXB, AMS, SIN, HKG, etc.

Again, look up north to YYZ and YVR. Is AC able to connect less dense international markets to its hubs nonstop and charge attractive fares for the relatively few people flying from, say YYZ-BOG, on a given day than it otherwise would be if it weren't also able to attract sixth-freedom connecting traffic?

What you're saying is like saying "Well, why does Delta need to bother with connecting traffic in ATL when it has the originating traffic because the originating traffic is more valuable anyway?"

Outside of the obvious transit visa obstacles that have already been discussed, to supplement existing flows with more I to I connectivity would require infrastructure investments; and to justify those investments an airport like DFW or IAH would once again be in the position of weighing the ability to handle more D to D and D to I flows versus I to I. You can probably guess which path would be chosen again on account of the economics and the stability of the marketplace.

I don't entirely disagree but I think it's naive for you to think that if the visa restrictions change (again, a fiction) that airports wouldn't make investments to accommodate them. ATL, for example, went from having probably not even 5 international flights in 1980 when the new terminal complex open to one of the biggest U.S. gateways. What investments have been made since 1980 in the way of gates? Essentially, only international ones.

If visa liberalization were achieved in concert with relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions, I'd certainly take the bet that the Big 3 would chase the traffic. Not at all hubs for sure but certainly at a handful of selected ones.

fraspotter wrote:

Geography is the ME3's greatest advantage while being the US3's (or any airline in the Americas) biggest disadvantage. The ME is in the perfect location to draw connecting traffic from 4 continents. The hubs in the US? Not so much.

Having the world's largest domestic market for essentially the entire history of flight (but not for much longer) is nothing to sneeze at either.

jetero wrote:

If visa liberalization were achieved in concert with relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions, I'd certainly take the bet that the Big 3 would chase the traffic. Not at all hubs for sure but certainly at a handful of selected ones.

I'm not sure that visa liberalization is really the problem. Don't a pretty high fraction of high-yielding transfer passengers either enjoy visa-free transit in the US through VWP or hold a multi-entry US visa?

Cubsrule wrote:

jetero wrote:

If visa liberalization were achieved in concert with relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions, I'd certainly take the bet that the Big 3 would chase the traffic. Not at all hubs for sure but certainly at a handful of selected ones.

I'm not sure that visa liberalization is really the problem. Don't a pretty high fraction of high-yielding transfer passengers either enjoy visa-free transit in the US through VWP or hold a multi-entry US visa?

Sure they do. But plenty choose not to connect in the U.S. perceived CBP and security hassles are one of several reasons, and that's why industry groups have spoken openly in support of improving processes until terrorist attacks became perceived again as a larger problem. For a multitude of reasons, it's not a business segment U.S. airlines can concertedly chase for now.