A lot of the marketing of the 787 was geared towards its ability to fly point to point routes as opposed to the A380's hub to hub strategy. However, several years into service, the 787 doesn't seem different than any 777, A330, or A350 flying a hub-spoke route. Does anyone actually fly a point to point route with the 787?

Maybe not in Boeing sense, but certainly look at routes such as LHR-AUS, Japan-BOS, perhaps not true point to point but certainly long thin routes.

SYD/HNL, MEL/HNL both nonstop with JQ. At HNL they turn around & go back to OZ. Similarly with other low costs such as Scoot at SIN.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

A lot of the marketing of the 787 was geared towards its ability to fly point to point routes as opposed to the A380's hub to hub strategy. However, several years into service, the 787 doesn't seem different than any 777, A330, or A350 flying a hub-spoke route. Does anyone actually fly a point to point route with the 787?

This has been discussed quite a bit, and at the end, the issue is that people will disagree on what is meant by "point to point." Two primary camps will come to the surface:

1) People who interpret "point" to be a synonym of "spoke" and antonym of "hub." For this group, the answer is "no" as the 787 flies almost entirely hub-to-hub or hub-to-spoke, and does not generally fly spoke-to-spoke (point-to-point).

2) People who interpret "point-to-point" to mean that the plane will have rendered previously infeasible flights to be economically feasible, thereby allowing non-stop service on a city pair where an intermediate stop may have been previously required even if one or both ends of the new route are a hub. An example of this would be SFO-SIN on UA; while SFO is clearly a UA hub, this non-stop service allows passengers to travel directly point to point on a single flight between San Francisco and Singapore rather than requiring an intermediate transit at a point like NRT or HKG. For people with this interpretation, the answer is "yes" since there have been many new routes which appear to have been partially or entirely made feasible due to the 787's unique characteristics (some of which are replicated by the A350).

Funny you mention LHR-AUS, considering it will soon be a 744 route!

CTU-SFO.

ALL TUI’s routes are point to point.

Staralexi wrote:

ALL TUI’s routes are point to point.

The charter/vacation carriers are the only ones flying it truly p2p, and even THEN some of them still have focii-point, if we really want to be technically.

77west wrote:

Maybe not in Boeing sense, but certainly look at routes such as LHR-AUS, Japan-BOS, perhaps not true point to point but certainly long thin routes.

What's so "thin" about a route that's scheduled to be a 744?

USAOZ wrote:

SYD/HNL, MEL/HNL both nonstop with JQ. At HNL they turn around & go back to OZ. Similarly with other low costs such as Scoot at SIN.

These routes were previously operated by a 330 so not made possible by the 787.

LAX772LR wrote:

77west wrote:

Maybe not in Boeing sense, but certainly look at routes such as LHR-AUS, Japan-BOS, perhaps not true point to point but certainly long thin routes.

What's so "thin" about a route that's scheduled to be a 744?

This highlights another useful characteristic of the 787, which is that by making previously uneconomic routes viable, it can then serve to develop and grow demand for a bigger a/c. LHR-AUS could not have been launched with a 744.

Job done, BA can deploy the 787 somewhere else and go about nurturing another new route.

Air India’s ATQ-BHX?

jamesontheroad wrote:

This highlights another useful characteristic of the 787, which is that by making previously uneconomic routes viable, it can then serve to develop and grow demand for a bigger a/c. LHR-AUS could not have been launched with a 744.

But who's to say it couldn't have been launched with a 767, A330, 777, A350, etc.

No one.

Automatically attributing that to the 787, just because it happened to be the choice to do so, is rather anecdotal. Remember that other medium cities like MSY and IND actually had 767s announce their first/resumed TATL service, not 787s.

TUIfly Netherlands once planned to fly Eindhoven - Aruba/Curacao with the 787. That never happened, but only because of legal issues. The demand was there for sure and if these legal issues hadn't been there they would have launched this route. Eindhoven is just a regional airport and Aruba and Curacao aren't hubs either.

So the question is if the 787 flies routes not possible for other aircraft. Perhaps some long thin routes, mentioned here. How many routes are those out of the routes flown by the 787?
The 787 is not a wonder plane, just an evolution to the 767 or 330.

As others said, I guess this is more of a marketing statement by Boeing. What they meant is that 787 could fly point to point routes profitably, but it does not mean it would be the best option for airlines. I mean, if 787 is designed to carry 250-280 passengers, how many point to point routes would be able to live up to those numbers around the year?

It’s opened up Asian routes from YUL, in the past to go to Asia from YUL you had to connect at YVR or YYZ.

To say that the 787 flies a lot of P2P routes, one has to change the P2P definition to H2P and talk about that P2P always meant H2P.

There has been very few real P2P routes opened by the 787 and still fewer that could not have been done by an A330 or 767..

By steex's point #2, the viability of UA's DEN-NRT was attributed directly to the 787.

The revival of sjc is thanks to the 787 right?

There are a lot of both varieties in Norwegian’s operation.

I would say there are some, but not that many. Norwegian's routes are mostly P2P as they fly 787s from different bases to destinations, TUI in the UK fly from multiple bases to destinations for example. I don't consider new routes opened up from existing hubs to be P2P, and this 'innovation' is somewhat overstated, it's a similar evolution from 747 --> 777 --> A332, even if it does provide more options and eliminates the need for a change.

It's an interesting point.I also agree with Steex's point 2.Clearly the more economic a 'small' jet is the more routes become potentially profitable.This could be said of the 321lr too I imagine.
But if the vast bulk of the trips are the 'usual ones' it suggests (I think) that airlines are taking less risks with the potential profitability of a route and perhaps adding frequency where possible (which we know consumers like).

mjoelnir wrote:

To say that the 787 flies a lot of P2P routes, one has to change the P2P definition to H2P and talk about that P2P always meant H2P.

There has been very few real P2P routes opened by the 787 and still fewer that could not have been done by an A330 or 767..

Well to be semantically pedantic, the OP was only asking if 787s are flying such routes, not if they are flying "a lot" of these routes, nor if they opened any

So maybe to anticipate the usual debate :
Q : Does the 787 actually fly any point to point routes? [as per OP]
A : Yes, a few (*)

Q : Is the 787 actually the first aircraft to fly on newly opened routes ?
A : Yes, on a few (*) routes that appeared due to evolution of economic, social, political and/or infrastructure conditions on either end, evolution of airline business models (long haul LCC), combined with the improved economics of the aircraft vs previous generation aircraft (as could be expected from any new aircraft design)

Q : Is the 787 actually the first aircraft to fly on newly opened "P2P" routes ?
A : Could be(*), on a couple(*) routes

Q : Is the 787 actually enabling newly opened routes, i.e. these routes would be non-viable without it ?
A : As per answer above, there are many parameters which define the economic viability of a route, therefore it is difficult to assign its viability to the sole availability of the 787. Most new routes would likely have been viable at some point with an A330, a 767 or a 777. Perhaps the viability point was reached a bit earlier thanks to the 787. So the answer is likely no.

Q: Did the 787 radically and single-handedly change the route networks of the air transport industry, allowing existing major airports to be bypassed thanks to game-changing economics ?
A : Certainly not. The industry trend for several decades has been towards 1-stop journeys (not 2), and most 787 usage is in the continuity of this trend

(* : answers cannot be more precise without a clear agreed definition of "point", as per the reply by steex)

Melbourne (Australia) has to be one of the best examples of the benefits of the 787 such as MEL-XMN, MEL-YVR, MEL-SCL, MEL-DEL and soon MEL-PER-LHR

I agree with the comments on TUI and Norwegian. Those to me are the only "genuine" P2P routes actually resulting from the use of 787s.

So to answer the sub-text of the question, no the 787 was not the P2P(*) game-changer that it was promoted to be. (*) Noting that P2P was very clearly described *AT THE TIME* as avoiding all hubs!

speedbird52 wrote:

Funny you mention LHR-AUS, considering it will soon be a 744 route!

I made that point before regarding BOS. There's little doubt that the 787 made it easier for BOS to finally get their first Asian route (NRT-BOS), but when you look at many of the new long haul routes that have been started since (DXB, HKG, TLV), they are all operated with 777/767. So the argument that these routes couldn't exist before the 787 doesn't really hold much water. Even the routes to China should have been feasible with the 777 but it just so happens that Hainan doesn't have any in their fleet. IMO, what the 787/A350 brought to the table was the ability to start new routes at a lower cost and lower risk to the airlines.

airbazar wrote:

So the argument that these routes couldn't exist before the 787 doesn't really hold much water. Even the routes to China should have been feasible with the 777 but it just so happens that Hainan doesn't have any in their fleet.

So why did Hainan not buy 777's or A330's to operate these routes since they were feasible?
Why are they now feasible only with another a/c, was the financing of the 787 cheaper than the financing of the 777 or the A330?

I will leave the definition of P2P as already mentioned, it all depends on the point folks want to make / enforce, I'll stick to the thoughts behind why the routes were actually flown.

The 787/A350 help turn legacyvroutes that had become marginal (or canceled) profitable.

LAX-SYD on UA. LAX-Tokyo for AA. LAX-SIN for SQ.

I'd say LAX-KIX is a P2P route.

par13del wrote:

airbazar wrote:

So the argument that these routes couldn't exist before the 787 doesn't really hold much water. Even the routes to China should have been feasible with the 777 but it just so happens that Hainan doesn't have any in their fleet.

So why did Hainan not buy 777's or A330's to operate these routes since they were feasible?

because Hainan was still growing and could not expand faster into new markets at that time?

KRK-ORD so far once a week by LOT! LO has no feed in KRK and very limited United feed in Chicago. The route previously (1998-2010 or so) operated up to 6x week in the summers with 762/763 aircraft, so it's not like the 787 opened up the market. But after a seven year hiatus, the route returned in July on the 788, 1 weekly year-round. Fingers crossed for it to go up to 3x/week at least. The traffic is there, and yields have improved since the 2000's when the route was almost exclusively VFR. With all the foreign (US) investment in Kraków and the economy growing, there's more business traffic now. Also, more folks are willing to upgrade to Premium Eco or Business on leisure travel. Cheers

HU non PEK flights such as BOS/SEA-PVG and the new NYC + LA flights to secondary China are the only p2p's that really stands out to me. BOS-PEK/NRT are spoke-hub with large O+D between the spoke and hub.

clickhappy wrote:

I'd say LAX-KIX is a P2P route.

For what airline that does not have a hub in LAX?

Point-to-point long-haul is close to an oxymoron. It has to be a market between two large metro areas, or between a large metro area and a leisure destination, served by an airline that has no hub at either end. It is as common as a golden lion monkey.

SEA-SZX by Xiamen is literally the definition of a P2P route.

What about BA's LHR-SCL? Does it count?

KIX-LAX is flown by JAL.

As mentioned, LOT's O'Hare to Krakow may fall into this, although some may argue they are receiving connections to/from the Star Alliance hub at O'Hare (United).

In spring 2018 LOT will be starting Budapest to JFK ... and depending on how you argue against Krakow to O'Hare, then Budapest to O'Hare would fall into the same category.

These are metaphorical terms and allow a multitude of definitions, or better, usages. All flights are point to point in the most elementary sense. Any flight can be used by someone or airline to fly a specific leg, and hence transfer to another leg. The intermediate airport is the 'hub'.

A peculiar thing happened at SeaTac. They thought they were a gateway to the Orient, and kind of were. It had hopes of becoming a true hub. Then more capable planes came along, flew right over Seattle at 30K feet, and it no longer was. They did manage to have a dozen or so flights to Asia and Europe so it kind of was a point to point airport. Narita, Taipai, London and Amsterdam were its 'hubs'. Then some of those same planes had more capability, and along came Delta and once again it is kind of a hub.

A big handful of airports in the US are classic hubs. Most are not, but a few dozen kind of are. You can play around with the definition of the metaphors, but they remain that - a level of abstract thinking.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I agree with the comments on TUI and Norwegian. Those to me are the only "genuine" P2P routes actually resulting from the use of 787s.

For TUI, certainly. Only very few people transfer to/from a TUI flight, it's almost entirely O/D. For Norwegian however this is not the case, Norwegian does have quite a number of transfer passengers on their Dreamliners. I was one of them one day. First took a feeder flight Amsterdam - Stockholm to get on a 787 Stockholm - Bangkok. On the way back it was exactly the same. Bangkok - Oslo on a 787, then connecting to a 737 for the last piece Oslo - Amsterdam.

O/D passengers are passengers without a feeder flight at any end. Passengers who do not transfer. There may always be O/D passengers on any flight, but most of them got a feeder flight at either end of the line. That's also the case on Norwegian since Norwegian is one of the few LCCs that do allow for transfers.

From JFK, any of the routes to China on a Dreamliner are P2P. Examples are FOC-JFK in Xiamen and CTU-JFK on Hainan.

There are tons of examples. I can't think of better ones than LOT's new Budapest to USA routes or Avianca Cali/Medillin - Madrid.

Air Austral
Dzaoudzi DZA – CDG Paris CDG (Commenced)

Air Canada
Calgary – Frankfurt (Commenced)

Air China
Shenzhen SZX – LAX Los Angeles – Starts 7 December 2017

Avianca
Cali CLO – MAD Madrid (Commenced)
Medellin MDE – MAD Madrid (Commenced)

Air India
Ahmedabad AMD – LHR London Heathrow – EWR Newark (Commenced)

Air New Zealand
Christchurch CHC – PER Perth (Commenced)

China Southern
Urumqi – Beijing (Commenced)
Urumqi – Kashi/Kashgar (Commenced)
Urumqi – Shanghai Hongqiao (Commenced)
Wuhan – San Francisco (Commenced)

Hainan
Haikou HAK – CKG Chongqing – Rome FCO (Commenced)
Changsha CSX – LAX Los Angeles (Commenced) (787-9)
Chengdu CTU – LAX Los Angeles (Commenced)
Chengdu CTU – JFK New York (Commenced)
Chongqing CKG – LAX Los Angeles (Commenced)
Chongqing CKG – JFK New York (Commenced)

Jetstar
Brisbane BNE – DPS Denpasar Bali (Commenced)
Cairns CNS – KIX Osaka Kansai (Commenced)
Cairns CNS – NRT Tokyo Narita (Commenced)
Gold Coast OOL – NRT Tokyo Narita (Commenced)

LOT Polish Airlines
Budapest – Chicago O’Hare – Starts 5 May 2018
Budapest – New York JFK – Starts 3 May 2018
Krakow KRK – ORD Chicago O’Hare (Commenced)

Norwegian
Barcelona BCN – FLL Fort Lauderdale (Commenced)
Barcelona BCN – LAX Los Angeles (Commenced)
Barcelona BCN – EWR Newark (Commenced)
Barcelona BCN – OAK Oakland (Commenced) (787-8/9)
Rome Fiumicino FCO – LAX Los Angeles – Starts 11 November 2017
Rome Fiumicino FCO – EWR Newark Liberty – Starts 9 November 2017
Rome Fiumicino FCO – OAK Oakland – Starts 6 February 2018

Qantas
Perth PER – LHR London Heathrow – Starts March 2018

http://www.airportspotting.com/boeing-787-routes-2/

mjoelnir wrote:

because Hainan was still growing and could not expand faster into new markets at that time?

....or the economy of both regions were not able to financially allow direct connections, same difference.

Both the 747 and the A380 were built with the notion of connecting major cities, such as JFK-LHR or FRA-NRT. The idea was that at one end or the other, you connected.

What the 787 has done (and had been done to some extent with the 767 and A330) is taken spokes that might have connected at one hub and connected them to the other. I'm sure that for people who are flying AUS-LHR, they would have connected at DFW or IAH until BA launched the non-stop. For someone who lives in San Antonio, instead of flying to DFW or IAH (or other European gateways), they can drive to AUS and take the BA non-stop.

Though they definitely make use of the KL network, I would also say some of their recent additions are also P2P: AMS-CMB/MRU/SJO

The idea behing P2P (and the 787) was bypassing hubs creating routes between mid size destinations. And people here keep posting routes to/from LHR/JFK/LAX....

A real point to point is O&D to O&D, of course not 100%, but not below 50%. If you have on one side or both sides more than half connecting passengers and even if the feed is by other airlines, than one should not talk about point to point flights.

This setting up the 787 as a point to point frame and the A380 as hub to hub, is the basis of this discussion. And again when Airbus started the A380 and Boeing started the 787, Airbus had a P2P frame with the A330 and Boeing had a H2H frame with the 747.

In reality most of the 787 are used hub to hub or hub to point. And the A380 are at the biggest user, Emirates, not used hub to hub, because the only Emirates hub is DXB, but they are used hub to point as in a hub and spoke system.

I dont think a 787 with an airline can be used properly when the airline only has 1 or 2 of them. When the airline just inserts them in old 767 / A330 routes, they dont gain much from that.

BA is the one airline I can think of, flying to Nashville, Austin, San Jose, San Diego, and i am sure other medium size airport around the world, is how the 787 is supposed to be used. Going from Point to point and avoiding hubs, like its been said in this thread.

BA 787-8 - 214 passengers - For a medium size airport and not a hub, the capacity is enough where they can fill the plane and make money, and have a successful route.

Austin upgrading to 747- Based on the 787 success, they are upgraded the plane. Pre 787- BA would never have known that Austin would be so successful.

United and the San Fran hub is another example!

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

A lot of the marketing of the 787 was geared towards its ability to fly point to point routes as opposed to the A380's hub to hub strategy. However, several years into service, the 787 doesn't seem different than any 777, A330, or A350 flying a hub-spoke route.

Here is a great example of what Boeing was ACTUALLY 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 the strategy was about eliminating intermediate stops, increasing the number of city-pairs served, increasing frequencies, and following the trend of ASKs increasing whilst average airplane size decreases.

At no point did Boeing say that the 787 was the only aircraft that could execute that strategy.

In an earlier discussion someone pointed out that EK's use of A380s follows most of this strategy other than average airplane size decreasing and I agreed.

I think a lot of Boeing's hype was around being able to change the economics. Clearly early on in the program they thought they'd be able to make 787s cheaply. Clearly they were way off on their cost of production.