[saosebastiao]

Inevitably in comments about the demise of the 747 or A380, people refer to the proliferation of point to point routes. But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. There is an illusion of the proliferation of point to point routes caused by the proliferation of new hubs. For example, Seattle now has ~20 more direct international destinations with a year round schedule than it did 15 years ago, which makes it seem like point to point routes are more common. But careful inspection shows that every single direct international route from SEA is a hub and spoke route for the airline flying it, with either the hub in Seattle, or the hub at the destination.

When these aircraft were conceived, all industry momentum was pointed toward superhubs, and all of the superhubs were capacity constrained. Landing and takeoff slots were constrained and airports were moving to auction models to sell the slots. Terminal space was becoming more and more expensive. These planes weren't more efficient because they could move more people, they were more efficient because they didn't cost as much to land and take off and load and unload. The reality of the matter is that Boeing and Airbus didn't incorrectly forecast the decline of hub and spoke models, they incorrectly forecasted the decline of superhubs.

[dontbenebby]

> But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more.

I wish trains were lower priced. I'd much rather, say, fly to Paris then take a train to Brussels rather than take a technically shorter flight that might get delayed, or I might miss if the customs line is long.

But my choices are often expensive direct flight, cheaper hub and spoke flight - plane+train is often more expensive :(