Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Dave,
Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single
airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single
airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolis and Detroit, US Airways in
Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt
Lake City, America West in Phoenix, United in Denver, and so on.
Chicago is one of the few major US airports that is a dual hub (American
and United). And yes, Minneapolis is a hub.
I failed to distinguish which type of 'hub' I meant. You are, of course,
correct that an airline's hub will tend towards monopolistic fragility.
I mean "international" hub. These are serviced by a wide range of airlines,
with direct flights all the heck over the place. There are relatively few of
these in the world, and they have the major benefits of a) lots of capacity and
b) lots of alternatives, should a given airline have a problem. For example in
the US, who "dominates" LAX, SFO, JFK or ORD for international? Elsewhere even
with a national airline, there is massive variety for getting to places like
LHR, AMS, SIN, HKG, and so on.
Total numbers of passengers is probably a useful heuristic, but note that it is
not sufficient. What we need are places that have high passenger numbers AND
good distributions of passengers/airline. This latter ensures minimal
"dominance".
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf