Airlines have, with few exceptions, adopted the hub model. They establish a hub, or a focus city(aka hublet – little hub), and build service to and from it to the point that you know if you want to fly with them, you’ll be passing through there.
The hub model has many logistical issues as it is accomplished today. First…everyone wants nonstop service. We don’t blame them. We prefer them ourselves. Fortunately, we reside in larger markets with more nonstops, but we have lived in smaller ones with limited regional service, and thus understand the issues.
The hubs were once broken down into even more finely tuned pieces. Regional flights were once designed to get passengers to the nearest decent sized city with a good amount of traffic. It is the takeoff and landing portion of a trip that are the most taxing on airplanes…and few people want to be in the air for only a 20 minute flight. Calculating that an average regional flight should be 45 minutes to 1 hour…that puts a roughly 400-500 mile range on the maximum length of time someone should be on a flight from a small market. Some of these flights are as long as 2.5 hours.
If we must use the hub model…at least lets limit the hub flights to that distance. Otherwise, we can always go back to older models.
Southwest insists it uses the popular point-to-point model…assessing unique traffic bound for the destination it is serving…but they do have hubs. Many airlines diverge from their hub model when it si in their interest, and open up point-to-point. Jetblue has embarked on a program to ‘connect-the-dots’, offering nonstop service between cities it already serves, allowing passengers to bypass its busy JFK hub(and the disaster of last Valentine’s Day).
The final model is the route model. Looking at old timetables…there were once planes that flew a route, making several stops between two points. Some airlines do this, including Southwest…breaking up longer flights. There are positives to this modeling on the regional level, and it is used for EAS service.
The most practical solution is reducing hub flying by creating more hublets…calculating the nearest city that is far enough away that someone might want to fly there for something other than changing planes, and close enough that they can get to a larger sized plane more quickly. Once we return regional aircraft back to regional service, we can insist that routes between larger markets operate using larger airplanes, reducing our overtaxed airports. This will require an investment on the part of our airlines, but…it is long overdue anyway.
As mentioned in a previous article…we also need to make it easier for people to get to a larger airport without a plane. The government has alwas stood by with subsidies for improvements it considers in the public good. Subsidizing a run from the town bus station to the airport a few times a day, allowing farflung passengers to come in and board a plane…rerouting trains to create an airport station…all these will decentralize aviation.
Some may complain about the loss of service, or additional flying time. But…where would you rather spend your time…laying over or making an extra stop to get to your final destination…or sitting on the tarmac waiting for 20 other planes to take off so you can?