4 replies to this topic

[Avelo]

When I run an airline, I tend to spontaneously prefer a traditional hub-and-spoke network where I can generate more passenger traffic through connecting flights via a single airport. Point-to-point networks, on the other hand, don't address connecting passengers, but rather just focus on a clientele wishing to fly straight from A to B and nothing else. Whether to operate a hub-centric network or not is up to the individual player, but I have a feeling AE encourages hub-and-spoke networks for the sake of attracting transfer traffic which could make up for otherwise weaker passenger demand on nonstop routes between two airports. Anyway, feel free to comment: do you prefer hub-and-spoke or point-to-point?

[Anzatax]

Both.

 

Currently in one of the worlds I am playing in, I am unable to fly many point-to-point routes (I am based in tiny Singapore), so I'll have to rely on my hub, which is also limited to one. How I wish for point-to-point routes from other cities right now!

[Airplane09]

In AE, Hub and Spoke is obviously much more profitable, but I think that point to point is more like the trend today in the real world.

[tyriq]

Depends what country you're in. You can operate an efficient point to point service in countries like USA, China, Open skies European countries, and India, Brazil, and canada to an extent. (And maybe japan).

Other than those you should lean toward hub and spoke because all other countries are smaller and only have like 2 airports with over 20 million passengers.

[Appassionata]

I run mostly hub-to-spoke, but with a lot of hubs - like 50~55 hubs in USA, 10~15 hubs in UK, etc. So it really becomes somewhere in between because there are 2,500+ hub-to-hub routes alone, with about same number of hub-to-spoke routes.