4 Responses

  1. Matt
    Matt at |

    Ignoring population for a moment, does it really make sense to have giant connecting hubs so close together in one alliance? I did a quick application in Great Circle Mapper (http://bit.ly/1jYmtek) and MUC-ZRH is 189 miles. I can see easy comparisons to Boston, NYC, PHL, and DC, but you get different alliances.

    From an *A award travel standpoint, I see them ranked (easy to hard for EU to US) as VIE, FRA, MUC, BRU, ZRH. Otherwise, they are all so close, back tracking from the UK or Spain doesn’t really matter.

    But looking further in to things, can we see data that shows how much each contribute from an O&D vs. connecting standpoint? I suspect my easy to hard would be most connection to least connections.

  2. Oliver2002
    Oliver2002 at |

    45-55% of MUC traffic is originating in the region, BRU, ZRH and VIE is higher, so the hubs are not competing like say ORD competes with IAH or DFW&CLT.

  3. Billy
    Billy at |

    Hubs in Europe are more based on political boundaries than any other factor. While it might make sense strategically to combine, let’s say, BRU and MUC, neither of the carriers operating those hubs will move to the other country.

    This dynamic is very different than the US. While ATL and MEM are also very close, matters of national pride are not involved in such a closer discussion.

    As to hubs going away, even over there, it’s a long time before we might see a meaningful reduction in hubs. There won’t be any PITs or CVGs (with closed concourses/terminals), except if a carrier goes bust.

  4. Matt
    Matt at |

    Just looking at some of the specifics of the Lufthansa Group, I would surmise that the WINGS strategy is similar to the Tyrolean Air (http://bit.ly/WqbWy3) strategy after the Austrian Air purchase. Also the Edelweis Air piece of SWISS. Doesn’t that give them some good experience operating a sub-fleet?