I don't understand hub captivity...
I mean, I understand the concept: your home airport is a hub to a certain airline, and you feel stuck with that airline.
What I don't understand is why people at these home airports find it hard to switch to another airline (presumably other airlines fly there). Is it because prices are higher at hubs even with other airlines? Or the thought of additional connections? I live in a non-hub airport with few direct flights, so most of my domestic flights require connecting. Is living in a hub and flying other airlines any worse? |
I think it mostly comes down to direct flights. Maybe others on here have a different opinion. I'm in MSP, which is probably 80% DL traffic. Yet I "choose" to fly UA. Mostly because every flight I need to take is allowed by my corporate booking tool. Unlike DL where $1000 economy fares to go a few states over are becoming surprisingly frequent.
|
Usually it's because people don't feel they can take connecting flights. Whether the airport is so poorly served by other airlines that 1-stop options are not limited, or people feel their time is far too limited/valuable to take 1-stop flights, the dominant carrier feels like the only viable option.
I live in a city that is home to hubs for three major airlines, and Delta isn't one of them. I chose to fly Delta anyway. For me, the benefits of doing so outweighed the inconvenience of a connection. For others, the same might not be true. |
A lot of people work for companies that have contracts that may require that they fly the hub airline.
Or as you are very accustomed to having to connect, going non stop is typically a more reliable way to get to your destination as a delay doesn't cause a miss-connect. Another analogy for your point about having to connect would be if you were going on a road trip and I told you that you could take the freeway and be there in 3 hours or you could take the back roads and be there in 6 it would be a tough decision to take the 6 hour trip. Especially if it was every week or multiple times per week. |
Originally Posted by javabytes
(Post 24025163)
I live in a city that is home to hubs for three major airlines, and Delta isn't one of them. I chose to fly Delta anyway. For me, the benefits of doing so outweighed the inconvenience of a connection. For others, the same might not be true.
|
Maybe this will illustrate what I have to deal with every week being hub captive
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20Results.jpeg |
That is also looking at flights for over Christmas break two days prior. I have no doubts that DL has a higher cost for the non stops most of the year, but this might not be the best week to illustrate that point fairly
|
Originally Posted by kop84
(Post 24025502)
That is also looking at flights for over Christmas break two days prior. I have no doubts that DL has a higher cost for the non stops most of the year, but this might not be the best week to illustrate that point fairly
I see these disproportionate fares every week to more and more destinations. I am pointing out the fare difference, not how expensive they are. I highlighted my point in the image now. |
Originally Posted by italdesign
(Post 24025130)
I mean, I understand the concept: your home airport is a hub to a certain airline, and you feel stuck with that airline.
What I don't understand is why people at these home airports find it hard to switch to another airline (presumably other airlines fly there). Is it because prices are higher at hubs even with other airlines? Or the thought of additional connections? I live in a non-hub airport with few direct flights, so most of my domestic flights require connecting. Is living in a hub and flying other airlines any worse? |
Originally Posted by Frogbone
(Post 24025529)
... I always book Friday's for Monday travel across the 48, xmas or not. ...
|
tl;dr: Hub cities are expensive and residents feel 'captive' because the dominant carrier gains pricing power through capacity. There are only three major carriers now, and in a form of détente they tend not to challenge each other very severely, so they can all maximize their profits.
That means even alternate airlines tend to cost more in these cities, making it feel like there is less choices available. A popular misconception is that the cost difference is due to nonstop flights, but that isn't borne out in the data - nonstops only tend to command about a $20 pricing premium. --- To justify that statement, I think understanding pricing trends is key to understanding why hub city passengers feel "captive". Let's examine Texas - it's convenient because there are three nearby cities we can use to compare: - IAH, which is a UA hub with minimal low fare presence; - DFW, which is an AA hub with strong WN presence nearby; and - AUS, which has both legacy and low fare carriers and isn't dominated by any one airline (Sorry I didn't include Delta - it's hard to get data about them now that they blocked ExpertFlyer. I imagine this sort of analysis is precisely what they wanted to suppress with that maneuver...) I spent a few minutes in EF and gathered data on the lowest published airfares as of today (19 Dec) to five geographically distributed destinations: DSM, SEA, DEN, SMF, and PWM. DSM, SEA, and SMF are interesting as midsized markets - meaning a carrier operating a hub likely has direct flights, but a non-hub carrier will require a connection. PWM is a city that is unreachable from Texas without a connection. And DEN is particularly interesting as it is also a UA hub in its own right. Here's the raw data: http://i.imgur.com/LqDCCS7.png Some observations:
As one final observation, this all in aggregate explains why very few SEA-based passengers would describe themselves as hub captives, even though AS and DL are the dominant carriers in the market: SEA is almost 15% below average overall in airfare costs compared to the rest of the country, based on DoT data for 2014, and so while AS and DL are the obvious carriers to choose, nobody really feels "captive" because neither carrier has significant pricing power in this market yet. This disparity is also likely why Delta sees a large market opportunity here... And yes, I understand that AUS is not directly comparable to IAH or DFW due to its smaller size - but I felt that of my options, focusing on Texas was the most accurate comparison I could offer. I'd certainly love to see other folks' analyses on this topic as well. |
Originally Posted by Kwaj boy
(Post 24025645)
I agree with you 100%. Unless you just can't stand connecting, "hub captive" has little meaning to me personally. Since I prefer Delta, I'd probably fly them even if I lived near another airline's hub. Delta happens to have the most flights from HSV anyway, and typically they are competitive on price.
(source: http://www.dot.gov/office-policy/avi...t-quarter-2014) |
Originally Posted by italdesign
(Post 24025130)
What I don't understand is why people at these home airports find it hard to switch to another airline (presumably other airlines fly there). Is it because prices are higher at hubs even with other airlines? Or the thought of additional connections?
|
Originally Posted by pbarnette
(Post 24026008)
It depends how much you value your time. If you don't, connect away. If you do, then living in a hub means you don't have to waste your time.
|
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 24026103)
+! - This is the key. Time is money. And that includes frequencies and IRROPS recovery. Businesses are more than willing to pay for that and leisure travelers fill around that.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:44 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.