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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf