Good analysis thanks. My one criticism “Korean Airlines in Seoul, Japan Airlines and ANA in Tokyo, BA in London, Iberia in Madrid, Air France in Paris). In fact, we might argue that Qantas is far less Sydney-centric than any of these carriers are around their dominant hubs!”
Well yes Singapore Airlines hubs through Changi too… but Qantas hubbing through Sydney so disproportionately to the other similarly sized city which is basically equidistant from from all international destinations is nothing like any of the other carriers and hubs you mentioned. Most of them have a single primate city where there is no question about hubs.
Fair comment, but I don't think there's "no question" about hubs. The reason why these hubs exists in these places isn't necessarily due to the underlying primate city. In some cases the underlying critical mass of the city drives O&D demand that formed a critical mass of traffic before modern airline hubs/networks developed. That's certainly the case in London, Paris, etc.
But it's not a necessary condition. For example, Lufthansa in Frankfurt. Frankfurt isn't even close to being the largest city in Germany, nevermind a single primate city. Its genesis as Lufty's hub was its central location, and it became self-reinforcing as the network model developed. The hub generates efficiency, redundancy and once it forms a critical mass it becomes difficult to develop/grow away from it, and can even become more concentrated over time. That's the interesting part here: Qantas at Sydney has become less concentrated; they've slowly moving away from it, although that's likely due to capacity constraints.
While the underlying reason for a choice of one over another varies due to local idiosyncrasies we see this in many places: Sao Paulo over Rio, Madrid over Barcelona, Delhi over Mumbai, Ho Chi Minh City over Hanoi, Jeddah over Riyadh, Rome over Milan, San Fransisco over Los Angeles, etc. These are probably more relevent comparisons from a city/urban perspective (although maybe less from an airline perspective though). In all these cases, the incumbent carrier has a far more dominant hub at the former compared to the latter, but it could've conceivably been the other way round.
Qantas have always been Sydney focused and it's become self-reinforcing over time. That initial Sydney focus is down to a bunch of random and exogenous factors, and it's now difficult to unwind.
Good analysis thanks. My one criticism “Korean Airlines in Seoul, Japan Airlines and ANA in Tokyo, BA in London, Iberia in Madrid, Air France in Paris). In fact, we might argue that Qantas is far less Sydney-centric than any of these carriers are around their dominant hubs!”
Well yes Singapore Airlines hubs through Changi too… but Qantas hubbing through Sydney so disproportionately to the other similarly sized city which is basically equidistant from from all international destinations is nothing like any of the other carriers and hubs you mentioned. Most of them have a single primate city where there is no question about hubs.
Fair comment, but I don't think there's "no question" about hubs. The reason why these hubs exists in these places isn't necessarily due to the underlying primate city. In some cases the underlying critical mass of the city drives O&D demand that formed a critical mass of traffic before modern airline hubs/networks developed. That's certainly the case in London, Paris, etc.
But it's not a necessary condition. For example, Lufthansa in Frankfurt. Frankfurt isn't even close to being the largest city in Germany, nevermind a single primate city. Its genesis as Lufty's hub was its central location, and it became self-reinforcing as the network model developed. The hub generates efficiency, redundancy and once it forms a critical mass it becomes difficult to develop/grow away from it, and can even become more concentrated over time. That's the interesting part here: Qantas at Sydney has become less concentrated; they've slowly moving away from it, although that's likely due to capacity constraints.
While the underlying reason for a choice of one over another varies due to local idiosyncrasies we see this in many places: Sao Paulo over Rio, Madrid over Barcelona, Delhi over Mumbai, Ho Chi Minh City over Hanoi, Jeddah over Riyadh, Rome over Milan, San Fransisco over Los Angeles, etc. These are probably more relevent comparisons from a city/urban perspective (although maybe less from an airline perspective though). In all these cases, the incumbent carrier has a far more dominant hub at the former compared to the latter, but it could've conceivably been the other way round.
Qantas have always been Sydney focused and it's become self-reinforcing over time. That initial Sydney focus is down to a bunch of random and exogenous factors, and it's now difficult to unwind.