Because there is a Naples-New York by Delta, but there will never be one by ITA Airways.
Last week the American carrier Delta Airlines announced the launch of connections between Naples Capodichino and New York JFK [...]
ITA Airways
Star Alliance
SkyTeam
Oneworld
Last week, the American carrier Delta Airlines has announced the launch of connections between Naples Capodichino and New York JFK for the 2024 summer season, as well as the expansion of Venice-JFK from seven to ten weekly frequencies. United Airlines, in the summer that is ending, also connects, in addition to Naples, Palermo to Newark. Outside the U.S., there are Emirates flights, in addition to Rome and Milan, to Bologna and Venice.
In this article:
But, then, one might ask: If Delta flies between Venice and New York and United between Naples and Newark, why doesn't ITA Airways open a Venice-New York connection or a Palermo-New York? Or, again, a Venice-Dubai? Because, economically and operationally, it would be detrimental.
Hub and spoke model
Indeed, the global air link system has been structured on the 'hub and spoke' model (center and spokes), first adopted by U.S. airlines since 1978, when deregulation of air transportation in the U.S. was introduced. That is, the free market in terms of routes operated by airlines and prices.
The model has extended in the 1980s to the whole world, and today, to limit ourselves to Europe, every 'national' company has a single hub: Ita Airways (like Alitalia before) in Rome, Air France in Paris, British Airways in London, KLM in Amsterdam, Austrian Airlines in Vienna, to name a few. And to date, the only full-service airline to have two hubs within the same country is Lufthansa, in Frankfurt and Munich.
Concentrating the focus of its activities at a single airport allows for more rational management of human resources and technical operations, starting with maintenance. And it allows traffic flows from small to medium markets (European or domestic) to be channeled to the hub and then sent back to other small to medium markets, ensuring optimization of the fill factors of the airplanes operating those connections.
The flow from small/medium markets can also be channeled to the long haul, to distant destinations (again ensuring traffic to routes to these destinations). Of course, the system also works in the reverse direction (from long-haul to short/medium-haul).
Situation in Italy
In Italy, the only exception to this system, as far as long-haul connections are concerned, is the ITA flight between Milan Malpensa and New York JFK, which works because Milan is a metropolis that can guarantee throughout the year a mix of traffic (business and tourist).
The Venice-New York, on the other hand, without adequate feeder from other cities, would only operate for a few weeks between July and August. And placing an A330 or A350 at Marco Polo would entail the ability to be able to do 'routine' maintenance for that type of aircraft at the Venetian airport and base crews there, or alternatively have them 'commute' from Fiumicino (both economically costly and operationally unviable operations).
On the other hand, the same in the U.S. Delta and United do. That they fly yes to Venice, to Naples, to Palermo, but they always do so from their hubs (the major U.S. airlines have more than one), where they channel incoming traffic from many other cities and towns around the country (and in the reverse direction, they redistribute incoming traffic there with their long-haul flights).
Thus, we may be looking at a New York-Venice by Delta or a Newark-Naples by United. And in the future, who knows, a Chicago-Pisa by United or an Atlanta-Bologna by Delta. Because Chicago and Atlanta are two other hubs of United and Delta, respectively. But we will never find ourselves with a Cleveland-Rome of Delta or a Pittsburgh-Rome of United. Neither is a Cleveland-London or a Pittsburgh-London by either of those companies, while instead those same two American cities are connected non-stop with London by British Airways, which has its hub in the British capital.
Low-cost airlines have no hub
The scheme in question does not apply, so integrally, to low-cost airlines. The various Ryanair, easyjet, Vueling and so on have, yes, 'operational bases' (Dublin or Bergamo Orio al Serio to name two of Ryanair's or London Gatwick and Milan Malpensa to do the same relatively to easyjet), but they have made so-called point-to-point connections their workhorse in the eternal challenge with full-service carriers. Thus, for example, Ryanair flies between Trapani and Marseille and between Bari and Turin, despite the fact that neither of these cities is an 'operational base.' and easyjet does the same when it connects Toulouse with Lisbon or Rome Fiumicino with Basel. Why do the low-cost carriers do this? Because they have vastly lower operating costs than full-service carriers, greater operational flexibility
