Point2Point Paradigm with the NEO/MAX
 

Hi,
I'll start with a confession that I'm absolutely not a professional in this world of cargo, airlines etc. So although there might be many little points where below idea might not work, I'm more interested about the big idea - and where might be significant show stoppers...

With the recent inception of high bypass ratio engine airplanes (87, 50, NEO, MAX) we will see long haul LCC with narrow body airplanes flaying point 2 point low demand destinations. Essentially disrupting the Trans-Atlantic market.

Why we don't see air cargo operators taking the advantage over this technology improvement and disrupting the current Hub & Spoke paradigm in the air cargo world?

With Point 2 Point on narrow body airplanes suitable address low demand destinations with viable business model of costs, we can imagine new markets for air cargo. And broader speaking - this will be part of what called "Direct to customer logistics". The opportunities are basically introduce World Wide the quality and speed of shipping we see statewide.

Well right off the top of my head. The good money is in express freight. So it's not necessarily hub and spoke but more sort the crap out and move it to another airplane.

We do some point to point but it's in a 767. Narrow bodies don't have the volume.

A 737 Max or A320 NEO would look cool in Amazon livery.

You do realize there are only (3) real players in the cargo world?

There is plenty of point to point flying already, in some cases using 747's/MD-11's/777's.

You also have to realize unlike a passenger plane flying 150-300 customers a Cargo plane is flying 500,000-2,000,000+ individual customers.

Hub/Spoke cannot be discounted on the scale Cargo operates.

Disrupting Trans-Atlantic airways is a bit more apt.

Flying across the pond is done along specified tracks which change daily to take advantage of the prevailing winds. The tracks occupy the "best" airspace, and RVSM altitudes. Think of them as a Superhighway. You have to stay in your own lane, and there is a speed limit. Everybody on a given track at a given altitude must maintain that speed. Mach .83 to .86 is typical. This Superhighway is already filled to the brim with traffic. Because of traffic density, operating at optimum altitudes and speed or fuel burn is reserved for only a minority of the traffic.

737s and A320s have the range to operate across the pond - but not within the parameters of the organized track system. Mach .80 is the top speed of the 737. Mach .77 or .78 is better for fuel consumption. I've never flown the 320, but I would suspect it has similar performance. Fuel burn at other than optimal altitude will be increased. If you're not able to keep up with the flow of traffic, and can't climb above it, you're stuck below it. Burning a lot more gas, for a lot longer time.

Yes, you can safely operate single aisle aircraft Trans-Atlantic. But can you do so efficiently is the hurdle that hasn't been cleared. Yet.