Talk:Spoke–hub distribution paradigm

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Spoke-hub model

I don't know if I picked the right name for this... Should it be spoke-hub model?

When I clicked to this page from UPS, I was hoping to see an indication of the alternatives to the spoke-hub model. I have heard this referred to as a star network. See network topology. And I guess I have answered my own question with that link, although I don't know what names the shipping industry might use for the other models. Jim Winters 19:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why is this efficient?

This method is continually discussed as efficient, yet no despcription of the root of its efficiency is addressed. Its shortcomings are also clearly left unmentioned.

Delta "pioneering" something when it already existed

Its inaccurate to claim Delta pioneered something that existed since day one of airline travel. They may have done it for *domestic* travel, but as far back as the birth of non-seaplane transatlantic crossings, Shannon and Gander were hubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.99.23 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Drawbacks"

I think we should reconsider the bullet that reads "Two flights are required to reach most of the destinations." The whole section is about the system in general, but this bullet jumps exclusively to aviation. Perhaps it'd be better to either introduce it with a phrase like "In aviation..." or "In air travel...". It might be even better, though, to introduce the statement in more general terms: "Traveling from one spoke to another will require two trips. For passengers on airlines...". Billiam1185 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source

This paper makes an argument that P2P is more effective than H&S. Some of the information could probably go here, as well as in the related article. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits

The hub-and-spoke model, as compared to the point-to-point model, requires fewer routes. For a network of n nodes, only n − 1 routes are necessary to connect all nodes so the upper bound is n − 1, and the complexity is O(n). That compares favourably to the

{\frac {n(n-1)}{2}}

routes, or O(n²), which would be required to connect each node to every other node in a point-to-point network. For example, in a system with 6 destinations, the spoke–hub system requires only 5 routes to connect all destinations, and a true point-to-point system would require 15 routes. However distance traveled per route will necessarily be more than with a point-to-point system (except where the route happens to have no interchange). Therefore, efficiency may be reduced. Conversely, for the same number of aircraft, having fewer routes to fly means each route can be flown more frequently and with higher capacity because the demand for passengers can be resourced from more than just one city (assuming the passengers are willing to change, which will of itself incur its own costs). Complicated operations, such as package sorting and accounting, can be carried out at the hub rather than at every node, and this leads to economies of scale. As a result of this, spokes are simpler to operate, and so new routes can easily be created.

Drawbacks

In addition, the hub constitutes a bottleneck or single point of failure in the network. The total cargo capacity of the network is limited by the hub's capacity. Delays at the hub (such as from bad weather conditions) can result in delays throughout the network. Cargo must pass through the hub before reaching its destination and so require longer journeys than direct point-to-point trips. That may be desirable for freight, which can benefit from sorting and consolidating operations at the hub, but it is problematic for time-critical cargo, as well as for passengers. The necessity of baggage transfers at the hub also increases the risk of missing luggage, as compared to the point-to-point model.