Talk:Spoke–hub distribution paradigm

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)

"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)

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)