I agree. The trend in Europe is actually the opposite, with point-to-point now considered the winning approach. Consumer preference for this modality is actually a significant factor in the dramatic rise of low-cost carriers (Ryanair, easyJet, etc). Hub-and-spoke is obviously still around, particularly for intercontinental flights, but the commercial failure of the giant A380 indicates where the market actually is.
The failure of the A380 still surprises me. Wasn't the 747 super successful? What's wrong with the A380? All of a sudden, now that Airbus has the biggest plane, big planes aren't good anymore?
The 747 was largely successful because of its then unprecedented range and cheaper fuel prices at the time, as well as its easy conversion to a high capacity freighter. That’s why today, with much more fuel-efficient and long range 787s and A350s, Boeing had to quit making the passenger version in 2017 and the freighter version last year. And even in the decades before cancelling, Boeing barely managed to sell a handful.
The A380 had long range, but not to the extent of the 787 or A350, and it didn’t have their fuel efficiency, and there are structural choices that make freighter conversion difficult (like a middle floor too weak for cargo without reinforcement) and less economical in the first place (more volume available than weight it can support).
I think it was a combination of cost, incompatibility (it typically required airports to fix their runways to accommodate it), and the above-mentioned fact that Airbus' core European market had largely moved towards low-cost PtP. The A380 makes sense only for hub-and-spoke, and/or flights over 4-5h. COVID was the nail in the coffin.
