Travelers often worry most about the longest flight on an itinerary. But network data suggests a different vulnerability: the short first leg into a major hub.
Analysis of U.S. DOT BTS cancellation data (Nov 2024–Nov 2025 high-risk route subset) shows hub-feeder routes dominate elevated cancellation entries across the network.
In other words, disruption exposure frequently begins before the main flight even departs.
The feeder dominance pattern
Within the dataset:
- Hub-feeder routes accounted for ~70% of entries
- Hub-hub routes accounted for ~16%
- Non-hub routes accounted for ~15%
Weighted cancellation percentages were broadly similar across categories, but representation differed dramatically. Feeder routes appear far more often once disruption thresholds are crossed.
This indicates structural exposure rather than severity differences.
Why feeder legs are vulnerable
Feeder flights operate at the intersection of several constraints:
Lower frequency. Fewer departures reduce recovery options.
Connection timing pressure. Delays propagate quickly into missed onward flights.
Aircraft rotation dependency. Regional equipment cycles tightly through hub schedules.
Crew positioning roles. Feeder flights often support downstream operations beyond passenger transport.
These characteristics make feeder routes sensitive to upstream variability even when operating normally most of the time.
The connection illusion
From a traveler’s perspective, the long flight feels like the important one. From the network’s perspective, the feeder leg often determines whether the itinerary succeeds.
A cancellation on a trunk route usually offers multiple alternatives. A cancellation on a feeder route may remove the only viable connection window for that day.
This asymmetry explains why short flights can produce outsized disruption impact.
Central hubs amplify the effect
Major hubs concentrate connection banks into narrow time windows. That efficiency improves throughput but increases sensitivity.
When feeder disruption occurs near a bank boundary, the effect cascades:
- Missed connections multiply
- Rebooking capacity becomes constrained
- Aircraft rotations shift
- Downstream delays appear unrelated to the original event
The visible disruption often occurs later, masking the feeder origin.
Planning around feeder exposure
Understanding feeder dominance reframes itinerary strategy:
- Buffer time before the hub matters more than after
- Early departures increase recovery pathways
- Alternate nearby feeder airports can add resilience
- Direct flights reduce dependency on feeder timing
These adjustments address exposure rather than attempting to eliminate disruption.
A network built from spokes
Airline networks rely on spokes feeding hubs. That structure enables broad coverage and efficient connections — but it also concentrates sensitivity at the edges.
Feeder routes sit where local variability meets network synchronization.
When thresholds are crossed, those edges appear first.
Short feeder flights often determine whether an itinerary succeeds. Checking route-level patterns can highlight where extra connection buffer carries the most value.
Analyze your route →Methodology note
This analysis examines route-carrier combinations that crossed a high-cancellation threshold between November 2024 and November 2025 using U.S. DOT BTS data. Route-type shares describe representation within elevated-risk conditions rather than overall cancellation probability by itinerary structure.
Future articles will examine intensity spikes, persistence across months, and how concentration shapes traveler perception of airline reliability.
Continue exploring: Flight Risk Tool | All blog posts