Can AS allow to scrap the cargo option?

It's so unreal that Cargo is so unprofitable. It doesn't matter if the load factor is low but why does cargo operation cost so much even if it's empty?

Can AS in the future allow players to convert aircraft into non-cargo or increase the cargo profitability?

It is probably a bit tricky to put passengers under-floor - so no, this won't be an option.

The cargo option itself doesn't increase costs. What you see, is just a version of spreading costs across PAX an cargo.

I am annoyed by cargo too.  There should be a way for us to tick a box that says something like "Allow cargo transport Yes or No"  The way it is now, on many flights I am losing cargo money simply for not having it at 100%.

Someone can say that I should then only use planes with 0 cargo space, but I want to be able to use any plane that is good at that time instead of being forced into specific planes.

Oh i see now. But does a same plane consume the same amount of fuel when cargo is full loaded and empty loaded?

I just find that fuel cost is fix no matter how much your load is . That means an empty load just costs as much fuel as a full load on the same plane and route. How annoying.

I am annoyed by cargo too.  There should be a way for us to tick a box that says something like "Allow cargo transport Yes or No"  The way it is now, on many flights I am losing cargo money simply for not having it at 100%.

Why? You will lose even more money if you don't have any cargo at all since your still flying the same aircraft and don't get any money from cargo at all.

Let us break down the Costing Summary to clarify:

1 = how much you earn from bringing the cargo

2 = how much you lose from bringing the cargo

3 = costs from the airplane that you will have anyway regardless of if you bring any cargo or not.

If I would have brought zero cargo on the same airplane my total for the entire flight would end up at -27,569 AS$ instead of the current barley profitable result.

 

But if you are not transporting cargo at all, why would you have all these related costs? 

But if you are not transporting cargo at all, why would you have all these related costs?

Your fixed costs for the plane are the same regardless of if you carry cargo or not. If you have a plane with no cargo, those costs are just distributed among the pax classes. Overall, so long as you are carrying one unit of cargo, you are making more money than if you weren’t.

Sure, the cargo margins theoretically are horrible on a plane carrying pax, but -38% is better than negative infinite percent.

But if you are not transporting cargo at all, why would you have all these related costs? 

Hi,

you don't get it, do you ?

Allow me to give you a fictitious example where fuel cost is 100 dollar... the flight detail page for a plane without cargo would for example calculate fuel cost like this:

85 dollar is for carrying economy passengers

15 dollar is for carrying business passengers

The same plane with a small cargo hold would calculate it like this:

82 dollar is for carrying economy passengers

13 dollar is for carrying business passengers

5 dollar is for carrying cargo.

The same goes for leasing costs, salaries for the pilots, traffic control, whatever. You don't use less fuel if you carry no cargo, you don't pay less for traffic control without cargo, and the pilots are not cheaper. If you would refuse to carry cargo in your passenger jet, the total cost would be the same.

I think there is only one exception. If your plane can carry cargo, you will need cargo controllers. If you could refuse to carry cargo, you would not need them. You employ one cargo controller at an airport if you have a flight (with cargo) from that airport. The number of cargo controllers goes up slowly if you process more cargo but I don't know at what rate. I have an airport with 7 daily flights and still only one cargo controller. I also have an airport with 6 daily flights that has two cargo controllers, but one of the daily flights is a wide body that can carry over a hundred cargo units.

Jan

The fuel cost is fixed no matter how many passengers, how much freight your plane carries. You can compared the cost with the airlines evaluation of a given route. I have a plane with different loads at various times but the cost of fuel is always the same as it is shown in the airlines evaluation. The question here is, would the fuel cost the same when the plane is less loaded or the same.

For example, a B767-400 ER has a maximum payload of 46t tons approximately and the cargo capacity is 15.5t which is about 1/3. So the question is, will the fuel cost of an empty load of cargo be about 1/3 of its full load? So if the fuel cost of a fully loaded 767-400ER of a given route is A$30000 , would the cost be only A$ 20000 when the cargo is completely empty?

By the way, the diagram you displayed had a massive revenue , can you tell me what model of plane was it?

There are many segments of the cost of a flight and some are fixed and spread out to PAX and cargo such as landing fees, air traffic controls, route operators, interlining, etc. However, some costs should be variable such as cabin services and/ or fuel cost.   

But the reality is, a plane might use less fuel if it doesn't carry any freight than full load.

In reallity yes, for the moment we have to use this simplified model we have already this in mind to use more realistic figueres by allowing different Engine types for example that will burn different amount of fuel and we are discussing other things like your suggestion as well. I can not promise how far we can go but we are working on more realistic models. Unfortunately its not happening over night since we have only one person who is programming. 

As with all simulations, there are simplifications with everything. Maybe, a new aircraft performance algorithym will be able to depict that, the current system can’t.

I know a public cargo airlines that makes way more margin than my 300 aircraft mega airline based out of Dubai.

OP, fuel costs are fixed, regardless if you fly 1 pax or full payload.

Regarding flight costing, it is comparative distribution of costs. The old flight costing tool just had one value, and final result for your flight. Now it's comparative and proportional, but it's still a fictitious relative number. What you must look at, is the total cost, and total revenue. In general terms, any cargo you carry, is a marginal revenue at virtually zero marginal cost (besides the mentioned cargo controller, whose salary is spread among all the flights carrying cargo). Think of the cargo as the net benefit. You pay for cargo handling, but if you do not carry cargo you do not pay, if you carry, you pay, but you earn more than you pay for handling.

So again, forget about comparative distribution curve of the costs, and just think of total costs and total revenues, and just "fix it in your head" (sorry for lack of better words) that cargo is actually net revenue for you at very limited cost. If you carry cargo, it is profit-making (unless you charge less for cargo than cargo handling cost, but by doing that you would be illegally dumping cargo price).

But if you are not transporting cargo at all, why would you have all these related costs? 

The only thing these related costs are telling us is what our final margin would be if we were a cargo only airplane and replaced all passenger slots with cargo capacity instead.

The related costs are not related to cargo but related to the airplane. Often the biggest post will be aircraft leasing, and the aircraft will not suddenly be much cheaper to lease just because you choose to not carry cargo. So the same cost is still there, but it ends up somewhere else lowering the margin of passengers instead by the same amount of cash.

I believe this make sense. On certain routes(KMG-ADD), A319 can only carry two unit of cargo due to payload limitation and the 2 units are always empty. But to deal with cargo, a cargo controller is needed. Hence it is better to close the cargo to prevent extra personnel.

Looking at my passenger airlines, cargo controller contribute about 1.5 AS/unit. I am quiet sure, that it is not a very sound thought to block cargo the way you are describing.

Even on longhaul flights, using a 787, cargo controllers only account with less than 200 AS. So with the first cargo unit on a shorthaul flight or the second at longhaul flights you reach brake even.

Looking at my passenger airlines, cargo controller contribute about 1.5 AS/unit. I am quiet sure, that it is not a very sound thought to block cargo the way you are describing.

Even on longhaul flights, using a 787, cargo controllers only account with less than 200 AS. So with the first cargo unit on a shorthaul flight or the second at longhaul flights you reach brake even.

It is not the case. My base is KMG and I fly to ADD 4 times a week with A319 heavy.  For the branch office of ADD, 8 units of cargo a week account for 423 AS.

Ok, I agree, it is a matter of scale. Anyway, you are still breaking even with 3 units carried per week.

Besides, I don’t think cargo is the main financial issue, running a A319 heavy on this route.

Probably there is one truth behind this: it doesn’t really make sense to hire a cargo controller for very low volumes. This would be rather serviced by someone else. So it would need a threshold to prevent this. Well, it’s still a neglectable expenditure.