I've heard many players complaining of how low profitability is on the Embraer 170/175 aircraft. Has anyone got advice on how to maximise its operation in terms of financial return?
I guess waiting for E170/175 Enhanced would be the solution. Unfortunately in the game some aircraft are less economical than they are in real life.
For example, B737-800 costs almost the same to operate (few hundred AS$ less per 2-hour trip) than B737-900. 738 is absolutely unpopular in AS, while 739ER BGW is very popular. Completely reversed in real life (738 being very popular, 739ER not so). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation --- 738: 4585 vs 739ER: 524
A 738 problem is that the fuel burn is excessively high. For example:
JFK-IAD (383 km):
738 BGW: 2,911 AS$ in fuel
739ERBGW: 2,900 AS$ in fuel
738 HGW: 3,363 AS$ in fuel
739ERHGW: 3,016 AS$ in fuel
JFK-MIA (1768 km):
738 BGW: 7,194 AS$ in fuel
739ERBGW: 7,143 AS$ in fuel
738 HGW: 7,558 AS$ in fuel
739ERHGW: 6,809 AS$ in fuel
JFK-LAS (3631 km)
738 HGW: 13,201 AS$ in fuel
739ER HGW: 11,912 AS$ in fuel
JFK-LAX (4002 km):
738 HGW winglets: 13,028 AS$ in fuel
739ERHGW: 12,928 AS$ in fuel
All listed aircraft and route combinations are within 100% payload/range.
As we can see, there is no single route within a 100% payload/range of aircraft that would be more economical fuel-wise on 738 series, compared to 739ER series.
etc.
And the E170/175 suffers from the same thing, HIGH FUEL BURN than it really should be.
We just have to live with it.... until AS does something about it
regarding rubiohiguey's statement, it all comes down to the current and a future performance system. please refer to the following link by martin in another thread http://community.airlinesim.aero/topic/6976-long-haul/?p=58559
@mururue: while, of course, there are always aircrafts with better numbers in the evaluation tool or in experience in routes booking full on any kind of aircraft, real life has scenarios where a 175 is the "right" choice. I, for instance, operate a few E75, as I operate the E-Jet family. And a full 175 is more profitable than a 70% filled 195 - and I don't want to introduce another maintenance category.
as with all aircrafts, they only make money while in the air. So try to keep the maintenance ratio as low as possible and take midhaul routes over shorthaul (turnaround has a relatively lower impact on longer routes).
I have a E175 fleet which are happily profitable and in a world where every 2nd flight is a DH4, they give an edge in passenger rating. There were also dozens of them available at a relatively low lease rate when I started my airline; they are also very flexible in terms of changing the size between 175/195, and eventually up to the Airbus/Boeing jets, as they need hardly any change in schedule/slots and you can be very responsive to changing demand on routes. So I take the slight profitability hit.
Where I really notice it is as the earlier post points out- on the very short routes they make much less money than a DH4. So if I put an E175 jet on a shorter route it's a calculated decision for a larger load into a hub (or sometimes it's because slots are so restricted I need the shorter flight time to make it work) at the expense of a DH4 sized profit margin.
For one of my companies I operate a fleet of 17 E170 and 114 E175 all in a leisure plus and recliner shorthaul configuration. It started with a couple of a small E-jets and now are the backbone of this company. I am happy with them. On a route from Tampa to Montego Bay (1.200km) I operate E170, E175 and B737. Where the E170 and the E175 has a profit margin of 31% and 32%, the B73W only has 21%. All seats are full and charged for the same price.
I'm happy with the smaller E-jets especially because I like to operate routes with both low and high demand. As said, keep maintenance ratios as close to 100%, don't place too luxurious seats in them and you should be ok.
I am operating 16 E170 for shorter hauls and 9 E195 for longer. I can confirm that E170s are very unprofitable but as most of the other players do I keep them due to their maintenance cathegory.
I hope the E170/175 will get a break with introduction of E170/175 enhanced, which were just delivered to real-world airlines in recent weeks. Hopefully next data patch will incorporate E170/175 enhanced, along with CRJ900 enhanced.
As we can see, there is no single route within a 100% payload/range of aircraft that would be more economical fuel-wise on 738 series, compared to 739ER series.
I am operating a fleet of more than 700 used Boeing 737-800 HGW(winglets) with an average age of 10 years. I am loving these aircrafts because everyone else is in fear of high fuel costs and a bad image. A 10 years old 737-800 HGW(wl) is offering much lower operating costs per seat (10%) than a new 739ER: 50% less capital cost are much better than a saving of 1000 bucks per flight for fuel.