Hello,
So now as I contemplate ULH flights, I need some input on which ones are the best options. I am looking at CDG/ORY - LAX/SYD/HKG/NRT/EZE etc. Please share your experiences.
Thanks
B787 is by far the best performed aircraft in ultra long haul flights as it saves a lot of fuel. Meanwhile, B777-200LR covers the longest distance but fuel consumption is much higher than that of B787. If the demand can withstand it, A380 can be the option as it carries more passengers and it does the same effectiveness as B787 before A350XWB is available on the market.
With only a fleet of 36, you probably shouldn’t consider ULH quite yet
Agree with yukawa here...ULH is rarely profitable in this simulation (same as in real life - there is reason why Singapore Air stopped their EWR and LAX flights again...). On short/midhaul flights I have margins of about 50% if they are full, on longhaul flights I am lucky if I can get 30% and the longer the route the less the margin...I would go for ULH only after I have an extensive short-/mediumrange network and some shorter longrange flights.
Anyway, B767 and A330 are unable to fly ULH, the 747 has a bit more range, but the 787 is the better aircraft for these route profiles I guess(not so much demand for ULH so better to go with a smaller aircraft). So go for 787 or if you really need the range for 772LR - but you might make loss, even with a full plane and using moderatly high fares when using 772LR for ULH I guess...
Suggestion:
Dont lease your long haul fleet. An A380 costs 1,2 Mio / week. If you run 6 flights per week it's a hefty 200.000 in leasing per flight....bare that in mind and long haul is far from being unprofitable.....However, return on capital invested is rather low I'll give you that.
I wont be running long-haul until I can buy these heavies. I might buy on credit whenever interest rates norrmalize (down to 1%). If you pay at least 50-60% of the full price you're running better than leasing already.
B787 is a good option if you think you are outgrowing your market, or if you can't compete on domestic and regional routes.
ROI is not bad, albeit smaller than domestic/regional.
Thanks all, that is really good advice from each. The only reason I started looking at ULH is because CDG slots are almost out (3% left). Cannot add anything short haul as once the plane is back after a small domestic hop, it just sits there and can't be flown out again. With a ULH was hoping to use the limited slots and keep them away and making money.
Will have to rethink my strategy, I suppose.
Agree with yukawa here...ULH is rarely profitable in this simulation (same as in real life - there is reason why Singapore Air stopped their EWR and LAX flights again...). On short/midhaul flights I have margins of about 50% if they are full, on longhaul flights I am lucky if I can get 30% and the longer the route the less the margin...I would go for ULH only after I have an extensive short-/mediumrange network and some shorter longrange flights.
Anyway, B767 and A330 are unable to fly ULH, the 747 has a bit more range, but the 787 is the better aircraft for these route profiles I guess(not so much demand for ULH so better to go with a smaller aircraft). So go for 787 or if you really need the range for 772LR - but you might make loss, even with a full plane and using moderatly high fares when using 772LR for ULH I guess...
Singapore couldn't make the trip in the A340. I believe they had to cut at least 50 seats from each flight. That's just seats which means they were also probably cutting back on the cargo as well.
Personally I try to keep a ratio of long haul vs domestic/regional. While I can get more from the regional flights I use my alliance and international flights to keep the network full. I still pull good returns with the long haul flights however the real success is keep loads near 100% in the rest of my network.
I believe they had to cut at least 50 seats from each flight. That's just seats which means they were also probably cutting back on the cargo as well.
Well, in the beginning maybe, but in the last years the flight was all business, IIRC (to lazy to look it up now...) 97 seats only or a little bit more/less...so I guess they could take a good amount of cargo. They real problem behind ULH flights are not the capabilities of the aircraft but the fact that the fuel consumption increases rapidly above a certain distance. The reason for this is that the fuel burn increases with aircraft weight and the fuel weight needed for an ULH flight is a large percentage of the overall airplane mass on these flights - so a huge amount fuel is required to carry the fuel needed for the last hours of the flight...this is not so evident on "normal" longhaul flights, but it is very noticeable on ULH flights and renders them unprofitable in most cases.
Well, in the beginning maybe, but in the last years the flight was all business, IIRC (to lazy to look it up now...) 97 seats only or a little bit more/less...
Exactly 100 seats, to be precise. ;)
There is a very nice trip report over at airliners.net, covering one of the last flights on that route (with tons of great pictures): "18 Hours of Bliss"