Aircraft evaluation tool gives us the basic information on viability of using a certain plane on certain route vs a different model.
Now, the tool calculates wages and depreciation based on weekly basis, divided among the maximum number of trips with that aircraft.
The tool is a bit misleading, however, because a turn time can substantially affect a plane's per trip cost. In other words, A to B, where B has a smaller turnaround time (e.g. small airport) vs B to A (large/mega airport) will show substantially different values, depending on how the player enters the route into the tool.
My suggestion is that the tool averages both A to B and B to A and displays one single number, and weekly trips possible. So when a player enters ORD to ISP, the tool will calculate both ORS to ISP and ISP to ORD, and will display the arithmetic average of the two route's costs, for each of the depreciation and wages, and would also average the number of weekly trips. Of course, landing fees would be different, because of the airports' own difference.
Another suggestion is to expand the selection possibilities of choosing a class mix, either by percentage or by entering a specific number of seats, and pricing level for each Y/C/F. This could really create more realistic comparison of costing manufacturer/aircraft A vs manufacturer/aircraft B (no pun intended).
Alternatively, if AS feels it is a low priority, maybe they can partially release a formula/algorithms used for those calculations and one of the AS volunteer gurus (Yes Matth I am thinking of you :) ) could maybe somehow implement this into their route tools