Why make widebodies so unprofitable for short-/med-haul?

English Boards General
1

IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world.

And it's not just to fill their schedules for widebodies used for long-haul transport.

If the AS economics would apply, then I'm pretty sure we would see widebodies taken out and replaced with 32x/73y for 99% of these routes.

Could it be that in AS widebodies are too unprofitable, at least in relationship to the 32x/73y?

It is obvious that many AS airlines would like to replace their 20x+ daily CAN - PVG / SFO - LAX / LHR - FRA flights operated with narrowbodies by widebodies, but the huge difference in economics just doesn't justify it.

I am pretty sure that this would also have a positive impact on the slot problems at major airports.

2

IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world.

And it's not just to fill their schedules for widebodies used for long-haul transport.

If the AS economics would apply, then I'm pretty sure we would see widebodies taken out and replaced with 32x/73y for 99% of these routes.

Could it be that in AS widebodies are too unprofitable, at least in relationship to the 32x/73y?

It is obvious that many AS airlines would like to replace their 20x+ daily CAN - PVG / SFO - LAX / LHR - FRA flights operated with narrowbodies by widebodies, but the huge difference in economics just doesn't justify it.

I am pretty sure that this would also have a positive impact on the slot problems at major airports.

Sorry Off-Topic, but I have to aks this after looking at your company page. Why are there so many airlines flying 30x time with a CRJ between cities that have enough demand to accept A320 or bigger... ?

3

The only examples I can think of are BA’s shorthaul-configured 767s and a couple of trip reports I’ve seen from Japanese airlines. However, I’m not sure what the scheduling is like for Japan flights. I suspect that they operate these planes solely due to the government-imposed slot constraints (which we don’t have in the game), but as I’m not intimately familiar with the UK/Japan, I don’t know for sure.

IRL, whenever you see a widebody operating a domestic flight in Canada, it’s because the aircraft is meant to operate an intercontinental flight from the destination. (Examples: YYZ-YVR-Asia/Australia, YYZ-YYC-NRT, YYZ-YUL-BRU, etc. and the reverse) The domestic leg is a repositioning flight where they sell seats to offset the repositioning costs (which we don’t have in the game). The remainder of daily flights are operated with A32X or even Embraer RJ aircraft. The last airline to exclusively operate domestic widebody routes failed a long time ago. (Oh, how I miss Wardair’s 747s, they had real cutlery, and they introduced me to economy-class airline food that tasted good.)

In most cases in the game, the fuel consumption of a widebody is double per kilometre of a narrowbody (moreso if you compare a twin-engine narrowbody to a quad-engine wide), and leasing/cost (for a new aircraft) is much higher. Considering those are your two biggest expense categories, it makes more sense to operate another narrowbody than upgrade to a widebody aircraft. Although I don’t have exact numbers for the real world, the assumption is that the game mimics real life, since an aircraft isn’t introduced into the game unless the AS team has performance data. (See threads on the Bombardier C-series, A350, and B777X)

4

Although I don't have exact numbers for the real world, the assumption is that the game mimics real life, since an aircraft isn't introduced into the game unless the AS team has performance data. (See threads on the Bombardier C-series, A350, and B777X)

I think these parts of the game mimics real life economics pretty well yes.

But it does miss that airlines in real life actually can pay for the slots, and we are not talking about any small amounts here:

http://www.headforpoints.com/2013/05/18/what-do-you-think-it-costs-for-a-pair-of-heathrow-slots/

 

Buying a single pair of Heathrow slots in reality seems to cost in the same range of money that a complete new Dash 8 does!

Slots on "full" airports are both bought and leased between real airlines as we can see.

Having a high cost related to just being allowed to operate on mega airports should go a long way to making wide-bodies economically viable. Either through some sort of slot market, or through even higher landing fees then is tried out on Aspern.

5

http://www.headforpoints.com/2013/05/18/what-do-you-think-it-costs-for-a-pair-of-heathrow-slots/

Buying a single pair of Heathrow slots in reality seems to cost in the same range of money that a complete new Dash 8 does!

Really explains why they just cannot fly long haul between US east coast and Europe with a 739ER like most players here. An auction system for slots would be really.....interesting. I suppose paying for Slots will never get on the table.

6

Buying a single pair of Heathrow slots in reality seems to cost in the same range of money that a complete new Dash 8 does!

Slots have no dollar value. They buy those slots with the anguished tears of the people compressed into their “luxurious” scavenger’s daughters slimline economy seats. The fuel surcharges collected go towards the purchase of firstborn children to sacrifice, err, hand out broken pretzels, cocktail napkins, and a cup of ice topped with an eighth of a soda can.  The revenues from Onboard Duty-Free are converted to gold coins to fill the Olympic-sized swimming pool in the corporate bathroom.

7

Sorry Off-Topic, but I have to aks this after looking at your company page. Why are there so many airlines flying 30x time with a CRJ between cities that have enough demand to accept A320 or bigger... ?

Because (if you look closer) they are carefully scheduled such as to be (in the near future) upped to 321 or 739? :P

8

IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world.

And it’s not just to fill their schedules for widebodies used for long-haul transport.

If the AS economics would apply, then I’m pretty sure we would see widebodies taken out and replaced with 32x/73y for 99% of these routes.

Could it be that in AS widebodies are too unprofitable, at least in relationship to the 32x/73y?

First of all: currently the performance calculation within AS has several issues which are leading to some strange numbers.

Widebodies on short haul routes are a mess for airlines. The airlines are flying these aircrafts if they have to but economics are in favor of narrowbodies.

The three most important issues are:

  • weight: widebodies are much heavier per passenger than the most narrowbodies (same seats, same pitch), which leads towards a higher costs per seat mile

  • turn around time: widebodies need more time on the ground, which allows less flights per day and increases the capital costs

  • premium passengers like frequencies. If an airline offers 12 flights per day instead of 6 flights, the airline can charge higher ticket prices.

9

Andreamilano,

These aspects are common knowledge and have been discussed and überdiscussed in hundreds of threads on the Internet, just to pick a few (almost) at random:

Japanese Domestic 747 - A Miracle?

Why No Wide Body For Short Haul?

Asian Carriers - Widebodies On Short Haul, Why?  

A380/747 Short haul in Europe?

The question was if the relative difference in profitability in this game is larger than in the real world.

10

IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world.

Hi,

Are you sure that statement is correct ?

Because (if you look closer) they are carefully scheduled such as to be (in the near future) upped to 321 or 739? :P

Hmm... if you do this with Let's, you're a cheater. If you do this with CRJ's, it is called strategy  :P

Jan

11

Hi,

1. Are you sure that statement is correct ?

2. Hmm... if you do this with Let's, you're a cheater. If you do this with CRJ's, it is called strategy  :P

1. Yes, I think Australia, Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Northern America can collectively be called "most parts of the world".

2. The strategy can be represented with the following example:

a). You start 6 daily flights with CRJ between your hub and a 7-bar airport.

- why 6 daily CRJ and not 2 - 3 daily 321? Because you want frequency, so you get good connection ratings for flights between small airports (that you only serve, say, 2 times a day) and the 7-bar airport.

- why not start directly with 6 321/73x? Because there is not sufficient demand / not enough money.

b). When you have sufficient demand and money you replace the 6 CR7 flights (maybe progressively) with narrowbodies.

Yes, I call that strategy.

Could you please explain the LET part of your comment, because I don't understand it, and how it is related to the rest :)

12

Oh I agree that Australia, Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Northern America can collectively be called "most parts of the world".

But I did notknow that the use of wide bodies on short to medium routes is so common in most parts of the world. At least... I see a damned lot of 737's and 320's on European airports. Hence my question.

You promote the use of wide bodies on short to medium routes, but your airline operates regional jets on these routes. I guess that is the relation to the subject of this thread. My observation was not an attack against your airline. It was nothing more than an observation on the relativity of things. If you has used LET's, the lynch mob would have gone after you. If you read older posts of me you will see that I also observed that "cheating" with insane prices on new servers is okay, but "cheating" with small seats is not okay. In this case, a regional jet is okay but a Let is not. Both are far too small for a route like PEK-PVG.

Just don't say there is not enough demand on a new server to fill anything bigger than a regional jet. It makes you look a bit... euh... intellectually challenged, and I am sure you are not. It is more honest to say that you can occupy more slots with 10 regional jets than with 5 narrow bodies. And that later on, when you have more money, you can replace the regional jets with bigger planes. As you say, it is strategy  ;-)

Jan

13

Oh I agree that Australia, Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Northern America can collectively be called "most parts of the world".

But I did notknow that the use of wide bodies on short to medium routes is so common in most parts of the world. At least... I see a damned lot of 737's and 320's on European airports. Hence my question.

But I didn't imply it's common. It's sufficient to have at least one short-haul widebody flight in each of the regions mentioned above for the statement "IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world" to be true.

14

Just don't say there is not enough demand on a new server to fill anything bigger than a regional jet. It makes you look a bit... euh... intellectually challenged, and I am sure you are not. 

Yes, I am sure that all the numerous posts from users with new airlines complaining that they cannot fill one 320 on a 7bar/8bar route are scams.

If one aircraft per day is problematic, then I'm sure that filling 6 daily narrowbodies on the same route when you start your airline (even on a new server) is truly a breeze...

15

But I didn't imply it's common. It's sufficient to have at least one short-haul widebody flight in each of the regions mentioned above for the statement "IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world" to be true.

 Sorry for the misunderstanding...

IRL airlines operate widebodies on short- and medium-haul routes in many most parts of the world.

And it's not just to fill their schedules for widebodies used for long-haul transport.

If the AS economics would apply, then I'm pretty sure we would see widebodies taken out and replaced with 32x/73y for 99% of these routes.

When I read your original post, I mistakenly thought that you suggested that wide bodies were commonly used on short to medium-haul flights around the world, and that 99% of them would be replaced by single aisle jets if AS economics were applied in the real world.

Jan

16

Yes, I am sure that all the numerous posts from users with new airlines complaining that they cannot fill one 320 on a 7bar/8bar route are scams.

If one aircraft per day is problematic, then I'm sure that filling 6 daily narrowbodies on the same route when you start your airline (even on a new server) is truly a breeze...

My mistake again...

It is obvious that many AS airlines would like to replace their 20x+ daily CAN - PVG / SFO - LAX / LHR - FRA flights operated with narrowbodies by widebodies, but the huge difference in economics just doesn't justify it.

I thought we were talking about routes like the ones you mentioned in your original post, and about a new game world (Aspern) with more passengers than planes. So I should have understood that you started with CRJ's on 7bar/8bar routes, and that you plan to replace them with bigger planes later on when there is more competition.

Jan

17

When I read your original post, I mistakenly thought that you suggested that wide bodies were commonly used on short to medium-haul flights around the world, and that 99% of them would be replaced by single aisle jets if AS economics were applied in the real world.

Nah... I am aware that the usage is quite limited (and additionally it has gone down significantly during the last 10 - 15 years).

However, I find it fascinating that they are still used in many situations.

I guess the key to success is described in one of the threads I linked above (Japanese Domestic 747 - A Miracle?), from where I will quote:

"There are no meal service to speak of onboard many JAL/ANA domestic flights, only drinks service. So there are very few catering supplies to be loaded and unloaded. Also no food service means less cleaning to be done in the passenger cabin. Anyway cabin crew walks with a garbage bag towards tha last stages of a flight and do their best collect all the rubbish.
 
All that and the fact that very few passengers check in bags means very fast turnaround times of 35-40 minutes even for a 747 or 777."
 
and
 
"I would put it down to many factors but the main one would be the Japanese mentality.
 
The pax come in, know where their seat is put the small hand baggage in the compartment and sit down, fasten their seatbelt and are ready...all within a few minutes of getting on the aircraft!
 
I have seen this happen and when talking to cabin crew on other airlines they say that the Japanese passengers are a gem as they take so little time to board, there are no pax wanting to change seats, or sit in the wrong row, no complaints, no turning up late etc..."
 
"I was really impressed by their service and I think it has mostly to be explained with their mentality, they are so aimed at efficiency that you can really board 500 Japanese people in ten minutes, believe me."
 
That last stament would imply that boarding happens at a rate of 1 pax / 1.2 seconds, which to me is hard to believe.
 
But this type of flights exists in the US too (where the "Ordnung is das halbe Leben" saying would apply to a lesser extent in comparison to Japan...), as per the following threads:
 
 
However, by using the Aircraft evaluation tool for, say, IAD - ORD (chosen from one of the threads above), we can see (Y / standard seats / price @ 100%) the following margins for 100% load factor:
 
26% for 739ER BGW
-25% (!) for 762ER
18

Don't evaluate the 762-ER. It has serious flaw in data and it's a rubbish. A 787 is a better comparison.

As I also mentioned in other posts previously, the game currently is biased towards narrowbody, especially regional jets. This also led to the swarm of RJ rather than narrowbody or widebody. 

Yet I am sure that the team has acknowledged the existence of such flaw and they might fix that later.

19

"I was really impressed by their service and I think it has mostly to be explained with their mentality, they are so aimed at efficiency that you can really board 500 Japanese people in ten minutes, believe me."

I agree (my personal experience) with the factor of "Japanese mentality" but I agree: 10 minutes are rubbish ;) . It is the general efficiency and the way Japanese people deal with each other. It is a major advantage that there is not real need to explain Japanese people the way to be part of a group.

There are no meal service to speak of onboard many JAL/ANA domestic flights, only drinks service

That´s true, mostly green tea :wub: . However, the 747s also offered a Business Class IIRC and these passengers got a snack or meal (?) depending of the duration and time of the day.

As you might know, I have my "experimental airlines" to evaluate wide body aircraft. Even with a profitable operation, the aircraft are - by far - the least efficient and economical aircraft, no matter of the type: Boeing 767, A300 etc..

They can be operated profitably but the margins are so unattractive that my ops is just for fun. It is a joke that an MD-80 of Sparrow Air makes far more money compared to a fully booked A300-600 on the same route :P . 

20

So seriously, no one from the team comments on this?

It is not taken seriously?

Look what happens in the real world:

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/216324/dragonair-expands-a330-operation-to-additional-3-destinations-in-w13/

"Hong Kong – Fuzhou All 2 daily service operated by A330-300, instead of A321/A330 mix".

And more.

Try to do that in AS and you're fucked, as can be seen from the image attached. You would go from a situation with BELF lower than 60% to a situation where you can't make profit at LF 100%...