Why would anybody run a 747-8I, on a route that can do 10 flights per week, with a config and pricing that brings a net profit of AS$9,949 per flight
Cost: AS$226,101 per flight based on ATE
Revenue: AS$236,050 based on Y/F/C/cargo units as per fleet list, and pricing as per ORS
Why would anyone run a route with a 4% profit margin... or in other words, why would anyone risk a monthly 2.261 million AS in costs in order to generate 99,450 AS in profit?
IMO sometimes it is simply the wish to ooperate a specific type of aircraft. I manage to operate quiet old A300Bs profitably but I won´t use this type with the aim to have very high margins etc..
Such a big aircraft is simply not that flexible compared to smaller planes.
Well, I don't know which route you are refering to but depending on the business model of the airline it might be worth it. My strategy for example is: I earn most of my money on medium range flights and some profitable short haul flights, low demand shorthaul flights and longhaul flights are there to generate connecting passengers (I have some short range flight running at a very low fare, sometimes below standard and some even at a loss - as the connecting passengers are enough to offset the losses from the short flight...and I have some longhaul flights running at a low margin to generate connecting passengers). If the main reason for the flight is connecting passengers a 748 is a very good aircraft as it has a large capacity. The A380 is even better, but some markets are not big enough for it.
This is an aspect of the simulation which is not well modeled (yet), in real life it works the other way around for most legacy carriers (making little or no profit on short/medium range flights and earning the big money on Longhaul...), hopefully the longrange aircraft become more efficient in the simulation in the future...
And concerning the usage of longrange aircraft on short/medium haul flights: Might be worth it if you can get the maintainance ration close to 100% with them (I am operating a 748 on MEX-LIM and 788 on MEX-JFK and MEX-YYC just to fill the flightplan..)
I think long haul aircraft is not less-profitable because of inefficiency, but because of low rates paid for tickets on long haul flights.
Based on brief research, prices charged (default) for Y/C/F on long haul flights correspond to Y/C/F IRL fares... but the cheapest one (non-refundable, lowest fare buckets) AND excluding the fuel surcharge (YQ).
If we take average fare paid in Y,C,F on real life long haul flights and we add the real life fuel surcharge, the fare will be substantially more (as in double) than the default rate in AS.
Now if we could work with fare buckets on long haul flights and have rates resembling more IRL fares, I am sure we would/could make (almost) all long haul very profitable indeed!
Well, I run pretty high fares on longhaul while offering medium service. It’s all a question of offer and demand.
Why would anybody run a 747-8I, on a route that can do 10 flights per week, with a config and pricing that brings a net profit of AS$9,949 per flight
Cost: AS$226,101 per flight based on ATE
Revenue: AS$236,050 based on Y/F/C/cargo units as per fleet list, and pricing as per ORS
Why would anyone run a route with a 4% profit margin... or in other words, why would anyone risk a monthly 2.261 million AS in costs in order to generate 99,450 AS in profit?
Because this player 'maybe' has money to spare/likes the 748i/uses it as a feeder/wants marketshare quickly/has IL partners and many more possibilities.
That's it...feeder is what they really want. For me, I would use a widebody aircrafts like B777 or A380 for short haul flights although the profit margin is not so high but I can have these short haul flights to fill up my schedule for the maximum utilization and providing the most feeder as possible.
Turning long haul flights tend to be profitable if an efficient aircraft is used specifically B787 and A380. A low margin route can be sustained because it still can generate feeder to your other routes in the network.
I decided to lease some for Ewing Pacific as they are new aircrafts for 2 thirds of the regular rate. But even that does not guarantee profit. I would have to change them to 777 or 787 for economic reasons.
But what about virtual image and having an USP as there just three other operators on Nicosia...
Why would anybody run a 747-8I, on a route that can do 10 flights per week, with a config and pricing that brings a net profit of AS$9,949 per flight
Cost: AS$226,101 per flight based on ATE
Revenue: AS$236,050 based on Y/F/C/cargo units as per fleet list, and pricing as per ORS
Why would anyone run a route with a 4% profit margin... or in other words, why would anyone risk a monthly 2.261 million AS in costs in order to generate 99,450 AS in profit?
I run 6 748-I (plan to get it to 10) on DME-PEK,SIN, ICN, GMP, and a couple of others....
The reason I do this is because the 777-300ER has a *WORSE* economic structure than the 748-I (if you can fill both, there isn't that much difference) and DME, PEK, SIN, etc are almost full. I can run anything from a 73J, 788, or 748 depending on timing and they are nearly full and feeding my (very) profitable short/medium haul...
So basically the 788 is the best A/C in the game for long haul, but sometimes you want to move as many people as possible considering I connect 65% of my passengers...
I run 12 A340-600 profitable. I just think it's cool that I am flying something no one else is using. I like the Airbus wide body because I can use the more efficient A330s to run long and medium range while the A340s do extra long (+12,000km) range while having only 1 pilot type. I was thinking about leasing some A330 Cargo but they were all leased up.
This is exactly one of the reasons why I am advocating more realistic TA times for widebody aircraft.
There is a discussion here: http://community.airlinesim.aero/topic/6146-variable-turnaround-times/
My understanding is that they are “talking about” fixing the TA times, I think this alone would help immensely with the current widebody issues.
I run 12 A340-600 profitable. I just think it's cool that I am flying something no one else is using. I like the Airbus wide body because I can use the more efficient A330s to run long and medium range while the A340s do extra long (+12,000km) range while having only 1 pilot type. I was thinking about leasing some A330 Cargo but they were all leased up.
I am also using them. And I have more than 12. I think that makes me wayy cooler than you :)
I am also using them. And I have more than 12. I think that makes me wayy cooler than you :)
He is getting more A340 as you are saying this. :P
I made the experience of running a 747-400 fleet (now 199 in operation) as a competitive aircraft compared to the 787 in terms of total operating cost, for routes demanding higher ranges i took the 747-8 to save one maintenance categorie
I made the experience of running a 747-400 fleet (now 199 in operation) as a competitive aircraft compared to the 787 in terms of total operating cost, for routes demanding higher ranges i took the 747-8 to save one maintenance categorie
B744 is a good aircraft to operate in sky. But as it gets older, the fuel consumption is gonna drive the cost up. It is much like A340 with twin engines but almost same amount of seats like A330.
So, A350 would be what we are expecting to "substitute" the monopoly of B787 in the market.
monopoly of B787 in the market.
A little OT but I think this is because people have uncoordinated schedules. No real HUB systems and ILs all over the place, therefore they cannot fill a 747 or A380 and have to use a 787 for routes that can easily be operated by larger planes.
In addition to this the 787 looks very attractive in the evaluation tool but with the proper schedule and connections larger planes make more sense (also in regards to transfer PAX capacity).
AGEX is now finally in a downtrend on Aspern.....so looking forward to it :D
...a 747-400 fleet (now 199 in operation)
Wow! That´s what a call a Jumbo-fleet :wub:
What actually makes the 787 attractive is its low fuel burn, long range and high cruising speed. Also the 747 and A380 are being hurt by its long turn around time of 2:50 making it far more harder to schedule effectively.
Sure the 747 has longer turn around Times but with leasing rates being 40-50% lower due to absence of a demand and perfect cabin width, my longhaul flights are sold long in advance making a good profit! For me it does not make a difference to pay 100,000AS for leasing (787) or for extra fuel (787)
I also have my share of painfully collected experience and I agree that very attractive lease-terms (with a correct business-strategy) are able to offset disadvantages of operating aeroplanes with longer turn around times, higher maintenance costs as well as higher fuel burn. In fact, my older aircraft generate better results compared to some much younger and more modern aircraft operated alongside.