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.
B787 is attractive...but that is before A350 starts its maiden flight by Qatar Airways. So, we would expect A350 even better in real world despite lots of airlines in AS have ordered tons of A320 enhanced versions instead of B739ER. Will A350 attack B787 hard in AS after it is introduced in AS?
Lh doesnt work in the game because of a few factors
1. turn around times
2. fuel burn is to high
3. Difficult to get good ratings- you have to use comfort plus other wise you dont get the pax because of low ratings- on the other side it is hard to make money because the real airline have 30% more seats
4. connecting pax prefer two medium flights then one long flight and one short flight- back to point 3 it is hard to make good rating on long flights
The only way i have ever been able to make any money is to own the aircraft- even then my margin has never been better than 30-40%. Compared to an owned A321, it is usually about 30% less margin than short haul.
I said never better than. Considering i invest 150 million into purchasing the aircraft and the return if about 20% margin- making about 300,000 per week is far less than other kinds of single isle jets.
It makes me happy to have a profit margin of approox. 15% with my DC-9-32s ;). I even reduced the weight of catering (throwing three bottles out of the plane) to save fuel :blush:.
On the other hand my A321s generate a profit margin of more than 60% on well-booked flights and even my MD-80s are doing well with 40 to 50% as long as all circumstances are helping me to operate them profitably. MD-90 are doing fine to with margins of between 50 and 55%.
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$236,050 based on Y/F/C/cargo units as per fleet list, and pricing as per ORS
Why would anyone run a route with a 4% profit margin... or in other words, why would anyone risk a monthly 2.261 million AS in costs in order to generate 99,450 AS in profit?
Indeed, why? When you can make with this aircraft profits in excess of AS$ 200,000 per flight, as shown in the attached image ;)
(Aircraft is leased + no small seats, e.g. this 747 has Lie-Flat 140 in C).
Edit: the flight is not (yet?) fully booked :blush:
Revenue: AS$236,050 based on Y/F/C/cargo units as per fleet list, and pricing as per ORS
That flight has less than AS$10,000 profit per flight, NOT AS$200,000
I did not ask why would anybody run a B747-8I in general terms, I asked why would anybody run it on THAT specific route with THAT specific revenue. :)
If I multiply the seats in each class by the listed price they have for the flight, sum the revenue up, and deduct cost as per ATE, the profit on that flight is less than AS$10,000
Many posters talk about using that plane general terms... I asked about this specific scenario.
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?
There's no point in drawing such conclusions out of ATE info because of:
- ATE doesn't include direct costs for handling, catering and logistics
- ATE only gives the number of flights (and so capital costs) based on a standard utilisation (standard maint contractor)
- ATE only shows costs for maint based on your contract
Hence the real profit/loss could be a lot different.
You'd need to add direct costs for log and handling (unless he runs a terminal) and catering - so with your supplied data I cannot see any profit.
But then, with the optimum utilization your capital costs per flight (at standard lease rate) could well be 25% below of what ATE suggests. At a cheaper lease contract he's easily at 30% off.