AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3673 times:
As reported in the French business magazine "Management", CDG-CVG is a very popular route and certainly one of the most profitable.
Sabena used to operate this route and had declared BRU-CVG was their transatlantic most profitable route. They had started with an A340-200 but quickly upgraded the route with the 747-300 (their largest aircraft at the time).
Some people have reported, in this forum, that is among the most profitable routes for United Airlines and British Airways. IIRC this is one of the routes UAL put the 747-400 at first on Europe.
Caribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1630 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3628 times:
I guess I should give my own 2 cents worth... again I know profitability is hard to define but I could imagine the following;
New York-Los Angeles
If you look at high density routes maybe some of these fall into high profit making services;
Los Angeles - San Francisco
London - Paris
New York - Boston
Sydney - Melbourne
Hong Kong - Taipei
Montreal - Toronto
Rio - Sao Paulo
Frankfurt - Munich
Tokyo - Osaka
New York - Atlanta
Dallas - Chicago
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3588 times:
My coworker who helps create airline agreements with large companies has told me that transcontinental LAX-NYC and SFO-NYC are THE most profitable for the major US airlines, given the high number of full fare business travelers. (And trust me, transcon full-fare is VERY high).
Caribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1630 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3556 times:
If you look at the big US carriers and their main trunkline routes it would seem they must make a ton of money on them.. any route betweem these cities New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, San Francisco, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Houston, Washington, Philadelphia and Minneapolis must do well unless competition really destroys their margin... which I doubt since first and business class is probably full or near full most of the time into these key centers. I guess my question then is whether the top 10 most profitable routes includes any outside the continental USA?
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 38 Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3554 times:
Expanding on Klwright69's idea, I would imagine that an airline that dominated a certain airport (NW at MEM, UA at DEN, US at CLT to name a few) would most likely pick up their highest levels of revenue, if not profit, off of routes from those cities. Since they by-and-large own that airport, they can charge as high a rate as they want, because the market will pay that fare. I can't sit here and name certain profitable routes, but I would imagine that heavily traveled shuttle and transcon routes would be among the tops.
Tom in NO (at MSY)
P.S. How you doing, Doug?!
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
Caribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1630 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3544 times:
Hey Tom! Good to hear from ya .. How's MSY doing these days?
So in the end airlines make most of their money from business and first class full fare fliers.. what brings in the most profit, highest margin and best yields? Long haul (Tokyo-London) or high frequency short haul (Washington DC - New York)
I hear Air Canada makes about 70% of it's revenue from Toronto seeing it is the central hub for it's operations. I'd be curious to know it their profit comes from routes like Toronto-Tokyo or Montreal-Toronto?
TxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 45 Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
Anecdotal evidence is usually wrong. Thus I tried to go about this business "scientifically".
Using DOT data looked at the yield and # of daily pax on every route in the US.
You could have a yield of, say, 3 bucks a mile.....but if you didn't carry very many pax it would not suggest the route is real profitable.
By the same token you could carry 10,000 passengers a day between two points...but if the yield was a nickel a mile and your costs were a dime per ASM...that wouldn't indicate it being very profitable either.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3435 times:
You ommitted three of the most profitable routes for both BA and BD out of LHR to GLA, EDI and MAN. Even with accelerated rail services and cheaper rail fares, these three routes are major slot fillers at Heathrow (and you can take that comment in its Las Vegas or its runway use version - means the same thing!!!)
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3427 times:
According to British Airways, London Gatwick (LGW) - Denver (DEN) is extremely profitable. Now I'm not sure if its in the top 10 but it might be. Flights are always full to capacity and according to airport officials British Airways is getting a extremely good deal for maintenance at the airport. When British Airways started the service to Denver, they used the 777. About 2 years later they switched to the 747-400 to keep up with the demand. Surprisingly, the 747-400 is still not enough to cope with this flight.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Aio86 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 928 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3410 times:
I didn't get to read all of the posts but I believe that JFK-LHR is a very popular and most likely profitable route. There are 22 non-stops on an average day. They are.
United: 767 x3
American: 777 x2, 767 x2, A-300 x2,
Virgin Atlantic: 747 x 2, A-340 x1
British Airways: 747 x6, Concorde x2 (Once this plane starts flying again, I don't know what they're doing in the meantime)
Air India: 747 x 1
Kuwait Airlines 777 x1
Sorry I don't know which models of 767, 340s and 747s they are. But if the average 767 holds 200 (Since UA and AA have 3 class seating, the average 777 holds 350, A-300 has 200(same as 767, 747 has 400 and Concorde has 100 (Although the flights are almost never full) that means that at full capasity there can be over 3,800 passangers a day, and that is rounding down. I imagine this must be very profitable or else the 6 airlines wouldn't fly them.
Hope this helps,
Caribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1630 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
PhilB: Thanks for adding them into the list. I'm not sure how short haul high frequency routes compare to long haul low frequency intercontinetal flights, do you? NRT-LHR versus LHR-GLA.. I'm sure BA counts on both to bring in money but which brings in the most in the end. NRT would be a high yielding route I would imagine.. Glasgow too but on a lower fare and shorter distance.
TxAgKuwait: Interesting analysis. Everything is based on the 10 cent yield per RPM. It would be nice to know the actual figure per route. Given the costs of operating an aircraft on a high frequency short haul route I can see why long haul flights are conventionally known to be more profitable.. keep the plane at cruise level where it costs less to operate and charge a high fare thereby making passenger yields higher over a longer distance. In the end though do these routes out perform the volume of say Atlanta-New York?