ACL1011 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1143 times:
The merge of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines has created the 8th largest airline in the world in terms of RPKs. The total fleet is 234. What a diverse fleet. There already has been some molting of aircraft colours. The colour schemes could get messy.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9558 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 918 times:
Flygirl: there are various ways to measure the size of a company or airline - it depends which one you use. E.g. fleet size, profit, market capitalisation (the number of shares times their current price), turnover, etc.
Flygirl From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 904 times:
Wow, I didn't realize there were so many ways to compute this statistic! Okay, I get the impression the the size figure quoted in the initial posting dealt with number of aircraft in the fleet. Can someone give me this listing?
Sounds like the RPK stat. is interesting too, but with all the rapid changes, increases and decreases at this time with AC and CAIL, this figure would be impossible to calculate.
ACL1011 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 901 times:
This will be open to debate, Flygirl, for a long time due to several factors. In terms of Fleet size the total of 234 would place us ahead of both Lufthansa and Air France. However, seeing as these are large airlines, the total changes often. Last official count of LH was 224 and AF was 227. In terms of RPKs, the total is going to be debated because the amount of cutback is still not clear. AC would place ahead of US Air but probably behind Lufthansa; this leaves: UA, AA, DL, BA, Nothwest, Continental, Japan Air and Air France.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2111 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 889 times:
Just one important correction. Polaris stated that to calculate the passenger kilometers of the airline, you would multiply the total number of passengers flown by the total kilometers flown by that airline in one year. This is not correct. You'll see why.
Revenue passenger kilometers mean the number of fare-paying passengers on any flight multiplied by the kilometers flown, on that flight only! Then you simply add up this stat for every flight that leaves and departs in that year to get your total.
One 747 flying to Europe from Toronto say, might produce this type of stat:
400 pax x 5,000 km = 2 million RPK
However, if you multiply the total number of passengers flown by the total number of kilometers flown, as Polaris suggested, the product of these two numbers would be outrageous because you would be multiplying every passenger's flight by every other passenger's mileage.
To make things simple, use this hypothetical example:
One 747 makes a very short flight. It flies 400 passengers from A to B 1 kilometer.
400 pax x 1 km = 400 passenger kilometers
This very short flight would produce a total of only 400 passengers kilometers.
Now, you have a second flight. This flight has only 1 passenger on it. This plane, however, flies 5000 km to Europe.
1 pax x 5000 km = 5,000 passenger kilometers.
Now if you add up the passenger kilometers from both flights you would get a total of 5,400 passenger kilometers.
400 + 5000 = 5,400
A grand total of 5,400 passenger kilometers. Correct.
However, if you then use Polaris' equation for totalling up the passenger kilometers, you would have to multiply the total number of passengers (401) by the total number of kilometers flown (5,001).
401 pax x 5,001 kilometers = 2,005,401!
That method produces a total of 2,005,401 passenger kilometers! Obviously, this is not the case.
The actual number is 5,400 passenger kilometers. Assuming that they all paid their fare, make that 5,400 revenue passenger kilometers, RPK.
So that is one way to compare airlines. The other is simply to compare how many passengers fly it every year. One airline may have fewer passengers than another, but it may also fly much longer routes, more than making up the difference.
You may also compare how many flights two airlines have. Again, however, the airline with fewer flights may also be flying 747s mostly, while the other airline is flying MD-80s mostly.
You may also compare the fleet size. But again, as above, an MD-80 doesn't produce the same numbers as a 747.
The other way to compare is passenger seat kilometers. That is the number of seats on a plane, whether they be empty or occupied, mulitpled by the number of kilometers flown for each flight. Obviously, if one airline flies long routs with big 747s, but all the seats are empty all the time, is that the measure of big airline? Hardly. But this stat is used to measure efficiency!
The other way to compare is simply revenue. How much money did an airline take in? Gate reciepts, so to speak. One airline may generate higher gross numbers, but if it isn't making any money, and another airline is making a billion dollars a year in profit, which airline would you consider to be bigger?
So the best way to compare is to count all the passengers on a particular plane and multiple them by how far each of them travelled on that flight. Then add up these numbers at the end of the year to get the revenue passenger kilometers.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 863 times:
Hmmmm, huh ???
I said thid before and I'll say it again, Canada will have the most homogenous colours in the air. Virtually every jet (at least the vast majority) will be wearing the familiar maple leaf, with a stark white fuselage. Although having seen pictures, I have concluded that Canadian looks better in Air Canada colours, than does Air Canada, funny. Also does this merger mean Canadian will be moving out of T4 (BA) in Heathrow, and possibly AA moving in, I hope so?
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Polaris From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1153 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 844 times:
I was trying to keep it short and simple but maybe it was too short and simple! Either way, the "new" airline will have total RPKs in the billions. I'll have to do some calculating before I can submit a good approximation.