LPLAspotter From Portugal, joined Jan 2005, 682 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6632 times:
Dear Fellow Airneters:
Some airlines use long range aircraft (such as the 767-300) on short range routes (BA and KL in Europe pops into mind). I was wondering if these type of operations cause the airlines to lose money. I ask this because with the arrival of the 787 will we see this particular aircraft being used only on very long range flights but also (like the 767) on shorter flights of 2 hours or less? I'm quite unknowledgable about operational economics, so if someone could answer this question It would be greatly appreciated.
Kaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6617 times:
Quoting LPLAspotter (Thread starter): I'm quite unknowledgable about operational economics, so if someone could answer this question It would be greatly appreciated
Although they are designed for Long Haul operations, this is mostly due to their physical size. Sure, they're more expensive to operate on your 2hr route between Heathrow and Spain. However you can also fit more people on the aircraft. The profit margins are different. So are the break even points.
You can make Alot of money running large aircraft on short hops, but then you can also loose a fair amount if the Yeilds drop...
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
Jetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6487 times:
Last time I flew from AMS to LHR the aircraft was a KLM 767-300. Capacity was the reason for having a 767-300 on such a short hop. It was a late afternoon flight, full of business people returning from meetings. The flight out, the previous day at lunchtime, had been on a 737NG.
I did fly from London to Athens in a nearly empty A340 once, but that was because Olympic Airways had only just got the aircraft in service and were proving it on short haul. The return trip was quite a contrast, in the one and only Virgin A320, G-OUZO.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
NicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6390 times:
It is also quite common in South America... RG used to come to EZE from GRU with the B772s and MD-11s with more than one daily frequence... Also, LA comes here with A343s and B763s from SCL also with more than one daily frequence...
Another example is AR during the skiing season, they use B744s, B742s (no more) , A310s and A342s in routes such as EZE-BRC or EZE-USH...
Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
WildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6228 times:
It's very common in Canada between YYZ and YUL. AC regularly flies 762's, 763's and 333's here. I even experienced a 343 on this route. From a passenger's view they usually look full. Load factor's anyone?
113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 6127 times:
In the air cargo world, it's common to see large long range aircraft on short runs. Usually, the large amount of payload requires the large aircraft.
However, it's also common for a short leg to position an aircraft for a subsequent flight that is much longer. This is also true for passenger airlines.
Another seldom considered situation also arrises regarding economics. Sometimes with older aircraft that either have high operating costs or high lease charges, the air carrier might choose to operate a large aircraft on short routes to get low daily utilization. They might not be able to make a profit with any stage length so they might as well use their efficient planes on routes where profit can be achieved while leaving a costly asset to still produce revenue or sustain a route while minimizing costs. The same situation occurs with large old planes nearing an expensive maintenance cycle. Minimize the flight hours and/or legs to delay the expense until the plane can be replaced or the expense incurred in a more favorable time frame.
Sanjet From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6003 times:
Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5): It's very common in Canada between YYZ and YUL. AC regularly flies 762's, 763's and 333's here. I even experienced a 343 on this route. From a passenger's view they usually look full. Load factor's anyone?
March 2007 We will see YUL-YYZ-YUL flights with brand new Air Canada 777's for a coule of weeks. It is to complete line indoc's for new captains & f/o's
Each leg is 40-45 minutes. What a sight it will be.
WN2CMH From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5877 times:
Last year I flew a T7 with DL from MCO-ATL. I looked on their website today and saw that flight is operated on 757, 763, 764ER. Is that a repositioning flight or is there just huge demand between those two cities?
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5874 times:
Longhaul aircraft are designed with less cycles per scheduled maintnance. So you're gonna have to keep that (expensive) plane on the ground more often than a norrowbody would have to. One "cycle" is 1 take-off and 1 landing.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
PietPiloot From Netherlands, joined Aug 2006, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5823 times:
Generally, the bigger the aircraft the lower its direct operating costs per kilometre available or per seat kilometre. So looking at direct operating costs, it would be wise to use big aircrafts as long as you can fill them.
However, the shorter the flight the higher its direct costs. An aircraft is basically most cost effective for the purpose it is designed for. An A330 is not the cheapest aircraft to operate on a flight between Amsterdam and London. It is designed to fly longer routes, whereas an B737 on this particular route has probably lower direct costs. On a flight between London and Cairo, it is probably the other way around again. The reason for this is mainly because a large aircraft is more expensive on the ground and during climb/descend than a small aircraft. A large aircraft is less expensive (per seat/km) than a small one during cruise flight.
And then there are other things to keep in mind. An airport may be slot restricted. The only way to increase capacity on a route then is to fly bigger aircraft. Cargo is sometimes an issue. That is why Iberia flies the A340 between Madrid and Frankfurt once weekly. Also, most long haul flights in Europe arrive in the early morning. Some of them depart again somewhere in the afternoon. It is easy to let them make a round trip within Europe in between.
Usair320 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 991 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 5738 times:
Heres a list:
UA LAX-DEN 777
DL ATL-MCO 777/767
DL ATL-MIA 764
KL AMS-LHR A330-200(I think)
BA LHR-AMS B763
BA LHR-FCO B 763
EI DUB-SNN A333/2(continues to ORD/JFK/BO and so on but not LAX)
UA MVD-EZE B763
AA MVD-EZE B763
SQ 772/3/744/A343(I think) SIN-KUL
MU 772/A333/744 KUL-SIN
CI 744 TPE-HKG
and there are many more but these are just off the top of my head.