Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ULH Non-Stop Versus One-stop Economic Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9599 times:

TG's cancellation of BKK-JFK and BKK-LAX non-stop routes has been in the news recently. TG plans to replace BKK-LAX non-stop with BKK-KIX-LAX one-stop.

I wanted to compare the non-stop versus one-stop costs of flying a long route(14-16 hours). I will use the DEL-JFK route( 6,359 nm) as the basis for the analysis. DEL-BRU-JFK( 3,462 nm, 3,187 nm) will be the alternative one-stop route.

To keep the analysis simple, I will assume that a 773ER( AF 3 class 325) seats will be deployed on both the non-stop and one-stop routes. My estimate for all costs--take-off, landing, parking, ATC, passenger fee, etc.--for a 773ER at BRU is $10,500(from the BRU airport website).

The DEL-JFK non-stop will burn about 37,000 gallons, and has cargo potential of 58,000 lbs.
The DEL-BRU-JFK- will burn about 42,000 gallons, and has cargo potential of 85,000 lbs.

The additional fuel costs of one-stop is about $20,000, and adding BRU airport charges of $10,500 brings the total up to $30,500. Assuming 50% cargo load, the one-stop can earn additional cargo revenues of about $20,000( 13,500 lbs X $1.50). The one-stop can generate additional passenger revenues by selling BOM-BRU and BRU-JFK seats that the non-stop flight can not sell. Assuming 20 such seats on each flight, the additional passenger revenue may be around $15,000 per trip. This leaves the one-stop with a $4,500 advantage.

There may be higher overall crew costs for a non-stop flight. However, the non-stop should earn about 5-7% higher passenger revenues over a one-stop flight on DEL-JFK passengers--about $15,000 to $21,000 per trip. My rudimentary analysis for a near ULH route gives the advantage to a non-stop flight by about $10,500-$16,500.

I realise these numbers are valid only for still air condition. Depending on the head wind, the non-stop may not be able to carry much cargo, where as the one-stop will be able to carry most of the cargo potential listed above. This will tilt the advantage to the one-stop flight.

I repeated the analysis for BOM-JFK (about 6,800 nm), and found that the non-stop still has an advantage over the one-stop, but it a much smaller advantage. Adding another 300 nm to the mission, the non-stop no longer has an advantage.

Your comments and additional inputs are welcome.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9583 times:

Of course, that ignores issues like the one stopper might be able to use the A333 instead of the 777.

Your analysis puts MEL-LAX just short of the tipping point where it more economical to stop. Obviously, the 744ER will have a shorter break even point due to being less fuel efficient. I'd think that SYD-LAX could work better with a stop on a hard economic analysis, but NAN is a long way from the mid point and you'd need 8th degree freedom rights to stop in HNL, at least if you wanted to maintain load factors. Also I'd expect the 5-7% pax revenue premium for the non stopper to be understated on this route.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9549 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 1):
Also I'd expect the 5-7% pax revenue premium for the non stopper to be understated on this route.

I did a mock search on Expedia for EWR-DEL RT at peak period (with Jul 10 dep. and Aug.15 return) , and here's what I found:

Non-stop Y on CO $1,748 (all inclusive)
One-stop Y on Virgin $1,593 (all inclusive)
Non-stop premium at about 10%.

Non-stop J on CO $4,498
One-stop J on AI $4,223
Non-stop premium at about 7%.

Assuming the premiums hold for non-peak season too, non-stop DEL-JFK flight should earn about $20,000 more per trip over one-stop.

The wild card in the analysis is the head wind and freight potential of non-stop. Assuming 70 knot head wind for a 14 hour flight will add about 1,000 nm to the mission. That will bring down the cargo potential to 17,000 lbs for the non-stop, which tilts the advantage to the one-stop. Remember that most cargo will flow from DEL to JFK, and not the other way around.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9537 times:

Would be interesting to see a similar calculation applied to some of the truly ULH (>18 hours) routes we have been discussing ad nauseam lately...

1) ATL-SYD with 777-200LR vs. ATL-LAX-SYD with 757-200 and 777-200ER
2) EWR-SIN with A340-500 vs. JFK-NRT-SIN with 747-400
3) SFO-BLR with A340-500 vs. SFO-FRA-BLR with 747-400


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9508 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 3):
Would be interesting to see a similar calculation applied to some of the truly ULH (>18 hours) routes we have been discussing ad nauseam lately...

1) ATL-SYD with 777-200LR vs. ATL-LAX-SYD with 757-200 and 777-200ER
2) EWR-SIN with A340-500 vs. JFK-NRT-SIN with 747-400
3) SFO-BLR with A340-500 vs. SFO-FRA-BLR with 747-400

Let me present the numbers for BLR-SFO on A345 versus BLR-HKG-SFO on 773ER.

BLR-SFO ia about GC 7,600 nm, and adding for deviation from GC route and accounting for head wind should take the effective distance to 8,500 nm.

A345 will burn about 50,000 gallons, and has the potential cargo capacity of 20,000 lbs.

BLR-HKG (2,145 nm) and HKG-SFO(6,019 nm) add up to about 8,200 nm. Adding deviation from GC route, and accounting for head wind gives the following:

773ER will burn about 56,000 gallons, and has the potential to carry 85,000 lbs of cargo.

773ER's fuel cost is higher by $24,000. Adding $11,000 for stop over charge at HKG gives a total of $35,000. It has the potential to earn additional passenger revenue to the tune of $25,000 (50 seats X 70% load X $700), and cargo revenue to the tune of $50,000 (65,000 lb X 50% load X $1.50), for a total of $75,000. Add to it another $25,000 for seats sold on BLR-HKG, and HKG-SFO sectors, takes the total to $100,000.

The net gain on one-stop flight is about $65,000 per trip. Subtracting $30,000 for non-stop premium still leaves a $30,000 advantage to 773ER over A345 non-stop flight.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9468 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 1):
Of course, that ignores issues like the one stopper might be able to use the A333 instead of the 777.

That is the key! LAXDESI please make the example two A333-legs vs. one 772ER leg.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9412 times:

Let me compare 772LR and A333 on BOM-JFK routes.

772LR
BOM-JFK is 6,777nm (GC). Adding deviations from GC route, and accounting for head winds will take the effective distance to 8,400 nm.

The trip fuel burn is 45,000 gallons, and cargo potential is 40,000 lbs.

A333
BOM-BRU-JFK is about 6,900 nm (GC). Adding deviations from GC route, and accounting for head winds,

The trip fuel burn is 34,000 gallons, and cargo potential is 46,000 lbs.
Note: The cargo potential is 39,000 on BOM-BRU sector. It increases to 53,000 lbs. on BRU-JFK sector.

A333 saves $44,000 in fuel costs.
A333 earns $5,000 in additional cargo revenue.
A333 earns $15,000 additional pass. revenue by selling BOM-BRU, and BRU-JFK sectors.
A333 spends $10,500 for the stop at BRU.
The net gain is around $63,000.

B772LR can earn $15,000 additional passenger revenue due to larger capacity(20 seats).
B772LR can earn about $20,000 additional revenue for non-stop premium(10% premium).
B772LR saves about 4 hours, which translates to about $7,000 in lower capital costs.

Subtracting $42,000 from $63,000 still leaves an advantage to the tune of $21,000 in favor of A333.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9386 times:

In this post, I will compare 772LR and 773ER on LAX-SIN routes.

772LR
LAX-SIN is 7,621 nm (GC). Adding deviations from GC route, and accounting for head winds will take the effective distance to 9,100 nm.

The trip fuel burn is 49,000 gallons, and cargo potential is 13,000 lbs.

B773ER
LAX-NRT-SIN is about 7,626 nm (GC). Adding deviations from GC route, and accounting for head winds,

The trip fuel burn is 53,000 gallons, and cargo potential is 85,000 lbs.

Analysis:
B773ER spends additional $16,000 in fuel costs, earns $54,000 in additional cargo revenue.
It also earns $18,000 additional pass. revenue by selling LAX-NRT, and NRT-SIN sectors. It can also earn about $28,000 with its higher seat capacity of 50. It also spends $15,000 for the stop at NRT. The net gain is around $61,000.

B772LR can earn about $30,000 additional revenue for non-stop premium(15% premium).
B772LR saves about 4 hours, which translates to about $7,000 in lower capital costs.

Subtracting $37,000 from $61,000 still leaves an advantage to the tune of $24,000 in favor of 773ER.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9385 times:

In this post, I will attempt to capture the operational costs of deploying the 772LR on ATL-SYD route by DL.

ATL-SYD is 8,068 nm(GC), and adding deviations from GC, and accounting for head winds takes the effective distance to the max. range of 772LR at 9,450 nm. At this distance there will be zero cargo potential.

The trip fuel burn is about 50,000 gallons at a cost of $200,000. Adding capital, crew and other costs should take the figure upto $500,000 per round trip.

Delta's 772LR are configured with 43 lie-flat J seats, and 233 Y seats. Assuming 80% load, J seats at $6,000 RT will earn about $206,000 RT, and Y seats at $1,500 RT will earn about $280,000--for a total of $486,000, less than my estimated costs for a RT.

Your comments are welcome.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9368 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
Subtracting $42,000 from $63,000 still leaves an advantage to the tune of $21,000 in favor of A333.

Thank you for all of these calculations. They demonstrate why, despite the amazing capabilities of the 777-200LR, it's hard to make money with it when the A330-300 and 777-300ER, probably the two most versatile widebodies flying today, are both available.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9339 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):

Thanks! Eyeopening. Has at least a little relevance for my aerial-refueling-study too ( http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/226906 ).
For the aerial refueling of the $63k gain the tanker's cost would have to be subtracted. How much costs one aerial refueling?


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6418 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9158 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 1):

But then again, people maybe prepared to pay slightly more for non-stop flights so you could raise the airfare to gain break even for a lighter load factor. I'm sure paying a little bit would cover for the pain of having to stop in places like Fiji where the humidity could get to you even though you're only briefly passing through. Increase the number of premium seats so that you can store more cargo like what SQ is doing with their A345s?

Are there any other maintenance costs or something like that associated with more takeoffs/landings or stops in general?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9051 times:



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 11):
Are there any other maintenance costs or something like that associated with more takeoffs/landings or stops in general?

Most maintenance tasks are a function of both hours and cycles, and are triggered by whichever you hit first. Some expensive bits, like engines, landing gear, brakes, and fuselage, are much more cycle-sensitive than hour-sensitive so the maintenance cost delta could be significant.

Tom.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9049 times:



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 11):
But then again, people maybe prepared to pay slightly more for non-stop flights so you could raise the airfare to gain break even for a lighter load factor.

This is what he means by "revenue premium", so he and others are already taking passenger preferences into account. From the above analysis - it is usually not enough to offset the improved economic efficiency of the flight with a stop. The ability to drop off and pick up people + cargo while refueling may also make a difference, especially if it is at a hub with a lot of connection opportunities.

My guess is fuel prices will reduce the attractiveness of ultra-long hauls. Over time airlines will reassign aircraft with this capability to routes 500-2000nm shorter and fill them up with more cargo. I would also not be surprised to see a shorter range for the A350 then for the 777W's, when the final A350 design comes out.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13033 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 1):
Of course, that ignores issues like the one stopper might be able to use the A333 instead of the 777.

The 77W and A333 have similar costs per pax on the missions being discussed. The advantage is being able to down-gauge the route to meet demand.

IMHO, Airbus should have done the A330 winglets far earlier... 20/20 hindsight and all that...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Some expensive bits, like engines, landing gear, brakes, and fuselage, are much more cycle-sensitive than hour-sensitive so the maintenance cost delta could be significant.

The maintenance cost delta for a 77W should be:
About $350 per engine per cycle ($700 per takeoff)
Breaks, tires, and such should be about 80% of that. Call it $500.
Since these legs are still long, C checks will still be done on a nominal schedule, but add about $50 per cycle for 'troubles found' at each C-check.

It will be interesting to see the 787 compared. In particular after a few more PIPs.   

Thank you for the analysis.

A link on maintenance costs, but do not panic at the costs per flight cycle. I look at an engine/airframe and count the first hour of flight as part of the per cycle cost and then a per hour cost. Done that way, most of the cost of maintaining an engine is per cycle, with some increase per hour. About a 75%/25% split (IIRC).
http://www.iata.org/workgroups/Documents/MCTF/AMC_ExecComment_FY09.pdf

But if we look at the overall numbers, this isn't a major driver. It is fuel, employee costs, and revenue potential that will make the decisions.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 13):
My guess is fuel prices will reduce the attractiveness of ultra-long hauls. Over time airlines will reassign aircraft with this capability to routes 500-2000nm shorter and fill them up with more cargo.

To a limited degree I agree. However, one factor that can offset the expenses of the ULH is superior hub to hub connections. I like this analysis. It tells a clear story. However, it skips details such as EWR as a power UA/CO hub versus JFK which just doesn't have the level of hubbing of EWR.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4960 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6305 times:

I have a flight plan for a 77W for a 6535nm sector length , 14hr 32m flight time. The ZFW was 211t and MTOW was 343t.
The fuel load needed to allow for contingencies etc. was 130.410t so in this example there was 1.59t over loaded.
The total time to reach cruise altitude and to descend and land was 50min. with a fuel burn of 8.794t . The average cruise burn was 7.876t/ hr. So the incremental fuel burn over cruise for takeoff and landing was only .918t which at the present IATA benchmark of $980 M/t amounts to ~$900.
For the same distance but with winds the fuel load required was 138.709t for an additional trip time of 35min.
Perhaps these numbers can assist you if you match them against the load/range chart to see how far this is out.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14):
However, one factor that can offset the expenses of the ULH is superior hub to hub connections. I like this analysis. It tells a clear story. However, it skips details such as EWR as a power UA/CO hub versus JFK which just doesn't have the level of hubbing of EWR.

Good point. It is indeed true that UA with its hub at EWR can offer many more one-stop USA-India connection than Jet Airways with its scissor hub at BRU.

B788(242 seats) on a one-stop DEL-EWR route via BRU over non-stop DEL-EWR. Breakdown is as follows:
will save about $3,500 in fuel cost
earn about $18,000 more in cargo at 50% load factor
earn about $15,000 from 20 extra seats sold on DEL-BRU and BRU-EWR sector

offsets in favor of non-stop
one-stop loses about $9,000 in BRU airport charges
non-stop premium of about $17,000 on EWR-DEL sector
potential additional revenues/premium to the tune of $15,000 from selling one-stop USA-EWR-DEL and EWR-DEL-India.

Accounting for additional revenues from hubbing at EWR(UA) or at DEL(AI), the non-stop may end up with an advantage to the tune of $4,500 per trip, or about $1.5 million annually.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5944 times:

One thing often said about ULH flight (and easily demonstrated using the Breguet range equation) is that "it takes fuel to carry fuel." Out of curiosity, how much is that, i.e. how would the fuel burn numbers in your original analysis change if you kept the payload identical, and didn't use the full MTOW on the one-stop mission?

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5511 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
One thing often said about ULH flight (and easily demonstrated using the Breguet range equation) is that "it takes fuel to carry fuel." Out of curiosity, how much is that, i.e. how would the fuel burn numbers in your original analysis change if you kept the payload identical, and didn't use the full MTOW on the one-stop mission?

My apology for a late response as I have been busy lately.

My model is set up for analysis at MTOW only. I hope to build a more robust model one day to enable comparisons at non-MTOW numbers.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6849 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):

One thing often said about ULH flight (and easily demonstrated using the Breguet range equation) is that "it takes fuel to carry fuel." Out of curiosity, how much is that, i.e. how would the fuel burn numbers in your original analysis change if you kept the payload identical, and didn't use the full MTOW on the one-stop mission?

Well, we can do a fixed landing weight (assuming alternates and holding requirements as identical), and make it go the various ranges and see how much fuel is burnt.

One doesn't need to go to ULH to see that to go double the distance, you'd need more than double the fuel... but since this is about ULH... that makes it easier because I don't have to talk about "very short ranges" economics which is a different animal.

Taken from the Performance Dispatch table from the 777-200LR FCOM...


These are the fuel burns for 180tons, 220tons and 150tons landing weight.

I picked the 777-200LR because it basically isn't really weight limited for most mission profiles... (well unless you want to go over 8000NM nonstop)... it can still do 9500NM to land at MLW, without busting MTOW. I picked the 150Ton landing weight because it's OEW + 6 tons or so... 220 Ton landing weight because it is the MZFW + 5 tons, and that MLW is 223 tons anyway.


Use the fuel (kgs) required per nautical mile, and you see that the best fuel economy for 3 various landing weights landing weight is actually to only go 2500NM...


Just how much fuel do you need to carry more fuel to go longer? Well, this one should give a better idea... to fly an extra 500NM you need to carry extra fuel, the further the total distance is, the more the additional 500NM needs fuel.

So, all is lost against ULH nonstop? No... it's not that clear cut with these info... let's add:


You can also see 1 stop (at half total distance) vs non stop total fuel burn difference, at 220Ton Landing weight, from 4000NM, and how significant the difference is the further you go... While it is more fuel efficient to do a 1 stop at the halfway point, you need to also see that the extra stop adds that extra flight time, so, the hour based costs are going to increase, this matters in maintenance costs, crew costs can be more expensive or cheaper depending on the regulatory setup, crew costs, etc. The extra time cost wouldn't be greater than the additional fuel costs, but cycle based maintenance can be end up making the 1 stop less advantageous, even without the payload benefit (hence I picked the 777-200LR, because the only payload penalty at 10,000NM eats into my ZFW... the MTOW is 347.5 tons, and to land at MZFW or MLW at 10,000NM, my MTOW would be 356.5 tons (while 9500NM makes me just shy of the MTOW, at 345.3 tons).

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5368 times:

A suggestion/question.

Flightaware gives actual flight durations on their website. Wouldn't this be a better way to estimate fuel burn than just GC distances? This takes care of winds and other operational issues, which should be particularly helpful. Just average a few days at different times of the year together and voilà.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5318 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
My apology for a late response as I have been busy lately.

That's quite all right, you don't owe us anything really! I appreciate the time you take to do this.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
My model is set up for analysis at MTOW only. I hope to build a more robust model one day to enable comparisons at non-MTOW numbers.

That would seem to be a significant shortcoming, but perhaps not a very hard one to fix? If your model is based on the range equation, then it should be reasonably easy to work backwards from landing weight to takeoff weight by constraining the range to the desired value... instead of constraining the take-off weight to compute the range.

The apples-to-apples fuel burn numbers seem obscured by the cargo being piled on to reach MTOW. I'm not sure how, in your OP one-stop case, you would jam 85,000 lb of cargo into the hold of a 773ER considering that passenger bags already eat up a portion of the capacity.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6849 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5183 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):
Wouldn't this be a better way to estimate fuel burn than just GC distances?

Yes and no.
The best way is, get a flight path made... and look at the normal winter pattern (or the windy season if not in winter)... and convert the ground miles to air miles... this is because the effect of wind on econ cruise, isn't fixed... and speed can vary as you go lighter on the long trip. Air miles is what makes you burn the fuel... knowing the ground distance and the time itself won't give us an accurate air miles.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
772LR
BOM-JFK is 6,777nm (GC). Adding deviations from GC route, and accounting for head winds will take the effective distance to 8,400 nm.

The trip fuel burn is 45,000 gallons, and cargo potential is 40,000 lbs.

There's a problem to this... what do you want your landing weight to be?
For 220Ton landing weight (ie: As much payload that you can carry, plus an additional 5 tons of fuel), 8400NM requires 141.7 tons of fuel, which equates to about 46,600 gallons!
Plus, how does 6777NM + headwinds become 8400NM? Under LRC tables for the 777-200LR, that equates to 90kt constant headwinds... I think a 40kt constant headwind would already make the bean counters ask Ops Dept to find other routes to minimize costs.

---

I did one for fun... what if we compare PER-LHR with PER-DXB-LHR on the 777-200LR.


Using the air routes...

Starting with the 1stopper...
PER-DXB, 4902NM, +40KT Headwind, becomes 5355NM, Fuel Burn: 83.4T, Time: 11H17
DXB-LHR, 3055NM, +40KT Headwind, becomes 3341NM, Fuel Burn: 50.0T, Time: 7H08
LHR-DXB, 3001NM, +40KT Tailwind, becomes 2765NM, Fuel Burn: 41.1T, Time: 5H58
DXB-PER, 5124NM, +40KT Tailwind, becomes 4726NM, Fuel Burn: 72.6T, Time: 9H59

So, we can come up with:
PERDXBLHR, Fuel Burn: 133.4T, Time: 18H24
LHRDXBPER, Fuel Burn: 113.7, Time: 15H55.

How does this compare with the direct?
PER-LHR direct: 7940NM, +40KT Headwind, becomes 8664NM, Fuel Burn: 147.3T, Time: 18H03
LHR-PER, direct 8050NM, +40KT Tailwind, becomes 7439NM, Fuel Burn: 122.2T, Time: 15H42

So, doing a 1 stop, adds 2 extra cycles, less than 35 mins on a return trip, burns 22.4 tons less.
The fuel is a saving of about 26500 USD (am using CGK fuel prices though)...
The 35mins would eat into the hourly cost of maintenance, probably about $2000 or so, that would include the cycle costs already (based on lower hours per cycle assumption from another case). Airport charges, landing, handling, etc, excluding Navigation Costs (because that would still be paid when overflying), you'd probably still end up with about $5000-$8000 savings by making it a 1 stopper (crew costs not included).

The question now becomes, can you fill the plane up by going direct?

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
this is because the effect of wind on econ cruise, isn't fixed... and speed can vary as you go lighter on the long trip.

I guess this is because of pilots (FADEC?) messing with the throttles to maintain a particular cruise speed?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinegeorgiaame From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 976 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

I'm not an economist, and I am certainly not an airline bean counter. I like to travel, and I like airplanes. Your stats are great, clearly you've done your homework and put a lot of thought into this. But to my way of thinking, any ultra-long haul has to haul a hell of a lot of fuel, simply to fly more fuel from point B to C, without stopping. Perhaps in the days of cheap petroleum products you can make a case, but hauling fuel from point A to fly over point B so that you can actually make on from B to point C empirically cannot be profitable. You are literally burning money rather than hauling extra cargo in the hold, or more passengers upstairs. Not having to schlep that extra gas to a midway point and refueling has to result in better profitability. Maybe reality is more sophisticated than my assessment, but clearly, the A345 ain't selling very well. We had a great flight from LAX to SIN several years ago non stop on Singapore's 345. It shaved several hours off travel via Tokyo, it was much easier on us as passengers that I would have expected, but Premium Economy was less than 3/4 full, Business was almost empty. That flight, unless it was hauling gold bullion, could not have made a great deal of money!


"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
25 Fabo : georgiaame, but this is being factored in, at least by Mandala, if not the OP. That would be 6777 + gc deviation + headwings = 8400. Assuming 5% extra
26 mandala499 : Actually BOM-JFK is about 7000NM via the air routes. For it to become 8400, it's about 80kt constant headwind! I did one for 40Kts average headwind:
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic ULH Non-Stop Versus One-stop Economic Analysis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A358 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Fri May 30 2008 00:07:09 by LAXDESI
A333 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Wed May 28 2008 14:46:13 by LAXDESI
A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis posted Tue May 27 2008 22:20:48 by LAXDESI
Why SQ’s Southerly Route On EWR-SIN Non-stop? posted Fri Jan 4 2008 14:04:15 by Coal
The Definition Of Non-Stop -VS- Direct posted Fri Nov 16 2007 11:39:49 by BP1
Longest Non-stop Flight For An A310 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 07:56:28 by CYEGsTankers
Could A318 Elite Do 6,000+NM Non-Stop? posted Sun Jan 29 2006 07:08:57 by DEVILFISH
Efficiency Of Non-stop Vs. 1 Or 2 Stop Flights posted Fri Oct 17 2003 18:23:59 by StarG
When Do Landing Gears Stop Spinning After Take Off posted Wed Mar 26 2008 01:37:22 by RampGuy
Why A Jet Stop Smoking When They Go Into A/B posted Thu Apr 26 2007 05:38:35 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format