Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4758 times:
The numbers I am going to give are revenue per passenger nautical mile. I believe RASM would also take into account load factors, therefore would be even lower because none of these routes are flying 100% day in day out.
Luv2fly From United States, joined May 2003, 10723 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4672 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 2): Something tells me the revenue on CMH-MCI isn't even covering the fuel costs, let alone all the other costs involved in running an airline.
It's the $2.00 cokes that is making them money, and all the shopping items they offer.
Knope2001 From United States, joined May 2005, 1363 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4427 times:
Thanks for posting this very interesting stuff!
Do you have a web source for this? The source I use just posted 2nd quarter data and seems a quarter or two behind what I sometimes see referred to in press items.
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3376 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4340 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 2): I believe RASM would also take into account load factors
I don't think so. It's Revenue Per Available Seat Mile. It's a function of how many seats in the plane, and really has nothing to do, per se, with load factor. Available seat miles is a higher number for aircraft with more seats, and lower for aircraft with fewer seats. Higher denominator, lower RASM, ceteris paribus. Lower denominator, higher RASM. One criticism of JetBlue pulling seats (justified or not) from the A320 was that it was done in an effort to make its RASM higher with the same number of passengers flying per plane. It was allegedly a way of muting criticism of its financials (low RASM) quickly, without actually changing anything meaningful. (There are a million countervailing arguments, including that this simultaneously drove up its CASM, but that was the criticism, and I use it to illustrate how easy it is to fudge RASM in the short term.)
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4317 times:
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 5):
I don't think so. It's Revenue Per Available Seat Mile. It's a function of how many seats in the plane, and really has nothing to do, per se, with load factor. Available seat miles is a higher number for aircraft with more seats, and lower for aircraft with fewer seats. Higher denominator, lower RASM, ceteris paribus. Lower denominator, higher RASM.
The numbers I calculated were just revenue per passenger mile. If 100 pax pay 100 dollars to go 1000 miles... your RPM is 10 cents per mile. Your total revenue is $10,000, and your total passenger miles are 100,000. But if those 100 pax were on a 200 seat aircraft... your revenue is still $10,000 but your available seat miles were actually 200,000. Therefore your RASM is 5 cents.
Point being, if SX's RPM is in the 4-5 cent range on some flights... the RASM has to be even lower yet, which is just dismal. Obviously SX isn't flying 200 seat aircraft, but I was using easily roundable numbers for the demonstration. Assuming a 75% LF, that 4.668 cents RPM equates to a RASM of 3.501 cents.
So how many $2 Cokes, and $10 checked bags do they need to make up for that?
Joeljack From United States, joined Feb 2005, 368 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3821 times:
Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 8): The MCI flight just looks plain dismal - and I'm typically a big supporter of SX. Hopefully the ILG and IAG runs will improve the general trend.
What would one expect with the flight leaving and arriving at 2 or 3am. I looked at this flight for someone until I realized it was in the middle of the night! Not going to find too many people on this flight for anything more than a dirt cheap price!
FlyDeltaJets87 From United States, joined Aug 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 15 Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3782 times:
Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 3): It's the $2.00 cokes that is making them money, and all the shopping items they offer.
Even if 100 passengers by a pop, selling $200 worth of coke per flight isn't going to cut it either.
Is their biggest money maker cheked baggage and priority boarding passes?
Quoting Joeljack (Reply 9): Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 8):
The MCI flight just looks plain dismal - and I'm typically a big supporter of SX. Hopefully the ILG and IAG runs will improve the general trend.
What would one expect with the flight leaving and arriving at 2 or 3am. I looked at this flight for someone until I realized it was in the middle of the night! Not going to find too many people on this flight for anything more than a dirt cheap price!
And while not direct, Southwest is easy enough to fly on that route with more flight options and still reasonable fares.
they have changed the timings considerably on that route this month! afternoon roundtrip rather than middle of the nigth as before....The trip back to CMH used to leave at 1000pm -ish and arrive almost 100am..thats a hard sell at any price!! i think it now leaves at 145pm
Gregarious119 From United States, joined Jun 2006, 437 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3661 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 10): And while not direct, Southwest is easy enough to fly on that route with more flight options and still reasonable fares.
Yeah I'm hoping to try CMH-ILG sometime this summer to see how the airport compares. My wife and I have done CMH-PHL quite a few times (for $25, 34, and $59 fares) so it'll be interesting to compare the two.
SX will have a hard time getting upward pressure on those fares with CMH-PHL being so cheap already, but the delays at PHL may be enough to balance that out.
SafetyDemo From United States, joined Sep 2007, 181 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3271 times:
Southwest also flies CMH-PHL and everytime I flew it (both times around Christmas) the airplane was empty. So, if people aren't willing to fly WN for 39 dollars each way (what I paid) ... is the additional 29 dollars off for the first ten people going to make a big difference for SX? I'd rather spend the 29 dollars and get a free drink, free checked baggage, and happy employees. And, oh yeah, land at the airport I really want to fly into, PHL. Which is MUCH closer to where my family is (the NW suburbs) than Wilmington, DE.
safetyDemo
Please direct your attention to the flight attendants in the cabin...
Gregarious119 From United States, joined Jun 2006, 437 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
Quoting SafetyDemo (Reply 13): Southwest also flies CMH-PHL and everytime I flew it (both times around Christmas) the airplane was empty. So, if people aren't willing to fly WN for 39 dollars each way (what I paid) ... is the additional 29 dollars off for the first ten people going to make a big difference for SX? I'd rather spend the 29 dollars and get a free drink, free checked baggage, and happy employees. And, oh yeah, land at the airport I really want to fly into, PHL. Which is MUCH closer to where my family is (the NW suburbs) than Wilmington, DE.
I'd be curious to see load factor numbers for that route on US and WN, since most of the flights i've been on have been chock full.
SafetyDemo From United States, joined Sep 2007, 181 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 14): I'd be curious to see load factor numbers for that route on US and WN, since most of the flights i've been on have been chock full.
I've always seen nearly-full to full flights on USAirways, but keep in mind these are all 70 or 86 seaters I've been seeing. As for WN, the four times I flew the route are obviously not an indication of the entire life of the route ... but I did find it interesting that I never once saw more than 30 people on the plan when I flew them and it was during the Christmas rush. It must be doing well enough to still be around. Either way, I'd rather take WN than SX anyday.
safetyDemo
Please direct your attention to the flight attendants in the cabin...
RiddlePilot215 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 283 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 2): The numbers I am going to give are revenue per passenger nautical mile. I believe RASM would also take into account load factors, therefore would be even lower because none of these routes are flying 100% day in day out.
Quoting B757capt (Reply 1):
Now we just need to see the operational costs........
Something tells me the revenue on CMH-MCI isn't even covering the fuel costs, let alone all the other costs involved in running an airline.
Then again, you're not taking into account load factor which plays HUGE on both of those numbers. Obviously, the more people that fly on your plane, the lower your costs are going to be because there is a greater assimilation of potential revenue costs
Look! That airplane is climbing, it can't be a Piper!
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 16):
Then again, you're not taking into account load factor which plays HUGE on both of those numbers. Obviously, the more people that fly on your plane, the lower your costs are going to be because there is a greater assimilation of potential revenue costs Smile
I don't care if they're averaging 120% on MCI-CMH... those revenues aren't going to cut it.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Sep 2007, 887 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
