LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 9:20 am

There are many routes where there is enough O&D traffic to fill a plane, but many of these flights go through intermediate points. Some examples would be LAX-NRT-BKK, LAX-NRT-KL over the Pacific. There are routes over Atlantic like EWR-DEL which go through intermediate points like LON, FRA and other EU stops.

Continental Airlines(CO) will start a non-stop service between EWR and DEL starting this November on a 777-300ER. A competing one stop service is EWR-LON-DEL on a 747-400. The non-stop distance, EWR-LON is 7324 miles, and EWR-LON-DEL is 7,650 miles.

I would like to do some back of the envelope calculations for these two competing services and estimate flight operating cost differences.
ASSUMPTIONS:
Both Aircrafts will be utilized for 300 days a year(Accounting for maintenance)
Average load factor will be 70%. 747 has a capacity of 415 seats(3 class) and 777-300ER a capacity of 365(3 class). Therefore, average revenue seats will be 291 for 747 and 255 for 777-300ER. This gives 747 an advantage of 36 more revenue seats per flight.
Non-stop flight will be about 15 hours long and the one stop flight will be 19 hours long including the layover time.

FUEL COSTS: a 747-400 will consume about 45,000 gallons of fuel for this flight and a 777-300ER will consume 35,000 gallons of fuel, resulting in a saving of 10,000 gallons of fuel per flight. At fuel cost of $1.50/gallon, the flight savings in favor of 777 will be $15,000, and this will translate to fuel savings of $4.5 million(300 annual flight assumption).

AIRCRAFT UTILIZATION: Since the 777 will save 4 hours over the 19 hours needed by 747, its utilization will be 22% less for the same flight. Assuming a capital cost of $250 million for each aircraft, and a cost of capital of about 10%, the annual capital cost savings will be $5.5 million.

LANDING FEES: LON charges a landing fee of $12 per passenger. THe additional cost of landing at London will be $1 million annually.

GATE COSTS: I could not get any gate cost info. on the web for LON. I am assuming a recurring cost of $2 million per year.

CREW COSTS: I think it will be a wash as 777-300ER will have to carry more pilots relative to any saving achieved on hotel costs.

Based on above, 777-300ER will save about $13 million per year over the 747.

On the yield side, a 747 will have 36 more revenue seats on an average. Assuming an average yield of $1200/seat, it will translate to about $12.96 million additional revenue per year. Therefore, 747 one stop makes up for its cost disadvantage by having higher yield on high density routes like EWR-DEL.

It is reasonable to assume that CO will be able to charge a premium of $100/seat on the non-stop resulting in a total gain of (255X100X300) about $7.6 million.

Have I missed something in my calculations? All comments/corrections will be appreciated.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 9:34 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Have I missed something in my calculations?

Only that CO will be flying a 777-200ER, not a 300ER, which will throw your calculations off considerably.
International Homo of Mystery
 
aseem
Posts: 1971
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:39 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 9:45 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):

thank God the calculations were not done according to B773LR.  Wink
cheers!!
VT-ASJ
ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 10:49 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
Only that CO will be flying a 777-200ER, not a 300ER, which will throw your calculations off considerably.

Thank you AeroWesty for the correction. The 777-200ER has a stated capacity of 305(3 class) seats. The yield advantage changes for 747 to about $27 million per year (as against 13 million cost disadvantage), resulting in a net advantage of $14 million per year.

CO will have to charge about $220/seat more to cover the shortfall of $14 million. Will the market pay a premium of $220 and more?

I would also like to point out that load factor for 777 will be higher than 70% during off peak period. It is much harder to fill a 747 at 70% capacity than a 777-200ER. This should tilt the advantage to 777-200ER.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 11:13 am

I don't think the assumption that both flights will have a 70% load is reasonable. I think a nonstop B777-200ER will be full before a competing one-stop B747-400 reaches 70% load. Also, a B777-200ER will burn less fuel than a B777-300ER would.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 11:39 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
Thank you AeroWesty for the correction. The 777-200ER has a stated capacity of 305(3 class) seats.

In CO's configuration, they fly 2-class. BusinessFirst and Coach.

You can get the seating arrangements at either continental.com or seatguru.com

Cheers.
International Homo of Mystery
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
don't think the assumption that both flights will have a 70% load is reasonable. I think a nonstop B777-200ER will be full before a competing one-stop B747-400 reaches 70% load. Also, a B777-200ER will burn less fuel than a B777-300ER would.

I agree with you. Under the assumption that flights will be full for 747, 1/3rd of the time, 70% full 1/3rd of the time, and 40% full 1/3rd of the time, resulting in a average load factor of 70% for 747, a comparable load factor works out to be 83% for 777-200ER. This gives the 747 yield advantage of 38 seats, comparable to the 36 seat advantage shown in the thread starter.

THEREFORE, IF SA)">CO CAN CHARGE ABOUT $125 MORE PER SEAT, IT WILL STILL MAKE MORE MONEY USING A 777-200ER THAN A 747 ONE-STOP SERVICE.

777-300ER has the range to do the EWR-DEL sector. If a 777-300ER were used instead of a 777-200ER, the yield advantage of 747 is only $6,000,000, against the cost disadvantage of $13 million.

THIS MEANS AN AIRLINE USING 777-300ER ON EWR-DEL NON-STOP WILL MAKE $6 MILLION MORE PER YEAR OVER 747 ONE-STOP, EVEN IF IT CHARGES THE SAME AMOUNT. IT CAN EASILY ADD $8 MILLION TO THAT FIGURE IF IT CAN CHARGE $100 MORE PER SEAT FOR THE NON-STOP.

This suggests that many routes to India from USA will become non-stop, even if the market will not pay a premium. Air India's decision to order 777-200LR and 777-300 makes a lot of sense.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 12:28 pm

Just read on the Economic Times site that Sahara and United will jointly operate a non-stop from Chicago to Delhi. I wonder who will be the first to announce a non-stop to Bombay.
 
aseem
Posts: 1971
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:39 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 12:37 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 7):

here is the link
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ticleshow/msid-1111048,curpg-1.cms
wonder what do they mean by jointly operating non-stop flight. That shall need commonality of equipment as well. Next, so S2 should be looking for kind of aircraft UA has.
The article clearly states that Rono Dutta is using his good ol' links with UA. No harm as long as it works.
rgds
VT-ASJ
ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 12:41 pm

Quoting Aseem (Reply 8):
wonder what do they mean by jointly operating non-stop flight

I think they will be using existing UA equipment. Article suggests that they will jointly share all costs and revenues.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 12:43 pm

Quoting Aseem (Reply 8):
That shall need commonality of equipment as well. Next, so S2 should be looking for kind of aircraft UA has.

Not unless it's like the arrangement NW/KL have on revenue-sharing on U.S.-AMS flights.
International Homo of Mystery
 
aseem
Posts: 1971
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:39 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 12:44 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 9):
I think they will be using existing UA equipment. Article suggests that they will jointly share all costs and revenues

you mean more UA rustbuckets coming!  Wink
should be interesting to see who actually operates them. Whose F/A are being used? Will it be UA's livery or will S2 paint few in its own? Some of the interesting thoughts that crossed my mind.
rgds
VT-ASJ
ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 1:29 pm

Non-stops from USA to southern cities of India, MAA-BLR-HYD, will require 777-200LR, 787-800 or 787-900. It is safe to assume that southern cities will not get a non-stop service for a few years unless some A340-500 or 340-600 become available.

It seems to me that Bombay can not be reached non-stop by 777-200-300- ER series from USA. Is that correct?

It is my understanding that 787 will be 20% more fuel efficient than 777. 787-900 can seat 257(3 class) and 777-200LR can seat 300(3 class). For the southern cities, 787 would be ideal. SFO-MAA(city that I grew up in), SFO-BLR-HYD could easily fill a 787, on thrice weekly basis. Again, Air India has ordered 787 to cater to this market. If the 787 is expected to be 20% more fuel efficient than 777, it is about 40% more fuel efficient than a 747 on a one-stop like MAA-LON-SFO on BA. My calculations show that 787 will beat a 747 on a medium density route like MAA-SFO or BLR-SFO.

BA and LH should begin to worry and expect to lose a big chunk of their market share in India to likes of Air India and Jet(if they order these aircrafts) in about 3-5 years.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 1:46 pm

Quoting Aseem (Reply 8):
here is the link
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ticleshow/msid-1111048,curpg-1.cms
wonder what do they mean by jointly operating non-stop flight. That shall need commonality of equipment as well. Next, so S2 should be looking for kind of aircraft UA has.
The article clearly states that Rono Dutta is using his good ol' links with UA.

Kind of strange, considering that UA is a Star Alliance carrier, and AI is codesharing with LH.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 5:20 pm

Have you taken into account that most of the one-stops through Europe, as well as those through Asia, have traffic rights on the partial legs as well?

The B747-400 flying from EWR to LON can carry passengers only flying that segment, while it can also carry passengers that are only travelling from LON to DEL.

Both routes also have their fair share of premium traffic, the effects of which have - so far - been completely neglected in your calculation.

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 5:51 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 14):
Have you taken into account that most of the one-stops through Europe, as well as those through Asia, have traffic rights on the partial legs as well?

This is a crucial point. A one stop serves three masrkets, a nonstop merely one (which does not mean that the nonstop is not the favorable option). It depends case-by-case. Let's say AI decides to serve Portland. A nonstop from India could be uneconomic, while a one-stop with 5th freedom could be economic (a simplified example, but did you get my point?)

I personally (and I know that I am in a minority) could never imagine to travel more than 12 hrs in a plane, so would decode for a one-stop. Flying nonstop India-states somehow horifies me. However, I recognize that a market is available.
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 8:20 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
On the yield side, a 747 will have 36 more revenue seats on an average. Assuming an average yield of $1200/seat, it will translate to about $12.96 million additional revenue per year. Therefore, 747 one stop makes up for its cost disadvantage by having higher yield on high density routes like EWR-DEL.

But the 747 JFK-LHR-DEL will be able to carry up to a 63 ton payload compared to 40t on your 773ER on the ERW-DEL route. 365 pax and baggage allowance is around 35t's, 415 about 39t. So that gives your avaliable payload for cargo at around 5t for the 773ER and 24t for the 744!

Now that's significant!
 
eha
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:35 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 8:39 pm

Your calculation does not take into account the financing of the A/C, or does it? I assume loan impact of a brand new 777 vs several years old 747s is not the same...Plus what if one of the A/C is leased, or both ??

Crew costs : do you include training/salary ?

Air Traffic control charges ? Depend on routes, and A/C type.

Are you sure landing fees are on a per pax basis ?

Maintenance costs ?

E.
 
RMenon
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 10:51 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 8:42 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Kind of strange, considering that UA is a Star Alliance carrier, and AI is codesharing with LH.

Even stranger since UA has announced code sharing with Jet Airways already.
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 8:47 pm

Quoting Eha (Reply 17):
Your calculation does not take into account the financing of the A/C, or does it?

His calculation can only be very vague at this point, which is nothing to be worried about..  Wink
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Mon May 16, 2005 9:07 pm

With the advent of ultra long range aircraft (A345, 772LR) you need to add to your list of parameters the Y class passenger health / comfort factor. I estimate the 15hrs is the max anyone SHOULD sit in Y class due to mobility and sleep limitations, before a break of at least one hour. This works well on the Kangaroo route (18,000 KM or 23hrs with a 1hr stop in Asia). DVT and other dangers make it, in my view, unwise to run STANDARD Y class on longer segments. This factor should be seen as at least as important as the other limiting economic factors, particularly after a very large class action against BA and QF recently.

If you do as SQ has and include only premium Y and J on ultra long haul routes, you change the target market and therefore need to operate a one-stop service as well to cater for the standard Y class market.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 12:21 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 14):
Have you taken into account that most of the one-stops through Europe, as well as those through Asia, have traffic rights on the partial legs as well?

The B747-400 flying from EWR to LON can carry passengers only flying that segment, while it can also carry passengers that are only traveling from LON to DEL.

In general, your point is valid. Yields should be higher on a one stop given that fares on two tickets, EWR-LON, and LON-BOM combined should be higher than fares on non-stop EWR-BOM. This may not apply to Air India. I flew AI several times from JFK when I lived in New Jersey. Again, very few non-Indians on JFK-LON, and LON-BOM sector. They do not attract many non-Indians low fares notwithstanding.

Your point applies TO LAX-NRT-BKK sector on Thai. I have flown this sector several times on Thai, and noticed a large Japanese market on LAX-NRT leg and then a new set of passengers for NRT-BKK leg.

[Edited 2005-05-16 17:27:44]
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 12:45 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16):
But the 747 JFK-LHR-DEL will be able to carry up to a 63 ton payload compared to 40t on your 773ER on the ERW-DEL route. 365 pax and baggage allowance is around 35t's, 415 about 39t. So that gives your available payload for cargo at around 5t for the 773ER and 24t for the 744!

Does anyone have average yield figures for this extra payload?

Quoting Eha (Reply 17):
Your calculation does not take into account the financing of the A/C, or does it? I assume loan impact of a brand new 777 vs several years old 747s is not the same...Plus What if one of the A/C is leased, or both ??

I assumed that both 747 and 777 were brand new in my analysis. An older 747 may have a lower capital cost:opportunity cost or lease cost, but may be more than offset by higher maintenance cost.

Lease or ownership: Ownership has an opportunity cost too. Generally speaking, Leasing is more expensive than ownership. This is true for Aircrafts as well as Automobiles.

Quoting Eha (Reply 17):
Are you sure landing fees are on a per pax basis ?

You can google this to confirm.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20):
If you do as SQ has and include only premium Y and J on ultra long haul routes, you change the target market and therefore need to operate a one-stop service as well to cater for the standard Y class market.

I agree completely. As I understand from another thread, SQ is surprised at the demand for F and J class on their non-stop service to USA. They could easily raise the no. of seats in these two classes and raise their yields substantially.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 1:58 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):

It seems to me that Bombay can not be reached non-stop by 777-200-300- ER series from USA. Is that correct?

according to Boeings website, the -200ER and -300ER can easily make it to Mumbai (Bombay) from the East Coast, while the -200ER will not make it and the -300ER proabably wouldn't make it from the Left Coast..of course, as you said, the -200LR will do it easily..
"Up the Irons!"
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 2:46 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16):
But the 747 JFK-LHR-DEL will be able to carry up to a 63 ton payload compared to 40t on your 773ER on the ERW-DEL route. 365 pax and baggage allowance is around 35t's, 415 about 39t. So that gives your available payload for cargo at around 5t for the 773ER and 24t for the 744!

I was able to pick some cargo yield from the web. Average Cargo yield is about US$0.30 per tonne mile. That translates to $48,000 additional yield per flight from cargo(Based on additional cargo of 19 tonnes and a distance of 7300 miles). The annual figure for additional cargo yield then is about $14 million, a substantial figure indeed.

Given the above, the advantage shifts to 747 over 777-300ER by $8 million, assuming equal pricing for non-stop and one-stop on passenger side. A US$100 premium per ticket on 777-300ER non-stop will make it a wash. A $200 premium per ticket on non-stop will bring 777-300ER ahead by $8 million.
IS $200 PREMIUM A REASONABLE/ACCEPTABLE PREMIUM? I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME FEEDBACK FROM EWR-DEL PASSENGERS.

EWR-DEL is a 14 hour flight(15 hour on return) and will not require premium Economy to attract passengers.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7570
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 3:05 am

Just a quick timetable search shows me that NYC-BOM runs anywhere from 16h 55min (AI EWR-CDG-BOM) to 20h (AI JFK-LHR-DEL-BOM), with most everything else between 17 and 18 hours. About the same for NYC-DEL.

So your question:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 24):
IS $200 PREMIUM A REASONABLE/ACCEPTABLE PREMIUM? I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME FEEDBACK FROM EWR-DEL PASSENGERS.

My answer is yes. At the bare minimum you would be saving 3-4 hours of travel time. This is not counting possible snafus at the intermediate stop that might happen or luggage lost. The departure/arrival times of the non-stop service might also be more favorable to business travellers. From the looks of it, the n/s service gets into and leaves DEL before the usual midnight crush of flights heading out to Europe. Avoiding the hassles of peak arrival/departure times at DEL might be worth it for many.

From the airlines point of view there are advantages and disadvantages to flying one-stop vs. non-stop service. If an airline can get 5th freedom rights then the advantage to flying one-stop is there. However there may be significant numbers of passengers on that route to justify having both n/s and onestop service, much like SQ on its SIN-USA flights.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
RMenon
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 10:51 pm

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 5:42 am

For a passenger who is able to fly directly out of EWR the premium may well be worth it.

It becomes a bit fuzzier for someone who makes a connection to EWR. e.g ORD-EWR-DEL or worse - ORD-EWR-DEL-BLR. When somebody like LH can do ORD-FRA-DEL or ORD-FRA-BLR.

Finally, if the pax originates from a smaller city without gateways to EUR etc, the CO trip becomes more compelling.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 6:43 am

Quoting Rmenon (Reply 26):
It becomes a bit fuzzier for someone who makes a connection to EWR. e.g ORD-EWR-DEL or worse - ORD-EWR-DEL-BLR. When somebody like LH can do ORD-FRA-DEL or ORD-FRA-BLR.

Finally, if the pax originates from a smaller city without gateways to EUR etc, the CO trip becomes more compelling.

This flight will appeal mostly to Delhi/Delhi vicinity destination passengers originating from EWR/EWR vicinity and smaller cities in USA with direct/ convenient flights to EWR. It is less compelling if your destination is BOM-MAA-BLR-HYD, and origin is EWR. Why pay the non-stop premium and then connect in DEL, when you can connect in EU for other destinations.



Top Of Page | Change Forum... Civil Aviation Aviation Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat| Forum Index

Reply To: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop
Username:
No username? Sign up now!Civil Aviation related posts only.
No trip reports, hobby or photography posts.
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...

Password:
Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)


Your Post:
Add SmiliePlease do not write the post in all caps.


Read how to include links, pictures and smilies! (opens in new window)
Please check your spelling (press "Spell Check" below)
before pressing the Post button once.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 1:37 pm

UA in alliance with Sahara will offer a non-stop from ORD-DEL, possibly using a 747-400(Aircraft that was to be used Pre 9/11 for their ORD-DEL non-stop).

UA currently flies to LON and could connect to DEL from there, but has chosen to offer a non-stop. They will lose some cargo yields due to lower payload, may have lower load factor, but will make it up by charging a premium for the non-stop.
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Tue May 17, 2005 2:14 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 24):
IS $200 PREMIUM A REASONABLE/ACCEPTABLE PREMIUM? I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME FEEDBACK FROM EWR-DEL PASSENGERS.

This is from the opposite end of the world, but FYI, EK charges around an A$200 premium (US$150) to take it's non-stop SYD/DXB & MEL/DXB services in Y class alone.

the time savings are as follows:
MEL/DXB 1:40
DXB/MEL 2:15

SYD/DXB 2:15
DXB-SYD 2:55
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Wed May 18, 2005 1:24 am

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 29):
This is from the opposite end of the world, but FYI, EK charges around an A$200 premium (US$150) to take it's non-stop SYD/DXB & MEL/DXB services in Y class alone.

The time savings for USA-INDIA non-stops will be greater than that for SYD/DXB, MEL/DXB. Given a premium of US$150 for SYD/DXB, then a premium of US$200 seem very reasonable for USA/India non-stop sectors.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Wed May 18, 2005 5:15 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
On the yield side, a 747 will have 36 more revenue seats on an average. Assuming an average yield of $1200/seat, it will translate to about $12.96 million additional revenue per year. Therefore, 747 one stop makes up for its cost disadvantage by having higher yield on high density routes like EWR-DEL.

You are forgetting about cargo, which is important on flights to developing countries. The 747 has substantially more cargo lift capability than the 777. Having an intermediate stop in a major industrialized nation on flights to developing nations improve both passenger and cargo yields in nations where the airline has fifth freedom rights.

The non-stops to the third world growth stories, India and China are probably based on a rush to get established in those countries rather than current yields.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Economics Of Non-Stop Versus One Stop

Wed May 18, 2005 7:55 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 31):
You are forgetting about cargo, which is important on flights to developing countries. The 747 has substantially more cargo lift capability than the 777. Having an intermediate stop in a major industrialized nation on flights to developing nations improve both passenger and cargo yields in nations where the airline has fifth freedom rights.

I did pick up the cargo factor in my reply no. 24 in this thread. 777-300ER still comes out ahead if there is a premium of more than $100 per seat for the non-stop.