9 replies to this topic

[karoue]

Hello!

 

I am currently wondering about whether to use small airplanes with a higher frequency or larger planes with lower frequencies.

 

Using small airplanes has some advantages:

• less fuel costs
• less leasing and maintenance costs
• higher frequency -> better frequency reputation
• number of available seats/day can be tuned more precisely

However I also see two disadvantages:

• small planes (e.g. truboprops) are often slower -> uses more hours
• more flights are necessary -> uses more hours
• high frequency takes up a lot of slots (pointet out by mxax-ai)

I would like to hear some other opinions and also how other people decide whether to use a small or big plane.

 

I know that 30 R/T per week are realistic in general but somehow I can't believe that they are so realistic on small routes like TUN-CTA with less than 200 pax/day.

 

Greetings,

Karoue

Edited by karoue, 03 April 2013 - 03:36 PM.

[mxax-ai]

 

Hello!
 
I am currently wondering about whether to use small airplanes with a higher frequency or larger planes with lower frequencies.
 
Using small airplanes has some advantages:

• less fuel costs
• less leasing and maintenance costs
• higher frequency -> better frequency reputation
• number of available seats/day can be tuned more precisely

 

 

Well, the trip cost is of course lower with a smaller plane, but you have to consider the fewer seats offered. The same applies for the leasing/acquiring and maintenance costs. To find out, which aircraft makes the most profit, assuming all other factors are the same, take the price or the fuel burn and divide it by the number of seats. Your other points are valid and good though (depite the fact that big aircraft can be tuned quite precisely too).

However I also see two disadvantages:

• small planes (e.g. truboprops) are often slower -> uses more hours
• more flights are necessary -> uses more hours

I would like to hear some other opinions and also how other people decide whether to use a small or big plane.
 
I know that 30 R/T per week are realistic in general but somehow I can't believe that they are so realistic on small routes like TUN-CTA with less than 200 pax/day.
 
Greetings,
Karoue

 You don't need turboprops to have small aircraft. Look at the CRJ200 or the ERJ-family and you'll find some really small jets. The only smaller jet i can think of right now is the Dornier 328JET. Of course those aircraft are too small for a 200 pax/day route, where a 70 to 120 pax aircraft should be better (200 pax/day is not a really small route. It is smaller than say ATL-JFK, but it still is quite big). To add to your points: High frequency takes up a lot of slots, so a Cessna Caravan fleet doing 300 weekly runs will likely run into problems.

I know that 30 R/T per week are realistic

Where did you get that part from? That equals more than 4 daily flights, which only routes between at least bigger spokes or big hubs can support. At my home airport ( ~ 10 mio pax/year) I can think of at most a handful routes getting 4 or more daily flights.

[S K Y]

High flight frequency doesn't always mean high reputation. I believe maximum reputation can be achieved between 15-35 flights a week. 60 flights per week give the same amount of reputation as 5 per week.

If you really want to improve reputation from frequency, balance the demand and the fleet capacity, and maintain the frequency around 20 per week.

Cmiiw.

[karoue]

Hey!

 

Thanks for the replies!

 

Your other points are valid and good though (depite the fact that big aircraft can be tuned quite precisely too).

 

They can to a certain degree. However when I add (remove) 1 flight/week with e.g. a Fokker 27 (56 seats) the amount of daily seats increases (decreases) by 8 seats. However when I add (remove) a flight with a 737 (e.g. 136 seats) the daily seats increase (decrease) by ~19 seats.

So with smaller planes you are usually able to match the number of requested seats more closely.

(Of course you can still work with cabin layout and stuff but I think it is clear what I mean in general).

 

 

To add to your points: High frequency takes up a lot of slots, so a Cessna Caravan fleet doing 300 weekly runs will likely run into problems.

 

I added this to my first post (with credit) so others with the same question can easily find pro and cons, I hope that is ok.

 

Where did you get that part from? That equals more than 4 daily flights, which only routes between at least bigger spokes or big hubs can support. At my home airport ( ~ 10 mio pax/year) I can think of at most a handful routes getting 4 or more daily flights.

 

I know, that is why I said that I can't imagine it bo realistic for small routes. For big routes however this seems to happen (as discussed here (http://www.airline-e...s-on-one-route/) with reference to http://en.wikipedia....craft_movements

 

My point was that I end up with 25 R/T per week when I try to serve a 200 pax/day route with a small plane (e.g. F27 with 56 seats). This seems unrealistic to me, but it also feels wrong to serve a less than 250 miles trip with a 737 (although I have no information if that is unusal in the real world).

 

Of course there are many aircrafts available so you can probably find one that fits well for these parameters but if you try to operate only a few a/c families it is not always an option.

 

High flight frequency doesn't always mean high reputation. I believe maximum reputation can be achieved between 15-35 flights a week. 60 flights per week give the same amount of reputation as 5 per week.

 

That would make sense, I'll try to monitor this.

 

Greetings,

Karoue

[mxax-ai]

High flight frequency doesn't always mean high reputation. I believe maximum reputation can be achieved between 15-35 flights a week. 60 flights per week give the same amount of reputation as 5 per week.
If you really want to improve reputation from frequency, balance the demand and the fleet capacity, and maintain the frequency around 20 per week.
Cmiiw.

Well, I'm having more than 200 weekly flights on LAX-DFW with 737-800s and my frequency reputation bar is full and green.

[Stevphfeniey]

Yeah I tend to favour more flights with smaller aircraft, however on some of the bigger trunk routes I fly I throw in a domestic configured wide body for s***s and giggles

[Superman]

More flights is better for passengers.

[Appassionata]

Usually, larger planes have lower cost per available seat mile (CASM). For example: 747-100 is one of the most fuel-efficient airplane in its era.

[pseudoswede]

Fewest frequency with the largest aircraft to satisfy city-pair demand is best.

[mxax-ai]

No, not always. Using things like A380s or 747s on shorthaul leads to long turnarounds compared to their flights time, so a smaller plane like A330s or perhaps T7s would be better.