8 replies to this topic

[HanTseng]

Is serving a route more profitable using a narrow body aircraft or a widebody aircraft, and why?

[Hake.]

Narrowbodies are more efficient but use more slots, so it depends on how long your route is (ignoring turnaround).

[dieseltu]

The routes can be equally profitable either way. Assuming the routes have enough passengers . 

[konj1]

You get better route quality with higher frequency, so you might take that in consideration as well if you have enough gates.

I stopped putting any wide-bodies on domestic routes since I can build terminals as big as I want.

Wide-bodies have enough to do on international routes anyway.

 

And also, my A320 and 737 have enough to do on bigger domestic and smaller international routes, so actually I'm also more and more enthusiastic about putting two or three props or RJs on some mid-sized domestic routes where I had one standard jet. 

That's what airlines do these days in real world anyway. Frequency ftw.

I don't know why so many people in AE steer clear of F-100, Avro RJ, ATR, Dash, CRJ, ERJ, SSJ, and especially E-jet and CS... They make a lot of sense and can make so much money as well...

But I guess everyone wants to fly ATL-LHR and ATL-PEK and forget even that there are a bunch of 2M pax/yr airports left uncovered, let alone some bumf**k regional airports, who cares if on an overcrowded route an A380 will make less money than a well placed ATR-72.

[Tesla]

What narrowbody vs which widebody?

 

Frequency is most important factor, but is not taken into consideration by passengers. Other fees are not proportional to aircraft capacity. Widebodies thus have a lower per-passenger cost. However, they are less reliable as profit makers on short-haul.

[konj1]

Long turnaround time can also seriously reduce usage and profits for wide-bodies on short haul routes, some will argue that it's not a problem and that a wide-body still makes more money and saves costs for crew, but I don't see it, for me there's no point for wide-body on short routes unless I'm actually limited by a number of gates (on short international flights).

Sometimes I consider them on mid-haul domestic flights in 70s and 80s when short-mid wide-body usage was actually a thing and it was happening a lot more often. After that, only narrow-body on domestic.

[TheGreatOP]

Long turnaround time can also seriously reduce usage and profits for wide-bodies on short haul routes, some will argue that it's not a problem and that a wide-body still makes more money and saves costs for crew, but I don't see it, for me there's no point for wide-body on short routes unless I'm actually limited by a number of gates (on short international flights).

Sometimes I consider them on mid-haul domestic flights in 70s and 80s when short-mid wide-body usage was actually a thing and it was happening a lot more often. After that, only narrow-body on domestic.

It still happens in China and will happen soon again in the US...

[konj1]

Yeah, IRW even a few A380s fly in China on routes like PEK-CAN, there are also some domestic wide-bodies on routes in Japan and Russia... But it's generally more an exception than a rule.

I'm just saying, in AE I don't do it much any more.

[TheGreatOP]

Yeah, IRW even a few A380s fly in China on routes like PEK-CAN, there are also some domestic wide-bodies on routes in Japan and Russia... But it's generally more an exception than a rule.

I'm just saying, in AE I don't do it much any more.

I do it on routes with 100+ frequencies per week (the frequency reputation bonus maxes out by then), to fill up hours (when I'm running an airline with 20 hours of utilisation per day), and when I'm bored/need the money quickly.