Jump to content

Photo

Aircraft Analysis- 110-130 seat aircraft (737-600 v CS-100ER v E-195AR)


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
bAnderson

bAnderson

    Timeless

  • Member
  • 2,123 posts

Hello, community! I am going to start a new series of posts for your general help! If you are trying to decide between the 737-600, CS-100ER, and E-195AR, you're in the best place possible! Please be aware that this particular comparison includes several premises that are theoretical and unproven.

  1. The airline will use, depending on which aircraft is selected, either: 15 737-600, 15 CS-100ER, or 20 E-195AR.
  2. The airline will use, no matter which aircraft is selected, 11.5 hours per day of utility.
  3. The airline will pay pilots $83/hour.
  4. The airline will pay Cabin Crew $35/hour
  5. The airline will have a total crew of 5, two pilots and three cabin crew.
  6. The airline will lease the selected aircraft for 10 years and buy the aircraft when the lease is up (or almost up)
  7. The airline will keep the selected aircraft in the fleet for 15 years.
  8. The airline will attempt for the selected aircraft to have a 30% MARR.
  9. The airline will choose the most fuel efficient option for engines in terms of fuel flow for the aircraft that is selected.

Now that the conditions are disclosed, now for the results. The first result I am going to point out is the required daily profit for the different aircraft.

  • The 737-600 requires a daily profit, per aircraft, of $78,378 to maintain the 30% MARR. 
  • The CS-100ER requires a daily profit, per aircraft, of $64,846.11 to maintain the 30% MARR.
  • The E-195AR requires a daily profit, per aircraft, of $67,905.41 to maintain the 30% MARR.

This result contradicts my original hypothesis that the 737-600 would be a better choice than the E-195. I believed that the 737 would be a better choice because of the fuel usage over the lifetime of the aircraft.

  • The 737-600 fleet would use $2,441,275,200 ($2.4 billion) of fuel in the 15 years of operation, assuming the above statements with a fuel price of $3,276/hour (I calculated this with the specific fuel consumption and the fuel price estimated by CS_Pon.)
  • The CS-100ER fleet would use $2,139,022,080 ($2.1 billion) of fuel in the 15 years of operation, assuming the above statements with a fuel price of $2,870.40/hour.
  • The E-195AR fleet would use $3,352,803,840 ($3.3 billion) of fuel in the 15 years of operation, assuming the above statements with a fuel price of $3,374.40/hour. 

The reason the E-195 fuel price is almost $1 billion above the 737-600 is because the E-195s have a fuel consumption rate that is about 2,000 lbs/hour more and there are 5 more E-195s. However, I am not ready to write off the 737-600 yet. One of the key factors that makes this competition so close is leasing. The most expensive option is the CS-100ER, while the E-195 is cheaper. 

  • The 737-600 fleet will cost $643,999,800 over the lease period. The annual lease cost is $4,293,332. Each aircraft will cost about $42,933,320 over the lease period. The 737-600 is the cheapest option in terms of lease cost for the entire fleet over the entire time. It is the middle option in terms of yearly per aircraft lease.
  • The CS-100ER fleet will cost $671,999,850 over the lease period. The annual lease cost per aircraft is $4,479,997.20. Each aircraft will cost about $44,799,992.00 over the lease period. The CS-100 is the median option in terms of lease cost over the entire period, but is the most expensive per aircraft and per year.
  • The E-195 fleet will cost $746,665,920 over the lease period. The annual lease cost per aircraft is $3,733,329.60. Each aircraft will cost about $37,333,296 over the lease period. The E-195 is the cheapest option in terms of yearly lease but the most expensive over the lease period. 

Overall, one could say that in a decision between these aircraft, the CS-100ER is the obvious choice. It's fuel efficiency makes it need the least amount of daily profit per aircraft to make the 30% return on investment. However, for an airline pressed for cash at the beginning of the order, the E-195AR is a great choice. The problem with the E-195 is that there needs to be more aircraft to cover the demand that the 737 and CS-100 can cover. Some of the factors an airline would need to take to make sure this would be good for the airline is to consider the increases of gates needed for the E-195, as well as future changes for the C-series in game (I'm not sure if it has been updated in the last few years, if it has, disregard). The 737 is a great option as well, especially if the airline already has 737s in the fleet. In the end it is the airline's decision to make. One of the key factors of this decision is time period. This comparison only makes sense after 2014. In 2006 the airline could make the decision between the -195 and the -600. My next topic will be comparing the CRJ-200LR, ERJ-145LR, and ATR-42-500.


Edited by bAnderson, 31 March 2017 - 02:34 PM.

Current Brands:

Aerostar Airlines

Quantum

Tropical Airlines

 

 

dsP3Gjo.png

WJVqC1s.png

gAXdyae.pngwgOP4y0.jpg


#2
Denver.

Denver.

    Stop Staring at Me

  • Member
  • 2,000 posts

Good Resource. I definitely need this. 


u2r8weo.jpg

  

 

Founder of National | Founder of Golden | Judge at National Awards 2016 | Member at SkyRoutes Alliance | Member of Universal Alliance | Member of The SkyWorld Alliance | 

 

 


#3
ChrisInSD

ChrisInSD

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 14 posts

I don't recommend following this advice.  Some comments:

 

  • Who uses their AC only 11.5 hours a day?  Not many real world airlines and far fewer in AE.  This unrealistically low utilization results in ignoring the effect of speed and turn time.  In fact, at max utilization, the C Series may complete one more trip per week on an average 500 mi route than the other aircraft being compared which makes a huge difference over 10 years.  If you ignore speed and do this analysis in a different era the Avro RJ100 will appear to be best, even though it is extremely slow and will complete far less trips than the alternatives making it far less profitable.
  • You ignore range.  Basically you are saying that no route will be longer than what can be completed by the E195AR.  One of the key things you are paying for when you buy AC in the RL or in AE is range.  The vastly superior range of the 736 (and thus its flexibility) is ignored.
  • Why are you comparing the CS100ER variant?  Since you are ignoring range, the standard version has the same capacity as the ER version with lower fuel burn and acquisition cost and is the better comparison.

Per my calcs the CS100 does win this race--but an AC with 10 more seats is almost always going to win so the E195AR has no chance.  With respect to the 736, the value of the win over the 736 in absolute $ is so minuscule as to ask why you wouldn't just get the more capable 736?  And the 736 is clearly better than the CS100ER variant.  The maintenance savings with the 736 will also increase as the plane ages past 10 years.

 

Depreciation also ins't considered post the lease period, but I won't get into that.



#4
Poodle

Poodle

    New Member

  • Member
  • 9 posts

CS100ER: 133 Seats x 514 Speed / 11,960 Fuel = Efficiency 5.72, Turn 25, Range 3,050

 

E-195AR: 124 Seats x 553 Speed / 14,060 Fuel = Efficiency 4.87, Turn 30, Range 2,675

 

737-600: 132 Seats x 526 Speed / 13,650 Fuel = Efficiency 5.09, Turn 30, Range 3,569

 

The E-195AR is worse in every metric.  The CS100ER is most efficient and turns the quickest

 

The 737-600 seems pointless because with the way AE works, you could just get the CS100ER for your regional network and then use the 737 delivery slot for a larger, more efficient 737 variant.  If this is in 2014 when the CS100ER is available, then the 2015 release of the NEO series seems to work better for longer range or higher capacity operations with the -319/-320/-321 depending on the scale of your operations.  In real world terms, it would also look like a realistic Airbus order to have CS100ER and A320NEO or A321NEO.

 

For an earlier 737 variant that would work well, the 737-900ER is best to provide a significant range boost and high capacity and configuration options.  It also has a stellar efficiency of greater than 5.81 (I say greater because the mandatory winglets increases this further but the stats are not available for these on the airplane's page).  The winglet efficiency boost probably pushes it above 5.9.



#5
ChrisInSD

ChrisInSD

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 14 posts

736 is only pointless if you are buying other 737NGs.  I you operate an Airbus short haul fleet then you can use those slots for the A320s and A321s rather than the A318/9s (I am not recommending the A318 generally), and get the specialty equip you need via the 736.

 

739ER is fine, but a completely different class of plane than this use case.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users