Hey all,
I'm currently running a regional airline in a 2000-2030 world. I have a fleet of E170s and Q400s, both configured as 0-6-64, which I use on routes with 30-200 daily Y pax.
I'm trying to figure out the best way to calculate the over-under / crossover distance at which I should operate routes with the Q400s vs the E170s. As is commonly understood, turboprops are far more fuel efficient than jets over short distances, but lose profitability over longer distances due to their lower cruise speed. For the Q400s vs E-jets, this is a fuel efficiency of 4,400 v 11,300 (fuel flow), against a cruise speed of 400mph v 550mph.
At this point, I'm operating with a crossover of 550 miles - meaning any route shorter than 550 miles is for Q400s, and anything between 551 and 1600 is for E170s. Do y'all think this is about right, or should it be more, or less? 300 miles, 750 miles, 1,000 miles?
What factors do you guys use to make this calculation? Do you have a defined "crossover" point that you think is best for the Q400 and E-Jets?
Would love some advice!
Over-under distance for turboprop v regional jet?
#1
Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:11 AM
#2
Posted 17 June 2017 - 01:33 PM
#3
Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:27 AM
The Q400 is a fast prop so 500~600 is about right, you're doing fine.
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that 500 - 600 miles seems about right - I'm wondering though whether anyone has a more precise way of calculating the cutover point from turboprop (Q400 or otherwise) to regional jet? What calculations or processes do you go through to maximise profit?
In my current scenario for example, where I use 550 miles as my cutover point: my e170s are averaging $50-60K daily profit, whereas my Q400s average $65-75K per day. Should I consider increasing the cutover distance?
#4
Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:28 AM
*deleted - duplicate*
#5
Posted 23 June 2017 - 06:27 AM
I've been doing a bit more work on this. In a separate thread, someone suggested the following formula as a good way of assessing the fuel efficiency of all aircraft: "Efficiency factor" = Aircraft speed / (Fuel flow / Max seats). So for a Q400, this would be 403/(4,391/78) = 7.16.
Using this formula, here's what I've got:
- Q400NG - 10.60
- Q400 - 7.16
- CRJ900LR - 4.56
- E175LR - 4.35
When you combine the much lower "efficiency factor" with the higher maintenance cost and higher cost per seat, it seems difficult to justify running a regional jet on any route lower than 1,100nmi. Even when you factor in the additional sectors you can fit onto a jet due to faster flight speed, a Q400 still seems to come out on top. Is this right??
I mean this from an AE perspective only - in the real world, passengers would be totally put off by the 1+ hour flight time difference and lower cruising altitude between a jet and a turboprop over this distance. In AE though, neither of these things is a factor
.
#6
Posted 26 June 2017 - 05:31 AM
#7
Posted 03 July 2017 - 12:51 AM
*Graphs*
Thanks for those graphs, conflictwithin, they offer great insight. Based on your analysis of both fuel burn and flights per stage length, is it also your conclusion that the E170 is not viable for any route under 1100nmi? Or do you have a different over/under distance?
#8
Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:43 AM
I agree from a cost stand. I would run the Q on all routes up to it's max distance. The increase in flights you would get from the E170 is marginal at best.
#9
Posted 12 July 2017 - 11:50 AM
I would say the cut off is around 800 miles. Beyond 800, the speed benefits of the E170 are significant (1h36 vs 2h for the q400). Which by my calculation allows about 15% more flights per aircraft than a Q400 would give.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users