AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: non-stop vs flights with technical stop  (Read 1123 times)

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« on: May 18, 2010, 01:52:37 PM »
Could anyone comment if flights with technical stop are likely to have significantlty different (worse) LF and RI vs non-stop flights on the same routes?

Offline Unbornio

  • Members
  • Posts: 662
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2010, 03:07:11 PM »
Has no effects however the turn times for the tech stop are awful. Avoid if possible.
Beta Tester

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14536
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2010, 03:11:31 PM »
Has no effects

Yes it has. The longer the overall flight time, the worse the "rating" of the flight. So two flights that are the same but with stop and no stop -> the one that is direct gets higher pax sales or higher prices.

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2010, 09:43:16 AM »
what bothers me is that sometimes its just looks simply much better to run a tech stop flight vs non-stop from a financial point of view.
I did some math and here how the model looks like - for a case of B757-200 vs B767-200ER

Lease
- 752 with 3300nm range (=6600 with tech stop) would cost 700k to lease (new)
- 762ER with the same range of 6600nm will cost $1,2m to lease (new)
- $500k difference in lease costs on a monthly basis
Fuel:
- my 752s with a good utilization spend about $70k a week on fuel = ~$300m a month. Thats with ~$160 fuel price
- 762ER has a ~20% higher consumption which would give you $60k extra costs on a monthly basis
- For fuel at ~$250, the difference would be ~$100k per month
Staff:
- same number of pilots / crew for both
-762 is classifiend as Very Large, which means ~50% higher salary for pilots which would given you another ~$20k per month
Stuff:
- 752 in standard configuration: 186Y - 15C
- 762ER: 192Y - 18C
- lets assume $1000 ticket yield for per Y seat and $3000 for C seat for a return flight
- for 6000-7000nm routes, both would be able to do max 5 flights per week = ~22 per month
-762 would bring $1000 x (192-186) + $3000 x (18-15) = $15k extra ticket revenue per day vs 752 = ~$330k per month. and that assuming the full load of the plane.
- ~25% of the extra revenue would be offset by fees (landing, passenger fees, etc), so the net incr. income from 762 likely to be not more than $250k

Net: on a long-haul routes (6000+), 762ER is guaranteed to cost you $600m more on a monthly basis while in best case could generate you only $250k of incremental income - compared to 752 flying with tech stop






mikk_13

  • Former member
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 04:53:01 PM »
thats why don't bother with a 767-200. Unless it is a route of about 2-3000miles they don't make much cash- try the 767-400.

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 06:09:37 PM »
most of my long haul routes don't have too much traffic (~150-250 pax) so with only few exceptions its impossible for me to pack a full 747, that why I was looking at 767s or A330s, but they don't seem to be making any sense - unless i calculated smth wrong

jest

  • Former member
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 10:06:57 PM »
The default prices for direct flights are higher than flights with tech stops. That must be put into the equation as well.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: non-stop vs flights with technical stop
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2010, 10:30:14 PM »
The default prices for direct flights are higher than flights with tech stops. That must be put into the equation as well.

My experience from ATB (also a 1.2 game) with DC-10-40 (tech stop, Kamtchatka) and A340-200X (non-stop) from Los Angeles to Singapur: Pax pay the same and LF are good for both types.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.