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: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet  (Read 3648 times)

Offline Name_Omitted

  • Members
  • Posts: 292
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2010, 06:30:14 PM »
If the two planes are flying the same route, they will carry the same amount of people regardless of what size they are.

I don't believe this is a true statment.  I have not run a side by side annalisis, but it seems the load factor remains about the same when I switich simmilarly sized (but not identically sized) aircraft within my fleet.

That is to say, my 70 pax an-158 (could not afford to re-seat as well as lease) flew at 83% capacity both before and after I converted it to 85 seats, giving me an average of 12 more pax. per flight.  Nothing else changed.

Offline Name_Omitted

  • Members
  • Posts: 292
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2010, 06:49:38 PM »
So we divide $11,606,410 / $2,731,576 per year = 4.25 YEARS.

The thing you are not measuring is oppertunity cost.  The lease cost for the AN-148 is half the lease cost of the E190, which means that the opperator of the former can be putting more tin in the air quickly.  It takes less time for the AN to be turning a profit against a smaller lease, and costs less to add a new aircraft to the fleet.  In the long run, that could well matter, depending on the part of the world you are playing.

That being said, the Embraer fleet commonality is impossable to deny, and if you are looking for a very efficant end reasult, it's hard to beat.

GDK

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2010, 02:48:06 AM »
I don't believe this is a true statment.  I have not run a side by side annalisis, but it seems the load factor remains about the same when I switich simmilarly sized (but not identically sized) aircraft within my fleet.

That is to say, my 70 pax an-158 (could not afford to re-seat as well as lease) flew at 83% capacity both before and after I converted it to 85 seats, giving me an average of 12 more pax. per flight.  Nothing else changed.

That is the true statement. Or at least close to the exact fact. If LF remains the same, I'll put a A380 to replace a Fairchild on a 20 pax route.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2010, 02:54:52 AM »

--E190

We have then, $26,830,797 - $3,199,504 = $23,631,393 of total revenue PRE staff, insurance and other costs not directly related to the airframe.

-------------

--An158

Doing maths: $24,047,184 - $3,147,368 = $20,899,816 of total revenue PRE staff, insurance etc, etc.



We know that the E190 is currently priced $11,606,410 higher than the An158. And the difference in revenues between both aircrafts is: $23,631,393 - $20,899,816 = $2,731,576. This means that the E190 will earn $2,731,576 MORE than the An158 in an year.

So we divide $11,606,410 / $2,731,576 per year = 4.25 YEARS.

That's the amount of time it takes to the E190 to balance the price with the An158. Going beyond that will make the E190 earn MORE than the An158.

I didn't take in consideration the engine commonality as I don't know the cost of the An158 engine.

Disclaimer: I know that the E190 carries more ppl than the An158, but as there was a comparison between them....
 

Disclaimer: I am brand new to this game, and haven't actually joined MT #3. I also bolded & fixed a typo, you put 26 million when you meant 23.

Since nobody sensible buys fleets of 1 plane, wouldn't it make more sense to compare revenue %? The An158 earns ~11.4% less revenue per year than the E190 according to your numbers. The thread doesn't mention actual plane cost, just that there's an ~11.5 million dollar difference. If it's an 11.4% increase, i.e. 100 million v 111.4 million, then you could spend $1 billion on 10 An158, and looking at ~210 million revenue per year. Or you could spend the same 1 billion on 9 E190, and be looking at the same ~210 million revenue.

If it's 200 million per plane v 211, then the E190 is going to come out ahead. If it's 50 million v 61.5, then the An158 will come out ahead, because even though a single E190 will show more lifetime profit after 5 years, an initial investment of 500 million will give you a fleet of 10 v a fleet of 8, and the 2 extra planes will outweigh the slightly higher profit of the E190.

Unless I'm missing something obvious.

I hope a new, full sized game starts relatively soon.  :)

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2010, 04:56:31 AM »
That is to say, my 70 pax an-158 (could not afford to re-seat as well as lease) flew at 83% capacity both before and after I converted it to 85 seats, giving me an average of 12 more pax. per flight.  Nothing else changed.

Your planes make their own demand?

But yeah, Sanabas helped prove my point with a little bit more mathematics.
No replacement for displacement

ICEcoldair881

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2010, 06:46:11 AM »
ok I'll throw my two cents in here - I find the E195 good for really SH flights - but not good at all on MH flights as you make almost NO money. :P I like the 717 for MH flights but only after you have some mainline aircraft in your fleet already.... and in general the MRJ-series aircraft are a great aircraft IMO, and I've used them extensively in Asia from my hubs in Taiwan...most of them on extremely short-haul flights but a lot of them as well on SH flights...they made tons of money off the bat, and they were good slot hoo.....slot clean-up'ers ( ;D that was for you sami) as well which is a bonus. :) Just my two cents. ;)

Cheers,
ICEcold

Offline Minto Typhoon

  • Members
  • Posts: 1017
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2010, 03:35:03 PM »

I chose the 717 as a replacement for the CR9 fleet.  They are easy to obtain on the used market, a short order window in the new market, and pretty competitive on all sectors it seems.  The only downside is the 10 min additional turnaround in comparison to the CR9.  They are good mid sized aircraft - sitting in between the Dash 8 and 738.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2010, 04:54:11 PM »
I chose the 717 as a replacement for the CR9 fleet.  They are easy to obtain on the used market, a short order window in the new market, and pretty competitive on all sectors it seems.  The only downside is the 10 min additional turnaround in comparison to the CR9.  They are good mid sized aircraft - sitting in between the Dash 8 and 738.

Maybe you are slicing things too thinly.  If you already have Dash-8 and either 737NT or A320, 717 covers only a tiny slice of the market that cannot be served effectively by either Dash-8 or 736/318.  The only reason I see to get a 3rd fleet type in the middle when you don't want to sacrifice production slots of 737 or 320 production line...

ICEcoldair881

  • Former member
Re: 717 vs EMB 195 side note MIT jet
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2010, 08:13:40 AM »
and I would just replace the Dash 8s anyway....the E170 has similar seating and is the same fleet type as the E195....which has longer range, similar seating and better fuel comsuption than the 717.....best move if it was me. ;)

Cheers,
ICEcold

 

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.