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: My attempt at aircraft comparison  (Read 12811 times)

Echoco

  • Former member

The 2 people who like this post:
My attempt at aircraft comparison
« on: January 21, 2009, 06:32:18 AM »
Aim
I wanted to comapre the efficientcy/operational cost of Airbus and Boeing aircraft, specifically the A320 and 737 family, early when the game was launched there was a thread about which aircraft makes money and alot of the comments were most people find it easier to make profit with Boeings than Airbus, but there were still people who chose to go with Airbus. I personally like the 737 family but wanted to find if the Airbus had an advantage.


Method I
The Airbus A320 family is more expensive but generaly have better capacity and lower maintenance cost than boeing so I started with a formular that would calculate the maintenance cost of these aircraft per week, month, year, 3 years, 5 years and 7 years. This was a simple formular and take into account the the A, B, C and D checks as well as the leasing cost. It does not take into account income from these aircraft it is purely what it will cost to have them in the fleet, it also don't take into account the fleet commonality fuel use, routes flown, range, speed or age. To keep things consistent I used only the new aircraft values because used aircraft varies too much in cost due to age. Formulars were created in series, this will be series I and is numbered with a letter at the end a = week, b = month, c = year and so on each is a simple extrapolation of the last e.g. Ib (monthly cost) is simply Ia (weekly cost) multiplied by 4 with the cost of B check and monthly lease added to it.

Formular Ib: Cost per aircraft variable lease duration (monthly)

(A check x 4) + Lease + B check

this assume each month is only 4 weeks and is an under estimate in most case.


Results Ib
For awhile I looked at the numbers given out and compared the efficientcy of the aircraft and in all leasing period Boeing 737 family were shown to cost less than any of the the Airbus family. A trend did appear within both family, the smaller the aircraft the lower the cost, ie more efficient
A319-100 ($554,285)
A320-200 ($627,973)
A321-100 ($722,608)

while the 737 family shows that 733 is by far the least expensive to run, followed by the 735 and the 734 being the most expensive.
737-300 ($439,130)
737-400 ($489,113)
737-500 ($444,456)

Modification
I was aware that this doesn't take into account how many passengers they could carry and the capacity of an aircraft affects its profitability so I modified Formular Ib to include the aircrat capacity. I chose to only use the standard capacity because this was easy to obtain and any change in configuration would also cost more for the aircraft. The modification was only done for Formular Ib becase I considred monthly cost to be the basic cost while weekly cost is a break down of the monthly, also all other formulars takes the results from Ib so any changes in Ib would be passed on to the others.

Formular Ib-1: Cost per seat to break even (monthly)

((A check x 4) + Lease + B check)/# seats

the results are the amount of money each seat needs to generate per month to cover the maintenance and leasing cost of the aircraft. Further modification could be done by multiplying the number of seats by 28 to represent each day of the month since the formular assumes 28 days month (Ib-2), this further mod is the result shown below

having thought about this a bit i concluded that the number of flights doesn't really matter because the formular represent the absolute cost that is needed.

Modification Results Ib-2 (daily)

A319-100 $160
A320-200 $163
A321-100 $139

737-300 $123
737-400 $120
737-500 $130

Again the 737 family is shown to be more efficient than A320, even though the Airbus carries more passengers.

results from Ib with leasing fee

A319-100   ($554,285)   lease $527,160
A320-200   ($627,973)   lease $598,860
A321-100   ($722,608)   lease $691,640
737-300   ($439,130)   lease $402,560
737-400   ($489,113)   lease $450,490
737-500   ($444,456)   lease $409,270

Just by looking at the cost from Ib the majority of the cost is from leasing fee so the cheaper it is to lease the cheaper it is to run, maintenance cost doesn't figure much at all and number of seats almost don't matter for aircraft of the same class.

if a 737-300 and an A320-200 are flying the same route both with 100 LF and charging the same price for tickets then the 733 would generate more profit. Although the differences in range would mean the A320 family will be able to fly some routes while the 737 family can't, but also the 737 family have shorter runway requirements and could benefite more with higher LF but this doesn't matter as much.


Method II
After a few days of wondering how much fuel plays into this operational cost I decide to play with the formular and add the cost of fuel to it. Good thing is fuel is calculated in kg per hours and you can easily find the average hours your aircraft are flying from the airline stats page so i went ahead with it. The reason I didn't bother much with fuel was even though fuel price seems high it is per ton/1000kg and so jets like 737 might use only use something like $500 of fuel per hour it just didn't seem all that much compared to the leasing fee. Adding fuel introduce a variable, fuel price, for simplicity i used $200 for all calculation but this could be changed for more current figures in the way I laid it out in excel. the variable for flight hours per day was done in 2 hours increment for calculation.

Formular IIb: Cost per seat to break even, with fuel cost (daily)

((A check x 4) + Lease + B check) + ((fuel price x flight hours x fuel consumption x 28)/1000)   /# seats


Results IIb
The results didn't show much of a change as i suspected, the cost for operating from 10-20 hours per day rose linearly and didn't effect much at all for both aircraft family. results below are from 14 hours of operaton per day.

Cost per seat to break even, with fuel cost (daily 14h operation)
A319-100 $209
A320-200 $212
A321-100 $186

737-300 $175
737-400 $173
737-500 $184

looking at the results it seems like 735 are better than or as good as A321-100 I wonder if this is true, a little reluctant to believe this result considering other costs involved, like passenger fee, fleet commonality and employee cost. a simple test i ran was to assume the two planes were flying the same route and are operated for the same number of hours to keep the formular applicable and assume the ticket price was $250 this would give a result shown below.

      profit per seat      profit per day (14h operation)
A321-100   $250-186 = $14      $14 x 185 = $11,840
737-500   $250-184 = $16      $16 x 122 = $8,052

so the results were still miss leading but this was comparing the largest of the family to the smallest comparing similar aircraft below.
   cost      profit per day (14h operation)

A319-100 $209      $5,084
737-500 $184      $8,052

A320-200 $212      $5,244
737-300 $175      $9,600

A321-100 $186      $11,840
737-400 $173      $11,242


So generally the 737 family are better than the A320 family (according to my results, I'm sure there must be something wrong somewhere) the A321-100 is still the best of the group on the account of its larger capacity but obviously ticket pricing and number of flights would play a big part in this.

My airline's average ticket price is only $119 and I onyl fly 10.3 hours yet I make a profit, this is because I fly 3 flights a day and since the results I got here are fixed costs over all I make a profit, from the results however if i had gone with either the A320 or A319 I wouldn't be making as much profit as I did, at least as far as the formular tells me. Also used and older aircraft would also have different maintenance cost.


Regional prop
I have also applied this to regional props comparing ATR, Fokker, Saab and DHC amongst others but since these are the most popular I'll only post them below. for props i used 12 hours numbers because they are slower and I think tis unreasonable to assume they'll be operating much more than 12 hours a day, again i coudl be wrong.

Cost per seat to break even, with fuel cost (daily 12h operation)

Saab 340B      $188
Saab 2000      $199

Fokker 50 Mk100   $165
Fokker 50 Mk300   $180

DHC 8-100B   $200
DHC 8-200A   $208
DHC 8-200B   $213
DHC 8-300A   $172
DHC 8-300B   $175

ATR42-300      $181
ATR42-320      $191
ATR72-200      $144
ATR72-210      $150

I was really surprised by the results here, the ATR72-200 is by far the most efficient, not only did it cost less to operate because it has 66 seats as standard while the Fokker, DHC and Saab only has 50. I was expecting the DHC to be the best becaue of its low fuel consumption, lower maintenance and cheaper lease.

hope this is useful to some, comments and critism welcome. (it rhymes  ;D)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 06:45:26 AM by Echoco »

jagalubnan

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2009, 06:38:22 AM »
Wow.

I'm really speechless, that deserves like 798179237918793 kudos. LOL

ollik

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2009, 07:01:18 AM »
I think you should rather compare the A320 to the 737NG types, rather than the older models. Especially the A319 came in 1996 when the B737NG was already in the market and would be the other real choice.

Echoco

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2009, 07:17:14 AM »
just checked the new aircraft market and only the 73G, the data i used were a few RL days old and no 737NG were out then. i need the leasing cost to compare and i can't do that unless they're on the market.

737-700
monthly cost (Ib)
$545,319

cost per seat to break even, with fuel (daily 14h operation)
$209

assume $250 ticket price
$5,166

so not as good but close to the A320, I prefer classics anyway  ;D

edit: decided to post the numbers for the larger planes, Airbus and Boeings, Airbus really looks to be much better except when it comes to 747s where the higher capacities really made a difference the higher the ticker price. Also the assumed ticket price here is $400 because just to break even for 777-200ER each seat has to make more than $300.

      monthly cost      daily break even with fuel  per seat (14h)   assume $400 ticket sale
A300-600R   $1,278,071      $227               $46,027
A330-100   $1,604,301      $215               $62,032
A340-200   $1,695,030      $261               $42,155
A340-200   $1,871,640      $255               $48,648

747-400      $2,505,334      $274               $52,508
747-400D   $2,562,505      $204               $111,266
757-200      $737,703      $197               $37,805
767-200      $1,105,077      $239               $34,669
767-200ER   $1,234,920      $256               $31,040
767-300      $1,318,076      $234               $43,382
767-300ER   $1,424,044      $245               $40,381
777-200      $1,944,217      $285               $35,092
777-200ER   $2,147,679      $318               $24,790
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 09:34:44 AM by Echoco »

Meraki

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2009, 08:22:38 AM »
Would you mind sharing this excel sheet? ;D

Echoco

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2009, 08:47:28 AM »
I tried attaching the file but the forum only accept images. the formulas are all there in first post, its a little tedious getting all the numbers in, if you're only interested in daily break even then only the lease, A and B checks are really important.


NOTE: must be careful with the numbers the formula spit out, the daily break even number is for single flight a day, a return flight that's a little cheaper will turn a profit.

also this is for leased aircraft, if you own the aircraft, you leave the monthly lease blank and you'll notice everything looks a lot cheaper. For owned aircraft airbus are infinitely better.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 09:00:36 AM by Echoco »

Offline Dan380

  • Members
  • Posts: 389
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2009, 09:31:48 PM »
I was really surprised by the results here, the ATR72-200 is by far the most efficient, not only did it cost less to operate because it has 66 seats as standard while the Fokker, DHC and Saab only has 50. I was expecting the DHC to be the best becaue of its low fuel consumption, lower maintenance and cheaper lease.

The ATR is well known in aviation industry for having a very low per-seat fuel consumption. However it is also relatively slow, whereas the DHC-8 (atleast the Q400 model anyway) is known to be close to the speed of jets on short routes.

Echoco

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2009, 01:17:58 PM »
like Dan380 said DHC-8-Q400 is the new sliced bread

Type       break even per seat           daily ticket sale - maintenance & lease
ATR72-200     $26.3                          $42,015
ATR72-210     $27.4                          $41,610

ATR72-500     $30.8                          $40,349
DHC-8-300A   $31.5                          $30,390
DHC-8-300B    $32                            $30,247
DHC-8-300E    $34.4                         $29,580
DHC-8-Q400    $32.1                         $42,290
F.50 mk100     $30.3                          $30,724
F.50 mk300     $32.9                          $29,984
Saab 2000      $34.6                          $29,505


fuel at $200
average ticket price $140
4 flights per day
70% LF
average 14 flight hours

the Q400 is way fast  ;D

Offline JJP

  • Members
  • Posts: 776
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2009, 11:44:27 PM »
Out-freakin'-standing!   8)  Very nicely done.

Offline Unbornio

  • Members
  • Posts: 662
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2009, 06:00:45 AM »
You guys have waay too much free time  :o
Beta Tester

Echoco

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2009, 07:59:24 AM »
its what i do while waiting for my aircraft to be delivered and other stuff

a question anyone know how many hours flight crew fly? from my schedules it seems like there a flight crew for every 8 hours of flight time.

Update: finished tweaking the series IV spreadsheet, variables includes

aircrew cost
fuel cost
flight length, frequency & load factor

display break even per seat, income per day and month (doesn't take into account C & D) for both leased and owned.

data in spread sheet will be a little off because I think the game model inflation and maintenance/lease cost change with time.

Its not perfect but works for comparison. If anyone wants the excel sheet PM me with your e-mail address.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 01:20:48 PM by Echoco »

WSpivak

  • Former member
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2015, 04:29:06 PM »
Did anyone ever get that spreadsheet?

Offline jjj

  • Members
  • Posts: 102
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2015, 05:52:52 PM »
Excellent work....just speechless..

Offline 11Air

  • Members
  • Posts: 433
Re: My attempt at aircraft comparison
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2015, 03:09:34 PM »
Great to see my practical experiences born out by better brains.
Boeing and ATR just seem to work better for me in the later games.
Same in earlier games, I've learnt which do work, and gone bust with others.  just wish my memory was better so I didn't keep making the same mistakes.
BAC/E-111's should be great, they were popular, but tough to get a game profit out of.
I enjoy the early games where no-ne really knows which aircraft were bad, or just not supported by their government, or actually a wasted opportunity, a good aircraft that no-one wanted.

 

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.