No, its a question of fitting as many flights as possible on a limited number of planes.
Which is more or less what I said in the first place, that shorter turns only means you use less planes. Since your HQ doesn't have a limit on number of planes, it's only the extra cost that is relevant.
No, but I may fit more flights using the same amount of limited prime time slots, which is all I am saying.
No, because 1 prime time slot = 1 flight. If the only way you want to do schedules is start with 1 primetime slot, fit routes in around it, then when you run out of primetime slots, use all 400 of them, all that shorter turns will mean is that those 400 planes have a slightly different set of routes, covering a little bit more distance. And you'll still have a bunch of routes to fit into non-primetime slots, using extra planes. Use normal turns, you need a couple of extra non-primetime planes. You get an identical number of primetime flights either way. You get adifferent
set of non-primetime routes. Not a better set, not a worse set, just a different set. With shorter turns, you will need a slightly lower number of planes to use up the remaining slots/routes. The volume of routes/destinations/flights/pax you can provide will be the same either way. All that will change is how many cancellations you have, and how many planes you need to use.
No. I managed just fine here, with systematically short turns, to achieve top of the line fleet utilization. There is basically no inefficiently scheduled plane in my fleet, which there would be if I had used longer turns.
First part is correct. Second part is not. If you had used longer turns, you could have come up with a different
perfectly efficient schedule. Same as if I used shorter turns, I could come up with a different perfectly efficient schedule.
It was a pain in the ass to schedule that tightly, and required many spreadsheets, but in the end it works better.
If I have to schedule very tightly and efficiently due to constraints, it doesn't make sense to schedule some routes with 60 minutes and others with 65 or 70, as I will produce my own problems with return flight spacing etc.
Yep, absolutely. If I have a route that needs flights exactly 30 minutes, or 40 minutes, or 60 minutes apart, then that route will always get my default turn to avoid problems. If I need to use a slightly shorter or longer than default turn, it goes on a less busy route where precision isn't needed.
But to get back to topic, all it boils down to is how many cancellations you get, and going to 8% delay probability does not increase cancellations a great deal compared to 1.2%.
As I said, if you have leftover time in the end, scheduling longer turns is the better solution, but a few more cancellations (emphasis on a few) don't make the difference of bankrupting or surviving.
Never suggested it was. It will impact on CI growth, but that becomes negligible once CI grows high enough. You will lose some revenue due to more cancels. You will pay more to get more planes. I would rather use 2% more planes, you'd rather have the extra cancels caused by the jump from 1.4 to 8% chance of delay. Neither method is wrong, it's a choice of what you want.
Bottomline is, (much) rather lower turn time than miss the opportunity of an additional flight. That's all it boils down to.
And as I keep saying, that's not the choice you're making. You're not scheduling planes in isolation. It's not 2 flights vs 3, not a 50% improvement in routes flown. It's 400 planes vs 408 planes to fly everywhere you planned to, it's a 2% increase in planes needed, or a 2% increase in routes flown if you are limited to 100 planes.