B6 to end IAD-SMF flights

[FWAAA]

I agree with javaboy's math - it is a good hypothetical of how short haul flights can be much more lucrative than low-yield long-haul flights.

But Busdrvr makes an excellent point also - shouldn't a very efficient airline be able to do both? Fly up and down the East Coast for 10 hours or so (roughly between 6am and 6pm) and then fit in an evening West Coast turn? Keep that airplane in the air something like 20 hours a day?

Airplanes are huge capital investments yet many airlines are content to fly them an average of 10 or 11 or 12 hours a day. Doesn't make sense to me. If you double the utilization, you only have to buy half as many of them.

Granted, the more expensive the aircraft, the longer they tend to stay in the air each day. 777s flying to Asia, Europe and S Amarica don't typically fly only 10-12 hours out of each 24. And cheap RJs don't usually fly redeyes (except at CO), so their utilization is probably closer to 8-10 hours each day.

 

[ualdriver]

just a guess......

one IAD SMF roundtrip about 10hrs or so of flight time
generates 312 seats. for discussion lets say 250 bucks a ticket...thats 78,000 per round trip for 10hrs of aircraft use (ok not counting turn time or winter winds)

6 IAD BOS is 936 seats for same 10hs ( 1.5hrs x 6) now for discussion cut the price in 1/2 or 125.00 that yields 117,000 or 50% more revenue for the same utlization of the plane and charging 1/2 the price of the west coast fare. (in this example).

guessing that it makes more economic sense for use of equipment .

😛h34r:

Well, you're only looking at the revenue side of that assumption. It may generate more revenue, but at what cost? Certainly, on an average CASM basis, those short haul flights are going to be more expensive than the transcons to SMF. If those planes really do end up on their new shuttle, they're either trying to S curve their way to market share on their new venture no matter what the cost and/or they feel that they'll NET more money bouncing the planes around on short haul routes than they will doing a IAD-SMF round trip. Dave won't show me his numbers, unfortunately, nor return my calls for more information. Go figure.

 

[javaboy]

Well, you're only looking at the revenue side of that assumption. It may generate more revenue, but at what cost? Certainly, on an average CASM basis, those short haul flights are going to be more expensive than the transcons to SMF. If those planes really do end up on their new shuttle, they're either trying to S curve their way to market share on their new venture no matter what the cost and/or they feel that they'll NET more money bouncing the planes around on short haul routes than they will doing a IAD-SMF round trip. Dave won't show me his numbers, unfortunately, nor return my calls for more information. Go figure.

i agree short haul routes tend to be more expensive (landing fees ect) of course in my example i offered lower prices than on transcon, naturally the facility fees, security fees ect. would be added on thus those would be borne by the customer not the airline, the higher landing fees could be absorbed or if you will bump my "guess" ticket price by 5 bucks and that would cover the landing fee (in this example).

basically its call the meter drop theory you dont make money on long hauls think (cabrides) (unless a premium is charged) with "lower fees" its the amount (meter drops)(times you pick up new fares) of times you can generate that dictate reveunes.

my own personal theory says that you do not make money the first day of the month but rather the 28th, 29th and 30th of each month which is how your pricing model should be tested. Most of the carriers would be profitable if there were 33 days or more, thus you can do one of 2 things reduce costs such that you are sub 30 days or increase revenue which has essentially the same effect. of course the current subscribed theory is that if you raise prices your volume will drop off and a law of dimishing returns occurs. i simply disagree with that point, i can point to the most recent auto fuel spike of in someplaces 1.00 increase or 50%. did people complain you betcha did they all alter their habits? nope. some did, some by choice others by neccessity. but the vast majority conitnued to consume. i submitt the same would happen with say a 10.00 price increase more over if it was simply applied as fuel prices increase and was explained in that method (fuel surcharge) i think the accpetance would be even higher (or more correctly the understanding would be.) it was more expensive to drive than to fly in fuel costs alone this summer between NE and FL. so for 10 more bucks or what less than 5 gallons of autofuel you could have offset rather than absorbed rising fuel costs.

B)

 

[eolesen]

A few comments...

Pulling this frequency doesn't do much for JBLU in terms of utilization -- it departs IAD at 1935, and arrives back at 0720.

At best, they might get one more IAD-BOS turn out of the aircraft, but it probably does open up some crew time for them, since this would be a 20 hour layover for the crew at SMF.


Second... AMR did have a better use for the aircraft, but that was only after common sense prevailed!


Third... B6 has had a hard time going up against the big boys in their hubs on the transcons. Arguably, JFK isn't really a hub for AA, but there's no doubt about UA's advantage at IAD and DL's advantage in ATL, which makes me really wonder how the EWR service is going to pan out.

 

[DoubleDigit]

What time of day does the 10 hours occur? A 2 am flight to BOS isn't exactly a revenue king....

I just pulled up flights through March and JB is still flying IAD-SMF? What a waste of time this thread was!

 

[corl737]

I just pulled up flights through March and JB is still flying IAD-SMF? What a waste of time this thread was!

Check again. I just looked, too, and the last scheduled SMF-IAD flight leaves SMF on the evening of January 4th. There is no scheduled service after that date.

Too bad, too, because one of my friends lives in Sacramento and accepted a temporary consulting job in DC primarily because it was an "easy" commute. He's bumming now!