[EN] High Capacity Shuttle Routes

Hi there 

Could experienced players who have played with A380/B747 on high demand domestic shuttle routes give advice on how was it done? 

I am thinking of using the A380 on 1hr15mins flight but it comes with 2:20 turnaround time. The entire return journey would be approx 7.5 hrs which means i cannot fit more than 3 return journey (total time: 22.5hrs) on this sector. 

I am currently operating about 8000 daily seats on this sector with a market share of 40%. 

So far, it appears that Indosky from Stapleton is one of the few to have successfully utilize the A380 on domestic operations. Perhaps some pointers if you can?

You probably won’t make much profit (if any at all) on the direct route. But if you fill your planes with transfer pax, you’ll cash in on the following leg and increase your profit.

I don't have experience on A380s, Christian probably knows more.

I use 747s on short haul just like the flight time you mentioned (1hr 10 min). If you can put enough business seats on it and are able to fill in the seats, you should be fine. i have a 743 with 104 business class seats (with 344 seats in total on a/c) doing only one 1hr round trip per day, and i'm getting 20% profit margin on that flight. i think Christian is also putting lots of business class on the aircraft, like 80 seats. If you can only put low density businesses class on the aircraft, don't expect to get any profit.  Don't try on shorter routes (<1hr), it's probably not worth it. and also don't except cargo area all get fill in as far as my experience.

I don't have competition on these routes, and i also increase the price higher than default. 8000 seats per day makes it like an hourly flights on the route, probably not a good idea if you have competition. AS prefers high frequency i believe. You market share probably will be taken by the competitors. Probably your current plan is the best you can get. 

I operated Basel-LHR once with B748

The flights were profitable, with standard price system…

But I wouldn’t recommend it, because you make much more profit with 737/320 aircraft

I run 747-800 between DXB-DOH and SHJ-DOH, due to slot congestion. It’s pretty much a loss every flight (a full flight gives +10.000), but some flights have as much as 270 connecting pax. So I’m doing it for connections, not for money :wink:

I’ve occasionally used 744 and 748 on short flights, but only as filler flights.

I’ve occasionally used 744 and 748 on short flights, but only as filler flights.

Same with me using 748, 77W etc. Quite often you can end up with a daily flight using several different types which is great for the virtual plane spotter.

Thanks Leo for the shoutout :).

Yeah, I currently operate over 100 A380s on short haul routes (others operate big planes on short routes but nobody is as mad as me). I use them mainly to connect to high density waves as otherwise I wouldn't be able to fill them with mostly direct pax. While using a lot of smaller money making A321NEOs to carry the direct pax on out of wave times freeing up the A380s for connections. A nice feature for them game would be to choose where direct pax should be allowed. @martin Could we finally see something new?

I have them configured with a lot of business, either 63 or 81 C seats. Each flight makes a profit margin of about 20% to 30% when 80% full. They aren't money makers but they allow me to increase capacity to connect to other thinner short haul and long haul routes thereby making money on those legs. I agree that the turnaround time is long and I can only get 2 or 3 rotations per day per plane. With 8000s daily seats I would start trying something bigger but I wouldn't go A380 size considering that you are not dominant on the route. A380s mostly work when you are dominating or even having Monopoly. In your case i would rather go with 787-8 as the have short turnaround times and make good money.

I’m currently the largest operator (I think) of A330 aircraft on Hoover, almost all the A330R type. Compared to the A321neo light, they aren’t as profitable, but I run them due to slot congestion at Hong Kong (HKG) and because they feed my cargo and longhaul operations. The A330R will carry about 192 units of cargo compared to the 42 units of cargo carried by the A321neo lights.

I’ve configured my A330Rs to meet passenger demand: 35C and 200Y in a premium-density configuration. A flight from Taipei (TPE) at a key wave time yields 130 connecting passengers. And a flight from Singapore, also at a wave time, (SIN) yields 120 connecting passengers. While the shorter flights have only a 15% to 40% profit margin, these passengers feed key long haul flights which (although run less frequently) have 50% to 70% profit margins.

To echo and build upon the points that everyone has made, here are some pros and cons of operating big planes on short routes:

Pros:

  1. If situated in a high cargo demand airport, you can build a efficient cargo network.

  2. Large numbers of transfer passengers that can connect to more profitable flights.

  3. Free up slots to fly smaller aircraft to smaller destinations.

  4. If you’re operating A330, A350, A380, 747, 767, 777, or 787 aircraft on both short AND long haul flights, you could save maintenance expenses.

  5. Use fewer slots per passengers transported.

Cons:

  1. If flying with empty cargo holds, profits will dip dramatically.

  2. Profit margins are slim, if any. Less profit per passenger compared to most narrow body aircraft.

  3. Big planes fly fewer frequencies (note the 787-8 which can operate more flights due to speed and turnaround time).

  4. Big planes are expensive for new airlines.

I really hope this helps. Feel free to keep asking questions, and a warm welcome to AirlineSim!

Which of the widebodies has the best turn-around time per pax?

Which of the widebodies has the best turn-around time per pax?

Probably the 787-8. It’s a speed demon.

Hello everyone, 

This is an update to my earlier post. There have been some changes in circumstances which is prompting my consideration for B747-8 or A380 again. 

First off, Thank you christian for your suggestion on using 787. It was an excellent suggestion however I have since cleared the used market of all cheap 787-9 and any new aircraft would set me back by 735,000 in leasing costs. whereas a 3 year old A380 would set me back by 900,000 and a similarly age B747-8 at about 800,000. 

Second, my main competitor went bankrupt from low agex. Currently I am holding to approximately 85% of the route market share with daily seats of 16,000 at 99% filled for economy and 85% for business. The 787-9 is yielding about 130 transfer pax per flight. 

I do use the 737-900 to serve non-wave timings and they are excellent moneymakers but a waste of slot resources. 

Based on Aircraft Type Evaluation, It would appear that A330R is the most profitable however I have read in some of the forum post about its inferior performance. (Ignoring the fact that it has the same capacity as the 787-9 which I am currently using)

Ideas? Suggestions? What would you do?

I think Christian was talking about the 787-8, as it has much shorter turnaround times to be able to fly more often.

But if you are fine with the 789 then perfect.

I would keep using 787, anything else is additional maintenance category (I would assume) and the lease costs are just big anyway for any bigger aircraft, and soon you may find yourself ina  situation that you cannot fill those bigger aircraft once the route gets oversaturated.

I will return for this topic as it's so close to my heart.

If your world has the old turnaround times the 787-8 is ideal if you want to upgrade beyond A321 size. The -9 and -10 are equally good but they have longer turnaround times. If they work for you and you dont absolutely need A380 size I wouldn't switch beyond 787s. If you are operating A350s I wouldn't get any other wide bodies than that either. 

If you are looking for cheaper planes then any plane is an alternative depending on the price. It could be cheap 777s (long turn around but if you get them for cheap it's worth it), cheap A330s, cheap 767s, cheap A340s, etc. Though unless you have spare free maintenance categories I wouldn't add any rating except for the A380 if you dont use them for long haul as well. I mean if I operate 787s for long haul I wouldn't get 777s for short haul. If money isnt an issue or you are willing to wait for it I wouldn't operate anything else than 787s and A350s for everything. Honestly I would even recommend making 787 or A350 schedules and run them on A320s or 737s until the proper planes arrive just to keep the slots. Otherwise if I want used wide bodies I would go either 767 or A330 (many under estimate these two). 

Whatever you do dont get the A330R if it isn't very cheap! It is an awful plane with not much better economics than the normal A330-300 but much worse range. When adding this model I was suggesting to buff it and have A320 style per seat economics with fairly short turn around times to add incentive for players to use it instead of narrow bodies thereby freeing up slots and also to generally add incentive to use the A330 family. Management wasn't with me meaning that still the best plane in the game for short and medium haul is the A321 and 739. So for operating the ideal airline you can either use A320s or 737s for short and medium haul and 787s or A350s for long haul or high capacity. I belive that is a fairly monotone setup but if wanting max profits thats the way to go...

If anyone has any questions I will answer them on this topic :). 

The answer depends a lot on which server you are in. If you are on any of the servers without dynamic turnaround times (currently, all permanent servers except hoover), then short haul with widebody is impossible since turnaround is based entirely on airport size and aircraft type, and widebodies have no chance to profit at all.

On a dynamic turnaround server, the computation changes a lot. The turnaround times are much reduced to "close to narrowbody" level, and a dedicated shorthaul widebody can be profitable. In my experiment, an A321 takes 58 min to turnaround at a large airport, vs 80 min for A330R. Compare this to the 60 min vs 105 min difference on a conventional server.

(As a sidenote:

do not trust the aircraft type evaluation tool. It has 2 descrepencies:

1. underestimate flights per week, hence over-estimate capital cost and prefers less efficient but cheaper planes. (However, if you expect to have low ultilization rate, then this might be accurate)

2. The computation is based on turnaround time for conventional servers. Therefore underestimate flights per week for widebodies even more.

)

In the end, if you are able to use widebodies efficiently, the cost per seat for A321neo and A330R are within 10%. (Based on computation for PDX-MDW. For shorter flights, result will vary a lot.) Considering that A321neo as the benchmark for lowest CASM, you see the economics of widebody shorthaul-medium haul is actually feasible on hoover, if you can fill all the seats.

As mentioned by JustPlaneBad here on a dynamic turnaround server:

I’m currently the largest operator (I think) of A330 aircraft on Hoover, almost all the A330R type. Compared to the A321neo light, they aren’t as profitable, but I run them due to slot congestion at Hong Kong (HKG) and because they feed my cargo and longhaul operations. The A330R will carry about 192 units of cargo compared to the 42 units of cargo carried by the A321neo lights.

I’ve configured my A330Rs to meet passenger demand: 35C and 200Y in a premium-density configuration. A flight from Taipei (TPE) at a key wave time yields 130 connecting passengers. And a flight from Singapore, also at a wave time, (SIN) yields 120 connecting passengers. While the shorter flights have only a 15% to 40% profit margin, these passengers feed key long haul flights which (although run less frequently) have 50% to 70% profit margins.

To echo and build upon the points that everyone has made, here are some pros and cons of operating big planes on short routes:

Pros:

  1. If situated in a high cargo demand airport, you can build a efficient cargo network.

  2. Large numbers of transfer passengers that can connect to more profitable flights.

  3. Free up slots to fly smaller aircraft to smaller destinations.

  4. If you’re operating A330, A350, A380, 747, 767, 777, or 787 aircraft on both short AND long haul flights, you could save maintenance expenses.

  5. Use fewer slots per passengers transported.

Cons:

  1. If flying with empty cargo holds, profits will dip dramatically.

  2. Profit margins are slim, if any. Less profit per passenger compared to most narrow body aircraft.

  3. Big planes fly fewer frequencies (note the 787-8 which can operate more flights due to speed and turnaround time).

  4. Big planes are expensive for new airlines.

I really hope this helps. Feel free to keep asking questions, and a warm welcome to AirlineSim!

If you are in a slot congested market or have few competition (e.g. domestic monopoly), then widebodies makes sense since you have better ultilization for slots in your hub, and have more profit per slot. This would only work in a rather late stage of the game which those temporary servers cannot reach. Arguably hoover is the only server where shorthaul widebody actually makes sense.  The number of widebodies in Chinese domestic market on hoover is unparalleld to other servers.