So let's say a theoretical airline wants to offer consistent low fares with no price fluctuations, or price gouging at Christmas or for football games (yes, sadly this happened).

I've been researching but have been unable to come to a clear answer, so I'm asking - what aircraft would be the best choice for such an airline, what would offer the lowest Cost per Seat Mile (CASM), and the best fuel efficiency - I assume it would be cheaper to get planes from one manufacturer so which one would it be for such an airline: Boeing? Airbus? or perhaps another manufacturer?

Looking at the list of theoretical routes below, what aircraft would be the most efficient - please assume an all economy (Y) configuration on flights less than 5/6 hours. and only around 2 rows of basic business (J) on longer flights (angle flat bed like AirAsiaX (D7), but no direct aisle access, lounge access, separate check-in) - and also, no 'cruel' configurations like 3-3-3 A330 or 2-4-2 767.

Sydney (SYD) - Melbourne (MEL)
Newcastle (NTL) - Gold Coast (OOL)
Sydney (SYD) - Cairns (CNS)
Sydney (SYD) - Perth (PER)

Sydney (SYD) - Auckland (AKL)
Sydney (SYD) - Denpasar (DPS)

Sydney (SYD) - Singapore (SIN)

Sydney (SYD) - Los Angeles (LAX)
Sydney (SYD) - Johannesburg (JNB)

ChristianFlyer wrote:

So let's say a theoretical airline wants to offer consistent low fares with no price fluctuations, or price gouging at Christmas or for football games (yes, sadly this happened).

So you want an airline that ignores the laws of supply and demand?

At a 100% load factor, the A-380 or B-747-8I would have the lowest CASM. You are not getting a clear answer because you are not asking a clear question

stratclub wrote:

At a 100% load factor, the A-380 or B-747-8I would have the lowest CASM. You are not getting a clear answer because you are not asking a clear question

I think he/she is asking a very clear question, the problem is we can only work off answers to previously asked very muddy questions with biased, slanted and politically induced answers with a bit of fanboyism thrown in.


Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

stratclub wrote:

At a 100% load factor, the A-380 or B-747-8I would have the lowest CASM. You are not getting a clear answer because you are not asking a clear question

I think he/she is asking a very clear question, the problem is we can only work off answers to previously asked very muddy questions with biased, slanted and politically induced answers with a bit of fanboyism thrown in.


Fred

Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Especially what I bolded. Please explain this "clear question" they are asking.

stratclub wrote:

At a 100% load factor, the A-380 or B-747-8I would have the lowest CASM.

First of all, the word "available" in "cost per available seat mile" means "available." CASM does not change based on load factor.*

*okay, fuel burn changes a little. But the change runs in a direction opposite to your comment's implication.

Second - yes the A380 has the best CASM but the 747-8i has higher CASM than today's 77W, let alone modern big twins.
A380 and 748i are both bad airliners and stupid product launches but 748i is a terrible pax airliner whereas A380 is just a bad one.

ChristianFlyer wrote:

no 'cruel' configurations like 3-3-3 A330 or 2-4-2 767.

I'm sorry, I had to laugh at this one. Cruel??

I can maybe accept the 2-4-2 layout as less than ideal, but apart from 3-4-3, what else is there from 3-3-3?

Matt6461 wrote:

stratclub wrote:

At a 100% load factor, the A-380 or B-747-8I would have the lowest CASM.

First of all, the word "available" in "cost per available seat mile" means "available." CASM does not change based on load factor.*

*okay, fuel burn changes a little. But the change runs in a direction opposite to your comment's implication.

Second - yes the A380 has the best CASM but the 747-8i has higher CASM than today's 77W, let alone modern big twins.
A380 and 748i are both bad airliners and stupid product launches but 748i is a terrible pax airliner whereas A380 is just a bad one.

I'm no expert so my grasp of CASM is a little vague. So CASM assumes 100% load factor, is that correct? After thinking about it, the 777 and the 787 would would most likely have a lower CASM than my examples. The A-380 will probably never be profitable to Airbus and the 747-8's in both passenger and cargo version are on life support due to advances in twin engine powerplant capability.

Quite simply, my comments were meant to say that the OP's question about "Best Aircraft" does not have enough usable information to make an informed decision. Let's see. "I will be flying these city pairs, what aircraft is best considering only economics of operation. Not much to go on. I do appreciate the exercise in critical thinking, though.

What's the maximum number of seats in an A380, if we avoid cruelty?

Truth to tell, you're not going to get good answers here about CASM-- we're too ignorant. But if someone did know about costs, you'd have to spell out how many seats you're going to allow in each aircraft. That's the only thing that's unclear about your question.

stratclub wrote:

So CASM assumes 100% load factor, is that correct?

No. CASM only tells you about costs, not revenue factors like load factor. You can assume whatever LF you want when determining CASM.
Occasionally the specified LF will make a difference in comparing planes. A lighter plane will show more fuel burn delta at 100% LF than a heavier plane, for example. IIRC there was a study claiming that the E-195E2 had lower CASM on short routes than CS100 at 80% LF but not at 100% LF. It would be rare, however, for LF to change a comparative dynamic - only when planes are very close in efficiency.

stratclub wrote:

777 and the 787 would would most likely have a lower CASM than my examples.

IMJ the A380 still beats the CASM of 77W and 787. A380 is worse on fuel but has lower acquisition, crew, fees, and mx costs per seat.
Versus the 777-9, the comparative picture depends on fuel price, landing/navigation fees for a particular route, crew salaries, and whether cargo is included.

There's a lot of art to making CASM comparisons so you have to be careful when comparing closely-matched planes.

stratclub wrote:

OP's question about "Best Aircraft" does not have enough usable information to make an informed decision

Right. We'd need to know more about the market dynamics and the proposed carrier's network - and much else. For a given route, the best aircraft for Ryanair versus Emirates versus Lufthansa will be very different.

timz wrote:

What's the maximum number of seats in an A380, if we avoid cruelty?

I always create a standard to compare aircraft in an apple to Apple way.

To create matching seating area per passenger I adjust pitch and width to give equal area for any given width aircraft. I use equal toilet and food areas on a per passenger basis. I also work out aisle widths based on aisle per passenger to keep it perfectly even across aircraft.

On long haul conparisons I would fill 33% of the cabin area with flat beds, 33%, 33% with premium economy recliners and 33% with budget economy seats.

On medium haul conparisons I would fill 25% of the cabin area with beds, 25% with premium economy recliners and 50% with budget economy. I would reduce toilet and food service areas by 25% per passenger.

On short haul I would fill 25% of the cabin with premium economy recliners (short haul business class) and 75% with budget economy. I would reduce the toilet and food areas again by another 25% per passenger.

The A380's currently flying have ridiculous low density. Their cabins have so much extra space per passenger in any given class. Their CASM is actually very good if you do an apple to Apple comparison.

stratclub wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

stratclub wrote:

At a 100% load factor, the A-380 or B-747-8I would have the lowest CASM. You are not getting a clear answer because you are not asking a clear question

I think he/she is asking a very clear question, the problem is we can only work off answers to previously asked very muddy questions with biased, slanted and politically induced answers with a bit of fanboyism thrown in.


Fred

Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Especially what I bolded. Please explain this "clear question" they are asking.

Well the question is simple, granted the term fuel efficiency is a bit of a loaded term and needs a bit more clarification but CASM is well defined but the problem is finding numbers to populate the calculation that is difficult as companies would not want to let this go as well as there being conflicting issues such as seating density which are normally construed to a create a particular outcome. Already you can see how this thread has gone based on these things.

Fred

Mr AirNZ wrote:

ChristianFlyer wrote:

So let's say a theoretical airline wants to offer consistent low fares with no price fluctuations, or price gouging at Christmas or for football games (yes, sadly this happened).

So you want an airline that ignores the laws of supply and demand?

There is a point where 'supply and demand' becomes just a plane rip off:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/victoria/afl-grand-final-2015-it-would-be-cheaper-for-perth-fans-to-fly-to-london-than-get-to-the-grand-final-20150926-gjvjim.html?espv=1

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/flights-from-australia-to-uk-are-up-to-a-third-more-expensive/news-story/2bd981695ee1ac29eabff80e250e2d2a

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/qantas-accused-of-ripping-people-off-after-oneway-ticket-from-mount-isa-to-townsville-costs-850/news-story/d27a2a2bd9a2089d7a631fb565bee05b

SAAFNAV wrote:

ChristianFlyer wrote:

no 'cruel' configurations like 3-3-3 A330 or 2-4-2 767.

I'm sorry, I had to laugh at this one. Cruel??

I can maybe accept the 2-4-2 layout as less than ideal, but apart from 3-4-3, what else is there from 3-3-3?

'Cruel' is relative to the aircraft in question, 2-4-2 is very ideal - on an Airbus A330, but not on a Boeing 767, likewise 3-3-3 is also ideal - on a Boeing 777, not not on an airbus A330.

timz wrote:

What's the maximum number of seats in an A380, if we avoid cruelty?

Truth to tell, you're not going to get good answers here about CASM-- we're too ignorant. But if someone did know about costs, you'd have to spell out how many seats you're going to allow in each aircraft. That's the only thing that's unclear about your question.

You can have as many seats as you want - just as long as the seats are 'human sized', the more the merrier, I've had comfortable flights on 180 seat Jetstar (JQ) Airbus A320s and even my non avgeek mother commented on the superior comfort to the Qantas (QF) 737 - this occurred back in 2009 so seats may have changed since.

As for how many seats - as much as possible while retaining a seat pitch large enough just to avoid having your knees touch the seat in front (probably 30-31?), width is a difficult one also - I usually see people criticising the 9abreast 3-3-3 configuration on the Boeing 787, however, people have praised economy class (Y) on the Qantas (QF) 787-9 on the new Perth (PER) to London Heathrow (LHR) 17 hour ultra long haul (ULH) flight - is this brand loyalty, people not wanting to be displeased with parting with $2000 for the overpriced flight? or can enough creativity actually make narrow seats suitable for a 17 hour flight?

As for the theoretical capacity for the theoretical airline, aircraft flying on routes shorter than 5-6 hours, it would probably be an all economy (Y) configuration (is business (J) or premium economy (W) really needed on shorter flights?), for longer flights, 2 rows of basic lie-flat seating, these seats would be aimed at people who simply want a more comfortable flying experience, and not so much business travellers, so they would not include things like lounge access, and food and drink will be served in cardboard and plastic.

Examples of theoretical capacity, if Airbus produced the best jets for the job, would be a 186 seats on an Airbus A320neo, and an Airbus A330-900neo would have a configuration matching AirAsiaX (D7), but with an 8abreast 2-4-2 configuration, instead of a 9abreast 3-3-3 configuration.





People are confused about my questions, and rightfully so, I'm asking a lot - let me try and explain.

Firstly, the demographics of the theoretical airline would be people seeking the lowest fare, but would also benefit anyone who wants/needs to travel around Christmas or the NRL Grand Final (which they may even have no interest in) without having to sell their car. Like I mentioned before, the basic lie flat seats for longer flights would be for just to give the option for a more comfortable flight, no 'frills' like lounges and fancier food, the extra price of the seat would only be relative to how many economy (J) seats could fit in that space (for example, if a business (J) seat takes up the space of two economy seats, it's twice the price of economy, if it takes up 1.5x the space, it's 1.5x the price.)

The example flight from Newcastle (NTL) to the Gold Coast (OOL) is 291NM (539km), currently served daily off peak, and twice daily peak, by only one airline (Jetstar (JQ)), operating an Airbus A320. The population of the Newcastle metropolitan area is around 500,000 (not only do you need to take into account flight distance when choosing an aircraft, but also destinaton/origin population), if a new airline were to start operating that route, would it be more efficient and less costly to use a Boeing 737MAX or an Airbus A320neo configured in an all economy configuration? or perhaps given the relatively small population of the origin, would something like a Bombardier C-Series, or even an ATR 72 turboprop be the most efficient and less costly choice?

Looking again at example routes, take into consideration the distance flown, the population of the origin/destination, and if the origin/destination is a hub airport where many passengers will take connecting flights. Sydney (SYD) - Melbourne (MEL) is a 381NM (705km) flight, a similar distance to the Newcastle - Gold Coast flight, however, SYD-MEL is a hub to hub flight, not only does the aircraft flying the route need to take people travelling between Australia's two largest cities, but also people who may be catching a connecting flight.

To help answer my questions - here are a few aircraft choices?

Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 vs ATR 72-600
Embraer 195-R2 vs Bombardier CS100
Boeing 737MAX8 vs AirbusA320neo
Boeing 787-9 vs Airbus A330-900neo vs Airbus A350x

Assuming 80% load, what are the cheapest aircraft to operate?

ChristianFlyer wrote:

To help answer my questions - here are a few aircraft choices?

Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 vs ATR 72-600
Embraer 195-R2 vs Bombardier CS100
Boeing 737MAX8 vs AirbusA320neo
Boeing 787-9 vs Airbus A330-900neo vs Airbus A350x

Assuming 80% load, what are the cheapest aircraft to operate?

Each of these comparisons has a size difference. So the smaller aircraft will burn less fuel. However the bigger plane can seat more passengers and might burn less fuel on a per passenger basis.

For instance the A319, 737-7, A320, 737-8, 737-9, A321 are all evenly spaced from smallest to biggest.

Flight costs should include the cost of the aircraft. A manufacturer could easily sell an aircraft 20% below average price to make it more attractive.

ChristianFlyer wrote:

So let's say a theoretical airline wants to offer consistent low fares with no price fluctuations, or price gouging at Christmas or for football games (yes, sadly this happened).

Okay, so I really hate to break it to you, but this is not going to work. It is a surefire way to lose money. Travel demand has peaks and troughs - there is no way around using revenue management.

In the high-demand travel times you're going to sell out all of your seats way in advance and be unavailable for booking for most of your customers.
In the low demand travel times you'll get undercut by your competitors who use market based pricing and make enough money on the high demand times to subsidize losses in the less busy times.