REX to transition to ATRs, start domestic jet ops
I see how you did the math, but a SYD-MEL flight chews up 3,600 kgs, 1185 gallons. At $3.50 per, thats 41 passengers tickets for fuel. Even poorly paid crew would cost Rex another 9 passenger tickets.
The 1.4 hour block time SYD-MEL means about 10 tickets for leasing. Your quoted rate seems very low though.
We are in furious agreement about their cash bleed, but I am less optimistic.
The 1.4 hour block time SYD-MEL means about 10 tickets for leasing. Your quoted rate seems very low though.
We are in furious agreement about their cash bleed, but I am less optimistic.
And yes, I have used an absolute bare bones number for leasing. I can recall Sharpie spruiking something like $100K a month at some point early in proceedings so I just padded that marginally.
737-800 fuel burn is around 46 kg per minute plus 200ish for taxi and another 300 for the approach. Medium weighs; maybe a couple kg/minute more at heavy weights.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good fuel burn figures and financial calculations posted above, thanks gents. I would imagine that unless Sharpie has made sure their fuel is hedged at a lower rate, every time oil rises by a dollar his sphincter tightens by a notch.
737-800 fuel burn is around 46 kg per minute plus 200ish for taxi and another 300 for the approach. Medium weighs; maybe a couple kg/minute more at heavy weights.
Looking a SYD-MEL flight today, close to full, burn is 3120 kg, plus 250 APU and taxi. MEL-SYD is a little less with tailwind. 2810 plus 220 taxi/APU.
Numbers today are pretty grim. Two options really. Either slash airfares to fill and grow revenue, or park the machines.
You could say they need to slash fares to save themselves. The best run they had was when they had fares at the bottom end. They went to the market last month citing the need to raise fares. However, passenger numbers have actually gone backwards.
You could say they need to slash fares to save themselves. The best run they had was when they had fares at the bottom end. They went to the market last month citing the need to raise fares. However, passenger numbers have actually gone backwards.
Numbers today are pretty grim. Two options really. Either slash airfares to fill and grow revenue, or park the machines.
You could say they need to slash fares to save themselves. The best run they had was when they had fares at the bottom end. They went to the market last month citing the need to raise fares. However, passenger numbers have actually gone backwards.
You could say they need to slash fares to save themselves. The best run they had was when they had fares at the bottom end. They went to the market last month citing the need to raise fares. However, passenger numbers have actually gone backwards.
That's 2760kg per hour, a lot more than a 737-800 burns. 2200-2400 in the cruise. 5.5kg/air nautical mile.
Looking a SYD-MEL flight today, close to full, burn is 3120 kg, plus 250 APU and taxi. MEL-SYD is a little less with tailwind. 2810 plus 220 taxi/APU.
Looking a SYD-MEL flight today, close to full, burn is 3120 kg, plus 250 APU and taxi. MEL-SYD is a little less with tailwind. 2810 plus 220 taxi/APU.
Longer flights are slightly more efficient since the climb burn is offset somewhat. I just did a 5:20 flight and the burn was 44.6 kg/minute. Plus approach of 300 and taxi of 189
The 737 burns 1800 from the gate to top of climb, +/-. 1800 kg for the last hour. And about 2,400/hr in cruise. Conveniently, the burn at 68 tonnes is related to the indicated speed thus: 250 kts = 2,500 kg/hr. Same relationship at all speeds below the Mach drag effects. Take the indicated, add a zero, and that’s ~ how many kg/hr you burn. What you do with that indicated airspeed v. True airspeed is up to you.
Last edited by Australopithecus; 2nd Jun 2022 at 05:49.
More on airline costs…
Long ago (1980’s) legacy airlines had a break-even load factor of around 74%. Fuel was always about 33% of the operating costs. Fuel was cheap, but sales overheads were expensive. That included commissions, advertising, ground staff etc. Ownership costs (or lease expenses) were high due to eye-watering interest rates. The industry standard was just around 100 employees per narrow body. (160 per widebody)
What has changed? The LCC model reduced direct wages, employment contracts got diluted, employee numbers per aeroplane were reduced. Wages fell. Costs of sales plummeted due to reducing company sales staff, the internet and general bastardry. Executive remuneration soared. Fuel went crazy, on average over the last 10 years. Aeroplanes are more expensive but money is cheaper. Airport fees run just above inflation. frequent flyer schemes actually make money now due to wholesale stupidity.
Sales costs used to run about 16% of revenue. Today what would it be? 2 or 3%?
Fuel used to be 30% +/-. Today? Unhedged I imagine its over 40% for legacy carriers, more for LCCs.
Wages have only gone backwards.
ICAO figures suggest that advertising used to be about 2% of revenue. Today advertising budgets are replaced by headline grabbing low fares. Which aren’t cheap when you do the math.
Leasing costs today are based on very low interest rates, but still have minimum use clauses. I expect that most leases charge for 6+/ day, use or not. The 737 leases that I signed* in 1988 did.
All distilled, with a lot of scientific wild-assed guesses, I imagine that at $100 fares, the break-even is circa 68%. It might be less right now until the lease costs catch up with them. I am not seeing cheaper jet fuel for a long time, btw. Fossil energy production was already lagging demand before the invasion of the Ukraine. The EU has finalised an embargo on Russian feedstocks. Unless India and China buy the surplus oil is going up. If they do, its still staying the same.
*signing leases: if you don’t know who the patsy in the room is, it’s you.
Long ago (1980’s) legacy airlines had a break-even load factor of around 74%. Fuel was always about 33% of the operating costs. Fuel was cheap, but sales overheads were expensive. That included commissions, advertising, ground staff etc. Ownership costs (or lease expenses) were high due to eye-watering interest rates. The industry standard was just around 100 employees per narrow body. (160 per widebody)
What has changed? The LCC model reduced direct wages, employment contracts got diluted, employee numbers per aeroplane were reduced. Wages fell. Costs of sales plummeted due to reducing company sales staff, the internet and general bastardry. Executive remuneration soared. Fuel went crazy, on average over the last 10 years. Aeroplanes are more expensive but money is cheaper. Airport fees run just above inflation. frequent flyer schemes actually make money now due to wholesale stupidity.
Sales costs used to run about 16% of revenue. Today what would it be? 2 or 3%?
Fuel used to be 30% +/-. Today? Unhedged I imagine its over 40% for legacy carriers, more for LCCs.
Wages have only gone backwards.
ICAO figures suggest that advertising used to be about 2% of revenue. Today advertising budgets are replaced by headline grabbing low fares. Which aren’t cheap when you do the math.
Leasing costs today are based on very low interest rates, but still have minimum use clauses. I expect that most leases charge for 6+/ day, use or not. The 737 leases that I signed* in 1988 did.
All distilled, with a lot of scientific wild-assed guesses, I imagine that at $100 fares, the break-even is circa 68%. It might be less right now until the lease costs catch up with them. I am not seeing cheaper jet fuel for a long time, btw. Fossil energy production was already lagging demand before the invasion of the Ukraine. The EU has finalised an embargo on Russian feedstocks. Unless India and China buy the surplus oil is going up. If they do, its still staying the same.
*signing leases: if you don’t know who the patsy in the room is, it’s you.
Lim Kim Hai has said that if the saab pilot group do not accept his EBA offer he will shut down the south east state's networks, stating a no is "spitting in his face".
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s an interesting way to promote a ‘just culture’ amongst his pilot group. Of course CASA’s safety and human factors experts wouldn’t be concerned about that.
Good. Spit in his face. Who cares.
Interesting that the Saab operation has high pax loads and good recovery on all routes (including against QLink), yet he says the cash reserves are significantly depleted and it’s the regional arms fault.
100% agree - a true safety regulator would see this, and instantly require him to withdraw his threat, or otherwise ground the operation. Ridiculous pressure on guys and girls trying to go about their daily safety critical jobs..
He might have no choice with the impending mass exodus of crew.