Depending on a number of things including aircraft type and flight time, these numbers don't seem anywhere near correct.


Maintenance, "flight?" and passengers all cost 7% of the flight/s.
it also costs the same to crew the aircraft, as to buy it at 14% of the flight/s.
Fuel seems cheap at only 29% of the flight charge.
and ground costs are grater than maintenance costs.


If crew (pilots and cabin) divvy up 14% of the ticketed income of a flight, why do they often claim low pay rates?

that is an erroneous conclusion. We are talking about COSTS not INCOME.

Research all you like, figures generally come back about the same.

Why would A320 verus B737 make a difference of much?

Do you have experience of managing airline costs?

Mate you drop a graph that could be for an ATR 42 and only 1 in the fleet for all that graph says.

Is it a turbo prop fleet or a 777 or an A380 fleets?

Never been able to match numbers on a Metro III to a B747 on any sector ever!!

But you say the figures come back the same - how about an explanation on what is classed as costs and or income and what is actually included in your graph and its costs or incomes.




Or at least say "total cost" of what.

I do probably have some relevant experience in airline cost and also in management in aviation and their costs, but no I have not managed an airline.

Seem the % that do manage airlines around the World fail big time if stats are used.

I still say for most companies and most routes these numbers are way off the mark. I doubt Qantas and Ryan Air have a 7% cost each for "passengers" even if on a A320 and/or a B737 on the same route or a similar route in respective current sectors they run.

Just to be clear, you do understand what a percentage means right?

Yep if x % of seats are not filled on a certain sector you will go broke.


The introduction of the regional jets altered the sales picture. Although more expensive than turboprops, regional jets allow airlines to operate passenger services on routes not suitable for turboprops. Turboprop aircraft have lower fuel consumption and can operate from shorter runways than regional jets, but have higher engine maintenance costs, shorter ranges, and lower cruising speeds.
The market for new aircraft to replace existing turboprops once again grew in the mid-1990s, and DHC responded with the improved "Series 400" design.
When world oil prices drove up short-haul airfares in 2006, an increasing number of airlines that had bought regional jets began to reassess turboprop regional airliners, which use about 30–60% less fuel than regional jets. Although the market was not as robust as in the 1980s when the first Dash 8s were introduced, 2007 had increased sales of the only two 40+ seat regional turboprops still in western production, Bombardier's Q400 and its competitor, the ATR series of 50–70 seat turboprops. The Q400 has a cruising speed close to that of most regional jets, and its mature engines and systems require less frequent maintenance, reducing its disadvantage.

*** So why is it Virgin ATR's are resting ,while Qantas Q400's are not? If the "%'s" are the same?

I also am sure a B747 and a Metro III will have much different costing's on the Sydney to Joberg flights - even more so if both have every seat fully booked.

The Airbus A380, the largest passenger jet, costs between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour, using roughly $17,467 of fuel.

Now this seems greater than the graph %!

Aircraft Operating Series ? Aircraft Operating Expenses » OPShots.net - Cyberhub to Cleveland Aviation and the World!

the opening statement in this article ...........

"Would you believe that over 102,000 commercial passenger flights circle over our heads every day? These planes alone cost somewhere between $70 million and $404 million dollars, and are operated by just a handful of airlines" doesn't seem to take into a/c that used aircraft sometimes go very cheaply (sure their maintenance costs are higher) like MD80's/F100's for $1-2 million. Allegiant Air(USA) boasted how little they paid for each MD80, due to glut in the market & at one time, they even bother flying them, on days like Tuesday, when low demand, whereas new aircraft had to be worked hard. There were a lot of old aircraft flying around WA last time I looked. No MD80's, but plenty of Fokkers/Dash 8's etc. which were mainly long in the tooth.

Imagine the Jetgo ERJ's must also be cheap to lease due to the apparent glut of them parked in deserts in USA.

Simply saying the pie graph while may be close for 1 specific operation - it seems pretty much rubbish for most.

The numbers(%) can never be pretty much the same over the aviation sector across the World - there are so many variables.

Low capacity, turbo prop, 4 engine are massive cost differences.

Depending on the actual flight and load numbers a Metro III can be far cheaper to use than a B747 (8 people Melb to Syd) - But on other flights and loads it is the opposite (250 people Syd to London).