Transatlantic Routing
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2025
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Sharhjah
Transatlantic Routing
Looked at routing options for a Praetor 600 from KMHT → LSGS, I compared fuel, handling, and total costs for different stops. Interesting differences came out:
The lowest overall cost came from KPSM LIMF at $8,408, while routing through LIMC ended up being the most expensive at $11,238.
Sharing this breakdown for anyone planning similar transatlantic trips - Its a good reminder on how changing stops can help save money!
- KMHT KPSM LIMF LSGS
Fuel: $7,459
Handling: $949
Total: $8,408 - KMHT CYQX LIMF LSGS
Fuel: $8,854
Handling: $1,370
Total: $10,224 - KMHT KPSM LIMC LSGS
Fuel: $7,328
Handling: $3,910
Total: $11,238 - KMHT CYQX LSZH LSGS
Fuel: $6,696
Handling: $2,141
Total: $8,837 - KMHT KPSM LFSB LSGS
Fuel: $8,082
Handling: $1,593
Total: $9,675
The lowest overall cost came from KPSM LIMF at $8,408, while routing through LIMC ended up being the most expensive at $11,238.
Sharing this breakdown for anyone planning similar transatlantic trips - Its a good reminder on how changing stops can help save money!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2025
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Sharhjah
Hello,
Fuel at KMHT is on the higher side (around $6.80/USG), whereas at KPSM its closer to $4.70/USG, and at CYQX about $3.48/USG. On an uplift of 1,000 gallons, thats a saving of about $2,100 at KPSM compared to KMHT, and roughly $3,300 at CYQX compared to KMHT.
The operator also needed a stop before LSGS to clear Schengen customs (there was a dog onboard), and LIMF offered competitive fuel and handling rates. Since the operator wasnt concerned about the additional time spent on tech stops, cost-effectiveness was the main priority.
Fuel at KMHT is on the higher side (around $6.80/USG), whereas at KPSM its closer to $4.70/USG, and at CYQX about $3.48/USG. On an uplift of 1,000 gallons, thats a saving of about $2,100 at KPSM compared to KMHT, and roughly $3,300 at CYQX compared to KMHT.
The operator also needed a stop before LSGS to clear Schengen customs (there was a dog onboard), and LIMF offered competitive fuel and handling rates. Since the operator wasnt concerned about the additional time spent on tech stops, cost-effectiveness was the main priority.


Joined: Jun 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 405
Likes: 32
From: Asia
DOC
This is an interesting experiment, but it seems to miss the direct flight cost of operating the aircraft (beyond fuel), assuming the increased fuel is simply a proxy for increased flight time. That may, or may not, be significant depending on type and operation, but it should be modelled explicitly.
Ive done some work on building a crude cost index for business-jet trips, and found that getting accurate inputs is difficult. In most cases, though, flight hours were more expensive than fuel burn, so omitting time-based operating costs risks understating the true impact.
Ive done some work on building a crude cost index for business-jet trips, and found that getting accurate inputs is difficult. In most cases, though, flight hours were more expensive than fuel burn, so omitting time-based operating costs risks understating the true impact.


Joined: Jun 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 405
Likes: 32
From: Asia
The costs owners seem to get obsessive about always surprises me. Ive seen owners get worked up about crew laundry, but not about a thousand dollars of catering getting binned after a flight.
My suspicion is that many owners simply dont see the full balance sheet in context.
My suspicion is that many owners simply dont see the full balance sheet in context.






