Aircraft Costs

derg

derg

Apparently a "terse" writer
Staff member
All of this means nothing as some of the figures are a little 'specious' but it's something I scalped off the DALPA forum:
 

Attachments

Derg said:
All of this means nothing as some of the figures are a little 'specious' but it's something I scalped off the DALPA forum:
Click to expand...


At least for turboprops, I don't think cost per seat mile is a meaningful metric. Many of the most profitable routes around here are less than 150nm. Also, the Cactus/JetBlue numbers are skewed higher - they are the only ones that include fuel.
 
The Compass crew costs are wow, just wow. But I kinda wonder how the -175 crew costs are lower than the -170? I would expect them to be the same. I guess more senior peeps are flyin the 170
 
Brasilia hourly cost:
tumblr_m3qi05XNdY1ruoy68o1_500.gif
 
I call shenanigans on these numbers.
The 170&175 rates, as for labor and fuel should be the same for S5. Negligible increase for a higher weight 175, in terms if fuel burn.
 
Ugh where to start, semantics but ASA doesn't have -145s, XJT does. Just a ballpark for crew costs, CA (85/hr), FO (39/hr), FA (28/hr) = 152/hr
They quoted 288/hr which is 89% higher than my generous estimate - I doubt insurance, 401k, and sick time is that much greater than salary per hour. I CALL BS! o_O
 
It seems unlikely that EGF is paying $17 for insurance while The Coasties (ASQ) are paying $2 (or else an executive in Ft Worth needs to be frog-walked out into the parking lot).

There must be some jiggling of the fuel number as well. Assuming an E190 trip-average of 4klb/hr, JBU appears to be paying about 50¢/gal above the spot price while RPA is paying only 1/5 of that, which can't be attributable to just good hedging.
 
These numbers are all based upon DOT Form 41 reports. Companies can pretty easily manipulate the numbers on these reports while still technically complying with the requirement to report, so the numbers give some valuable information to analysts, but not true data. ALPA has to make plenty of corrections with more complete information when doing costing during contract negotiations. You never get a true picture just using the Form 41 numbers.
 
Skåning said:
Ugh where to start, semantics but ASA doesn't have -145s, XJT does. Just a ballpark for crew costs, CA (85/hr), FO (39/hr), FA (28/hr) = 152/hr
They quoted 288/hr which is 89% higher than my generous estimate - I doubt insurance, 401k, and sick time is that much greater than salary per hour. I CALL BS! o_O
Click to expand...

The cost to the company will be substantially higher than what individuals are paid per hour. Every hour of pay that goes to non-flying needs to get added there too - reserve guarantees, overrides, dropped trips, training, plus payroll tax on all of that. Twice would be a reasonable guess of what that would work out to, so 89% doesn't seem too far off.
 
Minuteman said:
There must be some jiggling of the fuel number as well. Assuming an E190 trip-average of 4klb/hr, JBU appears to be paying about 50¢/gal above the spot price while RPA is paying only 1/5 of that, which can't be attributable to just good hedging.
Click to expand...

Oh that's easy!
The blue tail's that fly for both Useless Air and frontier, get filled up in Philly by USAir fuel, tank to DEN and complete an F9 trip.
Ergo, less fuel bought by F9 express averaged over the 190/175 fleet!
 
It'd be cool to see something like this, but with mainline machines - and throwing FedEx and UPS into the mix, although I'm not sure how you'd create a seat-mile equivalent for them. Perhaps just go off weight or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top