Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dmorrison
For Brian, 2 747's going from NYC to Hong Kong will burn "about" the same fuel ( it is weight dependant). They will probably have the same fuel for alternates, They will probably have the same amount of cargo/passenger weight. The cargo plane will be about the same as the passenger plane. Passenger plane have a lot of cargo in the belly when they fly. And on interantional flight airlines really try to max out the aircraft ( in $$$) . The cargo plane is doing the same thing. But as I posted above the cargo plane usually bulks out first.
Also the "fuel stop in Ancorage actually cost the airline more that the nonstop. In the MD80 is I stop for fuel instead of going non stop it cost American about $10,000. so the airlines want to fly non stop as much as possible. It causes the average cost per seat mile to drop the longer you stay in the air. Our highest burn rate is in the lower atmosphere. In addition to all the ground support expense.
Now if the cargo freight company is picking up 150,000 worth of revenue, go for it. If it is just for fuel, it really cost them. Its a balance that each airline has to figure.
Dave
|
Dave, if the limiting factor on the cargo plane is volume, and weight is not in the discussion, then I agree with you.
However, if you look at a 747-400 flying from NY to Hong Kong, you've got 840,000 lb. to play with. The airplane weight is about 400,000 lb. and the fuel weight is about 360,000 lb. This leaves only 80,000 lb. for cargo or passengers. If this amount of weight fills the volume, then fine, let it go.
But, if the airplane takes on 200,000 lb. of fuel out of NY and lands in Anchorage for a refuel, the airplane could take 240,000 lb. of cargo. That's a significant difference to the previous scenario. If the airplane is not volume limited, the revenue generated by this amount of additional freight is more than offset by the additional cost of the fuel stop.