With all else being roughly equal: direct flight, similar distance, same airline.
Yeah the supply is greater at major airports (in the form of more gates), but so is the demand. I’m struggling to see why that doesn’t balance out.
In: 3
The planes will be bigger between main centres meaning they can fit more people. Also, more competition between airlines.
The planes will be bigger between main centres meaning they can fit more people. Also, more competition between airlines.
It doesn’t balance out because of supply and demand. More flights generally means competition and that typically means lower costs.
Larger planes filled with more people are generally more cost efficient – think of the cost (per person) of driving a bus filled with 40 people vs the same trip in a car with only 2 persons.
It doesn’t balance out because of supply and demand. More flights generally means competition and that typically means lower costs.
Larger planes filled with more people are generally more cost efficient – think of the cost (per person) of driving a bus filled with 40 people vs the same trip in a car with only 2 persons.
The planes will be bigger between main centres meaning they can fit more people. Also, more competition between airlines.
It doesn’t balance out because of supply and demand. More flights generally means competition and that typically means lower costs.
Larger planes filled with more people are generally more cost efficient – think of the cost (per person) of driving a bus filled with 40 people vs the same trip in a car with only 2 persons.
“Mid size aircraft” are the most sold commercial aircraft and they’re designed to be extremely efficient. Boeing has roughly half a trillion in back orders (all orders, not just commercial). Smaller planes are well engineered but the demand just isn’t the same for the level of design and engineering in airplanes like the 737 or 787.
The 747 was the most efficient by head count at one point but it was too large to really work out. Most flyers want to go direct (no layovers). The 747 was designed assuming people wanted to travel hub to hub for super cheap (so imagine longer flights with layovers, small planes on one or both ends, but super massive airplane flight in the middle). That’s why most have focused on “mid-size”.
Developed countries (like China) – do really well too with midsize because their economy boomed faster than their roads and trains could. So they do a ton of inter-county flying to get around. Australia too. There is regular flights between Melbourne and Sidney (like very 30-ish min or so) as it’s a giant country but no real infrastructure in between.
TLDR: everyone wants a midsize airplane so they’re ridiculously good.
“Mid size aircraft” are the most sold commercial aircraft and they’re designed to be extremely efficient. Boeing has roughly half a trillion in back orders (all orders, not just commercial). Smaller planes are well engineered but the demand just isn’t the same for the level of design and engineering in airplanes like the 737 or 787.
The 747 was the most efficient by head count at one point but it was too large to really work out. Most flyers want to go direct (no layovers). The 747 was designed assuming people wanted to travel hub to hub for super cheap (so imagine longer flights with layovers, small planes on one or both ends, but super massive airplane flight in the middle). That’s why most have focused on “mid-size”.
Developed countries (like China) – do really well too with midsize because their economy boomed faster than their roads and trains could. So they do a ton of inter-county flying to get around. Australia too. There is regular flights between Melbourne and Sidney (like very 30-ish min or so) as it’s a giant country but no real infrastructure in between.
TLDR: everyone wants a midsize airplane so they’re ridiculously good.
“Mid size aircraft” are the most sold commercial aircraft and they’re designed to be extremely efficient. Boeing has roughly half a trillion in back orders (all orders, not just commercial). Smaller planes are well engineered but the demand just isn’t the same for the level of design and engineering in airplanes like the 737 or 787.
The 747 was the most efficient by head count at one point but it was too large to really work out. Most flyers want to go direct (no layovers). The 747 was designed assuming people wanted to travel hub to hub for super cheap (so imagine longer flights with layovers, small planes on one or both ends, but super massive airplane flight in the middle). That’s why most have focused on “mid-size”.
Developed countries (like China) – do really well too with midsize because their economy boomed faster than their roads and trains could. So they do a ton of inter-county flying to get around. Australia too. There is regular flights between Melbourne and Sidney (like very 30-ish min or so) as it’s a giant country but no real infrastructure in between.
TLDR: everyone wants a midsize airplane so they’re ridiculously good.
Just because supply and demand balance out doesn’t mean that something has to be cheap. A low demand and a low supply mean that you’re dealing with a niche market in which (1) there isn’t much competition to drive prices down and (2) you don’t benefit from economies of scale (as much).
If there’s only one airline serving a particular route (say, Brussels to Madeira), then that airline can charge higher prices as they know their customers have no other options, or at least the alternatives are much less convenient (e.g. flying with a stopover, taking a boat, or not traveling at all).
If you’re an airline serving a low-demand route, then you likely have to fly smaller planes on that route, as flying a mostly empty big plane would be wasting fuel. A smaller plane uses less fuel overall, but more fuel per passenger, which raises the ticket price. Also, to maximize their profit airlines want to have as many of their planes in the air at the same time as possible, since an aircraft only costs money when it is sitting idle. This is easy to do if you’re flying between big hubs that lots of people want to travel to. But if you’re serving to a small airport, you can probably only do so occasionally – say once a week – while still getting enough passengers. And you may only be able to fly the same route back and forth to this airport, rather than stringing lots of different journeys together (e.g. instead of going Berlin – Madrid – Rome – Frankfurt – London – Paris – Copenhagen – Berlin, you have to go Brussels – Madeira – Brussels). This makes it harder to draw up an efficient schedule for your planes as it gives you very little flexibility. So your planes will spend more time sitting on the tarmac or in a hangar, (which costs the airline money to park them there, and that additional cost has to be charged to the airline’s customers as well.
Latest Answers