4 ms·

That doesn't have much to do with the point I'm making. I'm saying if you double fuel usage, you don't double the cost of using the plane. As cost of fuel is o

by ucha 4y ago

That doesn't have much to do with the point I'm making. I'm saying if you double fuel usage, you don't double the cost of using the plane. As cost of fuel is only a percentage of the price of the ticket, it's pretty obvious that there is a threshold as a percentage of total ticket cost under which spending 4x more in fuel to fly say 1.5x more passengers (because the airplane isn't flying 24/7) makes business sense. That is obviously one of the reasons why they are starting with business class tickets because, fuel consists of a smaller percentage of ticket cost.

nautilius 4y ago
Yeah, there is an epsilon on top of fuel. But maybe you missed the obvious fact that all aircraft are getting slower rather than faster over the last decades, so that threshold is in the opposite direction of what you're proposing. And there is zero logic behind your second obviousm, as your premise is already wrong. The reason they start with business class is because you can charge more per seat. Seems pretty obvious.
- ucha 4y ago
  Fuel cost, depending on routes, number of business seats, seat occupancy is at about 25% of total costs [0]. 75% is what you call epsilon? Aircraft speed as barely budged since we transitioned from turboprop to jets. That's something you could call epsilon. You're right that they start with business seats because they cost more. Business class seats cost 3-4x time economy while occupying less than 2x the space so the cost of fuel as a percentage of the ticket price is lower. It might not be obvious to you but I'm happy to explain it :) [0] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/why-rising-fuel-prices-might-not-be-as-bad-for-the-airline-sector-as-it-seems https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-inf...
  - nautilius 4y ago
    > 2x the space so the cost of fuel as a percentage of the ticket price is lower. It might not be obvious to you but I'm happy to explain it :) See, your claim is that fuel cost is the sole reason they do this. I'd argue it's obvious they'd do that even if all fuel was free. > Aircraft speed as barely budged since we transitioned from turboprop to jets. Ah, it's again one of those nonlinearities you seem to have trouble with. See, the cost increase is, again, not proportional to speed. On top of the quadratic scaling, you have a very nonlinear and steep (not-proportional!) increase in drag coefficient. So, when you look up that what I say is true, but you want to weasel your way out by saying 'it's not by much', you're missing that the impact on drag (and fuel) is substantial.

by ucha 4y ago

nautilius 4y ago

Yeah, there is an epsilon on top of fuel. But maybe you missed the obvious fact that all aircraft are getting slower rather than faster over the last decades, so that threshold is in the opposite direction of what you're proposing. And there is zero logic behind your second obviousm, as your premise is already wrong. The reason they start with business class is because you can charge more per seat. Seems pretty obvious.

ucha 4y ago
Fuel cost, depending on routes, number of business seats, seat occupancy is at about 25% of total costs [0]. 75% is what you call epsilon? Aircraft speed as barely budged since we transitioned from turboprop to jets. That's something you could call epsilon. You're right that they start with business seats because they cost more. Business class seats cost 3-4x time economy while occupying less than 2x the space so the cost of fuel as a percentage of the ticket price is lower. It might not be obvious to you but I'm happy to explain it :) [0] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/why-rising-fuel-prices-might-not-be-as-bad-for-the-airline-sector-as-it-seems https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-inf...
- nautilius 4y ago
  > 2x the space so the cost of fuel as a percentage of the ticket price is lower. It might not be obvious to you but I'm happy to explain it :) See, your claim is that fuel cost is the sole reason they do this. I'd argue it's obvious they'd do that even if all fuel was free. > Aircraft speed as barely budged since we transitioned from turboprop to jets. Ah, it's again one of those nonlinearities you seem to have trouble with. See, the cost increase is, again, not proportional to speed. On top of the quadratic scaling, you have a very nonlinear and steep (not-proportional!) increase in drag coefficient. So, when you look up that what I say is true, but you want to weasel your way out by saying 'it's not by much', you're missing that the impact on drag (and fuel) is substantial.