5 ms·

I understand the argument you're making but I don't see how it makes sense. If fuel is the biggest cost, which it is last time I checked, then fuel efficiency b

by hurril 3y ago

I understand the argument you're making but I don't see how it makes sense. If fuel is the biggest cost, which it is last time I checked, then fuel efficiency becomes something that affects the financial margins. So it has to be something else. My guess would be insurance. It costs a lot more to insure passenger flights, which means that the tolerance for failures is that much lower. I.e.: it costs a lot more to insure an old piece of junk than a brand new piece of kit.

raverbashing 3y ago
Fuel is the biggest cost, but it scales linearly with usage (hence revenue) The second biggest cost is lease, which is significantly smaller the older the plane is (also cargo doesn't fly first class)
- hurril 3y ago
  Sure, variable costs matter less with less use. I guess the difference in fuel efficiency is not that great, then. A lower insurance (which is my guess/ opinion!) and a lower lease cost has a greater explanation value.
mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
A fun comparison could be driving a brand new (has a payment) fuel efficient car (30mpg) 5 miles a day vs. driving an older (paid off) truck/SUV (15mpg) the same distance. Over the course of a year (5d/week * 50 weeks) you will spend ~$150 more on fuel for the truck/SUV (used a mpg calculator at $4/gal). Its roughly 2x the fuel cost for this example, you could find a more efficient car but lets do some more simple math on payments. Brand new vs paid off makes no difference on fuel efficiency. However, the average car payment for new cars in 2023 is $716 (holy crap!), so that payment for 5 years ($43k) is going to far outweigh the $150/year you'd "save" by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle. Five years of the fuel for this 15mpg truck example is still only $750 more than the cars fuel, a little over 1 monthly payment. An older vehicle is going to have higher maintenance/repair costs but not $40k more. I assume larger numbers, but similar ratios for planes doing short daily trips.
- pasttense01 3y ago
  5 miles a day is only 1,825 miles/year. Currently the average miles driven per year is 13,500. So use realistic numbers.
  - supernova87a 3y ago
    The point is that the old cargo planes fly each day the equivalent of your old truck going 5 miles per day to buy groceries. At that point, if you got the truck dirt cheap, it doesn't matter how fuel inefficient it is.
supernova87a 3y ago
It's not just the direct hourly operating cost, it's that they were able to buy the less fuel-efficient planes for dirt cheap to begin with. When you can do that, and your fuel usage isn't a major portion of the operating bill to begin with, you care less that it burns slightly more fuel each short trip per day.
supernova87a 3y ago
I think the item you're missing is that because they are fuel-inefficient and quite old, the planes are acquired by Fedex/UPS/etc for a very low price after having been used by passenger airlines. If you can buy something for very cheap, and only need to use it infrequently, it isn't a huge problem if it's inefficient for that use a few hours per day.

by hurril 3y ago

raverbashing 3y ago

Fuel is the biggest cost, but it scales linearly with usage (hence revenue) The second biggest cost is lease, which is significantly smaller the older the plane is (also cargo doesn't fly first class)

hurril 3y ago
Sure, variable costs matter less with less use. I guess the difference in fuel efficiency is not that great, then. A lower insurance (which is my guess/ opinion!) and a lower lease cost has a greater explanation value.

mattbrewsbytes 3y ago

A fun comparison could be driving a brand new (has a payment) fuel efficient car (30mpg) 5 miles a day vs. driving an older (paid off) truck/SUV (15mpg) the same distance. Over the course of a year (5d/week * 50 weeks) you will spend ~$150 more on fuel for the truck/SUV (used a mpg calculator at $4/gal). Its roughly 2x the fuel cost for this example, you could find a more efficient car but lets do some more simple math on payments. Brand new vs paid off makes no difference on fuel efficiency. However, the average car payment for new cars in 2023 is $716 (holy crap!), so that payment for 5 years ($43k) is going to far outweigh the $150/year you'd "save" by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle. Five years of the fuel for this 15mpg truck example is still only $750 more than the cars fuel, a little over 1 monthly payment. An older vehicle is going to have higher maintenance/repair costs but not $40k more. I assume larger numbers, but similar ratios for planes doing short daily trips.

pasttense01 3y ago
5 miles a day is only 1,825 miles/year. Currently the average miles driven per year is 13,500. So use realistic numbers.
- supernova87a 3y ago
  The point is that the old cargo planes fly each day the equivalent of your old truck going 5 miles per day to buy groceries. At that point, if you got the truck dirt cheap, it doesn't matter how fuel inefficient it is.

supernova87a 3y ago

It's not just the direct hourly operating cost, it's that they were able to buy the less fuel-efficient planes for dirt cheap to begin with. When you can do that, and your fuel usage isn't a major portion of the operating bill to begin with, you care less that it burns slightly more fuel each short trip per day.

supernova87a 3y ago

I think the item you're missing is that because they are fuel-inefficient and quite old, the planes are acquired by Fedex/UPS/etc for a very low price after having been used by passenger airlines. If you can buy something for very cheap, and only need to use it infrequently, it isn't a huge problem if it's inefficient for that use a few hours per day.