Income on Flight Manchester to El Prat & Return

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 17 Jun 2007, 09:30

Flew Trident 2 from Manchester to El Prat and return, fuel already on board at gate was around 2000Kg. Refuelled to 16379Kg.

On landing I had used 8958Kg fuel with 7420Kg remaining, not enough for return flight.

Topped up with 4550Kg of fuel which brought it to 11970Kg. Yes, the mistake was that I had put in 2000Kg more than I should as I had expected to land with between 2000 - 3000Kg remaining but landed with 4178kg of fuel instead.

Taking all this into account, the out-bound flight made no profit which I was expecting due to fuel costs how-ever, leaving the aircraft with 2000Kg more fuel than when I first took it and the fact that I refuelled in Barcelona before take-off should not have had that much effect on total income for the flight which was only a derisory 1.621.000v$.

I have made more profit on the local bus stop routes, so to me it appears that the long haul flights do not do as well as the shorter ones??

Regards Nigel.

Post by **TSR2** » 17 Jun 2007, 10:45

Hi Nigel,

I think sinces the changes were made to the freight component on flynet earlier in the year, many of the routes aren't as profitable as they once were. What was the cargo component of your flights?

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 17 Jun 2007, 11:28

Hi Ben

Below is the outbound flight and the second entry inbound.

Hope this helps

Shows no cargo so is there a facility of adding cargo to a flight?

Finances
Income from tickets: PAX ( 132 ) x Ticketprice ( 129v$ ) 17028v$
Fuel cost: Fuel Price ( 1.14v$ ) x 1.234 x Fuel Bought ( 13911kg ) -19569v$
Crew & catering cost: -660v$
Cargo income: 0v$/100nm x Distance ( 746nm ) x Cargo ( 0kg ) 0v$
Bonus: 0v$
Pilot salary: Airline Income x Pilot salary percentage -0v$

Gross profit: -3201v$
x Multiplier ( 200 ) -640200v$

Finances
Income from tickets: PAX ( 132 ) x Ticketprice ( 129v$ ) 17028v$
Fuel cost: Fuel Price ( 1.5v$ ) x 1.234 x Fuel Bought ( 4550kg ) -8422v$
Crew & catering cost: -660v$
Cargo income: 0v$/100nm x Distance ( 746nm ) x Cargo ( 0kg ) 0v$
Bonus: 1589v$
Pilot salary: Airline Income x Pilot salary percentage -1430v$

Gross profit: 8105v$
x Multiplier ( 200 ) 1621000v$

Regards Nigel.

Post by **DaveB** » 17 Jun 2007, 12:03

HI Nigel,

No, you don't load it yourself as such. FlyNET knows what the MZFW of the aircraft is and depending on what fuel you load, it will adjust Cargo load/income as necessary. As you went out heavy and came back heavy (with fuel that is).. there was obviously not enough left for the cargo component to come into play. As your sig says mate.. Experience is a hard teacher

Had you done a much shorter flight with the same amount of fuel onboard.. the outcome would have been worse as ticket prices would have been lower. For the maximum profit, you've gotta keep your fuel tight (not empty of course.. but as close as possible for what you actually need)

Having done that flight.. check what your fuelburn was for the outbound run.. add on your additional for hold/wx/diversion and you'll see a much better outcome. Same for the return

Just to make sure.. when you book that flight again (if you book it again) check what the cargo component should be in the FlightPlan

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 17 Jun 2007, 12:18

Thanks Dave

it's still a steep learning curve trying to balance the right amount of fuel for the flight (I do use the CBFS Fuel Enquiry) but have found that the information as to fuel usage is sometimes lower than what is actually required and even when adding the extras for weather/go-arounds I still find I am at risk of running on air!!

Coming back to my flight I will re-do it but am now compiling my own flight planner for fuel however, my gripe with that particular flight was (just gone back on the data) that I only landed 1711Kg more than planned and feel that this should not have dropped the income for the VA by the amount shown as the aircraft already had 2468Kg on board before the flight which meant, in total I had over estimated by only 1711Kg of fuel which is not really far off a safety net value should the aircraft have been refuelled from empty so why the low financial return for the VA??!!

Regards Nigel.

Post by **DaveB** » 17 Jun 2007, 14:28

Hello Nigel,

This is one of the many areas that makes flying for the VA so interesting. A to B.. yeh, done that. Planning your own routes.. yeh, done that e t c.

I find the cost of fuel such an emotive subject that there are some places I now don't go to or only go on the rare occassion as I don't like getting stung :shock: That said, the same up-and-down fuel pricing effects real world airlines too so sometimes, you just have to bite the bullet :roll: Prior to MZFW coming into effect.. an outbound flight in a Tri3 LHR-Cyprus would make in excess of v$10m. Fuelling up to the same degree for the return would make v$7m+ :shock: :shock: The inclusion of MZFW and a reduction in our VA multiplyer now means that such profits are consigned to history but I'd still expect to see a similar degree of loss on the return flight due solely to the extortionate cost of fuel at Cyprus.

You can't win em all mate but trying to is the fun bit

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **RAF_Quantum** » 17 Jun 2007, 18:08

Hi,

The amount of cargo is fixed by the MZFW so the T2 will never carry any cargo now, unless for some reason our passenger figures dropped due to a drop in VA rep. Nigel's flight is a good example of how 'fuel tankering' can benefit the pilot as well as the VA:-

Actual figures

fuel on a/c EGCC......... = 2466kgs
bought fuel EGCC........ = 13911kgs
dep fuel ...................... = 16377kgs
fuel burn EGCC-LEBL.... = 8958kgs
fuel on arr ..... .............= 7419kgs
bought fuel LEBL .......... = 4550kgs
dep fuel LEBL .............. = 11969kgs
fuel burn LEBL-EGCC.... = 7791kgs
fuel remaining on a/c.... = 4178kgs

4178kgs is a reasonable amount to land with. If you knew upfront exactly what your fuel burn would have been then you would have liked to depart EGCC with 8958kgs + 4178kgs reserves. This means you would have needed to buy 10670kgs of fuel at EGCC. For the return flight, again, assuming you knew upfront what fuel you would burn then you would have needed to depart LEBL with 7791kgs + 4178kgs reserves. Now, assuming that you had landed LEBL with the 4178kgs reserves intact then you would only need to buy your estimated enroute fuel for the return flight.

Exercise figures

fuel on a/c................... = 2466kgs
bought fuel.................. = 10670kgs
dep fuel ...................... = 13136kgs
fuel burn EGCC-LEBL.... = 8958kgs
fuel on arr ..... .............= 4178kgs
bought fuel LEBL .......... = 7791kgs
dep fuel LEBL .............. = 11969kgs
fuel burn LEBL-EGCC.... = 7791kgs
fuel remaining on a/c.... = 4178kgs

EGCC-LEBL
Income from tickets: PAX ( 132 ) x Ticketprice ( 129v$ ) 17028v$
Fuel cost: Fuel Price ( 1.14v$ ) x 1.234 x Fuel Bought ( 10670kg ) -15010v$
Crew & catering cost: -660v$
Cargo income: 0v$/100nm x Distance ( 746nm ) x Cargo ( 0kg ) 0v$
Bonus: 271v$
Pilot salary: Airline Income x Pilot salary percentage -244v$
Gross profit: 1385v$
x Multiplier ( 200 ) 277000v$ Flight now in profit

LEBL-EGCC
Income from tickets: PAX ( 132 ) x Ticketprice ( 129v$ ) 17028v$
Fuel cost: Fuel Price ( 1.5v$ ) x 1.234 x Fuel Bought ( 7791kg ) -14421v$
Crew & catering cost: -660v$
Cargo income: 0v$/100nm x Distance ( 746nm ) x Cargo ( 0kg ) 0v$
Bonus: 389v$
Pilot salary: Airline Income x Pilot salary percentage -350v$
Gross profit: 1986v$
x Multiplier ( 200 ) 397200v$ Reduced profit due to higher fuel cost

The impact of using the exercise figures are that you would need to buy more fuel at LEBL which is dearer than EGCC and although both flights are in profit the total income for both flights is less. This is a classic example of 'fuel tankering' at an airport where fuel is considerably cheaper than your next port of call.

Nigel's actual loss/profit for the flights were v$-640,200 outbound and v$1,621,000 for the return making an overall profit of v$980,000 which is good. Had he taken minimum fuels for each of the legs per the example above then he'd only have made an overall profit of v$674,200

I don't want the fuel economics to become a chore. Just a quick glance at the fuel prices will help you determine how you need to play the game. What we don't want to see is 'fuel tankering' at an airport that is dearer than your destination. Given the choice of filling up your car with fuel, you'd like to minimise your costs and fill up where the fuel is cheaper. Things work pretty similarly in the FlyNET world.

So, overall Nigel, WELL DONE!

Rgds

John

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 17 Jun 2007, 20:48

Many thanks for your reply John and of the example figures given.

Incidentally I had checked the fuel prices at El Prat prior to departure and when looking I saw that it was 1.5v$ whereas the figure given for Manchester was 1.14v$. Any-one with half a brain would realise that 1.5 is more than 1.14 but unfortunately............... :brick:.........I will say no more apart from making sure that I read what I see properly!!!!

On Friday I will be making the same trip again and will ensure that the fuel is sufficient for both legs without having to take on extra (Now in process of doing a fuel planner chart).

Regards Nigel.

Post by **DaveB** » 17 Jun 2007, 21:00

I'd missed the fact that it was a T2 (and I shouldn't have really!) but agree wholeheartedly with taking more fuel than necessary where it's cheap. This isn't always possible mind you.. especially with standard return flights

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 17 Jun 2007, 21:11

Thanks also Dave for your helpful inputs.

Regards Nigel.