Welcome to St. Paul Airlines, !
Main Menu

Who's Online
 Welcome Guest
Join Us!



Remember me

Retrieve lost Password
 Online Members
No Online members

SPA Recommends
VirtualCol Simulations

Return to Misty Moorings





Flight Simulator Navigation

FS Goof's

Airman's Information Manual

NOAA Metar Access

IFR Refresher Magazine

History of MSFS


Fly Better

Aviator90 videos

search pnForum latest posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts

to previous topic Print topic to next topic

Start ::  Pilot's Lobby ::  Pilots' Pub ::  ECON flight 600009 PAKT to PAWG
Moderated by:


ECON flight 600009 PAKT to PAWG

Oswald Posted: 08.04.2019, 17:41

registered: Oct. 2017
Posts: 66

Status: offline
last visit: 10.06.19

did this Econ flight tonight with Cessna 337 (the push pull), weather was awful, everything worked out fine.

After landing I checked the profit and compared to others with the same flight. What I don't understand is a difference in Pax and Cargo revenue which in my case summed up to 1106.95, in John's flight for instance 2034.45. Same distance, same Pax no., same cargo, about the same flight time, only different aircraft.

Is that logical?

Regards, Oswald
Top  Profile send PM
jer029 Posted: 09.04.2019, 08:16


registered: Nov. 2011
Posts: 956

Status: offline
last visit: 15.06.19
Hello Oswald,

Mike will probably weigh in (pun intended), but I'm guessing that it was a combination of things including the Max. Takeoff Weight of the aircraft.  The Cessna 336 is heavier and has a much higher max takeoff wgt than the lighter Beechcraft A36 (4630 vs 3400).  This is an important factor in many calculations.  Additionally, flight time and fuel burn has some affect.  Your flight was shorter (.8) than mine (.9).  So you flew shorter distance and burned more fuel.  I flew longer and burned less fuel.  All of these things probably combined to cause the difference in revenue.

Mike will likely be able to give you a more detailed and definitive response when he gets a chance.


Top  Profile send PM Homepage
Oswald Posted: 10.04.2019, 15:24

registered: Oct. 2017
Posts: 66

Status: offline
last visit: 10.06.19
Hello John,

I wasn't refering to profit, but to pax and cargo revenue which I understand from ECON 2018 Instructions are solely " based on the number of passenger miles and cargo ton-miles which you deliver successfully to the destination", therefore should not be dependent on chosen aircraft.

Example flight 600009:
Wolkenflug Pax Revenue 905.34 (Cessna 337)
Rogers Air Pax Revenue 1663.92 (Beech A36)
Motown Xpress Pax Revenue 1497.81 (Piper PA 32)
Llama Airways Pax Revenue 847.74 (Cessna 208)


Top  Profile send PM
Westcoast Posted: 10.04.2019, 16:22


registered: Jan. 2006
Posts: 1010

Status: offline
last visit: 09.06.19

You are very perceptive to have picked up this feature of our Econ model; I think you are the first pilot to have commented on it.  You are correct, there are both revenue and cost differences between flights carrying the same passenger and cargo loads flown in different aircraft.  The basis for the cost differences are probably apparent:  heavier aircraft cost more to buy, operate and maintain.  In general the total operating costs increase more-or-less linearly with aircraft size (MTOW).  Since heavier aircraft can carry more passengers and/or cargo, this allows approximately uniform ticket pricing per passenger mile or cargo ton mile.  However, for light aircraft, the increase in total operating cost with aircraft size is steeper than it is for heavier aircraft.  As a result, applying the same ticket pricing to light aircraft will generally result in a loss.  To compensate for this, our model sets ticket prices per passenger mile higher for lighter aircraft.  This is why John's flight yielded higher revenue than yours; he flew a lighter aircraft.  This is not unrealistic.  If you look at the real world data for ticket price (cost to the consumer) per seat mile versus flight distance, you will see that it is almost flat (small negative slope) for flight distances greater than about 800 nm (larger aircraft).  However, for shorter flights (smaller aircraft) it has a large negative slope.  That is, higher per seat mile price for shorter flights.  This reflects the fact that the operating cost per seat mile is lower for larger aircraft.  You can think of this as an example of the "economies of scale"; the cost of hauling a passenger a given distance is less when there are 400 of them, than when there are four.  This fact is incorporated in our cost model.  To offset the higher operating costs per seat mile of short flights in light aircraft we built in a revenue (ticket price) boost for light aircraft.  So, there ae two reasons to fly Econ flights in a full, or nearly full aircraft: (1)  The total operating costs are proportional to aircraft weight (MTOW), whereas the revenue depends only on the number of passenger-seat miles and cargo ton-miles, and (2) Particularly for lighter aircraft (<30,000 Lbs MTOW), heavier aircraft generate less revenue per passenger seat-mile and cargo ton-mile.  So, using a larger aircraft where a smaller would do gets you coming and going.


Top  Profile send PM
Oswald Posted: 10.04.2019, 18:17

registered: Oct. 2017
Posts: 66

Status: offline
last visit: 10.06.19
Hi Mike,

thank you, got it. It is a complicated matter, I'm impressed that you took this into account while preparing the Econ model.

Top  Profile send PM

Users online:

This list bases on the users active in the last 60 minutes

Powered by pnForum Version 2.6

Copyright 2000 - 2012 St. Paul Airlines

Web site powered by PostNuke ADODB database library PHP Language