Sunho wrote:

On Sep 12, 4:25 pm, DevilsPGD wrote:

In message


Sunho wrote:

Larger aircraft's cost per available seat mile (cost divided by the
multiplication of flight distance and seats) should indeed be lower
than smaller aircraft's, but it would be unwise to use a 70-seater for
a route that has less than 30 passengers, I guess. Then the question
is how many routes will have less than 30 passengers per flight in
future?

Generally with less then 30 passengers, the airline is probably better
halving the number of flights and mostly filling 70-seater planes.


Oh I didn't think of that option.

I presume you meant something like halving two flights per day to just
one per pay. Please correct me if I am wrong.

BTW, what about routes that generate at most 30 passengers per day?
Simply not worth serving?

That depends on how much they are willing to pay. I know that sometimes
cities will subsidize carriers.