Originally Posted by
LarryJ
The airplanes aren't underutilized overnight. That's when much of the maintenance is done. Scheduled service checks as well as fixing the problems that developed during the day and were deferred.
Of course, if airlines could make money by running significantly more red-eyes, don't you think they would already be doing it?
I don't buy this reasoning. "Planes need maintenance"-story is
not the explanation, nor is it a reason to not operate a night bank. Walk around at a hub late at night and you'll see enough planes sitting at the gates, dark and not being serviced at all. Aircraft maintenance cycles are based on reports from crews and on flight hours and/or cycles, not set time intervals. There is no nightly maintenance requirement for the current generation of jetliners.
Originally Posted by
Often1
This isn't the first time someone has raised the issue. The answer remains the same. It is naive and not thought through. Makes zero economic sense and won't happen.
I disagree with this point because the concept has operated for many continuous years before. In the cases of LAS/PHX, the end of the operation was attributed to dehubbing/merger/consolidation, not because it didn't make economic sense. If it didn't make economic sense, they would not have needed 12+ years of operation at LAS to find that out.
Originally Posted by
Lux Flyer
That plane might not be making any profit, but it's not losing me more money either while it sits overnight. I can sell seats cheap to fill the plane and "create" demand, but my costs (gas, crew, other staff, landing fees, etc) to operate that flight still exist (which don't exist if that plane idles overnight waiting until a morning departure). If those "cheap" fares don't cover my costs, I'm worse off than just waiting until morning to run the flight, at which time I don't need to "create demand" with artificially low fares..
This reasoning makes most sense. If night ops lose more money vs idling the plane, then it's not a good idea to run this. However, with the right focus, I do believe more profit can be made vs not flying at all. Not every destination in the network needs to have a night visit in this regard, some destinations will have more demand than others, etc.
Note that I do not believe the current legacies would make a loss on night ops, I do believe however that in the current post-merger climate, they make more profit with daytime only.
Originally Posted by
Lux Flyer
Additionally, if I'm now filling the overnight capacity to ensure my planes keep moving, where is my buffer for when daytime flights encounter IRROPs
I don't see the current airlines making much use of that buffer though; most of the time, crew requirements seem to be the cause. The plane may be there since it's not scheduled for night flights, and the weather may clear up, but it turns out they couldn't find a full crew that is within legal hours, so vouchers are handed out and pax go out next morning. Night ops could provide a relief in this scenario, as it could get stranded pax to (or closer) their destination, with the additional benefit of having crews scheduled and available for the night. I do recall it was (partly) being used for this reason in PHX during monsoon season.