Agree, and thanks for the knowledgeable data point. My point is mainly that Boeing doesn't prescribe nightly maintenance for every 737, which was raised as an argument (albeit not in those exact words) upthread. Night ops or not, an aircraft will eventually reach a set amount of hours or cycles and will need to be retired for maintenance, be it at 8 AM, 2 PM or 2 AM...

I believe we seem to define "loss" in different terms. We agree there is a loss if a flight costs the airline more than it brings in revenue. If I understand correctly, you additionally extend the definition to basically any condition that doesn't result in optimum profit, even if the condition in itself is still profitable (revenue>cost). The loss then stems from the fact that less revenue was made vs a situation where that condition would not be present. While I can see the rationale, if an airline solely operated by this model, why would they bother to fly domestic on the AM of July 4, Thanksgiving Day and December 25? While we're at it, why would they even bother to fly any flight on the schedule that rank amongst the least 1% of profitable flights? Why would they even keep a loyalty program?

​​​​
The point I'm getting to is that the equation isn't balanced by optimum profit alone. No airline operates at optimum profitability! Customer satisfaction, the network and the connections, alliances, the need to keep slots, cargo contracts, and not in the least what the competitor is doing all come into play. This is why I am convinced that the lack of night ops is not because the operation in itself is a loss, but because it's currently more profitable to concentrate in daytime only while letting the customers bear the brunt of the congestion that it results in, especially since no one is currently challenging this model. The same rationale has been applied to explain the switch to revenue-based mileage programs. And the same rationale could be applied if all legacies would jointly decide tomorrow to discontinue their loyalty programs because they'd make more money not maintaining them now that customers don't have a plentitude of competitors to choose from anymore.

Sooner or later the status-quo will come to an end, and I'm convinced we'll see the return of night ops, partly because it is basically the only option for a newcomer in a few congested markets. Maybe they will even offer a mileage-based mileage program to win over a few customers to fill those seats, who knows?

I respectfully disagree. Pax don't want to take flights that arrive at airports that are 100 mi from the advertised destination, yet RYR sells them out, not necessarily at a loss. Back here in the US, pax don't want to make connections, yet will buy the connecting flight over the direct flight if the price is lower, not necessarily at a loss for the airline. As I pointed out above, demand is elastic, manufacturable, doesn't solely depend on what people organically want, and can be profitable even if created artificially. Convenience doesn't seem to be the (only) primary factor.

Edit: this thread developed from a side note that was contributed in the context of another discussion without any desire to invoke the weight of a separate topic. Points were made and clarified and there isn't much more I can add right now. Even though we currently won't agree on everything, I appreciate the civil discussion and the interesting and constructive arguments raised ^ We should definitely revisit this - now separate - topic in a few years from now or whenever the airline market conditions significantly change.