Analisi interessante sullo schedulato dei 77W KLM
- Autore Discussione Boeing747
- Data d'inizio
KLM sarebbe perfetta per fare un roma - Cagliari di sabato nel mese di agosto o un roma-Olbia o un milano - cagliari o olbia 
La conclusione del discorso, già delineata in altri suoi thread analoghi (come questo</u> e quest'altro</u>), è in sintesi:
The obvious question is then why KLM has decided to opt for the current operational setup instead of a safer model which caters for more operational spare capacity and thus more stability. If anything, the airline is even increasing its reliance on high utilization rates, as the proposed B77W utilization looks sure to push the overall 777utilization rates well over 16 hours a day.
The answer to this predicament is relatively easy to formulate yet much more difficult to quantify. KLM and its AMS home base are not able to attract the kind of high yielding passengers that fill the large premium cabins of the likes of BA, VS, LH or AF. KLM's aircraft are configured with a much smaller relative amount of premium seats than many of its competitors, whereas the global picture of the cost associated with the operation is very similar for all of them. Hence, KLM, which is attracting relatively more lower yielding economy class connecting traffic, needs to offset this relative shortfall in revenue by increasing its revenue potential through maximizing the utilization of its available resources. As a result, KLM is featuring utilization rates that are significantly higher than those of named competitors and allow the airline to schedule more roundtrips per aircraft than any of those competitors.
The reasoning behind this strategy seems to be that the aforementioned lower yielding connecting traffic is much less sensitive to operational instabilities than the premium O&D traffic that is to be found in the upfront cabins of KLM's competitors. One can likely setup long arguments in how far this is indeed true. Are economy passengers on cheap tickets indeed less sensitive to the kind of operational irregularities to which KLM relatively more frequently seems to expose them?
The airline seems to have done its homework on this one and has taken a continued strategy of increasing utilization rates with all ensuing irregularities that come with it.
The obvious question is then why KLM has decided to opt for the current operational setup instead of a safer model which caters for more operational spare capacity and thus more stability. If anything, the airline is even increasing its reliance on high utilization rates, as the proposed B77W utilization looks sure to push the overall 777utilization rates well over 16 hours a day.
The answer to this predicament is relatively easy to formulate yet much more difficult to quantify. KLM and its AMS home base are not able to attract the kind of high yielding passengers that fill the large premium cabins of the likes of BA, VS, LH or AF. KLM's aircraft are configured with a much smaller relative amount of premium seats than many of its competitors, whereas the global picture of the cost associated with the operation is very similar for all of them. Hence, KLM, which is attracting relatively more lower yielding economy class connecting traffic, needs to offset this relative shortfall in revenue by increasing its revenue potential through maximizing the utilization of its available resources. As a result, KLM is featuring utilization rates that are significantly higher than those of named competitors and allow the airline to schedule more roundtrips per aircraft than any of those competitors.
The reasoning behind this strategy seems to be that the aforementioned lower yielding connecting traffic is much less sensitive to operational instabilities than the premium O&D traffic that is to be found in the upfront cabins of KLM's competitors. One can likely setup long arguments in how far this is indeed true. Are economy passengers on cheap tickets indeed less sensitive to the kind of operational irregularities to which KLM relatively more frequently seems to expose them?
The airline seems to have done its homework on this one and has taken a continued strategy of increasing utilization rates with all ensuing irregularities that come with it.
Ripesco il thread per segnalare un'altra analisi dello stesso autore, che è davvero un piacere leggere: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3120753
L'argomento -utilizzo della flotta dei 772 di AA- è analogo, le conclusioni opposte. Operando da più hub propri, su rotte ad alto yield (con macchine adeguatamente configurate), e spesso su aeroporti slottati, AA privilegia la stabilità operativa e gli schedulati ottimali dal punto di vista commerciale a scapito dell'utilizzo medio giornaliero delle macchine: 12h17 di AA contro le 16h22 di KL, che come detto sopra ha un approccio strategico opposto.
Marco
L'argomento -utilizzo della flotta dei 772 di AA- è analogo, le conclusioni opposte. Operando da più hub propri, su rotte ad alto yield (con macchine adeguatamente configurate), e spesso su aeroporti slottati, AA privilegia la stabilità operativa e gli schedulati ottimali dal punto di vista commerciale a scapito dell'utilizzo medio giornaliero delle macchine: 12h17 di AA contro le 16h22 di KL, che come detto sopra ha un approccio strategico opposto.
Marco