Smaller more efficient airliner vs larger less efficient airliner, which is more profitable assuming 100% occupancy?
Posted by Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 90 comments
cbragg49@reddit
Range also factors in the equation. Landing for fuel is less efficient than a straight shot.
yycmobiletires@reddit
You answered your own question. Whatever is more efficient no matter the size.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit (OP)
So if Emirates flew A321neoXLR to London would it make more profit than A380?
flyermiles_dot_ca@reddit
No, because Heathrow is slot-restricted; Emirates maximizes profit on that route by maximizing revenue per cycle.
DangerousF18@reddit
Maybe not if you compare 1 A321XLR to 1 A380, but in general they would make more profit per seat (eg. 1000 pax transported by A321XLR will make more than 1000 pax transported by A380)
Of course there are other things to consider. If flying into LHR, slots are restricted and more expensive, so it might be easier to fly one large plane as opposed to 3-4 smaller planes.
pasi_dragon@reddit
And considering the biggest issue is getting a consistent 100% load factor.. Plane size on a route is determined by demand not necessarily by efficiency. Even is the A380 had more profit per seat it would make zero sense if it‘s only 25% booked.
wrongwayup@reddit
Possibly a higher % profit, but a lower $ profit. Which would you prefer?
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Without knowing all of the factors involved it’s too difficult to answer.
Just as an example. Is an A321neo going to be more efficient than an A380? Absolutely. But the A380 has the advantage of selling top tier premium products that generate significantly more revenue than a narrow body economy or first class seat.
Far-Yellow9303@reddit
The A380 also uses up one slot and one gate (and a gate nobody else uses at that) whereas the A321 would, for the demand that route generates, need multiple gates and multiple slots, adding costs.
chateau86@reddit
Fuck, I feel old. I still remembered when airports adding A380 gates was something worth hyping about.
Far-Yellow9303@reddit
I feel ya. I was super hyped the first (and so far only) time I got to fly in an A380. It was a very comfortable, quiet plane. That was 14 years ago and since then nothing has been close to as inspiring.
Yeah sure the 787 and A350 are more advanced, more efficient, more comfortable, generally just outright superior blah blah blah but they aren't *inspiring*. The A380 is in a club of just two planes that made me go "oh heck" when I first saw it.
lizardman49@reddit
They make most of their passenger profits on premium cabins and the neoxlr cant fit as many premium seats on it. In addition part of the reason emirates loves the a380 is for slot restrictions which allows them to capture a ton of tickets on specific times without needing to maintain as many gates at other airports.
vita1611@reddit
no cause dxb-lhr is a trunk route and is super in-demand and lucrative. they will maximise that with larger airplane
Difficult_Camel_1119@reddit
no, more profit per seat. But you have to take into account fixed cost for the airport handling and missing freight revenue. Therefore, it always depends which plane size is the best.
Raccoon_Ratatouille@reddit
RASM-CASM = your answer
SideEmbarrassed1611@reddit
"DUDE LET'S RASMCASM TONIGHT!!!!"
flyermiles_dot_ca@reddit
Whoa, Black Betty.
SideEmbarrassed1611@reddit
Boeing won this argument when the A380 failed.
the99percent1@reddit
The cabin with more first class, business and premium economy seats makes more money. Period.
Federal-Property1461@reddit
Fuel per pax is misleading since it doesnt count for cargo, which can generate more profits for airlines than the passengers
NotACompleteDick@reddit
More efficient is more efficient, and it doesn't matter what the load is made up with.
Federal-Property1461@reddit
It does if the load earns different levels of profit
100kg of cargo costs more than 100kg of passengers
NotACompleteDick@reddit
So what are you comparing? Small aircraft don't have space for cargo, you'd have to hand load into a MAX8 or an A320neo. Cargo goes under the floor in large aircraft. So there's no direct comparison between a wide body with two rows of standard cans, and regionals with space for baggage and maybe a few bags of packages.
Federal-Property1461@reddit
There is a comparison to be made. Not all containers are made equal, and not all widebodies can carry 2 of the same containers.
The 777 can carry more cargo than an A350 for example, and both carry a lot more than a 767
Tiny-Plum2713@reddit
For the Airline I know about (major European legacy) cargo is a fraction of passenger income. Nowhere near enough to cover a half empty flight for example.
Patrahayn@reddit
That would make it the exception not the norm
Tiny-Plum2713@reddit
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/airline-revenue-to-surpass-pre-pandemic-levels-in-2023/
Patrahayn@reddit
Might want to find yourself a more updated document than 2023 mate
Tiny-Plum2713@reddit
Are you serious?
LupineChemist@reddit
That will depend heavily on the specific route, no?
YOURE_GONNA_HATE_ME@reddit
Less the route and more the fleet, although they do often go hand in hand.
If you’re running 90% narrow bodies cargo is going to matter a lot less than if you run 90% wide bodies
LupineChemist@reddit
I mean, I was thinking of someone like Lufty. Like I'd think they can get a much better cargo rate running a 747 to SIN than to say CLT.
(Though thinking about it, I believe that one has lots of specialty parts for the BMW factory in South Carolina)
Mc-Lovin-81@reddit
"Luffy" to Atlanta hauling parts for plant Vance AL too.
XXXTYLING@reddit
I've gotten tips from pilots at my local airline in the US that cargo is actually more profitable than passenger income. I guess it depends on situation.
Dan787@reddit
"More profitable" in that it costs almost nothing to onboard bellyhold cargo, so it's basically pure profit. But in revenue terms its a fraction of passenger revenue, and without the pax the cost of operating cargo only flights would be far far more.
Pilots are clever people, but most are not all that connected to the business side of things.
trevor_plantaginous@reddit
It depends on the route. Hawaii is a good example - Delta, United, American, Alaska/Hawaiian, Southwest, etc all fly to most of the islands. They do very well on cargo on these flights. But places easily accessed by truck/train its not so much the case. I would assume that Singapore flies in a lot of stuff so I'd think cargo is a big business. Now say Cleveland - probably not so much.
lizardman49@reddit
I haven't seen that in any financial statements I've read, otherwise they'd operate note freight only flights/planes.
RealPutin@reddit
Yeah, it's a thing on hyperspecific flights (seasonal size increases ATL-LIM and SLC-LIM for extra asparagus capacity) but it's not a broadly true statement.
Tiny-Plum2713@reddit
Right. Highly upvoted nonsense as usual.
dinoguys_r_worthless@reddit
I was told that the reason the airlines keep raising checked baggage fees is to guarantee more capacity for cargo. Is that correct or just a rumor?
Dangerous-Rice44@reddit
I’m skeptical of this claim. Checked bags are often free on long haul international flights, which are the flights that haul the most cargo. There’s little to no cargo flown in the belly of a domestic 737 flight.
flyinmryan@reddit
Yeah…it’s “free” if you pay extra. I’m not even joking. Pay $150 extra for a “free” checked bag and “free” seat selection. I’m missing my sisters in law’s weeding in Italy because I refuse to play along
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit (OP)
Fair, I guess overall fuel burn in a route would be a better measure since the ability to have extra space for that cargo is something that's burning fuel as well.
Federal-Property1461@reddit
It also kinda depends, because some aircraft can carry a lot of cargo relative to their size (777) or carry very little compared to their size (A380). Also depends on where the flight is going to for how much the cargo is worth
ViolentPurpleSquash@reddit
Depends on how much the slot costs
hither2forlorn@reddit
In Nepal airlines who fly to extreme locations in the mountains the priority is
Airlines will off load local passenger for cargo and cargo for foreign tourist.
Pokhara - Jomsom flight for 16th April shows no seat for Nepalese, $77 for Indian tourist and $171 for other national
Mc-Lovin-81@reddit
For the 2025 fiscal year, Lufthansa Cargo generated €3.4 billion ($3.7B) in total revenue. 63-64% Load Factor.
On average, Lufthansa Cargo transports approximately 2,500 tons of freight per day across its global network.
The airline expanded available capacity to 14.45 billion tonne-kilometers in 2025, a 5.4% increase, largely due to the addition of its 18th Boeing 777F and increased belly-hold space in passenger aircraft.
From Frankfurt to Atlanta. Near Daily. LH444 787-9 (passenger/cargo). (A few Lufthansa a month) 777f. AeroLogic. 2-3 a week. AeroLogic 456.
Lufthansa (hard to pin point the exact flight per profit but average) 6x flights. 7500km 20 ton max. ÷ 64% L.F =12.8T. (Per flight) $38,400 profit. (Weekly) $230,400 Gross revenue.
Extra fuel burn as passenger load is already high. Adds around $5-6k. Or $29-32k weekly. Rough estimate. $175-195k profit.
Addition cost is moving freight, loading freight blah blah. We round down and say a weekly profit $140k. Fra-Atl handling/extra weight landing fee, taxes..
L.H to IAD. A340-600. 25-30T (20t 787-9) fuel burn is around $35k more expensive vs 787-9 (8500 vs 5k kg per hour) With IAD being 500nm shorter. It can potentially make around $4k more profit.
Net profit. Around 75-77% of gross profit (787-9) vs 63-66% for A340-600.
Hypothetically. If we replaced A340-600 with 787-10. The cargo capabilities would decrease, but net profit would be around $15k more net profit.
Biggest advantage of A340-600 vs 787-10 replacement, is the cargo hold bathrooms.
A340-600 vs A350-1000 is the biggest difference. 19T cargo vs (A340-600) 15T. Fuel burn would be around $22k per flight cheaper with A350-1000.
Looking at numbers. Replacing A340-600 with A350-1000. Would be a net profit of $400-450k weekly. Or a 8.5 years to payoff A350-1000 in saving vs A340-600.
Shot_Independence274@reddit
On average, the one where you can sell the average seat at the highest price...
fireandlifeincarnate@reddit
*at the highest gross profit
Shot_Independence274@reddit
Yeah! This is what I meant!
NotACompleteDick@reddit
Your question contains a false assumption. Smaller aircraft are not more efficient. Smaller aircraft burn less fuel, but also carry less people and cargo. Bigger engines convert fuel to thrust more efficiently. But if you can get people from closer to their source to closer to their destination then that may be more efficient overall.
caddyax@reddit
Pound for pound, the bigger plane is more efficient And profitable at max capacity. The issue is it can be very hard to reach max capacity for those
QuillsROptional@reddit
It really depends.
Airlines make more on the individual first- and business class passengers than they do on economy. So more high value seats sold is a factor, and the configuration of the aircraft a given. The high value seats is one of the reasons why it is so difficult for low cost airlines to operate long haul routes.
Then they have different operating costs - depending on the age of the plane, fuel costs (it's not as easy as what is the current spot price of oil, airlines have different agreements and hedges - and a subsidiary of Delta Airlines even own a refinery)
The larger aircraft have longer turnaround times, airlines don't make money when the plane is sitting on the ground, the smaller aircraft will be back in the air making money again sooner. Then there are the cost of buying or leasing the aircraft and the operating costs. An older, smaller aircraft might be cheaper to buy but the operating costs might be higher.
swakid8@reddit
Too may factors….
Costs of crew Cost of fuel Airplane cost (leases vs payments vs paid off) Operation costs (PFC, Landing Fees)….
NakedJamaican@reddit
I haven’t seen the numbers, but I’d be surprised if the 787s are printing money. The costs of fuel, heavy checks, and lots of daily maintenance squawks prompted the airline to plan retirements of the airframes. Those plans have changed multiple times, but the fact that retirements are being considered tells me they probably aren’t wildly profitable.
tastypieceofmeat@reddit
Interesting, Is it due to the depreciation curve?
swakid8@reddit
United 767s are fully paid off at this point. The biggest remaining costs per flight is crew, fuel, fees, maintenance related items.
It’s like having a fleet of paid off vehicles.
tastypieceofmeat@reddit
Yeah, thought so, thanks! Those jets just keep chugging along, last I checked most of the EWR-LHR services were on the 767 with a handful of 789/78Xs.
acakaacaka@reddit
The bigger the aircraft the smaller the ratio of payload/total mass.
But this metric is not everything.
Like for example flying 10 000 km is more profitable per km as flying 5 000 km.
BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit
Bigger airplanes almost always generate more revenue. That's why pay scales for pilots are proportional to the size of the airplane (at least, in the states).
More premium seating, more cargo capacity, etc.
SRM_Thornfoot@reddit
It is actually the larger planes that are much more efficient as measured as cost per seat.
Of course the bigger plane burns more gas and costs more to operate, but once you divide that cost by the number of seats they become very efficient. That makes big planes big money makers. On the flip side, when the big planes are not flying full that efficiency drops and the bigger planes can lose big money very quickly when flown mostly empty. The airlines tailor their route structures on the number of people they expect to fly a certain route and they match the size of the plane as best they can to that number. If an airline can keep a widebody on a route consistently full that is a huge cash cow for them.
Taptrick@reddit
That is a crazy complicated question to ask casually on Reddit. Entire teams of corporate executives and accountants have been fighting with this for decades.
Noriadin@reddit
Smaller because an airline can do more trips per day with them.
MrFickless@reddit
??
A smaller plane will take just as long to fly from A to B vs a larger plane if both fly at the same speed. Granted, a smaller plane will have a shorter turnaround, but the larger planes usually have higher cruising speeds so it pretty much cancels out.
Noriadin@reddit
I understand what I said sounds dumb, but I forgot to mention in my initial comment that smaller planes can have access to more routes because of less airport requirements for such big planes.
MrFickless@reddit
It works both ways. A smaller plane might not have the range to service long routes at 100% capacity.
AviationPhu@reddit
Which ever is fully payed off
wrongwayup@reddit
In general terms, it's common for a newer generation, smaller aircraft to have the same seat costs as the prior generation larger aircraft. It's the reverse with trip costs - the newer larger aircraft might have comparable trip costs as the older, smaller aircraft.
But that's only half the equation. Good airline revenue management will help ensure only the higher-yielding customers will be getting on that smaller aircraft, leaving the more fare-sensitive discounted passengers at home. The average fare on that smaller aircraft will be higher.
So the short answer is, as always, "it depends". There is a lot that goes into it.
Are the airplanes being purchased and financed outright? They might be on the same straight-line depreciation rate, so the capital costs might be comparable. Or, if they're being leased, the older airplane might be onto its second lease and cost half per month of the newer aircraft. In either case, how many hours you're flying will affect how your capital costs are allocated, and can flip the equation in favour of the newer or older aircraft depending on your assumptions. E.g. why Allegiant could fly MD80s twice a week while Spirit had to try (and failed) to fly their new NEOs hard every day.
From there, you have to start building out the rest of your decision model: What is your fuel price? How do you account for heavy maintenance - do you accrue for it, have it under a PBH, or expense it? What is your labour cost base? Etc.
svmonkey@reddit
If smaller planes were always more profitable, why would large planes exist at all? At that point, the large plane's only advantage is due to restricted landing slots.
How you define profitability also matters. Is this profitability as a rate, such as return on assets? Or is it absolute profitability in terms of the $s of profit per flight?
If it is absolute profitability and smaller planes created more profit per flight, then larger planes would have no reason to exist.
Profitability is also heavily dependent on the fares. Since fares fluctuate, it's possible that large planes are more profitable when fares are high and less profitable when fares are low, even with the plane 100% full.
Mountain_Builder6146@reddit
You're only asking part of the question...there's more variables involved including things like cargo, route, and even cabin layout. Airline economics are sneakily complex!
SableJoke49@reddit
It depends on route length and the two specific aircraft. For example, a full A380 would almost certainly be more profitable than a brand new A321neo on any route of any length, but a full 767-400ER would probably be less profitable than a brand new A321neo on most routes less than, say, 5 or 6 hours. There are also lots of other factors like maintenance costs, leasing costs, regional differences in fees by weight, ect
darthjeffrey@reddit
In busy airports, fewer larger jets are better. Each plane, no matter the size, occupies a take-off/landing slot and adds to the ATC workload.
landsharkuk_@reddit
Selling identical economy products the smaller more efficient airliner will be more profitable.
Because premium and business products tend to be way more profitable per sq ft, they tend to favour larger aircraft where the loss in efficiency is offset by the increased average revenue per sq ft.
cyberentomology@reddit
Larger airliners are going to be more efficient, not less.
TheJiggie@reddit
Depends how big that Business class cabin is.
27803@reddit
So it’s a simple concept , if a lot of people are going from point
agha0013@reddit
depends on a whole lot of other factors.
route distance and frequency are major factors.
Maybe you could get away with filling a single 777 once a day, but maybe your customers want three 737s throughout the day.
some planes are more efficient for longer haul than short haul, but maybe the load factors don't line up exactly.
there's also revenue cargo that just about every single airline carries to supplement their passenger operations.
airlines have analysts figure these complex equations out for them when they plan their fleet renewals and route adjustments. There are major events called the "Routes" conferences that happen I think every year where airlines trade and apply for various routes. It's a very complicated business to try and get it right.
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
So many variables.
Few considerations
- The front 20% of the cabin generates more revenue than the later 80%. Premium products are profitable
- Fuel costs are important, but is only \~30% of the total flight cost
- Leasing costs are substantial, I don't have the numbers on me but you could easily lease a larger older a330 for far less than a new a321xlr.
- Company Model: Ultra Low cost low margin requires the the most fuel efficient aircraft and them flying non-stop
- Crew costs, bigger aircrafts = higher wages
- Handing Costs: Bigger aircrafts = more expensive gates, landing fees, airspace, everything fees
- Slots: ie flying into Heathrow
- Bulk Cargo: $$$ Earner
For most networks there is a reason why they desire to fly A321neo or 737max at every opportunity including international. If they can fill it, a 787.
ahpc82@reddit
Efficiency is an ill-defined metric here. What efficiency? By fuel efficiency, bicycles are more efficient than any other mode of transportation.
carrickshairline@reddit
Whichever one flies the most.
mnztr1@reddit
How do you measure efficiency? If its CASM then whatever plane is FULL. If its engine efficiency then the larger plane with less efficient engine may still win..
Weak_Tangerine_6316@reddit
It's more complex than that. Comparing an A350 with a 777 there are several factors to consider. The A350 uses less fuel per pax mile, but at this point the depreciation cost of a newer A350 will cost more than the 777.
On a given route that both planes can fly, the 777 can take more passengers and cargo, meaning more revenue for the airline. That said the A350 has a longer range so weather or airspace restrictions requiring more fuel to be carried are less likely to affect it. A 777 operating closer to its range limits on the same route may be more likely to have to under-fill its cargo hold, or offload cargo in order to make the distance.
ballimi@reddit
There's a lot more that comes into play, like purchase price, slot restrictions, order backlog, etc
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit (OP)
For sure but we can simplify it. Say SIA has a choice to fly A350-900 or 777-300ER to somewhere with maximum occupancy, which one will bring more pure profit?
elprophet@reddit
Not without losing so much detail that the analysis becomes meaningless. Keep in mind that every airline is asking this question with decade-long forecasting, including destination, fleet, maintenance, pricing, configuration, fuel, fees, pilot contracts. You can make any fleet configuration work, that sets some of those constraints. Set different constraints (like flag carrier rules) and you get different fleet configurations.
darkeyes13@reddit
There are a lot of variables involved. The first thing one would have to figure out would be cost per seat for the airline to operate. This should be influenced by factors like how much it cost to acquire or lease the plane, cost of the fuel type (assuming the 2 planes burn different types of fuels), cost of crew (do they have the same level of seniority and staffing mix?), airport costs, crew training costs (let's say SQ owns more Airbus than Boeing planes - they might have a better deal on training costs from Airbus than Boeing), average maintenance costs (which I think might be lower for the Airbus because SIN is an Airbus engineering hub or something similar)...
THEN you factor in the revenue per seat and any cargo revenue, and you get your profit per flight.
Magic_Husky@reddit
I don’t think it’s as simple as which is more efficient or which can carry more. There is a lot more going into the calculation than just aircraft efficiency and size. The airline would have to consider the passenger demand for each route, if it should send larger aircraft but few flights per week or use smaller aircraft but with more flights, fuel cost, what aircraft they have to dedicate to a route at any one time, airport tax, airport ability to handle large aircraft and many more factors. i think that’s why airlines sometimes use wide body aircraft for high demand short haul routes like between sydney and melbourne or singapore and malaysia because the economics works out in the long run.
Euphoric_Ad_9136@reddit
I wonder how much the cost of labour affects airline revenues. With the case of public transit, I hear that labour takes a huge bite out of the budget. In that case, you'll generally make more if you can cram all available riders into the fewest number of vehicles.
But then, we're talking airlines here - not buses and trains.
Agitated-Zebra4334@reddit
Also have to consider pax vs crew. 200 pax with 2 pilots vs 500 pax and same 2 pilots. They cost too.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit (OP)
A smaller plane that burns less fuel per pax but generates less revenue vs larger plane that burns more per pax but more revenue generation overall.
Thought the A350-900 and 777-300ER was a good comparison because the differences between them isn't that extreme whether it's in size or efficiency (as it would be if I brought in say A380 for size A340-600 for efficiency etc) but enough that we can compare this well enough.