04-15-2017, 03:52 PM
Yeah. When you consider fuel and maintenance, long-term operating costs will eventually - maybe not at the very beginning, but eventually - make up for the cheaper price of the aircraft.
Consider fuel usage. The brand new A350-900 is 2.5 gallons/mi more efficient than the IL-96-400. At an average fuel price of $4.50/mi (still might need to be adjusted, that's just a quick placeholder value I made), that equals out to a cost savings of $11.25 per MILE. So lets say you do a 3,000 mi flight. With the A350 you would be saving $33,750 in fuel costs. Just on that ONE flight. Over time that will add up.
So while it may be cheap, it's cheap for a reason.
Also Idk if I was clear before, but the changes I made to the range/fuel usage of the aircraft are the real values, I didn't change them just to balance it out. The old figures were incorrect.
Consider fuel usage. The brand new A350-900 is 2.5 gallons/mi more efficient than the IL-96-400. At an average fuel price of $4.50/mi (still might need to be adjusted, that's just a quick placeholder value I made), that equals out to a cost savings of $11.25 per MILE. So lets say you do a 3,000 mi flight. With the A350 you would be saving $33,750 in fuel costs. Just on that ONE flight. Over time that will add up.
So while it may be cheap, it's cheap for a reason.
Also Idk if I was clear before, but the changes I made to the range/fuel usage of the aircraft are the real values, I didn't change them just to balance it out. The old figures were incorrect.
I am the developer of Airline Enterprise