MSC revamps east-west network as alliance strategies on blanking vary
As container lines try to manage capacity in the face of wild swings in short-term ...
© Yongnian Gui
People in my hometown of Madrid are currently lured into shops whose windows promise “discounts of up to 70%”.
But when they enter, they will likely find that the goods they want are only discounted at, perhaps, 25%. The key words in those promises are “up to” and, to a lesser degree, “70%”. The same is often true when airlines report the freight capacity of their new passenger flights.
The airline’s announcement will tell us that the aircraft operating the new route will ...
Comment on this article
Ross Delaney
March 22, 2018 at 9:28 pmSmart consolidators & carriers have always understood that optimising yield is achieved by measuring and maximising revenue kgs, and measuring and minimising cost per revenue kg.
Whether it is by weight or cubic doesn’t matter when it is about both.
Jumping back and forward from dead weight to cubic based upon prevailing aircraft MTOW, range, and type, is sub-optimal in terms of achieving network & distribution channel optimisation.
Jonathan Holmes
February 12, 2019 at 7:08 amYou are a man after my own heart…
Volume load factor is seldom reported and weight load factor on passenger aircraft is highly speculative. Weight L/F is usually based on a standard payload value per aircraft (but in reality varies wildly by actual conditions). Volume/unit load factor is far more relevant and reliable.
In principle, carriers do not have control over market density. They can be selective, but then yields may suffer or gain depending on which direction they go. Smart carriers chase yield, developing carriers chase density and charge less per kg for it. The latter kills profitability.