But QFA has Better Loads
12 August 2015
%2BManuel%2BR.%2BNierra%2BII%2BTO.jpg)
12 August 2015
%2BManuel%2BR.%2BNierra%2BII%2BTO.jpg)
Low Cost Carrier Cebu Pacific (CEB) has emerged the largest operating carrier on the Manila – Sydney route by seat capacity according to the latest report published by Australia’s Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Economics (BITRE).
For the May 2015 figures alone, CEB has a seating capacity of 9,592 passengers, as against PAL with 8,464 which is also operating on the same route, according to BITRE. Qantas has 5,346 offered seats.
Meanwhile, Qantas bagged the most number of passengers per offered seats when they carried 4,160 passengers out of the 5,346 seats (77% load factor) while Cebu Pacific carried 5,664 passengers to Sydney and 5,354 to Manila out of the 9,592 seats (59% load factor) for the same month.
For the May 2015 figures alone, CEB has a seating capacity of 9,592 passengers, as against PAL with 8,464 which is also operating on the same route, according to BITRE. Qantas has 5,346 offered seats.
Meanwhile, Qantas bagged the most number of passengers per offered seats when they carried 4,160 passengers out of the 5,346 seats (77% load factor) while Cebu Pacific carried 5,664 passengers to Sydney and 5,354 to Manila out of the 9,592 seats (59% load factor) for the same month.
Not sure where you got the QANTAS figures from, but for May 2015, QANTAS carried 5184 pax to Sydney and 4895 pax to Manila for a load factor of 97% and 90.9% respectively with 5346 seats each way (source BITRE 05/2015). Very health LF considering it is a low season. 5J still has some ways to go to match QF's load factor. To its credit, 5J did stimulate the traffic between the 2 cities as there was a huge increase in the number of pax after 5J started the service.
ReplyDeleteOur data sources can be found at
Deletehttps://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/International_airline_activity_1505.pdf
You can also see it at
https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/International_airline_activity_1505_Tables.xls
Is a 59% load factor good or not?
ReplyDelete59% isn't bad but isn't great.
ReplyDelete