Quick Change Market Case Study Airbus A321 PDF

Theses - Daytona Beach Dissertations and Theses
12-1994
Airbus A320/321 Quick Change Market Analysis -

A Case Study
Till Christian Mommsen
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Daytona Beach
Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/db-theses

Part of the Aviation Commons, and the Business Administration, Management, and Operations
Commons
Scholarly Commons Citation

Mommsen, Till Christian, "Airbus A320/321 Quick Change Market Analysis - A Case Study" (1994). Theses - Daytona Beach. 252.
https://commons.erau.edu/db-theses/252
This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Daytona Beach at ERAU Scholarly Commons. It has
been accepted for inclusion in the Theses - Daytona Beach collection by an authorized administrator of ERAU Scholarly Commons. For more
information, please contact commons@erau.edu.
NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are

unavailable from the author or university. The
manuscript was microfilmed as received
132
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
AIRBUS A320/321 QUICK CHANGE MARKET ANALYSIS
- A CASE STUDY
by
A Thesis Submitted to the
Office of Graduate Programs
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Daytona Beach, Florida
December 1994
UMI Number: EP31959
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI'
UMI Microform EP31959
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
11
Copyright by Till Christian Mommsen 1994
All Rights Reserved

Ill
AIRBUS A320/321 QUICK CHANGE MARKET ANALYSIS
A CASE STUDY -
by

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis committee chairman,
Professor Boris Trnavskis, Aviation Business Administration Department, and has been
approved by the members of his thesis committee. It was submitted to the Office of
Graduate Programs and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Business Administration in Aviation.
THESIS COMMITTEE:
Prof Boris Trnavskis, PhD
Prof. Oliver Heil, PhD
H:ovs/^4^(o—
Hans Indlekofer
H/?/H
Dead of Faculty, DaytonyBeach campus Date
IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis chairman Dr. Boris Trnavskis not only for his
continuous qualified support and critical review during the preparation of the thesis, but
also for the skills I was able to obtain by taking his courses at Embry-Riddle. The energy
he put into his courses motivated and provided me with the skills necessary to complete a
thesis such as this.
Also, I would like to thank the people of Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, Airbus
Industrie and the airline that supported me aside from their daily routines. In this context,
I want to give special attention to Hans Indlekofer from Deutsche Aerospace Airbus who
generously made this thesis possible by allowing me to conduct the research within the
company, and to the airline's network planning manager who spend a considerable
amount of time in evaluating methods and data of my thesis.

ABSTRACT
Author: Till Christian Mommsen
Title: Airbus A320/321 Quick Change Market Analysis - A Case Study
Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Degree: Master of Business Administration
Year: 1994
The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate and compare the Boeing B737 QC to the
Airbus A320/321 QC aircraft, and to determine their relative market within a sample
airline. The technical design of the two Airbus aircraft in a mixed QC operation were
considered with respect to the requirements of a particular airline. Direct operating costs
and payload range data for all three aircraft were calculated.
To evaluate the competitiveness of the A320/321 QC under actual conditions, a
linear programming fleet planning model was developed that considers more than the
direct operating costs of a particular aircraft. The cost components included were direct
operating costs, costs of insufficient capacity, additional costs of daytime operation,
capital costs of the conversion, costs of positioning flights at low load factors, conversion
station costs, costs of ferry flights, and costs of idle aircraft.
The model was then applied to an actual network and potential new routes. The
results are presented and analyzed. The outcome is considered the potential market for
A320/321 QC aircraft within the hypothetical airline used in the study.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Problem Statement 2
1.2 Literature Review 3

1.2.1 The Boeing B737 QC 4
1.2.2 Fleet Planning Models 5
2 RESEARCH METHOD 9
2.1 Aircraft Comparison and Evaluation 9
2.2 Fleet Planning 11
3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

COMPARISON TO THE B737 QC 13
3.1 The Main Cargo Door 13
3.2 The Main Deck Cargo Loading System 18
3.3 The Cabin Configuration 19
3.4 Systems Integration 21
4 OPERATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

4.1 The Conversion Procedure 23
4.2 Loading/Unloading 24
4.3 Aircraft Handling 26

Vll
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
4.4 Scheduling 26
5 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

5.1 The Input Parameters 28
5.1.1 Basic Aircraft Characteristics 28
5.1.2 The Impact of the Conversion on the Aircraft Weight 30
5.1.3 Cargo Capacity 33
5.1.4 Passenger Capacity 34
5.1.5 Conversion Costs 35
5.2 Output Data Calculation and Analysis 35

5.2.1 Payload Range Data 35
5.2.2 Direct Operating Costs (DOC) per SKO 42
5.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis 49
6 THE FLEET PLANNING MODEL 50

6.1 Overview 50
6.2 Cost Components of the Objective Function 54

6.2.1 Variable Cash Operating Costs 55
6.2.2 Opportunity Costs of Insufficient Capacity 56
6.2.3 Additional Costs Daytime Operation and Capital Costs of the Conversion 58
6.2.4 Costs of Positioning Flights and Conversion Station Costs 58
6.2.5 Cost of Ferry Flights and Costs of Idle Aircraft 59
6.3 Scheduling Constraints 61
6.4 Mathematical Formulation 62

6.4.1 Notation 62
6.4.2 Objective function 63
6.4.3 Constraints 66
7 INPUT PARAMETERS 70
7.1 The network 70
7.2 Cost Data 75
8 ANALYSIS OF THE LP OUTPUT 83

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
8.2 Aircraft Rotation Schedule 85
8.3 Cost Analysis 89
9 CONCLUSION 94
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIX A DIRECT OPERATING COST CALCULATION 98
APPENDIX B SAS PRINTOUT EXTRACTS OF THE LP SOLUTION

WITHOUT SALES CONSTRAINT 101
APPENDIX C SAS PRINTOUT EXTRACTS OF THE LP SOLUTION
WITH SALES CONSTRAINT 117
APPENDIX D B737 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS 133
APPENDIX E A320 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS 149
APPENDIX F A321 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS 161

IX
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CLS: Cargo Loading System
DOC: Direct operating costs
MCD: Main Cargo door
MEW: Manufacturers Empty Weight
MLW/MLAW: Maximum Landing Weight
MTOW: Maximum Takeoff Weight
MTXW: Maximum Taxi Weight
MZFW: Maximum Zero Fuel Weight
OEW: Operating Empty Weight
SKO: Seat-kilometer offered
TKO: Ton-kilometer offered
USD: US Dollars
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 -A320/321 QC Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Mam Cargo Door Locations 16
Table 2 -Structural Weight Limitations of the Analyzed Aircraft Types 29
Table 3 ~ Weight Calculation of the Conversion 31
Table 4 - OEW Calculation 32
Table 5 — Maximum Payloads for Different Aircraft Types and Configurations 34
Table 6 — B737, A320, A321 Payload Range Data and Differences among the Different Versions and Types40
Table 7 -B737, A320, A321 DOC per SKO and DOC per SKO Differences 44
Table 8 - B737 QC, A320 QC, A321 QC DOC per SKO and DOC per SKO Differences Used in Passenger
Configuration 45
Table 9 - B737 QC, A320 QC, A321 QC DOC per TKO in Cargo Configuration 48
Table 10 — Leg Designators, Distances, Initial Demand and Opportunity Costs of the Network 73
Table 11 — Initial Average Passenger Demand to Each Station in the Network 75
Table 12 - Weight of the Cost Components of Each Aircraft Type 77
Table 13 — Average Costs per Cost Component, Aircraft Type, and Time Period 79
Table 14 - Growth Rates of Input Parameters 79
Table 15 - Suggested Fleet Mix 84
Table 16 - Aircraft Rotation Schedule without Sales Constraint 85
Table 18 - Aggregated Costs per Aircraft Type and Cost Component 92
Table 19 - Summary of Input Parameters for the DOC per SKO and TKO Calculation 99
XI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location and size of the main cargo door 14
Figure 2 B737-300 QC, A320-200 QC, A321-100 QC cabin layout 20
Figure 3 A320/321 QC cabin cross section in passenger and cargo configuration 22
Figure 4 Position of the loading equipment for an A320/321 QC 25
Figure 5 B737-300, A320-200, and A321-100 payload range diagram 36
Figure 6 B737-300 QC, A320-200 QC, and A321-100 QC payload range diagram in passenger
configuration 36
Figure 7 B737-300 QC, A320-200 QC, and A321-100 QC payload range diagram in
cargo configuration 37
Figure 8 B737-300 payload range diagram in different configurations 37
Figure 9 A320-200 payload range diagram in different configurations 38
Figure 10 A321-100 payload range diagram in different configurations 38
Figure 11 B737, A320, and A321 DOC per SKO in normal and quick change-passenger configuration 43
Figure 12 B737, A320, and A321 cash costs per SKO in normal and quick change-passenger configuration 46
Figure 13 B737 QC, A320 QC, and A321 QC DOC per TKO in cargo configuration 47
Figure 14 B737 QC, A320 QC, and A231 QC cash costs per TKO in cargo configuration 48
Figure 15 Principle of feasible rotations 53
Figure 16 The network 71
Figure 17 Weight of the cost components of the objective function 76
Figure 18 Absolute average values of the objective function cost components 80
Figure 19 Relative average values of the objective function cost components 81
Figure 20 Weight of cost types in the optimum solution 90

1
1 INTRODUCTION
The quick change (QC) aircraft concept was originally developed by the Boeing
Company in the early 1970's. The "quick change aircraft" is a rebuilt passenger aircraft.
Within about 45 minutes, it can be converted from an all passenger aircraft with only
belly cargo space, to an all cargo aircraft with no passenger seats available and the
possibility of main deck container loading.
To date, only the B737 and B727 can be rebuilt to QC versions. Airbus Industrie,
however, is developing a QC version of its Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft. Now, airlines
that wish to convert some of their passenger aircraft will have a choice between Airbus
and Boeing QC products. Therefore, it is interesting to compare the B737 QC to the
A320/321 QC and to determine the market of the A320/321 QC for a sample airline.
A-Air1 is presently operating the B737 QC and is planning to expand QC
operations. This may include a substitution of wide-body aircraft on night mail routes by
QC aircraft. The present cargo/mail traffic volumes on some wide-body routes exceed the
capacity of the B737 QC aircraft and would require parallel operation of two or more
aircraft. Converting some of the A320/321 passenger aircraft to QC versions may be
advantageous for the airline, because the A320/321 QC has a higher capacity than the
B737 QC.
1
A-Air is a hypothetical airline modeled on a major European airline.
2
1.1 Problem Statement
This thesis examines the technical feasibility and market for the Airbus A320/321
Quick Change aircraft compared to the Boeing B737 QC aircraft in the present and
planned European cargo and night-mail network of A-Air. A time horizon of twelve
years starting from 1994 has been used.
The analysis involves assessing the economic feasibility which is defined as the
degree to which converting and operating A320/321 aircraft would produce cost savings
compared to converting and operating B737 aircraft. The economic feasibility considers
the costs of the conversion but does not include an analysis of financing alternatives.
Technical feasibility involves an analysis of whether a converted A3 20/312 will better
meet A-Air's cargo/mail requirements and a brief evaluation of a A320/321 QC operation.
European cargo and night-mail network is defined as all flight itineraries for which
A-Air schedules narrow body cargo aircraft (quick change or cargo aircraft), as well as
positioning flights with passengers on board. This also includes destinations outside
Europe, if a narrow body aircraft is scheduled. .

1.2 Literature Review
1.3.1. The Airbus A320/321 QC
Literature about the planned A320/321 QC is limited to technical material. In
1993, Moss conducted initial research concerning an A320/321 QC.2 In this study, he
investigated broad benchmarks and requirements for a freighter and quick change aircraft.
Without detailed technical solutions, a broad aircraft definition was proposed and
presented.
In November 1993, Borchard further investigated an A320/321 conversion.3 He
calculated the optimum load density and maximum payload for both versions. Further, he
determined and compared payload range diagrams for the B737-200 QC and the B757
package freighter, and the center of gravity movements during loading and unloading for a
front and aft main cargo door position. Those calculations, however, were only of limited
value to the current study. First, the calculations are based on weight estimates that were
unrealistically low and on parameters that were not necessarily true for A-Air (e.g.
MTOW). Therefore, the maximum payload might have been too optimistic. Second, the
B737-200 aircraft is not the main competitor of the A320/321. The newer B737-300
2
Hermann Moos, "Zukunftige Einsatzbedingungen und Anforderungen an ein Airbus A320/321
Frachtflugzeug in der Serien- und Umrustlosung," (Future conditions and requirements to an Airbus
A320/321 freighter as a series and conversion aircraft), Diplomarbeit FH Wiirzburg September 1993
3
Walter Borchard, A320 Feasibility Study. Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, February 1994.
4
series should be considered. Third, no direct operating cost comparisons were included in
the study.
In February and March 1994, Kwik and Sprenger prepared another study on the
A320 QC which was mainly concerned with the cabin layout, the cargo loading system,
and the required R&D effort needed for the cabin design.4 Although the basic seat
configuration of A-Air was used as a base, the study noted that the A320/321 QC had to
be redesigned to make it competitive with the B737 QC. First, they modified the design
to include a crash net to comply with safety regulations. This net, however, would cost a
container position and leave the A320 QC with the same container capacity as the B737
QC. Therefore, a 9-g system comparable to the B737 QC system had to be implemented.
Second, the height of the loading system was unacceptably high and led to an aisle width
reduction of 3.6 inches which may cause passenger service problems. Third, only the
A320 but not the A321 was considered in the study. Finally, some details such as seat
pallet size, ramp design, and galley/lavatory configuration had to be modified.
1.2.1 The Boeing B737 QC
Literature pertaining the B737 QC was mainly supplied by A-Air. Since this
thesis compares the two aircraft types, the appropriate parts of the B737 literature will be
presented in the main body of the thesis. Basic economic data associated with the B737
4
Wilfried Sprenger and Karl Kwik, A320 QC Cabin Layout Deutsche Aerospace, March 1994.
QC were taken from a study the airline prepared before acquiring the aircraft. Technical
material was provided by the engineering department.
The Boeing aircraft as used by the airline were converted by Pemco Aeroplex Inc.,
a major supplier of cargo conversion kits. The basic aircraft considered in this analysis is
the B737-300 with CFM 56 engines.
In 1965, Hiat and Plewes5 studied potential advantages of the B737 QC and B727
QC. They mentioned the advantage of lower capital costs associated with higher aircraft
utilization as one major advantage of the QC concept. The study predicts a high demand
for QC aircraft, however, without showing any supporting quantitative analysis.
1.2.2 Fleet Planning Models
In the past, several mathematical models have been used to solve aircraft fleet
planning problems. In 1983, Hammer6 researched the aircraft acquisition practices of
five U.S. national carriers and found as one major conclusion that these airlines do not
necessarily make full use of fleet planning models during the acquisition process. Models
are available and could significantly improve planning results.
5
MA. Hiatt and K.C. Plewes, The Quick-Change Convertible Cargo-Passenger Aircraft Will Aid
Air Freight Development in the Next Decade, (Seattle: Boeing Co., 1965. Document Number 650782).
6
Robert H. Hammer, "Fleet and Airplane Acquisition Planning of Regional Airlines" (M.S. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1983).
6
Manheim gives a detailed overview of different aspects of transportation system
analysis. Although he does not present a comprehensive fleet planning model, he
analyzes the fundamental components and concepts to develop such models.
Furthermore, he is not aviation specific but considers other transportation modes. His
approach in analyzing costs of a system may be helpful in the context of aircraft
comparison (A 320 QC vs. B737 QC).
To date, many different fleet planning models have been developed. Simple
models may consider only one period and portray reality in simplified terms. Kirby8 and
Wyatt , for example, assumed a single type fleet with known demand and the constraint
that all demand must be met either with the fleet vehicles or by outside hire. Other early
models use linear programming algorithms to optimize fleet planning10. These early
efforts, however, are of limited use since the lack of computer resources forced them to
rely mainly upon manual computations.
In 1960, Boeing developed a freighter network analysis model.11 This model
incorporates both linear programming and heuristic algorithms. Profit maximization is
Marvin L. Manheim, Fundamentals of Transportation Systems Analysis. Volume 1: Basic

Concepts, MIT Press Series in Transportation Studies, ed. Marvin L. Manheim, (Cambridge: The MIT
Press, 1979). Especially chapters 6, 9, 13, 16.
8
D. Kirby, "Is Your Fleet the Right Size?", Operations Research Quarterly 10 (1959): 252; quoted in
Christopher Colin New. "Transport Fleet Planning For Multi-Period Operations," Operations Research
Quarterly 26 (1975): 153.
9
J. K. Wyatt, "Optimal Fleet Size", Operations Research Quarterly 12 (1961): 186; quoted in
Christopher Colin New. "Transport Fleet Planning For Multi-Period Operations," Operations Research
Quarterly 26 (1975): 153.
10
AR Ferguson and GB Dantzig, "The Allocation of Aircraft to Routes-an Example of Linear
Programming under Uncertain Demand," Management Science 3 (1956): 45-73.
7
the objective function of the model. It allows performing sensitivity analysis if input
variables are changed.
Schick and Stroup use a computer supported model developed by the Douglas
Aircraft Company in 1975. This multi-period model is designed to minimize costs
expressed either as direct operating costs, capital costs, or a combination of these. The
fleet mix is determined by several computer supported steps with a human analyst
involved in each step. Carriage of passengers and cargo is considered in the model.
New presented a cost minimizing fleet planning model in 1975. It is based on
the assumption that cost minimization is the only true objective for fleet planning since
price setting is considered beyond the control of a particular airline. This model is
designed to accommodate passenger-carrying airlines only. Additionally, it takes the
resale value of an aircraft into account and assumes somefixedcosts with introducing a
new aircraft type at an airline. All variables are considered to be time dependent.
In 1984, Silva15 presented afleetplanning model from the manufacturer's
viewpoint. He does not detail all the variables affecting fleet planning but looks at a
complete route system served by several airlines. Similar routes are classified into a
11
James C. Goodboy and James G. Gilbertson, Freighter Network Analysis Model. (Seattle: Boeing
Co., 1960)
12
GJ Schick and JW Stroup, "Experience with a Multi-Year Fleet Planning Model", The International
Journal of Management Science 9 (1981): 389-96.
13
DP Shube and JW Stroup, Fleet Planning Model, (Sacramento: Douglas Aircraft Company, 1975),
Paper 6440.
14
Christopher Colin New, "Transport Fleet Planning For Multi-Period Operations", Operational
Research Quarterly 26 (1975): 151-166.
15
Armando C. Silva, Cell Fleet Planning: An Industry Case Study. (Cambridge: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Flight Transportation Laboratory,
May 1984), FTL Report R84-4.
certain number of cells which reduce the complexity of the model. These cells share
common characteristics such as stage length and passenger volume. He uses his fleet
planning model to forecast demand for new aircraft - not only for one airline, but for a
whole aircraft market.
In 1989, Abara developed a model for American Airlines using linear
programming algorithms. He included optimization of fleet utilization as one important
objective function.
Lockheed Co. takes a more macroscopic view by analyzing total cargo systems.17
Certain aspects such as identification of major cost elements were helpful to identify
major variables in the fleet planning model under study.
16
Jeph Abara, "Applying Integer Linear Programming to the Fleet Assignment Problem", Interfaces 19
(July/August 1989): 20-28.
17
R.B. Ormsby, Development of Total Airline Profit Model Program to Permit Simulation and
Evaluation of Total Air Cargo System, (Georgia: Lockheed-Georgia Co., 1969), SAE TRANS 690413.
9
2 RESEARCH METHOD
A two step analysis was employed to determine the market for A320/321 QC
aircraft within A-Air and evaluate the competitiveness of the Airbus aircraft compared to
the B737 QC. In the first step (chapters 3-5) the characteristics of the new aircraft types
were analyzed and compared to the existing B737 QC. This refers to a technical,
operational, and economical comparison of the three aircraft types.
In the second step (chapters 6-8), results from the first step and airline data were
used to simulate the impact of the availability of three aircraft types in the network on the
minimum cost fleet mix. This was accomplished by formulating and solving a linear
programming fleet planning model. The two steps are further explained in the two
sections below.
2.1 Aircraft Comparison and Evaluation
Initially, the technical differences between the three aircraft were outlined. This
was accomplished by comparing technical papers and documents obtained from the
airlines and airframe manufacturers and discussing the technical layout with Airbus and
airline engineers. Since the technical layout of the two Airbus aircraft was still in the pre-
10
planning phase, the layout of the Airbus aircraft was adapted to the specific requirements
of A-Air to the maximum possible extent. An inductive approach was used with the
purpose of identifying and quantifying technical benchmarks of the Airbus aircraft that
will determine their operational characteristics and economic performance.
Operational characteristics of a mixed QC operation were analyzed by
participating in a B737 QC rotation; interviewing station personnel and network
managers; and presenting them information about the A320/321 QC in the form of
technical drawings and data. The Airbus layout and its technical design were discussed
with respect to the characteristics of the daily operation within A-Air. This procedure
identified the aspects of a mixed QC operation which might be different from a single
type operation.
The economic comparison was performed independent of the route structure but
employed a standard method of aircraft cost comparison. Three configurations for each of
the three aircraft (B737, A320, A321) were compared: the aircraft as a normal passenger
aircraft, as a quick change aircraft in passenger configuration, and as a quick change
aircraft in cargo configuration. The method used for economic analysis consists of three
steps. Initially, the operating empty weight (OEW) of the aircraft, the structural weight
limitations, and the aircraft configuration was specified referring to the technical
specification. In the second step, payload range data were calculated. The performance
information of step two was then combined with analytical (e.g. fuel) and empirical (e.g.
handling fees) cost data from an A-Air DOC-calculation software to determine costs per
seat-km (SKO) or ton-km (TKO) for an aircraft that is operated at full payload over a 500
11
NM segment at standard conditions18 and at a standard utilization. Cost reductions such
as reduced capital costs due to higher utilization were not considered.
2.2 Fleet Planning
To determine the optimum fleet mix and thus the potential market for A320/321
QC aircraft, a linear programming model (LP) was formulated and applied to a QC
network using network cost minimization as the objective function. The major cost
components, for different mixes of aircraft types, for each leg of the network were
identified and quantified. Development of these cost components over time was then
forecast using assumed growth rates for the input parameters that determine these costs.
Rates and parameters were taken from the results of chapter 5, supplied by the airline, or
estimated.
The LP was designed so that it draws up an aircraft rotation schedule with a
suggested fleet mix, for each year of the planning horizon. The schedule complies with
aircraft scheduling constraints which are imposed by general aircraft scheduling and QC
specific requirements. Optionally, initial stock of a specific aircraft type, and aircraft
acquisition and selling practices, could be included to further constrain aircraft
availability.
18
ISA atmosphere, 150 NM alternate, 30 min. holding, 5% contingency fuel.
12
The LP model was then developed and processed using SAS/OR software. The
solution to the LP was critically evaluated and the results were considered the potential
market for A320/321 QC aircraft within the airline.

13
3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

COMPARISON TO THE B737 QC
3.1 The Main Cargo Door
All aircraft are equipped with a cargo door for main deck container loading. The
door of the B737 QC is located in the front section of the fuselage, whereas the A320/321
QC will have the door in the aft section. Figure 1 shows the location of the cargo doors.
The A320/321 QC main cargo door (MCD) will have a dimension of 86"xl42" compared
to 84.6" x 123" for the B737 QC. The larger cargo door gives more flexibility in sizing
the seat pallets. It will be possible to design the seat pallets with four instead of three
rows per pallet. This reduces the problem of loose carpet borders at the pallet edges,
because the number of pallets is reduced by one compared to the B737 QC. The seat
pallets will be further discussed in section 3.3. Also, larger seat pallets reduce the
conversion time because the ground crew has fewer bolts to unscrew.
In the B737 QC there is no choice of cargo door locations because the aircraft is
only available with a front cargo door. Also, an aft door location would not be possible,
because the fuselage is too short and the loading equipment would interfere with the wing
tips. The Airbus aircraft have different fuselage dimensions and are still in the design
phase. Therefore, the cargo door location can still be changed. Advantages and
14
84.6"x123"
B737 QC
Upper deck door

LcM side
86'x 142" (2.10 m x 3 6 1 m)
Freight hold doors ' Option door

Hlghl side night side
4<Tx 71.5* (1.25 n i x 1.02 in) 34" x 37" (0.06 m x 0 95 m)
Door sill heights:

Upper deck = 124"-140" (3.15 m - 3 56 m)
Freight hold - 75"-06* (1.91 m - 2.10 in)
A320 QC
Figure 1 Location and size of the main cargo door.

Source: B737 QC: A-Air, 1991. A320QC: Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, March 1994.
15
disadvantages of the different door locations for the Airbus aircraft are summarized in
Table 1
From a Deutsche Aerospace Airbus (who will be responsible for the QC retrofit)
design standpoint, a front door location is disadvantageous. Each of the main fuselage
sections is designed and completed by the respective manufacturer before they are joined
together in the final assembly line. If design changes (such as a cargo door) on aircraft
sections are needed after an aircraft has been completed (e.g. a QC retrofit), each
company involved in manufacturing the affected section has to be involved in the design
change. The front door would be partially located in the fuselage section that is
manufactured by Aerospatial (AS). Therefore, AS would have to be included in all steps
of the design such as door design, relocation of affected aircraft systems (wiring, etc.),
production process planning, time planning and cost planning. This additional
coordination effort could be avoided if the door is located in the aft, because in this case it
would be located completely in the Deutsche Aerospace Airbus section. However, if the
door is located in the aft, it will be partially located in the noncylindric section of the
fuselage. This will make the door design more complicated plus the aft door location
makes the relocation of affected aircraft systems more difficult (e.g. hydraulic lines).
Also, the aft fuselage encounters higher aerodynamical and structural forces which makes
the door about 100-200 kg heavier and the design more expensive.
The B737 QC does not have these problems, because the retrofit is performed by a
single company (Pemco) which is licensed by Boeing and has sole responsibility for the
16
Table 1. -A320/321 QC Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Main Cargo Door

Locations.
Front vocation AftLc >cation

| Criteria Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage
| Technical: * -,/ ~
1 Design Door partially Door located Door partially
located in completely in the located in the
Aerospatial (AS) Deutsche noncylindnc
sections; therefore Aerospace section. section.
additional
coordination
required with AS.
Door and frame in

two main fuselage
sections.
Load on structure Located in an Located in an area
area of little of high mechanical
mechanical stress; therefore
stress. heavier and more
expensive. |
Impact on aircraft Coordination with Relocation of
systems AS necessary systems difficult
[Operational
Center of gravity Insufficient load on No threat of tail
considerations during the front wheel; tail skipping.
loading/ unloading support may be
required.
Accessibility Threat of engine Loading of seat
damage due to little pallets into seat van
spacing between may be difficult
loader and engine depending upon
van layout. |
1 Passenger comfort More air noise First/Business class
not in the door
area.
1 Weight and balance Center of gravity
within take-off
limits for an empty
aircraft (A321).
1 Cabin configuration Combi layout
difficult.
v
llktfsioiiiy ! -
Weight 100-200 kg
additional weight.
1 Aerodynamics Higher drag. Backward CG
location reduces
fuel consumption.
Source: Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, HAM TK 131-077/94, Feb. 2, 1994, edited and
translated by the author.
17
conversion. Also, the aircraft is not composed of sections that were designed, completed
and equipped, with all aircraft systems beforehand, by independent companies as it is the
case with Airbus.
From an operational standpoint, the aft location is preferred. First, the center of
gravity will not be within take-off limits if the door is located in the front. That means on
ferry flights, weight would be required. Second, during loading and unloading only an aft
location will provide sufficient load on the front wheel, which is especially critical for the
longer A321 QC. This assumes a standard loading procedure where each container is
moved to the frontmost position before the next container is loaded into the aircraft
(further discussed in section 4.2). The B737 QC has no threat of tail skipping due to the
different fuselage size. Third, the threat of engine damage during loading and unloading
is reduced with an aft door location, because the loader does not have to move in front of
the engine inlets. Interference with the wing tips is not critical.
A major problem associated with any cargo door is the aversion of passengers to
sit next to it. In case the door is located in the front (as is in case of the B737 QC) mainly
first and business class passengers are sitting next to it. This can be avoided if the door is
moved to the back which would also reduce the air noise caused by the door.
Additionally, an aft door would offer the prospect of offering the A320/321 as a combi
aircraft comparable to the principle of the B747 combi. With a front door, a combi
operation will not be possible.
19
Although technically possible, the required cabin layout for combi operation with afrontdoor location
is not accepted by A-Air.
18
From an economic standpoint, the higher weight of the aft door will increase the
fuel consumption and make the aircraft less fuel efficient as it could be. This effect,
however, will be partially offset because a more aft location of the center of gravity
(weight of the door in the back) is aerodynamically advantageous (lower angle of attack;
less downdraft required by the stabilizer to control stability of the aircraft) and the
additional aerodynamical drag caused by the door will be lower.
So far, from the perspective of A-Air and Airbus, an aft door location is preferable
and its advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore, an aft cargo door location as
shown in Figure 1 represents the current planning status (the A321 QC will have a similar
door configuration to the A320 QC).
The MCD of the B737 QC is powered by a hydraulic system. Problems associated
with occasional fluid leaks causing cabin and passenger soiling led to a retrofit with an
electromechanical system. The A320/321 QC will have a comparable system.
3.2 The Main Deck Cargo Loading System
Airbus will offer several options for a cargo loading system (CLS) that will be
comparable to the 9-g20 system currently installed in the B737 QC. Customers will have
a choice between 1V4", l3/4", and 2" system height above the seat rails. Currently, the
B737 QC system has a height of 1%". Therefore, the Airbus aircraft offer the option of a
V2 system height reduction. The seat pallets add an additional 1" height similar to the
20 ng ,. refers t 0 me requirement that a CLS has to withstand horizontal forward accelerations of 9 g if

no crash net is installed.
19
B737 QC. Single and double row CLSs will be available. The double row system is
necessary for night mail operation. If desired, power drive units can be installed in the
cabin. However, they will add additional weight to the conversion with marginal benefit.
The B737 QC was initially equipped with electrical systems. They proved to be very
delicate and failed several times causing the electrical drive to block the rolls and making
manual loading almost impossible.
To avoid the disadvantages of the higher cabin floor, Airbus is presently reviewing
the possibility of integrating the CLS into the seat rails. This would reduce the system
height (including seat pallet height) to \lA" and significantly reduce the slope of the ramp
in the cabin. If this reduced height system can not be installed, there will be no significant
difference between the systems of the Boeing and Airbus aircraft.
3.3 The Cabin Configuration
The cabin layouts of the aircraft under study are shown in Figure 2. Due to the
increased floor height, the seats next to the overwing emergency exits have to be
removed. This reduces the seating capacity by four seats in the A320 and two in the
B737. This does not affect the A321 because it has a different design for the emergency
exits. The front lavatory of the A320 has to be moved forward by 18", because otherwise
it would not be possible to load the ninth container. The middle lavatory of the A321 has
to be removed. It will switch position with the front stowage closet.

20
,I 71=
^JOIf®-:©!*© 1
-©-:®1:©!?©^
-B737 QC-
A320 Q C
MODIFIED POSITION
MHtosmam
iiraiiiiiiSiE
A321 QC
Figure 2 B737-300 QC, A320-200 QC, A321-100 QC cabin layout.

Source: A-Air ground operations manual 1992, Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, March 1994
21
Figure 3 shows the cross section of the Airbus cabin. The cabin isle width
depends upon the height of the CLS. The isle width of the unconverted aircraft is 21".
With a system height of 3 " isle width is reduced to 17.4" which will impose service
problems during daytime operation, although still within legal limits. In case of the B737
QC, the floor height increase does not cause a reduction in isle width because even with
higher seats there is still enough spacing between the sides of the back rests and the cabin
wall. The vertical clearance for the standard 125" x 88" 9-g container is sufficient.
The seat pallets will have a width of 125" similar to the B737 QC to fit into the
seat vans. To accommodate the full width of the cabin floor, 3" wide rails will serve as
side guidance for the seat pallets and container. It will be surfaced with rubber or plastic
matching the carpet design. The length of the seat pallets can be variable and will be
optimized depending upon the layout of the seat vans.
3.4 Systems Integration
Integrating the conversion into the aircraft systems affects mainly Aerospatial
components in the cockpit. This aspect was not yet reviewed, but differs considerably
from the integration of the conversion in the case of the B737. The systems software has
to be adapted (different weight, door warning, etc.) to integrate the new configuration into
the electronic centralized aircraft monitoring system (ECAM). This is not necessary in
the case of the B737, which is not does not have a comparable system. Further analysis of
this aspect of the conversion is not practical because it is very technical and involves to be
resolved design issues.

22
SMOKE DETECTOR"
Figure 3. A320/321 QC cabin cross section in passenger and cargo configurati

Source: Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, March 1994. ion.
4 OPERATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND
4.1 The Conversion Procedure
Although the A320/321 QC will have the MCD in the aft section of the fuselage,
there will be no major differences in the conversion procedure. A standard ground crew
of four to five people, specified in the ground handling agreement, will perform the
conversion. It takes about 20 minutes for the B737 QC to convert the aircraft after the
last passenger has left the aircraft. Initially, catering removes all trolleys and containers
from the galleys. Simultaneously, two people open the seat pallet locks, unplug the
wiring for the floor path marking system, and stow the movable class divider. As soon as
the 1L stairway can be removed, one loader opens the cargo door and the seat van is
brought into position. Two door seal protection devices are put in place before the
loading/unloading begins. The seat pallets are removed through the main cargo door and
are stowed in two seat vans. The maximum seat pallet width that can be stowed in the
seat vans and that can be handled with the container loader is 125". In the case of the
A320/321 QC, a third seat van will be necessary to stow all the seat pallets. The vans are
heated to keep the seats at a comfortable temperature. After the seat pallets are removed,
the aircraft is ready for loading. In the case of the A320/321 it will be necessary to install
protection walls between the main deck cargo compartment and the front and aft galley.
24
The conversion back to the passenger version is done in reverse order. At the end,
however, the floor path marking has to be checked and signed in the technical logbook.
4.2 Loading/Unloading
The B737 QC is loaded from the front. One container at a time is lifted into the
aircraft and then moved manually by one loader into the rear position where it is secured
by YZ-locks. The next container can not be loaded into the aircraft until the loader has
secured the rear container and returned to the front position of the aircraft. There is not
enough space between the container used by A-Air and the aircraft sidewalls to pass a
container in the cabin. The same will be true for the A320/321 QC. Only one container
at a time can be loaded into the aircraft, but into the frontmost position of the main deck.
This avoids the threat of tail tipping for the Airbus.
Since the Airbus will have an aft MCD location, the risk of engine damage
especially during winter operation is reduced, and the stairway IL does not interfere with
the container loading equipment and can remain at the aircraft. However, the seat vans
will need a second door in the backside of the truck because they can no longer approach
the aircraft parallel to the longitudinal axis but have to approach the fuselage at a 90
degree angle. This problem might be avoided if a container loader is positioned between
the aircraft and the seat van. Figure 4 illustrates the position of the loading equipment
during cargo operation for the A320/321 QC. Please note that the seats are not
25
necessarily stowed on a pallet train and that some airports do not allow pallet train
operation as shown in Figure 4. There, the pallet train is located outside the aircraft area
and a special transporter picks up one container at a time and carries it to the container
loader at the aircraft.
Figure 4. Position of the loading equipment for an A320/321 QC

Source. Deutsche Aerospace, March 1994
26
4.3 Aircraft Handling
Most European airports are currently able to fully handle B737 and A320/321
aircraft. Handling ability here refers to the availability of appropriate loading equipment,
certified ground personal, and whether the airport may be used by the respective aircraft
type. The aircraft under study meet Stage 3standards. Therefore, noise restrictions would
affect them in the same way if night curfews become an operational problem.
The A320/321 require two additional lower deck container loaders compared to
the B737 which does not have lower deck containers and is therefore loaded manually.
Other than that, if the Airbus aircraft were added to A-Air's QC fleet, no significant
handling problems are anticipated.
4.4 Scheduling
The aircraft schedule has to be balanced.21 This means that the first flight in the
evening after the conversion to a cargo airplane, has to be the same aircraft type as the last
flight before the conversion back to a passenger aircraft in the morning. For example,
from a practical operational standpoint, if the first cargo leg outbound from a conversion
station (after the conversion to cargo configuration) is operated by a B737 QC, then the
last inbound cargo leg (before the conversion back to a passenger aircraft) to the same
station must be a B737 QC. It cannot be served by an A320 QC for example. Also, the
21
Refer to chapters 6.3 and 6.4 for further discussion about aircraft balance.
27
number of aircraft of a specific type departing from a particular station has to be the same
as the number of aircraft arriving at this station. Otherwise the schedule will result in the
accumulation of aircraft at one or more stations.
If the aircraft type that flies on a certain route varies over time, the number of
available 9-g containers at each station has to be adjusted according to the aircraft
capacity, because the number of container positions is different for each aircraft type.
Therefore, if the B737 QC is replaced by a larger aircraft such as the A321 QC, the
number of containers at each station has to be adjusted accordingly. Otherwise, there
might be a problem of container imbalances or accumulations. If this happened then the
aircraft will have to carry empty containers or the empty containers will have to be carried
by truck.
28
5 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

5.1 The Input Parameters
The economic performance of a quick change aircraft is mainly determined by the
characteristics of the basic aircraft, the B737-300 or A320/321 in this case, the additional
weight of the conversion, the capacity in cargo and passenger configuration, and the costs
of the conversion including additional costs for structural weight increases (MTOW,
MLAW, MZFW). Characteristics such as an improved cargo loading system, an aft cargo
door position, and other technical design features, where the A320/321 may offer
potential advantages, were not valued in the direct operating cost (DOC) calculations
below.
5.1.1 Basic Aircraft Characteristics
The main characteristics include structural weight limitations, aerodynamic
performance, and basis aircraft price. Table 2 shows the structural weights that were used
throughout the analysis. It has to be noted that the weight limits shown for the Airbus
aircraft are not yet available to airlines. Airbus Industrie, however, is reviewing the
29
Table 2.~Structural Weight Limitations of the Analyzed Aircraft Types
B737-300 B737 -300 A320-200 A320-200 A321-100 A321-100

QC QC QC
Maximum Ramp Weight 56,700 kg 59,100 kg 73,900 kg 75,900 kg 83,400 kg 85,400 kg
Maximum Take-Off 56,450 kg 59,000 kg 73,500 kg 75,500 kg 83,000 kg 85,000 kg
Weight
Maximum Landing Weight 51,700 kg 52,500 kg 64,500 kg 66,000 kg 74,500 kg 76,500 kg
Maximum Zero Fuel 48,300 kg 49,714 kg 61,000 kg 62,500 kg 70,500 kg 72,500 kg
Weight
technical feasibility of these new structural weight limitations. Since preliminary analysis
showed that both aircraft would only be competitive with higher limits, it was assumed
that the weight increase would be included in the conversion. In the case of the A320, the
weight limit increase will probably be achieved by service life reductions, which can not
yet be specified. Additionally, the take-off rating was increased to 26,500 lb. The A321
will require technical design changes. It was assumed that the aerodynamic performance
is not affected by the conversion except for the impact of the higher OEW. The
aerodynamic performance such as speed and fuel consumption were taken from Airbus22
and Boeing23 manuals and will not be presented in further detail at this point. The B737
QC performance data were increased by 1% to account for the difference beween the
Boeing manual and actual A-Air operational experience with the aircraft. The
corresponding adjustment for the Airbus aircraft is 3%. Both of these adjustments reflect
22
Airbus Industrie, Performance Doc. P2210 Rev. 2, June 93 and Performance Doc. P21131 Rev.l,
May 92.
23
Boeing ^ ™ ™ ^ ; * i Aircraft rnmpanv. Performance Doc. D6-37042-4, Nov. 14 1984.
30
the experiences of A-Air with the reliability of performance data supplied by the
manufacturers.
Basic aircraft prices are USD 37 million for the B737, USD 47 million for the
A320 (both with CFM 56 engines) and USD 55 million for the A321 (with IAE engines),
all in A-Air specification. These prices are guidelines only because exact prices are
confidential and negotiable, and will vary depending on how the aircraft is equipped.
Also, the actual price may vary considerably depending upon the number of concessions
granted by the manufacturer to a particular airline. The aircraft price, however, will not
affect the cash costs as presented later in the analysis. The conversion costs are not
included in the basic price.
5.1.2 The Impact of the Conversion on the Aircraft Weight
The conversion to a quick change aircraft adds additional weight to the OEW.
Two cases have to be considered: the new OEW of the quick change aircraft in passenger
mode and the new OEW of the quick change aircraft in cargo mode. To date, Deutsche
Aerospace Airbus can not provide weight estimates for the quick change conversion.
Therefore, the additional weight was estimated by extrapolating the additional weight of
the B737 PEMCO conversion. The weight of the individual components was subdivided
into variable weight components (weight varies with the aircraft size; e.g. seat pallets) and
fixed weight components (weight does not vary with aircraft size; e.g. cargo door). It was
31
assumed that the weight of the variable components would vary in a linear manner with
the number of container positions. In the case of the A320 QC, there is an additional
fixed weight increase of 200 kg due to MTOW limit increase. The A321 QC will require
an additional 350 kg. Table 3 documents the calculation.
Table 3 . - Weight Calculation of the Conversion
No. of Multiplication Variable Fixed Total Add. Total Add.

Pallets Factor Weight Weight* Weight Weight**
(Pass. Mode) (Cargo Mode)
B737 QC 8 1 1,687 kg 736 kg 2,423 kg 1,343 kg
A320 QC 9 9/8 1,898 kg 936 kg 2,834 kg 1,619 kg
A321 QC 12 12/8 2,531 kg 1,086 kg 3,617 kg 1,997 kg
* Includes 200 kg for structural weight limit increase in case of the A320 QC and 350 kg for the A321 QC.
** Total additional weight passenger mode minus weight of seat pallets (est. 135 kg per pallet).
The above calculated weights have to be included in an OEW calculation to
determine the maximum structural payload. In the case of the cargo configuration, the
OEW has to be corrected by removable cabin interior and the cabin crew. Additionally,
weight conservatism is included in the calculation. The amount used in the calculations is
standard A-Air conservatism. It counts for weight increases during operation due to
repairs, dirt, etc. Additionally, the Manufacturer's Empty Weight has to be corrected in the
32
case of the A321, because the aircraft was actually lighter than stated by the manufacturer.
Table 4 gives a detailed weight break-down.
Table 4. - OEW Calculation
A320-200 A320 QC A320 QC A321-100 A321 QC A321QC 1

(Pass.) (Cargo) (Pass.) (Cargo)
|MEW 36,808 kg 36,808 kg 36,808 kg 42,217 kg 42,217 kg 42,217 kg
1 QC Door+ Struct, weight 0 kg 936 kg 936 kg 0 kg 1,086 kg 1,086 kg
incr.
1 QC Equipment 0 kg 1,898 kg 683 kg 0 kg 2,531 kg 911kg
1 A-Air Specs. 1,533 kg 1,533 kg 1,533 kg 1,072 kg 1,072 kg 1,072 kg
|Corrected MEW 38,341 kg 40,975 kg 39,760 kg 43,289 kg 46,906 kg 45,286 kg
MEW Correction 0 kg 0 kg 0kg -469 kg -469 kg -469 kg
|Empty Weight 38341 kg 41,175 kg 39,960 kg 42,820 kg 46,437 kg 44,817 kg
\Additional Equipment:
1 Passenger Seats 1,795 kg 1,752 kg 0 kg 2,319 kg 2,319 kg 0 kg
1 Basic Emergency 241kg 241kg 239 kg 352 kg 352 kg 349 kg |
1 Life Vests 109 kg 109 kg 0 kg 131kg 131kg 0 kg
1 Galley Structure 624 kg 624 kg 624 kg 728 kg 728 kg 728 kg |
1 Catering, SUs & Trolleys 1,080 kg 1,080 kg 0 kg 1,350 kg 1,350 kg 0 kg
1 Crews 450 kg 450 kg 180 kg 540 kg 540 kg 180 kg
| Cockpit Equipment 19 kg 19 kg 19 kg 19 kg 19 kg 19 kg
1 Water 200 kg 200 kg 50 kg 300 kg 300 kg 50 kg
1 Toilet Fluid 13 kg 13 kg 13 kg 13 kg 13 kg 13 kg
1 Unusable Fuel 65 kg 65 kg 65 kg 65 kg 65 kg 65 kg
Lubrication Oil 53 kg 53 kg 53 kg 63 kg 63 kg 63 kg
| Tare weight MD 0 kg 0 kg 2,187 kg 0 kg 0 kg 2,916 kg
1 Tare weight LD 560 kg 560 kg 560 kg 800 kg 800 kg 800 kg
1 Nominal Operating 43,550 kg 46341 kg 43,950 kg 49,500 kg 53,117 kg 50,000 kg
Empty Weipht
|Conservatism 650 kg 650 kg 650 kg 750 kg 750 kg 750 kg
44.200 kP 1k 44.600 kg .50.250 kp 53.867 kg 50.750 ky
1 Operating Empty Weight 4<i.W ?
1 (OEW)
33
5.1.3 Cargo Capacity
The B737 QC offers a capacity of eight 88" x 125" 9-g containers plus additional
bulk space in the belly. The A320 QC has nine, and the A321 QC twelve 88" x 125"
container positions (refer to Figure 2 on page 20). The Airbus aircraft offer seven (A320)
and ten (A321) AKH container positions for the lower deck. The B737 has bulk capacity
only. It was assumed that the Airbus aircraft can not be bulk loaded, because bulk loading
is an option for Airbus aircraft but is not available to A-Air. The main disadvantages of
the containers for cargo operation are their weight and their size. The containers are
included in the OEW and therefore reduce the maximum net payload by 560 kg for the
A320 and 800 kg for the A321.
The AKH container is smaller than the wide-body LD-3 container which is the
respective lower deck container for wide body aircraft. Therefore, A320/321 lower deck
containerized cargo has to be reloaded into LD-3's to optimize space utilization if the
cargo continues in wide body aircraft.24 Additionally, the volume utilization of LD-3
containers is low because much space is lost due to bulky freight.
To determine the payload, the structural payload has to be compared to the volume
limited payload as shown in Table 5. The structural payload is defined as the difference
between the MZFW and the OEW.25 The volume limited payload is calculated by
multiplying the available cargo volume with the average cargo density (or by adding the
24
Technically, AKH's can be carried in wide body aircraft. However, the containers do not fit into the
cargo compartment in an optimum manner.
25
In case the difference of the MLAW minus MZFW is less than standard reserves, the structural
payload may be less (landing weight limited). In the case of the A320/321, however, this is not the case
34
Table 5.-- Maximum Payloads for Different Aircraft Types and Configurations
Max. Payload Max. Payload Max.Palyoad

(MZFW limit) (Vol. limit)
B737-300 14,626 kg 14,726 kg 14,626 kg
A320-200 16,565 kg 16,800 kg 16,565 kg
A321-100 20,251 kg 20,251 kg 21,242 kg
B737-300QC Pass Mode 13,558 kg 13,558 kg 14,458 kg
A320-200QC Pass Mode 15,509 kg 15,509 kg 16,189 kg
[A321-100QC Pass Mode 18,634 kg 18,634 kg 21,242 kg
B737-300QC Cargo Mode 15,645 kg 15,645 kg 22,339 kg
A320-200QC Cargo Mode 17,900 kg 17,900 kg 19,814 kg
A321-100QC Cargo Mode 21,750 kg 21,750 kg 26,414 kg
*Net payload; that is tare weight of the container included in OEW
average weight of the container and passengers). A standard weight of 1,700 kg for the
main deck container, 500 kg for the lower deck container, 84 kg per passenger, and 14 kg
baggage per passenger was used. Every 35.7 passengers utilize one lower deck container
(rounded up to the next container).
5.1.4 Passenger Capacity
Due to the higher cabin floor in passenger configuration, passenger seats beside
the overwing emergency exits have to be removed. The seat structure may not project
into the emergency exit. Therefore, the B737 seating capacity is reduced by two, and the
A320 seating capacity is reduced by four seats. The A321 has a different emergency exit
layout and will not lose any seats.

35
5.1.5 Conversion Costs
Deutsche Aerospace has not yet published any prices for a quick change
conversion. Initial internal cost calculations (based on full costs) have also not provided a
solid basis for price estimates. Therefore, it was assumed that the conversion could be
offered at market prices which were estimated by the Deutsche Aerospace sales
department. The prices were determined by comparing existing conversion prices of
different aircraft types. The conversion price for an A320 was fixed at USD 3.5 million
and the one for the A321 at USD 4.0 million. This includes also the costs for structural
weight increases. If the Airbus aircraft are not competitive with the B737, a reduction of
the basic aircraft price to reduce the capital costs might be considered by Airbus Industrie.
Final study prices are USD 40 million for the B737 QC, USD 50.5 million for the A320
QC, and USD 59.0 million for the A321 QC.
5.2 Output Data Calculation and Analysis
5.2.1 Payload Range Data
The payload range data for all aircraft were calculated using the same method.
Figures 5 to 10 inclusive show payload range diagrams for the studied aircraft types and
configurations. Refer to Table 2 and Table 4 for associated aircraft weights. The
-i r -, r r
-> r -i r -i
"• -, r - -, r -. r -,
*V40» • ' - ' * P , - . - . * I- " . -i * ^ . < . . . "

S
A320-20ff -« >- -i
^ ^
r
^-
-i
^P"t- m
r -i
p ^
: -r —
J L J L J c J - 1 1 - J t-
•7i7 j n n J i. J
16 000
**VCJCC/WPar
1 r n r -. r ^ X ^ -, r - * * ^ r -. r
Q
£
-J L J L , . , c J« -it. J
1 r 1 r -i r i r -t -> r -i r •y r -, T ^ K -> r i
-J k. J L J 7!> , .
:
— ? s p ^ Alternate
: |SACqndiôp« r
: S^Cpntlpgerpy-
1 r -i r i T r -> r . r . r ,
: ^ T r -i
-J <- J L J - -, t- : -. u
B<ng»0cm)
Figure 5. B737-300, A320-200, and A321-100 payload range diagram
-; : • . . ; *
:- • -
20 000
; A321 l t O C C f t v
:r m
\G<&tZrtx*y£*>
» :
; ^ ^*i - *
15 000 - Aj20-20p QC H »
- : r
!l747400-dc>a( "• -» -•
u. _. J i: 1 COt.ClfdLPtx****' a x u
10 000
^, k
>
:- -; T r r
:
150 Nto Alternate
5 000
&A Conditions
5*% Contingency
J -5 * - ': ;
|- a u u
RaipOan)
Figure 6. B737-300 QC, A320-200 QC, and A321-100 QC payload range diagram in
passenger configuration
r r
;A«l'-1<WOCCcroo H -
• •"
m ml J .1 a 4 i, 1
' L C U
«r
T r r
^ r ""
t» " '
: "" - '**^ 1 L : j
>3}0>200 QCTOcuo
* •<*
"NJ^ T r r T r
B?37*MK> OO Oagp —-—
r -. T r ^"**'««^ 1 J - , •
r r ' Nr r
n r
. .^^
;: ::
;-
J
S-
i-
*""- - ^ ^ -
**""^ VW
-i i r ". r r r T r r T T r
- r- -, ,
• •- -- - r- -. 1 r r T r r- 1 r r
!~150 NM Alternate ;- " . - - ; - *-- - "

IÂ Conditions _, j J L L. _» . LL 1 L ._
J 1L
- -5% Contingency • • -
:
0
-. -. r T r r -, T r T r r T Tr
Figure 7. B737-300 QC, A320-200 QC, and A321-100 QC payload range diagram in
cargo configuration.
- - . . .
:" " ": *- • . . :
20 000
r r
r r r 1 • ^ T
: n r r
-, .
„I „--...,.,»
%
*w * *
1747400- -i -i - mr
-, r r
3XC*gCfT«*TPf*t " ^ ^ K
* *• *: , i u
1 J
: L. J
* u
10 000
, ^
• r ~> i r r -i •
•"î 1 r r
!»7*,,,,»«iN^
;- _J -1
150 Nto Alternate

6 000 l&A Conditions r r -i "
'• ""s1* Contingency . . .
;- L l_ -I
• . . :
. L. -> J
R<ng»0on)
Figure 8. B737-300 payload range diagram in different configurations

38
r i r r -i
1
— 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 _ 1 1 • 1 ** : :.: : ^
;AA20-200_QCCaô
r
-AJ2O-20Q "* "* , -, T r r j - -
, * •-^,','ls,,,%^^
TCfeoôJSTfcftw^"^ •* ^ mrnrn^ * ' • -m\ • • * ^

^ II— ^ ^ ^
, ! ^
^^
[ -] J i i_
V*
r I T
:
:
150 Htf Alternate
-ISA Conditions
r r- -» •
! -51S Contingency^ "
:c : ... :
RcngiOcm)
Figure 9. A320-200 payload range diagram in different configurations.
. ^ • • ^ j ^ a ^ i i L L & U -> ]
VîVsc^ ']']'
:*. . : . • .
000 .A421J0Q. —i—i—' -^î '—'—*—i-

*% •
A4SI tob-ac-Aic •" " v. . x ^ v*

r
l « CCTfC/fuD^r %~"
u J \ [ !! :
000
r r * •
: • •
• r - i i r r -> •
*»»
000
r T. r r 1 f r T r r -. r r
. i- J
150 NM4lternate
000 ISA Conditions
r 1 r r "I
; 5%Cot«lnflenty:
|-
:, L . :
o -1 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000

R<ng»(km)
Figure 10. A321-100 payload range diagram m different configurations

diagrams in Figure 5 to Figure 7 illustrate the difference between the three aircraft types
in the same configuration. It can be seen that the A320 has an advantage on routes above
2,000 km because the B737 is unable to carry the maximum payload. The A321 has
comparable range characteristics to the B737 at a higher payload.
Table 6 presents the results in detail and shows the differences between the B737
and the A320/321 in different versions (passenger aircraft, QC aircraft in passenger
configuration, QC aircraft in cargo configuration). Delta values in the columns show the
differences between the Airbus aircraft and the B737 in the same configuration, whereas
delta values in the rows show the differences with respect to the non-converted aircraft.
The former is used to evaluate the additional capacity of a larger aircraft while the latter is
used to evaluate the loss of capacity due to the additional weight of the conversion.
As an unconverted aircraft shown in Figure 5, the A320 offers about 21 (13%)
more payload at 1,251 km (74%) higher optimum range. If the aircraft is operated at
maximum range, the difference amounts to 3.41 (49%). Respective values for the A321
are 5.6 t (38%) at 654 km (39%) higher range and 7 t (101%) at maximum range.
In QC passenger configuration as shown in Figure 6, the A320 QC and A321 QC
maintain their payload advantage relative to the B737 QC (absolute payload advantage
decreases slightly). Values are 2.01 (14%) for the A320 QC and 5.11 (37%) for the A321
QC. Range differences shift slightly. The A320 QC increases its optimum range
advantage at full payload to 1,091 km (57%) whereas the A321 advantage is reduced to
317 km (17%). At maximum range, both Airbus aircraft lose some of their payload
advantage. The A320 QC offers only 2.7 t (39%) more payload and the A321 QC 5.5 t
(17%). The maximum range advantage (disadvantage A321) remains almost unchanged.
40
Table 6.-- B737, A320, A321 Payload Range Data and Differences among the Different
Versions and Types
B737-300 A320-200 Delta Delta A321-100 Delta Delta

B737 B737 B737 B737
(in %) (in %)
Max Payload 14,626 kg 16.565 kg 1,939 kg 13 26% 20.251 kg 5,625 kg 38 46%
Range at max payload (km) 1.684 2.935 1,251 74 29% 2,338 654 38 84%
Payload at max range 6,937 kg 10.341 kg 3,404 kg 49 07% 13.920 kg 6,983 kg 100 66%
Max Range (Km) 4.519 5,181 662 14 65% 4,083 -436 -9 65%
B737- A320-200QC Delta Delta A321- Delta Delta
300QC Pass Pass. Mode B737 B737 lOOQCPass. B737 B737
Mode (in %) Mode (in %)
Max Payload 13.558 kg 15,509 1,951 kg 14 39% 18,634 kg 5,076 kg 37 44%
Lost payload compared to normal -1.068 kg -1.056 kg N/A N/A -1,617 kg N/A N/A
version
Lost payload in % of max normal -7 30% -6 37% N/A N/A -7 98% N/A N/A
payload
Range at max payload (Km) 1.918 3,009 1.091 56 88% 2235 317 16 53%
Payload at max range 6.847 kg 9.549 kg 2,702 kg 39 46% 12,303 kg 5 456 kg 79 68%
Lost payload compared to normal -90 kg -792 kg N/A N/A -1.617 kg N/A N/A
version
Lost payload in % of max normal -0 62% -4 78% N/A N/A -7 98% N/A N/A
payload
Max Range (Km) 4.321 5.048 727 16 82% 4,077 -244 -5 65%
B737- A320-200QC Delta Delta A321- Delta Delta
300QC Cargo B737 B737 100QC B737 B737
Cargo (in %) Cargo (in %)
Max Payload (net) 15.645 kg 17,900 kg 2.255 kg 1441% 21.750 6,105 kg 39 02%
Range at max payload (km) 1,918 3,009 1.091 56 88% 2235 317 16 53%
Payload at max range (net) 9.679 kg 11,940 kg 2.261 kg 23 36% 15,906 kg 6,227 kg 64 34%
Max Range (Km) 4.321 5.048 727 16 82% 4,077 -244 -5 65%
All aircraft are still able to carry maximum passenger load. Remaining cargo capacity
is 2.6 t (B737), 2.5 t (A320), and 0.8 t (A321).
In cargo configuration as shown in Figure 7, the A320 QC offers a payload
advantage of 2.3 t (14%) at a 1,091 km (57%) higher optimum range. Values for the
A321 QC are 6.11 (39%) and 317 km (17%) respectively. At maximum range, the
26
Difference of maximum payload minus number of passenger seats times 98 kg. May vary slightly in
case the remaining volume limits the remaining capacity.
41
payload advantage of the A320 QC is 2.3 t (23%) and of the A321 QC 6.2 t (64%).
Comparing different versions of the same aircraft type (B737 see Figure 8, A320
see Figure 9 A321 see Figure 10), the A320 QC in passenger configuration looses the
least compared to the unconverted aircraft. The A320 QC looses 11 (6.4%), the B737 QC
11 (7.3%), and the A321 QC 1.6 t (8%). The optimum range increases slightly or
remains constant due to the increases in the MTOW for all aircraft. As a rough guideline,
300 km can be subtracted from the optimum range for each ton decrease in MTOW. At
maximum range, the B737 QC looses 90 kg (1%), the A320 QC 792 kg (5%), and the
A321QC 1.6t(8%).
The required take-off field length for the A321 QC at ISA, sea level, and MTOW
has increased by 5.3% from 2,200 m to 2,316 m, and by 9.6% from 2,865 m to 3,139 m
under ISA +20° conditions and 2,000 ft pressure altitude. Landing field length has
increased by 4.8% from 1,585 m to 1,661 m. This performance is still satisfactory
without a thrust increase from present levels since most runway lengths exceed these
values.27
The respective values for the A320 QC change slightly, because the T/O rating
was increased from 25,000 lb. to 26,500 lb. to avoid performance problems. Required
take-off field length at ISA has decreased by 7% from 2,195 m to 2,042 m, and by 9%
from 3,231 m to 2,926 m under ISA + 20° conditions. Landing field length increases
slightly from 1,463 m to 1,493 m.
27
A321 performance is currently insufficient in a few specific weather conditions at some airports in the
network. This is the case for 83 t and 85 t MTOW. However, thrust increases for these exceptions are
normally not considered by the airline. According to Airbus Industrie, there are airlines that operate the
A321 with the higher take-off weight without a thrust rating increase
5.2.2 Direct Operating Costs (DOC) per SKO
Using the above calculated payload range data, direct operating costs were
calculated using a standard A-Air computer program (all values in USD per SKO). This
program utilizes the following method. For aircraft comparison, a standard stage length
of 500 NM is used. The payload range data supply the appropriate input parameters such
as block fuel, block time, payload, and available seats and freight for each aircraft type at
this stage length. An annual yearly utilization of 1,920 flights per year (about 8.5 block
hours per day) is assumed. Based on theses figures, annually offered seat-km, ton-km,
block fuel, and block hours were calculated. Additional details are provided in Appendix
A.
Direct operating costs per SKO are separated into variable and fixed cost
components. Fuel costs were calculated using a price of USD 0.218 per liter. This
costing method assumes that the aircraft consumes the whole block fuel on a trip, which is
normally not true. However, for the purpose of aircraft comparison, this method is
acceptable. Maintenance costs are separated into airframe and engine maintenance.
These cost components are a function of the aircraft weight and type and are based on
empirical studies. Landing, handling, and navigation charges are a function of the aircraft
weight and the payload (handling charges) of the aircraft. The fixed cost components are
technical, capital, insurance, and cockpit/cabin crew costs. The capital costs are shown as
the sum of aircraft and spares interest and depreciation.
This costing method treats all aircraft as if they were flown in the same
configuration during the entire year. It does not yet show the DOC of a quick change
43
aircraft that is flown in a mixed operation. If such a mixed operation increases the annual
utilization (i.e. more flights per year in either cargo or passenger configuration), the fixed
costs will be spread over more flights with a subsequent reduction of the DOC per seat-
km or per ton-km. This effect, however, will influence the Boeing and Airbus aircraft in
the same way. The direct operating costs are shown in Figures 12 through 15.
Figure 11 shows total direct operating costs per SKO for the passenger versions of
B737 B737QC (Pax) A320 A320 QC (Pax) A321 A321 QC (Pax)
Figure 11. B737, A320, and A321 DOC per SKO in normal and quick change-passenger
configuration.
44
the B737, A320, and A321. Respective individual values and cost differences are shown
in Table 7 and Table 8. The A320 is about 11% more fuel efficient than the B737 and has
about 15% lower crew costs per SKO. Respective values for the QC version are 7.5%
and 14%. However, higher landing fees (11%) and capital costs (10.4%/11.8%) eliminate
the DOC advantages of the A320. The A321 is significantly cheaper in fuel, handling,
navigation, fixed technical, and crew costs. The high aircraft price is spread over more
seats and therefore the capital costs are not significantly higher. Total DOC per SKO are
about 9% less than the B737.
Table 7.--B737, A320, A321 DOC per SKO and DOC per SKO Differences
(US cents per SKO)
B737 A320 Delta B737 Delta B737 A321 Delta B737 Delta B737
(ln%) (ln%)
Fuel Cost 0.826 0.738 -0.088 -10.63% 0.662 -0.165 -19.92%
Airframe 0.573 0.567 -0.007 -1.17% 0.492 -0.081 -14.14%
maintenance
Engine maintenance 0.165 0.166 0.001 0.44% 0.218 0.053 32.30%
Landing fees 0.454 0.504 0.051 11.19% 0.451 -0.003 -0.65%
Handling fees 1.244 1.194 -0.049 -3.97% 1.126 -0.118 -9.48%
Navigation charges 0.701 0.684 -0.018 -2.54% 0.575 -0.127 -18.04%
Total variable costs 3.963 3.853 -0.110 -2.78% 3.523 -0.440 -11.09%
Fixed technical costs 0.850 0.837 -0.013 -1.54% 0.721 -0.129 -15.21%
Capital costs 2.335 2.578 0.243 10.40% 2.386 0.051 2.17%
Aircraft 1.194 1.311 0.116 9.74% 1.214 0.019 1.62%
deDreciation
Spares 0.105 0.123 0.019 17.69% 0.113 0.009 8.41%
DeDreciation
Aircraft interest 0.953 1.046 0.093 9.75% 0.968 0.015 1.61%
Spares interest 0.083 0.098 0.015 17.93% 0.090 0.007 8.57%
Insurance 0.050 0.055 0.005 9.63% 0.051 0.001 1.55%
Cockpit crew 0.637 0.544 -0.093 -14.58% 0.430 -0.206 -32.42%
Cabin crew 0.483 0.413 -0.070 -14.58% 0.421 -0.062 -12.87%
Total fixed costs 4.356 4.427 0.071 1.63% 4.009 -0.347 -7.96%
Total direct costs per 8.319 8.280 -0.039 -0.47% 7.533 -0.786 -9.45%
SKO
45
Table 8 - B737 QC, A320 QC, A321 QC DOC per SKO and DOC per SKO Differences
Used in Passenger Configuration.
(US cents per SKO)
B737QC A320 QC (Pass) i Delta B737 Delta B737 A321 QC Delta Delta B737 1
(Pass.) (in %) (Pass) B737 (in %)
|Fuel Cost 0.857 0.793 i -0.064 -7.50% 0.742 -0.115 -13.41% |
lAirframe 0.598 0.610 0.012 2.04% 0.499 -0.098 -16.47%
maintenance
1 Engine maintenance 0.168 0.179 0.011 6.70% 0.218 0.051 30.15% 1
| Landing fees 0.482 0.533 0.051 10.66% 0.461 -0.020 -4.16% 1
|Handling fees 1.164 1.164 0.000 0.02% 1.126 -0.038 -3.28% 1
1 Navigation charges 0.729 0.713 -0.016 -2.23% 0.582 -0.147 -20.20% J
iTotal variable costs 3.997 3.992 -0.005 -0.14% 3.629 -0.368 -9.21% 1
I Fixed technical costs 0.864 0.861 -0.003 -0.37% 0.721 -0.143 -16.59% 1
| Capital costs 2.543 2.843 0.300 11.78% 2.553 0.010 0.38% 1
1 Aircraft 1.304 1.449 0.146 11.18% 1.302 -0.002 -0.15%
j depreciation
1 Spares 0.111 0.132 0.021 18.79% 0.118 0.007 6.28%
1 Depreciation
| Aircraft interest 1.040 1.157 0.117 11.20% 1.039 -0.001 -0.12% |
| Spares interest 0.089 0.105 0.017 18.97% 0.094 0.006 6.29% 1
|lnsurance 0.055 0.061 0.006 11.49% 0.055 0.000 0.06%
|Cockpit crew , 0.647 0.560 -0.088 -13.57% 0.430 -0.217 -33.52% 1
ICabin crew 0.491 0.425 -0.067 -13.57% 0.421 -0.070 -14.29% |
|Total fixed costs | 4.601 ; 4.749 0.148 3.22% 4.180 -0.421 -9.15% |
ITotal direct costs per 8.598 8.741 0.143 1.66% 7.809 -0.789 -9.18%
ISKO
DOC for the respective unconverted aircraft were shown to identify any
improvement or deterioration of cost differences between the different aircraft types. The
A320 maintains a slight cost advantage in passenger configuration. Since remaining
freight capacity was not taken into consideration in the DOC calculation, the passenger
configuration is less affected by the retrofit than the cargo configuration.

46
Figure 12 shows only cash costs which were defined as crew costs, insurance
costs, handling, navigation, and landing fees, fuel costs, and maintenance costs. Capital
• Navigation
charges
° Handling fees
• Landing fees
• • Engine
maintenance
B737QC (Pax) A320 QC (Pax) A321 A321 QC (Pax)
Figure 12. B737, A320, and A321 cash costs per SKO in normal and quick change-
passenger configuration.
costs and fixed maintenance costs were excluded. It was assumed that the variable
maintenance costs are cash costs. Cash operating costs for the B737 are 5.1 US cents per
SKO and 5.2 US cents per SKO for the QC version. Respective values are 4.9 and 5.0 for
the A320, and 4.4 and 4.5 for the A321. Therefore, if only cash costs are considered, the
A320 aircraft offers a potential advantage. The A321 is cheaper in both cases.
The respective costs for the cargo version are shown in Figure 13, Figure 14, and
Table 9. As a cargo aircraft, the A320 has 2.7% lower variable operating costs per TKO
but still 1.8% higher total DOC per TKO which is mainly caused by higher capital costs.
Since the capital costs of the passenger version were not affected significantly by the
conversion, it can be assumed that the high basic aircraft price causes the high capital
costs. In looking at cash costs only, values for the A320 QC and A321 QC are 36.3 US
•Navigation
charges
• H andling fees
'Landing fees
• Engine
maintenance
a
J2 •Airframe
maintenance
•Fuel Cost
'insurance
•Cockpit crew
'Fixed technical
costs
•Capital costs
Figure 13. B737 QC, A320 QC, and A321 QC DOC per TKO in cargo configuration.
48
•Navigation
charges
•Handling fees
•Landing fees
'Engine
maintenance
•Airframe
maintenance
• F u e l Cost
Însurance
•Cockpit crew
B737 A320 A321

QC QC QC
(Cargo) (Cargo) (Cargo)
Figure 14. B737 QC, A320 QC, and A231 QC cash costs per TKO in cargo configuration.
Table 9.-- B737 QC, A320 QC, A321 QC DOC per TKO in Cargo Configuration
(US Cents per TKO)
B737 QC A320 QC (Cargo) Delta B737 Delta B737 A321 QC Delta B737 Delta B737
(Cargo) (Cargo)
Fuel Cost 6.629 6.201 -0.428 -6.46% 6.210 -0.419 -6.32%

Airframe 4.625 4.772 0.148 3.19% 4.179 -0.445 -9.63%
maintenance
Engine maintenance 1.298 1.400 0.103 7.90% 1.827 0.530 40.82%
Landing fees 3.724 4.168 0.443 11.91% 3.862 0.137 3.69%
Handling fees 10.361 9.296 -1.065 -10.28% 7.989 -2.372 -22.89%
Navigation charges 5.637 5.573 -0.064 -1.13% 4.867 -0.770 -13.67%
Total variable costs 32.274 31.410 -0.863 -2.68% 28.935 -3.339 -10.35%
Fixed technical costs 6.683 6.734 0.050 0.75% 6.031 -0.652 -9.76%
Capital costs 19.669 22.235 2.565 13.04% 21.361 1.692 8.60%
Aircraft 10.082 11.335 1.253 12.43% 10.892 0.810 8.03%
depreciation
Spares 0.858 1.031 0.173 20.12% 0.987 0.129 14.98%
Depreciation
Aircraft interest 8.044 9.047 1.002 12.46% 8.693 0.649 8.07%
Spares intererst 0.685 0.824 0.139 20.31% 0.788 0.103 15.00%
Insurance 0.423 0.477 0.054 12.75% 0.458 0.035 8.26%
Cockpit crew 5.007 4.376 -0.631 -12.60% 3.602 -1.405 -28.07%
Cabin crew 0.000 0.000 0.000 N/A 0.000 0.000 N/A
Total fixed costs 31.783 33.821 2.039 6.41% 31.452 -0.331 -1.04%
Total direct costs 64.057 65.232 1.175 1.83% 60.387 -3.670 -5.73%
49
cents per TKO and 33.0 respectively, compared to 37.7 of the B737. The cash cost
figures are more meaningful due to two reasons. First, the aircraft price is negotiable.
Second, QC operation may be considered a joint-product operation, which means that
capital costs should not be considered since the aircraft is available anyway (if the airline
has the aircraft already in its fleet). Therefore, both aircraft offer a cost saving potential.
5.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis
Two cases were analyzed. First, the effect of changes in fuel prices was analyzed.
This did not cause significant cost shifts. The DOC changed by less than 1% even if the
fuel price was doubled. This is due to the fact that the B737-300 is already a fuel efficient
aircraft compared to the older -200 series.
The second case analyzed was zero conversion costs for the A320. In this case,
total DOC for the cargo version are reduced to 63.7 US cents per TKO which is 0.5% less
than the B737 value. Since the A320 is a bigger aircraft, the DOC per TKO should be
significantly lower than the B737 DOC due to economies of scale but that is not the case.
This indicates that the basic aircraft price is too high for the A320.
50
6 THE FLEET PLANNING MODEL
6.1 Overview
In the previous chapter, the A320/321 QC aircraft were assessed using a standard
method that does not consider the characteristics of its daily operation in A-Air. This
includes varying cargo volume over time, scheduling constraints, additional cost that were
not included in the standard DOC calculation, and other limitations that may affect the
optimum fleet mix and thus the decision whether or not to buy an additional QC type. For
example, although the A321 QC may have lower DOC as a cargo aircraft than the B737,
the lower passenger load factor during the aircraft positioning flight may eliminate any
cost advantage. Since an airline has to consider the network as a whole, it may prefer to
operate the B737 QC and lose some cargo due to insufficient capacity, because this is still
cheaper than acquiring and operating the larger A321 QC. Therefore, a model was
developed that takes more than only direct operating costs differences into consideration.
First, as mentioned above, an airline does not necessarily have to accommodate all
the cargo demand on a certain route. It may decide to operate a small aircraft and satisfy
only that part of the freight market that has a high enough yield to make a profit. In this
case, the airline looses some revenue due to insufficient capacity which is an opportunity
cost to the airline. As long as these opportunity costs do not outweigh the higher total
costs of operating a larger aircraft, the airline is better off using the smaller equipment.
51
Second, the operating costs of QC cargo aircraft may not be compared without
consideration of the effect on the daytime passenger operation. A QC passenger aircraft
has higher DOC than an unconverted passenger aircraft. Depending upon the daily
utilization, the difference will impose additional costs to the QC cargo network. In this
context, it is often argued that the QC operation increases the total utilization of the
aircraft and therefore spreads the fixed costs (especially capital costs) over more flights.
This, in turn, would reduce the DOC of the aircraft and outweigh the penalties of the
conversion. But opinions on this aspect are inconsistent. Some argue that QC aircraft fly
less during the daytime, because route scheduling tries to avoid them (higher variable
cost). Therefore, fixed costs would not be reduced or spread over more hours. On the
other hand, an airline has to hold some spare aircraft. Of course, it will try to hold the
aircraft with the highest variable costs as spare capacity, in this case the QC aircraft. If
there would be no QC aircraft, the airline would have to use unconverted aircraft as spare
capacity. Therefore, there would still be some effect of reduced fixed costs. Since it was
not possible to determine which of the two arguments is true, the reduction of capital
costs was not considered in the model, but only higher direct operating costs due to the
higher weight etc.
Capital costs of the basic aircraft were excluded from the model. First, as
mentioned above, effects on capital costs are not yet analyzed in detail. Second, it can be
argued that the cargo operation with QC aircraft is a by-product. The basic aircraft are
available anyway and differences in capital costs should not be considered during cargo
operation. Therefore, only the capital costs of the conversion were included.
A fourth cost group to be included in total network cost considerations are the
costs of positioning flights at low load factors. Often, passenger service is offered on a
particular route only because it is necessary that the aircraft be available for night
operations at the destination. Therefore, a portion of the positioning flight costs has to be
included, depending upon the load factor.
Each additional conversion station causes investment in seat vans that is not
included in normal handling charges. If an additional conversion station is needed in the
network, this is an additional cost above the normal handling charges that are not covered
by the direct operating costs. A larger aircraft may require additional conversion stations,
if the routes that were previously served by a one stop service with the smaller aircraft are
now split in two rotations with an additional conversion station.
Finally, the structure of the schedule may require ferry flights, if additional aircraft
types are operated. Although the night schedule is only part of a whole schedule, it must
still be balanced with the same aircraft type arriving in the morning at a station as it was
converted the evening before.
All these costs should be minimized as a whole under consideration of actual
airline operating characteristics. To determine whether the Airbus aircraft would be
competitive in such an environment, a mathematical model was developed that plans a
schedule with a fleet mix that minimizes the above listed cost types. The three aircraft
available to this model are the B737, the A320, and the A321 as outlined in the previous
chapters. The model is an integer linear program that minimizes the objective function
"total network costs" under several scheduling constraints.

53
Underlying concept of the mathematical model is the utilization of feasible
rotations as main unknown variables. Feasible rotations are determined by the time
schedule of the flight plan. The principle is illustrated in Figure 15 using a small network
( 3 , 2 t 1
*1
B A C I)
4 ,— • ^ 5
>
6 ><
Figure 15. Principle of feasible rotations

(Only few feasible and unfeasible rotations are shown)
consisting of the stations A, B, C, D and the legs 1, 2, 3,4, 5, and 6. A rotation is defined
by its arrival and departure leg. For example, rotation 1-2 is the rotation that arrives from
leg 1 and departs to leg 2. It is feasible, if the departure time as stated in the schedule is at
least 30 minutes after the arrival time of the incoming leg (if 30 minutes is the minimum
transit time) and if it arrives/departs from the same station. Rotation 1-5, for example, is
not feasible, because an aircraft can not arrive at station C and depart from station A.
Rotation 6-1 is also not feasible, because the departure time of leg 1 is before the arrival
54
time of leg 6 (if, as assumed, the time schedule determines leg one to be the evening flight
and leg 6 the early morning returning flight).
Thus, rotations 1-2, 2-5, and 2-3 are examples of feasible rotations. It is also
feasible to origin at each station (unless explicitly excluded). That is, rotation 0-1 is
feasible. This states that the aircraft starts its nightly routine at station D. Same is true for
termination. Leg 1-0 is also feasible. In this case, the aircraft arrives from leg 1 and
terminates at station C. The costs of each leg as outlined below are allocated to each
rotation by its departure leg. For example, the DOC of leg 3 are allocated to rotation 2-3
and 4-3, since both depart on leg 3.
In the following, chapters 6.2 and 6.3 explain the cost components of the objective
function and the rational of the constraints respectively. Chapter 6.4 will explain the
mathematical model and the notation which will also appear in the output of the computer
solution.
6.2 Cost Components of the Objective Function
The objective function is a sum of all cost components over time discounted to
present value at any given discount rate. It is defined as the sum of variable cash
operating costs, costs of insufficient capacity (opportunity costs), additional costs daytime
operation, capital costs of the conversion, costs of positioning flights at low load factors,
55
conversion station costs, costs of ferry flights, and costs of idle aircraft. The method of
how these components were determined is explained below.
6.2.1 Variable Cash Operating Costs
The variable cash operating costs were derived from the standard DOC calculation
as presented in chapter four. The costs included are fuel costs, maintenance costs, landing
fees, navigation and handling charges. Although some cost elements (such as landing
fees) may vary depending upon the routes flown, this fact was not taken into
consideration. It was assumed that the effects of lower or higher actual costs would
balance out for the network as a whole and would affect all three aircraft types by the
same amount. If, for example, the landing fees at one airport are higher than average, they
will be higher for all three aircraft types and not particularly high for one aircraft only.
Therefore, the variable cash operating costs are only a function of distance with a fixed
cost component.
The individual values of the DOC calculation for different stage lengths were
regressed with distance as independent variable and DOC per leg as dependent variable.
Landing and handling charges are independent from the stage distance and were treated as
fixed costs per leg. Their value depends upon the aircraft type (MTOW, max. payload).
Fuel and maintenance cost are a linear function of distance. Fuel costs would also vary
with the actual aircraft weight, however fuel consumption at max. payload similar to the
DOC calculation was assumed. Navigation charges are a nonlinear function of stage
56
distance. ATC fees decrease the further an aircraft leaves central Europe. With a model
similar to
ATC Cost (Dist) = K + ci Dist + c2 Ln Dist + c3 (Ln Dist)2 + c4 (Ln Dist)3
or
DOC (Dist) = C + Ci Dist + C2 Ln Dist + C3 (Ln Dist)2 + C4 (Ln Dist)3
ATC costs could be predicted by +- $10 and total DOC by +- $20 which represents
an error of about 1%. The adjusted R2 of the models were all larger than 0.9999 with F
Statistics between 200,000 and 400,000. The models were used as a basis for an Excel
spreadsheet where different input parameters such as fuel costs per liter, maintenance
costs, or changes in landing fees over time could be changed to analyze different scenarios
and to calculate DOC over time. This will be further presented in Chapter 6, "Input
Parameters".
6.2.2 Opportunity Costs of Insufficient Capacity
Each route has a certain demand for overnight cargo service with a specific yield.
Depending upon this yield it is more or less important for an airline to satisfy all the
demand, or offer only limited capacity. The opportunity costs were determined by
multiplying the aircraft capacity with a target load factor and subtracting this value from
the demand on the particular route. If this value was positive, it was multiplied with the
opportunity costs per ton of not accommodated cargo demand. As long as it remained
negative (enough capacity), opportunity costs were zero. The opportunity costs can
therefore be expressed by the formula
Opp. Cost = (Demand Max. Payload * Target load factor) * Opp.Cost per ton
if Demand - Max. Payload of the aircraft * Target load factor > 0;
or 0 otherwise.
If the stage length of a particular route would exceed the optimum range of an
aircraft, the max. payload was adjusted accordingly. An expected cargo profile or an
expected (unconstrained) cargo growth rate establishes the value of the opportunity costs
over time. Different opportunity costs per ton may reflect the expected development of
the yield over time. Different maximum payloads of the different aircraft types allocate
opportunity costs for each leg for each aircraft. The opportunity costs were added to the
DOC as explained in the section above.

58
6.2.3 Additional Costs Daytime Operation and Capital Costs of the Conversion
The additional costs of daytime operation were estimated by subtracting the DOC
per block hour of the unconverted aircraft from the DOC of the QC passenger aircraft and
multiplying the difference with the daily utilization. This value per QC aircraft was
multiplied with the number of QC aircraft available during the planning period.
The capital costs were determined by subtracting the annual costs of the
unconverted aircraft from the annual capital costs of the QC aircraft. This value was then
divided by 365 to determine the daily costs. This was done because all costs should be
based on the same time horizon. If annual costs would be used, they would be
overweighted in the model.
6.2.4 Costs of Positioning Flights and Conversion Station Costs
Cost of positioning flights were determined on a per leg basis similar to the
variable cash operating costs. Basis for the cost function were the data of the QC aircraft
in passenger configuration. It was assumed that the origin of the positioning flights would
be the main hub. Therefore, the stage distance equaled to the distance between the hub
and the conversion station. The costs of the positioning flights should decrease with
increasing passenger volume. In case the load factor reaches break-even load factor, there
should be no costs associated with the positioning flight. The costs of positioning flights
were determined by the following formula:
Costs of p-flights = 2 * DOC * (1- actual load factor/break even load factor)
for actual load factor < break-even
Costs of p-flights = 0 for actual load factor J break-even
In case the actual load factor exceeds break-even, costs of positioning flights are
set to zero, which means that there are no costs of positioning flights associated with this
route. In case of no passengers, costs of positioning flights are equal to total DOC on this
leg, which is about equal to the costs of a ferry flight. The DOC were multiplied by two
since each positioning flight consists of two legs (outbound and inbound). The costs of
the positioning flights were added to the total network costs in case an aircraft originates
from the station. Conversion station costs are based on the costs of the seat vans.
6.2.5 Cost of Ferry Flights and Costs of Idle Aircraft
Determining the exact distance a ferry flight flies to a particular station
substantially increases the complexity of the model without significantly improving the
outcome. If scheduling a particular aircraft type (e.g. A320 QC) would require a ferry
flight, any rough estimate of the costs of this ferry flight will eliminate minor cost
advantages of the aircraft over other aircraft (e.g. B737 QC) and avoid the ferry flight by
scheduling the other aircraft, where the ferry flight is not required. If a ferry flight can not
be avoided with any aircraft type, the costs of the ferry flight are unimportant, because the
flight is necessary to accommodate the schedule. Therefore, a standard cost for all ferry
flights that reflects an average stage length of the network was utilized. Also, the model
normally imposes several other costs to a ferry flight (positioning flights may become
necessary, additional costs of a conversion station, etc.). Therefore, ferry flights are the
exception and can be covered with rough (conservative) estimates of the ferry flight costs.
Costs of idle aircraft are the costs of maintaining a fleet of aircraft that are
converted to QC aircraft but are not operated as cargo aircraft during the night. These
costs can be set as any large number, which means that the model minimizes the number
of aircraft that are not utilized, or they can be set equal to the additional costs daytime
operation plus capital costs of the conversion. Introducing costs of idle aircraft is
important, if the number of buy/sell transactions per period is limited and fluctuating
cargo volume might justify maintaining a larger than minimum fleet of different sized
aircraft.
61
6.3 Scheduling Constraints
These constraints can be grouped into two classes. First, there are those
constraints that are essential to generate a workable rotation plan. Second, there is a
group of optional constraints that are imposed by the airline's management. The first
group includes flight coverage, continuity of equipment, aircraft availability, and schedule
balance constraints. The second group is not exhaustive. One important constraint of this
group, however, is the limitation of buy/sell transactions over time. The shorter the
individual time periods become, the more important becomes this constraint, since
seasonal fluctuations in cargo demand may cause the model to change the equipment
constantly which is unrealistic. Further constraints in this group can be operational
specific, such as excluding a station from becoming a conversion station.
Flight coverage refers to the necessity that each leg in the schedule has to be
covered once. Otherwise, the LP would assign zero aircraft to each leg, since the
necessity to cover the demand is not explicitly stated in other constraints but is included in
the objective function.
Continuity of equipment refers to the necessity that each flight has to begin and
end on the same aircraft type. This constraint is imposed by the mathematical formulation
of the model and will be explained in further detail below.
Aircraft availability limits the number of aircraft that can be used to the number
that is available. This is either a number specified, or results from the objective function.
This constraint is particularly important in conjunction with the buy-sell constraint.

62
Schedule balance refers to the requirement that the schedule can be operated
continuously without accumulation of aircraft at a station. This means also that at each
conversion station the same aircraft type is converted to a cargo aircraft in the evening as
it will be converted to a passenger aircraft in the morning.
6.4 Mathematical Formulation
6.4.1 Notation
T : Planning horizon, number of planning intervals.
M : Number of aircraft types.
L : Number of flight legs.
Tr : Discount rate at time t.
Xi j,k,t : Feasible rotation connecting from leg i to leg j on aircraft type k at time t.
aic,t : Number of aircraft type k owned at time t.
Coj,k,t • Cash operation costs of operating aircraft type k on leg j at time t.
Cij,k,t : Opportunity costs of insufficient A/C capacity of aircraft type k on leg j at
time t.
Cpj,k,t: Costs of positioning flights of A/C type k on leg j at time t.
Cdk,t : Additional costs daytime operation of one converted aircraft type k at time t.
Cck t : Capital costs of the conversion of aircraft type k at time t.

Csk,t,s: Costs of A/C conversion station of aircraft type k at station s at time t.
Cfs,k,t : Costs of ferry flight of aircraft type k to station s at time t.
Cek,t : Cost of owning one idle aircraft type k at time t.
Os,k : Origination shortage of aircraft type k at station s.
Ts,k : Termination shortage of aircraft type k at station s.
St : Number of stations at time t.
Yk,t : Number of idle aircraft of type k at time t.
Ds,k,t • Departures of aircraft type k from station s at time t.
As,k,t : Arrivals of aircraft type k at station s at time t.
Rsk,t : Maximum rate of aircraft of type k that may be sold during period t.
Rbk,t ' Maximum rate of aircraft of type k that may be bought during period t.
Kk,t : Minimum number of aircraft type k that have to be in the fleet at time t.
6.4.2 Objective function
The objective function can be expressed as follows:
Minimize {total network costs} =
T f T
(1
>£ n£-
MIL Operating costs plus opportunity costs
(2)
k=\ i=0 ;=1
Additional costs daytime operation plus
(3) +]TaJU-(Cd*,f + CcJu)+ capital costs of the conversion
k=\
L M
Costs of positioning flights plus
(4) +X2 X °' , ' Jt ' /, ( C / 7 ''*' / + C ^'0' h conversion station costs
/=1 * = 1
5 M
Costs of ferry flights (Origination plus
(5) +^^C/i,^/-(05^,r-hr,^,r) + Termination shortage)
M ~H Costs of idle aircraft

(6) + J C ^ r ^ / \
*=l JJ
The first term (1) of the objective function states that the network costs are the
sum over the number of planning intervals of the planning horizon, discounted at a given
interest (discount) rate. If discounting is not desired, the rate may be set to zero.
The second term (2) expresses the sum of cash operating costs and opportunity
costs. Note that the costs are allocated to the departure leg of a feasible rotation.
Therefore, the costs of a i-0 rotation are zero since there is no departure leg. However,
with the constraint of continuity of equipment a i-0 rotation will require a 1-i rotation.
The 1-i rotation will have the costs of the i-leg assigned to it. Therefore, an i-0 rotation
implicitly gets costs assigned. With the constraint of schedule balance, the model will not
assign i-0 rotations if not necessary.
Term (3) refers to available aircraft in the fleet. In conjunction with the constraint
that the aircraft operated in the fleet (sum of all x0>1,k,t rotations) at any given time plus the
number of aircraft not operated during the same time period (yk,t) this part of the objective
function assures that ownership costs are associated with each aircraft in the fleet.
65
Term (4) implies that for each originating flight (0-i rotation) a positioning flight
is required and the conversion station costs incur. In theory, it might be possible that
there are several flights originating at a station with economies of scale associated.
However, due to the hub-and-spoke system of most QC networks, several conversions at
the same station will be rarely found. Therefore, conversion station costs were allocated
for each originating flight.
An origination shortage (5) occurs if there are more arrivals than departures at a
station. In this case, the excess of arriving flights has to leave the station as a ferry flight
to a station, where a termination shortage occurred. Termination shortage is the opposite
of origination shortage that is, there are less arrivals than departures or a shortage of
aircraft for outgoing flights.
Term (6) imposes an additional cost penalty for idle aircraft. Normally, the cost of
idle aircraft are already included in term (3). Idle aircraft, however, should be avoided
and therefore an additional cost penalty was imposed. If idle aircraft are not considered
an additional penalty, term (6) may be omitted and subsequently constraint (C) has to be
changed in that y is omitted from the formula and the equal sign is replaced by a less than
or equal sign.
66
6.4.3 Constraints
The first constraint states that each leg has to be covered once by exactly one
aircraft type.
M L
(A) j]£jci iyi * f r = l for all j = 1,...,L and t = l , ,T

*=i f =o
The constraint states that the sum of all rotations for all aircraft types that depart
into leg j (that is depart into leg 1, 2, ,L) from any arriving leg i has to be equal to one
for all planning intervals. Therefore, the LP is forced to pick one, and exactly one aircraft
type for each leg of the network during each interval. However, it may chose different
aircraft types at different times.
The second constraint assures continuity of equipment.
(B) y£xj.k.i = zlx!.j.k.t for all 1= 1,...,L and k= 1, ,M and t = 1, ,T

i=0 j=0
(B) states that if a certain aircraft type (e.g. a B737) was picked to depart into leg 1
(e.g. 3) at time t (e.g. 1), there must be a departure into any leg i with (in this example) a
B737 arriving from leg 3. Or, in other words, the same aircraft type has to depart into,
and arrive from the same leg. This must be true for all rotations and all aircraft types at
all times. Of course, the aircraft may also justflythis single leg (0-1 and 1-0) in which
67
case the model may have to assign a ferry flight, if the schedule is not balanced any more.
That is, originating and terminating flights are also allowed.
Constraint three (C) limits the number of aircraft used in the schedule:
(C) X * 0 ' * < + yk < = ak< for all k = 1,...,M and t = 1,....,T
1=1
If ak,i is not externally given as the number of already existing QC aircraft in the
fleet (Kk,t), the model plans the number of aircraft required without consideration of
already existing aircraft. The number of aircraft in operation (sum of all x0,i,k,t) plus the
sum of all aircraft not used during the period (yk,t) must be equal to the number available
as stated in the objective function (ak,t). This constraint has only an effect on the optimum
solution, if the number of buy-sell transactions per period is limited (see constraint (E)).
The fourth constraint (D) requires that the schedule is balanced:
£ jco.«.*,f + 05.*.f= Jj&AA.r + TU.i foralls= 1,....,S; k=l,...,M; t=l,....,T

teDs k i izAs * '
That is, the sum of all flights on a certain aircraft type k at time t leaving from a
station s, plus the number of excess arrivals, must be equal to the sum of all aircraft of
68
type k arriving at station s, plus the number of excess departures at time t For example,
if, at time 1, there are four B737 flights departing from station A and six B737 flights
arriving at the same station A, then OA, 13737 must be equal to two with the subsequent
penalty of ferry flights (see term (5) of the objective function)
The fifth constraint is optional and limits the number of buy sell transactions per
period It may appear in different forms dependent upon the airline's situation In the
following, it was assumed that the airline keeps converted aircraft for at least seven (=TS)
years before they may be sold After seven years, no more than two aircraft per period
may be sold of each aircraft type Initial number of aircraft is five (=K7^71) B737 QC that
may be sold after five years
Mathematically this constraint can be expressed as follows
(El) a u - au_i > 0 for all k = 1, ,M and t = 1, ,TS limits the
number of sell transactions to zero until t=T&
(E2) au - a u -i +au-TS ^ ° for all k = 1, ,M and t = Ts, J allows to sell
aircraft older than Ts years
(E3) ak,t - a u -i + Rsu ^ 0 for all k = 1, ,M and t = 1, ,T limits the
number of aircraft that may be sold during
each period l
1
Tins has only then a limiting function if t ^ U Otherwise, (El) limits the number of aircraft that ma>
be sold to zero
69
Additionally, minimum number of aircraft of a specific aircraft type in the fleet at
any time may be given by
(E4) au ^ K u for any given aircraft type k at a given time t
A similar constraint can be build to limit the number of aircraft purchases per time
period
(E5) au - au-i ^ Rb M for all k = 1, ,M and t = 1, ,T
However, limiting the number of aircraft that may be bought may result in an
infeasible solution, if not enough aircraft to cover the schedule can be purchased The sell
and buy rates can be chosen by the airline and depend upon the airline's financial situation,
the duration of one planning interval, and the manufacturer's ability to convert aircraft In
case Rs and Rb are set large, the constraint may be omitted
Finally, all variables in the model have to be positive integer numbers with all x,0,u
being binary numbers However, in most cases, due to the construction of the model, the
solution fulfills this requirement without explicitly stating it

70
7 INPUT PARAMETERS
The following chapter outlines the input parameters as they are used in the model.
A complete presentation, however, will not be possible due to the large number of
individual values that enter it. The final data set consists of about 42,000 observations
containing about 10,000 nonzero values for variables of the objective function. Therefore,
data must be presented in aggregated form.
All values are calculated using Excel spreadsheets. The basic data used in the
economic comparison served as database. The values were then exported into SAS
Software where they were sorted, modified and combined to the sparsedata format that is
used for the proc lp statement.29
7.1 The network
The network under study is a QC typical hub-and-spoke network which consists of
a main hub (A) and 19 stations (B-T) as illustrated in Figure 16. Some services (e.g. D-A
or K-A) are one-stop services, which means that they have an intermediate stop at another
station before arriving at the hub (e.g. service D-A has an intermediate stop at station C).
All incoming legs to station (A) have to connect to the outgoing legs. Except for the
29
Refer to SAS Institute, SAS/OR User's Guide, Version 6 (Cary: SAS Institute, 1989) chapter 7 for
details about using SAS/OR for solving LP problems.
71
c 1 38 37
>
B S T=2 T
2
i r 35 ,. 36
k
**
', 4 3 34
c *»
- "?
D C R
5
> 6
53 „ 33
> >C - —
c 8 c 7 32 y 31 5
t " j?
>
F E P Q
9 y 10
> c 29 . 30
J
< n 28 27
G A N O
12
i cK 25 ,, 26
**
c 13 24 >
H T=3 M
14 23
*
>
7> c
t. "••"
c 15 22 j
I T=2 L
16 21
> c
k--1--'1-1 •"••••
18 17
€ c
%
K J T=3
19 20 y
J
Figure 16 The network

service from station (F) all one-stop services must have a connection to the leg into the
hub. Service from station (F) is independent and connects only stations (F) and (E).
Service to stations L, S, and T starts at time 2 (second year), and to stations H, J, and K at
time 3 (third year). All legs were assigned numbers that will appear in the output of the
LP. For example, rotations 2-1 will have leg 2 (inbound from station (B) to station (A))
as arrival leg and leg 1 (outbound from station (A) to station (B)) as departure leg. The
number of feasible rotations in the model amounts to 9,027 for all time periods or about
750 per year.
The network includes all routes where cargo service may be offered in the future
and QC aircraft may be scheduled. It has to be noted that the model does not consider
alternative aircraft such as pure freighters. It determines only how many QC aircraft of
each type should be operated, in case the airline decides to acquire QC aircraft. That is, it
determines the competitiveness of the Airbus QC aircraft compared to the B737 QC. The
airline may still decide to operate pure freighter aircraft, charter capacity, or not to serve a
route at all. Therefore, the analysis provides an upper limit for potential demand of
A320/321QC aircraft.
The time horizon is twelve years. This gives a good long-term picture of the fleet
planning requirements with the assumed growth rates of passenger and cargo volume. If
purchase and sell restrictions are omitted, it also indicates when the Airbus aircraft
become competitive.
Network input parameters are illustrated in Table 10. Distances range from 150
km to 2,000 km, which is about the optimum range of the B737 QC. Longer distances are
73
Table 10.-- Leg Designators, Distances, Initial Demand and Opportunity Costs of the
Network.
Leg No. Leg Distance* Assumed initial Opportunity costs

(km) demand per ton
(in tons) (in U S D )
1 A-B 2,000 12 2,350
2 B-A 2,000 25 2,300
3 A-C 740 18 2,000
4 C-D 1,300 10 2,500
5 D-C 1,300 8 2,650
6 C-A 740 16 2,050
7 A-E 150 25 200
8 E-F 250 8 880
9 F-E 250 15 1,050
10 E-A 150 25 200
11 A-G 530 10 1,180
12 G-A 530 20 1,180
13 A-H 1,000 7 1,750
14 H-A 1,000 10 1,180
15 A-I 1,400 15 1,470
16 I-A 1,400 10 1,750
17 A-J 600 8 1,180
18 J-K 540 4 1,180
19 K-J 540 6 1,180
20 J-A 600 10 1,180
21 L-A 1,600 12 1,750
22 A-L 1,600 10 1,750
23 M-A 1,200 14 1,900
24 A-M 1,200 18 2,100
25 N-A 640 16 1,800
26 O-N 500 6 2,350
27 N-O 500 6 2,350
28 A-N 640 18 1,750
29 P-A 660 12 2,250
30 Q-P 270 8 2,350
31 P-Q 270 8 2,350
32 A-P 660 12 2,250
33 R-A 1,500 12 1,750
34 A-R 1,500 16 1,750
35 S-A 600 14 2,150
36 T-S 480 8 2,650
37 S-T 480 8 2,650
38 S-A 600 14 2,150
* Figures were rounded to the next ten.
74
infeasible for QC operation, because the departure time of the associated passenger flights
has to be too early in the evening to accommodate the departure time requirements of the
cargo flight. Initial demand is assumed to grow by 5% annually.30 Seasonal fluctuation
of demand is not considered. Initial screening of available cargo data showed that
demand does notfluctuateconsiderably. Also, fluctuations within the year balance out
since time intervals of one year are chosen. The target revenue cargo load factor was set
to 80%. This means that if the actual demand in tons on a particular route exceeds 80%
of the payload of the aircraft, opportunity costs will be assigned to this aircraft on this
route. The opportunity costs per ton remain constant over time.
Initial stock of aircraft isfiveB737 QC. They may be replaced at the earliest after
five years. However, the LP was run twice, once without the sale constraint. This is to
separate potential weaknesses of the Airbus aircraft from purchase restrictions of the
airline. Expected passenger demand is shown in Table 11. This demand is expected to
grow by 3% per time period. Revenue passenger break-even load factor is assumed to be
60%.
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1994 World Air Cargo Forecast. (Seattle: July 1994) cargo
forecast for Europe.
75
Table 11.-- Initial Average Passenger Demand to Each Station in the Network.
Conversion station Stage distance Average number of

(km) passenger
A 0 0
B 1,200 65
C 400 62
D 1,100 106
E 0 0
F 400 0
G 400 56
H 680 60
I 900 53
J 340 50
K 680 65
L 1,000 60
M 750 62
N 420 55
0 700 50
P 400 0
Q 550 43
R 960 60
S 480 0
T 600 55
7.2 Cost Data
A weight summary of individual cost components of the objective function can be
seen in Figure 17. The chart was created by adding all individual values of each cost
group for all time intervals and all aircraft types and then showing the total amount of
31
Average demand is defined as the mean of passengers on the evening flight and passengers on the
early morning flight.
76
Idle Cost Penalty

12%
Station Cost Opportunity Cost

1% 20%
Positioning flight Capital Cost Daytime Cost
costs 5% 7%
10%
Figure 17 Weight of the cost components of the objective function.
each cost group relative to the sum of all cost components. Therefore, the chart shows
how the individual cost components are represented in the model. A high percentage
value indicates that minimizing the respective cost component takes a high priority in the
solution of the LP.
DOC make up for only 22% of the sum of all nonzero cost components in the
objective function which is about the same weight as the opportunity costs. Since
opportunity costs are a function of insufficient capacity, this shows that the capacity
aspect of the network will become increasingly important. Idle cost penalty has about the
same value (12%) as the sum of capital costs plus additional costs of daytime operation.
This means that having an idle aircraft in the fleet imposes capital costs and daytime
77
operating costs twice to the aircraft. The ferry flight penalty has about the same amount as
the DOC which means that costs of a ferry flight are about as high as the average costs of
a leg in the network. Positioning flight costs are about half as important as the DOC but
still make up a considerable amount of the components that can not be avoided in
operating the network (costs of idle aircraft and ferry flight costs can be avoided). Costs
of a conversion station are of minor importance, since only the costs of the seat vans are
taken into consideration.
Respective values similar to Figure 17 for each individual aircraft type are shown
in Table 12. The weight of direct operating costs is about the same for all aircraft.
Table 12.— Weight of the Cost Components of Each Aircraft Type.
Cost component B737 QC A320 QC A321 QC

Direct operating costs 21% 22% 22%
Opportunity costs 30% 21% 11%
Additional costs daytime operation 5% 7% 10%
Capital costs 4% 5% 5%
Positioning flight costs 7% 9% 13%
Conversion station costs 1% 1% 1%
Ferry flight penalty 21% 23% 23%
Idle aircraft penalty 10% 12% 14%
Opportunity costs are weighed highest for the B737 which results from the fact that it is
the smallest aircraft and demand exceeds 80% capacity on several routes over time. All
78
other cost components are weighed higher for the Airbus aircraft This indicates that the
higher capacity (lower opportunity costs) results in higher aircraft related costs
The absolute values are given in Table 13 Note that the absolute values are
decreasing over time since they are discounted to year one at 9% Additionally, the
number of legs served, and different growth rates of parts of the components as given in
Table 14 affect the average values Graphically, the figures are presented in Figure 18 It
can be seen that the difference of total cost between the B737 and the Airbus aircraft
decreases over time with the increase of cargo demand
The absolute direct operating cost advantage of the B737 is more than outweighed
by the lower opportunity costs of the Airbus aircraft (lower two pieces of the bar chart)
With the higher daytime operating costs (third piece), all three aircraft are about even
Capital costs of the conversion (fourth piece) are similar for all aircraft and do not change
the cost structure The cost disadvantage of the Airbus types in the positioning flight costs
causes an absolute cost disadvantage in the earlier periods, until passenger demand is
assumed to pick up Conversion station costs are negligible Ferry flight costs and costs
of idle aircraft are of minor importance, since, as mentioned above, they can be avoided
79
Table 13.- Average Costs per Cost Component, Aircraft Type, and Time Period.
1 Time Aircraft Average Average Daytime Capital Average Conversio Cost Costs of I
DOC Opportunit costs costs Costs of n Station penalty of Idle
yCost Positioning Costs ferry Aircraft I
Flights flights
1 8737 $4,397 $4,167 $1,100 $1*001 $1,648 $161 $4,000 $2,600 I
1 A320 $4,361 $2,642 $1,526 $1,307 $2,331 $161 $4,700 $3,000
1 A321 $5,438 $1,045 $2,676 $1,481 $3,517 $161 $5,300 $4,000
2 * B737 $4,200 $3,992 $1,029 $918 $1,706 $148 $3,853 $2,294
2 A320 $4,648 $2,510 $1,428 $1,199 $2,380 $148 $4,528 $2,752
2 A321 $5,199 $1,062 $2,505 $1,359 $3,525 $148 $5,106 $3,670
3 B737 $3361 Man $963 $842 $1,424 $136 $3^12 $2,104
3 A320 $4^88 $2,423 $1,337 $1,100 $2,077 $136 $4^61 $2,525
3 A321 $4,909 $1,080 $2,344 $1,247 $3,204 $136 $4^18 $3,367
4 B737 $3,750 $4,013 $901 $773 $1,272 $124 $3,576 $1,930
4 A320 $4,157 $2,689 $1,251 $1,009 $1,892 $124 $4,201 $2,317
4 A321 $4,650 $1,313 $2,193 $1,144 $2,964 $124 $4,738 $3,089
5 I B737 $3J552 $4,266 $844 $709 $1,134 .: $114;.,;... $1,771
5 A320 $3£38 $2,968 $1,171 $926 $1716 $114 $4^47 $2126
5 A321 $4,405 $1,559 $2,052 $1,049 $2,739 $114 $4,564 $2,834
6 B737 $3,364 $4,550 $789 $650 $1,013 $105 $3,318 $1,625
6 A320 $3,732 $3,285 $1,095 $849 $1,555 $105 $3,899 $1,950
6 A321 $4,174 $1,822 $1,921 $963 $2,528 $105 $4,396 $2,600
\ :
7: % B737": r
$3,187 $4,314 $739 ,;;;$9osT:; $96;,:, $3*196 $1,491
7 A320 $3£38 $3,555 $1,025 $779 $1,403 $96 $3J56 $1,789
7 A321 $3,956 $2,089 $1,797 $883 $2£30 $96 $4,236 $2,385
8 B737 $3,019 $5,033 $691 $547 $822 $88 $3,079 $1,368
8 A320 $3,352 $3,784 $959 $715 $1,261 $88 $3,618 $1,641
8 A321 $3,750 $2,318 $1,682 $810 $2,145 $88 $4,080 $2,188
9 B737 $2,861 $5,211 $647 $502 $748 $81 $2,966 $1,255
9 A32G $3,178 $4,033 $898 $656 $1,128 $81 $3^86 $1,606
9 A321 $3,556 $2,558 $1,674 $743 $1,971 $81 $3^30 $2,007
10 B737 $2,712 $5,369 $605 $461 $680 $74 $2,857 $1,151
10 A320 $3,013 $4,272 $840 $602 $1,007 $74 $3,357 $1,381
10 A321 $3,371 $2,831 $1,473 $682 $1,808 $74 $3,786 $1,842
/ $626 $68 $2,752 -^ $1,056
B737 $2,571 $5,679 $566 '"'$423'"~
11
A320 $2,857 $4,470 $786 $662 $900 $68 $3,234 $1,267
11
11 A321 $3,197 $3,064 $1,378 $626 $1,655 $68 $3^47 $1,690
12 B737
!
' $2,438* $5,747 $530 $388 $578 $62 $2,651 $969
12 A320 $2,710 $4,632 $736 $507 $808 $62 $3,115 $1,163
12 A321 $3,032 $3,260 $1,290 $574 $1,512 $62 $3,513 $1,550
80
Table 14.-- Growth Rates of Input Parameters
.Parameter Growth rate

Fuel costs 4.0%
Maintenance costs 3.5%
Handling charges 2.0%
Landing fees 5.0%
ATC fees 4.0%
Opportunity costs 0.0%
Daytime operation costs 3.0%
Station costs 0.0%
Ferry flight penalty 5.0%
$20,000
S 18.000
$16,000
J ^t
$14,000
$12,000
• M ~ ^ ""v" '-''" —• ^ ••'v -v'' vr "•'• y v "" ••••

$10,000
i ! ! ! | l i i i i i i i a i i i . * l l ( ! . • , - _ -_ - "
$8,000
i;îyilliifii§iil^
$6,000
$4,000
i *l;|?' 1 fl ": 1 ill *:l ill 1 ji II t M If! IIffl1 If: 1 if 1 II II 1 I II I I I I I ! |j I
• ": ** " *• * ii m \k u " i & w ;i i * || i ti | il ft
$2,000
$0
• AverogB DOC • Average Opportunity Cos f D o y f i r r e costs QCcpltdcosts • Average Costs of Positioning Flights OConvefs Ion StoHcn Costs • Cos tpendty of ferry flights • Costs of IdeAircraft]
Figure 18 Absolute average values of the objective function cost components .

81
Relative average values of the objective function cost components are shown in
Figure 19. It can be seen that the weight of the DOC remains about constant over time
I MllllllllllllllllllllllllllII
II 111 III i l l 11:11 ill 11111111:1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
0%
,
i il mini
1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 S 5 S 6 6 6 7 7 7
i i i iiiiimi
B737 A320 A321 6737 A320 A321 B737 A320 A321 B737 A320 A33I B737 A320 A321 B737 A320 AJ21 B737 A320 A321 B737 A320 A321 B737 A320 A321 B737 A320 A E 1 B737 A320 A321 B737 A320 AS21
8 8 8 9 9 9 l O B T O II 11 11 B B C
| • A v e r c g e D O C P Avercge Opportunity C a t • Doytlrrecosls aCcpttdccsis •Average Costs of Pes rrtanhg Flights DConverslcnStcitcnCosts •Ccstpendtycffenvfllohls BGcsftcfldeAircrcft
Figure 19 Relative average values of the objective function cost components
between 19% and 24%. The weight of the opportunity costs, however, increases from
about 22% to 43 % in case of the B737 QC, 12% to 33% in case of the A320 QC, and 4%
to 22 % in case of the A321 QC. The weight of the positioning flights decreases over
time which is a result of the assumed growth in passenger demand. The weight of the
other cost components does not change significantly.

82
All input parameters that determine the components of the network costs were
calculated for the first year and then recalculated for subsequent years assuming different
growth rates for each parameter A summary of estimated growth rates is given in Table
14
DOC for the first time period were calculated using the formulas
DOCB737 = 3,607 + 1 1 8 Dist 274 7 ln(Dist) + 39 65(ln(Dist))2
DOCA32O = 4,068 + 1 27 Dist - 318 67 ln(Dist) + 45 48 (ln(Dist))2
DOCA32I = 4,407 + 1 45 Dist 301 95 ln(Dist) + 45 32 (ln(Dist))2

83
8 ANALYSIS OF THE LP OUTPUT
A problem summary, solution summary, and a summary of the nonzero variables
of the LP are included in Appendices B and C. The computations were done on a PC with
16 MB RAM and an Intel Pentium P90 processor board. Computation time ranged
between one and two hours, depending upon the number of constraints and the desired
output data sets. The LP procedure employs a two-phased revised simplex method.32
The variable names in the Appendix may be interpreted as follows. Designators
that begin with an "A" followed by four digits stand for the number of suggested aircraft
in the fleet at a specified time (first digit) for a specific aircraft (last three digits).
Designators beginning with an "X" specify a feasible rotation. The first group of digits
indicates the inbound and the outbound leg. The following group of letters indicates the
departure and arrival station. The last group of digits specifies time and aircraft type
similar to "A"-variables.
Section 8.1 presents the recommended fleet mix for the network with and without
the sales constraint as outlined in Chapter 5. In section 8.2 the aircraft rotation schedule
as derived from the SAS printout will be discussed. Section 8.3 contains a cost analysis
of the cost components in the optimum solution and further analysis of the
competitiveness of the Airbus aircraft compared to the B737.
32
See SAS Institute, SAS/OR User's Guide, Version 6 (Cary: SAS Institute, 1989), 229 for details.
8.1 Fleet Mix
The suggested fleet mix is shown in Table 15. It can be seen that the sales
constraint is of importance to the results of the LP at the earlier time periods during the
Table 15.-- Suggested Fleet Mix
No sales constraint With sales constraint
1 Time Total B737QC A320QC A321 QC Total B737QC A320QC A321 QC

1 10 4 2 4 10 5 1 4
2 13 6 3 4 13 6 3 4
3 14 6 4 4 14 6 3 5
4 14 6 3 5 14 6 3 5
5 14 6 2 6 14 6 3 5
6 14 5 3 6 14 6 3 5
7 14 4 3 7 14 4 3 7
8 14 4 3 7 14 4 3 7
9 15 5 3 7 15 5 3 7
10 15 4 2 9 15 4 2 9
11 15 4 1 10 15 4 1 10
1 12 15 3 2 10 15 3 2 10
expansion of the network. Initial recommended fleet size is ten aircraft comprising of
four B737, two A320, and four A321. If more than five B737 have to be in thefleet,one
A320 is traded against the fifth B737. With the expansion of the network in year two,
three aircraft are added to the fleet, which gives a similar fleet mix for both versions of
the LP. In year three, when the network is expanded further, the fleet is expanded by
another aircraft. In case an aircraft may not be sold before seven years, the model
85
suggests to acquire a larger A321 instead of the A320. In year four, both versions of the
model suggest the same fleet mix of six B737, three A320, and five A321 since the
version without the sales constraint has traded one A320 of period three against an A321.
In year five, another A320 is traded against an A321. If this is not allowed, the network is
covered with a similar fleet mix as in year four, however, with insufficient payload
capacity for this period. As soon as older B737 aircraft may be sold after period six,
Boeing aircraft are traded against the larger A321 which becomes the major aircraft type
in the fleet.
8.2 Aircraft Rotation Schedule
Suggested aircraft rotation plans without and with sales constraint are shown in
Table 16 and Table 17 respectively. The tables were derived from the SAS printouts
included in Appendix 2. For example, aircraft rotation 2-1 means that one aircraft flies
legs two and one during one night, which comprises of the feasible rotations 0-2, 2-1, and
1-0. For easier analysis, the original suggested rotation plan was slightly modified
without any impact on the total network costs of the optimal solution by forming closed
aircraft rotations. If, for example, the LP suggested to operate one A321 on legs 2-3-4
and one on legs 5-6-1 during the same time period, the result was modified in that one
Table 16.- Aircraft Rotation Schedule without Sales Constraint
Aircraft Rotation Time Period(s) Aircraft Type

2-1 1-12 A321
5-6-3-4 1-12 A321
10-7 1-12 B737
9-8 1-12 B737
12-11 1-6 B737
7-10 A320
11-12 A321
13-14 3-9 B737
10-12 A320
16-15 1-9 A320
10-12 A321
19-20-17-18 3-11 B737
12 A320
21-22 2-5 B737
6-9 A320
10-12 A321
23-24 1-12 A321
26-25-28-27 1-8 A321
25-28 9-12 A321
26-27 9-12 B737
30-29-32-31 1-2 B737
3-6 A320
7-12 A321
33-34 1-4 A320
5-12 A321
35-38 2 A320
36-37 2 B737
36-35-38-37 3 A320
4-12 A321
87
Table 17.- Aircraft Rotation Schedule with Sales Constraint

1 Aircraft rotation Time period(s) Aircraft type
2-1 1-12 A321
5-6-3-4 1-12 A321
9-8 1-12 B737
10-7 1-12 B737
12-11 1-6 B737
7-10 A320
11-12 A321
14-13 3-9 B737
10-12 A320
16-15 1-9 A320
10-12 A321
19-20-17-18 3-11 B737
12 A320
21-22 2-5 B737
6-9 A320
10-12 A231
23-24 1-12 A321
26-25-28-27 1-8 A321
26-27 9-12 B737
25-28 9-12 A321
30-29-32-31 1-2 B737
3-6 A320
9-12 A321
33-34 1 B737
2 A320
3 A321
4-5 A320
6-12 A321
35-38 2 A320
36-37 2 B737
36-35-38-37 3 A320
4-12 A321
88
A321 operates on legs 2-1 and the other one on legs 5-6-3-4. This has no effect on total
costs because feasible rotation 2-1 has the same costs assigned as feasible rotation 6-1.
Therefore, since the model is indifferent between picking feasible rotation 2-1 or 6-1 (all
constraints are met by both rotations versions), it was simply by chance that the LP did
not form closed aircraft cycles as it did in some cases (e.g. 0-10, 10-7, 7-0, time 2,
B737).33
Among the four rotations that should be served by an A321 from the beginning,
two are already served by the airline (26-25-28-27 and 23-24) using B737 equipment.
The other two routes are among the ones with the highest probability to be included in the
QC network (2-1 and 5-6-3-4). This means that the current equipment is getting too small
and should be replaced by a larger aircraft. Among the routes that should be served by an
A320, only one rotation (16-15, currently not served) should be flown with an A320
regardless of a sales constraint. The other rotation (33-34, currently served by a B737)
should be flown with an A320 after one year, as soon as the Boeing aircraft can be
operated on a new route.
33
Per definition, there is no cost advantage if not only the same aircraft type, but even the same aircraft
arrives m the morning at the same station as it departed the night before In fact, having closed aircraft
cycles in this case has no effect on costs.
89
8.3 Cost Analysis
Detailed values of individual cost components are included in Appendices D-F.
Appendix D contains information about the costs on legs where a B737 QC is
recommended. Initially, DOC, opportunity costs, and the cost of positioning flights are
shown. This is followed by the equivalent data of the Airbus aircraft on the same legs,
including the relative difference to the B737 QC. Capital costs are not included, since
they are independent from a particular leg. Costs of conversion stations are included in
the positioning flight costs, since they are of minor importance to the optimum solution.
All cost data are derived from the LP with the sales constraint. The difference to the
solution without sales constraint is negligible and therefore omitted. The structure of
Appendices E and F is similar to Appendix D, however the A320 QC and the A321 QC
respectively serve as the basis aircraft.
Figure 20 illustrates the weight of the different cost components in the optimum
solution. Idle and ferry costs are zero percent, since they were avoided at any period. The
weight of direct operating costs has increased to 47%, while opportunity costs have
decreased relative to the direct operating costs (in the input data both components have
Idle costs
Ownership
co,,s Fe
Posltloning " y penalty
flight costs 10%
11%
Figure 20 Weight of cost types in the optimum solution.
about the same weight). This indicates that on the average larger equipment with higher
DOC but lower opportunity costs is suggested by the LP. Since the LP could have
scheduled smaller aircraft at lower DOC, if this would have reduced total network costs
but did not do so, it can be concluded that the additional costs of a larger aircraft (A321
QC) in the given network are justified in the light of total network cost minimization. Or,
in other words, the marginal benefit of larger equipment (lower opportunity costs) is
higher than its marginal costs (higher direct operating, ownership, and positioning flight
costs). Consequently, the B737 QC is substituted against the A321 QC with increasing
demand over time, although the A321 QC has about 25% higher direct operating costs
than the B737 QC.
This conclusion can be illustrated by analyzing aircraft rotation 2-1 (refer to
Appendix 6). The LP suggests to operate an A321 QC on the rotation at all times. Even
91
in year one, with a relatively low passenger load factor (65 passengers) on a relatively
long positioning flight leg, the high opportunity costs due to high (even unbalanced) cargo
demand costs more than outweigh the additional costs of the A321 QC. Total B737 costs
of the rotation are about $84,000 higher than the respective A321 costs. This is
equivalent to the value of about three tons of cargo per rotation.
The A320 QC is represented with only few aircraft in the suggested fleet mix at a
decreasing tendency. This indicates that the range of route characteristics (cargo and
passenger demand, stage length, etc.) where scheduling an A320 QC offers cost
advantages is relatively narrow. Either, it is still cheaper to operate a B737 QC, or it is
already advantageous to switch to the larger A321 QC. The time periods where the A320
as an intermediate aircraft is cheaper are relatively short. Additionally, there is no leg in
the network where the A320 QC would offer a payload advantage due to range problems
of the other two aircraft. This means that the range advantage is not valued on any route.
However, with the scheduling problem of passenger flights on long positioning flights as
mentioned in a previous chapter, routes beyond 2,000 km will be the exception for a QC
network.
Table 18 gives an overview of the cost components for each aircraft type. The
relative weight of each cost variable indicates its portion of the total aircraft related costs.
The A321 QC opportunity costs have the highest weight compared tot the other two
aircraft, although it is the largest aircraft. This apparent contradiction is due to the fact
92
Table 18.- Aggregated Costs per Aircraft Type and Cost Component.
Aircraft Cost Type Value Relative Mean Standard

weight deviation
B737 QC Direct operating costs $436,128 52% $3,160 808
Opportunity costs $212,333 25% $1,539 2434

Positioning flight costs $103,139 12% $747 1634
Ownership costs $86,596 10% $7,216 3109
A320 QC Direct operating costs $290,642 54% $4,037 914

Ownership costs $58,731 11% $4,894 2094
Direct operating costs $965,676 44% $4,235 1043

A321 QC
Ownership costs $210,015 10% $17,501 1488
Direct operating costs $1,692,446 47% N/A N/A

Total all A/C
Opportunity costs $1,143,950 32% N/A N/A
Positioning flight costs $384,122 11% N/A N/A
Ownership costs $355,342 10% N/A N/A
that the A321 QC can not be substituted by a larger aircraft if demand exceeds its capacity
as it is the case with the other two aircraft. In combination with the fact that the weight of
the total opportunity costs has decreased compared to the weight in the input parameters,
the fact of the high relative opportunity costs of the A321 QC is no contradiction.
Mean values in Table 18 indicate average annual costs of the respective aircraft
types. That is, average DOC of a B737 QC are $3,160, of an A320 QC $4,037, and of an
93
A321 QC $4,235 per leg. The mean of ownership costs indicates the average amount that
has to be spent per year for the particular aircraft fleet.

9 CONCLUSION
Assuming that the Airbus aircraft can be offered as technically specified, both
aircraft offer advantages and, mainly in case of the A321 QC, potential cost savings for A-
Air. The technical layout with the aft main cargo door eliminates one main QC specific
disadvantage which is the reduced comfort in the area of first or business class
passengers. Additionally, the threat of engine damage during loading and unloading is
reduced and access to the main entrance door IL is not disturbed by the cargo operation.
Currently, two of the five existing A-Air routes would support operation of an
A321 QC. Two of the potential new routes, one with the highest probability of being
realized, supplement potential short term demand to a maximum of four A321 QC within
the airline's fleet. Medium range demand of the A321 QC amounts to four to seven
aircraft, depending upon the rate of the network expansion. In the long run, increasing
passenger and especially cargo volumes may increase the number of required A321 QC by
another three to four aircraft. This research does not consider whether A-Air has the
financial resources to add to its QC fleet at this time. Also, this research does not
consider other alternative ways of serving A-Air's cargo market demand and routes which
may or may not be less expensive.
A-Air's potential demand for an A320 QC is limited to less than three aircraft.
However, if the A321 QC cannot meet its technical specifications, potential A321 QC
routes may also be served by an A320 QC. Otherwise, the A320 QC is suggested only as
95
an intermediate aircraft type. The structure of the network with relatively short legs
within the optimum range of the other two aircraft does not provide a payload-range
advantage for the A320 QC. However, the A320 may represent a viable pure freighter
aircraft for medium range operations, where it can benefit from its longer range which
would be comparable to the range of the QC version.

REFERENCES
Abara, Jeph. "Applying Integer Linear Programming to the Fleet Assignment Problem."
Interfaces 19 (July/August 1989): 20-28.
Airbus Industrie. Performance Doc. P2210 Rev. 2, June 93 and Performance Doc.
P21131Rev.LMav92.
Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company. Performance Doc. D6-37042-4. Nov. 14 1984.
. 1994 World Air Cargo Forecast. Seattle: July 1994.
Borchard, Walter. A320 Feasibility Study. Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, February 1994.
Ferguson, AR and GB Dantzig. "The Allocation of Aircraft to Routes-an Example of

Linear Programming under Uncertain Demand." Management Science 3 (1956).
Goodboy James C. and James G. Gilbertson. Freighter Network Analysis Model.

(Seattle: Boeing Co., 1960)
Hammer, Robert H. "Fleet and Airplane Acquisition Planning of Regional Airlines." M.S.
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1983.
Hiatt, M.A. and K.C. Plewes. The Ouick-Change Convertible Cargo-Passenger

Aircraft Will Aid Air Freight Development in the Next Decade. Seattle: Boeing
Co., 1965. Document Number 650782.
Kirby, D. "Is Your Fleet the Right Size?" Operations Research Quarterly 10 (1959):
252; quoted in Christopher Colin New. "Transport Fleet Planning For Multi-Period
Operations." Operations Research Quarterly 26 (1975).
Sprenger, Wilfried and Karl Kwik. A320 OC Cabin Layout. Deutsche Aerospace, March
1994.
Manheim, Marvin L. Fundamentals of Transportation Systems Analysis. Volume 1:

BasicConcepts. MIT Press Series in Transportation Studies, ed. Marvin L. Manheim.
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1979.
Moos, Hermann. "Zukiinftige Einsatzbedingungen und Anforderungen an ein Airbus
A320/321 Frachtflugzeug in der Serien- und Umrtistlosung." [Future conditions and
requirements to an Airbus A320/321 freighter as a series and conversion aircraft].
Diplomarbeit FH Wurzburg 1993.
New, Christopher Colin. "Transport Fleet Planning For Multi-Period Operations."

Operational Research Quarterly 26 (1975V 151-166.
Ormsby, R.B. Development of Total Airline Profit Model Program to Permit

Simulation and Evaluation of Total Air Cargo System. Georgia: Lockheed-
Georgia Co., 1969. SAE TRANS 690413.
SAS Institute. SAS/OR User's Guide. Version 6. Cary: SAS Insitute, 1989.
Schick, GJ and JW Stroup. "Experience with a Multi-Year Fleet Planning Model." The
International Journal of Management Science 9 (1981): 389-96.
Shube, DP and JW Stroup. Fleet Planning Model. Sacramento: Douglas Aircraft

Company, 1975. Paper 6440.
Silva, Armando C. Cell Fleet Planning: An Industry Case Study. Cambridge:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Flight Transportation Laboratory, May 1984. FTL Report R84-4.
Wyatt, J. K. "Optimal Fleet Size". Operations Research Quarterly 12 (1961): 186;

quoted in Christopher Colin New. "Transport Fleet Planning For Multi-Period
Operations." Operations Research Quarterly 26 (1975).
98
APPENDIX A DIRECT OPERATING COST CALCULATION

99
Table 19.- Summary of Input Parameters for the DOC per SKO and TKO Calculation.
Units B737-300 B737 QC B737 QC A320-200 A320 QC A320 QC A321-100 A321 QC A321 QC
Pass (cargo) (Pass) (Cargo) (Pass) (Cargo)
Stage length NM 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Stage length KM 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927 927
Payload kg 14,626 13,563 15,645 16,300 15,509 17,900 19,250 18,634 21,750
Available Seats 123 121 0 144 140 0 182 182 0
Available freight kg 2,572 1,705 15,645 2,188 1,789 17,900 1,414 798 21,750
Flight time hr 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.35 1.35 1.35
Block time hr 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.6 1.6 1.6
Block fuel kg 3,460 3,532 3,532 3,620 3,780 3,780 4,100 4,600 4,600
Annual Utilization:
Number of flights 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920
Distance 1,000 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779 1,779
km
Flight Hours hr 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,496 2,496 2,496 2,592 2,592 2,592
Block hours hr 3,130 3,130 3,130 2,976 2,976 2,976 3,072 3,072 3,072
Block fuel 1,000 6,643 6,781 6,781 6,950 7,258 7,258 7,872 8,832 8,832
kg
Ton-km offered 1,000 26,018 24,127 27,831 28,996 27,589 31,842 34,243 33,148 38,691
TKO
Seat-km offered 1,000 218,802 215,244 0 256,159 249,043 0 323,756 323,756 0
SKO
Table 20.-- Annual Direct Operating Costs
(in million USD)
B737-300 B737 QC B737 QC A320-200 A320 QC A320 QC A321-100 A321 QC A321 QC

(Pass) (cargo) (Pass) (Cargo) (Pass) (Cargo)
Fuel Cost 1.807 1.845 1.845 1.891 1.974 1.974 2.142 2.403 2.403
Airframe maintenance 1.255 1.287 1.287 1.452 1.520 1.520 1.594 1.617 1.617
Engine maintenance 0.361 0.361 0.361 0.425 0.446 0.446 0.707 0.707 0.707
Landing fees 0.992 1.036 1.036 1.292 1.327 1.327 1.459 1.494 1.494
Handling fees 2.721 2.505 2.884 3.059 2.899 2.960 3.645 3.645 3.091
Navigation charges 1.535 1.569 1.569 1.751 1.775 1.775 1.861 1.883 1.883
Total variable costs 8.671 8.604 8.982 9.870 9.941 10.002 11.408 11.749 11.195
Fixed technical costs 1.860 1.860 1.860 2.144 2.144 2.144 2.334 2.334 2.334
Capital costs 5.109 5.474 5.474 6.603 7.080 7.080 7.724 8.265 8.265
Aircraft depreciation 2.613 2.806 2.806 3.357 3.609 3.609 3.929 4.214 4.214
Spares Depreciation 0.229 0.239 0.239 0.315 0.328 0.328 0.367 0.382 0.382
Aircraft interest 2.085 2.239 2.239 2.679 2.881 2.881 3.135 3.364 3.364
Spares interest 0.182 0.191 0.191 0.252 0.262 0.262 0.293 0.305 0.305
Insurance 0.110 0.118 0.118 0.141 0.152 0.152 0.165 0.177 0.177
Cockpit crew 1.394 1.394 1.394 1.394 1.394 1.394 1.394 1.394 1.394
Cabin crew 1.058 1.058 0.000 1.058 1.058 0.000 1.364 1.364 0.000
Total fixed costs 9.530 9.903 8.845 11.339 11.827 10.769 12.979 13.532 12.169
Total direct costs 18.201 18.507 17.827 21.209 21.768 20.771 24.387 25.281 23.364
101
APPENDIX B SAS PRINTOUT EXTRACTS OF THE LP SOLUTION

WITHOUT SALES CONSTRAINT
LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROCEDURE
PROBLEM SUMMARY
Min Cost Objective Function

_RHS_ Rhs Variable
_TYPE_ Type Variable
Problem Density 0.001102
Variable Type Number
Non-negative 10308
Total 10308
Constraint Type Number
EQ 2466
Objective 1
Total 2467
SOLUTION SUMMARY
Terminated Successfully
Objective value 3575451.71
Phase 1 iterations 3845

Integer iterations 0
Integer solutions 0
Initial basic feasible variables 2
Time used (sees) 1776
Number of inversions 62
Machine epsilon 1E-8

Machine infinity 1.7976931349E308
Maximum phase 1 iterations 8000
Maximum integer iterations 100
Time limit (sees) 10000
Linear Programming Output
No Sales Constraint
Summary of Nonzero Variables of the Objective Function
Objective Variable Type Lower Value Upper bound Price Reduced

row
bound cost
Cost A10320 NON-NEG 0 2 1.798E308 1442 0

Cost A10321 NON-NEG 0 9 1.798E308 2155 0
Cost A10737 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 1066 0
Cost A11320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 1338 0
Cost A11321 NON-NEG 0 10 1.798E308 2004 0
Cost A11737 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 989 0
Cost A12320 NON-NEG 0 2 1.798E308 1242 0
Cost A12321 NON-NEG 0 10 1.798E308 1864 0
Cost A12737 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 918 0
Cost A1320 NON-NEG 0 2 1.798E308 2833 0
Cost A1321 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 4158 0
Cost A1737 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 2101 0
Cost A2320 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 2628 0
Cost A2321 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 3863 0
Cost A2737 NON-NEG 0 6 1.798E308 1948 0
Cost A3320 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 2437 0
Cost A3321 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 3590 0
Cost A3737 NON-NEG 0 6 1.798E308 1806 0
Cost A4320 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 2260 0
Cost A4321 NON-NEG 0 5 1.798E308 3337 0
Cost A4737 NON-NEG 0 6 1.798E308 1674 0
Cost A5320 NON-NEG 0 2 1.798E308 2096 0
Cost A5321 NON-NEG 0 6 1.798E308 3102 0
Cost A5737 NON-NEG 0 6 1.798E308 1553 0
Cost A6320 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 1945 0
Cost A6321 NON-NEG 0 6 1.798E308 2883 0
Cost A6737 NON-NEG 0 5 1.798E308 1440 0
Cost A7320 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 1804 0
Cost A7321 NON-NEG 0 7 1.798E308 2680 0
Cost A7737 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 1335 0
Cost A8320 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 1674 0
Cost A8321 NON-NEG 0 7 1.798E308 2492 0
Cost A8737 NON-NEG 0 4 1.798E308 1239 0
Cost A9320 NON-NEG 0 3 1.798E308 1554 0
Cost A9321 NON-NEG 0 7 1.798E308 2317 0
Cost A9737 NON-NEG 0 5 1.798E308 1149 0
Cost X0-10E •A10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4949 0
Cost X0-10E-A11737 NON-NEG 0 ^1.798E308 4824 0
Cost X0-10E-•A12737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4700 0
Cost X0-10E- A1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6147 9.095E-13
Cost X0-10E- A2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6011 0

Cost XO-10E- A3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5873 0
Cost X0-10E- A4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5738 0
X0-10E- A5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5603 0
Cost
X0-10E- A6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5470 0
Cost
X0-10E- A7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5336 9.095E-13
Cost
X0-10E- A8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5206 0
Cost
No Sales Constraint
Objective Variable lype Lower VulUt: Up^cl UUUI lU n ice fxcUuucu

row bound cost
Cost X0-10E-A9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5076 0

Cost X0-12G-A10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13406 0
Cost X0-12G-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13169 0
Cost X0-12G-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13007 0
Cost X0-12G-A1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14977 0
Cost . X0-12G-A2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14914 0
Cost X0-12G-A3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14822 0
Cost X0-12G-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14702 0
Cost X0-12G-A5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14557 0
Cost X0-12G-A6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14392 0
Cost X0-12G-A7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13914 0
Cost X0-12G-A8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13762 0
Cost X0-12G-A9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13592 0
Cost X0-14H-A10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5153 0
Cost X0-14H-A11320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5332 0
Cost X0-14H-A12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5476 0
Cost X0-14H-A3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5815 0
Cost X0-14H-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5308 0
Cost X0-14H-A5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4833 0
Cost X0-14H-A6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4921 0
Cost X0-14H-A7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5176 0
Cost X0-14H-A8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5390 0
Cost X0-14H-A9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5565 0
Cost X0-16I-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6867 0
Cost X0-16I-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6375 0
Cost X0-16I-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5911 0
Cost X0-16I-A1320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9877 0
Cost X0-16I-A2320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9164 0
Cost X0-16I-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8494 0
Cost X0-16I-A4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7867 0
Cost X0-16I-A5320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7279 0
Cost X0-16I-A6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6726 9.095E-13
Cost X0-16I-A7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6209 9.095E-13
Cost X0-16I-A8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5723 0
Cost X0-16I-A9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5629 0
Cost X0-19K-J10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2667 0
Cost X0-19K-J11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2536 0
Cost X0-19K-J12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308V 2684 0
Cost X0-19K-J3737 NON-NEG 0 A1.798E308 4689 9.095E-13
Cost X0-19K-J4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4225 0
Cost X0-19K-J5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3791 0
Cost X0-19K-J6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3388 0
Cost X0-19K-J7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3108 0
Cost X0-19K-J8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2953 0
Cost X0-19K-J9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2806 0
Cost X0-21L-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7912 0
Cost X0-21L-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8073 -9.09E-13
No Sales Constraint

row
bound cost
Cost X0-21L-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8195 0

Cost X0-21L-A2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7590 0
Cost X0-21L-A3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7904 0
Cost X0-21L-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8163 0
Cost X0-21L-A5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8373 0
Cost X0-21L-A6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7752 0
Cost X0-21L-A7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7972 9.095E-13
Cost X0-21L-A8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8144 0
Cost X0-21L-A9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8278 0
Cost X0-23M-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9825 0
Cost X0-23M-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10019 0
Cost X0-23M-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10168 0
Cost X0-23M-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11424 0
Cost X0-23M-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10621 0
Cost X0-23M-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9869 0
Cost X0-23M-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9163 0
Cost X0-23M-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8502 0
Cost X0-23M-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8479 0
Cost X0-23M-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8913 0
Cost X0-23M-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9277 0
Cost X0-23M-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9578 1.819E-12
Cost X0-25N-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12183 0
Cost X0-25N-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12318 0
Cost X0-25N-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12410 1.819E-12
Cost X0-25N-A9321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 11998 0
Cost X0-26O-N10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3045 0
Cost X0-26O-N11737 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 2754 0
Cost XO-260-N12737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 2480 0
Cost X0-26O-N1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11310 0
Cost XO-260-N2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10555 0
Cost X0-26O-N3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9846 3.638E-12
Cost X0-26O-N4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9181 0
Cost X0-26O-N5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8556 0
Cost X0-26O-N6321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 7969 -9.09E-13
Cost X0-26O-N7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7417 0
Cost X0-26O-N8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6900 0
Cost X0-26O-N9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3356 0
Cost X0-2B-A10321 NON-NEG 0 } 1.798E308 , 31053 -7.28E-12
X0-2B-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 30777 -3.64E-12
Cost
N
Cost X0-2B-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 30457 0
Cost X0-2B-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 30491 0
X0-2B-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 30926 -3.64E-12
Cost
X0-2B-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 31244 -3.64E-12
Cost
X0-2B-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 31457 -1.09E-11
Cost
Cost X0-2B-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 31575 0
X0-2B-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 31609 0
Cost
Cost X0-2B-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 31565 0
Lir2ar Programming Output
No Sales Constraint
Sum-nary of Nonzero Variables of the Objective Function
n
OUjeeUve Jol i d ^ v c ,yp<_ uv^«_, . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^w_ _ ~ . d ^ z~>
row
bound cost
Cost X0-2B-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31453 0

Cost X0-2B-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31280 0
Cost X0-30Q-P10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6094 0
Cost X0-30Q-P11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5679 0
Cost X0-30Q-P12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5289 0
Cost . X0-30Q-P1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6984 9.095E-13
Cost XO-30Q-P2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6475 0
Cost X0-30Q-P3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7494 9.095E-13
Cost X0-30Q-P4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6970 0
Cost X0-30Q-P5320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6478 0
Cost X0-30Q-P6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6015 -9.09E-13
Cost X0-30Q-P7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7503 0
Cost X0-30Q-P8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7003 0
Cost X0-30Q-P9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6534 0
Cost X0-33R-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7474 0
Cost X0-33R-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7667 -9.09E-13
Cost X0-33R-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7816 0
Cost X0-33R-A1320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9251 0
Cost X0-33R-A2320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8542 0
Cost X0-33R-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7877 0
Cost X0-33R-A4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7254 0
Cost X0-33R-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9378 0
Cost X0-33R-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8704 0
Cost X0-33R-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8072 9.095E-13
Cost X0-33R-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7479 0
Cost X0-33R-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7237 0
Cost X0-35S-A2320 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 13378 0
Cost X0-36T-S10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5714 0
Cost X0-36T-S11321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 5286 9.095E-13
Cost X0-36T-S12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4885 0
Cost X0-36T-S2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5866 0
Cost X0-36T-S3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6978 -9.09E-13
Cost X0-36T-S4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8934 0
Cost X0-36T-S5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8310 0
Cost X0-36T-S6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7723 0
Cost X0-36T-S7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7171 9.095E-13
Cost X0-36T-S8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6655 0

Cost X0-36T-S9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308' 6169 0
Cost X0-5D-C10321 NON-NEG 0 „ 1.798E308 4104 0
Cost X0-5D-C11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3899 0
Cost X0-5D-C12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3705 0
Cost X0-5D-C1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6964 0
Cost X0-5D-C2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6231 9.095E-13
Cost X0-5D-C3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5917 9.095E-13

X0-5D-C4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5611 9.095E-13
Cost
Cost X0-5D-C5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5323 0
X0-5D-C6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5050 -9.09E-13
Cost
No Sales Constraint

row
bound cost
Cost X0-5D-C7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4793 0

Cost X0-5D-C8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4550 0
Cost Xu . >C9321 W-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 '<320 0
Co«t X0-9F-E10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12539 0
Cert X0-9F-E11737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12326 0
Cost X0-9F-E12737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12107 0
Cost X0-9F-E1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13852 1.819E-12
Cost X0-9F-E2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13785 0
Cost X0-9F-E3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13693 0
Cost X0-9F-E4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13576 0
Cost X0-9F-E5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13442 0
Cost X0-9F-E6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13287 0
Cost X0-9F-E7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13118 0
Cost X0-9F-E8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12936 0
Cost X0-9F-E9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12742 0
Cost X1-0A-B10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X10-11A-G1737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4109 0
Cost X10-11A-G3737 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 3681 0
Cost X10-13A-H6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3589 0
Cost X10-13A-H9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3051 0
Cost X10-17A-J10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2608 0
Cost X10-17A-J11737 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 2809 0
Cost X10-17A-J8737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 2846 0
Cost X10-7A-E12737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4539 0
Cost X10-7A-E2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5850 0
Cost X10-7A-E4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5577 0
Cost X10-7A-E5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5442 0
Cost X10-7A-E7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308, 5175 0
X11-0A-G10320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X11-0A-G11321 NON-NEG 0 1 ^1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X11-0A-G12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X11-0A-G1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
Cost X11-0A-G2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
X11-0A-G3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X11-0A-G4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
Cost X11-0A-G5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

row
bound cost
Cost X11-0A-G6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X11-0A-G7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost * X11-0A-G9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X12-11A-G10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3518 0
Cost X12-11A-G5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3299 0
Cost X12-11A-G8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3133 0
Cost X12-13A-H4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4004 0
Cost X12-15A-I9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11337 0
Cost X12-17A-J3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3738 0
Cost X12-17A-J6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3172 0
Cost X12-22A-L2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5363 0
Cost X12-22A-L7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4513 0
Cost X12-24A-M12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 15618 1.819E-12
Cost X12-34A-R11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11059 0
Cost X12-7A-E1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5986 0
Cost X13-0A-H10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H11320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X14-13A-H10320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 3221 0
Cost X14-13A-H11320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3055 0
Cost X14-13A-H12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2897 0
Cost X14-17A-J9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2696 0
Cost X14-7A-E3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5712 0
Cost X14-7A-E8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5045 0
Cost X15-0A-I10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.7$8E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
X15-0A-I1320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
Cost X15-0A-I2320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
X15-0A-I3320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X15-0A-I4320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X15-0A-I5320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X15-0A-I6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X15-0A-I7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X15-0A-I8320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
No Sales Constraint
Objective Variable Type Lower Value UpDer bound Price Reduced

r w
o bound cost
Cost X15-OA-I9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X16-11A-G7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3306 0
Cost X16-15A-I2320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7977 0
Cost X16-15A-I5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9864 0
Cost X16-15A-I6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10330 0
Cost X16-15A-I8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11060 0
Cost X16-1A-B12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7340 0
Cost X16-22A-L10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4294 0
Cost X16-22A-L9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4486 0
Cost X16-32A-P11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5346 0
Cost X16-32A-P4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4034 0
Cost X16-34A-R1320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9079 0
Cost X16-38A-S3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6235 -9.09E-13
Cost X17-18J-K10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2506 0
Cost X17-18J-K11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2375 0
Cost X17-18J-K12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2523 0
Cost X17-18J-K3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3667 0
Cost X17-18J-K4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3471 0
Cost X17-18J-K5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3286 0
1
Cost X17-18J-K6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3112 0
Cost X17-18J-K7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2947 0
Cost X17-18J-K8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2792 0
Cost X17-18J-K9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2645 0
Cost X18-0J-K10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K12320 NON-NEG 0 < 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K5737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X19-20J-A10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4434 0
Cost X19-20J-A11737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4584 -1.82E-12
Cost X19-20J-A12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3975 0

Cost X19-20J-A3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3738 0
Cost X19-20J-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3538 0
Cost X19-20J-A5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3350 0
X19-20J-A6737 NON-NEG 0 1 T.798E308 3527 0
Cost
X19-20J-A7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3806 0
Cost
X19-20J-A8737 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 4048 0
Cost
X19-20J-A9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4256 0
Cost
X2-11A-G11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2991 0
Cost
X2-1A-B10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6093 0
Cost
X2-1A-B2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7216 0
Cost
X2-1A-B6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5791 0
Cost
L i n e a r Progranvning Output
No Sales Constraint

row
bound cost
Cost X2-1A-B9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5339 0

Cost X2-24A-M4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11097 0
Cost X2-28A-N1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6343 0
Cost X2-28A-N8321 KC-KE3 3 1 1.798E308 11785 0
Cost X2-32A-P12321 KIGK-NbG 0 1 1.798E308 5965 0
Cost X2-38A-S5321 NC'MxEG 0 1.798E308 42H3 0
Cost X2-3A-C3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9152 0
Cost X2-3A-C7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12535 0
Cost X20-13A-H7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3399 0
Cost X20-13A-H8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3220 0
Cost X20-17A-J12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2571 0
Cost X20-17A-J4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3538 0
Cost X20-22A-L3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5075 0
Cost X20-22A-L5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4547 0
Cost X20-7A-E10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4788 0
Cost X20-7A-E11737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4663 0
1
Cost X20-7A-E6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5309 0
Cost X20-7A-E9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4915 0
Cost X21-11A-G2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3889 0
Cost X21-11A-G9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3259 0
Cost X21-13A-H3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4229 0
Cost X21-13A-H5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3790 0
Cost X21-15A-I7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10727 0
Cost X21-22A-L11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4070 0
Cost X21-22A-L12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3859 0
Cost X21-22A-L4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4803 0
Cost X21-22A-L6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4764 0
Cost X21-22A-L8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4276 0
Cost X21-24A-M10321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 14998 0
Cost X22-0A-L10321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L12321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L9320 NON-NEG 0 1 l\798E308 0 0
Cost X23-15A-I10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9272 0
X23-1A-B1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7628 0
Cost
X23-1A-B5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6116 0
Cost
X23-24A-M2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8874 0
Cost
X23-28A-N3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8438 0
Cost
X23-28A-N9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12200 0
Cost
X23-34A-R6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8835 0
Cost
ill

No Sales Constraint
°r^' — R:J~
bound cost
Cost X23-34A-R7321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 9426 0

Cost X23-38A-S11321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 8417 0
Cost X23-3A-C12321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 14661 0
Cost X23-3A-C4321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 10175 0
Cost X23-3A-C8321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 13119 0
Cost X24-0A-M10321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M11321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M12321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M1321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M2321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M3321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M4321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M5321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M6321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M7321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M8321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M9321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X25-15A-I12321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 9924 0
Cost X25-24A-M11321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 15341 0
Cost X25-24A-M3321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 10056 0
Cost X25-24A-M8321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 14080 0
Cost X25-24A-M9321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 14579 1.819E-12
Cost X25-28A-N4321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 9305 0
Cost X25-28A-N7321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 11296 0
Cost X25-34A-P5321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 8155 0
Cost X25-38A-R10321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 7848 0
Cost X25-38A-R6321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 4665 0
Cost X25-3A-C1321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 6685 0
Cost X25-3A-C2321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 7993 0
Cost X26-25N-A1321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 5284 0
Cost X26-25N-A2321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 5004 0
Cost X26-25N-A3321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 5110 0
Cost X26-25N-A4321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 6095 0
Cost X26-25N-A5321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 6966 0
Cost X26-25N-A6321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 7736 0
Cost X26-25N-A7321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 8410 0
Cost X26-25N-A8321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 8998 0
Cost X26-27N-010737 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 2454 0
Cost X26-27N-011737 NON-NEG 1 U798E308 2326 0
Cost X26-27N-012737 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 2204 0
Cost X26-27N-09737 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 2590 0
Cost X27-0N-O10737 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O11737 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O12737 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O1321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O2321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O3321 NON-NEG 1 1.798E308 0 0
No Sales Constraint
nhi^rtive Variable Tyo<* lower Value UDDer bound Price Reduced

row
bound cost
Cost X27-0N-O4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X27-0N-O5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-0A-N10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-0A-N11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-0A-N12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-0A-N9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-27N-01321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4991 0
Cost X28-27N-02321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4727 0
Cost X28-27N-03321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4478 0
Cost X28-27N-04321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4243 0
Cost X28-27N-05321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4021 0
Cost X28-27N-06321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3811 0
Cost X28-27N-07321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3612 0
Cost X28-27N-08321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3425 0
Cost X29-15A-I4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9321 0
Cost X29-24A-M7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13491 0
Cost X29-32A-P1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4272 0
Cost X29-32A-P2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4627 0
Cost X29-32A-P3320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4259 0
Cost X29-32A-P6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5148 0
Cost X29-34A-R10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10747 0
Cost X29-34A-R8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9938 0
Cost X29-38A-S12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8910 0
Cost X29-3A-C11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14381 0
Cost X29-3A-C9321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 13616 0
Cost X3-4C-D10321 NON-NEG 0 ! 1.798E308 3943 0
Cost X3-4C-D11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3738 0
Cost X3-4C-D12321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 3544 0
Cost X3-4C-D3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5756 0
Cost X3-4C-D5321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 , 5162 0
Cost X3-4C-D6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4889 0
N
Cost X3-4C-D7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4632 0
Cost X3-4C-08321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4389 0
Cost X30-29P-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4644 0
Cost X30-29P-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5346 0
Cost X30-29P-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5965 0
Cost X30-29P-A1737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4272 0
No Sales Constraint
Objective Variable Tvne Lower Value llnnpr hm.nd Prire ReHoreH

row
bound cost
Cost X30-29P-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4259 0

Cost X30-29P-A4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4034 0
Cost X30-29P-A5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4263 -1.8PE-12
Cost X30-29P-A6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5148 0
Cost X30-29P-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3840 0
Cost X30-29P-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3640 0
Cost * X30-29P-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3852 0
Cost X31-0P-Q10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q11321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X32-31P-Q11321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 2660 -9.09E-13
Cost X32-31P-Q12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2524 0
Cost X32-31P-Q2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3444 0
Cost X32-31P-Q3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3643 -9.09E-13
Cost X32-31P-Q4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3451 0
Cost X32-31P-Q5320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3270 0
Cost X32-31P-Q6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3098 0
Cost X32-31P-07321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3289 0
Cost X32-31P-Q8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3118 0
Cost X32-31P-Q9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2957 0
Cost X33-11A-G12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2837 0
Cost X33-15A-13320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8694 0
Cost X33-1A-B11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6758 0
Cost X33-28A-N5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10064 0
Cost X33-28A-N6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10725 0
Cost X33-32A-P8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 > 3640 0
Cost X33-34A-R4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11074 0
Cost X33-34A-R9321 NON-NEG 0 K798E308 10377 0
Cost X33-38A-S2320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5174 0
Cost X33-38A-S7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5613 0
Cost X33-3A-C10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 14034 0
Cost X34-0A-R10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R1320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
No Sales Constraint

row
bound cost
Cost X34-0A-R2320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X34-0A-R3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost * X34-0A-R7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X35-15A-I11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9627 0
Cost X35-1A-B4321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 6461 0
Cost X35-24A-M6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12804 0
Cost X35-28A-N12321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 13061 0
Cost X35-32A-P10321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 4644 0
Cost X35-32A-P7321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 3840 0
Cost X35-34A-R2320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 9840 0
Cost X35-34A-R3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10502 0
Cost X35-38A-S8321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 6454 0
Cost X35-38A-S9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7196 0
Cost X35-3A-C5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11072 0
Cost X36-35S-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7848 1.819E-12
Cost X36-35S-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8417 0
Cost X36-35S-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8910 1.819E-12
Cost X36-35S-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6235 0
Cost X36-35S-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4435 0
Cost X36-35S-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4203 0
Cost X36-35S-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4665 0
Cost X36-35S-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5613 0
Cost X36-35S-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6454 0
Cost X36-35S-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7196 0
Cost X36-37S-T2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3773 0
Cost X37-0S-T10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X38-0A-S2320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X38-37S-T10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3063 0
Cost X38-37S-T11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2905 -1.82E-12
Cost X38-37S-T12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2756 0

Cost X38-37S-T3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3982 0
Cost X38-37S-T4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4219 0
No Sales Constraint
x
- ' ^~ 'r ,r>r
* w
->lim iinn^r honnH Prirp Reduced
bound cost
Cost X38-37S-T5321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 3999 0

Cost X38-37S-T6321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 3790 0
Cost X38-37S-T7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3592 0
Cost X38-37S-T8321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 3406 0
Cost X38-37S-T9321 NON-NEG 0 i 1.798E308 3229 0
Cost X4-0C-D10321 NON-NEG 0 ) 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-01321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-05321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-07321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X5-6C-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11012 0
Cost X5-6C-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11456 0
Cost X5-6C-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11829 0
Cost X5-6C-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5469 -9.09E-13
Cost X5-6C-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5179 0
Cost X5-6C-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5329 0
Cost X5-6C-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6481 0
Cost X5-6C-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7501 0
Cost X5-6C-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8403 0
Cost X5-6C-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9198 0
Cost X5-6C-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9891 0
Cost X5-6C-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10493 1.819E-12
Cost X6-1A-B3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6828 -9.09E-13
Cost X6-1A-B7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5483 0
Cost X6-1A-B8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5193 0
Cost X6-24A-M1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7539 0
Cost X6-24A-M5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12010 0
Cost X6-28A-N10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12547 -1.82E-12
Cost X6-28A-N11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12832 0

Cost X6-28A-N2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7455 0
Cost X6-32A-P9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 > 3852 0
Cost X6-34A-R12321 NON-NEG 0 1^.798E308 11313 0
Cost X6-38A-S4321 NON-NEG 0 1N.798E308 4435 0
Cost X6-3A-C6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11855 0
Cost X7-0A-E10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E12737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
X7-0A-E3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
No Sales Constraint
"^""t' " "" , , " l k 1 , Tw

^^ lonor \/a|n^ ilnn^r hound Price Reduced
row bound cost
Cost X7-0A-E4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X7-0A-E5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F12737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F8737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X9-8E-F5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2887 0
Cost X9-8E-F6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2733 0
Cost X9-8E-F7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2588 0
Cost X9-8E-F8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2452 0
Cost X9-8E-F9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2322 0
Cost Cost OBJECT 0 357545 I 1.798E308 0 0
117
APPENDIX C SAS PRINTOUT EXTRACTS OF THE LP

SOLUTION WITH SALES CONSTRAINT
118
1 LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROCEDURE "1
PROBLEM SUMMARY
Min Cost Objective Function

_RHS_ Rhs Variable
_TYPE__ Type Variable
Problem Density 0.001088
Variable Type Number
Non-negative 10308
Surplus 34
Total 10342
Constraint Type Number
EQ 2466
GE 34
Objective 1
Total 2501
SOLUTION SUMMARY
Terminated Successfully
Objective value 3575859.61

Integer iterations 0
Integer solutions 0
Initial basic feasible variables 35
Time used (sees) 5737
Number of inversions 154
Machine epsilon 1E-8

Machine infinity 1.7976931349E308
Maximum integer iterations 100
Time limit (sees) 10000
119
LINEAR PROGRAMMING OUTPUT
With Sales Constraint
Objective Variabl e Type Lower Value Upper bound 5

rice Reduced
row bound cost
Cost A10320 NON-NEG 0 2 .798E308 1442 0

Cost A10321 NON-NEG 0 9 .798E308 2155 0
Cost A10737 NON-NEG 0 4 .798E308 1066 0
Cost A11320 NON-NEG 0 1 .798E308 1338 0
Cost A11321 NON-NEG 0 10 .798E308 2004 0
Cost A11737 NON-NEG 0 4 .798E308 989 0
Cost A12320 NON-NEG 0 2 .798E308 1242 0
Cost A12321 NON-NEG 0 10 .798E308 1864 0
Cost A12737 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 918 0
Cost A1320 NON-NEG 0 1 .798E308 2833 0
Cost A1321 NON-NEG 0 4 .798E308 4158 0
Cost A1737 NON-NEG 0 5 .798E308 2101 0
Cost A2320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 2628 0
Cost A2321 NON-NEG 0 4 .798E308 3863 0
Cost A2737 NON-NEG 0 6 .798E308 1948 0
Cost A3320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 2437 9.095E-13
Cost A3321 NON-NEG 0 5 .798E308 3590 0
Cost A3737 NON-NEG 0 6. .798E308 1806 0
Cost A4320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 2260 0
Cost A4321 NON-NEG 0 5 .798E308 3337 0
Cost A4737 NON-NEG 0 6 .798E308 1674 0
Cost A5320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 2096 0
Cost A5321 NON-NEG 0 5 .798E308 3102 0
Cost A5737 NON-NEG 0 6 .798E308 1553 0
Cost A6320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 1945 0
Cost A6321 NON-NEG 0 6 .798E308 2883 0
Cost A6737 NON-NEG 0 5 .798E308 1440 0
Cost A7320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 1804 0
Cost A7321 NON-NEG 0 7 .798E308 2680 0
Cost A7737 NON-NEG 0 4 .798E308 1335 0
Cost A8320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 1674 0
Cost A8321 NON-NEG 0 7 .798E308 2492 0
Cost A8737 NON-NEG 0 4 .798E308 1239 0
Cost A9320 NON-NEG 0 3 .798E308 1554 0
Cost A9321 NON-NEG 0 7 .798E308 2317 0
Cost A9737 NON-NEG 0 .798E308 1149 0
Cost X0-10E-A10737 NON-NEG 0 .798E308 4949 0
X0-10E-•A11737 NON-NEG 0 .798E308 4824 0
Cost
X0-10E-A12737 NON-NEG 0 .798E308 4700 0
Cost
NON-NEG 0 .798E308 6147 0
Cost X0-10E-A1737
NON-NEG 0 .798E308 6011 0
Cost X0-10E-•A2737
NON-NEG 0 .798E308 5873 0
Cost X0-10E- A3737
NON-NEG 0 .798E308 5738 0
Cost X0-10E-A4737
0 .798E308 5603 0
Cost X0-10E- A5737 NON-NEG
.798E308 5470 0
Cost X0-10E- A6737 NON-NEG 0
.798E308 5336 0
.798E308 5206 0
.798E308 5076 0

row
oouna LU5L
Cost X0-12G-A10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13406 0

Cost X0-12G-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13169 0
Cost X0-12G-A12321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 13007 1.819E-12
Cost X0-12G-A1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14977 0
Cost X0-12G-A2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14914 0
Cost X0-12G-A3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14822 -1.82E-12
Cost X0-12G-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14702 0
Cost X0-12G-A5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14557 0
Cost X0-12G-A6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14392 0
Cost X0-12G-A7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13914 0
Cost X0-12G-A8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13762 0
Cost X0-12G-A9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13592 0
Cost X0-14H-A10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5153 0
Cost XO-14H-A11320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5332 0
Cost X0-14H-A12320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 5476 0
Cost X0-14H-A3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5815 0
Cost X0-14H-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5308 0
Cost X0-14H-A5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4833 0
Cost X0-14H-A6737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4921 0
Cost X0-14H-A7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5176 0
Cost X0-14H-A8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5390 0
Cost X0-14H-A9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5565 0
Cost X0-16I-A10321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 6867 0
Cost X0-16I-A11321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 6375 -9.09E-13
Cost X0-16I-A2320 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 9164 0
Cost X0-16I-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8494 0
Cost X0-16I-A4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7867 0
Cost X0-16I-A6320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 6726 -1.82E-12
Cost X0-16I-A7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6209 0
Cost X0-16I-A8320 NON-NEG 0 ] 1.798E308 5723 0
Cost X0-16I-A9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5629 0
Cost X0-19K-J10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2667 0
Cost X0-19K-J11737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2536 0
Cost X0-19K-J12320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 2684 0
Cost X0-19K-J3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4689 -9.09E-13
Cost X0-19K-J4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4225 0
Cost X0-19K-J5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3791 0
Cost X0-19K-J6737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 3388 0
Cost X0-19K-J7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3108 0
X0-19K-J8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2953 -4.55E-13
Cost
Cost X0-19K-J9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2806 0
Cost X0-21L-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7912 0
X0-21L-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8073 -9.09E-13
Cost
Cost X0-21L-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8195 0
Cost X0-21L-A2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7590 0
121

ODjecuve vanaoie Type Lower value upper Douna price keducea

row
bound cost
Cost X0-21L-A3737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 7904 -9.09E-13

Cost X0-21L-A4737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 8163 0
Cost X0-21L-A8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8144 0
Cost X0-21L-A9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8278 0
Cost X0-23M-A10321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 9825 0
Cost X0-23M-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10019 0
Cost X0-23M-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10168 0
Cost X0-23M-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11424 0
Cost X0-23M-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10621 0
Cost X0-23M-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9869 0
Cost X0-23M-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9163 0
Cost X0-23M-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8502 0
Cost X0-23M-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8479 0
Cost X0-23M-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8913 0
Cost X0-23M-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9277 0
Cost X0-23M-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9578 0
Cost X0-25N-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12183 1.819E-12
Cost X0-25N-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12318 0
Cost X0-25N-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12410 0
Cost X0-25N-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11998 0
Cost X0-26O-N10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3045 0
Cost X0-26O-N11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2754 0
Cost X0-26O-N12737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2480 0
Cost X0-26O-N1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11310 0
Cost X0-26O-N2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10555 0
Cost X0-26O-N3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9846 -1.82E-12
Cost X0-26O-N4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9181 0
Cost X0-260-N5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8556 0
Cost X0-26O-N6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7969 -1.82E-12
Cost X0-26O-N7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7417 9.095E-13
Cost X0-26O-N8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6900 0
Cost X0-26O-N9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3356 0
Cost X0-2B-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31053 0
Cost X0-2B-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 30777 0
Cost X0-2B-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 30457 0
Cost X0-2B-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 30491 0
Cost X0-2B-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 30926 -7.28E-12
Cost X0-2B-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31244 0
Cost X0-2B-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31457 0
Cost X0-2B-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31575 0
Cost X0-2B-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31609 0
Cost X0-2B-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31565 0
Cost X0-2B-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31453 0
Cost X0-2B-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 31280 0
Cost X0-30Q-P10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6094 0
bound cost
Cost X0-30Q-P11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5679 0

Cost X0-30Q-P12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5289 0
Cost X0-30Q-P1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6984 0
Cost X0-30Q-P2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6475 0
Cost X0-30Q-P3320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7494 0
Cost X0-30Q-P4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6970 0
Cost X0-30Q-P5320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6478 0
Cost X0-30Q-P6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6015 0
Cost X0-30Q-P7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7503 0
Cost X0-30Q-P8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7003 0
Cost X0-30Q-P9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6534 0
Cost X0-33R-A10321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 7474 0
Cost X0-33R-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7667 0
Cost X0-33R-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7816 0
Cost X0-33R-A1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7266 0
Cost X0-33R-A2320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8542 0
Cost X0-33R-A4320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7254 0
Cost X0-33R-A5320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7015 0
Cost X0-33R-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8704 -1.82E-12
Cost X0-33R-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7479 0
Cost X0-33R-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7237 0
Cost X0-35S-A2320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 13378 0
Cost X0-36T-S10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5714 -1.82E-12
Cost X0-36T-S11321 NON-NEG 0 ! 1.798E308 5286 0
Cost X0-36T-S12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4885 0
Cost X0-36T-S2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5866 0
Cost X0-36T-S3320 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 6978 0
Cost X0-5D-C10321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 4104 1.819E-12
Cost X0-5D-C11321 NON-NEG 0 t 1.798E308 3899 0
Cost X0-5D-C12321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 3705 0
Cost X0-5D-C1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6964 0
Cost X0-5D-C2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6231 0
Cost X0-5D-C3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5917 0
Cost X0-5D-C4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5611 0
Cost X0-5D-C5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5323 0
Cost X0-5D-C6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5050 0
X0-5D-C7321 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 4793 9.095E-13
Cost
Cost X0-5D-C8321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4550 0
Cost X0-5D-C9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4320 0
Cost X0-9F-E10737 NON-NEG 0 t 1.798E308 12539 0
i ypc LUW«.I vdiue uppei uouna Hnce Keduced

bound cost
Cost X0-9F-E11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12326 0

Cost X0-9F-E12737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12107 0
Cost X0-9F-E1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13852 0
Cost X0-9F-E2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13785 0
Cost X0-9F-E3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13693 0
Cost X0-9F-E4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13576 0
Cost X0-9F-E5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 13442 0
Cost X0-9F-E6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13287 0
Cost X0-9F-E7737 NON-NEG 0 ' 1.798E308 13118 0
Cost X0-9F-E8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12936 1.819E-12
Cost X0-9F-E9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12742 0
Cost X1-0A-B10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X1-0A-B9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X10-11A-G3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3681 0
Cost X10-11A-G5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3299 0
Cost X10-13A-H7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3399 0
Cost X10-13A-H9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3051 0
Cost X10-17A-J6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3172 0
Cost X10-17A-J8737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 2846 -4.55E-13
Cost X10-22A-L4737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4803 0
Cost X10-7A-E10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4788 0
Cost X10-7A-E12737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4539 0
Cost X11-0A-G11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X11-0A-G9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X12-11A-G10320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3518 0
row
bound cost
Cost X12-11A-G2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3889 0

Cost X12-11A-G4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3485 0
Cost X12-13A-H6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3589 0
Cost X12-15A-I12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9924 0
Cost X12-15A-I7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10727 0
Cost X12-1A-B11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6758 0
Cost X12-22A-L3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5075 0
Cost X12-22A-L8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4276 0
Cost X12-22A-L9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4486 0
Cost X12-34A-R1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12028 0
Cost X12-7A-E5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5442 0
Cost X13-0A-H10320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H11320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H8737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X13-0A-H9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X14-13A-H10320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3221 0
Cost X14-13A-H11320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3055 0
Cost X14-13A-H4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4004 0
Cost X14-17A-J12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2571 0
Cost X14-22A-L5737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4547 0
Cost X14-7A-E6737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5309 0
Cost X14-7A-E8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5045 0
Cost X15-0A-I11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I1320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I2320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-13320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X15-0A-I9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X16-11A-G7320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3306 0
Cost X16-11A-G8320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3133 0
X16-15A-I11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9627 0
Cost
Cost X16-15A-I1320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7158 0
X16-15A-I3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8694 0
Cost

row
bound cost
Cost X16-15A-I4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9321 0

Cost X16-15A-I9320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11337 0
Cost X16-24A-M10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14998 0
Cost X16-32A-P5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4263 0
Cost X16-34A-R2320 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 9840 0
Cost X16-38A-S12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8910 0
Cost X17-18J-K10737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2506 0
Cost X17-18J-K11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2375 0
Cost X17-18J-K12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2523 0
Cost X17-18J-K3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3667 0
Cost X17-18J-K4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3471 0
Cost X17-18J-K9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2645 0
Cost X18-0J-K12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X18-0J-K7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X19-20J-A10737 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 4434 0
Cost X19-20J-A12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3975 0
Cost X19-20J-A4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3538 0
Cost X19-20J-A7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3806 0
Cost X2-1A-B4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6461 0
Cost X2-28A-N11321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 12832 0
Cost X2-28A-N6321 NON:NEG 0 I 1.798E308 10725 0
Cost X2-28A-N7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11296 0
Cost X2-28A-N8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11785 0
nhfî-w^ VjqripM <-> Tvn<» | nwpr Value Unnpr bound Price Reduced
row bound cost
Cost X2-38A-S5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4203 0

Cost X20-11A-G6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3479 0
Cost X20-13A-H12320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2897 0
Cost X20-13A-H8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3220 0
Cost X20-17A-J10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2608 0
Cost X20-17A-J3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3738 0
Cost X20-17A-J5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3350 0
Cost X20-7A-E11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4663 0
Cost X20-7A-E4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5577 0
Cost X20-7A-E7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5175 0
Cost X20-7A-E9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4915 0
Cost X21-11A-G9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3259 0
Cost X21-13A-H3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4229 9.095E-13
Cost X21-13A-H5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3790 0
Cost X21-15A-I8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11060 0
Cost X21-17A-J4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3538 0
Cost X21-22A-L10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4294 0
Cost X21-22A-L7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4513 0
Cost X21-24A-M11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 15341 0
Cost X21-32A-P12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5965 0
Cost X21-32A-P2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4627 0
Cost X21-32A-P6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5148 0
Cost X22-0A-L10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L6320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L7320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L8320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X22-0A-L9320 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X23-11A-G11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2991 0
Cost X23-1A-B5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6116 0
Cost X23-1A-B6321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5791 0
Cost X23-1A-B8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5193 0
Cost X23-24A-M12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 15618 0
X23-24A-M2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8874 0
Cost
X23-28A-N3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 8438 1.819E-12
Cost
X23-28A-N4321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9305 0
Cost
X23-28A-N9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 12200 0
Cost
X23-32A-P10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4644 0
Cost
X23-38A-S7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5613 0
Cost
X23-3A-C1321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6685 0
Cost
X24-0A-M10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X24-0A-M11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
X24-0A-M12321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost

row bound cost
Cost X24-0A-M1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X24-0A-M2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X24-0A-M9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X25-24A-M1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7539 0
Cost X25-24A-M4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11097 0
Cost X25-32A-N9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3852 0
Cost X25-34A-P10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10747 0
Cost X25-34A-P12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11313 1.819E-12
Cost X25-34A-P6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8835 0
X25-38A-R11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8417 -1.82E-12
Cost
Cost X25-38A-R8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6454 0
Cost X25-3A-C2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7993 0
X25-3A-C3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9152 1.819E-12
Cost
Cost X25-3A-C5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11072 0
Cost X25-3A-C7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12535 0
Cost X26-25N-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5284 0
X26-25N-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5004 0
Cost
X26-25N-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5110 0
Cost
X26-25N-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6095 0
Cost
X26-25N-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6966 0
Cost
X26-25N-A6321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 7736 0
Cost
NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 8410 0
Cost X26-25N-A7321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8998 0
Cost X26-25N-A8321
X26-27N-010737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E31D8 2454 0
Cost
X26-27N-011737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2326 0
Cost
X26-27N-012737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2204 0
Cost
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2590 0
Cost X26-27N-09737
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-ON-010737
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-ON-011737
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O12737
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O1321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-ON-02321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O3321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O4321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O5321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-ON-06321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O7321
X27-ON-08321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X27-0N-O9737
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-0A-N10321
NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X28-0A-N11321
X28-0A-N12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost

row bound cost
Cost X28-0A-N9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X28-27N-01321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4991 0
Cost X28-27N-02321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4727 0
Cost X28-27N-03321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4478 0
Cost X28-27N-04321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4243 0
Cost X28-27N-05321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4021 0
Cost X28-27N-06321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3811 0
Cost X28-27N-07321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3612 0
Cost X28-27N-08321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3425 0
Cost X29-15A-15320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9864 0
Cost X29-1A-B10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6093 0
Cost X29-1A-B7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5483 0
Cost X29-22A-L12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3859 0
Cost X29-22A-L2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5363 0
Cost X29-22A-L6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4764 0
Cost X29-24A-M9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 14579 3.638E-12
Cost X29-32A-P1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4272 0
Cost X29-34A-R4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11074 0
Cost X29-38A-S3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6235 0
Cost X29-3A-C11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14381 0
Cost X29-3A-C8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13119 0
Cost X3-4C-D10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3943 0
Cost X3-4C-D11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3738 0
Cost X3-4C-D3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5756 0
Cost X3-4C-D8321 NON-NEG 0 \ 1.798E308 4389 0
Cost X3-4C-D9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4159 0
Cost X30-29P-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5965 0
Cost X30-29P-A1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4272 -1.82E-12
Cost X30-29P-A2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4627 0

Cost X30-29P-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4259 0
Cost X30-29P-A4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4034 0
Cost X30-29P-A5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4263 0
Cost X30-29P-A6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5148 0
Cost X30-29P-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3840 0
Cost X30-29P-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3640 0
Cost X30-29P-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3852 0
Cost X31-0P-Q10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
X31-0P-Q12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
Obiective Variable Tvne lower Value Unner bound Prire Pedured

row bound cost
Cost X31-0P-Q1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X31-0P-Q2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X31-0P-Q9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X32-31P-Q10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2805 0
Cost X32-31P-Q11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2660 0
Cost X32-31P-Q12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2524 0
Cost X32-31P-Q1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3639 0
Cost X32-31P-Q2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3444 0
Cost X32-31P-Q3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3643 0
Cost X32-31P-Q4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3451 0
Cost X32-31P-Q5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3270 0
Cost X32-31P-Q6320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3098 0
Cost X32-31P-Q7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3289 0
Cost X32-31P-Q8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3118 0
Cost X32-31P-Q9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2957 0
Cost X33-11A-G1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 4109 0
Cost X33-15A-I10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9272 0
Cost X33-1A-B3321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 6828 1.819E-12
Cost X33-24A-M8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 14080 0
Cost X33-32A-P11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 5346 0
Cost X33-32A-P7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3840 0
Cost X33-38A-S9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7196 0
Cost X33-3A-C6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11855 0
Cost X34-0A-R11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R4320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R5320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R7321 N0N.-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X34-0A-R9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
X35-15A-12320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7977 0
Cost
X35-22A-L11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4070 0
Cost
X35-24A-M6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12804 0
Cost
Objective Variable Tvne lower Value Unner hound Price Reduced

row
bound cost
Cost X35-28A-N5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10064 0

Cost X35-32A-P3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4259 0
Cost X35-34A-R7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9426 0
Cost X35-34A-R8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9938 0
Cost X35-38A-S4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4435 0
Cost X35-3A-C10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 14034 0
Cost X35-3A-C12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 14661 1.819E-12
Cost X35-3A-C9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13616 -1.82E-12
Cost X36-35S-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7848 0
Cost X36-35S-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8417 0
Cost X36-35S-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8910 0
Cost X36-35S-A3320 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6235 0
Cost X36-35S-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4435 0
Cost X36-35S-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4203 0
Cost X36-35S-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 4665 0
Cost X36-35S-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5613 0
Cost X36-35S-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6454 0
Cost X36-35S-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7196 0
Cost X36-37S-T2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3773 0
Cost X37-0S-T10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T332O NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T7321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X37-0S-T8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X38-37S-T10321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3063 0
Cost X38-37S-T6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3790 0
Cost X38-37S-T7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3592 0
Cost X38-37S-T8321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3406 0
Cost X38-37S-T9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 3229 0
Cost X4-0C-D10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
131


row
bound cost
Cost X4-0C-D5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X4-0C-D6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X4-0C-D9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X5-6C-A10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11012 0
Cost X5-6C-A11321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11456 0
Cost X5-6C-A12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 11829 0
Cost X5-6C-A1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5469 0
Cost X5-6C-A2321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5179 0
Cost X5-6C-A3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 5329 -9.09E-13
Cost X5-6C-A4321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 6481 0
Cost X5-6C-A5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7501 0
Cost X5-6C-A6321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 8403 0
Cost X5-6C-A7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 9198 0
Cost X5-6C-A8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 9891 0
Cost X5-6C-A9321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10493 0
Cost X6-11A-G12321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 2837 0
Cost X6-1A-B1321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 7628 0
Cost X6-24A-M3321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 10056 1.819E-12
Cost X6-24A-M5321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12010 0
Cost X6-24A-M7321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 13491 0
Cost X6-28A-N10321 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 12547 0
Cost X6-28A-N2321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 7455 0
Cost X6-32A-P8321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3640 0
Cost X6-34A-R11321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 11059 0
Cost X6-34A-R9321 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 10377 0
Cost X6-3A-C4321 NON-NEG 0 I 1.798E308 10175 0
Cost X7-0A-E2737 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E4737 NON-NEG 0 l 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E7737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E8737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X7-0A-E9737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F10737 NON-NEG 0 ] 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F11737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F12737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F1737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F2737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F3737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F4737 NON-NEG 0 1 1.798E308 0 0

row Douna eu&i
Cost X8-0E-F5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0

Cost X8-0E-F6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X8-0E-F9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost X9-8E-F10737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2240 0
Cost X9-8E-F11737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2375 0
Cost X9-8E-F12737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2491 0
Cost X9-8E-F1737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3597 0
Cost X9-8E-F2737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3404 0
Cost X9-8E-F3737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3222 0
Cost X9-8E-F4737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 3049 0
Cost X9-8E-F5737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2887 0
Cost X9-8E-F6737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2733 0
Cost X9-8E-F7737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2588 0
Cost X9-8E-F8737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2452 0
Cost X9-8E-F9737 NON-NEG 0 1.798E308 2322 0
Cost se112737 SURPLUS 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost sel12320 SURPLUS 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost sell6737 SURPLUS 0 1.798E308 0 0
Cost sel18737 SURPLUS 0 6 1.798E308 0 0
Cost sell8321 SURPLUS 0 4 1.798E308 0 0
Cost OBJECT 0 3575860 1.798E308 0 0
Cost
B737 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS
Leg me DOC B737 Opp.Cost B737 Pos.Cost B737 Total B737
1 3o,3^ W f 611 3>U *i>,yao

2 $3,194 $2,656 $0 $5,850
3 $3,022 $2,690 $0 $5,712
4 $2,861 $2,716 $0 $5,577
5 $2,708 $2,734 $0 $5,442
6 $2,564 $2,745 $0 $5,309
7 $2,427 $2,748 $0 $5,175
8 $2,299 $2,746 $0 $5,045
9
10 $2,062 $2,726 $0 $4,788
11 $1,954 $2,709 $0 $4,663
12 $1,851 $2,688 $0 $4,539
$30,494 $32,507 $0 $63,001
1 $3,597 $0 $0 $3,597
2 $3,404 $0 $0 $3,404
3 $3,222 $0 $0 $3,222
4 $3,049 $0 $0 $3,049
5 $2,887 $0 $0 $2,887
6 $2,733 $0 $0 $2,733
7 $2,588 $0 $0 $2,588
8 $2,452 $0 $0 $2,452
9 $2,322 $0 $0 $2,322
10 $2,200 $40 $0 $2,240
11 $2,084 $291 $0 $2,375
12 $1,975 $516 $0 $2,491
$32,513 $847 $0 $33,360
1 $3,597 $2,838 $7,417 $13,852

2 $3,404 $3,363 $7,018 $13,785
3 $3,222 $3,829 $6,642 $13,693
4 $3,049 $4,240 $6,287 $13,576
5 $2,887 $4,602 $5,953 $13,442
6 $2,733 $4,918 $5,636 $13,287
7 $2,588 $5,192 $5,338 $13,118
8 $2,452 $5,428 $5,056 $12,936
9 $2,322 $5,630 $4,790 $12,742
10 $2,200 $5,800 $4,539 $12,539
11 $2,084 $5,941 $4,301 $12,326
12 $1,975 $6,056 $4,076 $12,107
$32,513 $57,837 $67,053 $157,403
10 1 $3,375 " $2,611 $161 $6,147

2 $3,194 $2,656 $161 $6,011
3 $3,022 $2,690 $161 $5,873
4 $2,861 $2,716 $161 $5,738
5 $2,708 $2,734 $161 $5,603
6 $2,564 $2,745 $161 $5,470
Leq me DOC B737 ODD.Cost B737 Pos.Cost B737 Total R737
10 7 $2,427 $2,748 $161 $5,336

8 $2,299 $2,746 $161 $5,206
9 $2,177 $2,738 $161 $5,076
10 $2,062 $2,726 $161 $4,949
11 $1,954 $2,709 $161 $4,824
12 $1,851 $2,688 $161 $4,700
10
$30,494 $32,507 $1,932 $64,933
11 1 $4,109 $0 $0 $4,109
2 $3,889 $0 $0 $3,889
3 $3,681 $0 $0 $3,681
4 $3,485 $0 $0 $3,485
5 $3,299 $0 $0 $3,299
6 $3,124 $355 $0 $3,479
11 $21,587 $355 $0 $21,942
12 1 $4,109 $9,035 $1,833 $14,977

2 $3,889 $9,455 $1,570 $14,914
3 $3,681 $9,814 $1,327 $14,822
4 $3,485 $10,117 $1,100 $14,702
5 $3,299 $10,368 $890 $14,557
6 $3,124 $10,574 $694 $14,392
12 $21,587 $59,363 $7,414 $88,364
13 3 $4,229 $0 $0 $4,229
4 $4,004 $0 $0 $4,004
5 $3,790 $0 $0 $3,790
6 $3,589 $0 $0 $3,589
7 $3,399 $0 $0 $3,399
8 $3,220 $0 $0 $3,220
9 $3,051 $0 $0 $3,051
13 $25,282 $0 $0 $25,282
14 3 $4,229 $0 $1,586 $5,815

4 $4,004 $0 $1,304 $5,308
5 $3,790 $0 $1,043 $4,833
6 $3,589 $532 $800 $4,921
7 $3,399 $1,202 $575 $5,176
8 $3,220 $1,803 $367 $5,390
9 $3,051 $2,340 $174 $5,565
H $25,282 * $5,877 $5,849 $37,008
17 3 $3,738 $0
$0 $0 $3,738
4 $3,538 $0 $0 $3,538
5 $3,350 $0 $0 $3,350
6 $3,172 $0 $0 $3,172
136
B737 QC NETUORK COST COMPONENTS
me DOC B737 Opp. Cost B737 Pos..Cost B737 Total B737
7 $3,005 $0 $0 $3,005
8 $2,846 $0 $0 $2,846
9 $2,696 $0 $0 $2,696
10 $2,555 $53 $0 $2,608
11 $2,421 $388 $0 $2,809
$27,321 $441 $0 $27,762
3 $3,667 $0 $0 $3,667
4 $3,471 $0 $0 $3,471
5 $3,286 $0 $0 $3,286
6 $3,112 $0 $0 $3,112
7 $2,947 $0 $0 $2,947
8 $2,792 $0 $0 $2,792
9 $2,645 $0 $0 $2,645
10 $2,506 $0 $0 $2,506
11 $2,375 $0 $0 $2,375
$26,801 $0 $0 $26,801
3 $3,667 $0 $1,022 $4,689

4 $3,471 $0 $754 $4,225
5 $3,286 $0 $505 $3,791
6 $3,112 $0 $276 $3,388
7 $2,947 $0 $161 $3,108
8 $2,792 $0 $161 $2,953
9 $2,645 $0 $161 $2,806
10 $2,506 $0 $161 $2,667
11 $2,375 $0 $161 $2,536
$26,801 $0 $3,362 $30,163
3 $3,738 $0 $0 $3,738
4 $3,538 $0 $0 $3,538
5 $3,350 $0 $0 $3,350
6 $3,172 $355 $0 $3,527
7 $3,005 $801 $0 $3,806
8 $2,846 $1,202 $0 $4,048
9 $2,696 $1,560 $0 $4,256
10 $2,555 $1,879 $0 $4,434
11 $2,421 $2,163 $0 $4,584
$27,321 $7,960 $0 $35,281
2 $5,363 $458 $1,769 $7,590

3 $5,075 _ $1,377 $1,452 $7,904
4 $4,803 $2,201 $1,159 $8,163
5 $4,547 $2,939 $887 $8,373
$19,788 $6,975 $5,267 $32,030

me DOC B737 Opp.Cost B737 Pos.Cost B737 Total B737
2 $5,363 $0 $0 $5,363
3 $5,075 $0 $0 $5,075
4 $4,803 $0 $0 $4,803
5 $4,547 $0 $0 $4,547
$19,788 $0 $0 $19,788
=========== =============== =============== ===========
9 $2,590 $0 $766 $3,356
10 $2,454 $0 $591 $3,045
11 $2,326 $0 $428 $2,754
12 $2,204 $0 $276 $2,480
$9,574 $0 $2,061 $11,635
9 $2,590 $0 $0 $2,590
10 $2,454 $0 $0 $2,454
11 $2,326 $0 $0 $2,326
12 $2,204 $0 $0 $2,204
$9,574 $0 $0 $9,574
$4,272 $0 $0 $4,272
$4,042 $585 $0 $4,627
$8,314 $585 $0 $8,899
$3,639 $0 $3,345 $6,984

$3,444 $0 $3,031 $6,475
$7,083 $0 $6,376 $13,459
1 $3,639 $0 $0 $3,639
2 $3,444 $0 $0 $3,444
$7,083 $0 $0 $7,083
1 $4,272 $0 $0 $4,272
2 $4,042 $585 $0 $4,627
$8,314 $585 $0 $8,899

=========== =============== =======:======== ===========
1 $5,534 $0 $V,732 $7,266
$5,534 $0 $V,732 $7,266
1 $5,534 _ $6,494 $0 $12,028
$5,534 $6,494 $0 $12,028
2 $3,773 $0 $2,093 $5,866

138

Leg Time DOC B737 Opp.Cost B737 Pos.Cost B737 Total B737
36 $3,773 $0 $2,093 $5,866
37 2 $3,773 $0 $0 $3,773
37 $3,773 $0 $0 $3,773
COST COMPONENT ANALYSIS
Absolut Values and Relative Differences to the Solution Aircraft Type
-Values in Brackets are Negative-
Leg TIME DOC 320 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737
1 $3,773 12% $2,199 ( 16%) $0 $5,972 0%)

2 $3,573 12% $2,274 ( 14%) $0 $5,847 0%)
3 $3,385 12% $2,337 ( 13%) $0 $5,722 0%
4 $3,206 12% $2,390 ( 12%) $0 55,596 0%
5 $3,038 12% $2,432 ( 11%) $0 $5,470 1%
6 $2,878 12% $2,464 ( 10%) $0 $5,342 1%
7 $2,728 12% $2,489 ( 9%) $0 $5,217 1%
8 $2,586 12% $2,506 ( 9%) $0 $5,092 1%
9 $2,451 13% $2,516 ( 8%) $0 $4,967 1%
10 $2,324 13% $2,520 ( 8%) $0 $4,844 1%
11 $2,203 13% $2,518 ( 7%) $0 $4,721 1%
12 $2,090 13% $2,511 ( 7%) $0 $4,601 1%
$34,235 $29,156 $0 $63,391
1 $4,015 12% $0 $0 $4,015 12%

2 $3,802 12% $0 $0 $3,802 12%
3 $3,602 12% $0 $0 $3,602 12%
4 $3,412 12% $0 $0 $3,412 12%
5 $3,233 12% $0 $0 $3,233 12%
6 $3,063 12% $0 $0 $3,063 12%
7 $2,903 12% $0 $0 $2,903 12%
8 $2,752 12% $0 $0 $2,752 12%
9 $2,609 12% $0 $0 $2,609 12%
10 $2,474 12% $0 (100%) $0 $2,474 10%
11 $2,346 13% $0 (100%) $0 $2,346 ( 1%)
12 $2,225 13% $0 (ioo:0 $0 $2,225 ( 11%)
$36,436 $0 $0 $36,436
1 $4,015 12% $720 ( 75%) $8,624 16% $13,359 ( 4%)

2 $3,802 12% $1,402 ( 58%) $8,163 16% $13,367 ( 3%)
3 $3,602 12% $2,013 ( 47%) $7,729 16% $13,344 ( 3%)
4 $3,412 12% $2,559 ( 40%) $7,318 16% $13,289 ( 2%)
5 $3,233 12% $3,045 ( 34%) $6,931 16% $13,209 ( 2%)
6 $3,063 12% $3,476 ( 29%) $6,565 16% $13,104 ( 1%)
7 $2,903 12% $3,858 ( 26%) $6,219 17% $12,980 ( 1%)
8 $2,752 12% $4,193 ( 23%) $5,892 17% $12,837 ( 1%)
9 $2,609 12% $4,486 ( 20%) $5,584 17% $12,679 ( 0%)
10 $2,474 12% $4,741 ( 18%) $5,292 17% $12,507 ( 0%)
11 $2,346 13% $4,960 ( 17%) $5,017 17% $12,323 ( 0%)
13% $5,147 ( 15%) $4,757 17% $12,129 0%
12 $2,225
$36,436 $40,600 $78,091 $155127

B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737
10 1 $3,773 12% $2,199 ( 16%) $161 0% $6,133 ( 0%)

2 $3,573 12% $2,274 ( 14%) $161 0% $6,008
4 $3,206 12% $2,390 ( 12%) $161 0% $5,757 0%

5 $3,038 12% $2,432 ( 11%) $161 0% $5,631 0%
6 $2,878 12% $2,464 ( 10%) $161 0% $5,503 1%
7 $2,728 12% $2,489 ( 9%) $161 0% $5,378 1%
8 $2,586 12% $2,506 ( 9%) $161 0% $5,253 1%
9 $2,451 13% $2,516 ( 8%) $161 0% $5,128 1%
10 $2,324 13% $2,520 ( 8%) $161 0% $5,005 1%
11 $2,203 13% $2,518 ( 7%) $161 0% $4,882 1%
12 $2,090 13% $2,511 ( 7%) $161 0% $4,762 1%
10 $34,235 $29,156 $1,932 $65,323

=== ======== ========= ========= =========
11 1 $4,573 11% $0 $0 $4,573 11%
2 $4,330 11% $0 $0 $4,330 11%
3 $4,101 11% $0 $0 $4,101 11%
4 $3,885 11% $0 $0 $3,885 11%
5 $3,681 12% $0 $0 $3,681 12%
6 $3,488 12% $0 (100%) $0 $3,488 0%
11 $24,058 $0 $0 $24,058
12 1 $4,573 11% $6,682 ( 26%) $3,002 64% $14,257 ( 5%)

2 $4,330 11% $7,277 ( 23%) $2,677 71% $14,284 ( 4%)
3 $4,101 11% $7,797 ( 21%) $2,374 79% $14,272 ( 4%)
4 $3,885 11% $8,249 ( 18%) $2,091 90% $14,225 ( 3%)
5 $3,681 12% $8,639 ( 17%) $1,828 105% $14,148 ( 3%)
6 $3,488 12% $8,972 ( 15%) $1,582 128% $14,042 ( 2%)
12 $24,058 $47,616 $13,554 $85,228
=== =========
13 3 $4,695 11% $0 $0 $4,695 11%
4 $4,447 11% $0 $0 $4,447 11%
5 $4,213 11% $0 $0 $4,213 11%
6 $3,991 11% $0 $0 $3,991 11%
7 $3,782 11% $0 $0 $3,782 11%
8 $3,585 11% $0 $0 $3,585 11%
9 $3,398 11% $0 $0 $3,398 11%
$0 $0 $28,111
13 $28,111
=== —————————
3 $4,695 11% $0 . $2,876 81% $7,571 30%
14
4 $4,447 11% $0 . $2,526 94% $6,973 31%
Leg riME DOC 320 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737
14 5 $4,213 11% $0 . $2,200 111% $6,413 33%

6 $3,991 11% $0 (100%) $1,896 137% $5,887 20%
7 $3,782 11% $0 (100%) $1,614 181% $5,396 4%
8 $3,585 11% $0 (100%) $1,351 268% $4,936 ( 8%)
9 $3,398 11% $433 ( 81%) $1,107 536% $4,938 ( 11%)
14 $28,111 $433 $13,570 $42,114
17 3 $4,163 11% $0 $0 $4,163 11%

4 $3,943 11% $0 $0 $3,943 11%
5 $3,736 12% $0 $0 $3,736 12%
6 $3,540 12% $0 $0 $3,540 12%
7 $3,355 12% $0 $0 $3,355 12%
8 $3,180 12% $0 $0 $3,180 12%
9 $3,015 12% $0 $0 $3,015 12%
10 $2,858 12% $0 (100%) $0 $2,858 10%
11 $2,711 12% $0 (10050 $0 $2,711 ( 3%)
17 $30,501 $0 $0 $30,501
18 3 $4,086 11% $0 $0 $4,086 11%

4 $3,870 11% $0 $0 $3,870 11%
5 $3,667 12% $0 $0 $3,667 12%
6 $3,475 12% $0 $0 $3,475 12%
7 $3,293 12% $0 $0 $3,293 12%
8 $3,121 12% $0 $0 $3,121 12%
9 $2,959 12% $0 $0 $2,959 12%
0 $2,806 12% $0 $0 $2,806 12%
1 $2,661 12% $0 $0 $2,661 12%
18 $29,938 $0 $0 $29,938
19 3 $4,086 11% $0 $2,312 126% $6,398 36%

4 $3,870 11% $0 $1,976 162% $5,846 38%
5 $3,667 12% $0 $1,663 229% $5,330 41%
6 $3,475 12% $0 $1,373 397% $4,848 43%
7 $3,293 12% $0 $1,102 584% $4,395 41%
8 $3,121 12% $0 $852 429% $3,973 35%
9 $2,959 12% $0 $619 284% $3,578 28%
10 $2,806 12% $0 $403 150% $3,209 20%
11 $2,661 12% $0 $203 26% $2,864 13%
19 $29,938 _ $0 $10,503 $40,441
== ======== $4,163 11%

20 3 $4,163 11% $0 $0 .
Leg TIME DOC 320 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot
B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737
20 4 $3,943 11% $0 . $0 $3,943 11%

5 $3,736 12% $0 . $0 $3,736 12%
6 $3,540 12% $0 (100%) $0 $3,540 0%
7 $3,355 12% $0 (100%) $0 $3,355 ( 12%)
8 $3,180 12% $0 (100%) $0 $3,180 ( 21%)
9 $3,015 12% $289 ( 81%) $0 $3,304 ( 22%)
10 $2,858 12% $702 ( 63%) $0 $3,560 ( 20%)
11 $2,711 12% $1,073 ( 50%) $0 $3,784 ( 17%)
20 $30,501 $2,064 $0 $32,565
21 2 $5,924 10% $0 (100%) $3,202 81% $9,126 20%

3 $5,608 11% $0 (100%) $2,811 94% $8,419 7%
4 $5,310 11% $0 (100%) $2,447 111% $7,757 ( 5%)
5 $5,029 11% $345 ( 88%) $2,108 138% $7,482 ( 11%)
21 $21,871 $345 $10,568 $32,784

:== ======== =========
22 2 $5,924 10% $0 $0 $5,924 10%
3 $5,608 11% $0 $0 $5,608 11%
4 $5,310 11% $0 $0 $5,310 11%
5 $5,029 11% $0 $0 $5,029 11%
22 $21,871 $0 $0 $21,871
— ========-
26 9 $2,900 12% $0 $1,612 110% $4,512 34%
10 $2,750 12% $0 $1,392 136% $4,142 36%
11 $2,608 12% $0 $1,188 178% $3,796 38%
12 $2,473 12% $0 $997 261% $3,470 40%
26 $10,731 $0 $5,189 $15,920
:== $2,900 12%

27 9 $2,900 12% $0 $0
10 $2,750 12% $0 $0 $2,750 12%
11 $2,608 12% $0 $0 $2,608 12%
12 $2,473 12% $0 $0 $2,473 12%
27 $10,731 $0 $0 $10,731
:== ======== =========
$4,748 11% $0 $0 . $4,748 11%
29 1
11% $0 (100%) $0 $4,497 ( 3%)
2 $4,497
$9,245 $0 $0 $9,245
29
== 37% $8,647 24%
30 1 $4,061 12% $0 $4,586
143

B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737
30 2 $3,846 12% $0 $4,206 39% $8,052 24%
30 $7,907 $0 $8,792 $16,699
31 1 $4,061 12% $0 $0 $4,061 12%

2 $3,846 12% $0 $0 $3,846 12%
31 $7,907 $0 $0 $7,907
32 1 $4,748 11% $0 $0 $4,748 11%

2 $4,497 11% $0 (100%) $0 $4,497 ( 3%)
32 $9,245 $0 $0 $9,245
33 1 $6,114 10% $0 $3,137 81% $9,251 27%
33 $6,114 $0 $3,137 $9,251
34 1 $6,114 10% $2,965 ( 54%) $0 $9,079 ( 25%)
34 $6,114 $2,965 $0 $9,079
36 2 $4,204 11% $0 $3,350 60% $7,554 29%
36 $4,204 $0 $3,350 $7,554
37 2 $4,204 11% $0 $0 $4,204 11%
37 $4,204 $0 $0 $4,204
144

Leg Time DOC A321 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot
B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737
1 $4,215 25% $1,565 ( 40%) $0 $5,780 C 3%)

2 $3,994 25% $1,687 ( 36%) $0 $5,681 : 3%)
3 $3,784 25% $1,794 ( 33%) $0 $5,578 [ 2%)
4 $3,587 25% $1,886 ( 31%) $0 $5,473 : 2%)
5 $3,399 26% $1,965 ( 28%) $0 $5,364 (> 1%)
6 $3,223 26% $2,033 ( 26%) $0 $5,256 : 1%)
7 $3,055 26% $2,089 ( 24%) $0 $5,144 : 1%)
8 $2,897 26% $2,136 ( 22%) $0 $5,033 < 0%)
9 $2,748 26% $2,173 ( 21%) $0 $4,921 0%
10 $2,606 26% $2,202 ( 19%) $0 $4,808 0%
11 $2,472 27% $2,224 ( 18%) $0 $4,696 1%
12 $2,345 27% $2,239 ( 17%) $0 $4,584 1%
$38,325 $23 ,993 $0 • $62,318 ( 12%)
1 $4,488 25% $0 $0 $4,488 25%

2 $4,251 25% $0 $0 . $4,251 25%
3 $4,028 25% $0 $0 $4,028 25%
4 $3,818 25% $0 $0 $3,818 25%
5 $3,618 25% $0 $0 . $3,618 25%
6 $3,430 26% $0 $0 $3,430 26%
7 $3,252 26% $0 $0 . $3,252 26%
8 $3,083 26% $0 $0 . $3,083 26%
9 $2,924 26% $0 $0 . $2,924 26%
10 $2,773 26% $0 (100%;i $0 . $2,773 24%
11 $2,631 26% $0 (ioo%:> $0 . $2,631 11%
12 $2,496 26% $0 doo%:1 $0 $2,496 0%
$40,792 $0 $0 $40,792 263%

======== ====.===== ======== ======== ========= =========
1 $4,488 25% $0 doo%:> $10,269 38% $14,757 7%
2 $4,251 25% $0 doo%:> $9,716 38% $13,967 1%
3 $4,028 25% $0 doo%:) $9,194 38% $13,222 ( 3%)
4 $3,818 25% $0 (100% ) $8,702 38% $12,520 ( 8%)
5 $3,618 25% <£648 ( 86%'> $8,238 38% $12,504 ( 7%)
6 $3,430 26% $1 ,257 ( 74% ) $7,799 38% $12,486 ( 6%)
7 $3,252 26% $1 ,803 ( 65% ) $7,385 38% $12,440 ( 5%)
8 $3,083 26% $2 ,290 ( 58% ) $6,995 38% $12,368 ( 4%)
9 $2,924 26% $2 ,724 ( 52% ) $6,626 38% $12,274 ( 4%)
$2,773 26% $3 ,109 ( 46% ) $6,277 38% $12,159 ( 3%)

10
11 $2,631 26% $3,449 ( 42%') $5,948 38% $12,028 ( 2%)
26% $3 r 749 ( 38% ) $5,636 38% $11,881 ( 2%)

12 $2,496
$19,029 $92,785 460% $152606 ( 37%)

$40,792
Leg i lme UOC A^Zl Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Dif f.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737
10 1 $4,215 25% $1,565 ( 40%) $161 0% $5,941 ( 3%)

2 $3,994 25% $1,687 ( 36%) $161 0% $5,842 ( 3%)
3 $3,784 25% $1,794 ( 33%) $161 0% $5,739 ( 2%)
4 $3,587 25% $1,886 ( 31%) $161 0% $5,634 ( 2%)
5 $3,399 26% $1,965 ( 28%) $161 0% $5,525 ( 1%)
6 $3,223 26% $2,033 ( 26%) $161 0% $5,417 ( 1%)
7 $3,055 26% $2,089 ( 24%) $161 0% $5,305 ( 1%)
8 $2,897 26% $2,136 ( 22%) $161 0% $5,194 ( 0%)
9 $2,748 26% $2,173 ( 21%) $161 0% $5,082 0%
10 $2,606 26% $2,202 ( 19%) $161 0% $4,969 0%
11 $2,472 27% $2,224 ( 18%) $161 0% $4,857 1%
12 $2,345 27% $2,239 ( 17%) $161 0% $4,745 1%
10 $38,325
=== ======== ========= ======== ======== ========= ===:======
11 1 $5,113 24% $0 $0 . $5,113 24%
2 $4,842 25% $0 $0 $4,842 25%
3 $4,587 25% $0 $0 . $4,587 25%
4 $4,346 25% $0 $0 . $4,346 25%
5 $4,118 25% $0 $0 . $4,118 25%
6 $3,903 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,903 12%
11 $26,909 $0 $0 $26,909 135%

=== ======== ========= ======== ======== ========= ===:======
12 1 $5,113 24% $3,059 ( 66%) $5,118 179% $13,290 ( 11%)
2 $4,842 25% $3,922 ( 59%) $4,691 199% $13,455 ( 10%)
3 $4,587 25% $4,690 ( 52%) $4,293 224% $13,570 ( 8%)
4 $4,346 25% $5,372 ( 47%) $3,920 256% $13,638 ( 7%)
5 $4,118 25% $5,975 ( 42%) $3,571 301% $13,664 ( 6%)
6 $3,903 25% $6,506 ( 38%) $3,245 368% $13,654 ( 5%)
12 $26,909 $29,524 $24,838 2E3% $81,271 ( 48%)

=== ======== ========= ======== ======== ========= ===:======
13 3 $5,253 24% $0 $0 . $5,253 24%
4 $4,975 24% $0 $0 . $4,975 24%
5 $4,712 24% $0 $0 . $4,712 24%
6 $4,465 24% $0 $0 • $4,465 24%
7 $4,231 24% $0 $0 . $4,231 24%
8 $4,010 25% $0 $0 • $4,010 25%
9 $3,801 25% $0 $0 $3,801 25%
$31,447 $0 $0 $31,447 171%

13
=== ======== ========= ======== ======== ========= ==-=======
14 3 $5,253 24% $0 . $5,240 230% $10,493 80%
4 $4,975 24% $0 • $4,778 266% $9,753 84%
Leg Time DOC A321 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737
14 5 $4,712 24% $0 . $4,347 317% $9,059 87%

6 $4,465 24% $0 (100%) $3,945 393% $8,410 71%
7 $4,231 24% $0 (100%) $3,569 521% $7,800 51%
8 $4,010 25% $0 (100%) $3,217 777% $7,227 34%
9 $3,801 25% $0 (100%) $2,889 2E3% $6,690 20%
14 $31,447 $0 $27,985 4E3% $59,432 428%

=========
17 3 $4,656 25% $0 $0 $4,656 25%
4 $4,411 25% $0 $0 $4,411 25%
5 $4,180 25% $0 $0 $4,180 25%
6 $3,961 25% $0 $0 $3,961 25%
7 $3,754 25% $0 $0 $3,754 25%
8 $3,559 25% $0 $0 $3,559 25%
9 $3,375 25% $0 $0 $3,375 25%
10 $3,200 25% $0 (100%,) $0 $3,200 23%
11 $3,035 25% $0 (100%:> $0 $3,035 8%
17 $34,131 $0 $0 $34,131 205%
18 3 $4,570 25% $0 $0 $4,570 25%

4 $4,329 25% $0 $0 $4,329 25%
5 $4,102 25% $0 $0 $4,102 25%
6 $3,888 25% $0 $0 $3,888 25%
7 $3,685 25% $0 $0 $3,685 25%
8 $3,494 25% $0 $0 $3,494 25%
9 $3,313 25% $0 $0 $3,313 25%
10 $3,142 25% $0 $0 $3,142 25%
11 $2,980 25% $0 $0 $2,980 25%
18 $33,503 $0 $0 $33,503 225%
19 3 $4,570 25% $0 $4,728 363% $9,298 98%

4 $4,329 25% $0 $4,279 468% $8,608 104%
5 $4,102 25% $0 $3,861 665% $7,963 110%
6 $3,888 25% $0 $3,470 1E3% $7,358 117%
7 $3,685 25% $0 $3,105 2E3% $6,790 118%
8 $3,494 25% $0 $2,765 2E3% $6,259 112%
9 $3,313 25% $0 $2,447 1E3% $5,760 105%
10 $3,142 25% $0 $2,151 1E3% $5,293 98%
11 $2,980 25% $0 $1,876 1E3% $4,856 91%
$33,503 ~ $0 $28,682 1E4% $62,185 955%

19
== $4,656 25%
20 3 $4,656 25% $0 $0 •
Leg Time DOC A321 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot
B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737
20 4 $4,411 25% $0 . $0 $4,411 25%

5 $4,180 25% $0 . $0 $4,180 25%
6 $3,961 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,961 12%
7 $3,754 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,754 ( 1%)
8 $3,559 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,559 ( 12%)
9 $3,375 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,375 ( 21%)
10 $3,200 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,200 ( 28%)
11 $3,035 25% $0 (100%) $0 $3,035 ( 34%)
20 $34,131 $0 $0 . $34,131 ( 9%)
21 2 $6,635 24% $0 (100%) $5,817 229% $12,452 64%

3 $6,279 24% $0 (100%) $5,304 265% $11,583 47%
4 $5,944 24% $0 (100%) $4,824 316% $10,768 32%
5 $5,628 24% $0 (100%) $4,376 393% $10,004 19%
21 $24,486 $0 $20,321 1E3% $44,807 162%
22 2 $6,635 24% $0 $0 . $6,635 24%

3 $6,279 24% $0 $0 . $6,279 24%
4 $5,944 24% $0 $0 . $5,944 24%
5 $5,628 24% $0 $0 $5,628 24%
22 $24,486 $0 $0 $24,486 95%
26 9 $3,247 25% $0 . $3,165 313% $6,412 91%

10 $3,080 26% $0 . $2,876 387% $5,956 96%
11 $2,921 26% $0 . $2,606 509% $5,527 101%
12 $2,771 26% $0 . $2,352 752% $5,123 107%
26 $12,019 $0 $10,999 2E3% $23,018 394%

=== ======== ========= ======== ======== ========= =========
27 9 $3,247 25% $0 $0 - $3,247 25%
10 $3,080 26% $0 $0 . $3,080 26%
11 $2,921 26% $0 $0 . $2,921 26%
12 $2,771 26% $0 $0 $2,771 26%
27 $12,019 $0 $0 $12,019 102%

:== ======== ========= ======== ======== ========= =========
29 1 $5,310 24% $0 $0 • $5,310 24%
2 $5,029 24% $0 (1 00%) $0 $5,029 9%
29 $10,339 $0 $0 . $10,339 33%

:== ========
30 1 $4,539 25% $0 . $6,697 100% $11,236 61%
148

Leg Time DOC A321 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737
30 2 $4,300 25% $0 $6,214 105% $10,514 62%
30 $8,839 $0 $12,911 205% $21,750 123%

:== ======== =========
31 1 $4,539 25% $0 $0 . $4,539 25%
2 $4,300 25% $0 $0 • $4,300 25%
31 $8,839 $0 $0 . $8,839 50%

:== ======== =========
32 1 $5,310 24% $0 $0 . $5,310 24%
2 $5,029 24% $0
(100%) $0 . $5,029 9%
32 $10,339 $0
:== ======== ========= $0 . $10,339 33%
33 1 $6,848 24% $0
. $5,702 229% $12,550 73%
33 $6,848 $0
$5,702 229% $12,550 73%
34 1 $6,848 24% $0
(100%) $0 . $6,848 ( 43%)
34 $6,848 $0
:= = ======== ========= $0 . $6,848 ( 43%)
36 2 $4,701 25% $0
. $5,608 168% $10,309 76%
36 $4,701 $0
:== ======== ========= $5,608 168% $10,309 76%
37 2 $4,701 25% $0
$0 . $4,701 25%
37 $4,701 $0
$0 . $4,701 25%
149
APPENDIX E A320 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS

A320 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS
! oa Timp DOC A"*?0 Ooo.Cost A3?0 Pos.Cost A320 Total A320
11 7 $3,306 $0 $0 $3,306
8 $3,133 $0 $0 $3,133
9 $2,970 $289 $0 $3,259
10 $2,816 $702 $0 $3,518
11 $12,225 $991 $0 $13,216

========= =========== =============== =============== ===========
12 7 $3,306 $9,254 $1,354 $13,914
8 $3,133 $9,488 $1,141 $13,762
9 $2,970 $9,680 $942 $13,592
10
12 $12,225 $38,254 $4,195 $54,674

=========
13 10 $3,221 $0 $0 $3,221
11 $3,055 $0 $0 $3,055
12 $2,897 $0 $0 $2,897
13 $9,173 $0 $0 $9,173
========= =========== =============== =============== ===========
14 10 $3,221 $1,053 $879 $5,153
11 $3,055 $1,609 $668 $5,332
12 $2,897 $2,107 $472 $5,476
14 $9,173 $4,769 $2,019 $15,961
15 1 $5,958 $1,200 $0 $7,158

2 $5,640 $2,337 $0 $7,977
3 $5,339 $3,355 $0 $8,694
4 $5,056 $4,265 $0 $9,321
5 $4,789 $5,075 $0 $9,864
6 $4,536 $5,794 $0 $10,330
7 $4,298 $6,429 $0 $10,727
8 $4,072 $6,988 $0 $11,060
9 $3,860 $7,477 $0 $11,337
15 $43,548 $42,920 $0 $86,468

=============== ===========
16 1 $5,958 $0
2 $5,640 $0 $3,524 $9,164
3 $5,339 $0 $3,155 $8,494
4 $5,056 $0 $2,811 $7,867
5 $4,789 $0 $2,490 $7,279
6 $4,536 $0 $2,190 $6,726
7 $4,298 $0 $1,911 $6,209
8 $4,072 ~ $0 $1,651 $5,723
9 $3,860 $361 $1,408 $5,629
16 $43,548 $361 $23,059 $66,968

________ =============== ===========
17 12 $2,571 $0 $0 $2,571
151
Leg Time DOC A320 Opp.Cost A320 Pos.Cost A320 Total A320
17 $2,571 $0 $0 $2,571
18 12 $2,523 $0 $0 $2,523
18 $2,523 $0 $0 $2,523
===========
19 12 $2,523 $0 $161 $2,684
19 $2,523 $0 $161 $2,684

=========
20 12 $2,571 $1 ,404 $0 $3,975
20 $2,571 $1 ,404 $0 $3,975

========= =========== =============== =============== ===========
21 6 $4,764 $1,195 $1,793 $7,752
7 $4,513 $1 ,959
8 $4,276 $2,641 $1,227 $8,144
9 $4,053 $3 ,251 $974 $8,278
21 $17,606 $9 ,046
========= =========== =======:======== =============== ===========
22 6 $4,764 $0 $0 $4,764
7 $4,513 $0 $0 $4,513
8 $4,276 $0 $0 $4,276
9 $4,053 $433 $0 $4,486
22 $17,606 $433 $0 $18,039

========= =========== ===============
29 3 $4,259 $0 $0 $4,259
4 $4,034 $0 $0 $4,034
5 $3,822 $441 $0 $4,263
6 $3,621 $1 ,527 $0 $5,148
29 $15,736 $1 ,968 $0 $17,704
30 3 $3,643 $0 $3,851 $7,494

4 $3,451 $0 $3,519 $6,970
5 $3,270 $0 $3,208 $6,478
6 $3,098 $0 $2,917 $6,015
30 $13,462 $0 $13,495 $26,957

========= =========== == === ==========
: =============== ===========
31 3 $3,643 $0 $0 $3,643
4 $3,451 $0 $0 $3,451
5 $3,270 ~ $0 $0 $3,270
6 $3,098 $0 $0 $3,098
31 $13,462 $0 $0 $13,462
========= =========== =============== =============== ===========
32 3 $4,259 $0 $0 $4,259
152
Time DOC A320 Opp.Cost A320 Pos.Cost A320 Total A320
4 $4,034 $0 $0 $4,034
5 $3,822 $441 $0 $4,263
6 $3,621 $1,527 $0 $5,148
$15,736 $1,968 $0 $17,704
2 $5,788 $0 $2,754 $8,542

4 $5,188 $0 $2,066 $7,254
5 $4,913 $345 $1,757 $7,015
$15,889 $345 $6,577 $22,811
2 $5,788 $4,052 $0 $9,840

4 $5,188 $5,886 $0 $11,074
5 $4,913 $6,652 $0 $11,565
$15,889 $16,590 $0 $32,479
2 $4,420 $754 $8,204 $13,378

3 $4,186 $2,049 $0 $6,235
$8,606 $2,f803 $8,204 $19,613
3 $3,982 $0 $2,996 $6,978
$3,982 $0 $2,996 $6,978
3 $3,982 $0 $0 $3,982
$3,982 $0 $0 $3,982
2 $4,420 $754 $0 $5,174

3 $4,186 $2,049 $0 $6,235
$8,606 $2,803 $0 $11,409

Leg Time DOC B737 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos .Cost Diff .Pos Total Diff.Tot
A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320
11 7 $2,959 ( 10%) $801 m $0 $3,760 14%

8 $2,803 ( 11%) $1,202 . $0 . $4,005 28%
9 $2,655 ( 11%) $1,560 440% $0 $4,215 29%
10 $2,516 ( 11%) $1,879 168% $0 . $4,395 25%
11 $10,933 $5,442 $0 $16,375
12 7 $2,959 ( 10%) $10,737 16% $513 ( 62%) $14,209 2%

8 $2,803 ( 11%) $10,861 14% $345 ( 70%) $14,009 2%
9 $2,655 ( 11%) $10,951 13% $189 ( 80%) $13,795 1%
10 $2,516 ( 11%) $11,009 12% $161 ( 79%) $13,686 2%
12 $10,933 $43,558 $1,208 $55,699
13 10 $2,891 ( 10%) $0 $0 . $2,891 ( 10%)

11 $2,739 ( 10%) $0 . $0 . $2,739 ( 10%)
12 $2,596 < 10%) $0 $0 $2,596 ( 10%)
13 $8,226 $0 $0 $8,226
14 10 $2,891 < 10%) $2,819 168% $161 ( 82%) $5,871 14%

11 $2,739 ( 10%) $3,244 102% $161 ( 76%) $6,144 15%
12 $2,596 ( 10%) $3,620 72% $161 ( 66%) $6,377 16%
14 $8,226 $9,683 $483 $18,392

== _________
15 1 $5,389 10%) $4,729 294% $0 $10,118 41%
2 $5,099 10%) $5,605 140% $0 $10,704 34%
3 $4,825 10%) $6,381 90% $0 $11,206 29%
4 $4,567 10%) $7,067 66% $0 $11,634 25%
5 $4,324 10%) $7,669 51% $0 $11,993 22%
6 $4,094 10%) $8,196 41% $0 $12,290 19%
7 $3,877 10%) $8,653 35% $0 $12,530 17%
8 $3,672 10%) $9,047 29% $0 $12,719 15%
9 $3,479 10%) $9,383 25% $0 $12,862 13%
$66,730 $0 $106056
15 $39,326
10%) $0 $2,548 ( 35%) $7,937 ( 20%)

16 1 $5,389
10%) $0 $2,224 ( 37%) $7,323 ( 20%)
2 $5,099
10%) $0 $1,923 ( 39%) $6,748 ( 21%)
3 $4,825
$4,567 10%) $0 $1,643 ( 42%) $6,210 ( 21%)
4
$4,324 10%) _ $0 $1,382 ( 44%) $5,706 ( 22%)
5
$4,094 10%) $443 $1,140 ( 48%) $5,677 ( 16%)
6
$3,877 10%) $1,002 $915 ( 52%) $5,794 ( 7%)
7
Leg Time DOC B737 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320
16 8 $3,672 ( 10%) $1,502 $706 ( 57%) $5,880 3%

9 $3,479 ( 10%) $1,950 440% $512 ( 64%) $5,941 6%
16 $39,326 $4,897 $12,993 $57,216
17 12 $2,294 ( 11%) $688 • $0 • $2,982 16%
17 $2,294 $688 $0 $2,982
18 12 $2,251 ( 11%) $0 $0 • $2,251 ( 11%)
18 $2,251 $0 $0 $2,251
19 12 $2,251 ( 11%) $0 • $161 0% $2,412 ( 10%)
19 $2,251 $0 $161 $2,412

=== ======== ========= ========= =========
20 12 $2,294 ( 11%) $2,414 72% $0 $4,708 18%
20 $2,294 $2,414 $0 $4,708
=== ___—— _________

21 6 $4,305 ( 10%) $3,598 201% $634 ( 65%) $8,537 10%
7 $4,077 ( 10%) $4,183 114% $401 ( 73%) $8,661 9%
8 $3,862 ( 10%) $4,701 78% $184 ( 85%) $8,747 7%
9 $3,658 ( 10%) $5,157 59% $161 ( 83%) $8,976 8%
21 $15,902 $17,639 $1,380 $34,921
22 6 $4,305 ( 10%) $532 . $0 $4,837 2%

7 $4,077 ( 10%) $1,202 . $0 $5,279 17%
8 $3,862 ( 10%) $1,803 . $0 $5,665 32%
9 $3,658 ( 10%) $2,340 440% $0 $5,998 34%
$15,902 $5,877 $0 $21,779

22
=========
3 $3,826 ( 10%) $1,759 . $0 $5,585 31%
29
$2,813 . $0 $6,435 60%
4 $3,622 ( 10%)
$3,756 752% $0 $7,185 69%
5 $3,429 ( 10%)
$4,596 201% $0 $7,843 52%
6 $3,247 ( 10%)
$12,924 $0 $27,048
29 $14,124
____-
$2,738 ( 29%) $5,997 ( 20%)
30 3 $3,259 ( 11%) _ $0
$0 $2,464 ( 30%) $5,549 ( 20%)
4 $3,085 ( 11%)
$0 $2,209 ( 31%) $5,130 ( 21%)
5 $2,921 ( 11%)
A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320
30 6 $2,766 ( 11%) $0 • $1,970 ( 32%) $4,736 ( 21%)
30 $12,031 $0 $9,381 $21,412

=== ======== ========= ========= =========
31 3 $3,259 ( 11%) $0 . $0 . $3,259 ( 11%)
4 $3,085 < 11%) $0 $0 . $3,085 ( 11%)
5 $2,921 ( 11%) $0 . $0 . $2,921 ( 11%)
6 $2,766 ( 11%) $0 $0 $2,766 ( 11%)
31 $12,031 $0 $0 $12,031
32 3 $3,826 ( 10%) $1,759 $0 $5,585 31%

4 $3,622
5 $3,429 ( 10%) $3,756 752% $0 . $7,185 69%
6 $3,247 ( 10%) $4,596 201% $0 $7,843 52%
32 $14,124 $12,924 $0 $27,048
33 2 $5,236 ( 10%) $458 $1,423 ( 48%) $7,117 ( 17%)

4 $4,690 ( 10%) $2,201 . $869 ( 58%) $7,760 7%
5 $4,440 ( 10%) $2,939 752% $623 ( 65%) $8,002 14%
33 $14,366 $5,598 $2,915 $22,879
34 2 $5,236 ( 10%) $7,320 81% $0 $12,556 28%

4 $4,690 ( 10%) $8,688 48% $0 $13,378 21%
5 $4,440 ( 10%) $9,246 39% $0 $13,686 18%
34 $14,366 $25,254 $0 $39,620
35 2 $3,971 ( 10%) $4,722 526% $7,030 ( 14%) $15,723 18%

3 $3,759 10%) $5,723 179% $0 $9,482 52%
35 $7,730 $10,445 $7,030 $25,205

(
36 3 $3,571 10%) $0 $1,805 ( 40%) $5,376 ( 23%:
36 $3,571 $0 $1,805 $5,376

(
37 3 $3,571 10%) $0 $0 $3,571 ( 10%:
37 $3,571 $0 $0 $3,571
(
10%) $4,722 526% $0 $8,693 68%
38 2 $3,971 (
10%) $5,723 179% $0 $9,482 52%
3 $3,759 (
156

A320 B737 A320 B737 A320 B737 A320
38 $7,730 $10,445 $0 $18,175

Leg Time DOC A321 Diff.Doc Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot
A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320
11 7 $3,699 12% $0 $0 $3,699 12%

8 $3,507 12% $0 $0 $3,507 12%
9 $3,325 12% $0 (100%) $0 $3,325 2%
10 $3,153 12% $0 (100%) $0 $3,153 ( 10%)
11 $13,684 $0 $0 $13,684
12 7 $3 699 12% $6,970 ( 25%) $2, 940 117°/ $13, 609 ( 2%)
8 $3 507 12% $7,374 ( 22%) $2, 655 133°/; $13,536 ( 2%)
9 $3 325 12% $7, 722 ( 20%) $2, 389 154°/ $13, 436 ( 1%)
10 $3 153 12% $8, 020 ( 18%) $2, 140 182°/ $13, 313 ( 1%)
12 $13 684 $30, 086 $10, 124 $53, 894
13 10 $3 603 12% $0 $0 $3, 603 12%

11 $3 ,417 12% $0 . $0 $3, 417 12%
12 $3 ,240 12% $0 $0 $3, 240 12%
13 $10 r260 $0 $0 $10, 260
14 10 $3 ,603 12% $0 (100%) $2, 583 194% $6, 186 20%

11 $3 ,417 12% $0 (100%) $2, 297 244% $5, 714 7%
12 $3 ,240 12% $0 (100%) $2, 030 330?i $ 5 , 270 ( 4%)
14 $10,260 $0 $6,910 $17 170
15 1 $6,672 12% $0 (100%) $0 $6,672 ( 7%)

2 $6,314 12% $0 (100%) $0 $6,314 ( 21%)
3 $5 ,976 12% $0 (100%) $0 $5 976 ( 31%)
4 $5 ,658 12% $0 (100%) $0 $5 658 ( 39%)
5 $5 ,358 12% $1 ,080 ( 79%) $0 $6,438 ( 35%)
6 $5 ,074 12% $2,095 ( 64%) $0 $7 169 ( 31%)
7 $4,807 12% $3,004 ( 53%) $0 $7,811 ( 27%)
8 $4,554 12% $3,817 ( 45%) $0 $8,371 ( 24%)
9 $4,316 12% $4,540 ( 39%) $0 $8,856 ( 22%)
15 $48,729 $14,536 $0 $63,265
16 1 $6,672 12% $0 $6,357 62e i $13 ,029 32%

2 $6,314 12% $0 $5,845 66( I $12 ,159 3i%
3 $5 ,976 12% $0 $5,366 70*i $11 ,342 34%
4 $5 ,658 12% $0 $4,918 75'/o $ 1 0 ,576 34%
$4,499 8V/o $ 9 ,857 35%
5 $5 ,358 12% -u $0
6 $5 ,074 12% $0 $4,107 88(/o $ 9 ,181 37%
7 $4 ,807 12% $0 $3,740 96% $ 8,547 38%
Leg Time DOC A321 Diff.Doc Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320
16 8 $4,554 12% $0 $3,397 106% $7,951 39%

9 $4,316 12% $0 (100%) $3,077 119% $7,393 31%
16 $48,729 $0 $41,306 $90,035

======== =========
17 12 $2,879 12% $0 $0 $2,879 12%
17 $2,879 $0 $0 $2,879
18 12 $2,827 12% $0 $0 • $2,827 12%
18 $2,827 $0 $0 $2,827
======== =========
19 12 $2,827 12% $0 $1,619 906% $4,446 66%
19 $2,827 $0 $1,619 $4,446

======== =========
20 12 $2,879 12% $0 (100%) $0 $2,879 ( 28%)
20 $2,879 $0 $0 $2,879
21 6 $5,329 12% $0 $3,958 121% $9,287 20%

7 $5,048 12% $0 (100%) $3,567 138% $8,615 8%
8 $4,782 12% $0 (100%) $3,203 161% $7,985 ( 2%)
9 $4,531 12% $314 $2,862 194% $7,707 ( 7%)
21 $19,690 $314 $13,590 $33,594
22 6 $5,329 12% $0 $0 . $5,329 12%

7 $5,048 12% $0 $0 . $5,048 12%
8 $4,782 12% $0 $0 . $4,782 12%
9 $4,531 12% $0 (100%) $0 $4,531 1%
22 $19,690 $0 $0 $19,690
____ _____
29 3 $4,763 12% $0 $0 . $4,763 12%
4 $4,512 12% $0 $0 . $4,512 12%
5 $4,275 12% $0 (100%) $0 . $4,275 0%
6 $4,052 12% $0 (100%) $0 $4,052 ( 21%)
29 $17,602 $0 $0 $17,602
:=======
30 3 $4,074 12% $0 $5,761 50% $9,835 31%
4 $3,861 12% $0 $5,336 52% $9,197 32%
5 $3,659 12% $0 $4,937 54% $8,596 33%
A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320
30 6 $3,469 12% $0 $4,564 56% $8,033 34%
30 $15,063 $0 $20,598 $35,661
31 3 $4,074 12% $0 $0 $4,074 12%

4 $3,861 12% $0 $0 . $3,861 12%
5 $3,659 12% $0 $0 $3,659 12%
6 $3,469 12% $0 $0 $3,469 12%
31 $15,063 $0 $0 $15,063
32 3 $4,763 12% $0 $0 $4,763 12%

4 $4,512 12% $0 $0 $4,512 12%
5 $4,275 12% $0 (100%) $0 $4,275 0%
6 $4,052 12% $0 (100%) $0 $4,052 ( 21%)
32 $17,602 $0 $0 $17,602
33 2 $6,481 12% $0 . $5,199 89% $11,680 37%

4 $5,807 12% $0 . $4,290 108% $10,097 39%
5 $5,498 12% $0 (100%) $3,880 121% $9,378 34%
33 $17,786 $0 $13,369 $31,155
34 2 $6,481 12% $0 (100%) $0 $6,481 ( 34%)

4 $5,807 12% $1,572 ( 73%) $0 $7,379 ( 33%)
5 $5,498 12% $2,657 ( 60%) $0 $8,155 ( 29%)
34 $17,786 $4,229 $0 $22,015
35 2 $4,942 12% $0 (100%) $9,797 19% $14,739 10%

3 $4,682 12% $0 (100%) $0 $4,682 ( 25%)
35 $9,624 $0 $9,797 $19,421

r== —__
36 3 $4,453 12% $0 • $5,147 72% $9,600 38%
36 $4,453 $0 $5,147 $9,600

:== ======== ========= ======== =========
37 3 $4,453 12% $0 " $0 $4,453 12%
37 $4,453 $0 $0 $4,453
:== ======== ========= ======== =========
2 $4,942 12% $0 (100%) $0 . $4,942 ( 4%)
38
3 $4,682 12% $0 (100%) $0 . $4,682 ( 25%)
160

A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320
38 $9,624 $0 $0 $9,624
161
APPENDIX F A321 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS

Opp.Cost A321 Pos.Cost A321 Total A321
1 $7,628 $0 $0 $7,628
2 $7,216 $0 $0 $7,216
3 $6,828 $0 $0 $6,828
4 $6,461 $0 $0 $6,461
5 $6,116 $0 $0 $6,116
6 $5,791 $0 $0 $5,791
7 $5,483 $0 $0 $5,483
8 $5,193 so $0 $5,193
9 $4,920 <
£419 $0 $5,339
10 $4,662 $1,431 $0 $6,093
11 $4,418 $2,340 $0 $6,758
12 $4,187 $3,153 $0 $7,340
$68,903 $7,343 $0 $76,246

=========== =============== =============== ===========
1 $7,628 $17,435 $5,428 $30,491
2 $7,216 $18,799 $4,911 $30,926
3 $6,828 $19,988 $4,428 $31,244
4 $6,461 $21,017 $3,979 $31,457
5 $6,116 $21,900 $3,559 $31,575
6 $5,791 $22,650 $3,168 $31,609
7 $5,483 $23,279 $2,803 $31,565
8 $5,193 $23,797 $2,463 $31,453
9 $4,920 $24,214 $2,146 $31,280
10 $4,662 $24,540 $1,851 $31,053
11 $4,418 $24,783 $1,576 $30,777
12 $4,187 $24,950 $1,320 $30,457
$68,903 $267,352 $37,632 $373,887

=========== =============== =============== ===========
1 $5,469 $1,216 $0 $6,685
2 $5,179 $2,814 $0 $7,993
3 $4,905 $4,247 $0 $9,152
4 $4,647 $5,528 $0 $10,175
5 $4,402 $6,670 $0 $11,072
6 $4,171 $7,684 $0 $11,855
7 $3,954 $8,581 $0 $12,535
8 $3,748 $9,371 $0 $13,119
9 $3,553 $10,063 $0 $13,616
10 $3,369 $10,665 $0 $14,034
11 $3,195 $11,186 $0 $14,381
12 $3,030 $11,631 $0 $14,661
$49,622 $89,656 $0 $139,278

=========== =============== =============== ===========
1 $6,425 $0 $0 $6,425
2 $6,081 $0 $0 $6,081
3 $5,756 $0 $0 $5,756
4 $5,450 $0 $0 $5,450
5 $5,162 $0 $0 $5,162
6 $4,889 $0 $0 $4,889
4 7
$4,632 $0 $0 $4,632
8
$4,389 $0 $0 $4,389
9
$4,159 $0 $0 $4,159
10 $3,943 $0 $0 $3,943
^ $3,738 $0 $0 $3,738
12 $3,544 $0 $0 $3,544
$58,168 $0 $0 $58,168
=========== =============== =============== ===========
1 $6,425 $0 $539 $6,964
2 $6,081 $0 $150 $6,231
3 $5,756 $0 $161 $5,917
4 $5,450 $0 $161 $5,611
5 $5,162 $0 $161 $5,323
6 $4,889 $0 $161 $5,050
7 $4,632 $0 $161 $4,793
8 $4,389 $0 $161 $4,550
9 $4,159 $0 $161 $4,320
10 $3,943 $0 $161 $4,104
11 $3,738 $0 $161 $3,899
12 $3,544 $0 $161 $3,705
$58,168 $0 $2,299 $60,467
6 1 $5,469 $0 $0 $5,469
2 $5,179 $0 $0 $5,179
3 $4,905 $424 $0 $5,329
4 $4,647 $1,834 $0 $6,481
5 $4,402 $3,099 $0 $7,501
6 $4,171 $4,232 $0 $8,403
7 $3,954 $5,244 $0 $9,198
8 $3,748 $6,143 $0 $9,891
9 $3,553 $6,940 $0 $10,493
10 $3,369 $7,643 $0 $11,012
11 $3,195 $8,261 $0 $11,456
12 $3,030 $8,799 $0 $11,829
6 $49,622 $52,619 $0 $102,241

========= =========== =============== ===========:==== ===========
11 11 $2,991 $0 $0 $2,991
12 $2,837 $0 $0 $2,837
11 $5,828 $0 $0 $5,828
_________ =========== =============== ===========:==== ===========
12 11 $2,991 $8,271 $V ,907 $13,169
12 $2,837^ $8,480 SI.,690 $13,007
12 $5,828 $16,751 $3 ,597 $26,176

========:==== ===========
15 10 $4,090 $5,182 $0 $9,272
11 $3,878 $5,749 $0 $9,627
IPCJ TirnP POP &-S21 ODD fo<?t A^?1 Po* Co*t A3?1 TotM W1
15 12 $3,676 $6,r248 $0 $9,924
15 $11,644 $17,,179 $0 $28,823

========= =========== =============================== ===========
16 10 $4,090 $0 $2,777 $6,867
11 $3,878 $0 $2,497 $6,375
12 $3,676 $0 $2,235 $5,911
16 $11,644 $0 $7,509 $19,153

_ ===========
21 10
11 $4,070 $1,755 $2,248 $8,073
12 $3,859 $2,,364 $1,972 $8,195
21 $12,223 $5(,192
=========
22 10 $4,294 $0 $0 $4,294
11 $4,070 $0 $0 $4,070
12 $3,859 $0 $0 $3,859
22 $12,223 $0 $0 $12,223
23 1 $6,268 $0 $5,156 $11,424

2 $5,933 $0 $4,688 $10,621
3 $5,617 $0 $4,252 $9,869
4 $5,319 $0 $3,844 $9,163
5 $5,038 $0 $3,464 $8,502
6 $4,772 <&599 $3,108 $8,479
7 $4,521 $v,615 $2,777 $8,913
$9,277
8 $4,284 $2,,526 $2,467
9 $4,060 $3,340 $2,178 $9,578
10 $3,849 $4,067 $1,909 $9,825
11 $3,649 $4,712 $1,658 $10,019
12 $3,460 $5,,284 $1,424 $10,168
23 $56,770 $22,143 $36,925 $115,838
24 1 $6,268 $1,271 $0 $7,539

2 $5,933 $2,941 $0 $8,874
3 $5,617 $4,439 $0 $10,056
4 $5,319 $5,778 $0 $11,097
5 $5,038 $6,972 $0 $12,010
6 $4,772 $8,032 $0 $12,804
7 $4,521 $8,970 $0 $13,491
8 $4,284 $9,796 $0 $14,080
9 $4,060 $10,519 $0 $14,579
10 $3,849 $11,149 $0 $14,998
11 $3,649 $11,692 $0 $15,341
12 $3,460 $12,158 $0 $15,618
24 $56,770 $93,717 $0 $150,487
25 1 $5,284 $0 $0 $5,284
2 $5,004 $0 $0 $5,004
3 $4,739 $371 $0 $5,110
4 $4,490 $1,605 $0 $6,095
5 $4,254 $2,712 $0 $6,966
6 $4,032 $3,704 $0 $7,736
7 $3,821 $4,589 $0 $8,410
8 $3,622 $5,376 $0 $8,998
9 $3,434 $6,074 $2,490 $11,998
10 $3,257 $6,689 $2,237 $12,183
11 $3,089 $7,229 $2,000 $12,318
12 $2,930 $7,701 $1,779 $12,410
25 $47,956 $46,050 $8,506 $102,512

========= =========== =============== =============== ===========
26 1 $4,991 $0 $6,319 $11,310
2 $4,727 $0 $5,828 $10,555
3 $4,478 $0 $5,368 $9,846
4 $4,243 $0 $4,938 $9,181
5 $4,021 $0 $4,535 $8,556
6 $3,811 $0 $4,158 $7,969
7 $3,612 $0 $3,805 $7,417
8 $3,425 $0 $3,475 $6,900
26 $33,308 $0 $38,426 $71,734

========= =========== =============== =============== ===========
27 1 $4,991 $0 $0 $4,991
2 $4,727 $0 $0 $4,727
3 $4,478 $0 $0 $4,478
4 $4,243 $0 $0 $4,243
5 $4,021 $0 $0 $4,021
6 $3,811 $0 $0 $3,811
7 $3,612 $0 $0 $3,612
8 $3,425 $0 $0 $3,425
27 $33,308 $0 $0 $33,308
28 1 $5,284 $1,059 $0 $6,343

2 $5,004 $2,451 $0 $7,455
3 $4,739 $3,699 $0 $8,438
4 $4,490 $4,815 $0 $9,305
5 $4,254 $5,810 $0 $10,064
6 $4,032 $6,693 $0 $10,725
7 $3,82f $7,475 $0 $11,296
8 $3,622 $8,163 $0 $11,785
9 $3,434 $8,766 $0 $12,200
10 $3,257 $9,290 $0 $12,547
11 $3,089 $9,743 $0 $12,832
$2,930 $10,131 $0 $13,061
$47,956 $78,095 $0 $126,051

=========== =============== =============== ===========
7 $3,840 $0 $0 $3,840
8 $3,640 $0 $0 $3,640
9 $3,451 $401 $0 $3,852
10 $3,273 $1,371 $0 $4,644
11 $3,104 $2,242 $0 $5,346
12 $2,944 $3,021 $0 $5,965
$20,252 $7,035 $0 $27,287

=========== =============== =============== ===========
7 $3,289 $0 $4,214 $7,503
8 $3,118 $0 $3,885 $7,003
9 $2,957 $0 $3,577 $6,534
10 $2,805 $0 $3,289 $6,094
11 $2,660 $0 $3,019 $5,679
12 $2,524 $0 $2,765 $5,289
$17,353 $0 $20,r749 $38,102

=========== =============== ================ ===========
7 $3,289 $0 $0 $3,289
8 $3,118 $0 $0 $3,118
9 $2,957 $0 $0 $2,957
10 $2,805 $0 $0 $2,805
11 $2,660 $0 $0 $2,660
12 $2,524 $0 $0 $2,524
$17,353 $0 $0 $17,353
=========== =============== =============== ===========
7 $3,840 $0 $0 $3,840
8 $3,640 $0 $0 $3,640
9 $3,451 $401 $0 $3,852
10 $3,273 $1,371 $0 $4,644
11 $3,104 $2,242 $0 $5,346
12 $2,944 $3,021 $0 $5,965
$20,252 $7,035 $0 $27,287

=========== =============== =============== ===========
3 $6,134 $0 $4,729 $10,863
6 $5,207 $0 $3,497 $8,704
7 $4,932 $0 $3,140 $8,072
8 $4,673 $0 $2,806 $7,479
9 $4,428 $314 $2,495 $7,237
10 $4,196 $1,073 $2,205 $7,474
11 $3,978- $1,755 $1,934 $7,667
12 $3,771 $2,364 $1,681 $7,816
33 $37,319 $5,506 $22,487 $65,312

34 3 $6,134 $363 $0 $6,497

6 $5,207 $3,628 $0 $8,835
7 $4,932 $4,494 $0 $9,426
8 $4,673 $5,265 $0 $9,938
9 $4,428 $5,949 $0 $10,377
10 $4,196 $6,551 $0 $10,747
11 $3,978 $7,081 $0 $11,059
12 $3,771 $7,542 $0 $11,313
34 $37,319 $40,873 $0 $78,192
35 4 $4,435 $0 $0 $4,435
5 $4,203 $0 $0 $4,203
6 $3,983 $682 $0 $4,665
7 $3,775 $1,838 $0 $5,613
8 $3,579 $2,875 $0 $6,454
9 $3,393 $3,803 $0 $7,196
10 $3,218 $4,630 $0 $7,848
11 $3,052 $5,365 $0 $8,417
12 $2,895 $6,015 $0 $8,910
35 $32,533 $25,208 $0 $57,741
36 4 $4,219 $0 $4,715 $8,934

5 $3,999 $0 $4,311 $8,310
6 $3,790 $0 $3,933 $7,723
7 $3,592 $0 $3,579 $7,171
8 $3,406 $0 $3,249 $6,655
9 $3,229 $0 $2,940 $6,169
10 $3,063 $0 $2,651 $5,714
11 $2,905 $0 $2,381 $5,286
12 $2,756 $0 $2,129 $4,885
36 $30,959 $0 $29,888 $60,847
37 4 $4,219 $0 $0 $4,219
5 $3,999 $0 $0 $3,999
6 $3,790 $0 $0 $3,790
7 $3,592 $0 $0 $3,592
8 $3,406 $0 $0 $3,406
9 $3,229 $0 $0 $3,229
10 $3,063 $0 $0 $3,063
11 $2,905 $0 $0 $2,905
12 $2,756 $0 $0 $2,756
37 $30,959 $0 $0 $30,959
38 $4,435 $0 $0 $4,435
$4,203 $0 $0 $4,203
$3,983 $682 $0 $4,665
$3,775 $1,838 $0 $5,613
168

38 8 $3,579 $2,875 $0 $6,454

9 $3,393 $3,803 $0 $7,196
10 $3,218 $4,630 $0 $7,848
11 $3,052 $5,365 $0 $8,417
12 $2,895 $6,015 $0 $8,910
38 $32,533 $25,208 $0 $57,741

Absolut values, and Relative Differences to the Solution Aircraft Type
Leg Time DOC B737 CJiff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.f5os Total Diff.Tot.
A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
1 1 $6,173 ( 19%) $0 $0 $6,173 ( 19%)

2 $5,840 ( 19%) $610 $0 . $6,450 ( 11%)
4 $5,230 < 19%) $2,935 . $0 . $8,165 26%

5 $4,950 ( 19%) $3,919 . $0 . $8,869 45%
6 $4,687 {> 19%) $4,797 . $0 . $9,484 64%
7 $4,438 <: 19%) $5,577 . $0 . $10,015 83%
8 $4,203 k 19%) $6,268 . $0 . $10,471 102%
9 $3,982 : 19%) $6,877 1541% $0 . $10,859 103%
10 $3,772 : 19%) $7,411 418% $0 . $11,183 84%
11 $3,575 : 19%) $7,876 237% $0 $11,451 69%
12 $3,388 : 19%) $8,279 163% $0 $11,667 59%
1 $55,764 $56,385 $0 $112149
2 1 $6,173 : 19%) $29,089 67% $1,170 ( 78%) $36,432 19%

2 $5,840 [ 19%) $29,590 57% $858 ( 83%) $36,288 17%
3 $5,526 : 19%) $29,979 50% $569 ( 87%) $36,074 15%
4 $5,230 : 19%) $30,269 44% $302 ( 92%) $35,801 14%
5 $4,950 : 19%) $30,466 39% $161 ( 95%) $35,577 13%
6 $4,687 : 19%) $30,582 35% $161 ( 95%) $35,430 12%
7 $4,438 : 19%) $30,623 32% $161 ( 94%) $35,222 12%
8 $4,203 [ 19%) $30,597 29% $161 ( 93%) $34,961 11%
9 $3,982 : 19%) $30,511 26% $161 ( 92%) $34,654 11%
10 $3,772 : 19%) $30,370 24% $161 ( 91%) $34,303 10%
11 $3,575 [ 19%) $30,181 22% $161 ( 90%) $33,917 10%
12 $3,388 : 19%) $29,949 20% $161 ( 88%) $33,498 10%
2 $55,764 $362206 $4,187 $422157
=== ======
3 1 $4,402 : 20%) $11,507 846% $0 $15,909 138%
2 $4,166 ; 20%) $12,343 339% $0 $16,509 107%
3 $3,943 <[ 20%) $13,070 208% $0 $17,013 86%
4 $3,733 ; 20%) $13,698 148% $0 $17,431 71%
5 $3,534 : 20%) $14,234 113% $0 $17,768 60%
6 $3,347 (: 20%) $14,688 91% $0 $18,035 52%
7 $3,170 (: 20%) $15,067 76% $0 $18,237 45%
8 $3,002 <: 20%) $15,376 64% $0 $18,378 40%
9 $2,844 (: 20%) $15,623 55% $0 $18,467 36%
10 $2,695 <> 20%) $15,814 48% $0 $18,509 32%
11 $2,554 ( 20%) $15,952 43% $0 $18,506 29%
12 $2,421 ( 20%) $16,045 38% $0 $18,466 26%
$39,811 $173417 $0 $213228

Leg Time DOC B737 C>iff .DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
4 1 $5,186 ( 19%) $0 $0 $5,186 [ 19%)

2 $4,907 ( 19%) $0 $0 . $4,907 C 19%)
3 $4,644 < 19%) $0 $0 . $4,644 <: 19%)
4 $4,396 <> 19%) $0 $0 . $4,396 : 19%)
5 $4,162 (: 19%) $0 $0 . $4,162 { : 19%)
6 $3,941 <[ 19%) $745 $0 . $4,686 : 4%)
7 $3,732 <: 19%) $1,683 $0 . $5,415 17%
8 $3,535 {: 19%) $2,524 $0 . $6,059 38%
9 $3,349 (: 19%) $3,276 $0 . $6,625 59%
10 $3,173 i: 20%) $3,947 $0 . $7,120 81%
11 $3,007 (: 20%) $4,542 $0 . $7,549 102%
12 $2,850 : 20%) $5,068 $0 . $7,918 123%
$46,882 $21,785 $0 $68,667
1 $5,186 19%) $0 $161 ( 70%) $5,347 (: 23%)

2 $4,907 19%) $0 $161 7% $5,068 <[ 19%)
3 $4,644 19%) $0 $161 0% $4,805 : 19%)
4 $4,396 19%) $0 $161 0% $4,557 {: 19%)
5 $4,162 19%) $0 $161 0% $4,323 (: 19%)
6 $3,941 19%) $0 $161 0% $4,102 (: 19%)
7 $3,732 19%) $0 $161 0% $3,893 : 19%)
8 $3,535 19%) $0 $161 0% $3,696 : 19%)
9 $3,349 19%) $0 $161 C% $3,510 [ 19%)
10 $3,173 20%) $120 $161 0% $3,454 : 16%)
11 $3,007 20%) $872 $161 0% $4,040 4%
12 $2,850 20%) $1,547 $161 0% $4,558 23%
$46,882 $2,539 $1,932 $51,353
1 $4,402 20%) $7,576 $0 $11,978 119%

2 $4,166 20%) $8,540 $0 $12,706 145%
3 $3,943 20%) $9,390 2115% $0 $13,333 150%
4 $3,733 20%) $10,136 453% $0 $13,869 114%
5 $3,534 20%) $10,787 248% $0 $14,321 91%
6 $3,347 20%) $11,350 168% $0 $14,697 75%
7 $3,170 20%) $11,834 126% $0 $15,004 63%
$3,002 20%) $12,246 99% $0 $15,248 54%
8
$2,844 20%) $12,591 81% $0 $15,435 47%
9
$2,695 20%) $12,875 68% $0 $15,570 41%
10
$2,554 20%) $13,105 59% $0 $15,659 37%
11
$2,421 20%) $13,285 51% $0 $15,706 33%
12
$39,811 $133715 $0 $173526

A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
11 11 $2,384 ( 20%) $2,163 $0 $4,547 52%

12 $2,259 ( 20%) $2,414 $0 $4,673 65%
11 $4,643 $4,577 $0 $9,220
12 11 $2,384 ( 20%) $11,039 33% $161 ( 92%) $13,584 3%

12 $2,259 ( 20%) $11,043 30% $161 ( 90%) $13,463 4%
12 $4,643 $22,082 $322 $27,047
II
1
<A
15 10 $3,296 ( 19%) $9,667 87% $12,963 40%
o
11 $3,124 ( 19%) $9,902 72% $0 $13,026 35%
12 $2,961 ( 19%) $10,093 62% $0 $13,054 32%
15 $9,381 $29,662 $0 $39,043

:==
16 10 $3,296 ( 19%) $2,349 $332 ( 88%) $5,977 ( 13%)
11 $3,124 ( 19%) $2,704 $166 ( 93%) $5,994 ( 6%)
12 $2,961 ( 19%) $3,017 $161 ( 93%) $6,139 4%
16 $9,381 $8,070 $659 $18,110

:==
21 10 $3,466 ( 19%) $5,558 418% $161 ( 94%) $9,185 16%
11 $3,285 ( 19%) $5,907 237% $161 ( 93%) $9,353 16%
12 $3,113 ( 19%) $6,209 163% $161 ( 92%) $9,483 16%
21 $9,864 $17,674 $483 $28,021
22 10 $3,466 ( 19%) $2,819 $0 $6,285 46%

11 $3,285 ( 19%) $3,244 $0 $6,529 60%
12 $3,113 ( 19%) $3,620 $0 $6,733 74%
$9,864 $9,683 $0 $19,547

22
$5,058 19%) $3,162 $1,394 73%) $9,614 16%)

23 1
$4,786 19%) $4,148 $1,110 76%) $10,044 5%)
2
$4,530 19%) $5,027 $847 80%) $10,404 5%
3
$4,288 19%) $5,808 $604 84%) $10,700 17%
4
$4,059 19%) $6,499 $378 89%) $10,936 29%
5
$3,844 19%) $7,107 1086% $169 95%) $11,120 31%
6
$3,640 19%) $7,641 373% $161 94%) $11,442 28%
7
$3,448 20%) $8,105 221% $161 93%) $11,714 26%
8
$3,267 20%) $8,506 155% $161 93%) $11,934 25%
9
$3,095 20%) $8,850 118% $161 92%) $12,106 23%
10
$2,933 20%) $9,141 94% $161 90%) $12,235 22%
11
172

A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
23 12 $2,780 ( 20%) $9,385 78% $161 ( 89%) $12,326 21%
23 $45,728 $83,379 $5,468 $134575
24 1 $5,058 ( 19%) $12,028 846% $0 $17,086 127%

2 $4,786 ( 19%) $12,902 339% $0 $17,688 99%
3 $4,530 ( 19%) $13,662 208% $0 $18,192 81%
4 $4,288 ( 19%) $14,318 148% $0 $18,606 68%
5 $4,059 ( 19%) $14,879 113% $0 $18,938 58%
6 $3,844 ( 19%) $15,354 91% $0 $19,198 50%
7 $3,640 ( 19%) $15,749 76% $0 $19,389 44%
8 $3,448 ( 20%) $16,073 64% $0 $19,521 39%
9 $3,267 ( 20%) $16,331 55% $0 $19,598 34%
10 $3,095 ( 20%) $16,530 48% $0 $19,625 31%
11 $2,933 ( 20%) $16,675 43% $0 $19,608 28%
12 $2,780 ( 20%) $16,771 38% $0 $19,551 25%
24 $45,728 $181272 $0 $227000
25 1 $4,250 ( 20%) $6,630 $0 $10,880 106%

2 $4,022 ( 20%) $7,474 $0 $11,496 130%
3 $3,807 ( 20%) $8,218 2115% $0 $12,025 135%
4 $3,604 ( 20%) $8,871 453% $0 $12,475 105%
5 $3,412 ( 20%) $9,440 248% $0 $12,852 84%
6 $3,231 ( 20%) $9,933 168% $0 $13,164 70%
7 $3,060 ( 20%) $10,357 126% $0 $13,417 60%
8 $2,898 ( 20%) $10,717 99% $0 $13,615 51%
9 $2,746 ( 20%) $11,019 81% $274 ( 89%) $14,039 17%
10 $2,602 ( 20%) $11,268 68% $127 ( 94%) $13,997 15%
$2,466 ( 20%) $11,469 59% $161 ( 92%) $14,096 14%
11
$2,337 $11,626 51% $161 ( 91%) $14,124 14%
12 ( 20%)
$38,435 $117022 $723 $156180

25
26 $4,010 20%) $0 $2,739 ( 57%) $6,749 ( 40%)

$3,794 20%) $0 $2,427 ( 58%) $6,221 ( 41%)
$3,591 20%) $0 $2,136 ( 60%) $5,727 ( 42%)
$3,400 20%) $0 $1,865 ( 62%) $5,265 ( 43%)
$3,219 20%) $0 $1,612 ( 64%) $4,831 ( 44%)
$3,048 20%) $0 $1,377 ( 67%) $4,425 ( 44%)
$2,887 20%) $0 $1,159 ( 70%) $4,046 ( 45%)
$2,734 20%) $0 $955 ( 73%) $3,689 ( 47%)
$26,683 $0 $14,270 $40,953

26
Leg Time DOC B737 Diff.DOC Opp. Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
27 1 $4 010 ( 20%) $0 $0 $4 010 ( 20%)

2 $3 794 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3 794 ( 20%)
3 $3 591 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3 591 ( 20%)
4 $3 400 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3 400 ( 20%)
5 $3 219 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3 219 ( 20%)
6 $3 r048 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3 048 ( 20%)
7 $2r887 ( 20%) $0 $0 $2 887 ( 20%)
8 $2,734 ( 20%) $0 $0 $2,734 ( 20%)
27 $26,683 $0 $0 $26,683
28 1 $4,250 ( 20%) $10,024 847% $0 $14,274 125%

2 $4,022 ( 20%) $10,752 339% $0 $14,774 98%
3 $3,807 ( 20%) $11,385 208% $0 $15,192 80%
4 $3,604 ( 20%) $11,932 148% $0 $15,536 67%
5 $3,412 ( 20%) $12,399 113% $0 $15,811 57%
6 $3,231 ( 20%) $12,795 91% $0 $16,026 49%
7 $3,060 ( 20%) $13,124 76% $0 $16,184 43%
8 $2,898 ( 20%) $13,394 64% $0 $16,292 38%
9 $2,746 ( 20%) $13,609 55% $0 $16,355 34%
10 $2,602 ( 20%) $13,775 48% $0 $16,377 31%
11 $2,466 ( 20%) $13,896 43% $0 $16,362 28%
12 $2,337 ( 20%) $13,976 38% $0 $16,313 25%
28 $38,435 $151061 $0 $189496
29 7 $3,076 ( 20%) $5,344 $0 $8,420 119%

8 $2,913 ( 20%) $6,006 $0 $8,919 145%
9 $2,760 ( 20%) $6,590 1543% $0 $9,350 143%
10 $2,615 ( 20%) $7,101 418% $0 $9,716 109%
11 $2,478 ( 20%) $7,547 237% $0 $10,025 88%
12 $2,349 ( 20%) $7,933 163% $0 $10,282 72%
$16,191 $40,521 $0 $56,712

29
30 7 $2,619 [ 20%) $0 $1,748 ( 59%) $4,367 ( 42%)

8 $2,480 [ 20%) $0 $1,540 ( 60%) $4,020 ( 43%)
9 $2,350 { 21%) $0 $1,346 ( 62%) $3,696 ( 43%)
10 $2,226 : 21%) $107 $1,166 ( 65%) $3,499 ( 43%)
11 $2,109 : 21%) $775 $997 ( 67%) $3,881 ( 32%)
12 $1,999 : 21%) $1,375 $841 ( 70%) $4,215 ( 20%)
$13,783 $2,257 $7,638 $23,678

30
======== =========
7 $2,619 : 20%) $0 $0 $2,619 ( 20%)
Leg Time DOC B737 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos .Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot
A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
31 8 $2,480 20%) $0 . $0 $2,480 ( 20%)

9 $2,350 21%) $0 .
. $0 $2,350 ( 21%)
10 $2,226 21%) $107 .
. $0 $2,333 ( 17%)
11 $2,109 21%) $775 .
. $0 $2,884 8%
12 $1,999 21%) $1,375 • $0 $3,374 34%
31 $13,783 $2,257 $0 $16,040

== ======== =========
32 7 $3,076 ( 20%) $5,344 . $0 $8,420 119%
8 $2,913 ( 20%) $6,006 . $0 $8,919 145%
9 $2,760 ( 20%) $6,590 1543% $0 $9,350 143%
10 $2,615 ( 20%) $7,101 418% $0 $9,716 109%
11 $2,478 ( 20%) $7,547 237% $0 $10,025 88%
12 $2,349 ( 20%) $7,933 163% $0 $10,282 72%
32 $16,191 $40,521 $0 $56,712
33 3 $4,955 <t 19%) $1,377 . $1,136 ( 76%) $7,468 ( 31%)

6 $4,204 : 19%) $3,598 . $394 ( 89%) $8,196 ( 6%)
7 $3,981 \[ 19%) $4,183 . $182 ( 94%) $8,346 3%
8 $3,771 : 19%) $4,701 . $161 ( 94%) $8,633 15%
9 $3,572 i: 19%) $5,157 1542% $161 < 94%) $8,890 23%
10 $3,385 (: 19%) $5,558 418% $161 ( 93%) $9,104 22%
11 $3,207 <: 19%) $5,907 237% $161 ( 92%) $9,275 21%
12 $3,040 [ 19%) $6,209 163% $161 ( 90%) $9,410 20%
33 $30,115 $36,690 $2,517 $69,322
34 3 $4,955 : 19%) $8,049 2117% $0 $13,004 100%

6 $4,204 : 19%) $9,729 168% $0 $13,933 58%
7 $3,981 : 19%) $10,144 126% $0 $14,125 50%
8 $3,771 [ 19%) $10,496 99% $0 $14,267 44%
9 $3,572 [ 19%) $10,792 81% $0 $14,364 38%
10 $3,385 I: 19%) $11,036 68% $0 $14,421 34%
11 $3,207 {: 19%) $11,233 59% $0 $14,440 31%
12 $3,040 (: 19%) $11,387 51% $0 $14,427 28%
34 $30,115 $82,866 $0 $112981
4 $3,558 ( 20%) $6,612 $0 $10,170 129%

35
5 $3,369 ( 20%) $7,399 . $0 $10,768 156%
6 $3,190 ( 20%) $8,091 1086% $0 $11,281 142%
7 $3,022 ( 20%) $8,698 373% $0 $11,720 109%
8 $2,862 ( 20%) $9,227 221% $0 $12,089 87%
9 $2,711 < 20%) $9,684 155% $0 $12,395 72%
Leg Time DOC B737 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot
A321 B737 A321 B737 A321 B737 A321
35 10 $2,569 ( 20%) $10,075 118% $0 $12,644 61%

11 $2,435 ( 20%) $10,407 94% $0 . $12,842 53%
12 $2,1 ",3 ( 20%) $10,684 78% $0 $12,992 46%
35 $26,C^4 $80,877 $0 $106901
36 4 $3,380 ( 20%) $0 $1,538 ( 67%) $4,918 ( 45%)

5 $3,201 ( 20%) $0 $1,290 ( 70%) $4,491 ( 46%)
6 $3,031 ( 20%) $0 $1,059 ( 73%) $4,090 ( 47%)
7 $2,870 ( 20%) $0 $844 ( 76%) $3,714 ( 48%)
8 $2,719 ( 20%) $0 $645 ( 80%) $3,364 ( 49%)
9 $2,576 ( 20%) $0 $461 ( 84%) $3,037 ( 51%)
10 $2,440 ( 20%) $120 $289 ( 89%) $2,849 ( 50%)
11 $2,312 ( 20%) $872 $131 ( 94%) $3,315 ( 37%)
12 $2,192 < 20%) $1,547 $161 ( 92%) $3,900 ( 20%)
36 $24,721 $2,539 $6,418 $33,678
37 4 $3,380 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3,380 ( 20%)

5 $3,201 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3,201 ( 20%)
6 $3,031 ( 20%) $0 $0 $3,031 ( 20%)
7 $2,870 ( 20%) $0 $0 $2,870 ( 20%)
8 $2,719 ( 20%) $0 $0 $2,719 ( 20%)
9 $2,576 ( 20%) $0 $0 $2,576 ( 20%)
10 $2,440 ( 20%) $120 $0 $2,560 ( 16X3
11 $2,312 ( 20%) $872 $0 $3,184 10%
12 $2,192 ( 20%) $1,547 $0 $3,739 36%
37 $24,721 $2,539 $0 $27,260
38 4 $3,558 ( 20%) $6,612 - $0 $10,170 129%

5 $3,369 ( 20%) $7,399 . $0 $10,768 156%
6 $3,190 ( 20%) $8,091 1086% $0 $11,281 142%
7 $3,022 ( 20%) $8,698 373% $0 $11,720 109%
8 $2,862 ( 20%) $9,227 221% $0 $12,089 87%
9 $2,711 ( 20%) $9,684 155% $0 $12,395 72%
10 $2,569 ( 20%) $10,075 118% $0 $12,644 61%
11 $2,435 ( 20%) $10,407 94% $0 $12,842 53%
12 $2,308 ( 20%) $10,684 78% $0 $12,992 46%
38 $26,024 $80,877 $0 $106901

Absolut Values, and Relative Differences to the Solution Aircraft
A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
1 1 $6,804 ( 11%) $0 $0 $6,804 ( 11%)

2 $6,439 ( 11%) $0 $0 $6,439 ( 11%)
3 $6,095 ( 11%) $0 $0 $6,095 ( 11%)
4 $5,770 ( 11%) $0 . so $5,770 ( 11%)
5 $5,464 < 11%) $460 $0 $5,924 ( 3%)
6 $5,174 < 11%) $1,594 $0 $6,768 17%
7 $4,901 <> 11%) $2,611 $0 $7,512 37%
8 $4,644 <: 11%) $3,522 . $0 $8,166 57%
9 $4,400 <> 11%) $4,334 934% $0 $8,734 64%
10 $4,171 <: 11%) $5,057 253% $0 $9,228 51%
11 $3,953 <: 11%) $5,696 143% $0 $9,649 43%
12 $3,748 (: io%) $6,261 99% $0 $10,009 36%
1 $61,563 $29,535 $0 $91,098
2 1 $6,804 <: 11%) $24,501 41% $2,660 ( 51%) $33,965 11%

2 $6,439 : 11%) $25,342 35% $2,271 ( 54%) $34,052 10%
3 $6,095 C 11%) $26,046 30% $1,909 ( 57%) $34,050 9%
4 $5,770 C 11%) $26,626 27% $1,573 ( 60%) $33,969 8%
5 $5,464 [ 11%) $27,094 24% $1,261 ( 65%) $33,819 7%
6 $5,174 C 11%) $27,459 21% $971 ( 69%) $33,604 6%
7 $4,901 C 11%) $27,732 19% $703 ( 75%) $33,336 6%
8 $4,644 C 11%) $27,920 17% $453 ( 82%) $33,017 5%
9 $4,400 C 11%) $28,032 16% $223 ( 90%) $32,655 4%
10 $4,171 C 11%) $28,075 14% $161 ( 91%) $32,407 4%
11 $3,953 C 11%) $28,056 13% $161 ( 90%) $32,170 5%
12 $3,748 C 10%) $27,981 12% $161 ( 88%) $31,890 5%
$61,563 $324864 $12,507 $398934
1 $4,890 : 11%) $7,455 513% $0 $12,345 85%

2 $4,631 : 11%) $8,591 205% $0 $13,222 65%
3 $4,385 : 11%) $9,596 126% $0 $13,981 53%
4 $4,154 : 11%) $10,481 90% $0 $14,635 44%
5 $3,935 : 11%) $11,256 69% $0 $15,191 37%
6 $3,729 : 11%) $11,931 55% $0 . $15,660 32%
7 $3,534 : 11%) $12,513 46% $0 . $16,047 28%
8 $3,349 I: 11%) $13,012 39% $0 . $16,361 25%
9 $3,175 : 11%) $13,434 33% $0 . $16,609 22%
10 $3,010 i : 11%) $13,787 29% $0 . $16,797 20%
11 $2,855 i : 11%) $14,076 26% $0 . $16,931 18%
12 $2,707 (: 11%) $14,307 23% $0 . $17,014 16%
$44,354 $140439 $0 $184793

Leg TIME DOC 320 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost

)St Diff.Pos Total Diff .Tot.
A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
4 1 $5,739 ( 11%) $0 $0 $5,739 ( 11%)

2 $5,433 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $5,433 ( 11%)
3 $5,144 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $5,144 ( 11%)
4 $4,871 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $4,871 ( 11%)
5 $4,614 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $4,614 ( 11%)
6 $4,371 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $4,371 ( 11%)
7 $4,141 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $4,141 ( 11%)
8 $3,924 ( 11%) $0 $0 . $3,924 ( 11%)
9 $3,720 ( 11%) $607 $0 . $4,327 4%
10 $3,526 < 11%) $1,475 $0 . $5,001 27%
11 $3,343 < 11%) $2,253 $0 . $5,596 50%
12 $3,170 (: 11%) $2,949 $0 . $6,119 73%
4 $51,996 $7,284 $0 $59,280
5 1 $5,739 (: 11%) $0 $161 ( 70%) $5,900 ( 15%)

2 $5,433 : 11%) $0 $161 7% $5,594 < 10%)
3 $5,144 t 11%) $0 $161 0% $5,305 ( 10%)
4 $4,871 : 11%) $0 $161 0% $5,032 ( 10%)
5 $4,614 c 11%) $0 $161 0% $4,775 ( 10%)
6 $4,371 : 11%) $0 $161 0% $4,532 < 10%)
7 $4,141 C 11%) $0 $161 0% $4,302 ( 10%)
8 $3,924 C 11%) $0 $161 0% $4,085 ( 10%)
9 $3,720 C 11%) $0 $161 0% $3,881 ( 10%)
10 $3,526 C 11%) $0 $161 0% $3,687 ( 10%)
11 $3,343 C 11%) $0 $161 0% $3,504 ( 10%)
12 $3,170 C 11%) $0 $161 0% $3,331 ( 10%)
$51,996 $0 $1,932 $53,928
1 $4,890 <: 11%) $3,459 . $0 $8,349 53%

2 $4,631 <: 11%) $4,728 . $0 $9,359 81%
3 $4,385 i: 11%) $5,860 1E3% $0 $10,245 92%
4 $4,154 (: 11%) $6,868 274% $0 $11,022 70%
5 $3,935 <: 11%) $7,760 150% $0 $11,695 56%
6 $3,729 : 11%) $8,548 102% $0 $12,277 46%
7 $3,534 t 11%) $9,240 76% $0 $12,774 39%
8 $3,349 : 11%) $9,843 60% $0 $13,192 33%
9 $3,175 : 11%) $10,366 49% $0 $13,541 29%
10 $3,010 ; 11%) $10,815 42% $0 . $13,825 26%
11 $2,855 i: n%) $11,198 36% $0 . $14,053 23%
12 $2,707 : 11%) $11,519 31% $0 . $14,226 20%
$44,354 $100204 $0 $144558

A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
11 11 $2,671 ( 11%) $1,073 $0 $3,744 25%

12 $2,533 ( 11%) $1,404 $0 $3,937 39%
*
11 $5,204 $2,477 $0 $7,681
12 11 $2,671 ( 11%) $9,949 20% $587 ( 69%) $13,207 0%

12 $2,533 ( 11%) $10,034 18% $427 ( 75%) $12,994 ( 0%)
12 $5,204 $19,983 $1,014 $26,201
15 10 $3,659 ( 11%) $7,901 52% $0 $11,560 25%

11 $3,469 ( 11%) $8,267 44% $0 $11,736 22%
12 $3,289 ( 11%) $8,579 37% $0 $11,868 20%
15 $10,417 $24,747 $0 $35,164
16 10 $3,659 < 11%) $878 . $1,182 ( 57%) $5,719 ( 17%)

11 $3,469 ( 11%) $1,341 . $972 ( 61%) $5,782 ( 9%)
12 $3,289 ( 11%) $1,756 $776 ( 65%) $5,821 < 2%)
16 $10,417 $3,975 $2,930 $17,322
21 10 $3,841 ( 11%) $3,792 253% $738 ( 71%) $8,371 6%

11 $3,642 ( 11%) $4,272 143% $520 ( TTA) $8,434 4%
12 $3,453 ( 11%) $4,696 99% $317 ( 84%) $8,466 3%
21 $10,936 $12,760 $1,575 $25,271

===
22 10 $3,841 ( 11%) $1,053 . $0 . $4,894 14%
11 $3,642 ( 11%) $1,609 . $0 . $5,251 29%
12 $3,453 ( 11%) $2,107 $0 $5,560 44%
22 $10,936 $4,769 $0 $15,705

=== _________
23 1 $5,600 ( 11%) $0 . $2,716 ( 47%) $8,316 ( 27%)
2 $5,302 ( 11%) $662 . $2,362 ( 50%) $8,326 ( 22%)
3 $5,020 ( 11%) $1,799 . $2,034 ( 52%) $8,853 ( 10%)
4 $4,754 ( 11%) $2,819 . $1,728 ( 55%) $9,301 2%
5 $4,503 ( 11%) $3,732 . $1,443 ( 58%) $9,678 14%
6 $4,266 ( 11%) $4,545 659% $1,179 ( 62%) $9,990 18%
7 $4,042 ( 11%) $5,268 226% $933 ( 66%) $10,243 15%
8 $3,831 ( 11%) $5,908 134% $705 ( 71%) $10,444 13%
9 $3,631 ( 11%) $6,472 94% $493 ( 7T/o) $10,596 11%
10 $3,442 ( 11%) $6,967 71% $296 ( 84%) $10,705 9%
11 $3,264 ( 11%) $7,398 57% $114 ( 93%) $10,776 8%
179

Leg TIME DOC 320 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost Diff.Pos Total D ff.Tot.
A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
23 12 $3,095 ( 11%) $7,770 47% $161 ( 89%) $11,026 8%
23 $50,750 $53,340 $14,164 $118254
24 1 $5,600 ( 11%) $7,793 513% $0 $13,393 78%

2 $5,302 ( 11%) $8,980 205% $0 $14,282 61%
3 $5,020 ( 11%) $10,031 126% $0 $15,051 50%
4 $4,754 ( 11%) $10,956 90% $0 $15,710 42%
5 $4,503 ( 11%) $11,766 69% $0 $16,269 35%
6 $4,266 ( 11%) $12,471 55% $0 $16,737 31%
7 $4,042 ( 11%) $13,080 46% $0 $17,122 27%
8 $3,831 ( 11%) $13,602 39% $0 $17,433 24%
9 $3,631 ( 11%) $14,043 34% $0 $17,674 21%
10 $3,442
11 $3,264 ( 11%) $14,713 26% $0 $17,977 17%
12 $3,095 ( 11%) $14,955 23% $0 $18,050 16%
24 $50,750 $146801 $0 $197551
=== ======== ========= ===== 47%

25 1 $4,725 ( 11%) $3,027 . $0 $7,752
2 $4,474 ( 11%) $4,137 . $0 $8,611 72%
3 $4,238 ( 11%) $5,128 1E3% $0 $9,366 83%
4 $4,014 ( 11%) $6,010 274% $0 . $10,024 64%
5 $3,803 ( 11%) $6,791 150% $0 . $10,594 52%
6 $3,603 ( 11%) $7,481 102% $0 . $11,084 43%
7 $3,415 ( 11%) $8,086 76% $0 . $11,501 37%
8 $3,237 ( 11%) $8,614 60% $0 . $11,851 32%
9 $3,069 ( 11%) $9,072 49% $1,037 ( 58%) $13,178 10%
10 $2,909 ( 11%) $9,465 422 $848 ( 6 2 %) $13,222 9%
11 $2,759 C 11%) $9,800 362 $673 ( 66%) $13,232 7%
12 $2,617 ( 11%) $10,081 31°/ $510 ( 71%) $13,208 6%
$87,692 $3,068 $133623

25 $42,863
=== ======== ========= ========= ===
$0 $4,038 ( 36%) $8,502 ( 25%)
26 1 $4,464 ( 11%)
$4,227 C 11%) $0 $3,657 ( 37%) $7,884 ( 25%)
2
( 11%) $0 $3,302 ( 38°/>) $7,306 ( 26%)
3 $4,004
$0 $2,969 ( 40°/>) $6,762 ( 26%)
4 $3,793 ( 11%)
$0 $2,659 ( 41°/,) $6,253 ( 27%)
5 $3,594 ( 11%)
$0 $2,370 ( 43°/S> $5,775 ( 28%)
6 $3,405 ( 11%)
7 $0 $2,099 ( 45°/i) $5,326 ( 28%)
$3,227 ( 11%)
8 $3,059 $0 $1,847 ( 479i) $4,906 ( 29%)
( 11%)
$22,941 $52,714
26 $29,773 $0
A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
27 1 $4,464 ( 11%) $0 $0 $4,464 ( 11%)

2 $4,227 ( 11%) $0 $0 $4,227 < 11%)
3 $4,004 ( 11%) $0 $0 $4,004 ( 11%)
4 $3,793 ( 11%) $0 $0 $3,793 <> 11%)
5 $3,594 ( 11%) $0 $0 $3,594 (> 11%)
6 $3,405 ( 11%) $0 $0 $3,405 <: 11%)
7 $3,227 ( 11%) $0 $0 $3,227 : 11%)
8 $3,059 ( 11%) $0 $0 $3,059 i 11%)
27 $29,773 $0 $0 $29,773
28 1 $4,725 11%) $6,494 513% $0 $11,219 77%

2 $4,474 11%) $7,484 205% $0 $11,958 60%
3 $4,238 11%) $8,359 126% $0 $12,597 49%
4 $4,014 11%) $9,130 90% $0 $13,144 41%
5 $3,803 11%) $9,805 69% $0 $13,608 35%
6 $3,603 11%) $10,393 55% $0 $13,996 30%
7 $3,415 11%) $10,900 46% $0 $14,315 27%
8 $3,237 11%) $11,335 39% $0 $14,572 24%
9 $3,069 11%) $11,702 33% $0 $14,771 21%
10 $2,909 11%) $12,009 29% $0 $14,918 19%
11 $2,759 11%) $12,261 26% $0 $15,020 17%
12 $2,617 11%) $12,462 23% $0 $15,079 15%
28 $42,863 $122334 $0 $165197
== ========= ==_======
29 7 $3,432 11%) $2,502 . $0 $5,934 55%
8 $3,253 11%) $3,375 . $0 $6,628 82%
9 $3,084 11%) $4,153 936% $0 $7,237 88%
10 $2,924 11%) $4,845 253% $0 $7,769 67%
11 $2,773 11%) $5,459 143% $0 $8,232 54%
12 $2,630 11%) $5,999 99% $0 $8,629 45%
$18,096 $26,333 $0 $44,429

29
:== ========= ====:=====
$0 $2,645 ( 37%) $5,581 ( 26%)
30 7 $2,936 11%)
8 $2,783 11%) $0 $2,390 ( 38%) $5,173 ( 26%)
11%) $0 $2.152 ( 40%) $4,791 ( 27%)
9 $2,639
11%) $0 $1,930 ( 41°/>) $4,432 ( 27%)
10 $2,502
$0 $1,722 ( 43°/,) $4,094 ( 28%)
11 $2,372 11%)
12 $2,250 11%) $0 $1,527 ( 45°/0 $3,777 ( 29%)
- $0 $12,366 $27,848
30 $15,482
=== ======== ========= ===== = = = = =____————
31 7 $2,936 ( 11%) $0 . $0 $2,936 ( 11%)
181

Leg ME DOC 320 Diff.DOC Opp.Cost Diff.Opp Pos.Cost

st Diff.Pos Total Diff.Tot.
A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
31 8 $2,783 <: 11%) $0 $0 $2,783 ( 11%)

9 $2,639 <k 11%) $0 $0 . $2,639 ( 11%)
10 $2,502 <: 11%) $0 $0 . $2,502 ( 11%)
11 $2,372 : 11%) $0 $0 . $2,372 ( 11%)
12 $2,250 : 11%) $0 $0 . $2,250 < 11%)
31 $15,482 $0 $0 $15,482
32 7 $3,432 <> 11%) $2,502 $0 $5,934 55%

8 $3,253 (: 11%) $3,375 . $0 $6,628 82%
9 $3,084 ' 11%) $4,153 936% $0 $7,237 88%
10 $2,924 : 11%) $4,845 253% $0 $7,769 67%
11 $2,773 ; 11%) $5,459 143% $0 $8,232 54%
12 $2,630 : 11%) $5,999 99% $0 $8,629 45%
32 $18,096 $26,333 $0 $44,429
33 3 $5,479 <: 11%) $0 . $2,398 ( 49%) $7,877 ( 27%)

6 $4,654 <: 11%) $1,195 . $1,470 ( 58%) $7,319 ( 16%)
7 $4,409 : 11%) $1,959 . $1,203 ( 62%) $7,571 ( 6%)
8 $4,178 : 11%) $2,641 . $955 ( 66%) $7,774 4%
9 $3,960 ; 11%) $3,251 935% $724 ( 71%) $7,935 10%
10 $3,754 : 11%) $3,792 253% $510 ( 7m $8,056 8%
11 $3,559 : 11%) $4,272 143% $312 ( 84%) $8,143 6%
12 $3,374 : 11%) $4,696 99% $127 ( 92%) $8,197 5%
33 $33,367 $21,806 $7,699 $62,872
34 3 $5,479 t 11%) $5,023 1E3% $0 $10,502 62%

6 $4,654 { 11%) $7,327 102% $0 $11,981 36%
7 $4,409 : 11%) $7,920 76% $0 $12,329 31%
8 $4,178 : 11%) $8,437 60% $0 $12,615 27%
9 $3,960 : 11%) $8,885 49% $0 $12,845 24%
10 $3,754 : 11%) $9,270 42% $0 $13,024 21%
11 $3,559 : 11%) $9,598 36% $0 $13,157 19%
12 $3,374 : 11%) $9,873 31% $0 $13,247 17%
34 $33,367 $66,333 $0 $99,700

.== ======== ========= ========= =========
35 4 $3,965 <: 11%) $3,210 . $0 $7,175 62%
5 $3,757 : 11%) $4,248 . $0 $8,005 90%
6 $3,560 : 11%) $5,174 659% $0 $8,734 87%
7 $3,374 : 11%) $5,998 226% $0 $9,372 67%
8 $3,198 : 11%) $6,726 134% $0 $9,924 54%
9 $3,031 : 11%) $7,368 94% $0 . $10,399 45%
-Values in Brackets are Neqative-
A321 A320 A321 A320 A321 A320 A321
35 10 $2,874 ( 11%) $7,931 71% $0 $10,805 38%

11 $2,725 ( 11%) $8,422 57% $0 $11,147 32%
12 $2,585 ( 11%) $8,846 47% $0 $11,431 28%
35 $29,069 $57,923 $0 $86,992
36 4 $3,772 11%) $0 $2,666 ( 43%) $6,438 ( 28%)

5 $3,574 11%) $0 $2,358 ( 45%) $5,932 ( 29%)
6 $3,386 11%) $0 $2,071 ( 47%) $5,457 ( 29%)
7 $3,209 11%) $0 $1,803 ( 50%) $5,012 ( 30%)
8 $3,042 11%) $0 $1,554 ( 52%) $4,596 ( 31%)
9 $2,884 11%) $0 $1,321 ( 55%) $4,205 ( 32%)
10 $2,735 11%) $0 $1,105 ( 58%) $3,840 ( 33%)
11 $2,593 11%) $0 $904 ( 62%) $3,497 ( 34%)
12 $2,459 11%) $0 $716 ( 66%) $3,175 ( 35%)
36 $27,654 $0 $14,498 $42,152
37 4 $3,772 (: 11%) $0 $0 $3,772 ( 11%)

5 $3,574 <: 11%) $0 $0 $3,574 < 11%)
6 $3,386 (: 11%) $0 $0 $3,386 <: 11%)
7 $3,209 (: 11%) $0 $0 $3,209 : 11%)
8 $3,042 (: 11%) $0 $0 $3,042 : 11%)
9 $2,884 <: 11%) $0 $0 $2,884 : 11%)
10 $2,735 (: 11%) $0 $0 $2,735 C 11%)
11 $2,593 : 11%) $0 $0 $2,593 C 11%)
12 $2,459 : 11%) $0 $0 $2,459 C 11%)
37 $27,654 $0 $0 $27,654
38 4 $3,965 ( : 11%) $3,210 . $0 $7,175 62%

5 $3,757 (: 11%) $4,248 . $0 $8,005 90%
6 $3,560 : 11%) $5,174 659% $0 $8,734 87%
7 $3,374 : 11%) $5,998 226% $0 $9,372 67%
8 $3,198 : 11%) $6,726 134% $0 $9,924 54%
9 $3,031 : 11%) $7,368 94% $0 $10,399 45%
10 $2,874 : 11%) $7,931 71% $0 $10,805 38%
11 $2,725 : 11%) $8,422 57% $0 $11,147 32%
12 $2,585 (: 11%) $8,846 47% $0 $11,431 28%
$29,069 $57,923 $0 $86,992

38

Quick Change Market Case Study Airbus A321 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quick Change Market Case Study Airbus A321 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quick Change Market Case Study Airbus A321 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theses - Daytona Beach Dissertations and Theses

Airbus A320/321 Quick Change Market Analysis -

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/db-theses

Scholarly Commons Citation

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are

This reproduction is the best copy available.

Till Christian Mommsen

A Thesis Submitted to the

Office of Graduate Programs

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Business Administration

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Daytona Beach, Florida

Copyright by Till Christian Mommsen 1994

All Rights Reserved

AIRBUS A320/321 QUICK CHANGE MARKET ANALYSIS

Till Christian Mommsen

Prof Boris Trnavskis, PhD

Prof. Oliver Heil, PhD

thesis such as this.

amount of time in evaluating methods and data of my thesis.

Title: Airbus A320/321 Quick Change Market Analysis - A Case Study

Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Degree: Master of Business Administration

To evaluate the competitiveness of the A320/321 QC under actual conditions, a

operating costs, costs of insufficient capacity, additional costs of daytime operation,

station costs, costs of ferry flights, and costs of idle aircraft.

A320/321 QC aircraft within the hypothetical airline used in the study.

1.2 Literature Review 3

2.2 Fleet Planning 11

3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

3.2 The Main Deck Cargo Loading System 18

3.3 The Cabin Configuration 19

3.4 Systems Integration 21

4 OPERATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

4.3 Aircraft Handling 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

5 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE A320/321 QC AND

5.2 Output Data Calculation and Analysis 35

6 THE FLEET PLANNING MODEL 50

6.2 Cost Components of the Objective Function 54

6.3 Scheduling Constraints 61

6.4 Mathematical Formulation 62

7.2 Cost Data 75

8 ANALYSIS OF THE LP OUTPUT 83

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

8.2 Aircraft Rotation Schedule 85

8.3 Cost Analysis 89

APPENDIX A DIRECT OPERATING COST CALCULATION 98

APPENDIX B SAS PRINTOUT EXTRACTS OF THE LP SOLUTION

APPENDIX C SAS PRINTOUT EXTRACTS OF THE LP SOLUTION

WITH SALES CONSTRAINT 117

APPENDIX D B737 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS 133

APPENDIX E A320 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS 149

APPENDIX F A321 QC NETWORK COST COMPONENTS 161

CLS: Cargo Loading System

DOC: Direct operating costs

MCD: Main Cargo door

MEW: Manufacturers Empty Weight