I'm curious how much savings is made by slowing down versus the variable cost (and some fixed) of higher time on the airframe which speeds up it's useful life and frequency of maint. checks and the cost of the increased payroll by flying longer block times.
In the International spectrum, this could be significant if you have a flight that is blocked for 7 hr 59 mins which can be flown by a two-man crew. By slowing down whether specifically from company guidance or by personal choice, the segment that is just under 8 hrs is now over 8 hrs more than 50% of the time in a 90 day snapshot thus requiring the company to change the block time to reveal it is an over-8 hr flight requiring the use of a third pilot (Relief Officer).
Next, hub and spoke schedules are a delicate balancing act. When block times need to be lengthened, this upsets the apple cart and could possibly (not definately, in the case of rolling hub scheduling) create a situation where planes now spend more time on the ground waiting for other planes to arrive with their connecting passengers.
Finally, and maybe this is an intangible cost for running over block time, but what is the cost of lost revenue from a business person that is 15-20 mins late for a meeting, misses their connection, etc. We all know many people schedule air travel in their plans with the same margin for error as a trapeze artist.i.e arrive at ORD at 1230pm, meeting downtown at 130pm.
I honestly don't know which is the better solution. Just curious if others might have some thoughts...thanks
FF