Route revenue
Route revenue review: a higher load factor can still weaken the answer
Selling more seats is only one part of the result. The review must explain the source of volume, the fare change, and whether the comparison is like for like.
Fix the comparison unit
The same route may not be the same product across weekday, departure time, aircraft, and selling window. Fix direction, departure-date range, capacity, and the fare-revenue definition, including whether taxes, ancillaries, or connecting allocation are included.
Why average fare can fall as volume rises
Assume the plan is 168 seats, 132 passengers, and an SGD 410 average fare. The example result has 141 passengers at SGD 392. Load factor rises from 78.6% to 83.9% and fare revenue from SGD 54,120 to SGD 55,272, but average fare is SGD 18 lower.
| View | Seats | Passengers | Load factor | Average fare | Fare revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planned | 168 | 132 | 78.6% | SGD 410 | SGD 54,120 |
| Example result | 168 | 141 | 83.9% | SGD 392 | SGD 55,272 |
Turn variance into questions
Review the nine additional passengers by booking window and fare level, test whether early low-fare sales displaced later demand, then check competitor timing, holidays, groups, and connecting mix. “Demand was stronger” is not enough for the next inventory decision.
Keep the original plan, information available at the time, action taken, and result. Do not use final data to rewrite what the earlier decision maker should have known.
What the revenue figure excludes
The example excludes fuel, airport, crew, distribution, compensation, opportunity cost, and connecting-revenue allocation. It supports a revenue review, not a route-profit or network-value conclusion.