Does this route earn its keep?

Size the market, take a share of it by cabin, price it at a yield, fly it with a given aircraft and frequency. Cost splits two ways: escapable if you don't operate, carried either way if you do. The method is below; the working model goes to paid subscribers.

For paid subscribers

The working model is for paid subscribers

The page you are on explains the method. The model itself — the one you type your own market size, fares, aircraft and frequency into — goes to paid subscribers of Strategic Bearing, as a spreadsheet where every output is a live formula rather than a number someone typed.

That means you can point it at a different route, argue with an assumption, and watch the whole thing move. It is a structure for the argument, not a substitute for it.

Subscribe to get it

Already a paid subscriber? Reply to any Strategic Bearing email and I will send it over.

What the model does

Five years, built from the inputs you control rather than a verdict handed down:

Market and capture. Size the origin–destination market, take a share of it by cabin, and price that share at a yield you set.
Service. Aircraft, frequency, stage length and seats, turning into block hours and departures.
Cost, split by what it actually is. Thirteen lines, each marked escapable — the cost that disappears if you do not operate — or carried either way. Each normalises per block hour or per departure depending on what drives it.
Two breakevens. Cash breakeven asks whether the route covers the cost you would avoid by not flying it. Full breakeven asks whether it also covers the cost you carry anyway.

Why two. A route can clear cash and still destroy value. That gap is the thing most often argued about in a network meeting and most often left implicit, which is the reason the model separates the two rather than reporting one number.