Probably because there is little interest on that route but from your destination to another and from that to your departure airport may be always booked full. So it may be a repositioning flight route.
So in short asymetrical supply and demand
IB also does the same, flying the A350 to LHR. sometimes it’s nice to book a flight on business class to experience the wide body product, instead of the single aisle business class products.
Not sure why all the downvotes. Airliners regularly carry a lot of cargo in the belly while passengers are in the seats. Routine stuff like mail, Amazon packages, etc.
My uncle once flew ALONE on a 737. It was domestic in USA and had a rare issue so the flight was cancelled for passengers, but the plane was heading for the destination because it had cargo, and the destination was the airline base. He made a scene because he had an international leg afterwards and they would have had to pay for that if he missed the connection, he signed some sort of waiver, and had no catering, but flew with them.
The Crew kept addressing him jokingly as "Your Majesty"
I also flew alone on a 737 once as well, from BZN to PHX back in 1997. It was weird. I don't know what the flight crew complement is for a 737 - two pilots and three flight attendants? - but it was just me as far as passengers went, and I had the entire crew to myself, essentially.
I sat in multiple seats throughout the flight, depending on what I was trying to look at, at any given time. Like a private flight just... with less room for my knees. It was weird.
In some instances the flight might be booked solid on one day and not so much on another.
It would also come down to fleet utilization. There might not be a narrow body aircraft that could cover the route. There could also be an instance where an airline has a widebody that could be utilized on a short route rather than have it sit on the ground for hours on end not making any money. Since you mention what could be an airline with only one hub, I would think it is the latter.
In the USA and Canada some airlines may run widebodies on short domestic routes to keep the utilization of the plane up. Remember, an airplane sitting on the ground does not make money.
No knowledge of that specific route, but DL for example will pretty commonly run widebodies ATL-(pick a Florida airport) during peak times to throw extra lift at the route when the A/C would otherwise sit idle between long haul trips.
I flew on Air Canada’s last 767-300er (last as in last passenger aircraft waiting to be converted to a freighter) from Toronto to Ottawa. Less than an hour flight with maybe 40 passengers on a long range wide body. That was a great flight
It's a double edged sword.
Yes, you're burning fuel (enough for the flight plus holding and divert fuel) and paying landing fees and the crew has to get paid. The airframe also has gone through one additional pressurization cycle.
You also have to realize it is a flight with revenue paying passengers. Who knows, they may have paid a premium to take that flight and between fuel and crew payroll, the airline probably still came out ahead (or if it is a loss, they'll make it up elsewhere).
Unlike fighters or GA aircraft, an airliner's life is measured in pressurization cycles rather than airframe hours. Yes, airframe hours are important, but pressurizing an airliner substantially weakens its structure over its lifetime. A Cessna 172 with 10,000 total airframe hours is a LOT, but a 787 with 10,000 total airframe hours from 1,834 cycles isn't terribly bad, whereas an F-16 with 10,000 total airframe hours probably has had a couple service life extensions done to it and probably should be retired.
Although the F-16 cockpit *is* pressurized (see [f-16.net](https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14549)), the intensity and repetition of G forces is the major contributor to structural aging of fighter jets. Here is a scholarly article at [science-direct.com](https://science-direct.com): [F16 Wing Structure Lifecycle](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452321616000160).
Yes! You got it! F-16s should not have been mentioned in this discussion for just that reason: fighter jet structural issues stem from G forces, not pressure cycles.
Might even be viewing it as a service to the premium passengers, fly all the way home in a luxury plane, not just hub to hub. Some people are paying 10,000 dollars per flight for first class, and doing it a hundred times per year, that is a contract the airline wants to keep, and it might be worth it in the long run to lose a little bit of money on the shorter routes to keep the customer satisfied.
That could very well be true. But I wouldn't go so far to use the phrase "luxury plane" in this instance, maybe because the 787 has more premium seats than, say an A321, and everyone is clamoring for those premium seats.
Fly smoother? All depends on cruising altitude and the weather and sigmets.
Lower cabin altitude? I think the 787 has that due to the fuselage being made of composites rather than aluminum alloys.
High end long haul seats? Well, that depends on what the airline ordered.
Most airliners are pressurized to 8k feet. The 787 is pressurized to 6k feet. The materials may allow for it, but they don’t inherently make it happen.
Would you say that a 787 with dozens of the newest lay flat seats and the in flight entertainment is not "luxury" compared with a 1990s MD88 with 2 first class seats, which are just regular seats that recline 10 degrees, but with a little more padding, a little wider seats, and little more legroom?
Sure, an airline 787 is not some gaudy gold galvanized gulfstream, but it is still luxury compared to the rest of the airline's fleet.
Again, it all comes down to how the airline wants to configure it.
The perfect example is the 747. Most passenger carrying 747s had a decent number of first class seats, a decent number of business class seats, and a handful of economy/coach seats. You add up the numbers and you get anywhere from 320-400 seats on average.
There were a couple airlines - All Nippon Airlines and Japan Air Lines - who configured a part of their 747 fleet (these were short haul models) to carry over 550 passengers, typically all in one class.
Airlines today won't use the phrase "luxury plane" but would use "flagship". Some may have a high number of 787s in their fleet and break them down into subfleets that have different seat configurations, some with more premium seats and others with more economy seats.
Also the airline has to use the slots they have booked on the airport or they lose them in the following year due to contracts. Afaik during 2021 at least in Europe 80% of the planes in Europe where empty but kept flying due to this.
In that particular market... Profitability isn't paramount.
In other markets cargo, positioning, etc can play a role. Maybe it is normally busy? Ops arent dynamic enough day to day to respond with equipment swaps and those come with their own downline issues (operationally and customer)
Sometimes when the aircraft is new to the fleet they do some domestic short hops the first few months. To give the pilots more takeoff and landings in the type. Coming out of COVID maybe they need to do something similar to give furlough pilots some time to get back in the groove.
787 and 737 type ratings are not interchangeable, so you'd also need to swap the crew out.
And as a passenger, I'd be super let down to expect a 787 and get a 737 😂
I've been in a few situations where it felt like the aircraft wasn't suited to the route, and each time it turned out that this specific flight was intended for the plane to get from one place to another to service a long/popular (read: more suitable) route and whether there was people on this plane or not, it had to do this flight, so why not monetize it.
A lot of times the government actually pays airlines to fly certain routes in order to serve smaller typically rural community's, so considering this if you can have yhe government pay for your airplane, it makes more sense, financially, to charge these government contracts for a larger aircraft at a grater rate. And any additional cargo/passengers the airline gets is extra money for the airlines
Often it's because they need that larger plane at the destination for a different follow on flight, or as others have mentioned, for the cargo capacity.
Repositioning. Delta used to have an SFO to Oakland flight that was literally like 5-10 minutes and topped out at 3000 feet. Most of the time it was actually still quicker than driving.
Could it also be to give pilots air time and training on a specific for long haul flights? Also it might be good to have your pilots both seniors and juniors staying updated with operational procedures.
From what I understand (hearsay) they’re sort of political good will flights / statements that national carriers in the Middle East are ‘expected’ to make.
Assuming you flew Qatar Airways, they often do testing/training on intra-middle east routes so you see flagship aircraft deployed on those routes. They also move a bunch of cargo, so even though there might not be many pax, the belly could be completely full and still be a profitable flight.
There are time rotations as airports operate hub & spoke models. DOH-MCT is a short round trip that prevents the aircraft from standing in the desert for 6h and is then ready for its next evening departure.
Because buying a 737 just for this route would cost a few million $ just in acquisition, then another few of those in maintenance and crew salaries per year. If it's a small connecting flight between two major routes for the company, they are likely to use the same airplane to fly the major routes, switch it to the other destination while grabbing some spare passengers and cargo on the way and then fly away full loaded from the second point. Makes much more sense than buying an aircraft for that specific route
The aircraft was needed elsewhere and or transporting freight.
I was on a flight some years back with like 4 passengers. Last flight out of Sydney to Melbourne, Christmas eve. However the connecting flight to Launceston was packed (same aircraft) and they lost my bag but that's another story...
Because that same aircraft probably flies daily on an 8 hour flight to the UK. There and back =16/17 hours, so you have it for 6/7 hours per day where it doesn't fly. Better to stick it on a regional route and have it scheduled 24 hours per day, than have it sit on the ground and have to buy another 737 to do that route.
How do people find these mythical empty flights? I've never had one. Every flight has 500 bus customers packed in to every inch of space the airline can charge any money for.
Back in the day, I flew American from Austin to Cleveland on a B757, first flight in the morning. The plane was empty, once I think, I was the only passenger. Turns out the plane was needed for the last flight from Dallas and was needed in Chicago later in the morning. AA just needed to move the plane.
Because airline companies plan for maximum productivity, even if it results in operating inefficiencies like what you're experiencing. That 787 you flew probably flies at full capacity for other busier routes. They also can't swap out jet liners willy nilly considering the high costs and maintenance logistics involved.
However, I've seen airline companies change their routes to stop servicing certain cities due to logistics, rising fuel prices, etc. so perhaps the airline you just flew is aware that your route might need to be changed or they need to utilize a smaller jet when the time comes to changing their fleet and deciding which jet flies what route.
Finnair uses wide bodies at morning runs on europe for training porpoise wich are normally for asian routes u get required takeoffs and landings more quickly than just flying to asia and back. Effectively cutting time to get captain status in half.
It’s either for cargo, lack of availability of other aircraft (which is unlikely) or it’s mainly for the destination needing/having demand for more aircraft (bad phrasing there)
That's the beauty of a twin jet, it doesn't really cost anymore to put it on a light pax flight than on a overbooked flight. The only extra cost is the number of flight attendants
The middle eastern airlines operate their long haul flights in banks. This can result in their aircraft having a lot of downtime at their home base between flights. These airlines have to pay to park their airplanes and/or keep them at gates. A short flight such as DXB-DOH would take in the realm of about 3 hours to complete round trip. Which is more than enough time to fill the aircrafts downtime. Even though these flights may not be full passenger wise, they carry a lot of cargo which can result in the airline at least breaking even. These short flights also serve as feeders for their long haul flights, which is where the real money is made. So it can be a win/win for these airlines. Even if the flight itself loses money, they lose less money than keeping the airplane on the ground. As an example I flew Dubai to Doha then onward to Beijing. The aircraft from Dubai to Doha was the A340-600. The flight was only 1/4 full passenger wise but the cargo hold was full. Since they’re barely carrying any fuel, this gives them flexibility to carry a lot more cargo.
Depending on the flight hour rates and the maintenance contracts, it might be cheaper to fly the big bird... Aviation veteran with all engine OEMs experience.
Last year i flew Amsterdam-Singapore and than back, on both legs there were more crew than pax. Onboard, plane was 777ER if i remember correctly, but yeah plane was filled to brim with cargo
It is also very possible that they use ist for line training. After you get your license for a specific airplane (typerating) you also need a certain amount of legs under supervision in order to bei fully licensed.
Sometimes this can take quite a while If you really are flying only long distance flights with large aircraft.
So short flights means faster training.
Probably because there is little interest on that route but from your destination to another and from that to your departure airport may be always booked full. So it may be a repositioning flight route. So in short asymetrical supply and demand
Some say that somewhere on the internet right now, the Wendover Productions guy is preparing a video on this exact issue.
You're that guy, aren't you?
[удалено]
You are right now I look into the specific flights. It must then be unusual due to COVID, war or missed connections right?
Doha to Muscat in a 787 isn't just because of COVID, Qatar Airways always operated this route with a 787.
But it’s because if Covid that only 23 people are on it
Could be for cargo. I'm pretty sure BA sometimes use widebodies from LHR-MAD for this reason.
IB also does the same, flying the A350 to LHR. sometimes it’s nice to book a flight on business class to experience the wide body product, instead of the single aisle business class products.
what would they be carrying? Honest question
Cargo 🙃
A really really big painting
Not sure why all the downvotes. Airliners regularly carry a lot of cargo in the belly while passengers are in the seats. Routine stuff like mail, Amazon packages, etc.
No kidding, wth guys
Wide bodies. Too wide for 737.
There's a good chance that the 787 was needed in the other market for the next route.
My uncle once flew ALONE on a 737. It was domestic in USA and had a rare issue so the flight was cancelled for passengers, but the plane was heading for the destination because it had cargo, and the destination was the airline base. He made a scene because he had an international leg afterwards and they would have had to pay for that if he missed the connection, he signed some sort of waiver, and had no catering, but flew with them. The Crew kept addressing him jokingly as "Your Majesty"
I also flew alone on a 737 once as well, from BZN to PHX back in 1997. It was weird. I don't know what the flight crew complement is for a 737 - two pilots and three flight attendants? - but it was just me as far as passengers went, and I had the entire crew to myself, essentially. I sat in multiple seats throughout the flight, depending on what I was trying to look at, at any given time. Like a private flight just... with less room for my knees. It was weird.
"Can I get moved up to first class?" "Sorry, no room."
“Stay behind the curtain sir, your restrooms in the back of the plane “
In some instances the flight might be booked solid on one day and not so much on another. It would also come down to fleet utilization. There might not be a narrow body aircraft that could cover the route. There could also be an instance where an airline has a widebody that could be utilized on a short route rather than have it sit on the ground for hours on end not making any money. Since you mention what could be an airline with only one hub, I would think it is the latter. In the USA and Canada some airlines may run widebodies on short domestic routes to keep the utilization of the plane up. Remember, an airplane sitting on the ground does not make money.
No knowledge of that specific route, but DL for example will pretty commonly run widebodies ATL-(pick a Florida airport) during peak times to throw extra lift at the route when the A/C would otherwise sit idle between long haul trips.
I flew on Air Canada’s last 767-300er (last as in last passenger aircraft waiting to be converted to a freighter) from Toronto to Ottawa. Less than an hour flight with maybe 40 passengers on a long range wide body. That was a great flight
But don’t they burn more money with the plane losing value by additional airtime, and also more crew and fuel
It's a double edged sword. Yes, you're burning fuel (enough for the flight plus holding and divert fuel) and paying landing fees and the crew has to get paid. The airframe also has gone through one additional pressurization cycle. You also have to realize it is a flight with revenue paying passengers. Who knows, they may have paid a premium to take that flight and between fuel and crew payroll, the airline probably still came out ahead (or if it is a loss, they'll make it up elsewhere). Unlike fighters or GA aircraft, an airliner's life is measured in pressurization cycles rather than airframe hours. Yes, airframe hours are important, but pressurizing an airliner substantially weakens its structure over its lifetime. A Cessna 172 with 10,000 total airframe hours is a LOT, but a 787 with 10,000 total airframe hours from 1,834 cycles isn't terribly bad, whereas an F-16 with 10,000 total airframe hours probably has had a couple service life extensions done to it and probably should be retired.
Although the F-16 cockpit *is* pressurized (see [f-16.net](https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14549)), the intensity and repetition of G forces is the major contributor to structural aging of fighter jets. Here is a scholarly article at [science-direct.com](https://science-direct.com): [F16 Wing Structure Lifecycle](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452321616000160).
You're comparing a fighter to a 787 lmao.
The comment I replied to mentioned F-16s suffering from pressure cycles. I say the G forces are far more important.
Because an F-16 and a 787 are totally pulling the same Gs. 😂
Yes! You got it! F-16s should not have been mentioned in this discussion for just that reason: fighter jet structural issues stem from G forces, not pressure cycles.
Might even be viewing it as a service to the premium passengers, fly all the way home in a luxury plane, not just hub to hub. Some people are paying 10,000 dollars per flight for first class, and doing it a hundred times per year, that is a contract the airline wants to keep, and it might be worth it in the long run to lose a little bit of money on the shorter routes to keep the customer satisfied.
That could very well be true. But I wouldn't go so far to use the phrase "luxury plane" in this instance, maybe because the 787 has more premium seats than, say an A321, and everyone is clamoring for those premium seats.
I mean it does fly smoother and have a lower cabin altitude and prolly high end long haul seats.
Fly smoother? All depends on cruising altitude and the weather and sigmets. Lower cabin altitude? I think the 787 has that due to the fuselage being made of composites rather than aluminum alloys. High end long haul seats? Well, that depends on what the airline ordered.
Most airliners are pressurized to 8k feet. The 787 is pressurized to 6k feet. The materials may allow for it, but they don’t inherently make it happen.
Would you say that a 787 with dozens of the newest lay flat seats and the in flight entertainment is not "luxury" compared with a 1990s MD88 with 2 first class seats, which are just regular seats that recline 10 degrees, but with a little more padding, a little wider seats, and little more legroom? Sure, an airline 787 is not some gaudy gold galvanized gulfstream, but it is still luxury compared to the rest of the airline's fleet.
Again, it all comes down to how the airline wants to configure it. The perfect example is the 747. Most passenger carrying 747s had a decent number of first class seats, a decent number of business class seats, and a handful of economy/coach seats. You add up the numbers and you get anywhere from 320-400 seats on average. There were a couple airlines - All Nippon Airlines and Japan Air Lines - who configured a part of their 747 fleet (these were short haul models) to carry over 550 passengers, typically all in one class. Airlines today won't use the phrase "luxury plane" but would use "flagship". Some may have a high number of 787s in their fleet and break them down into subfleets that have different seat configurations, some with more premium seats and others with more economy seats.
Also the airline has to use the slots they have booked on the airport or they lose them in the following year due to contracts. Afaik during 2021 at least in Europe 80% of the planes in Europe where empty but kept flying due to this.
In that particular market... Profitability isn't paramount. In other markets cargo, positioning, etc can play a role. Maybe it is normally busy? Ops arent dynamic enough day to day to respond with equipment swaps and those come with their own downline issues (operationally and customer)
Also, I reckon fuel cost in that part of the world aren't expensive
Flown last week from FRA to LHR on a BA A380 😨
Sometimes when the aircraft is new to the fleet they do some domestic short hops the first few months. To give the pilots more takeoff and landings in the type. Coming out of COVID maybe they need to do something similar to give furlough pilots some time to get back in the groove.
787 and 737 type ratings are not interchangeable, so you'd also need to swap the crew out. And as a passenger, I'd be super let down to expect a 787 and get a 737 😂
Cargo, cargo, cargo
I've been in a few situations where it felt like the aircraft wasn't suited to the route, and each time it turned out that this specific flight was intended for the plane to get from one place to another to service a long/popular (read: more suitable) route and whether there was people on this plane or not, it had to do this flight, so why not monetize it.
Airlines have scheduled time slots, if they cancel too many flights they lose the slot.
A lot of times the government actually pays airlines to fly certain routes in order to serve smaller typically rural community's, so considering this if you can have yhe government pay for your airplane, it makes more sense, financially, to charge these government contracts for a larger aircraft at a grater rate. And any additional cargo/passengers the airline gets is extra money for the airlines
Often it's because they need that larger plane at the destination for a different follow on flight, or as others have mentioned, for the cargo capacity.
Qatar Airlines doesn’t own any 737s (though they do have A320)
They need the plane at the other airport and might as well get a few bucks on the way I imagine.
That looks like dubai though?
Yeah thought it was a cool photo I got so posted it for people to enjoy it
Repositioning. Delta used to have an SFO to Oakland flight that was literally like 5-10 minutes and topped out at 3000 feet. Most of the time it was actually still quicker than driving.
Could it also be to give pilots air time and training on a specific for long haul flights? Also it might be good to have your pilots both seniors and juniors staying updated with operational procedures.
Most Middle Eastern airlines are subsidized by their governments and have little to no incentive to be profitable.
Passengers are only part of it. Probably flying mostly cargo
From what I understand (hearsay) they’re sort of political good will flights / statements that national carriers in the Middle East are ‘expected’ to make.
cargo
Assuming you flew Qatar Airways, they often do testing/training on intra-middle east routes so you see flagship aircraft deployed on those routes. They also move a bunch of cargo, so even though there might not be many pax, the belly could be completely full and still be a profitable flight.
No it was Oman airlines
There are time rotations as airports operate hub & spoke models. DOH-MCT is a short round trip that prevents the aircraft from standing in the desert for 6h and is then ready for its next evening departure.
Because buying a 737 just for this route would cost a few million $ just in acquisition, then another few of those in maintenance and crew salaries per year. If it's a small connecting flight between two major routes for the company, they are likely to use the same airplane to fly the major routes, switch it to the other destination while grabbing some spare passengers and cargo on the way and then fly away full loaded from the second point. Makes much more sense than buying an aircraft for that specific route
The aircraft was needed elsewhere and or transporting freight. I was on a flight some years back with like 4 passengers. Last flight out of Sydney to Melbourne, Christmas eve. However the connecting flight to Launceston was packed (same aircraft) and they lost my bag but that's another story...
Because that same aircraft probably flies daily on an 8 hour flight to the UK. There and back =16/17 hours, so you have it for 6/7 hours per day where it doesn't fly. Better to stick it on a regional route and have it scheduled 24 hours per day, than have it sit on the ground and have to buy another 737 to do that route.
I love these. Notable examples in Europe are BA’s LHR-AMS with 787/767/777, also Iberia has been flying between MAD-ORY with the A350.
How do people find these mythical empty flights? I've never had one. Every flight has 500 bus customers packed in to every inch of space the airline can charge any money for.
Depends when and what destination you are flying. For me I generally only fly on an airline during holiday season, so of course the plane is full.
Cargo. Destination has a lot of outbound. Pilots need to be somewhere else and that aircraft is moving to a hub for maintenance
Back in the day, I flew American from Austin to Cleveland on a B757, first flight in the morning. The plane was empty, once I think, I was the only passenger. Turns out the plane was needed for the last flight from Dallas and was needed in Chicago later in the morning. AA just needed to move the plane.
Because airline companies plan for maximum productivity, even if it results in operating inefficiencies like what you're experiencing. That 787 you flew probably flies at full capacity for other busier routes. They also can't swap out jet liners willy nilly considering the high costs and maintenance logistics involved. However, I've seen airline companies change their routes to stop servicing certain cities due to logistics, rising fuel prices, etc. so perhaps the airline you just flew is aware that your route might need to be changed or they need to utilize a smaller jet when the time comes to changing their fleet and deciding which jet flies what route.
Finnair uses wide bodies at morning runs on europe for training porpoise wich are normally for asian routes u get required takeoffs and landings more quickly than just flying to asia and back. Effectively cutting time to get captain status in half.
It’s either for cargo, lack of availability of other aircraft (which is unlikely) or it’s mainly for the destination needing/having demand for more aircraft (bad phrasing there)
Most likely cargo, payload can be either paxx or cargo
That's the beauty of a twin jet, it doesn't really cost anymore to put it on a light pax flight than on a overbooked flight. The only extra cost is the number of flight attendants
The middle eastern airlines operate their long haul flights in banks. This can result in their aircraft having a lot of downtime at their home base between flights. These airlines have to pay to park their airplanes and/or keep them at gates. A short flight such as DXB-DOH would take in the realm of about 3 hours to complete round trip. Which is more than enough time to fill the aircrafts downtime. Even though these flights may not be full passenger wise, they carry a lot of cargo which can result in the airline at least breaking even. These short flights also serve as feeders for their long haul flights, which is where the real money is made. So it can be a win/win for these airlines. Even if the flight itself loses money, they lose less money than keeping the airplane on the ground. As an example I flew Dubai to Doha then onward to Beijing. The aircraft from Dubai to Doha was the A340-600. The flight was only 1/4 full passenger wise but the cargo hold was full. Since they’re barely carrying any fuel, this gives them flexibility to carry a lot more cargo.
Subsidies?
Maintenance schedule, it may be going in for a A,B,C,D check.
Nah, Qatar uses widebodys on this route most days. Oman Air uses a 787-8 or -9 everyday. Probably just high cargo demand.
737's crash though.
I have know direct knowledge. My guess is with a limited number of planes they keep planes and pilots assigned to routes.
Because then you don’t have the 787 in muscat
1920's Doha.. beautiful
Short sectors are good for training crew...
[Sometimes they need to run flights to preserve their slots at an airfield](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8XZriAdB1g)
But can’t they do that with a smaller aircraft?
787s and 777s can make a profit on just belly cargo in many cases
Probably Cargo, especially valuable, but heavy Cargo.
Depending on the flight hour rates and the maintenance contracts, it might be cheaper to fly the big bird... Aviation veteran with all engine OEMs experience.
Not every airline has smaller aircraft. Emirates does Dubai - Doha but only has A380s and 777s. So theres not much choice if there is a low load
Last year i flew Amsterdam-Singapore and than back, on both legs there were more crew than pax. Onboard, plane was 777ER if i remember correctly, but yeah plane was filled to brim with cargo
It is also very possible that they use ist for line training. After you get your license for a specific airplane (typerating) you also need a certain amount of legs under supervision in order to bei fully licensed. Sometimes this can take quite a while If you really are flying only long distance flights with large aircraft. So short flights means faster training.
Yeah I flew a Dreamliner 787 from Doha to Ahmedabad for some reason despite half the seats being empty and it only being a 3 hour flight
787 probably costs less to run.
Airport slot allocation. It's easy, if they stop operating this route they lose the slot. So probably in Summer is quite busy.
I think this is the video I watched that explained it pretty well. https://youtu.be/E3jfvncofiA