614 gold medals will be handed out at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games, but how much are they worth?

I LOVE THE OLYMPICS!

And almost every other worldwide sporting event.

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend one of the Athletics sessions at the London 2012 games.

I’m writing this post as the Olympics kick off in Tokyo. 8 hours behind London, I find myself waking up to news of Gold medals. It’s one of those periods where you need to shut off from any form of media to avoid spoilers.

Sadly, spectators are banned from the games this year. Whilst I fully understand the decision, and agree with it, my chances of spending part of the summer in Tokyo were again dashed, as they were in 2020. Maybe next year…

Even without spectators, the Olympics requires a full scale logistics effort to get all teams to Japan. In this months post, I decided to look at what a herculean effort is required.

Methodology

I used IOC data for events and information about medals.

Note for team events, I’ve counted team size as players on the field (e.g. football = 11 players). The actual team size to include substitutes is not considered in this post, even though these team members will be eligible for medals.

All prices (flights and materials cost) use prices correct on July 31st 2021.

Results

Count of athletes at Tokyo 2020 by team

Count of athletes at Tokyo 2020 by team

Download chart.

Rank (count athletes) Team Count of athletes
… … …
10 ROC 328
9 Italy 372
8 Great Britain 376
7 Canada 381
6 France 398
5 China 406
4 Germany 425
3 Australia 478
2 Japan 552
1 United States 613

Download full table.

At this years Olympics, 11,313 athletes will be competing.

Many athletes share rooms in the Olympic village, which leaves a requirement for at least 5,657 athlete rooms.

Assuming 3 meals per day (but likely probably much more) that’s 33,939 servings per day. If all athletes are there for 17 days (duration of Olympic event calendar), that’s a total of 576,963 meals.

Estimated cost of flying athletes to Tokyo 2020

Skyscanner London to Tokyo July 2022

A quick look at direct flights from London (LHR) to Tokyo (HND) in summer 2022 (1st July – 14th July), shows the cheapest economy ticket at £779 from British Airways. Let’s assume all GBR athletes booked in advance and flew this ticket in 2021, and ignoring training staff and equipment (how do you get horses to the Olympics?), gives a total transport cost of £292,904 (376*£779) for GBR.

Assuming the same average ticket cost for all athletes (minus Japan) gives a total of £8,382,819 (10,761*£779) of flight costs!

At this Olympics many athletes are required to fly home immediately after competing, meaning that all of these tickets will need to be made flexible at additional cost… or perhaps being an Olympian waives change fees?

Count events at 2020 Olympics by discipline

Count events at 2020 Olympics by discipline

Download chart.

Rank (count events) Sport (Discipline) Body Count events 2020
… … … …
9 Canoe/kayak (sprint) ICF 12
9 Track cycling UCI 12
9 Freestyle wrestling UWW 12
9 Fencing FIE 12
8 Boxing AIBA 13
5 Artistic FIG 14
5 Rowing FISA 14
5 Weightlifting IWF 14
3 Judo IJF 15
3 Shooting ISSF 15
2 Swimming FINA 35
1 Athletics WAthle 48

Download full table.

Athletics (48) and swimming (35) events have over twice as many events as any other discipline (male and female events are counted individually). Surprisingly, shooting (15), judo (15) and weightlifting (14) are joint 3rd and 5th by count of events.

In total there are 50 sports, across 20 disciplines, representing 339 events in total. This is five more sports and 18 new events compared to Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

Count of events by gender at Tokyo 2020

Count of events by gender at Tokyo 2020

Download chart.

Type Count of events
Mens events 165
Womens events 156
Mixed events 18

In the 1896 Athens games there were no women’s events. How far we’ve come.

In Rio 2016 there were 161 men’s events and 145 women’s events, so the balancing of genders in 2020 is getting closer to even.

It’s important to remember as much as male only events still occur, some events still remain women only too, like synchronized swimming.

There are also 18 mixed events at this years games, 9 more than at Rio 2016.

Medals awarded

Although there are 339 medal events, many more medals are awarded. This is due to the fact that some events are team based (4 x 100m sprint, etc.) where each participant gets a medal.

To make things even more complex, some teams rotate athletes during qualification phases. Athletes that take part in qualification, but do not compete in the final, are also still eligible for a medal.

Considering only the number of players on the field (e.g. 11 players for football) there would be a total of 614 athletes eligible for medals, or 1,842 medals total (614 x (1 gold + 1 silver + 1 bronze)).

Roughly, 1 in every 7 athletes who compete will win a medal (11,313 athletes /1842 medals).

Cost of medals

In April 2017, the Tokyo Olympic Medal Project started. The goal: to salvage 100% of the metals required to make the approximately 5,000 Olympic medals from unwanted electronic devices.

In total, the government collected several million tonnes of equipment, and extracted 32 kilograms of gold, 3500 kilograms of silver and 2200 kilograms of copper and zinc for the bronze medals.

In all, it took 78,985 tons of donated devices, including approximately 6.21 million mobile phones.

  • Gold medals have a mass of 556 grams (1.2% gold, 98.8% silver)
  • Silver medals have a mass of 550 grams (100% silver)
  • Bronze medals have a mass of 450 grams (95% copper, 5% zinc)

At the time of writing rough wholesale prices are as as follow;

  • 1g of gold = £42.03
  • 1g of silver = £0.59
  • 1g of copper = £0.006
  • 1g of zinc = £0.002

So the team collected £1,344,960.00 worth of gold, £2,065,000.00 of silver and £12,760.00 of copper and zinc (based on material composition of bronze medal below).

The total collected considers all medals, including those for the Paralympics.

Looking again at the Olympics only…

Cost per medal

Gold Silver Bronze
Mass (g) 556 550 450
Total material cost GBP £604.53 £324.50 £2.61

You can see the inclusion of just 6g of gold makes the gold medal almost twice as expensive in materials cost than the silver. Bronze medals look like a bargain.

Cost of all medals

Total cost of medals at Tokyo 2020 Olympics

Download chart.

Considering the 1,842 medals awarded (614 of each type) gives a total value of medals of £575,230.62. Ignoring the costs to recycle the materials, the organisers managed to save some money here.

Medals sold at auction

The most expensive Olympic gold ever is the iconic medal won by African American sprinter Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympics in Nazi Germany, sold at an auction in 2013 for $1.5m.

Ukrainian boxer Waldimir Klitschko sold his 1996 boxing gold medal for $1m in 2012 and donated the proceeds to charity.

Improvements

Materials costs considered wholesale market costs of materials. Seeing as all materials were donated, a better calculation for cost to produce (vs. value) would look at recycling costs. Similarly, it would also be interesting to consider the consumer value of materials, which will be much higher than wholesale.

Flight costs were also calculated in a very rough way. It would be much more accurate to consider ticket costs from each country. With numbers from the IOC (including auxiliary team staff) I could come up with a much more thorough analysis of total people travelling to the games in each team too.

I’d also like to include the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic games, not considered in this analysis.

tl;dr

At this years Olympics, 11,313 athletes will be competing in 339 events. In total, 1,842 medals will be awarded with a rough value of £575,230!

Footnotes

Olympic 2020 data sources

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

The Plane You’re Flying on is Newer than Your Car

Four years ago I wrote how larger airlines (by fleet size) tend to offer worse service than their smaller counterparts.

In last months post I looked at the oldest commercial planes still operating (tl;dr, some are very old).

Many older planes are unnoticeable from their newer counterparts with newer interiors fitted.

Though can redecoration really hide 40 years of use? How does the age of a fleet impact customer satisfaction?

Methodology

I took Skytrax 2019 World’s Best Airline rankings to get an ordered list of 100 airlines.

For aircraft count and ages for planes operated by these airlines I then used data from AirFleets.

Results

Average age of airline fleet

Average age of airline fleet

Download chart.

Skytrax rank Airline Airline year started Average age of fleet (yrs) Count of planes in fleet
88 Air Seychelles 1979 1.6 2
69 Vistara 2014 3.1 47
51 Air Astana 2001 3.5 19
94 LEVEL 2017 3.9 3
86 Peach 2011 4.2 34
… … … … …
68 United Airlines 1931 16.4 807
100 Icelandair 1937 17.9 25
73 AtlasGlobal 1992 23.3 69
85 PAL Express 1972 25.8 14
28 Asiana Airlines 1988 33.1 85

Download full table.

The median age of planes in Skytrax 100 fleets is just 9 years (mean age is 9.7 years).

Asiana Airlines, ranked 25th in the Skytrax ranking (and last by average fleet age) has an average fleet age of 33.1 years. They are the only airline in the bottom 10 for aircraft age to have a Skytrax ranking above 50th!

It’s also worth noting the divide between old and new airlines. The newest fleets are operated by airlines established post 2000, whereas the older fleets tend to be operated by some of the oldest airlines.

Correlation between Skytrax rank and fleet age

Correlation between Skytrax rank and fleet age

Download chart.

A cursory glance at the graph above shows no correlation between age of aircraft and Skytrax rank.

Some of the newest fleets have the worst scores, which is understandable as they are generally smaller with less money to spend on overall customer experience (a factor of Skytrax ranking).

Improvements

I’ve used aggregate stats on each airline for the analysis. The next step for me would be to look at each airline and see the spread of ages for each aircraft. For instance, in United Airlines fleet of 807 planes; are there very old planes? Lack of new planes? Or a spread of all ages that contribute to the fleets overall average age of 16.4 years?

tl;dr

The median age of planes in Skytrax 100 fleets is just 9 years (mean age is 9.7 years).

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

The Plane You’re Flying on is 47 Years Old

Airbus announced that it would cease production of the A380 a few years ago with the final plane rolling off the production line this year.

248 A380’s have been delivered since it entered production in 2003, the first order being delivered in October 2007, fourteen years ago.

Boeing also recently announced the end of production of its 747 in 2022… though its life stretches back an impressive 50 years with over 1500 delivered!

50 years!

Which got me thinking; what are the oldest planes still flying commercially? Are there any 50 year old 747’s still in service?

Methodology

I used airfleets.net production list search for each major aircraft type still flying. airfleets.net reports the status of the plane, including the last flight recorded, however, it seems these dates are manually submitted by users (some are very old). Therefore, I verified dates with flightradar24.com.

I consider planes still in service if they made a flight in 2020 — my assumption being many have been temporarily taken out of service due to the reduction in air travel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only planes that had first flights before 1990 are considered.

I do not consider military or non-commercial passenger operators (e.g. military or shipping).

Results

Difference between first flight ever and oldest commercial model in operation first flew

Oldest commercial plane still in operation by model vs. first flight (April 2021)

Download chart.

Manufacturer/model First commercial flight of model Oldest plane still in operation first flew Years between first and oldest
Boeing 737 1967-05-13 1974-05-09 6
Boeing 747 1969-05-10 1984-02-28 14
Airbus A300 1972-10-28 1986-12-31 14
Boeing 767 1981-11-04 1982-09-25 0
Airbus A310 1982-04-03 1989-03-08 6
Boeing 757 1982-10-25 1988-02-19 5
Embraer 120 Brasilia 1983-07-27 1986-03-21 2
De Havilland Canada Dash 8 1983-10-26 1985-09-11 1
Airbus A320 1987-02-22 1989-04-25 2

Download full table.

Older 747’s and A300’s seems to leave service quickly, relatively speaking — the oldest planes still flying are 14 years older than the first models that flew.

Conversely, the 737 has remarkable longevity with some of the oldest versions still in operation delivered only 6 years longer than the first ever commercial flight of the model (and first delivered before the 747 and A300).

Age of oldest commercial model still flying

Age of oldest commercial plane still in operation by model

Download chart.

Manufacturer/model Oldest plane still in operation first flew Todays date Age (years)
Airbus A310 1989-03-08 2021-05-31 32
Airbus A320 1989-04-25 2021-05-31 32
Boeing 757 1988-02-19 2021-05-31 33
Airbus A300 1986-12-31 2021-05-31 34
De Havilland Canada Dash 8 1985-09-11 2021-05-31 35
Embraer 120 Brasilia 1986-03-21 2021-05-31 35
Boeing 747 1984-02-28 2021-05-31 37
Boeing 767 1982-09-25 2021-05-31 38
Boeing 737 1974-05-09 2021-05-31 47

Download full table.

C-GNLK, a 737 currently operated by Nolinor Aviation has been flying for over 47 years — almost 10 years longer than any other model.

By aircraft type

Boeing 737
  • First commercial flight of type:
    • Registration: N701PJ
    • First flight: 1967-05-13
    • Status: Scrapped
    • AirFleets info
  • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Boeing 747
  • First commercial flight of type:
    • Registration: N474EV
    • First flight: 1969-05-10
    • Status: Scrapped
    • AirFleets info
  • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Boeing 757
  • First commercial flight of type:
    • Registration: G-BIKA
    • First flight: 1982-10-25
    • Status: Scrapped
    • AirFleets info
  • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Boeing 767
  • First commercial flight of type:
      • Registration: N601UA
      • First flight: 1981-11-04
      • Status: Scrapped
      • AirFleets info
    • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Airbus A300
  • First commercial flight of type:
      • Registration: F-OCAZ
      • First flight: 1972-10-28
      • Status: Scrapped
      • AirFleets info
    • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Airbus A310
  • First commercial flight of type:
      • Registration: N450FE
      • First flight: 1982-04-03
      • Status: Stored
      • AirFleets info
    • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Airbus A320
  • First commercial flight of type:
      • Registration: F-WWBA
      • First flight: 1987-02-22
      • Status: Stored
      • AirFleets info
    • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
De Havilland Canada Dash 8
  • First commercial flight of type:
      • Registration: C-GGMP
      • First flight: 1983-10-26
      • Status: Stored
      • AirFleets info
    • Oldest plane still in commercial service:
Embraer 120 Brasilia
  • First commercial flight of type:
      • Registration: PT-ZBA
      • First flight: 1983-07-27
      • Status: Stored
      • AirFleets info
    • Oldest plane still in commercial service:

Improvements

The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and MD-11 didn’t quite make this list, but only because I considered commercial, passenger carrying commercial airlines. Currently, these planes are only operated by Air Forces and logistics companies. FedEx operate N303FE, a DC-10 that’s 48.1 years old!

I’ve also only included major manufactures I am aware of and is listed on AirFleets. It would be worth validating if there are airlines flying from other manufacturers I am unaware of (I suspect there might be some in Russia).

Finally, I’ve only considered a single plane of each model. Keep in mind, 26% of all commercial airliners are 737’s — there will be many other of these old models still flying.

tl;dr

C-GNLK, a 737 currently operated by Nolinor Aviation has been flying for over 47 years — almost 10 years longer than any other model.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

All the COVID-19 Vaccines Required by the UK Could Easily Fit into Two Fuel Tankers

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has seen successes, stumbling blocks and inequalities.

Thinking about vaccine development, it’s quite astounding that within one year pharmaceutical companies have developed, manufactured, and distributed hundreds-of-millions of doses.

With restrictions in travel looking like they might be removed for those fully vaccinated,  I decided to take a deeper look at just how impressive this feat is.

A big shout out to those involved in the vaccine programs and everyone involved health care workers around the world — thank you!

Methodology

I first obtained a list of all approved vaccines around the world;

Name Vaccine Type Primary Developers Country of Origin Authorization/Approval
Comirnaty (BNT162b2) mRNA-based vaccine Pfizer, BioNTech; Fosun Pharma Multinational Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, European Union, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Suriname, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, UK, US, Vatican City, WHO
Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273) mRNA-based vaccine Moderna, BARDA, NIAID US Andorra, Canada, European Union, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Mongolia, Norway, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (AZD1222); also known as Vaxzevria and Covishield Adenovirus vaccine BARDA, OWS UK Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatani, Ethiopia, European Union, Faroe Islands, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greenland, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Korea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor Leste, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Vietnam, WHO
Sputnik V Recombinant adenovirus vaccine (rAd26 and rAd5) Gamaleya Research Institute, Acellena Contract Drug Research and Development Russia Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Paraguay, Republika Srpska, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (JNJ-78436735; Ad26.COV2.S) Non-replicating viral vector Janssen Vaccines (Johnson & Johnson) The Netherlands, US Andorra, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, European Union, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, US, WHO
CoronaVac Inactivated vaccine (formalin with alum adjuvant) Sinovac China Albania, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Zimbabwe
BBIBP-CorV Inactivated vaccine Beijing Institute of Biological Products; China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm) China Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guyana, Hungary, Iraq, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Macau, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
EpiVacCorona Peptide vaccine Federal Budgetary Research Institution State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Russia Belarus, Russia, Turkmenistan
Convidicea (Ad5-nCoV) Recombinant vaccine (adenovirus type 5 vector) CanSino Biologics China Chile, China, Hungary, Mexico, Pakistan
Covaxin Inactivated vaccine Bharat Biotech, ICMR India Guyana, India, Iran, Mauritius, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Paraguay, Zimbabwe
WIBP-CorV Inactivated vaccine Wuhan Institute of Biological Products; China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm) China China
CoviVac Inactivated vaccine Chumakov Federal Scientific Center for Research and Development of Immune and Biological Products Russia Russia
ZF2001 Recombinant vaccine Anhui Zhifei Longcom Biopharmaceutical, Institute of Microbiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences China, Uzbekistan China, Uzbekistan”

Full table.

There are 13 approved vaccines around the world. Approval varies by country via their medical bodies.

60 vaccines are still in development at the time of writing.

For this analysis I am going to be using the vaccines approved for use in the UK (where I live), which are at the time of writing;

  • Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273) (Moderna, BARDA, NIAID)
  • Comirnaty (BNT162b2) (Pfizer, BioNTech; Fosun Pharma)
  • COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (AZD1222); also known as Vaxzevria and Covishield (BARDA, OWS)

Pricing of the each vaccine varies by country, so I used EU costs (which are likely to be on the lower end of the scale).

I used each manufacturers documentation to obtain dosage size.

Results

Available Vaccines

Vaccine Dosage ml Number of doses required
Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine 0.5 2
Comirnaty 0.3 2
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca 0.5 2

Full table.

Required Vaccine Volume (UK)

The United Kingdom 2020 population is estimated to be 67,886,011 according to UN data.

Let’s assume the average person receives a single dose of 0.5 ml (which also somewhat accounts for loss), so 1 ml for both required doses of the approved vaccines.

This gives us a total requirement of 67,886,011 ml, or 67,886.011 litres.

A fuel tanker holds roughly 36,000 litres according to this thread, meaning only two would be required to store the whole of the UK’s vaccine requirement!

Vaccine costs

EU countries pay $2.15 per dose of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine according to the BMJ, much cheaper than the cost of the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine ($14.70) and Moderna vaccine ($15).

The mean vaccine cost of these three options is $10.73** per dose ($15 + $14.70 + $2.5)/3).

Full vaccine dose (ave) cost USD

Download chart.

Rank by population Country (or dependency) Population (2020) Mean cost
1 Germany 83,783,942 $1,779,012,368.47
2 France 65,273,511 $1,385,974,216.90
3 Italy 60,461,826 $1,283,806,105.40
4 Spain 46,754,778 $992,759,786.20
5 Poland 37,846,611 $803,609,706.90
… … … …

Full table.

Assuming a mean average vaccination cost, Germany with a population of almost 84 million will pay about $1.8 billion to vaccinate its entire population.

In the UK, with a population of 67,886,011, the mean average cost to totally vaccinate the entire population stands at $1,441,446,300.23.

Assuming the UK needs 67,886,011 litres of the vaccine, at a cost of $1.44 billion. That equates to $21,233.33 per litre ($1,441,446,300.23 / 67,886.011).

One tanker can therefore hold an average of $764,399,880 worth of ($21,233.33*36000), assuming EU costs. Drive safely tankers!

The UK government’s Vaccines Taskforce alone has secured early access to 457 million doses, so that’s 228,500,000 ml worth of vaccine at a cost of $4,851,816,666.67 ($4.85 billion)!.

Worldwide, that’s 15,800,000 litres of vaccine required with an estimated average cost of $167,743,333,333 ($167.74 billion!).

Improvements

This is a very rough analysis using aggregated data. It is likely raw figures will be shared over time which can be used to improve this analysis.

tl;dr

Worldwide, 15,800,000 litres of COVID-19 vaccine is required with an estimated cost of $167.74 billion!

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

The Container Ship that can Carry 29 Billion USD Worth of iPhones

On the south coast (UK) I’m accustom to seeing huge container ships slowly pass through the English Channel.

From many kilometers away these ships look huge, though I never really gave them a second thought.

That was until the Ever Given became stuck in the Suez Canal a few weeks ago, and a photo of a large bulldozer looked like a toy truck when stood next to the ships hull.

Turns out these ships are huge, and much, much bigger than I first thought.

Methodology

Container TEU

The twenty-foot equivalent unit (abbreviated TEU or teu) is an inexact unit of cargo capacity, often used for measuring container ships and container ports. It is based on the volume of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) intermodal container, a standard-sized metal box which can be easily transferred between different modes of transportation, such as ships, trains, and trucks.

All other costs and analysis can be assumed correct at time of writing (March 30th).

Analysis

Largest Shipping Companies

Rank Company name Headquarters Total TEU Ships
1 Maersk Denmark 4,097,898 705
2 Mediterranean Shipping Company Switzerland, Italy 3,860,388 579
3 COSCO Shipping China, Hong Kong 3,022,882 503
4 CMA CGM France 3,015,485 570
5 Hapag-Lloyd Germany 1,730,615 240
6 Ocean Network Express Japan 1,577,156 218
7 Evergreen Marine Taiwan 1,279,412 195
8 Hyundai Merchant Marine South Korea 719,026 72
9 Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation Taiwan 623,148 92
10 Zim Integrated Shipping Services Israel 356,201 80

Full table.

Largest shipping companies by total TEU (Mar 2021)

Download chart.

You have probably seen many of these names printing on the side of ships previously.

Maersk, the largest company by TEU capacity, has capacity for almost 4.1 million containers (TEU’s) on 705 ships.

There is a large difference of carrying capacity between largest and tenth largest shipping companies. The tenth largest, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, has a maximum carrying capacity of just over 356,000 TEU’s on 80 ships — about 8% of what Maersk can carry (TEU’s).

Largest Container Ships

Container ships have been built in increasingly larger sizes to take advantage of economies of scale. Though container ships are also subject to certain limitations in size.

Primarily, these are the availability of sufficiently large main engines and the availability of a sufficient number of ports and terminals prepared and equipped to handle ultra-large container ships.

Furthermore, some of the world’s main waterways such as the Suez Canal and Singapore Strait also restrict the maximum dimensions of a ship that can pass through them.

Rank Count of ships in category Built Operator Length overall (m) Beam (m) Maximum TEU Gross Tonnage
1 7 2020 HMM (South Korea) 399.9 61 23,964 228,283
2 5 2020 HMM (South Korea) 399.9 61.5 23,820 232,311
3 6 2019 MSC (Switzerland) 399.9 61.5 23,756 232,618
4 5 2019 MSC (Switzerland) 399.8 61 23,656 228,741
5 6 2020 CMA CGM (France) 399.9 61.3 23,112 236,583
6 6 2017 OOCL (Hong Kong) 399.9 58.8 21,413 210,890
7 6 2018 COSCO (China) 400 58.6 21,237 215,553
8 3 2018 CMA CGM (France) 400 59 20,954 219,277
9 11 2017 Maersk (Denmark) 399 58.6 20,568 214,286
10 2 2017 ONE (Japan) 399 58 20,182 210,691
11 4 2017 ONE (Japan) 400 58.8 20,170 210,678
12 4 2019 Evergreen (Taiwan) 400 58.8 20,160 219,775
13 7 2018 Evergreen (Taiwan) 400 58.8 20,124 219,079
14 5 2018 COSCO (China) 399.8 58.7 20,119 194,864

Full table.

Largest container ships (TEU) by class (2021)

Download chart.

Yes, that’s right… the largest container ship in the world can carry 23,964 containers (TEU)!

To purchase and launch this ship cost its owners, the Korean company, HMM, over $140 million. HMM own 7. Thats a total value of $980 for these 7 ships. Which doesn’t sound to bad considering that a private Airbus A380 (when on sale) was priced at $402m to buy.

Payload Value

You could put 2,660 boxes full of iPhone X’s in 40-foot shipping container. One TEU is half that size, so 1,330 in a standard TEU.

The cheapest iPhone 12 is $799 and most expansive $1,399. Let’s assume an average retail price of $1,099.

Assuming the box size of the iPhone X and price of the iPhone 12, a single TEU could carry $1,241,870 ($1,099 x 1,330) worth of the devices.

If all TEU’s (23,964) on the largest container ship were full of iPhones, that’s a total of 27,079,320 iPhones with a combined retail value of $29,760,172,680 (29 Billion).

For reference, Apple sold 218 million iPhones in 2018. So the largest container ship can supply around 12% of the world total iPhone demand alone.

Fuel costs

The OOCL Hong Kong, in the 6th largest class of ship, can carry 14,904 cubic litres of fuel (or 14,904,000 litres). In comparison, an Airbus A380’s fuel tank can carry 320,000 litres.

Today, the Global 20 Ports Average Bunker Cost (bulk fuel cost) is $500 per US metric tonne. Let’s assume 1 metric ton of fuel = 1.192 kiloliters (note: this is a rough estimate as it assumes fuel is diesel, which is compositionally slightly different to heavy fuel used in ships). Given this, $500 buys 1192 litres, or 1 litre = $0.42.

That means, at todays prices it will cost $6,251,678.27 ((14,904,001*$0.42) to fill the OOCL Hong Kong’s fuel tanks.

I couldn’t find specific data on engine consumption. The amount of fuel actually used on a sailing depends primarily on the ship’s speed. Most ship engines have been designed for top speeds ranging between 20 and 25 knots per hour, which is between 23 and 28 miles per hour.

At a high level I found a Panamax container ship (Panamax and New Panamax are terms for the size limits for ships travelling through the Panama Canal)  consumes about 63,000 gallons of marine fuel per day at optimum speed.

63,000 gallons = 286,403.67 litres. So thats $120,289.54 per day! Enough for 52 days at sea (14,904,000/286,403.67).

The Ever Given Problem

When the Ever Given was blocking the Suez Canal, shipping companies had two options; wait, or head around the Cape of Good Hope.

According to Refinitiv via the New York Times:

A journey from the Suez Canal in Egypt to Rotterdam, in the Netherlands — Europe’s largest port — typically takes about 11 days. Venturing south around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope adds at least 26 more days, according to Refinitiv, the financial data company.

So fuel costs for waiting would be around $1,323,184.94 ($120,289.54*11) for the rest of the journey.

Redirecting via the Cape of Good Hope would cost around $4,450,712.98 ($120,289.54*37). $3,127,528.04 more expensive than via the Suez Canal ($4,450,712.98-$1,323,184.94).

A rough estimate provided using this calculator, puts the cost of the largest ships operated by HMM (South Korea) travelling through the Suez Canal at about $800,000 in fees. Even with these fees factored it, it is still significantly cheaper than going around.

In the end the Suez was only blocked for 6 days, so even with a backlog of ships waiting to move through, it would have been more cost effective (and time effective) to have waited (though hindsight is a wonderful thing!).

Improvements

In the case of converting gross tonnes to litres I use diesel fuel as the fuel type (not heavy marine fuel) to provide a rough estimation. I could not find any liquid conversion measurement tables for marine fuel, but these would make the fuel calculations significantly more accurate.

Access to fuel consumption data for the worlds largest ships would also improve fuel estimations produced in this post.

tl;dr

The worlds largest container ship can hold 23,964 container (TEU) — enough to carry $29 billion USD worth of iPhones.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

The Elevator Ride that Costs $0.46 Per Floor

A few years ago I wrote about the costs to climb the world’s highest mountains.

Many man-made mountains, or skyscrapers as most people call them, can also be climbed for price.

In many cities the top attractions are tickets to visit the viewing floors of their highest buildings.

It got me thinking, which of the world’s tallest building that are open to the public offer the best ticket price to height value for visiting their viewing decks?

Methodology

In order to make the comparison as simple as possible I chose the cheapest possible viewing deck ticket price available for an adult in February 2021 direct from each building’s official ticket site.

Prices were converted to local currency into USD using the exchange rate on 19 February provided by XE.com.

Analysis

Highest Viewing Decks

RANK (HEIGHT) NAME CITY FLOORS Height (m) Public Viewing Floor
1 Burj Khalifa Dubai 163 828 TRUE
2 Shanghai Tower Shanghai 128 632 TRUE
3 Makkah Royal Clock Tower Mecca 120 601 FALSE
4 Ping An Finance Center Shenzhen 115 599.1 TRUE
5 Lotte World Tower Seoul 123 554.5 TRUE
6 One World Trade Center New York City 94 541.3 TRUE
7 Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre Guangzhou 111 530 FALSE
7 Tianjin CTF Finance Centre Tianjin 97 530 FALSE
9 CITIC Tower Beijing 109 527.7 FALSE
10 TAIPEI 101 Taipei 101 508 TRUE
11 Shanghai World Financial Center Shanghai 101 492 TRUE
12 International Commerce Centre Hong Kong 108 484 TRUE
13 Central Park Tower New York City 98 472.4 FALSE
14 Lakhta Center St. Petersburg 87 462 FALSE
15 Vincom Landmark 81 Ho Chi Minh City 81 461.2 TRUE
16 Changsha IFS Tower T1 Changsha 94 452.1 FALSE
17 Petronas Twin Tower 1 Kuala Lumpur 88 451.9 TRUE
17 Petronas Twin Tower 2 Kuala Lumpur 88 451.9 TRUE
19 Suzhou IFS Suzhou 95 450 FALSE

Full table.

11 of the top 20 have public observation decks (I am considering the Petronas Twin Towers as one building).

Most expensive ticket

RANK (HEIGHT) NAME CITY Cost (USD) Viewing gallery floor
10 TAIPEI 101 Taipei $6.93 101
15 Vincom Landmark 81 Ho Chi Minh City $11.85 81
5 Lotte World Tower Seoul $16.00 123
17 Petronas Twin Tower 1 Kuala Lumpur $19.47 86
17 Petronas Twin Tower 2 Kuala Lumpur $19.47 86
12 International Commerce Centre Hong Kong $22.92 100
11 Shanghai World Financial Center Shanghai $27.65 100
2 Shanghai Tower Shanghai $27.74 118
4 Ping An Finance Center Shenzhen $29.00 116
1 Burj Khalifa Dubai $40.57 160
6 One World Trade Center New York City $43.00 94

Full table.
Ticket Prices by Worlds Highest Skyscraper Observation Decks

Download chart.

Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan charges less than $7 USD to visit the observation deck, over 7 times cheaper than One World Trade Center in New York City, United States ($43) (and 7 floors higher).

Best value ticket (by floor)

RANK (HEIGHT) NAME CITY Mts/floors Cost USD p/floor
10 TAIPEI 101 Taipei 5.03 $0.07
5 Lotte World Tower Seoul 4.51 $0.13
15 Vincom Landmark 81 Ho Chi Minh City 5.69 $0.15
17 Petronas Twin Tower 1 Kuala Lumpur 5.14 $0.23
17 Petronas Twin Tower 2 Kuala Lumpur 5.14 $0.23
12 International Commerce Centre Hong Kong 4.48 $0.23
2 Shanghai Tower Shanghai 4.94 $0.24
4 Ping An Finance Center Shenzhen 5.21 $0.25
1 Burj Khalifa Dubai 5.08 $0.25
11 Shanghai World Financial Center Shanghai 4.87 $0.28
6 One World Trade Center New York City 5.76 $0.46

Full table.

Ticket Prices per floor by Worlds Highest Skyscraper Observation Decks

Download chart.

I divided the ticket cost by the floor number of each building’s viewing deck. As you climb in the elevators, you’re paying $0.07 USD per floor at Taipei 101. Whilst the Burj Khalifa had the second highest ticket cost ($40.57), it is actually fairly reasonably priced for the number of floors you climb ($0.25 p/floor).

Best value ticket (by height)

RANK (HEIGHT) NAME CITY Est viewing gallery height (m) Cost USD p/m
10 TAIPEI 101 Taipei 508 $0.01
15 Vincom Landmark 81 Ho Chi Minh City 461 $0.03
5 Lotte World Tower Seoul 555 $0.03
17 Petronas Twin Tower 1 Kuala Lumpur 442 $0.04
17 Petronas Twin Tower 2 Kuala Lumpur 442 $0.04
2 Shanghai Tower Shanghai 583 $0.05
4 Ping An Finance Center Shenzhen 604 $0.05
1 Burj Khalifa Dubai 813 $0.05
12 International Commerce Centre Hong Kong 448 $0.05
11 Shanghai World Financial Center Shanghai 487 $0.06
6 One World Trade Center New York City 541 $0.08

Full table.

Ticket Prices per meter by Worlds Highest Skyscraper Observation Decks

Download chart.

Floor heights differ between buildings, so I divided the total building height by number of floors to get an average floor height. This ranged from 4.51 meters in the Lotte World Tower, Seoul, South Korea to 5.76 meters in One World Trade Center in New York City, United States.

Unsurprisingly One World Trade Center was the most expensive again, at $0.08 per meter climbed.

Much cheaper than Mount Everest ($7.35 p/m).

Improvements

My estimation of the average floor height in each building was calculated in a very crude way, because the height each tower extends beyond its highest floor will skew my figures. It would be good to get measurements of exactly how high each viewing deck is for a more accurate analysis.

tl;dr

Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan offers the best value for money when comparing ticket prices for viewing decks in the worlds tallest buildings.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

Passport Power Rank 2021

It has been almost three years since my last Passport Power Rank post.

To quote that post:

 every year it appears the world has changed drastically since the last.

Holds true.

Let’s see how visa-free travel has changed over the last three years.

Methodology

Each year Henley & Partners publishes a “Global Passport Index”, a global ranking of countries according to the travel freedom that their citizens enjoy.

Points are awarded to countries for the number of destinations that offer visa-free travel to their citizens. e-Visas are treated the same as visas on arrival. Where the conditions for obtaining an e-visa are straightforward (fee, return ticket, hotel reservation), a visa-free point was assigned.

The ranking is based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which maintains the world’s largest and most accurate database of travel information, and is enhanced by extensive in-house research.

There are 219 destination countries (territories) in total. The maximum attainable score is 218 (points are not assigned for a national traveling to their own country).

Analysis

Best passports for travel by country (2021)

Interactive map.

country Visa Free Destinations 2021 2021 rank
Japan 191 1
Singapore 190 2
Germany 189 3
Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of 189 3
Italy 188 5
Spain 188 5
Finland 188 5
Luxembourg 188 5
… … …
Yemen 33 194
Somalia 33 194
Pakistan 32 196
Syrian Arab Republic 29 197
Iraq 28 198
Afghanistan 26 199

Full table.

Looking at the map, it’s clear there is an East/West split in passport mobility.

Change in visa-free requirements by country (2019-2021)

2019-2021 change map

Interactive map.

country 2019-2021 % change 2019-2021 point change
Poland 5.23 9.00
Qatar 10.47 9.00
Dominica 5.93 8.00
Saudi Arabia 9.72 7.00
United Arab Emirates 3.59 6.00
New Zealand 2.78 5.00
Holy See (Vatican City State) 3.38 5.00
Macao 3.60 5.00
Colombia 4.03 5.00
Kuwait 5.49 5.00
Thailand 6.76 5.00
China 7.14 5.00
Rwanda 9.09 5.00
Vietnam 10.20 5.00
… … …
Taiwan, Province of China -0.68 -1.00
Honduras -0.74 -1.00
El Salvador -0.74 -1.00
Micronesia, Federated States of -0.84 -1.00
Paraguay -1.40 -2.00
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of -3.73 -5.00

Full table.

Qatar (86 – 95) and Poland (172 – 181) passports now have 9 extra visa-free travel destinations since 2019. Venezuelan (134 – 129) passport holders on the other hand have lost 5 visa-free travel destinations, owing largely to the ongoing political turmoil in the country.

Changes in global travel freedom (2019 – 2021)

Total Global Visa Free Access

Download chart.

369 new visa-free travel destinations in total became available to global travellers in 2021 since 2019.

Improvements

The results produced by Henley and Partners show aggregated visa data. For example, it does not show which countries have visa-free travel between them. It would be useful to track what countries are added or removed to visa-free travel lists to explain any changes.

tl;dr

The Japanese passport has the largest number of destinations its holders can travel to without a visa.

Get the data

Data sources + data used in this post.

Only 2% of the world’s population travelled internationally in 2018

This year felt a little odd (said everyone, everywhere).

I usually fly a lot for work. 2 or 3 times a month. So far this year, no business flights.

I’m torn on this fact. On one hand, I believe such face-to-face interaction with teams is vital (at least to me), on the other I realise I am part of the environmental problem.

As a human, I try and wrestle with my moral conscious. “I’m not as bad a Sarah”, “I don’t take flights for the sake of points“, I tell myself in a weak attempt to justify my flights.

It got me thinking, how do I compare to the average person?

Methodology

Global Environmental Change (Volume 65, November 2020, 102194) recently released a study titled; The global scale, distribution and growth of aviation: Implications for climate change.

This report used industry statistics, data provided by supranational organisations, and national surveys to develop a pre-COVID understanding of air transport demand at global, regional, national and individual scales.

Whilst I stress these are pre-pandemic estimates (although many suggest air travel will soon bounce back to normal levels).

Some of the processed data detailed in the report is used in this post alongside directly cited data.

Results

% of population that travel

According to IATA (2019), there were 4.378 billion passengers in 2018 (international and domestic). This is not equivalent to trip numbers or individual travellers. Most air trips are symmetrical, i.e. they will involve a departure as well as a return.

As ten percent of all flights involve a transfer, 4.378 billion passengers would thus represent a maximum of 1.99 billion trips.

The share of the global population participating in international air travel is even smaller, as a significant share of all air travel takes place within countries. Domestic air travel included 2.566 billion passengers in 2018, out of this 590 million in the USA, 515 million in China, and 116 million in India (IATA, 2019).

International air travel consequently only comprised 1.811 billion passengers, who are also more likely to move through hubs. On the basis of the conservative assumption that one international trip comprises 2.2 flights (IATA, 2019), some 823 million international trips were made in 2018.

Non flying population

This does not consider that there is a significant share of the population in every country that does not fly, while some air travellers participate in one, two, or multiple trips.

% non-flying pop est. (2018-2019)

Download chart.

% non-flying pop est. (2018-2019)
United States 53
Germany 65
Taiwan 66
UK 59

Full table.

For example, data for the USA suggests that 53% of the adult population do not fly (Airlines for America, 2018). In Germany, 65% of the population do not fly (IFD Allensbach, 2019), while this share is 66% in Taiwan (Tourism Bureau Taiwan, 2019). In the UK, the non-flying share of the population 16 years or older is 59% (DEFRA, 2009).

These national surveys indicate that in high income countries, between 53% and 65% of the population will not fly in a given year. The share of non-fliers is likely larger in low-income, lower-middle and upper-middle income countries. The share of non-fliers is likely larger in low-income, lower-middle and upper-middle income countries.

International multi-trip flyers

An alternative way of calculating the share of the population participating in international air travel is to divide the number of international trips by an average trip number per traveler.

For example, Airlines for America (2018) suggest that the average air traveler makes 5.3 trips per year, with a relatively large share of travellers participating in only one or two trips, and a rather small share accounting for large trip numbers.

Applying the US average of 5.3 trips as an indication of skewed demand, 823 million international trips involved only 155 million unique air travellers, or 2% of the world population (world population of 7.594 billion).

Similarly, for domestic trips, applying this logic, 5.3 trips for the average traveller with 2.566 billion domestic passengers in 2018, means about 6% of the world’s population (456 million) travelled domestically.

Global distribution of aviation fuel use (2019)

Global distribution of aviation fuel use (2019)

Download chart.

Type % share of aviation fuel use
Commercial aviation: Passengers 71
Commercial aviation: Freight 17
Military 8
Private 4

Full table.

There’s some guesswork here, as there is no global data for military operations or private flights.

It has been suggested that military aircraft consumed 22% of US jet fuel in 2008 (Spicer et al., 2009), though a lower recent estimate for the US in absolute numbers is 18.35 Mt CO2 (in 2017; Belcher et al., 2020). In a global estimate for 2002, Eyers et al. (2004) concluded that global military operations required 19.5 Mt of fuel, leading to emissions of 61 Mt CO2, or 11.1% of global emissions from aviation.

For an estimate, the current contribution of military flight to global emissions from aviation is assumed to be 8%. This estimate is uncertain, but highlights the importance of military flight in aviation emissions.

Data on private aviation is equally limited. The global business aviation market is estimated to have included 22,295 jets, 14,241 turboprops, and 19,291 turbine helicopters in 2016 (AMSTAT Market Analysis, 2018). Assuming an average of 400 h of flight time per year for the global fleet of private jets, with an estimate of a 1200 kg/hour fuel use (Gössling, 2019), jet fuel burn was 10.7 Mt in 2016, corresponding to 33.7 Mt of CO2.

Adding the fuel use of turboprops and helicopters, overall emissions from private transport may be in the order of 40 Mt CO2. This would suggest that private aviation accounts for about 4% of global emissions from aviation

At first glance the military and private aviation fuel use might seem low, but considering it on a per passenger basis, this share of fuel is actually comparatively high.

Fuel use Mt CO2 by aviation travel type (2017)

Fuel use Mt CO2 by aviation travel type (2017)

Download chart.

Estimates of global fuel use vary. More recent estimates presented by IATA (2018) suggest that civil aviation – including international and domestic, passengers and freight – emitted 859 Mt CO2 in 2017.

Assuming this is 88% of total consumption (71% passengers + 17% freight), then global fuel consumption in 2017 was 976 Mt CO2.

Therefore, commercial aviation (passengers) contributed 693 Mt CO2 in 2017.

The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2019a) specifies that about 60.4% of this for international aviation (416 Mt CO2), and 39.6% for domestic aviation (277 Mt CO2).

Over the past 20 years, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and industry have been steadily increasing, and by 2018 reached a record high of 36.6 billion metric tons (Statista).

Looking at all emissions, commercial aviation (passengers) contributed 0.693 Bt CO2 emissions in 2017, which is 1.9% of all global emissions (0.693/36.6).

Thus, 2% of all CO2 emissions (0.693 Bt CO2) are caused by an estimated 6%-8% of the worlds population (from air travel).

Improvements

In many cases the data in the post considers data reported over different time periods, or uses aggregated data. Being able to access like-for-like raw data would improve accuracy.

tl;dr

823 million international trips involved only 155 million unique air travellers, or 2% of the world population

2.566 billion domestic trips involved only 456 million unique air travellers, or 6% of the world population.

Together, these passengers created 2% of all CO2 emissions.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

In the USA, 20% of the Population Go Into Debt to Fund Christmas

Suppose you find out about a government program that was spending $80 billion per year, and suppose you found out that the $80 billion could have been achieved with $60 billion in spending. Would you be concerned as a taxpayer?

In 1993 Joel Waldfogel once wrote a paper titled The Deadweight Loss of Christmas, in which estimated that ill-chosen gifts caused between $4 billion and $13 billion a year in economic waste; for comparison, he cited an estimate that put economic costs of the income tax at $50 billion.

But how much does Christmas giving differ in traditionally Christian countries?

Methodology

ING produce a range of yearly Christmas reports that produce analysis from survey’s they’ve commissioned.

For this post I used the latest available published reports in 2016 titled, Presents of Mind and Christmas and New Year.

It is important to note that the study only considers the countries explicitly listed.

Results

How much do you plan on spending this year on Christmas presents? (2016)

How much do you plan on spending this year on Christmas presents? (2016)

Download chart.

Rank Country Median spend (EUR) Do not know (%)
1 United Kingdom 420 44
2 USA 360 33
3 Luxembourg 300 45
4 Austria 250 38
4 France 250 42
6 Australia 200 44
6 Germany 200 37
6 Italy 200 40
6 Spain 200 46
10 Czech Republic 180 39
11 Belgium 150 50
12 Romania 110 40
13 Poland 70 50
14 Netherlands 40 41

Full table.

The UK spend the most, 420 EUR on presents, that’s 60 EUR more than second place, the USA, where the population spends a median average of 360 EUR on gifts.

Citizens in the Netherlands spend the least by far — just 40 EUR on Christmas Day gifts. It is worth noting though, countries hold Christmas-type celebrations at different times. In the Netherlands, Sinterklaas on 5 and 6 December – the feast of St Nicholas – means less may be spent on 24 and 25 December than in other countries that focus on a single day.

Interestingly in all countries, between 30% and 50% of those surveyed has no idea how much they spent, which could mean spending being significantly higher than figures reported!

Potential wasted spending (2016)

Potential wasted spending (2016) 

Download chart.

Country Wasted money EUR (assuming loss 20%)
United Kingdom 84
USA 72
Luxembourg 60
Austria 50
France 50
Australia 40
Germany 40
Italy 40
Spain 40
Czech Republic 36
Belgium 30
Romania 22
Poland 14
Netherlands 8

Full table.

Assuming Joel Waldfogel’s assumption of an average spend of about 20% being spent on unwanted gifts, UK citizens wasted 84 EUR on unwanted gifts in 2016.

Did you get into debt to fund Christmas celebrations? (2016)

Did you get into debt to fund Christmas celebrations? (2016)

Download chart.

Rank Country Went into debt for Christmas %
1 USA 20
2 Romania 16
3 United Kingdom 15
4 Australia 12
5 France 10
6 Spain 9
6 Poland 9
8 Italy 8
9 Czech Republic 7
10 Germany 6
10 Belgium 6
12 Luxembourg 5
13 Austria 4
14 Netherlands 3

Full table.

In the USA, around one-fifth of people spend Christmas in the red, while the people of the Netherlands are least likely to go into debt to finance the festivities (which is understandable given the reported spending).

The report found 40% of people say Christmas is the one time they spend money without worrying about it and also that a significant number of those polled feel forced to spend money.

What type of gifts did you receive for Christmas last year? (2016)

What type of gifts did you receive for Christmas last year? (2016)

Download chart.

Country Practical gifts % Leisure gifts % Money % Gift cards % Luxurious or special gifts % Didn’t receive any % Can’t remember %
United Kingdom 50 31 26 25 22 10 13
USA 53 25 25 40 19 30 8
Luxembourg 40 37 26 14 17 15 11
Austria 41 31 32 34 12 16 7
France 38 30 23 15 12 18 9
Australia 43 21 15 28 11 18 15
Germany 38 25 27 26 15 20 8
Italy 50 23 17 8 12 19 12
Spain 58 30 17 7 15 18 5
Czech Republic 70 44 29 12 10 6 7
Belgium 33 20 18 20 10 25 10
Romania 57 17 14 1 6 18 13
Poland 52 23 18 8 11 15 11
Netherlands 21 14 5 11 10 50 8

Download table.

Across Europe, 46% say they got practical gifts such as household items for Christmas last year. Twenty-six percent received presents related to hobbies or leisure.

Twenty-one percent in Europe say they received money presents in 2015; 16% received gift cards, while 14% got luxuries or other “special” items. More Czechs (70%) are practical gift givers.

Half in the Netherlands say they received no Christmas gifts last year. Potential reasons may include the Sinterklaas festival, marked in the Netherlands and in parts of Belgium earlier in December, as noted previously.

Improvements

This post considers aggregated statistics from a study conducted by ING in 2016. It would be really interesting to consider spending intentions in subsequent year, especially this year, where COVID-19 is likely to have a significant negative impact on spending intentions.

tl;dr

UK citizens spend the most on Christmas gifts (420 EU) with Dutch citizens spending the least (40 EUR). In all countries, a significant number of gift givers actually having no idea what they spend.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.

COVID-19 and the £1 billion cruise ship

The cruise industry has been hit hard by COVID-19.

Whilst during a trip to the southern coast of the UK this summer I saw 10 large ships moored up off the coast. I think they’re still there.

I imagine it’s a similar picture in many of the world’s harbours.

When you start playing with the numbers of cruising, you quickly realise two things. 1. They’re big. 2. You’ll need a calculator.

The Symphony of the Seas the world’s largest cruise ship by gross tonnage (228,081 GT) measures 361.011 metres in length, cost £959m ($1.35bn) to build, has 18 decks, is able to accommodate 5,518 passengers at double occupancy up to a maximum capacity of 6,680 passengers, as well as a 2,200-person crew.

A week in the Ultimate Family Suite sells for between $20,000 (low season) and $80,000 (Christmas week).

It’s owner Royal Caribbean suspended all service across most of its fleet, including Symphony of the Seas, until September of this year (2020).

How much have cruise operators fortunes changed during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Methodology

At the moment cruise operators are all offering some incentives to attract passengers.

I managed to find an old price list from Royal Caribbean with 2018-2019 prices to get an idea of pre-pandemic prices.

The Symphony of the Seas operates around the world. I used the “starting from” prices for a 9 night cruise (cruise only) around the western Caribbean.Symphony

Results

Cruise cost (2018-19)

Download chart.

Cruise Only
Interior £1,099
Promenade £1,199
Ocean View £1,299
Balcony £1,499
Suites £2,399

Full table.

Estimated Revenue (2018-19)

Symphony of the Seas 9 night cruise (cruise only) Western Caribbean (2018-19 Prices) revenue share by room type

Download chart.

Type Cruise Only Estimated Percentage of rooms Passengers (100% occupancy) Cruise Revenue
Interior £1,099 0.40 2672 £2,936,528
Promenade £1,199 0.30 2004 £2,402,796
Ocean View £1,299 0.16 1069 £1,388,371
Balcony £1,499 0.10 668 £1,001,332
Suites £2,399 0.04 267 £641,013

Full table.

Assuming the above breakdown of room types, prices, and passengers (100% occupancy), the estimated ticket revenue alone for Royal Caribbean is £8,370,040.

Symphony of the Seas 9 night cruise (cruise only) Western Caribbean (2018-19 Prices) revenue estimations

Download chart.

Ticket Revenue (GBP)
100% occupancy £8,370,040.00
90% occupancy £7,533,036.00
80% occupancy £6,696,032.00
70% occupancy £5,859,028.00

Full table.

Let’s assume 80% occupancy as a best-case; £6,696,032, that the ship bills this, on average, for all cruises (it operates other routes), and that the ship is operating with passengers onboard 80% of the year (365 *0.8 = 292 days).

This means the cruise can be operated 32 times a year (292/9 days), giving an estimated income of £214,273,024 per year. Ignoring all operating costs (which will be high — the ship has over 2000 staff onboard), the ship will bill enough in ticket revenue to cover its cost (£959m) in just under 4 years (£959,000,000/£214,273,024).

Pre-COVID.

Assuming cruises were not operating for 5 months (150 days / 12 potential cruises) that’s an estimated £80,352,384 (£6,696,032*12) of lost revenue from this ship alone. Royal Caribbean has 26 ships.

Let’s assume that the both the occupancy rate drops to 40% (estimated revenue £3,348,016) — because ticket costs might not come down — AND that the amount of cruises are reduced by 50% to 16 times a year (16*£3,348,016), reducing revenues to £53,568,256 per year.

When you’re dealing with big numbers, even small changes can have a dramatic impact. It’s clear the cruise industry, like almost all travel industries is in for some very hard time ahead, even if these calculations are not

Improvements

This post contains very rough calculations, from estimated revenues to operational times of the ship.

It also completely ignores operating costs, which must be massive for a cruise ship.

Both of which would make immediate improvement to this post.

tl;dr

Pre-COVID 19 the world’s largest cruise ship, the Symphony of the Seas, could have billed around £7 million in passenger ticket revenue for a 9 day cruise. Revenues could easily be half this figure currently.

Footnotes

  1. Data sources + data used in this post.