AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: replacing vs adding  (Read 5999 times)

coopdogyo

  • Former member
replacing vs adding
« on: June 20, 2009, 05:33:05 PM »
So this is my first game and now that my fleet is starting to get older and doesn't have the greatest comminality I was thinking I should revamp it. I was wondering what is the best way to do this to just add the MD-83's I am ordering to my fleet or phase out my MD9's, B732's, and my B722's? If I should phase them out what would be the best way to do it buy the planes so I can run them on the same routes till the new planes come in then put them up for lease. Or should I just let the lease expire and let there be a small gap?

Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2009, 08:04:08 AM »
I'd order the new planes  and swap them over as they arrive. If you can replace all planes with one fleet type, all the better.

DenisG

  • Former member
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2009, 12:44:39 PM »
Yes, but don't forget: Lufthansa's current (2009) fleet age is around 12,5 years.

coopdogyo

  • Former member
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2009, 04:22:05 PM »
Yeah me fleet is a bit young but the MD-83 allows me to have the range I had before but also gives me 30 more passengers.

Offline Dasha

  • Members
  • Posts: 1001
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2009, 09:45:14 PM »
Yes, but don't forget: Lufthansa's current (2009) fleet age is around 12,5 years.


Lufthansa has the money to cope with that... they have the biggest fleet in Europe...


At Jet Age... I'm currently replacing all my old (+-10 yo) leased 737-200 with brand new 737-300... and some 757's for the bigger demands... But I'm only a domestic airline in India making huge profits... I think it's always a good idea to have a fleet consisting of similar planes...
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everything

toyotaboy95

  • Former member
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2009, 02:08:59 AM »
Lufthansa has the money to cope with that... they have the biggest fleet in Europe...
cuz they swallow [nearly] everyone in its way. >:(

otherwise SWISS would've joined oneworld.

coopdogyo

  • Former member
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2009, 05:39:32 AM »
I am in India in Jet Age two  ;D.  I think i am gonna just keep getting 1 year extensions on my leases till i swap them out and then just cancel them.

DenisG

  • Former member
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2009, 08:18:49 PM »

Lufthansa has the money to cope with that... they have the biggest fleet in Europe...


At Jet Age... I'm currently replacing all my old (+-10 yo) leased 737-200 with brand new 737-300... and some 757's for the bigger demands... But I'm only a domestic airline in India making huge profits... I think it's always a good idea to have a fleet consisting of similar planes...

I just wanted to point out that fleet age matters mainly in reference to aircraft condition and economic efficiencies. If those are allright, there is no direct need to replace aircrafts because they have ten years of service or so.

As to Lufthansa, well, when I look at the margins, they are awful. Cash results as well. Not greatly negative, but no example in lead. They had to step up efficiency measures late in the 1990s when they faced fiercer competition. On the other hand, Delta flew with an average age of 15 in the fleet in the year 1996, still having B727 the big workhorse on its routes and that still worked for a few years, until other factors hit.

Concerning Swiss, it was a great fit. Not only due to language barriers (e.g. AF-KLM!) but because of fleet and strategy. Swiss can only operate a few long-hauls from Zurich which are profitable. Other pax otherwise simply prefered other airlines. Now with Lufthansa, they can offer the world to the tiniest little village in the Alps. Although Aliiances were initially founded for that reason, the Swiss example showed that it did not work in this particular case of a very small country, barely having national interconnections.

Denis

Offline Seattle

  • Members
  • Posts: 2791
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2009, 11:20:50 PM »
cuz they swallow [nearly] everyone in its way. >:(

otherwise SWISS would've joined oneworld.

errmmm.... SWISS would've not been around to join an alliance if LH had not stepped in. Even if they were, they would've probably joined Star anyways.
Founder of the Star Alliance!

toyotaboy95

  • Former member
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2009, 01:54:53 AM »
errmmm.... SWISS would've not been around to join an alliance if LH had not stepped in. Even if they were, they would've probably joined Star anyways.
They confirmed the invitation but suddenly backed down (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/pressroomdetails?refID=3dae8527630ba010VgnVCM22000022d21c39____). sorry for getting off topic ;D

Offline Seattle

  • Members
  • Posts: 2791
Re: replacing vs adding
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2009, 04:40:26 AM »
Exactly.... The main reason being that they didnt want BA to eat them AND that it would be anti-competitive to them to be codesharing together. - Also, sorry to get off topic)  ;D
Founder of the Star Alliance!

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.