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: Extremely Low Load Factors  (Read 8220 times)

jchaves

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2010, 10:18:15 PM »
CI: 42
Average load factor: 57.2%, and keep improving.
No aircraft reconfig, all DC-3 and C-46 are factory default config.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14536
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2010, 10:41:14 PM »
JC - how about profit for the company in that status?

jchaves

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2010, 11:31:35 PM »
JC - how about profit for the company in that status?

Fair profit for the game economic values, I guess. I'm still spending a lot in marketing, new leases and navigation fees. With a cut on these expenses, profit should be around 40k/week

rhengl

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2010, 02:07:21 AM »
Hi Guys

I wanted to know if long distance makes a difference and I tried by opening a route from New York to London via Halifax (to refule - common in these days) - and to compare a route New York to Chicago. All routes have about the same frequency.
I have Marketing up for the London route withc has an image of 14 while the Chicago route has an image of 11.

My conclusion is: YES DISTANCE MATTERS! And I will have to close down my London route if I don't want to get banckrupt  :'(

jchaves

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2010, 07:02:34 AM »
JC - how about profit for the company in that status?

Profit update. My calculation was wrong, profit is around 100k/week.

And rhengl seems to be right, my medium range flights aren't getting LF/profit inside the average values. Didn't start yet any long range, but I suspect that it will be the same.

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2010, 07:09:34 AM »
It's definitely passenger preference for density and distance that's doing it.

C-46s on short-range -- sticking around 50-60%
C-46s on medium-range -- sticking around 30-40%
377s on medium-range -- hitting 100% (just took delivery)

Regardless, as I mentioned before, even with my planes running 40% full and a huge Marketing budget I was still breaking even right after opening the routes.  Take Marketing out and I was making a 25% net margin.  Once my LFs climbed to 45-55% with the C-46s, I was making a 25% net margin even with my large Marketing expenses; take those out I was making right about a huge 50% net margin.  

Once this LF "problem" is fixed sami's gonna have to do something with costs.  I know the post-ware airlines were making some big money, but this is beyond belief.  If my C-46s were running full, they'd each be making $100,000 in weekly revenue on direct costs of just $11,000 -- that's a mind-blowing 89% gross margin.  Even the net margin would be somewhere in excess of 60% even with a large Marketing outlay.  At that rate, the break-even on buying a C-46 is just 3 months.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 07:16:19 AM by Sigma »

jchaves

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2010, 08:45:21 AM »
It's too early to have an opinion about the profit subject. I think that it's realistic, so far.
Don't forget that we are still operating with aircrafts that are considered cheap, by some known reasons. Almost all of them had development costs totally covered by military contracts during the war. A lot of them use the same engines, mostly Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp/Double Wasp, whose development costs were also covered. There was a surplus of production, too. Too many plants, tools, raw materials and work force, all consequence of the war massive production.
At that time, you could almost buy a DC-3 with your pocket money, as many former war pilots did, going to start some delivery service somewhere. That will (should) change, as soon as the new developments start appearing and the production structures adjust size and capacity to post-war demand. New projects won't be so cheap and then your profit won't be enough. So, let's wait (more 5 years) and see what happens.

Offline Nonkan

  • Members
  • Posts: 283
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2010, 10:00:16 AM »
Hey, who you call little ..  :P

Meh, around just above 50 as well. Still tough to turn a profit though.

Talentz

Well, It wasn't me who bk:ed ;)

I'm still stuck at 50% LF on both DC3 and C46. Making profits, but not very much.

Looking att previous posts, I'll cancel the route planned Newark - London, and go for medium range national when my DC6 arrive. The low LF:s has to be about passenger comfort. I think the passengers care about it too much. In those days, early 50's it was more about getting somewhere fast than being able to stretch out in a first class seat sipping GT while looking at qute flight attendants. That came later, with international jets.

I think the seating system need some more tuning, maybe a fix so passengers care less about comfort if it's only one class or comfort level available.

tofen

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2010, 12:39:32 PM »
I would agree with what Sigma said earlier about profits.
Ones the LF for small cramped planes on "long" distances gets fixed, we will make way to much money with these small planes.

I'm probably the one making the most money right now, and I can buy brand new DC-6Bs way easier then I could ever buy new 737s in the other games.
It feels like you just can't lose money when you've got up to speed. Hey, I'm even making profits on 350nm flights with 20% LF.

On the other hand tough, it might get rough in a couple of years when we have to start to fight over the small demand.

But I love this scenario! If now we could only have that demand overflow from one day to another so weekly flights could make sense :o.

Yb

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2010, 11:36:20 AM »
For anyone who says that pax didn't think about comfort look at this add I foudn while looking for something else  ;)

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/images/adaccess/T/T23/T2394/T2394-lrg.jpeg

jchaves

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2010, 05:07:40 PM »
My longest routes, in fact mid-range (505 and 517 NM), are actually getting 50%LF average. Both under 20% discount. All other routes (shorter) are getting an average 75%LF with default prices.

Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2010, 06:37:34 PM »
Hi Guys

I wanted to know if long distance makes a difference and I tried by opening a route from New York to London via Halifax (to refule - common in these days) - and to compare a route New York to Chicago. All routes have about the same frequency.
I have Marketing up for the London route withc has an image of 14 while the Chicago route has an image of 11.

My conclusion is: YES DISTANCE MATTERS! And I will have to close down my London route if I don't want to get banckrupt  :'(

Have got 30-45% LF on EGLL-KJFK using a direct flight with standard seats, so don't think it's the fuel stop causing problems  :-\

Offline AlistairS

  • Members
  • Posts: 254
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2010, 03:43:03 AM »
Jonesy what config are you using on these routes

jumbo Mouse

  • Former member
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2010, 07:11:24 AM »
Hi

Yes i have definetly noticed a problem n LF'S on the longer routes, and no matter what you do it does not help.  If you look at Manchester to Malaga, Tenerife and destinations in the region, they show well over 130pax daily, however after months and months failed to get anywhere over 50% with DC6's.  Company image was good and route image was climbing, but ceased to increase loads  above 40 pax.

I also notice a slow acceleration in this game to others as to load factors, I was thinking TV is expensive advertising and not many people have a TV!!!!  I suppose newspaper was in for the day!!!

It seems that if you Dc6's and DC4's, best go for the routes within 600nm, otherwise you definetly loose.

I suugest that bankcrupcy be forced on people when there debt exceeds a certain amount and they are loosing every month, this could open things up abit, I see some airlines are over 4 mill in debt, crazy when only starting with 600K.

Anyway from the peanut gallery
Over and out, safe flying...
Oh yes, fly Caledoniain Europa, we have great flight attendants in Mini Skirts...hahaha

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14536
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2010, 08:32:43 PM »
FYI .. haven't yet had a chance to look into this matter. Stay tuned.

Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2010, 10:38:16 PM »
Jonesy what config are you using on these routes

Standard comfort seats on a DC6. Comfort rating excellent  :-\

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2010, 10:55:46 PM »
Here are 2 screenshots from my Amsterdam-New York JFK service, one from Day 1 and one from this week.  I have standard seating, but have also sacrificed passengers to fly non-stop - this of course alters the load factors slightly (well more than slightly in First!)

Dave
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 10:58:18 PM by Daveos »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Extremely Low Load Factors
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2010, 12:04:25 AM »
that flight would be epic long.  Puke. 

 

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.