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: Viennair: not playing a fair game  (Read 5332 times)

munipandita

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2010, 11:55:56 PM »
*off topic*

I could not stop chuckling. This is in no way a barb at Catita Bill. I've seen far too many of my fellow Americans mangle the English language to even consider hassling a non-native speaker about it.

But regulamentation is just waaaaay too funny. If on purpose, I bow to CB's skill at wordplay and humor.

nobody is perfect  ;D

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2010, 04:16:23 AM »
Catita Bill, Viennair is doomed because of this practice. But by the same token, he has the right to play however he likes.  Just watch for a bankruptcy and then move in. You must also remember, airlines operate mostly on deregulation so, there is no rule that he cannot do what he is doing. But by doing this, I strongly feel Viennair will go bankrupt if he keeps up this practice. I certainly would not do it. Why fly a 767 with only 20 people on it? I don't get it either. But its not against any rule. He's playing russian roulette. If I were him I'd get some of those planes moved of those saturated routes and put them where there is a demand.
To Viennair, I gotta say, move some of those aircraft around because you're eventually going to  lose money fast and hard.

Viennair

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2010, 11:51:30 AM »
Hi guys,

I seriously thought this thread was dead, but obviously not! :P

When I entered the game I wasn't aware of the importance of frequency. I believed that having a new jet is way better than flying with some smaller, slower planes. So when I saw a route with a demand of ~150 or more, I tried to move in with new A320. You might see that I already got rid of the big A300 as well as my three 757s for commonality reasons, flying 3 fleets now: A320, F100/70 and E120.

Now I experience the problem of missing frequency compared to my competition on some routes. Again, I am still far from having uncovered all secrets to success in this game, but I am getting there - slowly - hopefully. ;)

My question here is: Do customers always prefer higher frequency on smaller planes compared to slighty worse frequency with jets?

This would lead to the believe: 1. As long as you can reach a destination with a small prop plane, do it? 2. Once you cannot use a prop anymore, turn to a jet/prop that can do so? And 3. For long(er) distances - use jets, such as the A320?

I am indeed trying to increase frequency on my routes, now leading to the next problem: What to do with the then perhaps useless A320? @L1011fan, you are right, I should move them in certain cases, I do this to some extent, but you'll be surprised, there aren't that many routes left for "big" planes. Now, of course, leases might expire or can be terminated, but what about the the useless pilots. Taking constantly hits on your CI for firing them doesn't seem to be a good option either. I had the same problem at the beginning when I had to get rid of my A300. So ya, you see I'm running from one challenge to the other, but it's fun. I don't think I am doing too bad and I still plan to be around for some time. Maybe I'm too optimistic, maybe tomorrow I'll hear of the next issue I haven't thought about before, but again, I am actually looking forward to.  Oh, and I don't think I am doomed so far! ;) 

Have a great day everybody!



Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2010, 12:17:15 PM »
Pax prefer smaller planes a bit. But, compare for example an A320 (or A321) with a CRJ100. You can get more frequency with this and pax prefer this jet, but you must use four of them to get the same amount of people from a to b.


So, what's more clever - fly a 500 pax demand route with 13x CRJ100 (52y) or with 3x A321 (204y/10c)?


I'm curious what happens if fuel price increases with all the small jet (<60 pax) airlines.

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2010, 07:58:13 PM »
Hi guys,

Now I experience the problem of missing frequency compared to my competition on some routes. Again, I am still far from having uncovered all secrets to success in this game, but I am getting there - slowly - hopefully. ;)

My question here is: Do customers always prefer higher frequency on smaller planes compared to slighty worse frequency with jets?

This would lead to the believe: 1. As long as you can reach a destination with a small prop plane, do it? 2. Once you cannot use a prop anymore, turn to a jet/prop that can do so? And 3. For long(er) distances - use jets, such as the A320?


Hey! I have become somewhat experience with this game, fairly successful and a bragging rights holder  :laugh:
You ask if customers prefer higher frequency. My answer is maybe they do, but I simply dont think the difference is big enough to make it worthwile with higher frequency and smaller a/c.

A smaller fleet airline will need more pilots, more routes, more micro management and will leave less slots open either for competition or yourself. All of this will cost more, when you could more easily just lower the ticket prices on the effected routes. No matter how much your competition tries, there is ( if youre running your airline correctly ) no way on earth that 3 x 50 seats is cheaper to operate than 1 x 150 seats on any route.

munipandita

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2010, 12:52:40 AM »
Well... as everyone can see, Catita Express couldn't stand for the competition.. I made a bad move leasing an A300, then i started to lose money, and on.... So i was deeply on the red so i had to close the doors and fire all the poor personel.. some of them are living under the bridge now.. But, what do i have with that?  ;D

We opened again at Madeira - Funchal, so, lets see what hapens ;)

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2010, 12:44:57 AM »
Could you terminate the leases on the planes you don't need? Do you have enough money to do that? And yes the markets are tight. I'm having trouble finding room for my 737's. I find toward the middle to the end of this particular type of game, there is a shake down and alot of bankruptcies occur. Just keep watching! :)

DenisG

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2010, 12:06:12 PM »
Hi folks!

As to my experience with smaller planes and frequency: If you are in a competitive situation, those smaller a/c basically always made the difference in my experiences. Higher frequency, smaller plane, good scheduling times, makes pax move to my airline, even when my CI was lower. And my experience is that it hurts competitors much more. In the current game, I have examples for that on Hamburg-Paris/Orly and Hamburg-Copenhagen. In the first case I have a competitor flying with a CRJ100 three times a day, pretty well kicking my butt (F100). And on the second example, I fly three props against one 737 and it definitely hurts him more than me.

However, this discussion has not only been going on in this game since its start, but also in real life - and no definitive answer has popped up. The reason for that is that your situations may differ completely. I personally generally move to small a/c, high frequency business models, e.g. because I consider fuel price moves very threatening and my props are not that thirsty. But this may work, as I fly out of Hamburg with pax-demand pretty low on most routes. But there are different models as well, as Sigma flies out from Dublin and connects.

As to Viennair, apart from the infinite question which model may prove better, I consider it pretty risky to change your business model in the mid of the game. But give it a shot, for I am also interested in seeing what will happen.

But let's all attempt not to stick too fundamentally on this "there is no way on earth that flying 3x50pax compared to 1x150pax is cheaper..." There are situations in which it may prove right and others in which it may not prove right. So if we talk about e.g. Viennair, let's take into account his situation and his opportunities and not the assumed physics of the universe.

Denis

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2010, 12:41:10 PM »
There is also the issue of slots when using small aircraft... using 50 seat aircraft instead of 737s will use three times as many slots to move a similar number of pax.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2010, 03:58:28 PM »
Small jets (CRJ100) are extremly fuel inefficient. Small props are good for small routes, but they not only take more slots, you have to pay a lot more personal.

Watch the CRJ100 airlines, some of them were very profitable, but at fuel prices >$250 they lose money.

I'm new to the game and maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are three good plane types:
Props >50 pax for small routes if slots are available, 737-400/-800 / A319/A320 for normal routes and biggest available planes (A321, B737-900, maybe 757-300 in not EU scenarios) to maximaze slots and pax/fuel.

zorbon

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2010, 09:25:44 PM »
think of it this way, there are 120 pax spread between 12 hours of the day.
the 1pm pax don't want to wake up at 6am to fly, the 6am pax don't have time to wait until 1pm to fly... by increasing frequency, the sum of your pax will be greater but your aircraft will be less full. To compensate, you fly a smaller aircraft. It's a much better idea than to force someone to fly 12 hours earlier because it's eaiser to fly a bigger plane.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2010, 10:07:01 PM »
And if you go bankrupt because your small jet aircrafts aren't earning some money, then pax can't fly at any time  :)

But you're right, with current fuel prices there is no problem for small jets, but with fuel prices >$250 they have problems (I saw this e.g. at IbizAir).

coatedmoney

  • Former member
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2010, 11:08:34 PM »
And if you go bankrupt because your small jet aircrafts aren't earning some money, then pax can't fly at any time  :)

But you're right, with current fuel prices there is no problem for small jets, but with fuel prices >$250 they have problems (I saw this e.g. at IbizAir).

I dont fully agree there are many other factors to consider than just fuel.

eg C checks on a CRJ are 200K an ATR 500K - 300K is alot of money

you have the speed of more routes so can return more. usually a good wait time in production and a all round great fleet (cant wait for the 900 to come) my fleet of CRJ's are highly profitable, and i use them most of the time in game worlds and none have ever sent me bankrupt.

fuel is a important factor but there are many others that you should consider! you should give them a try sometime curse

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Viennair: not playing a fair game
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2010, 01:19:58 AM »
You're right, but let me explain what I mean.

I think the small CRJ are like 737-600 or A318.

You use them, because you have the commonality with bigger planes. But for their own they are not very efficient (compare fuel/maintenance per pax at 737-600 and 737-800/-900), especially on routes with enough demand for bigger planes.


This must not mean they are getting you in trouble. However, at the end a good mixed fleet might be the best (noticed this as some of my Airbus lost market share because of pax prefer smaller aircraft. Adding some Fokker50 has fixed the problem).



But, yeah, I'll give them a try at my "regional" airline in MT#2.



 

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.