so far it's going very well... I have three Tu-204s running twice daily all on the same route (Auckland to Brisbane). I'm spending a pile on marketing (my CI is already above 30, which is very high given I just started) and I'm still making good money. Granted, my leases won't kick in for another couple of months, but I'm already flying at 70% LFs with a 33 RI, even against good competition (my route is oversupplied). In other words, I'm stunned by how well it's going, and given that their leases aren't too bad, I don't think they'll sting when the 5 month grace period ends.
The problem is that I share my airport with a very strong competitor who did well on his first effort and is therefore much bigger than I am. If gas prices stay low, I'll have the advantage with my Tupolevs and their favorable leases. If they go up, his 737s, with their higher leases but lower consumption will kill me. It's going to be a very exciting conflict.
The only other issue I've come across is that the Tupolev's need too much runway for several domestic routes in New Zealand. So I'm planning to attack the Tasman with them and then to look at smaller planes to attack the domestic market. If my competitor wasn't already doing so well, I would be very optimistic. As it is, I give myself a fighting chance.
I was really disappointed that the 767 long-haul strategy failed so miserably in this game. The game certainly appears to have had a short-haul bias in the early going. Anybody who go their hands on decent used 737s did much better than those who shelled out for 767s like several of us in this thread.
Good luck to you all (except Southern Skies, my dastardly competitor).
I think its just the 767 being used in really long hauls is the concern. I am observing this is happening to other airlines also. And airlines that started off with a 767 flying very long hauls is either spiraling downhill or growth is extremely slow, unless someone who is playing ATB can come forward and correct me but that is what I am seeing. But if you were lucky enough to get the DC-10 they are perfect for the job (not very long hauls). Can fly 7x a week around 3300nm, more passengers and most importantly leasing is half that of a 767-300ER. The A330/A340 are good alternatives also but they are rare gems. A300s, 757 are pretty good too.
I am in my fourth month flying 767, outlook is still unknown if I will make it through this first hurdle... and I know a few other airlines that started the same way as me. It makes me wonder if something changed that flying 2 days less frequency has much more impact than ever before, it will slow you down considerably.
EDIT: Well I'm so happy. I didnt save enough to lease a 2nd used 767 but just exact to afford a new 120 seater lease before the first monthly fees starts hitting me
Hmm 767 problems eh? What routes were you flying? The rule of thumb for LH flights are: 2800-3300nm 7x weekly/1x daily. This is the most profitable route in AWS. Although 5x 200nm routes can pull in nearly as much.
I've always felt 767s were niche aircraft. Typical load is kinda low for a widebody. You say a DC-10 works better (within its range of course)
Well.. have you asked yourself "Why is that?". Once you compare the two aircraft.. its sort of obvious.
So the DC-10-40 carries almost 60 more pax then the 763 @ slight increase in crew costs and roughly 25% more fuel costs. You don't think that 60 more pax will pay for that fuel costs and slightly increase in staff?
When selecting an aircraft at the start, you have to consider many different things: Types of routes, range, speed, LH or SH... one of the most important
stats is profit potential
. Will the aircraft produce enough revenue on a wider range of routes?.
LHR-JFK: Who will make more money on the route... 763 v DC10-40? How about 742 v 10-10? 744 v 743? <--- That's a tough one
Bigger is generally better. More seats = more revenue. That's not to say the 767 sucks.. its designed for a smaller market. On a 200 daily market... which aircraft will be better suited? 763 or 10-10?
Plus, you shouldn't really be flying an ER aircraft on a sub 3000nm route. If I had a 763ER.. I would rather put it on a 6000nm route 4x weekly then fly it 1x daily sub 3000nm. The aircraft was designed to fly long rang, not to mention your pay a "higher" price because its an -ER performance.
Hopefully this will give everyone an insight to which aircraft are best suited for different routes. Choices, choices, choices... so many of them!