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: Feedback thread  (Read 6844 times)

cicciocri

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2011, 01:28:38 PM »
Joined the game, leased an aircraft, created a route, wanted to modify the prices, and got a message saying that the price has been modified and an error message saying "Error: Your airline does not have any routes at the moment so you cannot manage the prices. Please buy/lease some aircraft and then open up a new route."

Offline bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 213
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2011, 12:56:53 AM »
I think the load factors are ok for the 1950's but believe the yields should be higher. Historically fares were much higher in the early days of air travel - a Flight from JFK to SFO may have cost $300 back then which is like $7500 now. And although that may seem in line with today consider that $3000 a year was considered a good salary. If airfares were MUCH higher it would provide for larger capital to be used when the Jet aircraft become available.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2011, 04:39:10 PM »
Feedback for this game world at the moment from me, running King Airways out of Atlanta.

Nice. There were always enough aircraft at the used market available - much more fun than less used aircraft and I say this as somebody who often gets rare used A/C.

Also thanks due low fuel prices, low staff cost and low aircraft leasing cost it is possible to earn good money.

By the way, 20 minute days are great. I can understand why you, sami, prefer longer days, so no offense.


Negative maybes:
- Maybe it is too easy to get loans (quantity and amount)
- Maybe there are not enough good aircraft to run for. Some alternative models would be nice, even if they weren't used at this time. At the same time there are endless numbers of 10-15 pax aircraft. Seriously, maybe it's realistic but they are wasting space and implementing time.
- Maybe too much money at game world start. $800k + $80k loan would be enough to get 16x (!) C-46 from the used market.
- Maybe lots of airports run out of slots before one can get aircraft that can reach the airport.
- Maybe too easy (airline growth fast)

Offline ACDennison

  • Members
  • Posts: 317
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2011, 07:48:07 PM »
I'm going to weigh in as a devil's advocate (and a player with a fleet of 12x 12-seaters)!

Realism is part of the point of this game.  We need to make the smaler aircraft more competative, not wipe them out, and I don't think we should see types appearing out-of-period.  The staffing issue isn't as bad in this gameworld (possibly because staff are so much cheaper in this period), but I still have huge numbers of office staff for the number of aircraft I'm operating... to the neraest whole number, per aircraft I have:

- One high-level manager
- Two middle-mmanagers
- Three economists
- Two marketing people
- One or two HR people
- One quality officer
- one safety officer... and,
- five route managers (for an average of three routes)

This bunch couldn't even fit on the aircraft!  Let alone the 10 customer services, 7 flight ops, 7 servicing, 8 ground handlers, again, per aircraft... oh, and some pilots!  Overall I have around 50 people to run each 12-seat aircraft.

Strangely, I'm almost making money... not sure if I can really make the airline 'take-off', but I'm trying hard!

As for starting money, I agree $800k was quite a lot, albeit I liked buying some used aircraft early on.  Maybe we should look at increasing the number of months least hat have to be paid in advance to 6 months, not 4 months, to reduce the number of leases that can be obtained.  We could also require 90% not 80% collateral on loans... just some ideas.

(Edit: Typos and a miscalculation)
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 09:00:59 PM by ACDennison »
 

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14544
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2011, 08:32:24 PM »
ACD, if you look at income sheet and not the staff numbers, I believe that the staff costs are not actually the reason for troubled small airlines. Seems that everyone is just looking the number of managers instead of the actual costs. As especially in this early world the staff costs are very small.

In the previous small airline test (swiftus?) it was evident that for example ground handling costs were a major factor in the proportionally large costs for small airlines. But staff costs were naturally in the "issues list" but (to my surprise) not at the very top.


Start up money:  $5mil in 2005 money equals about $580k in 1950s money, so you have about $8 mil of present money to start with. But used planes of this era are dirt cheap as there are tons of them.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 08:34:44 PM by sami »

Offline ACDennison

  • Members
  • Posts: 317
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2011, 08:59:12 PM »
Thanks sami - I do see the deeper issues on small airlines, it's just that the staff issue is an 'obvious' one - the number required are clearly out of whack with reality.  So much so that people always latch onto it, especially as there is more infomation on it availabale in-game.  As I say, I'm not finding the staff cost a problem, I just wanted to put the numbers up to give some hard data.

I agree that some of the other costs can also prove problematic, and it is exactly for this reason I choose to play a smaller carrier in the test - to see what they may be. As for ground handling, I pay about $1000 per plane per week, or about 20% of what I do in staffing, so somewhat different to swiftus' findings.   One of the biggest headache's is slot fees, certainlly at this stage of the game - getting hit with anti-monopoly mark-ups etc as I am the only airline at my (smallish) base airport in Bristol.  Given the amount I make on each route, these are quite steep - although doubtless large aircraft fans will say it's only fair as I'm using small aricraft and using up lots of slots that they could use to greater profit.

I'd like to think that I am playing the small airline with a desire to see it succeed, rather than a preconcieved notion that the game is 'broken' and that they will inevitably fail.  If it is of interest, I attach my last 4 weeks income sheet - obviously there are some nasty bottom-line figures due to investment, but the individual values are probably more of interest.

Still loving the game, kudos for all you've done and the ongoing expansion - I hope all he feedback is of use, and trust that you know that (most) of us are trying to help, even if we grumble at some things!



On starting cash, I hadn't tried to do the conversion - it looks sensible though - I guess the only concern is if it allows too rapid expansion and therefore makes the game more biased towards eary starters in the post-war worlds in future.

(Edit: Typos!)
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 09:13:18 PM by ACDennison »
 

Offline Alkibiades

  • Members
  • Posts: 126
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2011, 10:03:15 AM »
A few comments:

This is a fantastic periode. I realy missed the early times, so this type of scenario will be my absolute favorite.

I wonder why an obvious airliner of these days, the Connie, isn't in the game. I also misses it in the later periods, but in this period it would be an obvious choise. It would become a very good supplement to the Douglas DC6 og DC7 / the Stratocruiser. Both the early L049 Constellation and all the variants up to the Super Constellation and Starliner.

Another small point: I think the prices for the slots are a bit to high both compared to incomefigures and the reality of the days.

On the other hand I think the passenger demands are very reasonable.

Thanks again for this kind of scenario

Alkibiades


 

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2011, 11:43:31 AM »
Slots are the only way at the moment to reduce money. It costs me 2x the money for a leased C-46 to get slots for it.

BELF

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2011, 03:22:40 PM »
I think this is a glitch: it won't let me plan a techncial stop at a Level 2 airport.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2011, 03:25:32 PM »
What exactly do you do?

The right way for a tech stop is;
-> plan a route between your base airport and the tech stop airport
-> after this select "optional: select a second destination" at the bottom and choose your final airport (the big one you want to fly to)
-> select routing A-B-C-B-A
-> finish

juanchopancho

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2011, 04:11:02 PM »
I think the load factors are ok for the 1950's but believe the yields should be higher. Historically fares were much higher in the early days of air travel - a Flight from JFK to SFO may have cost $300 back then which is like $7500 now. And although that may seem in line with today consider that $3000 a year was considered a good salary. If airfares were MUCH higher it would provide for larger capital to be used when the Jet aircraft become available.

This. Converting to today's dollars for example: SFO to Hong Kong on PanAm would cost $25,000. That's why only the rich and famous could fly. Everyone else was train or boat. I don't think fares started to become affordable for the average working person until the 1970s and the advent of widebodies A300 & 747s
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 04:14:58 PM by juanchopancho »

wtdawg

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2011, 12:41:03 AM »
Seems like a lot of routes have default fares between $39 and $45, whether you're flying to the next city, or cross country.  The strategy that makes the most sense is therefore to just fly as many short flights as possible.

Fighter26

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2011, 12:21:19 AM »
Don't drop the starting amount, its to easy to be invested and become obsolete.... for example 150kts 450nms and the new standard is 200/eventually 240ish, you better have money. Also, planes are going to skyrocket in price. I believe it is too early to discuss if there is too much money on startup.

tarbyonline

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2011, 01:12:30 AM »
Hi Sami

Belfast City Airport (EGAC) did not exist during this period as it was actually RAF Belfast and the Shorts Aircraft factory from the 2nd world war until restarting commercial operations.  The commercial airport was not reopened until 1983, so it would have been impossible to fly into the airport as I am doing in the game.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2011, 10:49:38 AM »
Don't drop the starting amount, its to easy to be invested and become obsolete.... for example 150kts 450nms and the new standard is 200/eventually 240ish, you better have money. Also, planes are going to skyrocket in price. I believe it is too early to discuss if there is too much money on startup.

There are much more important things than speed and range.

Most people forget for example C-46 and DC-3 are small aircraft and aircraft to replace them (CV-240 etc.) are medium aircraft.


Next point:
Why one should replace his starting aircraft with the starting amount? $800k are too much. If I knew this game world better and didn't made mistakes based on the unknowledge, I now had 100+ aircraft in fleet.
Even if your calculations are based on an average player at an average airport there's endless money.

But, at one point I will say you are right: If this would be a full game world with >400 people.


PS: If planes are too expensive, look for cheaper ones. I see lots of airlines that slow their growth unintentionally by going too fast on new and "better" aircraft. DC-6B and B-377 for example are much too expensive for many airlines, mainly in the first months (I made this fault myself and ordered two of them too early).


Offline ekaneti

  • Members
  • Posts: 844
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2011, 08:25:20 PM »
Hi Guys:

I am not in this game, but are the Comet and the CL-44 in this game?

Zhamnov

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2011, 08:48:51 PM »
Hi Guys:

I am not in this game, but are the Comet and the CL-44 in this game?

Comet is... I doubt the CL-44 will be.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2011, 09:28:58 PM »
Maintenance is, besides to slots, the second money killer.

Weekly maintenance costs at my airline, King Airways.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 10:02:20 PM by Curse »

Ilyushin

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2011, 05:41:41 AM »
No credits written off - Next weekly billing    03-04-2011, 16:53

 ;D

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2011, 10:29:18 AM »
I had to pay my credit. Maybe sami saw the server performance I need to play  :'(

 ;)


Feedback update from King Airways;

- this game world can be played as every other game world
- missing of some important aircrafts of this era should be fixed before live game worlds (North Star, Constellation, 1-2 sowjet aircraft, Ju-52..)
- only one tech stop would be cruel in all world scenarios if you have a small domestic market
- slots are even more limited than in later era game worlds (many airports nearly out of slots by most airlines at 10-20 aircraft)
- airlines make a good profit with only one aircraft on many different routes and with heavy competition

« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 10:36:27 AM by Curse »

 

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.