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: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?  (Read 4524 times)

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2011, 10:43:42 AM »
BTW the two 737ADV that hit the market were mine. Your welcome.

Thanks for killing your business, old metal is welcome in my flying junkyard ;D


But to be honest... I'm fed up playing with 737 or A320's as well. If only I could operate a UK local airline using EMB120's and Cessna's and still EARN profit rather than loosing on overhead. Game play +6 for that one then.

Pen75

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2011, 12:42:12 PM »
All problem from overestimated articles of expenses in game:

1. Passenger fees - 9 % in AWS (in real life of 3-5 %);
2. Aircraft maintenance - 25-40 % in AWS (in real life - 10-15 %).

And it, a share of expenses in a gain, by the way.

Because of these two points and a wave of bankruptcies in МТ-5.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 12:47:43 PM by Pen75 »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2011, 01:19:50 PM »
All problem from overestimated articles of expenses in game:

1. Passenger fees - 9 % in AWS (in real life of 3-5 %);
2. Aircraft maintenance - 25-40 % in AWS (in real life - 10-15 %).

And it, a share of expenses in a gain, by the way.

Because of these two points and a wave of bankruptcies in МТ-5.



I'm not sure how these numbers are, but marketing is another place for improvement to make small planes viable.  Those with small aircraft IRL usually fly routes for the big carriers via codeshare and have almost no marketing expenses.  Not sure how this would be done in AWS though :(

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2011, 01:26:01 PM »
Perhaps via Alliances...

The alliance fee and alliance rating could be used for this.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2011, 01:27:48 PM »
lots of bankruptcies happen because people forget that they will have to make lease payments on these planes in 4 months.  All is fine until those bills start pouring in.

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2011, 01:57:31 PM »
But to be honest... I'm fed up playing with 737 or A320's as well. If only I could operate a UK local airline using EMB120's and Cessna's and still EARN profit rather than loosing on overhead. Game play +6 for that one then.

I agree with you on this one. If the aircraft you're operating fit the route demand (ie: <150 with 30 seat planes) then you should be able to earn the margin required to operate a niche airline. That said I don't think an airline with 30 seat props on 500 seat routes would work, im talking a very small operator. IRL these operators are able to charge a premium to service these minor ports, which allows them to recoup the higher overheads per pax. IMO the AWS pax pricing needs to be revised on these routes where their is low demand, which will ultimately allow you to run a successful niche/ small scale airline operating 30 seaters as described.

How come you can have that many smileys?!?!?!?!  :'(

AGREED! Its a maximum of 3 for me  :'(

This excuse is wearing thin. Yes it is hard but it is too hard to get used planes. It's all very well for a big airline to say "order new planes" but for a smaller airline or a new airline that is no help. If I order a new 737 I wont have it for two years, one or so for a 757. Great. I guess it is similar for A32x's.

Why are so many people not willing to accept that the used aircraft market is a real problem?

The used market is a problem, but the proposed solution merely creates another problem (more A/C early simply makes airlines too big, too quickly. Erodes the playability of the game IMO)

At the start of the game you need to go for used aircraft to get your revenues up, but then move to supplement your used purchases with new orders. This gets you slots on the line and secures long term growth- as you've reduced your reliance on the volatile used market. Admittedly the beginning of games is very much decided on how quickly you can grow- if you cannot grow as quickly as your competitors you're essentially stuffed (at least until 10 years into games where the used market frees up and you can expand rapidly with used aircraft). So IMO to everyone complaining about the state of the used market- its not a fault of the market and the way it is modeled, its a fault of your strategy. The new aircraft strategy isnt an impossible one to emulate, as many airlines including myself demonstrate.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2011, 03:47:24 PM »
This excuse is wearing thin. Yes it is hard but it is too hard to get used planes. It's all very well for a big airline to say "order new planes" but for a smaller airline or a new airline that is no help. If I order a new 737 I wont have it for two years, one or so for a 757. Great. I guess it is similar for A32x's.

Why are so many people not willing to accept that the used aircraft market is a real problem?

I am not trying to excuse anything.  Anybody who would ask me, I would recommend against joining a game world that is already running, and it is 1 to 4 years into the game.  Everything is ok at the beginning of the game world, or maybe 5 years into the game (except your competitors are bigger).

This game was full from day 1, so everybody had a chance to lease used aircraft, use profits earned to place orders for some new aircraft.

Offline eleritz

  • Members
  • Posts: 390
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2011, 03:54:38 PM »

At the start of the game you need to go for used aircraft to get your revenues up, but then move to supplement your used purchases with new orders. This gets you slots on the line and secures long term growth- as you've reduced your reliance on the volatile used market. Admittedly the beginning of games is very much decided on how quickly you can grow- if you cannot grow as quickly as your competitors you're essentially stuffed (at least until 10 years into games where the used market frees up and you can expand rapidly with used aircraft). So IMO to everyone complaining about the state of the used market- its not a fault of the market and the way it is modeled, its a fault of your strategy. The new aircraft strategy isnt an impossible one to emulate, as many airlines including myself demonstrate.

Exactly! The first two-three (real) days of the game are crucial. This is when still there are a lot of planes on the used market and everybody can get two or three. If you choose a good plane and open good routes u gain enough to start ordering new planes, which are, again, crucial, later on, when the used market gets empty. If you do this part right it's impossible to go b/k (unless slot or competition or wrong base problems arise later on, but that's another story).

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2011, 11:05:42 PM »
Anybody who would ask me, I would recommend against joining a game world that is already running
Lack of skills to force your way in?

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2011, 11:24:53 PM »
Lack of skills to force your way in?

I think I qualified my statement as far as when it is not a good idea to join the game.  After about 5-6 years, the used market starts to have aircraft again, and there are opportunities in the new market, where one does not have to wait 5 years to get the first aircraft delivered.

I have advocated (with Sami) to let the production lines expand even more when it is full, keeping the same limitations on rates of delivery to one player.  And Sami actually followed up.  The 737 and 320 lines now go up to higher number, giving more players chance to place orders.  It could probably go even higher...

hybris

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2011, 12:32:36 AM »
lots of bankruptcies happen because people forget that they will have to make lease payments on these planes in 4 months.  All is fine until those bills start pouring in.

umh yes probably. but i'm trying the last chance, then I will left the world. It seems there's space only for big company, I lost my hopes about the market, but for example to wait 3 years to order a 737 is a lux that only the big company can permit (and at same time, they can continue to order and order and order - and to have the freedom to choose the fleet they want, while the uncool company not) - then the slots cost is not a big problem for them, the hight costs "punches" the small company in big airport, so the big airports belongs to who was came first and farewell to competitors.
In my previous chance I started in Frankfurt after 7 days the beginning but the game there seemed already done and close.

I think the key, at the moment, is to arrive first.

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2011, 02:22:18 AM »
Exactly! The first two-three (real) days of the game are crucial. This is when still there are a lot of planes on the used market and everybody can get two or three. If you choose a good plane and open good routes u gain enough to start ordering new planes, which are, again, crucial, later on, when the used market gets empty. If you do this part right it's impossible to go b/k (unless slot or competition or wrong base problems arise later on, but that's another story).

Exactly why I didnt have a life within the first 4 days of this world being launched  ;)  :laugh:

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2011, 03:32:50 AM »
umh yes probably. but i'm trying the last chance, then I will left the world. It seems there's space only for big company, I lost my hopes about the market, but for example to wait 3 years to order a 737 is a lux that only the big company can permit (and at same time, they can continue to order and order and order - and to have the freedom to choose the fleet they want, while the uncool company not) - then the slots cost is not a big problem for them, the hight costs "punches" the small company in big airport, so the big airports belongs to who was came first and farewell to competitors.
In my previous chance I started in Frankfurt after 7 days the beginning but the game there seemed already done and close.

I think the key, at the moment, is to arrive first.

A few words of advice:

If you start at top 10 airport, you will have at least 1 or several excellent, experienced players there.  So your chances of long term success automatically drop dramatically just by picking a top 10 (or even to 20) airport.  Most new players don't get this simple concept, and keep banging their heads against the wall.

The best chance for a newer player is at a lower tier airport, let's say somewhere between 40th and 80th airport.  The chances are, you will be there either alone, or with maybe 1 other airline.  So you are playing solitaire on many routes, and you can practice strategies, learn how to run an effective airline.  Once you master creating a healthy a profitable airline in one game world, try a little harder one in the next one...  By harder one, I mean bigger.

As far as aircraft, if you start the game world on the opening day, you need to try to make enough profits so that you can set some money aside and lease new aircraft.  You need to keep earning profits, investing some in used market if you get lucky, but keep placing orders in the new market.  The reason is that there will be time like this, when the used market is nearly empty, and at this time, the only thing that can fuel your growth is new aircraft that will be arriving...

CX717

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2011, 04:47:16 AM »
All problem from overestimated articles of expenses in game:

1. Passenger fees - 9 % in AWS (in real life of 3-5 %);
2. Aircraft maintenance - 25-40 % in AWS (in real life - 10-15 %).

And it, a share of expenses in a gain, by the way.

Because of these two points and a wave of bankruptcies in МТ-5.


I don't think so?I bankrupt because of hard to acquire suitable used aircraft.
in real world,top airlines only made 10-13% profit.In this game,every healthy airlines are making 25%+ profit,and we don't even have cargo revenue yet.

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2011, 05:47:07 AM »
I'm not sure how these numbers are, but marketing is another place for improvement to make small planes viable.  Those with small aircraft IRL usually fly routes for the big carriers via codeshare and have almost no marketing expenses.  Not sure how this would be done in AWS though :(

It's already done in AWS.

In real-life, those carriers with "small aircraft that fly routes for others via codeshare and have no marketing expense" are names that are virtually entirely unknown outside of the few people who fly them regularly like (in the US) Great Lakes, SkyWest, Pinnacle, or Atlantic Southeast.  You can do that in AWS too -- just don't spend needless money on Marketing in a futile attempt to keep up with the mainline carriers' CI.

All too often what gets small carriers down in AWS is the percentage of revenues they spend on Marketing.  If they simply avoided the unnecessary expense they'd pocket huge sums of money.  Trying to get anything north of a CI of 20-30 as a small airline would be like Great Lakes trying to start a marketing campaign in Asia advertising its great service of tiny US towns.  You've got to do the exact same thing the real-life carriers did -- stop trying to become a world-reknowned airline superpower and just make your money offering your captive services where advertising is unnecessary.

I've ran small(ish) 60-seat operations out of Size 5 airports and netted out profit margins well over 50%.  That's NET profit.  Don't spend needless money (little marketing, 1 plane type, always fill up dense routes first before moving to the next route, etc) and you'll make tons of cash until you get into the sub-30 seat markets at which point overhead salary becomes a concern.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 05:54:20 AM by Sigma »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2011, 07:56:20 PM »
It's already done in AWS.

In real-life, those carriers with "small aircraft that fly routes for others via codeshare and have no marketing expense" are names that are virtually entirely unknown outside of the few people who fly them regularly like (in the US) Great Lakes, SkyWest, Pinnacle, or Atlantic Southeast.  You can do that in AWS too -- just don't spend needless money on Marketing in a futile attempt to keep up with the mainline carriers' CI.

All too often what gets small carriers down in AWS is the percentage of revenues they spend on Marketing.  If they simply avoided the unnecessary expense they'd pocket huge sums of money.  Trying to get anything north of a CI of 20-30 as a small airline would be like Great Lakes trying to start a marketing campaign in Asia advertising its great service of tiny US towns.  You've got to do the exact same thing the real-life carriers did -- stop trying to become a world-reknowned airline superpower and just make your money offering your captive services where advertising is unnecessary.

I agree, but its still not the same in AWS.  If you are flying codeshare for a big airline, they aren't going to open up on your routes and take over your marketshare/revenues.  In AWS there is no cooperation agreement like this and if your flying 100% codeshare agreements, your marketing costs will basically just be a website for a couple thousand a month.

Quote
I've ran small(ish) 60-seat operations out of Size 5 airports and netted out profit margins well over 50%.  That's NET profit.  Don't spend needless money (little marketing, 1 plane type, always fill up dense routes first before moving to the next route, etc) and you'll make tons of cash until you get into the sub-30 seat markets at which point overhead salary becomes a concern.

Flying 60 seat jets for profit is virtually impossible right now.  30 seat prop planes are a similar situation unless you own them.  These are the "small" aircraft I'm talking about.

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2011, 08:28:53 PM »
First off, lets go over regional airlines in the Real world because they DO NOT operate like majors for the most part.

Great lakes, ASA, Pinnacle, whoever... Any carrier flying regional aircraft for the majors are doing so as the major's flight (ASA flight x operating Delta flight Y). On every route the regional is flying for the major, they are being paid X amount of money whether the flight has one person on board or full. That amount doesnt change too much either if at all until the contract has to be renegociated. So if fuel prices rocket, the regional carrier is the one that has to make the flights work.

Now some regionals like Colgan and Gulf Stream(if they ever operate again) and a few others operate(s)(d) their own flights under their own name. Those flights, they are fully open to the competitive markets.

Then there are "regionals" like GO! who are niche and operate completely on their own.

Now the first type, there really is no point in having players do that. It however, should be easier for an airline to do that in house, but commonality right now screws that all up.

The second I think could be possible since its a mix of both and the third is how it currently is.

Now as for advertising, If the route is for a major carrier, then they should be paying the costs. If the Regional is operating flights inhouse, then they need to be paying the advertising. Its that simple.

hybris

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2011, 12:27:40 PM »
A few words of advice:

If you start at top 10 airport, you will have at least 1 or several excellent, experienced players there.  So your chances of long term success automatically drop dramatically just by picking a top 10 (or even to 20) airport.  Most new players don't get this simple concept, and keep banging their heads against the wall.

The best chance for a newer player is at a lower tier airport, let's say somewhere between 40th and 80th airport.  The chances are, you will be there either alone, or with maybe 1 other airline.  So you are playing solitaire on many routes, and you can practice strategies, learn how to run an effective airline.  Once you master creating a healthy a profitable airline in one game world, try a little harder one in the next one...  By harder one, I mean bigger.

As far as aircraft, if you start the game world on the opening day, you need to try to make enough profits so that you can set some money aside and lease new aircraft.  You need to keep earning profits, investing some in used market if you get lucky, but keep placing orders in the new market.  The reason is that there will be time like this, when the used market is nearly empty, and at this time, the only thing that can fuel your growth is new aircraft that will be arriving...
thank you for your advice  :)

tm07x

  • Former member
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2011, 09:47:54 PM »
Simulation is one thing, but in games there is no such thing as realistic.
If people want more realistic gameplay, it won't come through emulating the real world.

No way in the real world do 600 airlines start up one day.

The used market is f***ed up!!! And Sami, as much as I appreciate your effort to make it better, in my honest opinion, the attempt to fix it by adding a refresh block is akin to America's response to fix the economy problems by printing more dollars.

The fix is quite simple, each airline get a certain amount of used AC they can order pr month or year. If you want to control the used market, that's the way to do it. plain and simple.

or just let people get how many AC they want and let the free marked and game strategy decide. Might not be realistic, but then again, 600 airlines starting up on the same day is hardly ever realistic.....


Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14545
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Is v1.3 a small step backwards?
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2011, 03:36:11 AM »
The used market is f***ed up!!!

Have you even looked at the market lately. There have been dozens of "good" planes out there daily.


Now, I do not have anything more to say to this thread since seems that the proper and constructive critisism has gone by the wind and now we're now to more childish level I see.

 

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.