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: Ok what am I missing here?  (Read 1085 times)

acearoo

  • Former member
Ok what am I missing here?
« on: December 16, 2011, 04:02:52 PM »
Ok What am I missing? Some airlines are flooding the routes with lets say demand is 1000 and they have 2000 seats. Which now they get most passengers for frequency ect. Where is there route monopoly email That I keep getting if I try to add more sets than demand? I get to same point in these games everytime then others flood me out of market and I slowly and painfully go bankrupt...  :(

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2011, 04:23:49 PM »
There are a few things I can imagine why your business is not going that well.

1- Fleet commonality. You have too many fleet types at the moment increasing your overhead to a level which your income can't keep up with. With 10 aircraft you should have only 1 fleet type to reduce costs.
2- Too many routes. Every route you open does increase your marketing expanses. Utilise a route first before opening another one.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2011, 04:44:45 PM »
Yes--too many fleet types are hurting you.  If you didn't choose the most popular fleet types in the game (737 and 757) you'd have a much tighter fleet commonality as aircraft would be more available.

You should be oversupplying every route you're flying before moving on to new routes for a few reasons.  Number one is you want to discourage competitors from competing with you on the route.  Number two is that you cannot capture all the demand with only 100% of the seats.  For example, if you have 1000 pax demand and fly 5x daily with 200 pax aircraft, you'd have to have 100% load factors to carry them all.  We all know this is not possible.  Therefore, in order to capture as much demand as possible, you need to fly 6x daily for 1200 pax and hope to get 80%-85% load factors to capture the entire demand.  Also, if you're flying a 200pax aircraft 6x daily and your competition is flying 50pax aircraft 6x daily, their small aircraft is going to fly full whereas your big one will be half empty.  Essentially, there is no excuse for not having 50%+ marketshare on any route you fly (or at least #1 marketshare if you are competing against more than one airline on a route).

Offline Marksw76

  • Members
  • Posts: 116
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2011, 07:35:57 PM »
Yes--too many fleet types are hurting you.  If you didn't choose the most popular fleet types in the game (737 and 757) you'd have a much tighter fleet commonality as aircraft would be more available.

Then surely, if you are an airline flying short international routes, excluding 'popular' types i.e 727, 737, 757, 767 Anything Airbus, MD80/90, what exactly are you left with? Everyone says you can't run an airline with planes with less than 50 seats and 707s/Soviet jets are too thirsty. So could someone perhaps suggest an alternative?

Thanks

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2011, 07:50:57 PM »
Avroliners.

Offline Marksw76

  • Members
  • Posts: 116
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2011, 08:18:06 PM »
Avroliners.

VERY Expensive for 100 seater!

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2011, 08:25:06 PM »
VERY Expensive for 100 seater!

Also very easily obtained. I would rather have a relatively expensive 100 seater now than a slightly less expensive 100 seater in 2000!
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2011, 08:28:45 PM »
Then surely, if you are an airline flying short international routes, excluding 'popular' types i.e 727, 737, 757, 767 Anything Airbus, MD80/90, what exactly are you left with? Everyone says you can't run an airline with planes with less than 50 seats and 707s/Soviet jets are too thirsty. So could someone perhaps suggest an alternative?

Thanks

F100 can go 1600nm with 100pax, Tu204 can go 1500nm with 180pax, B717 coming out can go 2100nm with 100pax, and MD-11 can go 6400nm with 265pax.  For routes under 800nm there is the F27, Saab 2000, and ATR 42/72 that can do the job.  You can't expect to start an airline with the same aircraft you're going to finish with.  If you spend all your time waiting for what's available versus "the best" aircraft in the game, you'll never get anywhere.  Also, if you are flying short routes (depending on your definition) it doesn't matter what the fuel burn is as fuel is only a minor expense if it's a short distance.  There are airlines in Japan running 707's profitably on short hops right now.

Offline Marksw76

  • Members
  • Posts: 116
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2011, 09:09:34 PM »
Also, if you are flying short routes (depending on your definition) it doesn't matter what the fuel burn is as fuel is only a minor expense if it's a short distance.  There are airlines in Japan running 707's profitably on short hops right now.

In which case why aren't the 'leading' in game airlines using 707s right now?

Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic but surely theres a reason why the market is full of 707/Yaks/Tupes now? A 707 or a soviet jet is always going to be heavy on fuel regardless of whether it is a short or long journey. If 75% of the ticket price is going to be taken up by a fuel bill then its still going to be a 25% margin whether the plane is flying 900 nm or 3000nm. And I understand that passengers don't 'like' certain planes so it seems like a bad choice to me. The fuel economy isnt going to improve on short trips, or am I missing something here?

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2011, 09:20:19 PM »
In which case why aren't the 'leading' in game airlines using 707s right now?

Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic but surely theres a reason why the market is full of 707/Yaks/Tupes now? A 707 or a soviet jet is always going to be heavy on fuel regardless of whether it is a short or long journey. If 75% of the ticket price is going to be taken up by a fuel bill then its still going to be a 25% margin whether the plane is flying 900 nm or 3000nm. And I understand that passengers don't 'like' certain planes so it seems like a bad choice to me. The fuel economy isnt going to improve on short trips, or am I missing something here?

Shorter routes have higher yields, therefore fuel costs will be a smaller proportion of revenues because you use the minimum amount of fuel to make the most money per passenger mile.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2011, 10:06:38 PM »
Shorter routes have higher yields, therefore fuel costs will be a smaller proportion of revenues because you use the minimum amount of fuel to make the most money per passenger mile.

Thus the reason a 7000nm route is much less profitable than a 70nm route.  The default price for a Y seat on a 75nm route currently $138 versus a 700nm route at $166.  It takes a lot more than $28 worth of fuel to go that extra 625 miles, plus you can fly that 70nm 2x or 3x during the same period as flying that 700nm route, which is why shorter routes are more profitable.

zorrin

  • Former member
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2011, 10:08:31 PM »
Actually there's a shortage of Yak-42s. I had to order one new of the line.... Along with a 5 year lease. And I'll order another in a few game weeks once I have the cash.

And even though it guzzles gas at a mere 4,500kg/hr, right now while the fuel is cheap they can run at a 35% load factor and still generate revenue. My airline in its current iteration is maybe 100 days old and I'm at a fleet of 7 Yak-42s and I can turn a weekly profit of around $750k if your ignore slot costs/new leases.

Couple that with extremely low acquisition costs they're actually pretty attractive. I have some routes that are at 100 RI and I'm getting 80-90% LFs with the standard configuration.

Naturally I fear a fuel spike... But hey it'll affect everyone not just me! Besides my customers can enjoy the comforts of a Yakovlev. There is no finer alternative, it's the simply the very best there is. And remember, if you believe it, it's not a lie.

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2011, 11:38:00 AM »
, it's simply the very best there is.
And you got shares in the Oil industry right?  :laugh:

Speak to you in 5 years when fuel is at $800+ and you have to ground your fine Yaks because that's cheaper then operating them.

acearoo

  • Former member
Re: Ok what am I missing here?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2011, 05:10:30 PM »
I have gone the route of cheap airplanes high fuel costs have fun with that. I focused on 300 500 400 hoping they would become avalible once 700 came out at a cheaper price..

 

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.