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: Time for another experiment  (Read 5884 times)

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #60 on: December 29, 2012, 08:24:11 PM »
432 flights in the past week, 80 cancelled due to unmotivated staff, 4 for scheduling, 55 minute average delay on the rest, CI -41, staff morale now -58.

Dashboard LF is 97.7%.

Stats LF is 78.4%

Individual routes all above 97%, apart from 4 night legs at 92-95, and a single 0230 depart, 0345 return that has 79%, $441/hour.

My actual costs are:

Marketing: 93k/month, 23k/plane.

Personnel: 750k/month, 188k/plane

Plane comm: 110k, 27k/plane

Engine comm: 124k, 31k/plane

Leases (1 owned) 118k, 30k/plane

Insurance: 29k, 7k/plane.

Maintenance (all 4 planes 1-2 years old): 150k, 38k/plane.

Total overhead: 344k/plane. $480/hour to break even. So I'm definitely there, apart from the staff.

Time to restart. Will buy 4 planes, and so avoid lease costs. Fly the same routes as I am now. Wait for RI to climb to 100. PROFIT!
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 08:58:44 PM by Sanabas »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #61 on: December 29, 2012, 10:15:36 PM »
4 planes purchased and c-checked.

Flying to one extra destination, nowhere more than 3 times a day.

Staff progression was identical to before, despite the extra destination.

49/116/196/312 for 1/2/3/4 planes, each with 9 legs/day.

Savings earlier in the thread ( http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,44955.msg246584.html#msg246584 ) on staff got shown when I removed five destinations entirely.

First screenie shows the saving when I keep the same number of destinations, but remove 8 legs (so 28 instead of 36 overall, 392 weekly flights vs 488)

Second screenie shows the saving when I instead remove 8 legs during the day. (still 28 legs, now 376 weekly flights)

Removing 8 legs, and dropping the number of destinations from 13 to 10, so still 376 weekly flights, gives numbers identical to screenie #2.

Seems that the increase isn't from more destinations, but actually from more flights. that the number of destinations is actually irrelevant.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 10:21:32 PM by Sanabas »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #62 on: December 29, 2012, 11:53:38 PM »
I haven't a clue what RL maintenance costs look like. Just noticed that even on new planes here, the yearly maintenance rivalled the yearly lease cost. So just going to go through some new planes, see how yearly maintenance on a brand new plane compares to price. 1 year of maintenance (including c-check) = 128.6 A-checks. So just going to put that yearly maintenance as a % of new price. Just a guide, given how price is somewhat dynamic over the course of a game.

MT:
large planes:
a320-200: 1.20%
b738: 1.30%

LH planes:
a333: 0.79%
a346: 0.73%
a380: 0.58%
b764: 0.99%
b773ER: 0.65%

turboprops:
AN-140: 7.20% (or 4.83% with PW engines.)
ATR 72-200: 2.95%
Q400: 2.12%
Saab2000: 2.60%

regional jets:
AN-158 3.71%
CRJ-1000: 1.59%
CS-100: 1.40%
F100: 2.17%
Sukhoi95: 2.34%

Miniplanes:
PC12NG: 9.99%

So, obviously correlates quite a bit to overall price. An-140 is a bit of an outlier, it costs more in total to maintain than an a320.

The 9 seat PC costs a little over half what an a320 does to maintain. Is that realistic?


And some DOTM numbers, planes are obviously much cheaper, but maintenance is too. More cheap to buy, expensive to run Russian stuff also.

LH planes:
Concorde: 0.79%
707-320C: 2.69%
742: 1.27%
IL-62: 8.96%
L1011-500: 2.66% (costs more than concorde in $ terms)
DC 10-30: 2.28% (also more than concorde)
TU-144: just ended. I was contemplating flying these, and waiting for the warning to appear before deciding. I somehow missed it.   :(

a300: 1.19%

Large planes:
722: 3.35%
732: 3.59% (2.41% for most expensive layout)
DC9-50: 3.05%
Tu-154: 8.14%

Regional Jets:
BAC500: 4.07%
F28-4000: 3.46%

Turboprops:
f27: 5.33%
HS748: 5.58%
An-26: 20.91% (costs more than an a300)
DHC7: 3.80%

miniplanes:
PA 31-310: 29.2% (costs more than a DHC-7, and maintaining 3 of these 8 seaters will cost you almost the same as maintaining a pair of a300s.)
PA 42: 12.8%
AN-28: 14.38% (cheaper than all the PA31 types, surprisingly)
Metro-II: 5.67% (2nd cheapest of all in game, I think)
EMB-110: 5.76% (tiny bit cheaper than the metros)

Again, purchase price scales up a lot faster than maintenance costs, making the bigger planes much cheaper to maintain. But again, even for the cheapest of them, 3 E110s = more than a single a300. 3 of the expensive Pipers = 1 747. that seems weird to me, but I may be wrong.

Offline chiveicrook

  • Members
  • Posts: 187
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2012, 01:07:48 AM »
it seems that pa-31 is only 100k/year cheaper to maintain than yak-40. Wow.

My math could be wrong though.

IMHO maintenance could use general overhaul... I hope it's somewhere on sami's "to do when everything else is done" list

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #64 on: December 30, 2012, 03:22:56 AM »
it seems that pa-31 is only 100k/year cheaper to maintain than yak-40. Wow.

My math could be wrong though.

IMHO maintenance could use general overhaul... I hope it's somewhere on sami's "to do when everything else is done" list

In DOTM, a brand new Yak 40 costs ~350k/year in maintenance.

A brand new PA-31-Navajo costs ~260k.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #65 on: December 30, 2012, 09:05:22 PM »
RIs yet to hit 20, but the previous week was only a loss of 10k, excluding loans. I've definitely got a successful airline here.

So, do I leave this run for 12 months, just to get some more numbers about how successful it is, or do I start a new challenge right now, like opening up in ORD (HQ of one big airline, secondary base of 4 more, all multi-billion dollar CVs) and prospering?

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #66 on: December 30, 2012, 09:28:06 PM »
My new airline's expenses, with 4 purchased, 11-12 year old PC 12/47s:

Staff: 312 people, 738k/month, 185k/plane

Plane comm: 110k, 28k/plane

Engine: 124k, 31k/plane - these numbers are essentially identical, possibly exactly the same, as they were with 4 brand new PC NGs.

Marketing: 14k/month, 4k/plane - smallest possible, local only & internet.

Insurance: 9k, 2k/plane

Maintenance: 198k/month, 50k/plane

Total: 300k/plane. 75k/week profit for each plane (actually less, because plane profit display includes line maintenance), and I'll break even. RIs are under 20, LFs for all planes are 73-75%, weekly profits are 55-60k. Since extra revenue from filling the planes will be pure profit, I should reach over 100k/plane once loads are 100%. That projects to roughly 5 million/year in profit, on about 42 million/year in revenue. Staff costs are ~9 million/year though. Wages here are 72% of what they were in Bulgaria. So if I had the same airline, but paid Bulgarian wages, my projected profit would be 1.5 million/year, on 42 million/year in revenue. If it was in the US, even as efficient as I've made it, I'd be unable to make money.

brique

  • Former member
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #67 on: December 30, 2012, 11:33:03 PM »
grats on finding the way to get it done ! A profitable 9-seater airline, small, it is true.. but perfectly formed :)

Shame its such a limited scenario in which they can work, and moving outside those optimum conditions is a bit like stepping off a cliff-edge.

It would be nice to see it run a bit longer, but, frankly, there wouldn't be that much for you to do... you cant really expand distance-wise ; at best it would just be filling demand to current destinations; and doing so without breaching the staffing issues of extra flights.

Now you can throw all the data at Sami and see what occureth ...  ;D

addition : nice work on the maint costs for varied aircraft types : it does seem overly weighted the further down the size-scale you go : I suppose there must be some sort of minimum cost, premises, wages, etc that cant be avoided : so a/b checks maybe, but for c-d checks, it does seem wrong.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 11:42:02 PM by brique »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2012, 12:03:46 AM »
Yeah, I think the price of C & D checks relative to A-checks is something that needs work.

The % are in large part due to the smaller planes being so much cheaper to buy. It does seem strange to me that a single engine, 9 seat plane costs a little over half what a 150 seat plane does in maintenance. I assume it has much less in the way of complicated, computerised systems. A lot less control surfaces. But I could be completely wrong, I don't know what actually needs to get done during weekly/monthly line maintenance IRL. It might be the PC12 is particularly expensive, and the other small planes that are no longer available in MT are cheaper. In DOTM, the Piper Navajo is almost double the EMB110 and Fairchild Metro when it comes to weekly maintenance.

The big expenses, that I do think are very unbalanced, are the staff and the ground handling. The staff algorithm needs improvement when it comes to small planes, small airlines. I'd be curious to know exactly what the algorithm is. How many variables are in it, how it generates its numbers. Ground handling is one that I also don't know about for certain IRL. But $400+ every time you land a 9 seat plane in a tiny airport doesn't make sense to me. What services are actually getting done for that fee?

RIs are now 21-25, LF now 81%, and I made profit in the previous week.

Think I'll leave it until tomorrow, then restart somewhere very busy, lots of comp, build a proper airline in the last 6 years. But keep track of the same stuff in terms of expenses, profit required, etc.

brique

  • Former member
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2012, 12:54:31 AM »
I suspect the back-office staffing is primarily related to number of aircraft, routes and flights, rather than how many seats are on them. there might be a general category, maybe using the size classification : The scaling is way off there, particularly for management numbers, a senior manager per plane is just... silly. : The pilot/crew pretty much sort themselves, the aircraft type sets them : As for the route strategists...

I dont know what the actual ground handling charges cover : I could guess at apron crew, ground controllers, maybe the honey-wagon, gennie hook-up : for the large aircraft, the tugs needed to move it around, and so on. But, proportionately, small aircraft do seem to pay a lot per seat for it.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #70 on: December 31, 2012, 07:40:17 PM »
RIs are at about 40. LFs are nudging 90. Each plane is at 80-85k profit. CI is up to 10, even with the minimal marketing. Income statement for the first three weeks of March are attached.

I'll call this finished later today. Graduate to 50/100 seaters and keep the same data, somewhere a bit busier.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2013, 12:42:20 AM »
I made money, though only just, in the B-check week, too.

Airline has now shut down, and I've started in ORD, plan to run only medium planes. 2.3 mill to lease the first 4, and 3.9 mill to schedule the first 2. So slot fees might make growth painfully slow. In which case I can use my final BK, run the same all-Saab airline somewhere a bit smaller, where slot costs aren't so prohibitive, see what difference picking an appropriately sized airport makes to your start-up.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Time for another experiment
« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2013, 06:56:05 AM »
Staff costs are ~9 million/year though. Wages here are 72% of what they were in Bulgaria. So if I had the same airline, but paid Bulgarian wages, my projected profit would be 1.5 million/year, on 42 million/year in revenue. If it was in the US, even as efficient as I've made it, I'd be unable to make money.

Wages in Vanuatu were actually about 32% of wages in the US. So if I was running these 9 seaters in the US, my 5 million/year profit would turn into 14 million/year loss. I'd need all ticket prices to be 35% higher, still fill every plane, and then I'd break even.

A few posts ago, I've attached the staff numbers for 4 x 9 seat planes, flying to 13 destinations. I needed to sell tickets in 14 different airports, I could sell ~4400 tickets/week total, and I needed 78 customer service staff to do it.

This post, I've attached the staff numbers for 4 x Saab2000s, flying to 23 different destinations. I need to sell tickets in 24 different airports, I can sell over 16000 tickets/week total. And I only need 52 customer service staff. Lower staff numbers everywhere else, too. Despite bigger planes, flying more places. They are costing me 2.5 times as much as they were before though.  :laugh:

Not sure I'll persist here, not without restarting and using appropriately sized planes. $2 million per plane for scheduling means I'm limited to just 4 of them to start with. No worries making money, but it's going to be a slow process getting each additional plane.


 

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.