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: NZAA, another failed experiment  (Read 2150 times)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
NZAA, another failed experiment
« on: January 25, 2013, 01:56:13 PM »
I will get into writing more on this later.  Recent changes to the sim have made countries like NZ impossible to play from.  I went from making a steady profit to losing money when I switched from props to jets.

Some brief tidbits:
The demand changed virtually little to none when NZAA opened (I was shocked).   
I can service virtually all of NZ's short haul demand with under 15 F.27s.  That's literally 3 hubs total with 15 planes. 
Those F.27s make more money than DC8s running tech stopped flights.
Routes with tech stops are being harshly punished.  Even with no competition, I had to lower prices up to 30% just to get close to what demand is. 

This was the same result when I played out of JNB (but then I had a competitor).    There is no reason I should've flunked out of NZ when I basically run the entire nation.   

I dont want to have to play from a major airport in the USA/Asia/Europe (or Sydney/Sao Paolo)...    You can basically lob off 60% of the game's airports and aircraft models and turn this into aerobiz supersonic if you wanted to.


Offline Karl

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2013, 08:48:20 PM »
I went from making a steady profit to losing money when I switched from props to jets.

My airline also uses the F27 - and the DC 6B.  Because the premise and challenge of this version of the sim is, I believe, to transition to more modern aircraft, I switched from the CV 240 to the F-27.  That went well.  No jet aircaft could serve most of my markets with a demand of from 10 - 40 passengers..

Then (I reasoned) it was time to move into the jet age by moving from the DC 6B to the 727 for long haul flying.

BIG MISTAKE!   :'(

I lost 75% of my company value is just several months of sim time.

To try to prevent bankruptcy, I took the 727s out of service.  I now have 3 (soon to be 4) 727-100 sitting idle.  They have been replaced by the DC 6 B, and I am slowly beginning to make money again.  So far, I have cancelled four other 727 that are on order for a lease term of 5 years.

It is sad.  I can't use the 727, and I cannot get reasonably get rid of them.  However, believe it or not - they are losing LESS money sitting idle and paying the monthly lease fee than by flying!   ???


Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 467
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2013, 10:15:01 PM »
Well, the 727-100 seems (according to my calculations) to be barely better than the DC6B.

E.g. You config your DC6B with 104 pax, and then replace it with a 114pax 727-100. This gives barely better operating economics compared to the DC6B.
Lets also look at some of your DC6B routes, Oakland has a General demand of 70. Attract 20% more and that gives 84. Call it 90 for the slightly random nature of pax and the DC6B at this level of pax is by far the best plane to operate.

However other routes such as LAX have good 200 or so of demand, these 727-100's actually need to be filled to the brim to give maximum cost benefit over the DC6B's, and at 114pax that isn't a lot.

I did a comparison of the 727-200, I found that if you fill it to 156 pax you will get a massive operating cost reduction. I found the B727-200 had better operating cost over the DC6B when it had 112pax over the DC6B's 104pax. The 727-100 had better operating cost when it added the 113pax over the DC6B with the same 104 config.

What I also conclude is the B737-200 at 102pax compared to the DC6B at 104pax, the B737-200 is much better than the DC6B. The operating cost is better from the 96pax onwards!

All these numbers are done using the same spreadsheet I use, all figures are taken according to new aircraft and a fuel price of $65. Anybody have anything different? You are perfectly entitled to disagree with what I have come up with!

I think what makes jets better is the demand from people for faster travel, and judging by this, it is not modelling in the game as well a it really needs to be. I.e. People want to travel by jet more than by prop if it makes a big enough difference to journey time even if the jet makes a tech stop and is still actually faster! (I believe that was Swiftus' main problem!)

Update: Just experimented with taking the D-check out of my equation for cost, I found that taking the D-Check (I.e. Returning leased aircraft back before D-check) this gives the DC6B decent cost benefits over the 727-100 but not the 727-200 and 737-200 at default config! For the 727-200 it has better operating cost from the 116pax onwards and the 737-200 from the 99pax onwards!

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2013, 04:24:31 AM »
You can add SXM to the failed experiment list while your at it. Hate this airport.  ;D


The discussion about the 721 is valid. Its not a great aircraft. Along with early versions of SE-210s, Comets, 707s and DC8s. Fuel burn per pax is hideous. Only when the aircraft is full does it make somewhat economical sense. Half full is a load factor of fail waiting to happen.

For your testing Freshmore, compare a 721 vs Il-18D and see what you come up with. You'll probably be surprised. Calculated trip times and fuel usage based off those trip times. Is the jet really better?

Quote
I think what makes jets better is the demand from people for faster travel, and judging by this, it is not modelling in the game as well a it really needs to be.

I think it does. I have a tougher time winning market share vs jet aircraft. However, one has to remember that there other variables to the pax calculations other then speed (prop vs jet). Putting a jet aircraft on the route thinking thats the only thing you need to capture and control market share is wishful thinking.
Quote
I.e. People want to travel by jet more than by prop if it makes a big enough difference to journey time even if the jet makes a tech stop and is still actually faster! (I believe that was Swiftus' main problem!)

I do think this should be tweaked. Something along the lines of NB vs WB pax calculation. Where flying a NB still nets a profit and can be done, just not vs a WB. Only in this case, Its a NS (non-stop) vs TS (Tech-stop). Flying a TS has a slight reduction until someone drops a NS on you, then the market corrects it's self...

Although I think the main reason TS is not profitable is more the fuel load and usage over time. That's just me though...

Once again, a Bug report is needed to open it up for discussion and get it into the Sami spotlight.

Talentz

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2013, 07:01:53 AM »
Although I think the main reason TS is not profitable is more the fuel load and usage over time. That's just me though...

Once again, a Bug report is needed to open it up for discussion and get it into the Sami spotlight.

For the first part, I think it's two different things. Very long flights are less profitable, thanks to fuel increasing more or less linearly with distance, while ticket price doesn't.

But the problem is that if you have a tech-stop, you can basically take the displayed demand, and reduce it by 1/3. Result is a lot of routes that would be viable are suddenly not. And from most airports, that's actually the majority of LH routes. In a previous JA, I had 50+ LH planes in Reunion, Pointe a Pitre, Algeria. They vast majority of the routes needed a tech-stop, and could barely support 1 plane/day. Use the current model, and suddenly 75% or more of the routes I flew wouldn't be viable.

For the second part, there is an open feature request already putting it in the Sami spotlight. It didn't get a [-], so it's on his radar.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2013, 08:49:48 AM »
For the first part, I think it's two different things. Very long flights are less profitable, thanks to fuel increasing more or less linearly with distance, while ticket price doesn't.

Correct. However that effects all LH/VLH/ULH rotues. Not just TS. TS have higher operating costs then NS. This is mainly because of refueling and burning more fuel vs a NS . Of all the associated costs with flying a given route, fuel is the most expensive. That makes TS tougher to turn a profit because of the above mentioned.

But the problem is that if you have a tech-stop, you can basically take the displayed demand, and reduce it by 1/3. Result is a lot of routes that would be viable are suddenly not. And from most airports, that's actually the majority of LH routes. In a previous JA, I had 50+ LH planes in Reunion, Pointe a Pitre, Algeria. They vast majority of the routes needed a tech-stop, and could barely support 1 plane/day. Use the current model, and suddenly 75% or more of the routes I flew wouldn't be viable.

For the second part, there is an open feature request already putting it in the Sami spotlight. It didn't get a [-], so it's on his radar.

That is the actual problem John is raging about. Which to me, is a bug, not a feature request. The TS penalty was not designed to be that harsh. It needs to be addressed and fixed.

How it ended up like this (or why no one has had any real beef with it up till now), is unknown to me. I don't TS very often because of some the things I mentioned and the known fact that TS is less profitable then NS. 

I do suggest the following as a fix:
I do think this should be tweaked. Something along the lines of NB vs WB pax calculation. Where flying a NB still nets a profit and can be done, just not vs a WB. Only in this case, Its a NS (non-stop) vs TS (Tech-stop). Flying a TS has a slight reduction until someone drops a NS on you, then the market corrects it's self...


Talentz

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2013, 12:12:46 PM »
That is the actual problem John is raging about. Which to me, is a bug, not a feature request. The TS penalty was not designed to be that harsh. It needs to be addressed and fixed.

How it ended up like this (or why no one has had any real beef with it up till now), is unknown to me. I don't TS very often because of some the things I mentioned and the known fact that TS is less profitable then NS.

Yeah, I agree it needs to be fixed. I only put it in feature requests because I figured it was working as intended.

Quote
I do suggest the following as a fix:

Agree completely. http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,45058.0.html   :laugh:

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2013, 01:10:57 PM »
Now I won't say that I was 'raging' but I am not happy to have waited almost a decade in game years for an airport to open and it is completely useless.    

I should mention the demand to major Asian capitals (like Seoul and Manila) is the same to my good ole home town airport of KCLE.  That's just odd to me.  

I don't want this sim to devolve to where you're forced to play Aerobiz... if I wanted to do that, I'll run my SNES emulator.

If you don't want to change the cost portion of the model, then fix the income component.  I shouldn't have to discount a flight 20% when RI is at 100% just to get it 70% full.   People wanting to fly from KLAX to NZAA at this point should expect to be paying a premium.   Perhaps flight over X distance can charge more and this premium degrades over the ages as planes get more efficient (example, large increase in the 60s but virtually none by the turn of the millenium)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 01:13:34 PM by swiftus27 »

Offline Karl

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2013, 06:52:10 PM »
Well, the 727-100 seems (according to my calculations) to be barely better than the DC6B.

Do you think that I should try my idle 727-100s on shorter routes?   :-\

The problem is, that most of the available routings do not have a demand of more than 40!
Even my long haul destinations have only between 40 - 80 demand.
As a result, I leased the 727-100 new with a C4 Y65 configuration - not optimal, but I would have had to limit the numbers anyway to achieve some type of acceptable load factor.

The other problem is that when the 727 is in the active fleet, the four aircraft add about $400,000 in comonality fees.   :(

I wish I could unload them for a reasonable cost.   :'(

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2013, 02:27:38 AM »
Agree completely. http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,45058.0.html    :laugh:


We do think alike  :P

~ Somehow I messed that feature request...



Talentz

Offline Monica

  • Members
  • Posts: 694
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2013, 11:24:46 PM »
I agree too. I don't understand why pax prefers to fly with a really slow piston pounder like the Constellation that takes days to arrive, than to fly a one-stop modern Boeing 707 that takes half the time to arrive.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: NZAA, another failed experiment
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2013, 11:48:44 PM »
^^ 100% agree.  Sorry, I just dont like to play big airports that you need to muscle around.  I love challenges.  I am just finding that JA games are impossible if your airport needs tech stops for 70% of the destinations

 

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.