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: Fleet Development  (Read 1257 times)

Offline Superbenj

  • Members
  • Posts: 247
Fleet Development
« on: July 11, 2013, 06:48:19 AM »
So as a JA noob, what are most peoples plans for Fleet Dev??

Im tempted to go in for Comets for 7 years or so, to cover the period until the 727/737 is available, however the capacity is lower than the DC6s Im currently running and due to the heavily increased fuel costs, Im not sure if its a good idea. Will I be able to charge lots more for a jet service over a prop service? 

How can the Comets be economical? Is it just because you can fit in more flights in a day?? If so in my slot limited base (ORD), I suspect it would be a bad idea to get them in??

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2013, 04:41:33 PM »
I'm also interested in this... probably no "big player" would want to give away his strategy, but it would be nice to hear some advices...


Will I be able to charge lots more for a jet service over a prop service?  

No, you won't... AWS pax don't know the difference between a jet, prop, old, new, presurized, not presurized... it's all the same for them...

They do care (and in a small proportion among other stuff) about travel speed... the faster the better... and jets do make a difference in that point...




I recently read this on the forum:

Unless the program is changed a lot to discourage flying older aircraft for 60 years, I am not for it.

In Jet Age 7 I finished with the 3rd youngest fleet at 100+ aircraft, yet there was at least one huge airline flying DC-6(and profiting from, I guess).  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of a long scenario, but....it was perfectly acceptable in that game.   ???
AWS doesn't always follow the real world and I am all for that. If someone can keep a fleet of DC-6s flying into the 80s at a profit then have fun doing it, it fits with the spirit of AWS. DC-6s usually have long production runs in JA (much longer than real life) so by the 1980s some DC-6s are usually only 10 years old so they have plenty of years left to fly.

The game also only allows you to fly a plane for 35 years and even then it is usually prohibitively expensive at that point. I agree that the program needs to be fixed but I think it should allow for a slightly longer usage period (40-45 years) and allow for cheaper maintenance for older aircraft to give older aircraft (20+ years old) on the used market a longer lifespan.

Any other experienced advice would be nice ;)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 04:44:28 PM by ezzeqiel »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2013, 04:46:41 PM »
No, you won't... AWS pax don't know the difference between a jet, prop, old, new, presurized, not presurized... it's all the same for them...

They only care (and in a small proportion among other stuff) about travel speed... the faster the better...

Pax do care about jet vs. prop because it affects the speed. Jets fly faster and so you get a speed bonus (either more pax, or you can charge more). But I think the difference between fast prop/slow jet (which is only a little faster than prop) won't be as big as the difference between slow prop / fast jet.

So a comet would not have much advantage over a a Tu-114, but a 707 would have a bigger advantage over a DC6 for example.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2013, 04:47:32 PM »
My fleet dev plan (subject to change) is probably something like this.

LH: DC6 -> Comet -> DC8 or 707 -> DC10 -> Concorde -> 747 or A340
SH: DC6 -> Comet -> 727 -> 737 or A320

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2013, 04:52:50 PM »
Pax do care about jet vs. prop because it affects the speed. Jets fly faster and so you get a speed bonus (either more pax, or you can charge more). But I think the difference between fast prop/slow jet (which is only a little faster than prop) won't be as big as the difference between slow prop / fast jet.

So a comet would not have much advantage over a a Tu-114, but a 707 would have a bigger advantage over a DC6 for example.

Yeah, I edited that a little bit before your comment:
"They do care (and in a small proportion among other stuff) about travel speed... the faster the better... and jets do make a difference in that point..."

The point is (and I think you made it very clear)... jet vs prop don't matter at all... speed does... so If you have a non presurized very noisy and old prop flying almost at the same speed than a presurized and quiet brand new jet, it will be exactly the same for AWS pax...

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2013, 09:41:55 PM »
There is a strong disincentive to not fly older planes for 60 years. Maintenance costs on 25+ year old planes are huuuuge.

For fleets, depends what sort of stuff you're flying. You can fly DC-6/CV-340 for pretty much everything to start, then the convairs turn into better turboprops (fokker, HSwhatevernumber, etc). DC-6 turn into DC-8/707/Vickers for a bit more size and more range. The tupolev could be a good LH plane too, except that the production line is very, very slow, so extremely tough to get enough of them. Not a big fan of comet/lockheed/etc early jets, they're incredibly thirsty and don't offer much benefit in terms of range, seats, etc. Rather use things like the AWsomeothernumber.

Personally, if I manage to win the f5 battle for a new JA space, I'm planning on boycotting all douglas/airbus/boeing products, and seeing how things go. Efficiency be damned! The only issue with that will be LH, as there's really nothing in later years. L1011 is okish, but once you're past that, the only LH plane is the IL-96.

Does anyone know if Moscow - Vnukovo gets transferred to Sheremetyevo when it opens?

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2013, 09:47:38 PM »
Does anyone know if Moscow - Vnukovo gets transferred to Sheremetyevo when it opens?

No, since Vnukovo does not close.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2013, 10:15:38 PM »
Yeah, but it does become the dominant airport, and I know there are other airports in game that transfer you even though the old airport remains open. Just wasn't sure if it happened in Moscow. Thanks for the quick answer.

Offline RougeCanuck

  • Members
  • Posts: 85
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2013, 12:14:50 AM »
I think the real question is whether or not svo will Intl demand, which if reality is any guide I expect it will

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2013, 12:43:28 AM »
SVO does have international demand. It's the only soviet airport that isn't 100% domestic, and the largest. Once it turns into Russia, Domodedovo becomes the largest, and switches to quite a bit of international demand.

Also, if you're HQed in SVO, and have secondary airports elsewhere, like Tashkent or Baku (both better than Kiev, I think), you'll keep them post-breakup, even though they're in different countries.

Offline Superbenj

  • Members
  • Posts: 247
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2013, 02:48:39 PM »
Does anyone think I should cancel my 707-120 order for Bristol Brittanias? I'm struggling to see how I can in anyway make as much money with the 707s over the Brittanias, on long haul routes.

the 120 was an error wasn't it?

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2013, 03:13:09 PM »
Does anyone think I should cancel my 707-120 order for Bristol Brittanias? I'm struggling to see how I can in anyway make as much money with the 707s over the Brittanias, on long haul routes.

the 120 was an error wasn't it?

I don't know if it was a mistake or not. But, the -120 is not a long haul airplane, it can't even cross the Atlantic.

So, by needing to do a tech-stop ala DC-6 while taking 5h less, but 3h less than a Britannia (with better range), so yes.

I'm skipping the -120 and waiting for the -320 instead. True story, Juan Trippe didn't want the -120 at the beginning but ordered it nevertheless in order to persuade Boeing to build the larger -320. Other thing is that Trippe also ordered Donald Douglas's DC-8 so people in Boeing went nuts.

Offline Superbenj

  • Members
  • Posts: 247
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2013, 03:34:09 PM »
Thanks

Hmmm, think I'll get some Brittanias in for my Tran Atlantics and use the 120s for Longer Domestic flights.

Im still not sure how they'll make more money than my DC6s though, can I just charge more?

Are the 120s and 320s considered the same fleet type?

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2013, 03:56:24 PM »
Thanks

Hmmm, think I'll get some Brittanias in for my Tran Atlantics and use the 120s for Longer Domestic flights.

Im still not sure how they'll make more money than my DC6s though, can I just charge more?

Are the 120s and 320s considered the same fleet type?

Yes, the 120 and 320s (which are 100 and 300 really, 20 is Boeing's code) are in the same fleet type, the 707.

The advantage of the jets over props is the speed for passengers and fleet programming. Not sure if you could charge more than the DC-6 but you could certainly make two flights in the time frame a DC-6 makes one.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2013, 07:11:12 PM »
I don't know if it was a mistake or not. But, the -120 is not a long haul airplane, it can't even cross the Atlantic.

-120 absolutely can cross the atlantic once you put in first and business class seats. Just not if you jam it all with Y seats.

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2013, 08:26:17 PM »
-120 absolutely can cross the atlantic once you put in first and business class seats. Just not if you jam it all with Y seats.

True, but from very very East coast to Britain. Not a good deal if you want to expand into at least Western Europe from US East coast.

Offline Superbenj

  • Members
  • Posts: 247
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2013, 10:06:34 AM »
-120 absolutely can cross the atlantic once you put in first and business class seats. Just not if you jam it all with Y seats.
Not from Chicago it wont! Not with the config I have planned anyway.

I think I will employ it on my 1,500 mile plus dometic routes, get some Brittanias in for more capacity on the TATL routes

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2013, 05:47:41 AM »
Not from Chicago it wont! Not with the config I have planned anyway.

I think I will employ it on my 1,500 mile plus dometic routes, get some Brittanias in for more capacity on the TATL routes

No, not from Chicago. And The 707-120 can't cross the Atlantic from Tokyo either, or from Los Angeles...
But the stated requirement above was not to cross the Atlantic "and then X additional distance," but just to cross the atlantic.

And the 707-120 can cross the Atlantic. So it can serve UK/Ireland to US East Coast for example. If you want to go further inland, then you will need a later version.
But since the 707-120 can easily and profitably serve LHR-JFK or DUB-IAD for example, to say that it "is not a long haul aircraft" is not really correct. Its nonstop range is as long as any other LH aircraft in the game at this time (except Lockheed Starliner). And so, during this time period, most airlines made stops on their LH flights. That is how LH worked at this time.

Of course, even longer range aircraft come out later, and you can use those to serve something like Europe to US West or US Midwest, or US West to Asia, if you want to do it nonstop. But it doesn't mean that the current aircraft designed to fly LH (and doing the best they can under current tech limits) are not LH aircraft. Even the Concorde was used as a LH aircraft although it had only 3300 nm range.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 05:52:11 AM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2013, 02:06:49 PM »
What I mean by considering the -120 NOT a LH airplane, I mean it is the same as the DC-6 while faster. But you'll still need to make a stop to fill the tanks, just like the DC-6, passengers really love that.

If you're going to compete against props while drinking 10x fuel, better offer some incentive besides speed. Sure, you can cross the Atlantic with the -120, but it is like saying that the L1011-100/200 can cross the Pacific, it IS a LH airplane but not by that much. Once you fill those 3/4 airports in the UK or Maine, then you will need to visit lovely Gander. So will the DC-6s, while spending 10x less fuel.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Fleet Development
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2013, 07:37:24 PM »
What I mean by considering the -120 NOT a LH airplane, I mean it is the same as the DC-6 while faster. But you'll still need to make a stop to fill the tanks, just like the DC-6, passengers really love that.

If you're going to compete against props while drinking 10x fuel, better offer some incentive besides speed. Sure, you can cross the Atlantic with the -120, but it is like saying that the L1011-100/200 can cross the Pacific, it IS a LH airplane but not by that much. Once you fill those 3/4 airports in the UK or Maine, then you will need to visit lovely Gander. So will the DC-6s, while spending 10x less fuel.

With a techstop (on both planes), the 707-120 carries 1.66x the pax of the DC-6B and cuts about 40% off the flight time. It also does not burn 10x the fuel of the DC-6B, but rather about 5x-6x, since fuel burn is per hour, and the 707 flies fewer hours for the same distance.

Of course, later versions of the 707 are much more fuel efficient than the 707-120, which is a gas guzzler by comparison. But it's not 10x the gas of a DC-6B.

So on a per-pax basis, the 707-120 burns probably about 3.3x the fuel compared to a DC-6B if both are fully loaded. And it gets a speed bonus to the pax, and can fly almost double the frequencies per week than a DC-6B because it flies faster. Now, whether those bonuses are worht the 3.3x fuel burn is debatable (and probably depends on whether you have enough pax to fill the 707). But it's not as drastically bad as the raw fuel numbers suggest, once you account for all of the rest of the math.

(The DC-6B is also considered a LH aircraft in this time period.)

 

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.