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: small airline experiment, take 2  (Read 6035 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14544
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2013, 06:14:42 AM »
So to sum it all up, no bigger issues in the system regarding small airlines anymore?

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2013, 06:56:01 AM »
Nah, it now seems extremely viable. Provided you don't do things like try it in a huge airport where slots eat all your money, or only fly a bunch of 500+ NM routes. 9 seaters would be tougher, and so would slower/thirstier/less efficient sub 20 seaters, but it might just be a bit of a challenge, rather than practically impossible. Using Metros makes it pretty simple so far.

I think staffing is still an issue, but it can be overcome without too many problems. Should be easy enough to be successful anywhere that has enough airports, even if it's an expensive country like Norway or US.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3083
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #42 on: September 01, 2013, 03:12:31 AM »
I haven't kept up much with the thread, but I'm seeing something in JA8 running a medium plane only airline that might be somewhat relevant to this topic with regards to marketing, so I'm wondering if you've seen anything with the related costs.

I'm flying F.27's only right now and they're mostly scheduled on 2-5 flights per day to different destinations (most are not doubled up at all). To obtain a CI of ~50, I was spending about 15% of revenue with just the HQ running. I opened a base and scheduled about 12 frames (versus ~30 scheduled at HQ), and I'm seeing marketing costs running DOUBLE for the same campaigns, or about 30% of revenue. Of course, revenue has yet to increase due to low RI, that type of jump is fairly significant...

Have you observed much about that?

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #43 on: September 01, 2013, 06:47:40 AM »
Yeah, I've noticed in the past. http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,42466.0.html in particular, I eventually gave up on getting the CI above 30, because it wasn't cost-effective. I ramped up marketing to levels higher than I was happy spending, and it still wouldn't lift from 30. So I cancelled a couple of campaigns, and could keep it at 30 with an ok level of spending.

Marketing spend, and marketing effectiveness, seems to be mostly based on number of destinations, with little impact based on the size of routes/number of daily flights. Fly 150 big routes, mostly LH, or fly to 150 airports with a daily 50 seater, and there won't be that much difference in the raw amount required to hit a given CI. But obviously a huge difference in % of revenue. I think if you're going to run a small/medium plane regional airline, better to stick to a lower CI, trying to reach 50, 70, 90, etc isn't worth it.

This airline, I set marketing to the smallest possible general campaign on day 1, and ignored it from then on. It slowly grew to 10, hovered at 15 for some time, and over the last 12 months, has moved up to 20. I currently spend 65k/week, on 2.7 mill in revenue. So only 2.4%, and I don't need a CI above 20, I've already got an overall LF of 90%.

Offline pascaly

  • Members
  • Posts: 405
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2013, 05:23:23 AM »
Great reading Sanabas, thanks for all the effort you're putting into this.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2013, 03:11:29 AM »
I've been ignoring my airline, other than to log in and give everyone a payrise when they threatened to go on strike. I have 31 planes scheduled across 2 bases, 39 planes sitting idle, and I'm paying leases on 36 of them. Even did 3 D-checks. Weekly income is consistent at 2.7-2.8 million, down to 2.5 in B-check weeks. Weekly profit has shrunk steadily as fuel has been increasing, looks like around 750k (500k in B-check weeks) in late 1979, down to ~4-500k now. Fuel bill has increased from ~200k to ~300k. Looks like C-checks may have something to do with that, too. Maintenance didn't top 200k in any week over the last 3 months of 1979, but has frequent spikes of near 300k in 1980. Think because of the way I've ordered, my C-checks arrive in clusters.

Overall, I've got a little over 30 mill in the bank, no loans, 27 million in loans available if needed (with my B rating), and just under 120 mill in planes, for a $150 million CV that puts me comfortably in the top 100 overall. My under 40k pax/week, and ~35 million/qtr revenue are both outside the top 150.

Will open a 3rd base, schedule a lot more planes, possibly end a few leases, in the next couple of RL days. Still waiting on Metro III & E120 to launch.

So, one last thing to do before neglecting airline again, and that's to reset the prices to the current default. Average price currently is $81, and my LF is 93.5%. Hit reset, and...

Average price jumped to $100. Even if LFs dip a little, I'm still looking at a jump in revenue of more than 20%, which should more than double profit. Regularly resetting prices is important.  :laugh:

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2013, 01:04:05 PM »
LF down to ~89%, but revenue up to 3.35 million. So profit is now up over 900k/week for the last two weeks, I've more than doubled profit with a 25% ticket price increase.

Offline Karl

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2013, 02:56:29 PM »
I am flying EMB 110.  

I am keeping my airline alive, but my airline will never be a real competitor.

I find if I can fly once a day (really an unrealistic concept in the real world) between small airports, I can survive; however, the cost of flying into a major airport is a killer.  The slots can be very expensive relative to the potential profit.

Another challenge of flying a 15 seater on short hops is that the plane can do 3 - 4 hops or more in a 6:00 - 23:00 day.  The cost of slots again can add up.

Having a couple of F27 helps with the bottom line, but finding airports with enough demand is a challenge.  Again, the cost of slots at available airports can be a killer.

The bottom line:  In my humble opinion, running a commuter airline in this simulation is possible, but will never be rewarding on many levels.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2013, 08:21:31 PM »
I think it is perfectly clear that you wonīt earn prizes for your small operator, unless Sami defines different goals to accomplish then just "most" of everything.
Question was not how to win with small aircrafts, but to show that it is possible to survive and even grow, especially since Sami changed the costs for handling small aircrafts.
Iīm flying those little birds myself and find it quite entertaining/challenging to manage it.I donīt care if I win a trophy or not.
Slot costs are a killer, thatīs why you have to be patient with opening routes to busy airports, you first have to earn the money to get in.But on the other hand slots on constraint airports have to be expensive to prevent a flooding of small birds (we had that problem before ).

brique

  • Former member
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2013, 06:36:31 AM »
I think it is perfectly clear that you wonīt earn prizes for your small operator, unless Sami defines different goals to accomplish then just "most" of everything.
Question was not how to win with small aircrafts, but to show that it is possible to survive and even grow, especially since Sami changed the costs for handling small aircrafts.
Iīm flying those little birds myself and find it quite entertaining/challenging to manage it.I donīt care if I win a trophy or not.
Slot costs are a killer, thatīs why you have to be patient with opening routes to busy airports, you first have to earn the money to get in.But on the other hand slots on constraint airports have to be expensive to prevent a flooding of small birds (we had that problem before ).

I'm finding running a small flock of 8-seater Pipers to be quite 'do-able', true, its in the accountants paradise of PNG, but looking at the revenue/overheads, I'm confident it could be managed from any class3-4 airport  given adequate slot/route availability.

Perhaps the achievements could be scaled somewhat, refering to the base airport size : 200 destinations out of LHR is no big thing at all : 200 out of a class-3 would be.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2013, 12:27:52 PM »
I think it is perfectly clear that you wonīt earn prizes for your small operator, unless Sami defines different goals to accomplish then just "most" of everything.
Question was not how to win with small aircrafts, but to show that it is possible to survive and even grow, especially since Sami changed the costs for handling small aircrafts.
Iīm flying those little birds myself and find it quite entertaining/challenging to manage it.I donīt care if I win a trophy or not.
Slot costs are a killer, thatīs why you have to be patient with opening routes to busy airports, you first have to earn the money to get in.But on the other hand slots on constraint airports have to be expensive to prevent a flooding of small birds (we had that problem before ).

The easiest way to do this would be aircraft classifications.  Something like "fly 50/100/200 million avail seat kilometers with only small aircraft", which would mean if you add a medium aircraft to your fleet you're ineligible for the achievement.  You could also have "fly 50/100/200 million revenue seat kilometers with only small aircraft" and "operate a fleet of 25/50/100/200 only small aircraft", etc.  You could do the same with medium/large/very large aircraft with higher seat kilometers obviously.

Offline Karl

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2013, 01:51:21 PM »
I am really not looking for an achievement award.  Building a financially sound small airline would be reward enough for me.

The main way real-world "commuter" airlines make it in modern times is through contracts with a major hub carrier.  This is really not possible in AirwaySim, but maybe some type of financial consideration could be built into the program to account for this.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: small airline experiment, take 2
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2013, 03:00:48 AM »
The experiment's now over. Running an airline purely with small planes is now completely feasible. As is using a fleet of small planes instead of medium turboprops to go with your bigger planes.

However, it gets pretty boring.

 

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.