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

Poll

Are the big airlines boring?

Yes
19 (40.4%)
No
6 (12.8%)
Maybe
7 (14.9%)
Some
11 (23.4%)
Most
4 (8.5%)

Total Members Voted: 42

Author Topic: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs  (Read 1309 times)

Offline Khungwa_Andy

  • Members
  • Posts: 3
Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« on: July 29, 2015, 10:09:26 AM »
Hey Guys,

I am new to the game and have only played for about a month.  When i joined GW4, I found huge and well established airlines at key airports, but have noted that these big airline CEOs are BORING to say the least. It appears that there will be no purchase of supersonic aircraft with production about to close for the TU-144 and Concorde.  fuel fears etc are sad excuses for airlines with the capacity or potential.

regards.
 ;D Andy

Are the big airlines boring?

Offline TranceAvia

  • Members
  • Posts: 440
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2015, 10:13:08 AM »
its a good point, but the game engine means a huge penilty for adding another aircraft type when a fuel spike can make it totally unprofitable...

but i agree, some risk would be good :)

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3070

The person who likes this post:
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2015, 11:48:43 AM »
You generally have to be boring to be successful in this game. For long game worlds like this, you can't really afford to use one of your fleet types for bleeps and giggles as it will bankrupt a large airline due to the commonality penalty.

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2015, 12:55:31 PM »
You generally have to be boring to be successful in this game. For long game worlds like this, you can't really afford to use one of your fleet types for bleeps and giggles as it will bankrupt a large airline due to the commonality penalty.

Yeah. It's realistic like that, unfortunately. There's a reason(not only one, in fact) why those otherwise superb jets did not have any commercial success. (though IIRC the TU144 had a few maintenance problems, which grounded planes far too often). For a proper & efficient use, you'd have to build a strong company based upon one single fleet type, and probably at least a 150-seater. Plus not being in a fleet change when the supersonic jets arrive. Probably it could work, but the versatility of more "normal" jets is more appealing to long-term builders.

Still this game is loads of fun.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3070
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2015, 02:25:38 PM »
Yeah. It's realistic like that, unfortunately. There's a reason(not only one, in fact) why those otherwise superb jets did not have any commercial success. (though IIRC the TU144 had a few maintenance problems, which grounded planes far too often). For a proper & efficient use, you'd have to build a strong company based upon one single fleet type, and probably at least a 150-seater. Plus not being in a fleet change when the supersonic jets arrive. Probably it could work, but the versatility of more "normal" jets is more appealing to long-term builders.

Still this game is loads of fun.

The TU-144 never entered commercial service due to a rather spectacular crash during the testing.

When I"m later in a game, I'd love to pick up a Concorde, but they're so expensive and uneconomical that few get produced, the production line closes, and it's really not feasible to acquire them at that point.

Offline chiveicrook

  • Members
  • Posts: 187

The 4 people who like this post:
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2015, 04:34:12 PM »
Quote
The TU-144 never entered commercial service due to a rather spectacular crash during the testing.
First and only crash of production Tu-144 happened during Le Bourget Air Show in 1973. You are referring to Tu-144D which was a much later design with different engines, which crashed in 1978. Tu-144 saw limited passenger service which terminated after 1978 crash and then continued to be used as a freighter until 80s.

Qutoes from Tupolev's official site:
Quote
Before the moment of termination of regular operation with passengers inn May, 1978 Aeroflot crews made 55 flights on TU-144 a/c totally carried 3284 passengers.
Quote
In late 70-s Voronezh plant began serial production of TU-144D. The Tu-144 No.06-2 (side number 77111) was the first production aircraft. The first flight was performed 27 April, 1978. The aircraft started joint testing but 23 May, 1978 it crashed near Yegorievsk. The reason for the crash was breakage of fuel line in engine compartment. The aircraft was piloted by test pilot Popov, co-pilot was Yelyan. The flight crew managed to performed forced landing with retracted landing gear. During the landing Yelyan was wounded and two test engineers were killed. This crash was a direct reason to suspend TU-144 operation with passenger and later on to complete termination of such flights. Four machines more were produced and developed TU-144 №/№ 07-1, 08-1, 08-2 and 09-1. The first two machines were subject to joint government tests which were finalized in mid-80s. Basing on results of said tests TU-144D was recommended to be operated with passengers as well as TU-144 a/c with NK-144A. The aircraft was given airworthiness certificate but was not operated.

Back on-topic:
I think that flight time is way undervalued in AWS right now, if only it was possible to charge ~300% premium on supersonic flights...
IMHO It's much more entertaining to operate small airlines in bizarre locations anyway.

Offline CarlBagot

  • Members
  • Posts: 342

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2015, 05:00:14 PM »
Well I did have a large airline using the Il-96 as a mainstay of the fleet. Had over 150 of those babies  ;D . Granted many people helped me acquire those planes as the production rate was quite slow.

Could I have made more money using 767's instead? Hell Yes! Did I go Bankrupt? Nope. But when I did that I had already attained a monopoly on South Korea (funnily enough I killed my then biggest competitor by frequency bombing them with the VFW-614  8) .

That game world I started with VFW-614s and Dassault Mercures (Basically only domestic and limited regional). Then added DC-8s in the late 70's. Then got 767's and by then only had the 767 and VFW-614s iirc. Added the 747-400 and was quite bored of the 767 (-200ER) so I sold all of them (80 ish) and went for the Il-96-300 (before the recent buff), got rid of those ASAP with the Il-96M (2 vs 3 crew, much better CASM) and stuck with the Ms for the most part till the end of the game world in 2020. I had some Il-96-400s but in that game world they had very little range and could barely go anywhere.

Anyways, I ended up replacing the 747-400s with a boring choice, the 777-300ER and then added some ULH with the 777-200LR and even up gauged some early Il-96 routes which had grown quite a bit to the 777-300ER. Also dropped the VFW-614 as they got old and I had no more competition (some tried later on, I prevailed) so I went with the 757 domestically (757-300) and built a small regional fleet of those.

Ended up with 40 ish 757s, 150 ish Il-96s (all except 35 of which were Ms) and 150 777s. I was top 20 in many categories, even for profits.

Offline CarlBagot

  • Members
  • Posts: 342
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2015, 05:09:23 PM »
I too think that Concordes and TU-144s are hard to fit in. They come right as a fuel spike is going to happen and at that time the relative fuel price is very high anyways compared to the 80s and 90s. Not only that, they need to operate in premium heavy airports of which their small range and the tech stop penalty (which is not compensated by it's speed, ggrr!) limits them to hubs such as JFK and LHR. Does not work at most other places such as LAX (problem with domestic competition and can't go over pacific), HND, SIN, HKG etc which have a need for longer range. Might work in DXB.

So you are limited to very few airports, which generally are either slot constrained or have lots of competition. You are not well compensated for the speed and cannot tech stop profitable. On top of that the timing sucks.

If speed is given more weight and tech stops less so (they get a speed penalty anyways), then they would be ok, despite the timing.

Offline Tiberius

  • Members
  • Posts: 235

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2015, 06:30:08 PM »
You're right.  So I bought one.  I may never flight her but once, but she's mine.  The other one is in Columbo and will also probably never fly.

Online [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 601
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2015, 11:22:48 AM »
How about removing the fleet penalty for supersonic aircraft (lets say that governments will take care of the added maintenance costs in terms of prestige or whatever)

Will give some extra to the bigger airlines (and smaller) who decide to bring the concorde or tu144 into the game

Offline tise1983

  • Members
  • Posts: 1733
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2015, 01:35:52 AM »
Yeah I just bought a concorde and am running it from Beijing to Singapore and Beijing to Hong Kong in a single day, and with the fleet penalty i dont think it will ever turn a profit, unless i get more concordes and that would be dancing with the devil...Matter of fact I think it will cost me about 1MM a week just to fly it...booh

Offline Andre

  • Members
  • Posts: 1091

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2015, 07:21:41 PM »
In my opinion the whole fleet penalty should be removed and replaced with something else. It doesn't make any sense, and there's no real world logic behind it. The reasoning for it is to limit expansion, but this could be done in different ways. And at the same time, the maintenance costs and servicing of the aircraft should be connected to cycles and flight hours much more than age. 

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2015, 06:48:56 AM »
In my opinion the whole fleet penalty should be removed and replaced with something else. It doesn't make any sense, and there's no real world logic behind it. The reasoning for it is to limit expansion, but this could be done in different ways.

The thing that stops companies growth, ultimately, is dividends. Shareholders want money. In most simulation games, though, they don't get any, which makes the big boy unkillable. IRL, they pay more & more dividend each year when they have success.

And at the same time, the maintenance costs and servicing of the aircraft should be connected to cycles and flight hours much more than age.

Would give some sense to those stats.

Offline Khungwa_Andy

  • Members
  • Posts: 3
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2015, 01:48:12 AM »
a few small airlines tried to go supersonic but i supposed faced the challenges noted by others. The CEOs of AeroMondial, Trans American Airlines and Locke Airlines must be commended as not boring, unlike the other big airlines who have the capacity to make profits flying supersonic.

 ;D

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3070

The person who likes this post:
Re: Big Boring Airlines and CEOs
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2015, 02:31:55 AM »
The thing that stops companies growth, ultimately, is dividends. Shareholders want money. In most simulation games, though, they don't get any, which makes the big boy unkillable. IRL, they pay more & more dividend each year when they have success.

Would give some sense to those stats.

I've proposed cycle and hour limits in the past with negative results.

 

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.