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: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul  (Read 338 times)

Offline Helix

  • Members
  • Posts: 72
Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« on: December 18, 2015, 08:52:01 PM »
I'm currently trying to figure out future aircraft models that may be of interest and I'm having a hard time justifying anything larger than medium aircraft like E-Jets, F100 etc.

The way I see it, every route (for the purpose of this discussion) has competition on it and supply will usually exceed demand, sometimes by very much. As such I should not expect to be able to fill an A320 / 737 to full capacity.

While those aircraft are more efficient on a per seat basis than say, a F100 or E-Jet, in reality they only meet that efficiency when they are fully sold, which they wont be most of the time in the game. Add the higher capital costs, higher salary for pilots, more cabin crew and I cant justify any of these larger aircraft for myself. Even if there are a handful of routes that would fully fill a plane with 150 Pax capacity, from a commonality perspective it would not make sense to me. Also, in most cases a route is better served with 3x 100 than 2x 150.

Despite all this, checking the aircraft stats, A320s / 737s / MD80/90s are the most popular planes in the game. Is it because people know these planes and simply tend to choose them or is there a larger benefit I cant see here?

 

Online bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 213
Re: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2015, 10:55:46 PM »
Well not sure exactly what your asking, or thinking. Yes A320 and 737's are very popular in part because they're known, but also because they work.

If you are in a city without at least 4-5 routes over 200 demand I would say yes, stick with small-medium aircraft. But if you are in a large city, like you are in DFW, then you need the capacity of 737's A320's and md90's.

Lets say you have a city with a demand of 500. If you put three A320's on it, thats a supply of 450. Even if your the only one there you won't get 100% LF, depending on factors let's say 80%. If another competitor also supply's 450 seats, your LF may go to say 60% even though your 'share' market share is 50%.

So 60% of 150 seats is about 85 pax, but if you only put one medium size aircraft of 100 seats, your market share at best will be 25% and even at 70% LF your carrying less pax.

Also some cities get slot restricted so its better to fly 2 150 flight instead of 3 100 planes

Offline Helix

  • Members
  • Posts: 72
Re: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2015, 12:01:16 AM »
Well not sure exactly what your asking, or thinking.

Trying to get some more knowledge and since I could not find an argument for bigger aircraft myself I'm looking for some input from more experienced players.

So 60% of 150 seats is about 85 pax, but if you only put one medium size aircraft of 100 seats, your market share at best will be 25% and even at 70% LF your carrying less pax.

I dont quite understand this. If the total demand gets divided up between me and the competitor and I get 85 pax for each of the 3 flights would I suddenly get less pax if I'd switch from the A320 to a F100?

Offline tdf42

  • Members
  • Posts: 90
Re: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2015, 04:37:29 AM »
I am in my first long time game and have had to confront exactly what you are talking about. I have for  cost purposes gone to mostly with E jets and only a few 737s. Still profitable but will have to learn if as game years go by whether this was the right thing to do as a lot of my competition is flying 737.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3079

The person who likes this post:
Re: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2015, 05:33:26 AM »
So, the answer is quite simply "it depends".

In your situation where you're only selling 85 seats per flight due to competition, then it stands to reason that a lower cost plane such as the F'ing100 would be superior to running an A320. The other side of the coin is that, in general, 2x 150 seat flights will be more profitable than 3x100 seat flights for a 300 demand route. Thus, if that was your only deciding factor and you had to pick one fleet type, it'd depend on how many monopoly routes you had to determine which would be better to use.

The A32x/B737/MD planes are the most popular in the game as they're generally needed for either their range or capacity at virtually all of the larger airports in the game.

Commonality is another consideration - for longer game worlds, players typically have one short haul and one long haul fleet type plus one transition type going at any given time. If you have RJs, 737s and 767s, then to do a fleet transition you will either have to do all the plane swapping in one sitting or accept the huge 4th fleet type commonality penalty. For larger airlines, that's enough to bankrupt them after just a few game weeks of those costs. So, that's also a decision point - if you need A32x more than RJs, then you do A32x and accept that you'll not be as optimized on the more competitive routes, but your benefit is the transition fleet type.

Offline Helix

  • Members
  • Posts: 72
Re: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2015, 11:17:39 AM »
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.

in general, 2x 150 seat flights will be more profitable than 3x100 seat flights for a 300 demand route.
Can you be more specific on this? Looking at new aircraft, on average one can usually get two to three 100 seat aircraft for the price of one with 150 seats. Adding higher salary for the pilot and more cabin crew for the larger aircraft.

I am in my first long time game and have had to confront exactly what you are talking about. I have for  cost purposes gone to mostly with E jets and only a few 737s. Still profitable but will have to learn if as game years go by whether this was the right thing to do as a lot of my competition is flying 737.
Perhaps the following is of interest to you. I am running all BAe 146s and after writing this thread, I wanted to see if switching to an A320 on a competitive route (which most are) will yield me any benefits. DFW to ATL. 200% supply. Turns out, I get the exact same amount of passengers in Y and C. I would make money with the A320 if it were bought but that would not be the entire truth either. Consider that i can get 4x BAe146 for the price  of 1x A320. I get the same ticket income and with cheaper staff per plane. Overall that makes the A320 or anything of similar size extremly unattractive even though I am based in DFW. This sort of amplifies my confusion as to why so many people use these large aircraft.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1390
Re: Aircraft And Capacity Size - Short Haul
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2015, 12:06:15 PM »
The cost per seat is usually lower for bigger birds. I say usually, because when you buy a 737-600 for 110M$, while the A158 is at 17M$(had both fleet groups in previous GW3, and yes, it was to that level), when you count the owning cost, the benefit of size is not obvious, and if you lease, you're screwed.

"It depends". I've been taught that iw was tha standard engineer's answer. I like it a lot. It really depends on your strategy, on the game dynamic, and on your specific opposition. For example, if you have a lot of money, and an opponent you want to kill on 280NM routes, you can drown him under SW3. Works only if he is weak, and if he does not have a lot lf longer range(pro-tip : don't count upon it).

Your strategy is an important thing. The strategy is usually a choice between good routes and not much opposition. 737/320/919 are planes who are kickass on many of the most juicy routes. Of course, those are routes with a lot of opposition. In current GW3, I just landed 3 more 737 lines from Edinburgh to Amsterdam. But my strategy usually goes to poorer routes...with less opposition. Like a SW3 flying from Edinburgh to Kangerlussuaq, with a tech stop in Keflavik. I don't risk any opposition here. I don't risk big profit either, so I have also more risky routes, like the ones to Amsterdam.

The game dynamic is important. In previous GW3, CRJs were going to an insane price. I replaced them with A148 who were half the price for a better capacity. They were so cheap that I could by them in great numbers, while for the same growth level with CRJs, I shall have leased most of them. And profit would have gone down. But it was specific to that GW. Be attentive to price dynamics, and unlikely bu juicy routes. One A158 Flying 8 hours a day was above 1.6M$ pretax profit per week. I bought that one around 17M$. Who says better? I probably would have had a slightly better profit with a 737, but growth was easier with that one. 737 were scarce on the used market, horribly costly new, and 4 years to wait new. I had my A158 within 4 months. But, of course, this is not always true. Analysis of circumstances is important. And if it's year 2020, and 737 & 320 are still impossible to get, look for 919. Within their range limits, they are very decent, and often easy to get. (but it's a fleet group in itself, so not an easy decision).

Opposition, in current GW3, pushed me to downgrade a few 737 routes to E175. Not much, but it happens. It's not fun. But better use those 737 for juicier routes. That's situational, as always, know your routes, know your familiy groups, and depending on that, make decisions.

EDIT : I forgot : slot availability is also to count. If Heathrow was slot-unlimited, I wouldn't fly 737 form Edinburgh here, with all the opposition. But at this slot cost & scarcity, better do like everyone, and go for true single-aisle birds.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 12:10:45 PM by gazzz0x2z »

 

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.