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: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic  (Read 1480 times)

737Capt

  • Former member
Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« on: April 09, 2012, 05:20:00 PM »
My current airline flies 7 aircraft and I have 17 people in accounts and finance, 12 in corporate communications, 5 high level management, 12 mid level management and 29 in the route strategies department!!  Really??  Having flown for several small airlines these numbers are way more than double of what we had.  12 people for corporate communications for 7 airplanes??  These numbers are bogus.

LOT767

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2012, 07:59:14 PM »
This has been an ongoing complaint, with nothing being ever done about it. Hence, why small 30 or less seat planes never work on here.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4398
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2012, 08:09:32 PM »
Oh lord, dont get swiftus started.

Read this.  I tested small airlines in 2010.  I sort of blogged about it.  You'll laugh at the results.  Most of the problem is that it has to deal with staffing numbers on a per plane basis.

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,27374.0.html
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 08:14:38 PM by swiftus27 »

LOT767

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2012, 09:16:45 PM »
Also, in the United States at least. I'm sure it is not as expensive either, if there is anything we're good at in America its outsourcing work and complicating everthing with middlemen. For example, it should be modded into the game that the guy lugging baggage is doing ALL the work related to aircraft ground operations AND making min wage.

Plus, we could also outsource our customer service into other countires as well (should be a feature request). There are many flaws in the system....With the unemployment as high as it is, there is no excuse for our virtual employees to be making a livable wage....Another feature request should be temp agencys as well.

Just a few thoughts....

Monica

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2013, 08:10:42 PM »
I'm running an experiment too. I knew it was going to be hard, but I still wanted to try.

I have 30 x Twin Otters flying to lots of small airports around Norway from two bases in Northern Norway. I also have 7 x BAC 500 flying to and from the largest cities. I'm flying about 37k pax per week.

I'm barely making a profit, and the reason for this is the staffing costs. I searched for this topic in the forums, and I found people had the same issue years ago. I wish this could be fixed.

My income is 2 234 242 USD
Staff costs are 782 696 USD

I have 2042 employees in my little short-field airline. 425 of them works in customer services! It's a totally unrealistic number.. 1/10th of that would be normal. Same with 262 mechanics and the 252 in Flight Operations Division.

I wish Sami would do something so that Small Airplanes didn't need so many employees.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2013, 08:29:34 PM »
Allegiant has 1,800 employees for 66 aircraft for 27 employees/aircraft.
jetBlue has 10,570 employees for 180 aircraft for 59 employees/aircraft. 
Southwest has 46,128 employees for 569 aircraft for 81 employees/aircraft.
Delta has 80,645 employees for 722 aircraft for 112 employees/aircraft.

These 4 airlines have (almost) completely different business models, which is another reason why "business plans" should be a feature under serious consideration.  If you're a no frills airline flying 20+ year old MD-80 point-to-point, your staffing costs are going to be much lower more than a legacy carrier with 10+ fleet types and 10+ hubs.

Monica

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2013, 07:10:53 AM »
I agree with you. Allegiant bought old MD-80s from SAS and others, and D-checked them for a total cost of only $4 million. This means they can afford to fly only half as much with half as much staff because they don't need them up in the air 24/7 to make a profit.

Anyway, 55 employees per plane (30 x Twin-Otter, 7 x BAC 500) is out of proportion. If they were all BAC 500, then it might make sense. I guess the system doesn't differentiate much between the airplane types except for the crew?

Sanabas

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2013, 12:27:38 PM »
Norway has some of the highest staff costs in the world, which won't be helping you.

You can build a profitable airline exclusively with 20 seaters. You can even do it with 9 seaters. http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,44955.0.html But it's much easier if you're in a country where wages are low.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2013, 01:00:54 PM »
Funny that most airlines survive and make good profits despite these high numbers. I am sure there are a lot of costs out there that this game is not taking into account to keep it playable. Flying small planes to some places virtually nobody wants to go hardly is a concept that helps building a worldwide mega-carrier. It still is doable whithout sudden BK, despite RL, where these companies fly only as long as gouvernment is paying a big part of the fares, or big carriers pay small ones to feed their mainline system. Both concepts can´t be reflected in-game, as well as
low cost concepts (yet).
In the future I would like to see changes to that system, so that player can decide whether to to have a classic or low cost carrier, but that needs changes for the whole game concept, so players would have to decide a lot more things on their own instead of working with given parameters. A lot of work and discussions ahead....

Monica

  • Former member
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2013, 09:39:31 PM »
Yes I guess I'm in a high-cost country.. in real life, the short-field network here is (oh god.. I can't remember the correct word...) sponsored? In some cases Avinor (Norwegian Civil Aviation Administration) pays the airline the cost of flying, either through sponsoring tickets or paying a price to keep a route open no matter how many pax are flying. The money for this system comes from fees and taxes at the largest airports. The reason they're doing it is that there are so many remote places in Norway that aren't accessible by car or train. And ships just take too long.

Oh, and I found some useful info. Now, I know this isn't real life.. but this thread is about staff and the point with Airwaysim is trying to make it as close to reality as possible while keeping it playable right?

The largest short-field operator in Norway  is called Widerĝe.

Widerĝe:

20 x Dash-8-100
2 x Dash-8-Q200
8 x Dash-8-300
8 x Dash-8-Q400 Nextgen

Total of 39 aircraft.
Employees: 1400
Departures: 400 per day

Polar Air (me):


30 x Dash-6 Twin Otter
7 x BAC One-Eleven 500

Total of 37 aircraft.
Employees: 2042
Departures: 227 per day

So in essence, I have about 40% more staff even though I'm flying much smaller airplanes with far less maintenance required. And I only have half the amount of departures every day. In addition to that, Widerĝe has twice as many hubs and more destinations.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 09:53:36 PM by Monica »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2013, 10:06:54 PM »
My Australian bush airline in Beginners World has 4 PC-12 aircraft with 9 seats and I have 159 employees or 40 employees per plane.  That means with a total of 8 pilots flying 4 aircraft it would 17 roundtrips to get everyone to the Christmas party.

Offline Alberto

  • Members
  • Posts: 158
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2013, 09:58:18 AM »
Air Afrique had 4600 staff for 6 planes...

As said before, reality easily beats simulation.

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1317
    • My photo site
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2013, 10:16:02 AM »
And as I said before... and for a few years now.... Staffing levels in AWS should be linked and calculated in response to the number of seats that go into the air every day. By doing so a Cessna 8 seater can finally fly from At. Mary's at a profit.

Fix it Sami, we have been asking it for far too long.  ;)

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2013, 11:28:59 PM »
My bush airline now has 6 aircraft and 263 employees for 44 employees per aircraft.  My weekly staff costs are $316k compared to $229k in revenues.  My load factor is 83% with -25% pricing, so if I raised prices to the average and sold the same number of seats, I *might* be able to cover staff costs, but everything else would still BK me.

I have 6 aircraft with 9 seats each for a total of 54 seats.  My customer service must be KILLER considering I have 54 customer services staff.  They must be giving massages and sexual favors to passengers in terminal :)

Offline Silentlysailing

  • Members
  • Posts: 145
Re: Staffing Formula Very Unrealistic
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2013, 04:07:15 AM »
May not be this way everywhere but many governments in the US be it local, state or federal(Essential Air Service) subsidize some commercial air service still even post deregulation. Many of the subsidized flights are operated by very small aircraft and may not even take place everyday unless there are people that paid for the tickets.

 

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.