HQ Airport Loss

[Karl]

Why is my HQ hub airport losing a lot of money when my secondary hubs are making money?

The only thing that I can figure is that the HQ is a level 4 airport and the others are level 2.  The F27 is perfect for the medium sized airport, but does not make enough money to support the larger airport.  The lack of pax demand to most cities would make flying larger aircraft impossible - not to mention the impact that this would have on fleet compatibility.

Is there some other fundamental reason that the HQ airport costs so much that I do not see?

I intend to add another base soon, so if I reduce flying from the HQ airport will that help the bottom line or will it make it worse?

[schro]

When you open a base, some of the overhead associated with it is allocated to the hq, so I would say that the profits by base sort of view is inaccurate enough to not be worth looking at to make managerial decisions.

[wilian.souza2]

When you have 3+ bases it is normal to have your HQ in the red. Also note that marketing plays a big role in driving HQs finances to the red, but your bases don't have marketing expenses.

[Karl]

Marketing!  Yes, I now see that marketing is all credited to the HQ and none to the other bases. 

[selvala]

I looked at your bases and you don't seem to be basing much aircraft in each. Typically, you want to max out your current bases' demand or slots before expanding elsewhere. The rule of thumb I've heard is you want ~20 aircraft in a base until it starts being worth it, so I definitely wouldn't add another base right now.

[Karl]

That may be true, but in the past I have built one base to dominance.  However, in most airports demand is so low that load factors are so low (usually fewer than 40 seats per day) that running more than one flight per day is a money loser.

On the other hand, I have never been able to figure out how airlines survuve running 100+ pax aircraft on routes with 40 pax demand and competition to boot.  When I try doing this, I lose money and go into bankruptcy!

[wilian.souza2]

I have never been able to figure out how airlines survuve running 100+ pax aircraft on routes with 40 pax demand and competition to boot.  When I try doing this, I lose money and go into bankruptcy!

Because these airlines are always earning money somewhere else - be it on frequent flights to busy routes, cargo, anything. They usually do this when they find it's still worth it to open the flight but don't want to add another aircraft type to their fleet.

[groundbum2]

Because these airlines are always earning money somewhere else - be it on frequent flights to busy routes, cargo, anything. They usually do this when they find it's still worth it to open the flight but don't want to add another aircraft type to their fleet.

or the other airlines are flying old tat that costs next to nothing..

[Karl]

That's another question I have.  Do simulation pax ever get tired of flying around ancient aircraft - especially when competitors are flying more up-to-date equipment? 

[wilian.souza2]

I don't think so. Current GW2 has seen a lot of ancient models flying into decades after they got out of production in real life. There's even a guy flying Bristol Britannias and AW Argosies  , keeping their production lines still open... in 2008!

[groundbum2]

That's another question I have.  Do simulation pax ever get tired of flying around ancient aircraft - especially when competitors are flying more up-to-date equipment?

starting in the 1980s AWS introduces a dislike of non-jet aircraft on long haul. All aircraft have an "attractiveness" factor. Soviet aircraft inevitably score low on this, so find it harder to attract passengers. There seems to be no preference for prop v jet on short haul.

Simon

[Jake]

When you have 3+ bases it is normal to have your HQ in the red. Also note that marketing plays a big role in driving HQs finances to the red, but your bases don't have marketing expenses.

I can agree with that! 
This is with a low pax HQ, with 8 bases, 480+ aircraft's across 3 fleets.