Airbus A350

[sasha2003_new]

Hi All,

I am not able to understand the economics and the business model for running routes with leased used Airbus A350. In my humble opinion, similar problem will be also with this aircraft leased from the new market.

Anybody can help to understand?

My example - I have a route, suitable for the capacity and the range for A350 (4,659 nm, avg.demand 280 pax). On these route, I operate two A350s (3 and 4 flights every week correspondingly).

I was sure that this setting would be enough for the Beginner's World.
Now, I am not able to cover costs having 70% - 80% load on the route, I started to calculate the business model for this route:
280 pax * 0.7 = 196 pax in average
196 * $650 USD in average per pax = $127,400 (one direction) * 2 = $254,800 (both directions)
2,548,000 * 11 (or * 10) flights per month = $2,802,800

This amount does not cover the lease price for the aircraft ($3.1M per month).
Either, the aircraft's prices is not balanced well in the game or it is too much overpriced...

Thank you for your advises.

Best regards,
AlexA

[Zobelle]

You are not wisely utilizing your plane.

[gazzz0x2z]

Zobelle is right, but little short in his answer.

Thing wrong number one : leasing a brand new plane. Especially a model as expensive as the A350. It just usually does not work. Even when correctly used.

Thing wrong number two : your scheduling does not use properly your frames. I let you refer yourself to my scheduling tutorial, as well as my costs analysis tutorial. Read all that, as well as the excellent answers one can find deeper in those threads, and you"ll have a better idea of what works, and what does not.

[sasha2003_new]

Thank you very much for your answers.
I am reading your tutorials and will use your advises. Thanks again.

[kberry]

280pax... 4659nm... sounds like a perfect route for a B764 or an A333. Both of which are available on the used market in your GW and considerably cheaper than an A350

[sasha2003_new]

Good idea, but probably not for 21st century.
Boeing 767-400ER variant that exists in this GW does not make it in the reality. I don't like to use airliners that does not exist. The development of B767 is quite old and considered inefficient these days. Airbus A330-300 might be an option, but only if NEO variant would be used, which is comparable to A350.

[sasha2003_new]

Zobelle is right, but little short in his answer.

Thing wrong number one : leasing a brand new plane. Especially a model as expensive as the A350. It just usually does not work. Even when correctly used.

Thing wrong number two : your scheduling does not use properly your frames. I let you refer yourself to my scheduling tutorial, as well as my costs analysis tutorial. Read all that, as well as the excellent answers one can find deeper in those threads, and you"ll have a better idea of what works, and what does not.

Dear gazzz0x2z,

I am studying your scheduling tutorial. It is very helful. Thank you. While reading, I came over one question about the maintenance - I am still a bit in doubt regarding A-Check and B-Check scheduling.
1. Should I leave turnaround time before the A-Check? Let's say "yes", because of passangers unload or probably aircraft preparations for the check itself. I am not sure, if the game calculates this time, or not.
2. Should I leave turnaround time after the A-Check? If "yes", then for what purpose? The airplance must come ready after the check, right?
3. Similar questions about B-check, but then I saw your schedule and paid attention that in the example you don't schedule A- and B- check always overlapping. Why? What can be a reason for such scheduling?

Can you help me to understand?
Your advises are highly appreciated.

Best regards,
AlexA

[Tha_Ape]

Good idea, but probably not for 21st century.
Boeing 767-400ER variant that exists in this GW does not make it in the reality. I don't like to use airliners that does not exist. The development of B767 is quite old and considered inefficient these days. Airbus A330-300 might be an option, but only if NEO variant would be used, which is comparable to A350.

Sorry to say, but you're essentially wrong.
AWS is a game that tends to mimic reality, but doesn't replicate reality. Here are 2 opposite examples.
Example 1: you can't use the DC-3 past 1960 in AWS (because of its economics), while it's still in service today (even if marginally)
Example 2: you can fly the Vickers Viscount until the early 90s in AWS without a problem. Won't be ultra efficient from the 80s on, sure, but still ok and saves you at least one renewal, if not 2.

If you don't mentally allow these discrepancies to the reality, then you'll have some trouble be effective in your playing.

Edit: for these particular examples: in AWS, the 767 is amongst the most efficient LH airplane, and the 400ER has the lowest cost/seat. The aging design will be pictured in-game by higher maintenance costs as time goes by (so the 767 becomes less and less efficient over time), but that doesn't prevent this fleet type to be pertinent until game end.
The A330 has the NEO variant in the game, but even the classic -200 can be used till game end. Again, not the most efficient, but still completely ok.

[Tha_Ape]

1. Should I leave turnaround time before the A-Check? Let's say "yes", because of passangers unload or probably aircraft preparations for the check itself. I am not sure, if the game calculates this time, or not.
2. Should I leave turnaround time after the A-Check? If "yes", then for what purpose? The airplance must come ready after the check, right?
3. Similar questions about B-check, but then I saw your schedule and paid attention that in the example you don't schedule A- and B- check always overlapping. Why? What can be a reason for such scheduling?

1°) Yes, leave the TaT before the A check.
2°) No, you can taxi the minute the A check finishes.
3°) Usually, A and B overlap perfectly. However, sometimes, you can set the B with an overlap on only your less efficient route of that particular schedule (when using 7-Day) while the one located right after the A is a real cash cow. For this reason, you prefer to "lose" the route that brings you less money than the one that brings you a full stash of cash.

[groundbum2]

there's generally 2 turnaround times used for a plane. For day to day scheduling most people aim for 1% delays. So on a 757 this is 1hr 55 minutes. There's then the minimum turnaround time, which is the absolute minimum allowed by the game. For the 757 this is 70 minutes. You'll normally schedule the maintenance A check to go round after the minimum TaT. The next flight can departure exactly five hours after the maintenance A check starts, there's no TaT after maintenance.

Example,

757 lands from Acapulco at                      1200
70 minutes minimum, maintenance starts 1310
5 hours maintenance                               1810
flight departs to Barabdos                        1810

S

[gazzz0x2z]

1°) Yes, leave the TaT before the A check.

Leave the minimal TaT before A-Check. For example, I'm playing with S2000s currently, with most my A-checks from 0020 to 0520. My first flight of the week takes of at 0520, and my last flight of the week lands at 2355. which means 25 minutes. The minimum TaT of S20000 is 25 minutes. All my other TaTs of the week are 40/45 minutes.

For the rest, I don't think I need to answer, you did it perfectly.

Good idea, but probably not for 21st century.
Boeing 767-400ER variant that exists in this GW does not make it in the reality. I don't like to use airliners that does not exist. The development of B767 is quite old and considered inefficient these days. Airbus A330-300 might be an option, but only if NEO variant would be used, which is comparable to A350.

I'll pile up with Tha_Ape, there. There are some potential planes that help a lot. In some circumstances, Fairchild-Dornier 928 are really an excellent choice(even though in a majority of cases, the Ejet will be superior). in many circumstances, the 764 ikicks ass, until the advent of the 788.

I've mentored a few dozens of players, and those who failed to thrive in the game where either completely inept(which you do not sound to be) or were/are blinded with their real world mental image. AWS being a simulation, to play it as its best, you have to play it as it is. It's true also for demand. for example, IRL, BVA-PIK makes no sense to fly. OTOH, in AWS, it's rather a nice destination. If you block your mind to what you know of the real world, you won't be able to play efficiently AWS. AWS is its own reality, which one has to assess as it is.

Said otherwise, B764 is a real thing in AWS, and you'd better take it into account, because if you don't, your opponents will. If you can fill it on a 3000-5000NM route, it's really a good, good, good plane. The best until the even better B788 arrives.

[sasha2003_new]

there's generally 2 turnaround times used for a plane. For day to day scheduling most people aim for 1% delays. So on a 757 this is 1hr 55 minutes. There's then the minimum turnaround time, which is the absolute minimum allowed by the game. For the 757 this is 70 minutes. You'll normally schedule the maintenance A check to go round after the minimum TaT. The next flight can departure exactly five hours after the maintenance A check starts, there's no TaT after maintenance.

Example,

757 lands from Acapulco at                      1200
70 minutes minimum, maintenance starts 1310
5 hours maintenance                               1810
flight departs to Barabdos                        1810

S

This approach may significantly improve my schedule. I will need to re-work the schedule for some of my airplanes. Beforehand I used tunraround time also after maintenance.
Thank you.

[sasha2003_new]

Leave the minimal TaT before A-Check. For example, I'm playing with S2000s currently, with most my A-checks from 0020 to 0520. My first flight of the week takes of at 0520, and my last flight of the week lands at 2355. which means 25 minutes. The minimum TaT of S20000 is 25 minutes. All my other TaTs of the week are 40/45 minutes.

For the rest, I don't think I need to answer, you did it perfectly.

Thank you.

I'll pile up with Tha_Ape, there. There are some potential planes that help a lot. In some circumstances, Fairchild-Dornier 928 are really an excellent choice(even though in a majority of cases, the Ejet will be superior). in many circumstances, the 764 ikicks ass, until the advent of the 788.

I've mentored a few dozens of players, and those who failed to thrive in the game where either completely inept(which you do not sound to be) or were/are blinded with their real world mental image. AWS being a simulation, to play it as its best, you have to play it as it is. It's true also for demand. for example, IRL, BVA-PIK makes no sense to fly. OTOH, in AWS, it's rather a nice destination. If you block your mind to what you know of the real world, you won't be able to play efficiently AWS. AWS is its own reality, which one has to assess as it is.

Said otherwise, B764 is a real thing in AWS, and you'd better take it into account, because if you don't, your opponents will. If you can fill it on a 3000-5000NM route, it's really a good, good, good plane. The best until the even better B788 arrives.

This is exactly the point.
Once I have a better choice, such as Airbus A350-800/900/1000, then why I would try B767-400ER?
In my humble opinion, A350 is better alternative for B767, as well as B787 is an alternative option, even though the price of lease is significantly higher for both of these planes.

[Talentz]

Thank you.

This is exactly the point.
Once I have a better choice, such as Airbus A350-800/900/1000, then why I would try B767-400ER?
In my humble opinion, A350 is better alternative for B767, as well as B787 is an alternative option, even though the price of lease is significantly higher for both of these planes.

Because paying a 3.5m monthly lease is suicide. You don't lease end-game models as they are far too overinflated to actually be cash flow positive. For the 787/350, you own them to turn a profit. Which you correct deduce in your OP. Thus, look for cheaper alternatives (777/767/333) of which, the 764ER is decent against a MTOW limited 772/77E or early A333.

Talentz

[Tha_Ape]

And Talentz is right here.

In 2010 or 2020, you should be able to lease a 767-400ER for just a tiny fraction of the cost of the lease of an A350. Thus, even if the A350 or 787 is more efficient in absolute, you'll still make way more money with the 767 (if you ever manage to make some money with the A350, that is).

This is the reasoning behind what Gazzz, Talentz and I are saying.

Your thinking is right, however it covers only half of the matter. If you take the other half into account, the A350 or 787 becomes a burden while the 767 shines.

[sasha2003_new]

Because paying a 3.5m monthly lease is suicide. You don't lease end-game models as they are far too overinflated to actually be cash flow positive. For the 787/350, you own them to turn a profit. Which you correct deduce in your OP. Thus, look for cheaper alternatives (777/767/333) of which, the 764ER is decent against a MTOW limited 772/77E or early A333.

Talentz

This looks reasonable. Avoid leasing end-game model, as their return on investment way longer and will require quite significant time to ramp-up (especially, when I was using them on the new route, which I just started - 0 image)... I should try this way of thinking...

[groundbum2]

another part of playing AWS well, is to NOT chase every route possible. There's always the routes which are fat and juicy and unserved and gagging for shiny metal, your shiny metal, to be dropping in each day to pick up the grateful crowds. But usually you don't want these routes driving your fleet decisions by getting highly expensive metal. It's usually best to compromise and get a decent fleet that can serve 90% of your destinations, and forget the 10% that are just a few 100s of NMs beyond your reach. Mediocre wins on fleet choices, not vanity destinations. It's why most big players don't do ULH, or at least not until they've built their airline and add some ULH out or boredom and yes vanity!

S

[Zobelle]

Even ratty old 762 would be preferable for these types of routes and leases eternally cheaper than 350’s

[Tha_Ape]

In the same thinking, another aspect to take into account is renewals.

Ideally, you'd always want the shiniest, youngest fleet. But:
1°) a renewal is expensive (buying all the frames and the time it takes to gather them
2°) AWS gives a penalty when you operate more than 3 fleets

Thus, sometimes you just skip a potentially better fleet.
Example:
737 Jurassic, Classic and NG/MAX are 3 different fleet types. But the Jurassic is a very solid plane, that can make it well into the 90s.
Thus, sometimes one will go directly from Jurassic to NG.
Sure, you'd lose efficiency (+ range=new routes) during ~15 years, but you'll save so much by not having this extra renewal that in the end you might even do better this way.

[Zobelle]

Perhaps Jurassic and Classic should be rolled into a single type to help...yknow, since NG and MAX are..