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: Airbus A350  (Read 418 times)

Online sasha2003_new

  • Members
  • Posts: 132
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2019, 12:31:40 PM »
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

Dear groundbum2,

I would be happy to try once ultra-long-haul flight. It looks interesting adventure. I am afraid that it is not economical at all. I did not try this yet, but somehow my feeling is that it would take enormous time and investment to develop the route and then the profit on such ruote is questionable...

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1651

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2019, 12:59:27 PM »
Dear groundbum2,

I would be happy to try once ultra-long-haul flight. It looks interesting adventure. I am afraid that it is not economical at all. I did not try this yet, but somehow my feeling is that it would take enormous time and investment to develop the route and then the profit on such ruote is questionable...

Itís overrated. Trust me.

Offline rntair

  • Members
  • Posts: 248

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2019, 02:56:01 PM »
Dear groundbum2,

I would be happy to try once ultra-long-haul flight. It looks interesting adventure. I am afraid that it is not economical at all. I did not try this yet, but somehow my feeling is that it would take enormous time and investment to develop the route and then the profit on such ruote is questionable...

As a beginning player I was always trying to chase long 8000nm routes with 500 demand, such as IAD-Jakarta. Itís suicide. The foundation of most of my airlines (which always start with 737/MD90 medium haul) are routes under 1500nm which I have little competition on and around ~400-500 demand. For example, my Toronto based airline has 737 cash cows to Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton. Basing in Ontario I have routes to Sacramento and Portland that I fill with 737s that make handsome sums of cash.

When you advance in the game, say after 20 or so narrowbody Planes, you can try long haul by acquiring 2-4 used widebodies. Since I always base in North America this usually means I go for London Gatwick first. There is a lot more demand to the British Isles than you might think. For example, last BW1 I was flying 5 777s a day to Manchester with no competition. These are the kind of routes- to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, London Stansted/Luton- that will become the backbone of a North American Airlineís long haul route network.

After the high demand (500+) longhaul routes are secured, you can try playing routes with 250-400 demand. These are tricky, as is any longhaul, because LFs will be low and you will lose massive sums of money in the beginning. Use marketing, and the LFs will quickly increase to around 50% and youíll begin to break even. Aim for a weekly profit of $1M+ on any widebody.

ULH to Asia is probably overrated, ESPECIALLY when leasing planes. I tried to lease 3 year old 777-200LRs to fly from Toronto to Bangkok and Singapore last game- the LFs will be amazing, as will the route profits, but the $2.7-3M leasing cost will kill you. Iíd only recommend doing these routes over 6000nm with owned planes. And be sure to absolutely use 7 day on Asian routes. Your experience may be different if youíre flying to Japan from North America, in which you may be able to lease at first.

As for fleet choices, reality doesnít line up with AWS. The MD90, which was essentially a failure that made only 116 units, is still in production in 2019 in GW3, with regular orders by large airlines of 40-50 units. Again, from the surface this seems like a terrible choice since the MD90 is hilariously inefficient compared to the MAX and neo. Much like the A350 vs 767 it comes down to purchase or leasing price. The MD90 is priced at ~72M, but a MAX or neo can easily add up to twice as much. You can expand much quicker using these older, cheaper fleets and make higher profits.

The 767, while dated nowadays, is still an efficient airplane. It is simply much easier to fill a 767 than a 777 on transatlantic routes with less than 400 demand. The 767 is adept at routes such as Toronto to Dublin or Milan, where a larger plane would struggle to break even. Take a look at airlines that use the 767 nowadays- Delta is still a huge operator because it can operate ďskinnierĒ routes such as Cincinnati to Paris, Detroit to Rome, and Salt Lake to Honolulu that a 777 or A330 canít fill.

Hope you appreciate my advice, if you have any questions donít hesitate to ask!
rntair
"Check out my route map"

CEO of the Viva Group

Online sasha2003_new

  • Members
  • Posts: 132
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2019, 04:48:27 PM »
Itís overrated. Trust me.

I believe this, it conforms to my feelings... :)

Online sasha2003_new

  • Members
  • Posts: 132
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2019, 04:51:42 PM »
As a beginning player I was always trying to chase long 8000nm routes with 500 demand, such as IAD-Jakarta. Itís suicide. The foundation of most of my airlines (which always start with 737/MD90 medium haul) are routes under 1500nm which I have little competition on and around ~400-500 demand. For example, my Toronto based airline has 737 cash cows to Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton. Basing in Ontario I have routes to Sacramento and Portland that I fill with 737s that make handsome sums of cash.

When you advance in the game, say after 20 or so narrowbody Planes, you can try long haul by acquiring 2-4 used widebodies. Since I always base in North America this usually means I go for London Gatwick first. There is a lot more demand to the British Isles than you might think. For example, last BW1 I was flying 5 777s a day to Manchester with no competition. These are the kind of routes- to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, London Stansted/Luton- that will become the backbone of a North American Airlineís long haul route network.

After the high demand (500+) longhaul routes are secured, you can try playing routes with 250-400 demand. These are tricky, as is any longhaul, because LFs will be low and you will lose massive sums of money in the beginning. Use marketing, and the LFs will quickly increase to around 50% and youíll begin to break even. Aim for a weekly profit of $1M+ on any widebody.

ULH to Asia is probably overrated, ESPECIALLY when leasing planes. I tried to lease 3 year old 777-200LRs to fly from Toronto to Bangkok and Singapore last game- the LFs will be amazing, as will the route profits, but the $2.7-3M leasing cost will kill you. Iíd only recommend doing these routes over 6000nm with owned planes. And be sure to absolutely use 7 day on Asian routes. Your experience may be different if youíre flying to Japan from North America, in which you may be able to lease at first.

As for fleet choices, reality doesnít line up with AWS. The MD90, which was essentially a failure that made only 116 units, is still in production in 2019 in GW3, with regular orders by large airlines of 40-50 units. Again, from the surface this seems like a terrible choice since the MD90 is hilariously inefficient compared to the MAX and neo. Much like the A350 vs 767 it comes down to purchase or leasing price. The MD90 is priced at ~72M, but a MAX or neo can easily add up to twice as much. You can expand much quicker using these older, cheaper fleets and make higher profits.

The 767, while dated nowadays, is still an efficient airplane. It is simply much easier to fill a 767 than a 777 on transatlantic routes with less than 400 demand. The 767 is adept at routes such as Toronto to Dublin or Milan, where a larger plane would struggle to break even. Take a look at airlines that use the 767 nowadays- Delta is still a huge operator because it can operate ďskinnierĒ routes such as Cincinnati to Paris, Detroit to Rome, and Salt Lake to Honolulu that a 777 or A330 canít fill.

Hope you appreciate my advice, if you have any questions donít hesitate to ask!
rntair

Your view is interesting. In my humble opinion it just means that AWS does not implement what really happens, i.e. too small amount of crashes probably and AWS implements strategic of keeping airplanes, if there are active orders. Aircraft manufactures would stop production of old generations, after the new one has been revealed and put into the production, disregarding the orders queue.

It is probably means that AWS just relies on kind of "good will" of players...

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 4609

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2019, 05:12:39 PM »
Your view is interesting. In my humble opinion it just means that AWS does not implement what really happens, i.e. too small amount of crashes probably and AWS implements strategic of keeping airplanes, if there are active orders. Aircraft manufactures would stop production of old generations, after the new one has been revealed and put into the production, disregarding the orders queue.

It is probably means that AWS just relies on kind of "good will" of players...

Effectively, AWS doesn't implement "what really happens". It simply can't, for various reasons.

About the crashes, it has been discussed a lot, and still is (even though it's quite calm lately). The decision not to implement them relies on the fact that it's a game. Yes, a simulator, but also a game. Let's say we play poker and suddenly I change your full house with a pair, what would you say? Same position here. I personally believe crashes could be implemented in the game, but their precise effects and triggers needs to be be discussed without passion.

And prod line now close. Certainly not like irl, but at least they close, no matter what the players do.

In order to make the game playable, one has to make concessions to the reality:
 - demand is much higher than irl because you need to feed the players. With RL demand, a GW's capacity would be 20-30%
 - you can't replicate the real unpopularity of said model because maybe the flaws were industrials, and not in the design. Thus is said a/c is efficient, it will be played
And so on and so forth...

And actually, I really like the possibility to diverge slightly from reality. Because I don't want to replicate reality, I want to build my own. Repeating reality would just be boring as hell.

Offline Mort

  • Members
  • Posts: 161
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2019, 06:35:47 PM »
Because I don't want to replicate reality, I want to build my own. Repeating reality would just be boring as hell.

This, a thousand times this.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Airbus A350
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2019, 07:57:40 PM »
(.../...)
And actually, I really like the possibility to diverge slightly from reality. Because I don't want to replicate reality, I want to build my own. Repeating reality would just be boring as hell.

Spamming USofA with 700+ Antonov 148s was a huge pleasure, I have to say. Impossible in the real world(Antonov sadly experiences a lot of production problems those days).

 

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.