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

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Announcements - The Age of Flight / 2x 737-100 for sale
« Last post by joshdoshuaa on Today at 12:31:54 AM »
Due to fleet alterations, our 12 and 11 year old 737-100s are available for sale or lease.
Both are fitted with a custom business interior featuring 90Y/10C
One has 14k cycles, 38k hours, 8 months on C check, 3 years on D check.
Other has 13k cycles, 33k hours, 2 months on C check, 2.5 years on D check
5.1 million each, lowest price for 90%+ condition on the used market!

Thanks for reading!
2
Announcements - The Age of Flight / 727-200ADV for sale
« Last post by joshdoshuaa on Today at 12:25:40 AM »
Due to recent streamlining of our fleet, one of our 4y/o 727-200ADVs is available for sale or lease.
Custom business interior: 144Y/15C
Top of range model +11.2t MTOW
12k hours, 2.8k cycles, 98% condition.
10 months left on C check, 4 years left on D check.
13.5 million, Please look on Used Market.

Thanks for reading
3
Feature requests / Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Last post by Flying_ace65 on Yesterday at 06:21:44 AM »
Dear Sami and team, I have to bring this subject up again about completely unrealistic penalties in the 1960's and 1970's (and some extent into the '80s too).

This is such a great game and it has kept me subscribing for years now but this one facet is just soooooo WRONG !

Take a look at the 1968 LH route I have shown below as to an example why I keep saying what I'm saying. I am old enough in the tooth to remember real travel in the 1970's on many many LH flights.  If you wanted to go anywhere - you HAD to expect a fuel stop. It was normal. It did not mean that planes were half-empty of passengers who wanted to go on a nice holiday to Thailand but who decided to stay home just because there was a fuel stop on the way back home after their holiday.

I'm determined that this sort of heavy penalty you see from my schedule below is just WRONG. It's unrealistic and I plea and urge some change on this.  You can see the effect most vividly on the example below because outbound I don't need a fuel stop, but return flight do. Below shows a VC.10 route with  80% pax. load on the way out to HKG  from Rome with no fuel stop, then only 39% on return ??  You put into the game a while ago, more realistic wind-effect onto flights which was fine... but where's the same level of realism in this crazy fuel-stop penalty in the 60's to '80s on flights over about 4000nm ?

Thanks for any attention you might give to this.
Jack

To bring this topic back up on your point there is a bit correlation missing to be mention, most travel anywhere in the world is round trip, not one way and this is even reflected on ticket prices, where 2 one-way tickets are almost always more expensive than 1 single round trip ticket; now I understand why this is not a topic of discussion because modeling this implies a ridiculous amount of work and changes, but if we hold the premise that most pax will buy a round trip ticket, it means that on a route like this (with no direct options available) the load factors should remain fairly similar, I'm not saying it has to be the same, but even if 20% of the current traveling pax are not returning on what seems to be the quickest and cheapest overall option, your return LF wouldn't drop to the mid 30s%.

This adds to the point that other make about the fact that the penalty should mostly or completely be on total travel time round trip on currently available options, so close to full with no competition with tech stops one or both ways (one tech stop, not two or more, that's a different argument) if no other options are available, and if there are other options, travel time vs tech stop penalties cover flying an old prop plane direct vs a jet with a tech stop (given price, CI, type of seat and all other factors remain the same) the jet with a tech stop should have a higher LF if the travel time is significantly less; on a short route this gives equal footing to both jets and prop planes at any point in history since over a short distance the time difference will be minimal protecting prop aircraft on later years of the game.

Additionally as many mention, tech stops are a thing of the past, but this was replaced with stopovers and that's is something we all know know that happens; when the pax city demand functionality starts, this takes care of it, but in the mean time there is no way to replicated, unless we penalize routes by travel time if competition is available. One vey good example of this is IRL there are no direct flights between Asia and South America (partly affected by ETOPS limitations, but this is besides the point) however travel between the 2 continents very much occurs, this happens today with stopovers and there is no other way to get from one continent to the other unless you make at least 1 and people will gladly do it, so since stopovers are not a thing in AWS because of the "no pax transfer" we have right now, why should I take a LF hit so massive on a perfectly good route with no other options other that mine between the 2 continents if the first aircraft that can even begin to attempt such a thing at a very high fuel cost are the A340-500HGW and the 777-200LR and sending this planes on +8500nm routes is usually a waste of money and tickets are so expensive due to the fuel cost, that most pax will just take a stopover somewhere (in our case a tech stop) to reach their destination, no penalties on tech stops with no competition takes care of this, competition with 2 airlines doing tech stops works fine if LF is allocated with no penalties other than more demand for shortest travel time, and at any point in history where direct and economically feasible flights become available, no alterations to game mechanics or rules need to be made, since the shortest travel time will take care of who gets the pax and who doesn't given all other things being equal. 

4
General forum / Re: Airwaysim Demotivators:
« Last post by Flying_ace65 on Yesterday at 05:53:41 AM »
We need new ones to keep this threat alive!
5
Announcements / Re: Beginner's World scenarios - Announcements
« Last post by Sami on Yesterday at 02:53:44 AM »
This weekend  :)
6
Announcements / Re: Beginner's World scenarios - Announcements
« Last post by uli153 on May 20, 2022, 07:48:10 PM »
Hello, when is next beginner scenario starting ?
7
Announcements - The Speed World / Rebranded Airline name
« Last post by Emilia on May 20, 2022, 04:46:09 PM »
      The Khafhae Airline has started first flight at 25th December 2008 with Airbus A320-200 from ZGGG to ZSPD and ZGGG to ZSSS, After 1 year the CEO Decided to expand the operation in Cairo, Egypt and expand again in Philadelphia, USA and joined the Lux Alliance for business helping.

      Now the airline have a 3 operation base in Guangzhou Baiyun, Cairo and Philadelphia but in the future the CEO have a plan to expand to Europe, South America and Russia for emphasize Airline's slogan is "Fly with me everywhere on the world" and rebrand the Airline name from "Khafhae Airline" to "Khafhae World Airline".
8
General forum / Re: Ticket Price Changes - Why doesn't Anything show as altered?
« Last post by schro on May 20, 2022, 12:18:18 AM »
If you are viewing pricing from the route management page, it's not going to be accurate. Have to view from the individual route page.
9
Feature requests / Re: Reset default pricing by base
« Last post by mp81 on May 19, 2022, 02:41:18 AM »
Thought I'd bring awareness to this again
10
Game talk - The Age of Flight / Re: Fuel is getting silly now
« Last post by TranceAvia on May 18, 2022, 03:04:06 PM »
thats very useful
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

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.