For the first time, I've managed to make a very successful small turboprop airline.
No aircraft larger than 52 seats, making 1.8M profit per week....
In Dawn of the Millenium.
So it is possible :)
52 seaters are easy to run profitable.
Try running an airline with 30 seaters and less. :)
Yeah, there is some idiot in this one game testing under 30 pax planes only. What a tool.
Quote from: swiftus27 on December 27, 2010, 11:19:33 PM
Yeah, there is some idiot in this one game testing under 30 pax planes only. What a tool.
aka my hero!
That idiot is the one doing the experiment for the rest of airwaysimers... :P
52 seats plane will bring you from zero to the market share leader in few game months. It works everywhere in the world.
cool :)
Well if it means anything I just ordered a chunk of 30 seaters to accomodate smaller markets.
Different company/engines the lot... lets see if I crumble :)
I too have just started a small regional airline, mainly because this late into the game it is almost impossible to find any routes that support larger aircraft.
The only issue that I am having is the staffing levels which seem to make no distinction between 20 seat and 200 seat aircraft.
As such for 3 Embraer 110s and 4 routes I need 120 staff, including 8 managers, 15 route strategy planners, 8 accountants, 7 advertising reps, 25 customer service reps, 17 ground crew and 4 staff relations staff.
This is a serious game fault that needs to be fixed.
Small regional airlines are an important and significant part of the airline industry yet this fault in the game limits player opportunity, making small aircraft and airports impossible to play.
They need to fix that and also allow for the bigger airlines like to offer code shares with the smaller Airlines. That way the bigger airline would have to pay for some of the cost.
Quote from: TerryMcKenna on December 28, 2010, 09:28:03 AM
As such for 3 Embraer 110s and 4 routes I need 120 staff, including 8 managers, 15 route strategy planners, 8 accountants, 7 advertising reps, 25 customer service reps, 17 ground crew and 4 staff relations staff.
This is a serious game fault that needs to be fixed.
Small regional airlines are an important and significant part of the airline industry yet this fault in the game limits player opportunity, making small aircraft and airports impossible to play.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt but Sami won't listen to us...
And I am done with jets.... I want small planes and ABCBA routes enabled for them.
Hear, hear! It's one of the few things about AWS that I really don't like.
Quote from: Maarten Otto on December 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt but Sami won't listen to us...
And I am done with jets.... I want small planes and ABCBA routes enabled for them.
Those changes are radical changes to the core functions and will or can not happen anywhere else but with a new g.engine version. Not midst running games.
So nuff with that "not listening" please.....
Can we expect to see these changes made in V1.3?
Quote from: cutchie on December 28, 2010, 02:28:25 PM
Can we expect to see these changes made in V1.3?
I doubt sami is doing anything really radical with V1.3. It seems that 1.3 has just small evolutionary changes so far.
Evolution takes time......sigh
It depends a bit. If I have the patience to design the 'business plan' feature then it will be a major change, otherwise there will be only minor changes to staffing and certain route fees which should also work.
Well, after only a few months of trying to run a regional airline I am pulling out.
6 x Embraer 110s and six routes cannot support the required 352 staff. :(
and maybe one more thing should be changed: C/D checking cost on small planes, it just too high for these kinds of plane......
Quote from: type45 on December 30, 2010, 09:14:45 AM
and maybe one more thing should be changed: C/D checking cost on small planes, it just too high for these kinds of plane......
What about E check? Split the B check into smaller and cheaper E checks. And also checks interval by flight hour or flight cycle, not calender month.
Quote from: GDK on December 30, 2010, 10:29:34 AM
And also checks interval by flight hour or flight cycle, not calender month.
While this may be more realistic, it certainly wouldn't benefit those flying smaller aircraft as they tend to have more, often significantly more, cycles and flight time than larger aircraft. If anything, these airlines benefit significantly from the way checks are handled today.
Quote from: GDK on December 30, 2010, 10:29:34 AM
And also checks interval by flight hour or flight cycle, not calender month.
Maybe the cost of the checks should depend on flight time and landings, not just age of the plane.
Or maybe checks should be based on the number of flight hours.