As Rushmore has launched his attempt some time ago to see how a CRJ-business model may work, I went for the Embraer 110s and started to fly hoppers out of Chicago on routes below 300nm in the current Dawn of the Millenium #2.
Summary: The regional commuter model works for a red zero on the balance sheet with no room for expansion and C-checks will bring you to the knees.
+ Revenue Average Seat Kilometer 54.60 US cents on the best one
+ Load Factors of up to 85% on the best routes without marketing campaigns, neither general nor specific
+ Slot availability makes it theoretically possible to grow a regional airline for a long time during the game world
- Navigation fees: 800k for setting up four new routes below 300nm to petit airports (mainly slot costs at KORD)
- Average Profit (Income Statement) per week: 1-2k USD
- C-Check costs of around 100k every 12 months
- 16 pilots for 2 EMB-110s
- 127 staff for 2 EMB-110s
- total staff costs 44k per week
Conclusion:
The costly navigation fees make it possible to build up a regional commuter carrier despite game progress; however, the total impeding costs make it impossible to generate sufficient cash for orders. The C-checks are hugely costly and cannot justify the business model despite very high revenues per ASK. The staff requirements are overwhelming, considering we have 15 seats on each of the two aircrafts (e.g. 27 customer service).
From an aws-system point of view, I would recommend to lower the slots costs for small aircrafts significantly and reconsider the staff requirements. I believe the C-checks to be reasonable and the LFs as well.
In order to build a barrier for slot haulers, using small aircrafts at the beginning of the scenario (although this appears obsolete regarding the availability on current progress), I would recommend to introduce one-time costs when adding a new aircraft category, in my case adding a medium aircraft to the small aircraft.
Cheers,
Denis
If the game mechanics have not changed since introduction of 1.2, its possible to build a regional carrier, but only with props...tried it with DHC-8s and F27s (later with Q400s), and succeeded...but even with those extremely fuel efficient aircraft you get the following problems:
- way too much staff
- slow expansion, compared to airlines using the standard equipment
thats why, everything under 35 seats is not economical and regional jets are unusable...
So what I told a year ago, still holds:
this game needs some tweaks for regionals, as currently there are not too many expansion models available besides the "frontal assault" with large jets.
Quote from: DenisG on May 31, 2011, 12:00:39 PM
From an aws-system point of view, I would recommend to lower the slots costs for small aircrafts significantly....
Exactly those aircraft made them this high. People use(d) to hog slots with them and some failed hard in DotM#2 due to the changed system, for example EarlJet out of EGLL, Mid Nippon Jetways out of RJTT, different airlines out of RJAA.
A regional airline out (and also not mainly into) class 5 airports isn't very cool and I think it's ok this attempt fails.
AWS is already a game where the biggest available aircraft can't be used. Try to open up an A300 airline out of a class 5 airport with competition. You're faster bk than you can blame the others B732 or DC-9.
Increasing advantages of smaller aircraft not only make big aircrafts like B747, A300 or later B757 and A321 useless, they also attack the smaller ones like B733, DC-9 etc.
To be honest in my opinion slot costs should be increased 50-100% as they are at the moment in DotM to stop the last slot hogging airlines around. ZBAA, LEBL, SBSP just to name three airports where it seems slot costs weren't high enough.
Edit:
It isn't done with a small tweak on just one point. The whole system must be changed to make regional airlines a good alternative in smaller countries or out of smaller airports in bigger countries while the whole system based on frequency as master value for LF must be cancelled.
At the moment in 99 out of 100 cases it's the only chance to stick to aircraft in the middle - not the biggest ones and not the smallest ones.
Quote from: Curse on May 31, 2011, 12:13:48 PM
A regional airline out (and also not mainly into) class 5 airports isn't very cool and I think it's ok this attempt fails.
I would agree with this in principle but there are some exceptions to the rules. An example would be Jersey and Guernsey both used to have small regional aircraft operated by Air UK then KLM UK (F27 from Guernsey not sure but I think it was the same from Jersey) into Heathrow (4 or 5 flight a day if I remember correctly) until they closed the routes down citing lack of demand - which wasn't the case at all everytime I used to fly GCI-LHR it was a full aircraft as the Channel ISalnds are Tax Have...erm World Financial Centres! But the slots were more valuable for KLM to use bigger aircraft on from a higher demand route so it was lost. Even today there is often talk of the Channel Islands getting these routes reinstated (If they could get/buy slots to use). Even BMI used to operate the smaller 50 seat Embraer's into LHR a few years ago but again replaced them with larger aircraft type if memory serves me correctly. So I dont think you could reject regional size aircraft in total but they would certainly be very limited numbers. :-\
Look at Neo Citylink based at KSEA in MT4. He just added his first non CRJ AC... the dash 8. He is doing very well... Better than I did my first time around at KSEA with 737 classics lol
CRJs are fine in the right environment, it just takes patience at the start. This is in MT#4 too where fuel prices are sky high:
[attachment expired]
Yes, regional service is completely possible. But is harder than mainline in that you're paying the same you pay to operate a 156-seat A320, but with a 90-seat regional airplane. And I'm talking about staff costs, slots, Mx, and sometimes even fuel.
So the best way to run a regional carrier IMO is to stick to only one fleet type. Two fleets would reduce profit a lot, and three fleet types would kill you down the road eventually.
But I think that it is one of the funniest ways to play AWS.
Quote from: ArcherII on May 31, 2011, 08:18:41 PMSo the best way to run a regional carrier IMO is to stick to only one fleet type.
I definitely agree with you. I once operated an airline operating a huge fleet of E-Jets out of Izmir, Turkey successfully, the growth wasn't as quick as usual and sometimes I got bankruptcy warnings when I scheduled too many aircraft at once, but staying sticked to one fleet type saved my airline :laugh:
Slot Hoggers, you ;D
I see folks, communication, communication, communication! We are using one word with many different meanings: Rushmore's test run was dedicated to a feeder or city-commuter airline, up to around 50 seats; he only used CRJs 100s/200s.
With regard to the wording of 'regional', I try to differentiate the following way:
Air Taxi Carrier
- up to 10 seats
- charter, freight, point to point, short-hauls
- not to be confused with VIP Taxi/Business Carriers
Commuter Carrier
- up to 19 seats
- usually no flight attendants, point to point, freight
- short routes, small airports
Feeder Carrier
- up to 99 seats
- usually with flight attendant, no point to point but hub system, freight
- mostly owned by major airline carriers; as the name suggests, objective is to offer connection flights
There are many different definitions and I do not opt for one of them because they tend to focus on the legal status, ICAO certification, and ownership, but not on the business model side, which I wanted to emphasize here.
From my definition point of view, I was refering to commuter carriers, not feeder carriers.
The conduct of a regional business model in the sense of 'feeder carrier' has never been a problem in AWS, since the beginning. If you have a route by yourself and you fly a 50 seater on a 40 pax route, you will be doing fine.
Rushmore's look at CRJ100s/200s had hence been focused on the particular cost structure, which made these aircrafts a financial liability during most scenarios in the past. I remember this one graphic in the aws-demotivators thread about CRJs and something like "...if you wanna bk in style..." This was Rushmore's focus with his test run, not a feeder model, which had always worked fine.
The particular problem we have been having since the first days of aws was the commuter business model. We usually have a bunch of aircrafts available on the used market in this segment and probably 60% of the possible routes within 400nm from most airports are concerned, but cannot be flown.
The problem with slot hoggers occurred mainly with aircrafts with more than 30 seats and only at the 10 biggest airports. With the much higher slot costs, the issue looks obsolete to me so far.
But my problem remains that I would love to fly a 15 seater Beechcraft from Heathrow to Brest and wave at Jona during takeoff who desperately tries to find parking positions for his 747s that he cannot get into the air... and then declare an emergency return and get his flight delays up. :-)
Cheers,
Denis
Quote from: DenisG on May 31, 2011, 10:44:23 PM
Air Taxi Carrier
- up to 10 seats
- charter, freight, point to point, short-hauls
- not to be confused with VIP Taxi/Business Carriers
MU-2 .... :'(
LOL, I love the Mitsubishi MU-2! When it lands, you look at it and always get the first thought that they must have lost the middle-section during flight...
i guess you didn't see my post about the MU-2.... i was practically begging sami to put it in AWS... :'(
haha try landing in one you start having back problems afterwards ;)
I've operated a couple of feeder airlines over the years. They are completely profitable, but costs need to be watched much more closely. Choose fuel efficient aircraft over fast jets: i.e. Fokker 27, or in the modern games the ATR 42 is a good choice. I would also add that if you can, choose an aircraft with several different size versions inside its type. Like the ATR 42/72 and ERJ 135/145. This allows you to better meet supply to demand, while keeping costs at a minimum. There aren't many of these, so it's not always possible.
Feeder airlines would also make more sense if we had connecting traffic modelled. After all, thats what a "feeder airline" means.
My newish airline in Jet Age at the moment operates a profitable Fokker 27 fleet flying domestically in South Africa. It's actually propping up my medium haul operations with the 120 seat Bristol Brittania's, which are horrible, slow, fuel thirsty beasts.
Quote from: J. Oates on May 31, 2011, 10:57:53 PM
haha try landing in one you start having back problems afterwards ;)
Yep, sorry, hadn't seen it yet.
Quote from: Dan380 on May 31, 2011, 10:59:00 PM
I've operated a couple of feeder airlines over the years. They are completely profitable, but costs need to be watched much more closely. Choose fuel efficient aircraft over fast jets: i.e. Fokker 27, or in the modern games the ATR 42 is a good choice. I would also add that if you can, choose an aircraft with several different size versions inside its type. Like the ATR 42/72 and ERJ 135/145. This allows you to better meet supply to demand, while keeping costs at a minimum. There aren't many of these, so it's not always possible.
Feeder airlines would also make more sense if we had connecting traffic modelled. After all, thats what a "feeder airline" means.
My newish airline in Jet Age at the moment operates a profitable Fokker 27 fleet flying domestically in South Africa. It's actually propping up my medium haul operations with the 120 seat Bristol Brittania's, which are horrible, slow, fuel thirsty beasts.
Yes, that is what I wanted to emphasize: The feeder model had always worked perfectly fine in all scenarios. As Razor2 pointed out above, everything above 35 seats works well. So, F27s/F50s, ATRs, all do not fall into this category.
Cheers,
Denis
Quote from: DenisG on May 31, 2011, 10:44:23 PM
The problem with slot hoggers occurred mainly with aircrafts with more than 30 seats and only at the 10 biggest airports. With the much higher slot costs, the issue looks obsolete to me so far.
I respect your perception, but you are wrong on this.
In my first post I listed some airports where slot hogging failed and some where it worked. Where it worked are no Top10 airports - there slot costs are a bit higher and competition is bigger.
Further to this I'm sure if some competent player tries to slot hog at Heathrow this would also work, although not this good as in previous games.
And if the aircraft that hogs slots has 20 seats, 40 or 60 doesn't make any difference at the end of the day - all of them are later replaced with 757, A330 or 777...
Again, I don't get it why a commuter airline (for me everything with aircraft up to 50 seats) operate out of extreme slot limited airports when their only purpose is to become later big international airlines.
There's many space for commuter airlines out of smaller airports - why not try Belfast or Guernsey or London City instead of annoying people in and out of Heathrow?
Quote from: Curse on June 01, 2011, 12:11:28 AM
I respect your perception, but you are wrong on this.
In my first post I listed some airports where slot hogging failed and some where it worked. Where it worked are no Top10 airports - there slot costs are a bit higher and competition is bigger.
Further to this I'm sure if some competent player tries to slot hog at Heathrow this would also work, although not this good as in previous games.
And if the aircraft that hogs slots has 20 seats, 40 or 60 doesn't make any difference at the end of the day - all of them are later replaced with 757, A330 or 777...
Again, I don't get it why a commuter airline (for me everything with aircraft up to 50 seats) operate out of extreme slot limited airports when their only purpose is to become later big international airlines.
There's many space for commuter airlines out of smaller airports - why not try Belfast or Guernsey or London City instead of annoying people in and out of Heathrow?
Beijing/Sichauan City Flyer
- only airline at Beijing
- some highly competed routes
- IL-18 has 70 seats
- airline has already 85 a/c
Barcelona/JetCity
- only airline at Barcelona
- many highly competed routes
- airline has 108 a/c
Sao Paulo Garulhos/Air Brazil
- high competition
- airline has 99 a/c
They have good order pipelines, good company values, and do not overfly on any routes. With regard to competition: Frequency wins. And I also use this technique to beat competition.
Compared to the slot hogging we have seen at other airports in the past, I do not see any attempt here, but three airlines with strong and fast growth, that's all. If you have the cash, why not take some planes from the used market in order to enhance growth, profits, and order pipelines.
If I decide to fly a 250pax route with 5 F27s instead of two B737s, I cannot see how this may effect me being too close to the line. If my strategy is to later switch on long-hauls, that is perfectly fine in free market economies.
The commuter business model can be based at small airports, providing regional travel; but it may as well be located at large airports, historically, where they try to provide services for daily business travelers.
There is no finite obligation that if you choose Heathrow, you are obliged to fly long-hauls. And even from a business point of view, I do not see a commuter business model in any sense disadvantaged or boring compared to major carrier operations. It is free competition and it may change the competitive environment, leading to other airline having to adjust their strategies; but that it what this game is all about.
I agree with you that it is worth a critical thought, whether an airline secures slots first and then tries to become a big player. But on the other hand this is how competition may work, not only in the airline industry; I would really like to work a commuter model only. for an entire game. This is my case.
Cheers,
Denis
The problem is, frequency wins always.
These three airports were examples for my opinion slot costs aren't high enough - as answer to your statement they are too high.
It's not my wish to make the business model of using endless small aircraft not working anymore. But I don't see a point why pax should prefer an airline, that flies 40 times a day with F27 to a destination over an airline that flies 5 times a day with B734 for example.
At the moment one is forced to be geared to the smalles aircraft a competitor uses. If he uses F28, I must use F27. If he uses F27, I must use F27 as well or find something even smaller.
With your ideas this would be even more common than it's now, making even more big aircraft obsolete than now (compete with B727 vs. DC-9? In AWS not a good thing and even B737-200Adv have problems with it's higher seating).
On one hand you talk about historical commuter airlines out of big cities, but on the other hand the most famous aircraft in aviation history can't be used often enough at AWS.
That is, as I said before, a general problem that can't be fixed in five minutes between two beers. High slot costs are a solution - they slower expansion of airlines in general, but small commuter airlines aren't affected this hard as long as they don't fly out of a top airport.
I hope I could explain what I mean good enough. At the end we both want the same - unlimited opportunities and success with every possible business model. :)
Yep, with regard to the 'big' aircrafts, I also see the problem. From my observations this may be due to the fact that we have 'too' many aircrafts available on the used market, leading to high growth rates, which leads to much higher competition than historically or today. However, this appears necessary to nivelate the advantage of countries with large airports to small ones.
Cheers,
Denis
Quote from: Curse on June 01, 2011, 12:25:53 PM
It's not my wish to make the business model of using endless small aircraft not working anymore. But I don't see a point why pax should prefer an airline, that flies 40 times a day with F27 to a destination over an airline that flies 5 times a day with B734 for example.
Of course, If I were a passenger I would prefer an airline flying 40 times a day to one flying 5 times a day, assuming all other factors were equal. But the costs will catch up with that airline (i.e. Crew, slots, maintenance) and the B734 operator will have a much lower break even point. There's nothing wrong with AWS there. As far as I know, the system replicates that pretty accurately.
Why? Most passengers I met don't even know with what airline they fly, neither what aircraft this airline uses or how often they fly.
Don't think the average AWS guy that is total into aircraft and airlines is the standard passenger that generates money.
It's like all the guys in the computer forums that are not understanding most people don't buy some hardcore gaming machine from hell. :>
And nope. 10 flights F27 versus 2 flights B734 makes 10 2/3 full F27 that generate money and two nearly empty B734 losing lots of money. The overhead costs can be payed without problems due to this system.
It's not like I don't run a small fleet type (NAMC, Fokker50, Q400) in most games besides my bigger ones to keep competition off the routes or just make people cry with their B737/A320.
Some passengers are ignorant, most are not. Especially regular business travellers, to whom scheduling and frequency of service are paramount above price and quality.
When you book online, and even before that when you used to book over the phone, you can see what the flight times are and compare that to other airlines on the route. For instance, say our business traveller wants to travel at 1700, and like most on business has a tight schedule. If airline A offers flights at 1400 and 1930. Neither of these are very good for our passenger, but he'll take them if thats the only option he has. Like any good passenger though, he knows about Airline B, and finds they have flights at 1630 and 1730. He can book one of these flights and still make his meeting at the destination. Airline A can offer half the price of airline B, and still our passenger will choose B, because it meets his needs. Of course he doesn't know what the aircraft type is, he doesn't care. But he does care about scheduling.
And of course, there are leisure pax who are more price concious (those ones who don't know what airline they're flying), but I think you'd be surprised at the proportions on the average short haul flight, it's mostly business related, and they do care.
It's just cost restraints that stop an airline operating 50 times a day. If they could do it for the same cost, believe me they would.
But if a commuter is 9 out of 10 times not reliable why are the small planes up to 50 seats in the game anyway if you can't make a profit with them anyway. :-\
I am quite new on the forum, so if this has been answered before let me know.
Grtzzz
Hi Soultiger.
Perhaps I did not understand your question right; being profitable with 50 seaters is no problem at all and has never been a problem in aws, this should also be the essence of the postings in this thread. I did not understand your reference to the 9 out of 10 times not reliable.
Cheers,
Denis
I mean for example planes with less than 50 seats (DHC 6) just to name one..... why are they in the game at all while you can't make a profit with them.
Maybe I should move this question into a new thread? :-[
Grtz
This was already answered endless times... however, at first they can make profit, although it is not easy. Second it is possible to use them as a fleet group to support other fleets or just because you like to use them, so you know you will lose money but your 737 etc. make enough money to cover this. And third sami (maybe) will change the system some day in the future.
Quote from https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31675.0.html
If you search the forum, you will find many of these threads discussing progress and possibilities.
@Curse: I guess we will need a keyboard-shortcut for these texts...
As Curse has already pointed out, there have been a number of threads on the issue, with swiftus, Rushmore, and myself regularly testing the adjusted game engines on its impact on the 'regional', more specififc 'commuter' model.
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31286.0.html
Currently, every regional business model with economic aircrafts with more than 35 seats works perfectly fine in aws. Below that pax size, there are still enormous difficulties to tackle.
Let us know which airline you fly, which routes and with what aircrafts, and we will quickly be able to tell you more details.
Cheers,
Denis
With the development of aws, the main rush of interest has always been the creation of medium and big airlines. The problems resulting from this, e.g. routing (ABCBA vs. AB), bases, slot availability, used market availability, etc., have been the main focus of Sami's efforts during the past years. The regional model has worked well with those mentioned aircrafts and there have been a lot of people dedicated to this. The smaller airports below 20 pax demand have not been profitable so far with any aircraft available. As scenarios usually cover a long time-span over 15-20 years, demand grows. And there will be airports with little or no demand at the beginning of the 1980s that will grow into very attractive routes over the game years (China, India, Arabia, etc.). Therefore, these airports are available and will be flown sooner or later. Those airports that remain below the critical mark are usually not flown and many aws-users are hoping to make them profitable with changes on the upcoming game engine or so.
The main problem with making small routes with small aircrafts profitable from a system's point of view is that you need to tackle the underlying economic model of aws and there are many ways to do that, which will again result in different user behaviour. I think most of us have been very satisfied with the modification of slot availability and one challenge will be to keep slot hoggers from utilizing small aircrafts only to secure a market share at LHR.
Cheers,
Denis
hello all
Sorry for the stupid question, but... in order to make regional carriers more likely to succeed, would it be possible to change the price of slots according to plane size ?
in real airports, you will pay far different prices if you land with a cessna 172, a learjet 45, an A321 or a b777 right ? Actually, this is what I learnt in my piloting courses...
Therefore, if we adapt this model in the game, sbdy looking forward being a regional airline would see its costs reduce significantly.
i don't know if this is feasable, and I understand the risk of increasing slot hogging. But I consider this feature as a strong improvement anyway.
Food for thought
Flobacca
Quote from: Flobacca on June 23, 2011, 04:00:41 PM
hello all
Sorry for the stupid question, but... in order to make regional carriers more likely to succeed, would it be possible to change the price of slots according to plane size ?
in real airports, you will pay far different prices if you land with a cessna 172, a learjet 45, an A321 or a b777 right ? Actually, this is what I learnt in my piloting courses...
Therefore, if we adapt this model in the game, sbdy looking forward being a regional airline would see its costs reduce significantly.
i don't know if this is feasable, and I understand the risk of increasing slot hogging. But I consider this feature as a strong improvement anyway.
Food for thought
Flobacca
I believe slot costs, or if not certainly landing fees (see view aircraft or income statement pages) are based on MTOW already in AWS.
Slot cost is, and will be, always the same regardless of plane size. All other costs are already based on plane size (mtow).
Well, we have been down that road and we know that in order to make commuters work, sami will need to make adjustments on the cost basis. There are many ways to do that and it will mainly depend on the aws system-view, not what appears most logic or desired. Since we are not too familiar with that one, let's just trust in the almighty sami.
Cheers,
Denis
Quote from: DenisG on June 23, 2011, 05:03:18 PM
Well, we have been down that road and we know that in order to make commuters work, sami will need to make adjustments on the cost basis. There are many ways to do that and it will mainly depend on the aws system-view, not what appears most logic or desired. Since we are not too familiar with that one, let's just trust in the almighty sami.
Cheers,
Denis
no pb... I was just asking the stupid question... ;-)
You can make a regional airline work in AWS, even a 19 seater.
1. The earlier the time period the easier it is. Operating a Metro or EMB-110 airline in the early 1970s is easier than in 2010 due to fuel
2. Fly short flights multiple times per day (Raises your LF quicker and short flight have high yields), dont fly a 19 seater 500 NMs. Keep it to less than 200-250 NM
3. Operate in Asia, South America is easier than in Europe or North America (wages and benefits costs)
4. Limit advertising to the Modern Age to internet and in other ages limit to newspapers in your community
In Modern Times the SAAB-2000 is the best plane along with ATR-72 and DASH 8-400. The best middle sized plane is the EMB-120.
I had an airline in Modern Times with SAAB-2000s and EMB-120 and was highly profitable
Quote from: ekaneti on June 24, 2011, 12:13:33 PM
4. Limit advertising to the Modern Age to internet and in other ages limit to newspapers in your community
Location of advertising is irrelevant. The only variable that counts is the total expenditure. ;)
Quote from: Dan380 on June 24, 2011, 02:54:45 PM
Location of advertising is irrelevant. The only variable that counts is the total expenditure. ;)
What he is saying is use the bare minimum (if any) advertising, because local with newspaper/internet is the cheapest option
Quote from: Dan380 on June 24, 2011, 02:54:45 PM
Location of advertising is irrelevant. The only variable that counts is the total expenditure. ;)
What I am saying is you should only advertise via the Internet. No newspapers and no billboards. Internet alone will give your airline an eventual CI of around 25-30 with good ontime service
Yep, and don't forget that your airline will crawl to 20 CI without any marketing over approx. 2 game years.
Cheers,
Denis
Quote from: DenisG on June 24, 2011, 11:23:21 PM
Yep, and don't forget that your airline will crawl to 20 CI without any marketing over approx. 2 game years.
Hm... my experience is airlines without any marketing lose CI and go into negative CI very soon...
Yes, I have observed this as well a couple of times. I assume this is in most cases due to (1) technical problems with aircraft as many use old aircrafts and (2) turnaround times resulting in delays and cancelations.
I have only added marketing in DotM in a runner-up strategy at Frankfurt six game months ago when it had already reached/crawled to 20 CI. I fly my BAC fighter jets with 65 min. turnarounds and 732s with 75 min.
Cheers,
Denis