I tried the demo and leased a couple of 110 seaters. It didn't seem to pan out for me: pretty high lease costs, high fuel costs, high staff costs, too little load factor). So, I decided I'd start with some really good (90%+) commuter turboprops and get my company and route image up. I thought my costs would be relatively low and I would be able to relatively quickly go into low to modest profit.
What a mistake! I have 2 Saab 340's flying Denver to Dallas. Company image at 42, great punctuality and 0 cancellations. Staff morale at 77+, but my load factors are staying at ~55%. I can't seem to get anywhere. The way I figured it, I only have approximately 16 - 18 weeks worth of cash to burn through (with current negative weekly profit). Can I really expect to get my load factor to the ~75% - 80% I calculated I needed to start turning a profit?
Dang, this game is harsh! Why is it so hard to get 20 - 25 people to fly on my plane?
I have noticed something a bit cynical in the programming: it seems no matter how big your plane is, you get the same load factors at x company and route image. For example, in the demo game I was getting the same 55% load factor. But since I had 100 seaters, that means I had 55 passengers per flight. What's so magical about having a larger plane that automatically allows you to get more passengers?
It seems to me that your load factor would go up much more easily and quickly if you had a much smaller plane. That's the whole reason for starting out as a commuter: MUCH easier to fill that plane than a 757, etc.
What gives?
Thanks.
Well your right. You can expect to start with no more then 50% LF on a new route/low image. Thats the same either in a 747 or Otter.
Thats why we kinda tell everyone to start out with at least a midsize aircraft. 100-150 seater. Because even modern aircraft can break even @ 50% LF.
Why's that you say? Well.. I think it was a change towards the end of beta (past week). Sami made route image more "effective" I guess you could say. So that probably had a something to do with why LF stay low for alot longer.
Though, if you have low route image combined with low company image, your never going to fill a plane. Whether it be a 6 seater or 400 seater, it wont happen.
If you do plan on starting regional flying, I would suggest getting a fleet of 5-6 aircraft right from the start. With a 150 seater, it takes 3 aircraft to "turn" a profit (pay all your bills) So.. if your going to fly 50-75 seaters.. how many aircraft will you need..? Double at least ;)
Hopefully, this will help.
Quote from: Talentz on January 13, 2009, 03:37:05 AM
If you do plan on starting regional flying, I would suggest getting a fleet of 5-6 aircraft right from the start. With a 150 seater, it takes 3 aircraft to "turn" a profit (pay all your bills) So.. if your going to fly 50-75 seaters.. how many aircraft will you need..? Double at least ;)
I'm not sure if it is a good idea. At least you should fly only couple different routes.
Your plane doesn't have C-class, so it will be really difficult to make good profit. And you need lots of staff, what makes your salary and training costs higher than with just 1 150-seater. I think that also marketing campaigns will cost you more (because your airline is bigger with more planes and people, thus less passengers and income).
So if you don't want to have that extra challenge, get a bigger plane...
Hmm well thats very true. Bigger company, higher overhead costs..
So I guess in a sense, regional aircraft are pure fail unless you have the money to spend eh?
Thinking about it, we had this discussion back in beta1/2 no? Labor for a Saab is no lower or higher then labor for a 747 ( if all crew were equal) so with that being the case... if your going to pay 10,000 for two pilots.. might was well get a 747 instead of a Saab right? 747 could bring in more income thus, have a higher profit margin.
But at what point does having smaller aircraft lead to lower overhead costs? Unless Sami tweaked some things we dont know about.
If he didnt, then, your right sunday, small aircraft are a waste of time and money.
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on January 13, 2009, 08:08:19 AM
So I guess in a sense, regional aircraft are pure fail unless you have the money to spend eh?
No but regional market has never been a moneymaker ... I might have mentioned but I've heard that on some local routes over here (in reality) with S340 or ATR a single de-ice treatment (around $1000?) will ruin the profit of that sector..
Well, that all just seems very silly to me. I didn't expect to make mega-bucks, but not turn a profit? That's just silly.
So, with $4 million, how do you afford a large aircraft? With fuel costs and insurance alone you burn through your reserves like nothing. You certainly need more than 50% load to turn a profit on one of those big mamas.
I came into the game just a couple days after it started, and the only medium to large planes left were old pieces of junk or the humungous 747. I didn't want either! I learned my lesson in the demo: don't get an old aircraft! The down time for tech problems kill your route!
You should be able to get your first leased plane, new or used, right away. I know you get your used one right away, but you should be able to get a new one right away too, otherwise the choices just aren't there for someone coming into the game after it has already started.
Don't get me wrong, I think this sim has some amazing elements. I just think the start-up choices are very limited given the mindset of load factors being the same for a 19-seater as a 400-seater. :(
When playing in Beta 1 and 2, I started both times with as big airplane as I could get. So with a Md-11 or similar. I then put it on a route that allowed me to fly it 5-6 times/week. With no holes in schedule (so on Monday, the plane starts at 6 am, arrives on Tuesday ike 7 am, leaves on Tuesday at 9 am, an so on, until it's back home on Sunday evening just in time for A check). This way, I could get some nice profit straight from the beginning.
However, since those 2 games, a lot has changed. Especially the route image. So it is possible, that this doesn't work anymore, but on the other hand, I don't know why it shouldn't: A big plane takes more pax; it flies a lot longer and stays in the air much longer compared to the time spent on ground than a smaller plane, thus the ticket prices are higher; and if you choose the plane wisely, it doesn't have that much higher fuel economy either.
Also, you have to remember, that jets are usually much faster than turboprops, so you can fly farther in the same time and get more income. So it's usually not wise to fly probs on a route that takes more than 2 hour for them to fly it.
Here's (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,3563.0.html) a list I made of what you should consider when getting your first aircrafts. It may not be complete, or even 100% accurate, but it should give you some hints.
And, I don't think that you should get a new plane in the beginning, and especially not instantly, as a new airplane is just so different compared to used ones, and it's also much more expencive. However, maybe there should be somekind of system that allows a new company to get a plane from each size-class with proper age and condition as the first plane, if there are none available at the used market.
Thanks for the tips, Jps. My route is only 560nm, so I thought I'd be good with a turboprop. Guess not. Oh well.
I like your last suggestion, "However, maybe there should be somekind of system that allows a new company to get a plane from each size-class with proper age and condition as the first plane, if there are none available at the used market."
That would be good.
Thanks.
Quote from: JJP on January 13, 2009, 01:41:54 PM
Thanks for the tips, Jps. My route is only 560nm, so I thought I'd be good with a turboprop. Guess not. Oh well.
Well, I didn't remmeber how long it takes for a prob to fly routes, but I'd say you can use a prob up until 1000nm if it's making some decent profits, for it does consume a lot less fuel than jets.
From my experience, smaller props makes more money on shorter routes if you can manage to squeeze in 1 more each day.
I had 2 F27s running 4 daily short (200-400nm) flights and 1 running 3 daily 600-700nm flights, and I found out that the first 2 planes made consistently better profits.
Ticket price doesn't differ that much from what I have noticed, so with 1 more flight each day, you should be able to raise your profits with close to 1/3.
Also, don't start of with to many routes to different destinations, takes much longer to raise LFs then.
But I agree, it's very hard to start out with props. Specially since I made the mistake of starting of with to cheep and old planes.
Now for the second game, I managed to snag two nice looking B733s instead so I'm going to try running one on a bit shorter legs, and the other one on longer to see where the profit is.
Thanks, guys. I appreciate your responses. :)
I started out with an 80% conditioned A313 and resisted for any other aircraft until my cash value went up to more than 1.5m and leased them brand new. It was quite a wait but it's worth it as I prefer to have them freshly minted aircraft rather than the clanking old ones you have on the used markets. Seen how an airline with 4 20+ year old battered machines fall from grace within 3 months (game time)
I've been doing ok in demo game with 2 732 until recently when both went in for C check now I'm incuring -$100k a week
In game #1 I was doing ok too with ATR, strangely enough only when i have odd number of aircraft, when I had 3 ATR I was breaking even and a tiny profit, with 5 I was making around $50k and now I got 6 airfraft and loosing -$20k.
The trick I think is to fly all your aircraft on the same routes, be it short or long
QuoteNo but regional market has never been a moneymaker ... I might have mentioned but I've heard that on some local routes over here (in reality) with S340 or ATR a single de-ice treatment (around $1000?) will ruin the profit of that sector..
Yes, your right sami.
Currently, regional aircraft/flying is not going to make alot of money. Regional aircraft just dont bring in the income that a bigger aircraft does. This is a fact, coding or not.
So.. with that in mind, starting as a small commuter airliner is not a good strategy. Perhaps some coding tweaking will help that but, overall, you mostly start big then add regional aircraft as you go.
Also, the fact you have to start out by leasing an aircraft makes this strategy nearly impossible. The best way to run a regional airline operation is to
own your small aircraft. 9/10 times the lease payment is too high for the seats that aircraft can sell.
Example: CRJ 200. Lease payment is 250k a month.. for a 50 seater..
How many players can say they have a 737-300 with a cheaper lease. Even the BAC 475/500s have leases near 100-200k. So whos more liking to bring in the income to not
only pay the lease, but all the expenses that come with running an airline?
So basically, own all your regional jets (be it CRJ, ERJ .. T-Prop) That way, you can make a solid profit and live as a "Regional airline"
That said, this is why starting small is very hard and
not recommended.
Talentz
yeah not owning the aircraft really is a killer, i only could manage break even with green LF
Some good points. I guess I didn't quite think about it that way. Thank you.
I started out a new prop. airliner with 26 seats Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia, and at first I started to make money, but now I loose around 20k a week, and I cant get the turnover to change, whatever I do. I stopped all marketing, only have one small general marketing campaign and I still loose money.
I have avg. LF at 50%, with 3 destinations. My planes schedule is full, and I go around +1000 on each route. But still I'm not able to make money :(
My other company on server 1 runs perfectly, with 2 x Boeing 727.
Seems to be impossible to run a small commute airliner at this point, as you come to a point when the expenses go beyond the income :(
It's certainly possible to run a profitable commuter airline - my EBITDA is about $500,000 pcm with 4 leased ATR-42s & 2 leased ATR72s (with another 2 on order), with my longest route 400nm - and all that from an airport closed from 21:00 until 05:00. Interestingly there doesn't appear to be much difference between the recommended fare for my 400mn route and my ones that are less than 100mn (and take less than half the time to fly), but obviously the variable costs (i.e., fuel) are less - resulting in higher margins. I'd really like to try an island hopping service on 20nm routes using something like a Trislander or Do-228, but the minimum distance blocker kicks in and I can't do it. :(
As has been mentioned above the trick seems to be to operate a small number of routes at a high frequency. I presume this cuts down on overheads such as staff numbers, marketing etc. which would be duplicated if more airports were serviced.
I just went bankrupt with my airliner, and reopened in Norway with the strategy you mentioned EGJB.. Seems to work alot better than competing with jetliners in the middle of air mayhem in central Europe.. hehe :)
My other co-company stationed on Iceland does very well ;)
I'm still hanging in there by a thread. I had two F50s and three F.27s, all running short routes. And I was in the black for a couple of weeks, but not by much.
Now I have three C-checks coming up within 1 month time, and only around $600k in the bank. So I had to cancel the lease on one of my F.27s and probably need to do the same to another one. With that comes staff layoffs and my company image went down the drain, from 20 to 8 :(. If I need to cancel my next lease, I will probably be in minus and that will make it very hard to get a profit with just three planes.
Question is, should I cancel the last F.27 to, and run just the two F50s that has a few months left before C-checks, or try to make it with a diverse fleet?
Quote from: EGJB on January 15, 2009, 08:43:00 PM
I'd really like to try an island hopping service on 20nm routes using something like a Trislander or Do-228, but the minimum distance blocker kicks in and I can't do it.
That can be overriden for selected airport pairs, I just need the ICAO codes .. if there's really a route between those.
I can do some stuff on the Channel Islands. Plenty of flights with trislanders there. Would imagine the demand is preety decent. How would you like the info (I can do demand too if you like) sent to you?
In my own experience is impossible to be succesful with a regional company in the game. I trid twice in world 1 and I´m not able to make money. I run a regional corp based in a decent airport, BIO (Spain). I fly with 6 ATR42-200 with a load factor nearly 70% in this moment, a image over 40 and routes images growing. I was able to get some little profit (not more than 30,000$) but whit the fourth month finishe I had to pay the leasings, son in this moment I´m going to bankrupty in a few weeks.
In game 2, I started a game in a better airport, BCN (Spain) but not a top one. I use jets around 100 seats (+ a MD-81 with 155) and in this moment I have 6 planes, my incoming is growing fast, and I trust in be able to pay the leasings in 6 weeks.
As other players wrote in this post, I dont like the idea of giving the same % of load factor to all the planes with no care about the number of seats.
Quote from: euskoair on January 15, 2009, 09:56:58 PM
As other players wrote in this post, I dont like the idea of giving the same % of load factor to all the planes with no care about the number of seats.
And again that is not the intention or how it has been planned .. But seems that the route image concept on new routes messes that calculation somehow on small planes and I'm working on it.
Quote from: euskoair on January 15, 2009, 09:56:58 PM
In my own experience is impossible to be succesful with a regional company in the game. I trid twice in world 1 and I´m not able to make money. I run a regional corp based in a decent airport, BIO (Spain). I fly with 6 ATR42-200 with a load factor nearly 70% in this moment, a image over 40 and routes images growing. I was able to get some little profit (not more than 30,000$) but whit the fourth month finishe I had to pay the leasings, son in this moment I´m going to bankrupty in a few weeks.
In game 2, I started a game in a better airport, BCN (Spain) but not a top one. I use jets around 100 seats (+ a MD-81 with 155) and in this moment I have 6 planes, my incoming is growing fast, and I trust in be able to pay the leasings in 6 weeks.
As other players wrote in this post, I dont like the idea of giving the same % of load factor to all the planes with no care about the number of seats.
hey that sound like my airline although i use 42-320s, loosing money fast due to C checks, 3 of those little planes cost a mil to do c checks. :o
Quote from: Dan380 on January 15, 2009, 09:39:06 PM
I can do some stuff on the Channel Islands. Plenty of flights with trislanders there.
Ah, competition already! ;)
I'd definitely like to be able to do flights between EGJB, EGJJ and EGJA, and even include LFRD please sami. There's up to 25 flights a day between EGJB and EGJJ with 16/18 seaters, and a further 6 a day between EGJB and EGJA. What the actual passenger numbers are I don't know, but I'd bet the vast majority of the 75,000 or so passengers using EGJA (by far the smallest airport) each year are travelling to EGJB.
On Iceland there is domestic flights aswell in reallife, but not here.. Like the route Keflavik - Akureyri have 5 t/r flights almost daily, would be fun to have some domestic flights on Iceland :)
Quote from: EGJB on January 15, 2009, 08:43:00 PM
It's certainly possible to run a profitable commuter airline - my EBITDA is about $500,000 pcm with 4 leased ATR-42s & 2 leased ATR72s (with another 2 on order), with my longest route 400nm - and all that from an airport closed from 21:00 until 05:00. Interestingly there doesn't appear to be much difference between the recommended fare for my 400mn route and my ones that are less than 100mn (and take less than half the time to fly), but obviously the variable costs (i.e., fuel) are less - resulting in higher margins. I'd really like to try an island hopping service on 20nm routes using something like a Trislander or Do-228, but the minimum distance blocker kicks in and I can't do it. :(
As has been mentioned above the trick seems to be to operate a small number of routes at a high frequency. I presume this cuts down on overheads such as staff numbers, marketing etc. which would be duplicated if more airports were serviced.
It seems if the route is sufficiently short, it makes it worth while. I think the other side of the equation is the problem with load factors mentioned inthis thread (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,3671.0.html).
Quote from: EGJB on January 15, 2009, 10:59:19 PM
Ah, competition already! ;)
I'd definitely like to be able to do flights between EGJB, EGJJ and EGJA, and even include LFRD please sami. There's up to 25 flights a day between EGJB and EGJJ with 16/18 seaters, and a further 6 a day between EGJB and EGJA. What the actual passenger numbers are I don't know, but I'd bet the vast majority of the 75,000 or so passengers using EGJA (by far the smallest airport) each year are travelling to EGJB.
I don't mind if you want to do it. If you're a local, you may well know far more than I do about the island hoppers.
Format:
ICAO-ICAO: paxperday
one per line. Paxperday = estimated pax demand on that route, which you can calculate also by using the number of seats available * 0.7 (assuming 70% LF is usual).
Email or PM to me ..