I am not really liking this new feature where you can't cancel leases or make new routes if you have no money. My issue is that I am stuck with a bunch of 20 year old DC-9's that are coming up for C checks and I have brand new fokker 100's sitting on the ground but I can't cancel the leases on the DC-9's because I am 3 million in the red and I can't get out of the red because I have to C check these Dc-9's. I can understand not being able to cancel leases at a certain point in the red like maybe 15 million but right now my airline is just going to be slowly forced in to bankruptcy. Or if you don't want to do that then give us the option to stop making payments on the planes and they can be repo'd with a ding to our credit score.
Quote from: coopdogyo on August 13, 2012, 03:17:48 PM
I am not really liking this new feature where you can't cancel leases or make new routes if you have no money. My issue is that I am stuck with a bunch of 20 year old DC-9's that are coming up for C checks and I have brand new fokker 100's sitting on the ground but I can't cancel the leases on the DC-9's because I am 3 million in the red and I can't get out of the red because I have to C check these Dc-9's. I can understand not being able to cancel leases at a certain point in the red like maybe 15 million but right now my airline is just going to be slowly forced in to bankruptcy. Or if you don't want to do that then give us the option to stop making payments on the planes and they can be repo'd with a ding to our credit score.
park the DC-9 as they come due for the c-check, un-schedule them totally (inc maint), then your only bill is lease and insurance on them : switch their routes to your F100's : you may have to mess around a bit re; turnarounds, etc, but you will have some room for adjustment in 'edit' mode when you change the type over to F100. (just checked DC-9 and F100 have same t/a and speed is close enough you may not need to adjust much at all) Then, fly yr new birds and make up the cash deficit, without paying for the c-checks as DC-9 are parked : when you make enough send them back as usual, and tweak your new F100 schedules with any new routes/edits that may be needed.
You'll have same staff reqt for the F100 so when you un-schedule a DC9 you'll not need more staff when you schedule those routes to the F100. (damn, just noticed, ones medium, other is large so pilots will be an issue, but rest stay as before)
or you could bk and start again...
Quote from: coopdogyo on August 13, 2012, 03:17:48 PM
I am not really liking this new feature where you can't cancel leases or make new routes if you have no money. My issue is that I am stuck with a bunch of 20 year old DC-9's that are coming up for C checks and I have brand new fokker 100's sitting on the ground but I can't cancel the leases on the DC-9's because I am 3 million in the red and I can't get out of the red because I have to C check these Dc-9's. I can understand not being able to cancel leases at a certain point in the red like maybe 15 million but right now my airline is just going to be slowly forced in to bankruptcy. Or if you don't want to do that then give us the option to stop making payments on the planes and they can be repo'd with a ding to our credit score.
Is this a player or the CEO of American Airlines?
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 13, 2012, 03:50:07 PM
Is this a player or the CEO of American Airlines?
could be both... you never know... ;)
sorry I am based in Austin not Dallas but yeah basiclly having the same problem as american airlines
You never were able to cancel leases without having the cash. The route changes may be impossible if you need to buy slots for the new times. I think the biggest problem with the rule change is that it was done mid-game versus from day 1 which is bankrupting those who weren't prepared for a cash only strategy.
Can you take out any loans buddy?
nope no loans. really all I can do is not pay for c checks and ground planes and not renew leases
I personally think this is one of the best changes that has been made to the game.
Not being able to continually spend money that you don't actually have or have the capacity to borrow, should slow down those players that have a strategy of 'grow at all costs'
Not being able to buy slots etc when in a negative cash position should see an end to airlines that have 200+ planes (all leased) and a value of -$100's of millions.
Quote from: Kadachiman on August 15, 2012, 05:21:48 AM
I personally think this is one of the best changes that has been made to the game.
Not being able to continually spend money that you don't actually have or have the capacity to borrow, should slow down those players that have a strategy of 'grow at all costs'
Not being able to buy slots etc when in a negative cash position should see an end to airlines that have 200+ planes (all leased) and a value of -$100's of millions.
well then you shouldnt be playing here, because no airline in the world would be allowed to start up with only 10 million dollars. So far, California Pacfic Airlines has funded over 50 million, has only 1 plane and is still not flying due to having not recieved their 121 license. Another airline is trying to start up on the east coast and has not even recieved DOT licenses because they do not have enough capital on hand yet.
For a brand new airline, they need to be able to borrow money to open new routes... I just started an airline not knowing this new rule off a 2-3 month break. I now have 4 aircraft i cant deploy on routes because of the slots costing so much and me not having any money. Mind you, im making a profit...
Slot costs were also increased ~1 year ago to slow down the explosive growth, which it did, but not by much. Perhaps the slot costs need to be tweaked since we are cash-only now?
Quote from: Kadachiman on August 15, 2012, 05:21:48 AM
I personally think this is one of the best changes that has been made to the game.
Not being able to continually spend money that you don't actually have or have the capacity to borrow, should slow down those players that have a strategy of 'grow at all costs'
Not being able to buy slots etc when in a negative cash position should see an end to airlines that have 200+ planes (all leased) and a value of -$100's of millions.
This change won't help, it won't only slow down those big players, it will slow down the smaller less experiences players either. In the end, the experienced players will have 200+ aircraft (it will take a bit longer to achieve 200+, but still they will make it). While the less experienced players will stay small and eventually bankrupt...
I'm a bit perplexed by this debate : seems rather obvious that if you aint got any money, you cant spend any : if you run your airline in such a way as to be unable to buy slots to fly your airplanes, why should you be given the benefit of an interest-free overdraft to keep doing the same?
There is a loan facility, if you need extra cash, then use that and borrow and pay the interest and charges for doing so. ,
In RL, if you go into the red, you get a penalty-rate interest on that, but I don't know many banks would just shrug and then keep giving you more free money...
I want to add my opinion on this.
This update has really messed up the balance of the game. EVERYTHING that has been updated will hurt small airlines, the slot prices have gone up, personnel staff costs are the same, frequency rules changed (I agree with that one)and now you can't buy slots without the money.
Now I agree you shouldn't be able to buy slots without the money, but with slots as expensive as they are it is impossible to run a small airline. Now the only way to fix this (realistically) is too either change slot costs to the size/weight of the aircraft like they do IRL OR reduce the overall cost of slots.
Loans are not the answer as it's nearly impossible to take out a loan in the beginning/ or with a low profit margin.
This sim is going to end up a 737/A320/Long haul a/c sim. The rest of the types are rendered useless almost with these updates.
Something does need to be done about this.
Small airlines need too many times the slots as 4x dailies means 28 slots...
7 long haul flights is 7 slots ...
Shocker that an f27 fleet using 4-6x the number of slots would incur massive slot cost issues when slot costs are on a logrithymic scale.
These small planes never were intended to be used to the extremes they are. Small tps are buffer/fillers to a fleet and never a backbone.
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 16, 2012, 02:58:47 PM
Small airlines need too many times the slots as 4x dailies means 28 slots...
7 long haul flights is 7 slots ...
Shocker that an f27 fleet using 4-6x the number of slots would incur massive slot cost issues when slot costs are on a logrithymic scale.
These small planes never were intended to be used to the extremes they are. Small tps are buffer/fillers to a fleet and never a backbone.
Swiftus how can you say this? Some airlines are COMPLETE turboprops, all they use is turboprops. They most certainly aren't a buffer/filler to a fleet. We are not just talking about turboprops though, we are also talking about small jets. And the reason why jets can fly 4x daily is because the slot costs are proportionate to the size and weight of the aircraft. So turboprops (which are significantly lighter than the big jets) will pay less for a slot than the bigger aircraft. These aircraft ARE designed to do exactly that.
We need to stop always comparing rare real life scenarios to what goes on in Aws. For example, prior to the changes, 752s were ordered 10 to 20x real life numbers.
Now it's too tough to fly a tp fleet. Sure. But tell me, are you mad that you can't fly from Glasgow to the Isle of Man profitably? or more that you can't use it to effectively out frequency another airline from a hd route?
I'm finding that most of this complaining in all threads was to to old strategies no longer working.
If the sim is deemed to be out of whack, Sami will fix it.
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 16, 2012, 02:58:47 PM
Small airlines need too many times the slots as 4x dailies means 28 slots...
7 long haul flights is 7 slots ...
Shocker that an f27 fleet using 4-6x the number of slots would incur massive slot cost issues when slot costs are on a logrithymic scale.
These small planes never were intended to be used to the extremes they are. Small tps are buffer/fillers to a fleet and never a backbone.
I live in Asheville and KAVL has nothing but small aircraft, mainly ERJ and CRJ jets flying out of here. You may think it is unreasonable for 4-6x daily flying 50 seaters versus just flying in a 757 2x daily, but the fact is we have 9x daily to ATL and 7x daily to CLT using CRJs. On top of this, all of the aircraft are flying nearly full due to the cutbacks during the downturn reducing the number of flights. These could easily be serviced by pure turboprops, which are cheaper, but in the real world the more expensive jets are used. Not only is it nearly impossible to run a turboprop airline in AWS serving these routes, but doing so with regional jets is a impossible for all but the most astute players with lots of time to micromanage. http://flyavl.com/media/documents/flight-schedules-2012/September%202012%20%20Non-stop%20Flight%20Departures.pdf
I asked a series of questions looking for answers from sami in the features forum with no answers as of yet. Most importantly is the taxation situation since negative cash is impossible. I may have failed to explain it thoroughly in the feature section, but gave a very concise example for Project Portugal in how profits are taxed at a 7.84% override with small airlines at a disadvantage to larger ones due to negative cash activities being available to the latter: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,42333.msg229591.html#msg229591
Quote from: LemonButt on August 16, 2012, 03:22:48 PM
I live in Asheville and KAVL has nothing but small aircraft, mainly ERJ and CRJ jets flying out of here. You may think it is unreasonable for 4-6x daily flying 50 seaters versus just flying in a 757 2x daily, but the fact is we have 9x daily to ATL and 7x daily to CLT using CRJs. On top of this, all of the aircraft are flying nearly full due to the cutbacks during the downturn reducing the number of flights. These could easily be serviced by pure turboprops, which are cheaper, but in the real world the more expensive jets are used. Not only is it nearly impossible to run a turboprop airline in AWS serving these routes, but doing so with regional jets is a impossible for all but the most astute players with lots of time to micromanage. http://flyavl.com/media/documents/flight-schedules-2012/September%202012%20%20Non-stop%20Flight%20Departures.pdf
I asked a series of questions looking for answers from sami in the features forum with no answers as of yet. Most importantly is the taxation situation since negative cash is impossible. I may have failed to explain it thoroughly in the feature section, but gave a very concise example for Project Portugal in how profits are taxed at a 7.84% override with small airlines at a disadvantage to larger ones due to negative cash activities being available to the latter: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,42333.msg229591.html#msg229591
The GAAP stuff bugs me too. A prepaid lease would still be an asset and not an expense. Those payments aren't realized until that period passed.
But your example using crjs is fine. Small airport to big one. I'm finding that many people are griping about many issues and many lead back to the fact that it deals with them not being able to fly from x to y every 15 minutes between ORD and ATL
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 16, 2012, 03:20:45 PM
We need to stop always comparing rare real life scenarios to what goes on in Aws. For example, prior to the changes, 752s were ordered 10 to 20x real life numbers.
Now it's too tough to fly a tp fleet. Sure. But tell me, are you mad that you can't fly from Glasgow to the Isle of Man profitably? or more that you can't use it to effectively out frequency another airline from a hd route?
I'm finding that most of this complaining in all threads was to to old strategies no longer working.
If the sim is deemed to be out of whack, Sami will fix it.
I wouldn't say that this is rare tbh swiftus. I can list many many airlines that only use turboprops/small jets and a mixture of them both. I'm not mad, I am making a point that the sim with the way it is current cannot operate a small airline any more (or very well I should add). IOM to Glasgow is serviced by turboprops, and probably my the best example I can give you as to why turboprops are viable in today's climate FlyBE which operate both Turboprops and small jets.
Never said it was rare. As you may recall I ran a small airline test which bored me to death but was profitable.
To reiterate, rjs and tps are mainly meant to go between a hub and a smaller city.
They are not meant to go between two hubs. Also, adding slots for your 9th CRJ between ORD and ATL also drastically increases your slot cost at both airports and not just your home base. The worlds skies should not be filled with dash 8s and long haul 757s
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 16, 2012, 03:20:45 PM
We need to stop always comparing rare real life scenarios to what goes on in Aws.
You kinda did say rare ;)
Yes, sure I agree with you. But in AWS that's still impossible, it's beside the point. And tbh, it's your opinion that they shouldn't be filled with Dash 8s and 757s. Not that they are in AWS or IRL. The fact is that they are designed to fly 4-6 times a day. They are cheaper on slots. And they are viable IRL. They are not viable in AWS. and they should be!
Long live turboprops 8)
Quote from: Pilot Oatmeal on August 16, 2012, 03:52:34 PM
You kinda did say rare ;)
Yes, sure I agree with you. But in AWS that's still impossible, it's beside the point. And tbh, it's your opinion that they shouldn't be filled with Dash 8s and 757s. Not that they are in AWS or IRL. The fact is that they are designed to fly 4-6 times a day. They are cheaper on slots. And they are viable IRL. They are not viable in AWS. and they should be!
Long live turboprops 8)
I live in the approach corridor for KCLE. I understand that tps rule...
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 16, 2012, 02:58:47 PM
These small planes never were intended to be used to the extremes they are. Small tps are buffer/fillers to a fleet and never a backbone.
Not necessarily. There are independ regional airlines out there that only run regional aircraft and therefore are the back bone of the fleet. The airline I world for operate over 80 regional aircraft, most of which are turbo-props.
Quote from: Pilot Oatmeal on August 16, 2012, 03:52:34 PM
But in AWS that's still impossible, it's beside the point.
What is impossible, a turboprop airline or what (kinda missed the point here)? If that's what you meant then you're wrong.... It has been tested and proved to work (apart from the airlines using the VERY small planes, 10 seaters etc), but people still fail to understand that, like in real life, the profit margins in regional traffic are extremely small, and also in AWS running such airline is harder than a larger longhaul fleet for example. (but that said, I still have not tuned the staff levels - which has been discussed in the past .. to-do)
(And slot cost is always the same regardless of plane size.)
(btw. Try some other airport than the major hub.. My test airline at Toulouse France is paying about 170-200k per 7 day set of slots (total) at the home airport at "rush" hour)
Quote from: sami on August 16, 2012, 04:06:04 PM
What is impossible, a turboprop airline or what (kinda missed the point here)? If that's what you meant then you're wrong.... It has been tested and proved to work (apart from the airlines using the VERY small planes, 10 seaters etc), but people still fail to understand that, like in real life, the profit margins in regional traffic are extremely small, and also in AWS running such airline is harder than a larger longhaul fleet for example. (but that said, I still have not tuned the staff levels - which has been discussed in the past .. to-do)
(And slot cost is always the same regardless of plane size.)
(btw. Try some other airport than the major hub.. My test airline at Toulouse France is paying about 170k per 7 day set of slots at the home airport at "rush" hour, and CDG slots did not cost much more either....)
Hey sami,
I should of added (like I did earlier) that it's nearly impossible. What I'm trying to get across to everyone is that the system is unbalanced. I understand that it's much harder to run smaller aircraft than larger, but it's getting the the point (with all these new updates) that it's nearly impossible to do so. I find it quite a problem that you increase slot prices to reduce the amount of smaller aircraft flying into larger airport, and then not allow slots to be purchased without the cash without changing the personnel system. IRL as I'm sure your aware landing fee's and at some airports slot fees, are charged on the size/weight or the aircraft that's why IRL smaller aircraft are sometimes the better option than larger aircraft. It just seems to me that you are pricing the smaller aircraft out of the game, and it's kind of sad :(.
Quote from: NorgeFly on August 16, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
Not necessarily. There are independ regional airlines out there that only run regional aircraft and therefore are the back bone of the fleet. The airline I world for operate over 80 regional aircraft, most of which are turbo-props.
Yes but how many exist? Is there a reason the need that fleet type? Is there no jet competition? We all site examples but often they're outliers. Because UA flies a few unretired 752s across the atlantic, well then we all should have fleet sof them. The problem was the game worked this way in tht playerss favor.
Tps were then used to bust open frequency.
I re state that many peoples issues are due to 1.30 strats not working in 1.31
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 16, 2012, 04:17:17 PM
Yes but how many exist? Is there a reason the need that fleet type? Is there no jet competition? We all site examples but often they're outliers. Because UA flies a few unretired 752s across the atlantic, well then we all should have fleet sof them. The problem was the game worked this way in tht playerss favor.
Tps were then used to bust open frequency.
I re state that many peoples issues are due to 1.30 strats not working in 1.31
Loads swiftus, I can't put a figure on it but there are hundreds of airlines that exist with smaller aircraft operating on thin routes to destinations that require air travel. The need for turboprops in this climate are growing (e.g. ATR are currently designing a 90-seat tp). AA fly 757s transatlantic as well, and why not it's a great performer for EGCC-KFJK.
Perhaps slot costs should also be based on fleet aircraft size (medium, large, etc)? I flew from asheville to fargo through ohare about 6 weeks ago and even though ord is a big airport, we did not have a jetway for any of our 4 flights on erjs and crjs. Surely the tarmac gate is cheaper to use than one with a jetway and would help the little guys remain competitive.
Quote from: Pilot Oatmeal on August 16, 2012, 04:14:25 PM
landing fee's and at some airports slot fees, are charged on the size/weight or the aircraft that's why IRL smaller
Landing and navigation fees are and have always been MTOW relative, as per real life.
Runway slots are completely different thing in regards to those.
There is a reason airbus made the -380 despite it being slightly worse per pax in fuel consumption versus other planes on the market. This was because there was additional demand (possible revenue) where airports simply didn't have the space to handle more aircraft.
These airports demand increasing revenues to maintain and upgrade. There is no way that lhr would allow an airline to open its fifth route from EWR in a tech stopped a320. So, Sami has to protect this game from Narrowbodymogeddon. It has impacted the viability of a regional only airline, yes. More than it should, probably. But in the end it solves more issues.
It's not impossible to run an all turboprop airline. It's not even that tough. But if you want to do it out of AMS, ORD, wherever, slot costs will slow you significantly. Running an all turboprop airline out of those places is doable, but stupid. Running an all turboprop airline out of somewhere merely large isn't that tough. If you love turboprops, want an all-turboprop airline, pick an appropriate airport to do it from. No worries then.
Since we now have surprise, quicker gameworld, and since I'm already trying to run an airline against an existing competitor with limited logins https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,42333.0.html and muttering about turning that into a step-by-step guide to starting up as a beginner, that's what I'm doing in NAC. Smaller (still size 4 or 5) HQ, will start all turboprop, though I reserve the right to get bigger if I get bored, and will make it into a beginner guide. :)
It appears to me that that most if not all complaints about the viability of small TP aircraft and small Jets comes back to the one basic problem - the person complaining wants to operate small aircraft out of a large airport...they get dazzled into the aircraft operating cost vs Airport potential passenger numbers and throw common sense out the window.
Operate a small TP airline from Alice Springs, Cairns, etc and you are likely to be profitable, but try to operate the same fleet out of Sydney or Melbourne and you will get smashed.
Problem with common sense is that it is not so common.
Quote from: Kadachiman on August 17, 2012, 02:58:11 AM
It appears to me that that most if not all complaints about the viability of small TP aircraft and small Jets comes back to the one basic problem - the person complaining wants to operate small aircraft out of a large airport...they get dazzled into the aircraft operating cost vs Airport potential passenger numbers and throw common sense out the window.
Operate a small TP airline from Alice Springs, Cairns, etc and you are likely to be profitable, but try to operate the same fleet out of Sydney or Melbourne and you will get smashed.
Problem with common sense is that it is not so common.
hear hear!
look at Japan : everyone crowds into Haneda and Narita and end up paying mega-$$$ per slot: but run a small TP line out of a lesser airport there and you have 70+ local airports to fly to without going near HND/NRT, all with some level of traffic : Komatsu can viably support 25+ 50-seaters : and 70+ airports gives you plenty of new bases to expand into.
The game changes have made running small operations easier, not harder (and that's from comparing the same type of operation and location across dotm4 and mt7) : but only if you dont ignore the 3 most important things : location, location and.. er...location.
Quote from: sami on August 16, 2012, 04:06:04 PM
What is impossible, a turboprop airline or what (kinda missed the point here)? If that's what you meant then you're wrong.... It has been tested and proved to work (apart from the airlines using the VERY small planes, 10 seaters etc), but people still fail to understand that, like in real life, the profit margins in regional traffic are extremely small, and also in AWS running such airline is harder than a larger longhaul fleet for example. (but that said, I still have not tuned the staff levels - which has been discussed in the past .. to-do)
No, they previously were... I built up all but one of my airlines starting with ATR 42's and 72. But it is IMPOSSIBLE NOW.
I started 3-4 days ago. There were no jets available on the market. So I grabbed 2 ATR 72's. I put both on full schedules. I still had almost all the money that i started with. So I ordered 4 ATR 72's for delivery a months out. In the first month of operations, the airline went through over 3 million dollars in cash. By the time I got my first delivered ATR, I had no money to put it on routes because of this ABSOLUTELY STUPID change of yours. I now have 4 ATRS delivered and still not enough money for a single flight. You have made it impossible to operate anything other than a 737 or larger aircraft that can earn you enought just to pay for the next set of slots.
You cant get loans early, ok i can live with that. You previously increased slot prices, ok as well. Now you cant spend money to open routes to make more money, so you can build yourself out. So what is a person supposed to do? You can have one thing, but you cant have them all. All you have done is made it impossible for any new airline to grow at any rate especially if they are coming into the game after its already been established. It is absolutely ludacris that it costs me over one million dollars to open a single flight between pittsburgh and Chicago that only makes me at best $11,000 a day. It would take me 3 months to recover the cost of opening up just one route, it would take me a year to recover the costs of just putting one aircraft on a complete schedule.
You are two and three-quarters years into the game, and you still have airlines with over 200 aircraft in that time and airlines with almost 300 aircraft on order. Other Airlines are already in the 5 billion dollar value range as well. So what did making this change do? absoulte nothing but hurt the new/small airlines.
Quote from: sami on August 16, 2012, 04:06:04 PM
And slot cost is always the same regardless of plane size.
In here, but it sure as hell isnt in Real life.
Quote from: sami on August 16, 2012, 04:06:04 PM
btw. Try some other airport than the major hub.. My test airline at Toulouse France is paying about 170-200k per 7 day set of slots (total) at the home airport at "rush" hour
Im at pittsburgh. Hardly a large airport in game and i have to pay 250k for a single weekly slot... yup, thats realistic... not!
I pretty much wasted 5 credits on this game now...
Quote from: flightsimer on August 17, 2012, 11:22:13 PM
No, they previously were... I built up all but one of my airlines starting with ATR 42's and 72. But it is IMPOSSIBLE NOW.
It is not.
QuoteI started 3-4 days ago. There were no jets available on the market. So I grabbed 2 ATR 72's. I put both on full schedules. I still had almost all the money that i started with. So I ordered 4 ATR 72's for delivery a months out. In the first month of operations, the airline went through over 3 million dollars in cash. By the time I got my first delivered ATR, I had no money to put it on routes because of this ABSOLUTELY STUPID change of yours. I now have 4 ATRS delivered and still not enough money for a single flight. You have made it impossible to operate anything other than a 737 or larger aircraft that can earn you enought just to pay for the next set of slots.
2 ATRs + full schedules = about 2.5 million at most? 7.5 mill left over. 4 new ATRs = 5.2 mill, so still over 2 million left after that. How'd you burn through the missing 2 mill? Why didn't you order 2 ATRs instead of 4? Why are 2 of your first 3 routes to big airports with existing routes supplying 200% of demand?
QuoteYou cant get loans early, ok i can live with that. You previously increased slot prices, ok as well. Now you cant spend money to open routes to make more money, so you can build yourself out. So what is a person supposed to do?
Spend less cash on future orders. Pick smaller airports to fly your initial routes into. A set of ORD slots might cost you 400k, but a set of MDW slots is only 70k. Fly 3 times daily to Midway instead of ORD, and you save a million on setting up the routes, and instead of flying an 800 pax route with 2k supply, it's a 350 pax route with 500 supply. Blowing 10% of your startup cash because you insist on flying into the busiest airport you can, instead of the smaller airport next door with the more profitable route is silly.
QuoteYou are two and three-quarters years into the game, and you still have airlines with over 200 aircraft in that time and airlines with almost 300 aircraft on order. Other Airlines are already in the 5 billion dollar value range as well. So what did making this change do? absoulte nothing but hurt the new/small airlines. In here, but it sure as hell isnt in Real life.
The change happened after the gameworld started. All those airlines you mention grew so fast by going deep into negative cash buying slots.
QuoteIm at pittsburgh. Hardly a large airport in game and i have to pay 250k for a single weekly slot... yup, thats realistic... not!
I'm at Pittsburgh in the new challenge world. I'm flying turboprops. I spent almost 4 million to schedule my first 5 planes, and fuel is $800. I've got no intention of going bankrupt, even if it's supposedly impossible for me not to do so.
Why are 2 of your first 3 routes to big airports with existing routes supplying 200% of demand?
And here we are yet again with someone trying to fly TP's into a major hub and then complaining that TP"s can't be used profitably.
There would have been many routes available that would suit a once daily flight with no competition on them, yet you chose to set-up your initial routes on a route that already has 200% of demand supplied?
PS - yes I have tried a small regional airline using only TP's (30 seaters), it actually made money if you owned the planes, but it was boring gameplay.
Quote from: sami on July 20, 2012, 10:45:30 AM
AirwaySim is happy to announce an update package to the core engine of the simulation. This update consists mainly of a complete rewrite of the passenger distribution system (in other words the background magic that puts the virtual passengers to your virtual planes).
There are no changes or updates to the user interface this time but a lot has changed in the background. Parts of the update are also made with future in mind, when we start to think of additional functionality like passenger connectivity and even more dynamic passenger demand allocation.
All changes of this update affect only on game worlds that are started after this announcement. Current game worlds do not receive this update, as it would potentially make too big changes overnight and cause other problems. Do note that the game engine version number stays still the same (v.1.3) due to other reasons. This update package has been in testing for some time with our users and will be now deployed on the Modern Times #7 game world which is due to start in a few days (exact starting date will be posted in separate announcement).
Here are some things related to the update that users should consider when running their airlines:
- Passenger demand calculation (= how many passengers travelling from airport A to B) is technically updated to allow addition of new features in the future. The most notable change of this is that any demand changes do not happen overnight and suddenly, but any demand increase or decrease is gradual over several months.
- Passenger demand distribution (= how many passengers wish to board each flight on a certain route) is also rewritten almost completely. The focus of the update has been to for example make the distribution of passengers more dynamic and to make various flight variables more effective. For example flight pricing is a more effective tool than before.
- Route Image plays now a more important role than in the past. RI itself is still the same as before, growing from 0 to 100 over a period of time, but it's effect is greater when RI is low. Route Image measures practically the number of people who know about your route. If RI is 0 only about 10-20% of the potential overall demand knows of your route and this is the maximum you may expect to sell until your RI grows. For a game tip this means in essence that it is advisable to start either on high demand routes, or keep a low frequency (like 1 flight a day) until the RI grows. Another option is to use a smaller aircraft in the beginning, or just wait and pick up some losses at the beginning of each new route destination.
- Route related marketing campaigns are now more effective than before. It is advisable to use the route marketing when ever a route to a new destination is opened to get the Route Image to a higher level faster.
- Ticket price effect is also greater than before, and it is now also perfectly safe to increase the prices too, much more than in the past. Especially when there is no competition on a route you may safely increase the prices even +20-40% and still attract a large number of the demand to your aircraft. And other way around, decreasing your ticket prices will lead to increased overall passenger demand, and also have greater effect to your sales than in the past.
- Seat quality effect is also much more noticable than before, and on longer routes High Density seating is not recommended.
- Avoid using too small aircraft over too long routes. Cross-Atlantic routes on a B737 for example are frowned upon by the passengers - but may work if there is no competition. This again may be compensated by lowering the ticket prices for example, or by offering better seating quality. On shorter routes too an excessive frequency of flights does not have any meaningful effect if the route has competition.
- Please also remember to keep your flight schedules realistic; in other words it is a bad practise to make your flights depart at the same time to the same destination.
- There are also many other adjustments but these are the most important ones to keep in mind. You may read about the general route planning rules from the manual: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Open/#Basic
- In new game worlds the start up money is also increased compared to past. But a word of warning: Do not spend all your money on airplanes when you start. With the route image effect being more realistic now, you may not expect full bookings on your new routes until the Route Image grows. This means that you should be prepared to endure some losses during the first 2-3 months of operation.