Since the Concorde launched early enough in JA6 to make it playable, I am having a go at it, and trying to see if I can make it profitable.
I am thinking that JA7 will be the Concorde's best chance to shine, if BAC/Aerospatiale launch it early enough, because low JA fuel prices, speed bonus in the new game engine, and reliable production line should be as ideal a combination of circumstances as possible. But that is too long to wait for the speed bonus (and impossible to predict timeliness of launch), so I am giving it a shot in JA6.
So far, I have been able to achieve profitability on "prime" routes only, which have sufficient F and C demand, such as BOS-LHR, or BOS-DXB (with a techstop). The CASM on this plane type is outrageous, and it seems that Y pax don't pay enough to pull their weight. But it seems to be working okay on prime routes where I have full RI and there is sufficient F and C demand.
I have the Concordes flying seven-day schedules for maximum utilization.
Still, so far, I have not been able to make any leased Concordes profitable as a whole--the leasing cost wipes out the profits, even though PacAir has provided me with deeply discounted leases.
So, most of my Concordes are owned planes, and I think they are profitable, at least on an accounting basis--who knows how long it will take to make back my initial purchase price! But at least their A/C value (purchased with 6% discount, since full prepay is easy when the production line is not backlogged at all), so it's not a total loss of the purchase price as far as game metrics go. But the profits seem to be pretty small on owned planes even--about $110K a week is the highest I've managed so far, which I is less than a DC-8 or DC-10 would make flying the same route subsonically, due to the ability to carry more Y pax.
I don't find the very high fuel burn stat of the Conc to be a big problem in itself, since it flies a lot faster (thus reducing the difference in fuel burn, which is calculated by hour).
For example, the highly efficient (for the era) DC-8-62 with the JT3D-7 engine variant burns 8,620 kg/hr, while the Concorde burns 24,900 kg/hr.
But on BOS-LHR, the DC-8-62 burns $5,650 of fuel, while the Concorde burns $9,500. So it's less than double the fuel bill, even though the "per hour" burn is about triple, since it's flyinig for less hours. DC-8 flight time on this route is 7 hours and 10 minutes, while the Concorde flight time is 4 hours and 5 minutes. (However, the 3 hour turnaround time on the Concorde, for even an 8% turn, is a b*tch.)
So it seems the main disadvantage of the Conc is fuel burn per passenger, since you can't carry a truck load of Y pax like you can on a good subsonic plane.
So the difficulties I'm facing so far are:
(1) displacement of subsonic planes that could fly the Concorde's route more profitably, and
(2) the CONC is a runway pig, requiring 3,300m for full takeoff weight.
And, particular to my case, BOS is not a very good Concorde base. The important F and C demand to Europe is "ok" but not great, and the runway of only ~3,000m is not enough. BOS's runway length allows me to reach the UK and Ireland nonstop, but requires a techstop in St. John's to reach continental Europe. Of course, the return leg can still be flown nonstop. The runway requirement also makes techstops difficult. For example, from my SFO base, YFB is right under the great circle routing to Europe, but its 2,500m runway cannot support the Concorde at all, so I have to techstop in YYR or YQX, adding time, distance, and fuel burn to the trip.
Of course, I could take my CONCs to JFK and try them there, but (1) I would have to close a base to do so, and (2) I won't be able to experiment as carefully or methodically if I am also p***ing people off in JFK and making them try to BK me. It's enough of a challenge to not BK myself just flying these things. So, for now I will stick to my existing bases of BOS, SFO, DEN, and GUM. If possible, I will try to make a round-the-world Concorde routing.
Any advice/tips/questions welcome.
Great stuff, very interesting reading. Keep the commentary going.
Just goes to show, with no "magic carpet", Concorde shows its true weakness.
Just a thought: Have you tried HD-Y? LF wont look good but if you sell more seats at a cheaper price, that could raise more revenue?
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on September 04, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Just a thought: Have you tried HD-Y? LF wont look good but if you sell more seats at a cheaper price, that could raise more revenue?
Talentz
Hmm. Pax in the old game engine don't care about price, though, so I can't improve profit by lowering the price. Would you really try HD Y on intercontinental flights?
If I use 4 F and 30 C, the Y cabin can be 44 standard Y, or 52 HD Y, so it adds 8 seats.
Yep. I've tried just about every configuation possible on LH. Even HD- F/C/Y on ULH (9000+nm). Not that it worked. LF drops the further you go out... but with the new changes.. maybe?
But your BOS-LHR could be within useable range of HD-Y, heavly discounted.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on September 04, 2012, 06:55:41 AM
Pax in the old game engine don't care about price, though, so I can't improve profit by lowering the price. Would you really try HD Y on intercontinental flights?
The new engine has improved the calculation (as Alexgv
corrected me in another thread ;)). Guess we can't test that effect on the JA game :/
~~ I will say I am figuring out some of the changes in new engine. Against a pretty good test subject I will add. The results are pretty cool. Somethings that were generally thought of as useless, have some more usefulness now. Not sure if Sami was going for this, but compared to the older game engines, its a nice improvement.
Talentz
I've tried out an HD Y config as well as a "magic carpet" F/C config. It seems that neither is very effective. Although they make enough to break even or profit on a per-flight basis, they probably won't cover the overhead. The trouble is that with HD Y, I can rarely sell more seats than I would sell on standard Y. When I leave the F and C cabins as they are but change Y to HD, I usually sell the same ~40 Y seats that would also fit in standard config, rather than the max 52 Y in the HD config.
And with magic carpet, I can't fill the extra F and C cabins. I sell about the same F and C seats as if I was carrying a Y cabin (sometimes a little more, but sometimes a little less), and the loss of the Y cabin lowers the profits a lot. There doesn't seem to be a harsh magic carpet penalty however (i.e., it doesn't seem to be lowering the F and C loads below what they would be with a Y cabin onboard, at least not by enough that I can confirm that it's happening systematically and not just a random fluctuation.
It's possible that I could make magic carpet work on a route with a lot of F and C demand, and little/no competition, but such routes are hard to find in Jet Age with the general low demand.
The first two pictures below are with HD Y; the next two are magic carpet.
So far, the most profitable configuration I can find is around F4/C33/Y40, on routes where I can fill the whole C cabin (or slightly less C, and more Y, on less-premium routes).
With the old Magic carpets allowed I used to run them from LHR in 7-day schedules to JFK, LAX, and Asia, in all HD 0/96/3 or 0/88/6. That worked well, and made a profit of 500k-1M/week above leasing fees (1M/mth).
Apparently I needed to cancel the CONC services, as slots (back then still "only" 100%) were needed, and a 747 could just carry 3x the passengers on the route with the same fuel burn (distance wise, not per hour).
Good luck with your experiment, mate. I'd be happy to see the CONC still alive in the new engine :)
cheers,
Jona L.
I'm now trying the Concorde on GUM-NRT. Since NRT has just opened, this route has good premium demand, and no competition. And the Concorde is flying it profitably.. but not as profitably as my three-cabin 727 also flying the route.
The Concorde flying twice daily GUM-NRT is now my most profitable Concorde.
But its profits are about comparable to a 727-100's profits, and are less than the profits of the 727-200 Adv. that I also have flying the same GUM-NRT route twice daily. Again it's because the 722 Adv can carry more Y to increase its profits.
But, GUM-NRT is only about 2 h 40 minutes when flown on a Concorde, so I will try HD seating (in all 3 cabins) and see if that improves the profits.
A commemorative postcard from our Guam base.
Well, it seems that HD seating works on GUM-NRT.
Load factors are down a little bit, but total seat sales and profits are up after the reconfiguration!
The Concorde flying GUM-NRT is now my most profitable one in the system, earning $259,000/week.
More than any of the 727-100s in the GUM base... And almost as much as the 727-200 Adv. which is flying the same GUM-NRT route. ;)
It seems that the CONC has an advantage over the 727-100 on a route of this length because the CONC's higher speed brings the flight time down within the range that passengers will tolerate HD seats for, and in HD configuration, the CONC carries more pax than a 721.
The larger 722A, however, still makes more than the Concorde, primarily because of the ability to fill up with more Y pax.
I've opened a transpacific Concorde service, SFO-NRT via CDB.
This one will be tough, however, as a competitor on the NRT side has just decided that he wants to flood the route with tons of DC-10s.
The DC-10s fly non-stop. Even with the tech stop, however, my Concorde cuts about 3 hours off the trip. However, I don't think the virtual passengers understand the concept of time in this game engine. The manual says that passengers prefer shorter flights, but it seems that half the things stated in the model are not modeled yet.
I have also put on a DC-10 of my own. I am not sure whether I should be adding my own DC-10s to discourage him from flooding further, or if I should stick to just 1 CONC flight daily, and try to skim the premium pax off the top of this route, and let the DC-10 guy fly the Y pax that I can't carry anyway.
If passengers don't prefer fast flights, however, I won't be able to sweep the premium pax onto my flight, and instead, my Concorde will get frequency-bombed by the DC-10s.
So with no competition on routes, HD seating on LH routes are a viable option?... Given a high enough CI ;)
I will add that HD seating does not work over 5000nm. :)
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on September 07, 2012, 07:22:30 AM
So with no competition on routes, HD seating on LH routes are a viable option?... Given a high enough CI ;)
I will add that HD seating does not work over 5000nm. :)
Talentz
I'm only using HD seating on NRT-GUM, which is not really LH, especially from a pax comfort perspective based on how fast as the Concorde flies it (about 2 h 40 minutes).
Jona says he used HD seats LH, but it sounds like that was in an earlier version of the game engine. I am not sure whether the pax were smart enough in that version to to tell the difference between HD and premium seats?
They were, just not till you reached the 5000nm mark. After that they turned swiftus real fast and would start rioting.
I was hinting towards the SFO-NRT route but I saw my mistake in that you had just started the route.
But I am looking forward to your results and the difference in profit from CONC vs 10 (yours of course)
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on September 07, 2012, 07:33:25 AM
They were, just not till you reached the 5000nm mark. After that they turned swiftus real fast and would start rioting.
I was hinting towards the SFO-NRT route but I saw my mistake in that you had just started the route.
But I am looking forward to your results and the difference in profit from CONC vs 10 (yours of course)
Talentz
Oh, the SFO-NRT route uses standard seating, not HD, due to the length.
However, if I fly Conc on that route vs. a competitor's DC-10 spam, even if I were to achieve full loads of premium pax the CONC, on the passenger pie chart it would still look bad, because my pie slice overall would be tiny due to not carrying tons of Y pax like the DC-10 can.
Quote from: Talentz on September 07, 2012, 07:33:25 AM
They were, just not till you reached the 5000nm mark. After that they turned swiftus real fast and would start rioting.
What's goin on here? Why am I involved?
Hmm? Oh..
Bleh.. I can't find that thread you were comparing flying narrowbodies on LH routes to sailing in the Niña/Pinta/Santa María.
But I didn't spend much time trying to look for it either.
Hows life btw? :)
Talentz
This. thread. is. AWESOME!!!
Congratulations on your success! I've never gone near those poisonous jets. Anyway, how did the SFO-NRT route do?
Quote from: Seattle on September 11, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
This. thread. is. AWESOME!!!
Congratulations on your success! I've never gone near those poisonous jets. Anyway, how did the SFO-NRT route do?
Thanks!
Profitability has been achieved on SFO-NRT, but only by very narrow margins. I am still playing with the seat configurations on this route to see how to optimize it. It does not help that fuel spiked to its highest-ever prices in JA6 in the middle of my experiment.
But the player who was flooding the route with DC-10s seems to have backed down, which does help. I'm not sure if that's permanent or temporary. To protect my Concorde from further route invasions, I've put on two of my own DC-10s on the route, configured in a "subsonic assist" configuration, with smaller F and C cabins (since the CONC has large ones) and an expanded Y cabin (to carry all the Y pax that can't fit into the CONC's small Y cabin). I hope this will help to make the demand/supply graphs look less "juicy" to potential competitors.
The timetable also shows the speed advantage of the Concorde. Although the Concorde leaves an hour later than my second DC10 departure, and the Concorde takes a 2-hour tech stop in CDB (vs. the DC-10 flying non-stop), it still lands 1 h 45 min before the DC-10 that left SFO before it. I am hoping that this provides a measurable speed bonus (in the eyes of the passengers) in JA7, even though it seems that the pax in JA6 can't tell the difference between flight times or even flight prices, and all they care about is frequency.
A passenger aboard the (game) world's first transpacific Concorde service took these snapshots during our fuel stop, at the scenic Cold Bay airport in Alaska.
(Many thanks to E.G. for the graphic design!)
Seems legit :laugh:
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on September 05, 2012, 06:47:53 AM
I've tried out an HD Y config as well as a "magic carpet" F/C config. It seems that neither is very effective. Although they make enough to break even or profit on a per-flight basis, they probably won't cover the overhead. The trouble is that with HD Y, I can rarely sell more seats than I would sell on standard Y. When I leave the F and C cabins as they are but change Y to HD, I usually sell the same ~40 Y seats that would also fit in standard config, rather than the max 52 Y in the HD config.
And with magic carpet, I can't fill the extra F and C cabins. I sell about the same F and C seats as if I was carrying a Y cabin (sometimes a little more, but sometimes a little less), and the loss of the Y cabin lowers the profits a lot. There doesn't seem to be a harsh magic carpet penalty however (i.e., it doesn't seem to be lowering the F and C loads below what they would be with a Y cabin onboard), at least not by enough that I can confirm that it's happening systematically and not just a random fluctuation.
It's possible that I could make magic carpet work on a route with a lot of F and C demand, and little/no competition, but such routes are hard to find in Jet Age with the general low demand.
The first two pictures below are with HD Y; the next two are magic carpet.
So far, the most profitable configuration I can find is around F4/C33/Y40, on routes where I can fill the whole C cabin (or slightly less C, and more Y, on less-premium routes).
Well in real life only BA was able to run the concorde profitably and only after they considerably raised prices up to what the public perceived it should of costed anyway. So it is not unrealistic that profits are hard to make.