AirwaySim

Hi All,

I am not able to understand the economics and the business model for running routes with leased used Airbus A350. In my humble opinion, similar problem will be also with this aircraft leased from the new market.

Anybody can help to understand?

My example - I have a route, suitable for the capacity and the range for A350 (4,659 nm, avg.demand 280 pax). On these route, I operate two A350s (3 and 4 flights every week correspondingly).

I was sure that this setting would be enough for the Beginner's World.
Now, I am not able to cover costs having 70% - 80% load on the route, I started to calculate the business model for this route:
280 pax * 0.7 = 196 pax in average
196 * $650 USD in average per pax = $127,400 (one direction) * 2 = $254,800 (both directions)
2,548,000 * 11 (or * 10) flights per month = $2,802,800

This amount does not cover the lease price for the aircraft ($3.1M per month).
Either, the aircraft's prices is not balanced well in the game or it is too much overpriced...

Thank you for your advises.

Best regards,
AlexA

You are not wisely utilizing your plane.

Zobelle is right, but little short in his answer.

Thing wrong number one : leasing a brand new plane. Especially a model as expensive as the A350. It just usually does not work. Even when correctly used.

Thing wrong number two : your scheduling does not use properly your frames. I let you refer yourself to my scheduling tutorial (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,71633.0.html), as well as my costs analysis tutorial (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,72381.0.html). Read all that, as well as the excellent answers one can find deeper in those threads, and you"ll have a better idea of what works, and what does not.

Thank you very much for your answers.
I am reading your tutorials and will use your advises. Thanks again.

280pax... 4659nm... sounds like a perfect route for a B764 or an A333. Both of which are available on the used market in your GW and considerably cheaper than an A350

Good idea, but probably not for 21st century.
Boeing 767-400ER variant that exists in this GW does not make it in the reality. I don't like to use airliners that does not exist. The development of B767 is quite old and considered inefficient these days. Airbus A330-300 might be an option, but only if NEO variant would be used, which is comparable to A350.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on March 10, 2019, 05:29:15 PM
Zobelle is right, but little short in his answer.

Thing wrong number one : leasing a brand new plane. Especially a model as expensive as the A350. It just usually does not work. Even when correctly used.

Thing wrong number two : your scheduling does not use properly your frames. I let you refer yourself to my scheduling tutorial (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,71633.0.html), as well as my costs analysis tutorial (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,72381.0.html). Read all that, as well as the excellent answers one can find deeper in those threads, and you"ll have a better idea of what works, and what does not.

Dear gazzz0x2z,

I am studying your scheduling tutorial. It is very helful. Thank you. While reading, I came over one question about the maintenance - I am still a bit in doubt regarding A-Check and B-Check scheduling.
1. Should I leave turnaround time before the A-Check? Let's say "yes", because of passangers unload or probably aircraft preparations for the check itself. I am not sure, if the game calculates this time, or not.
2. Should I leave turnaround time after the A-Check? If "yes", then for what purpose? The airplance must come ready after the check, right?
3. Similar questions about B-check, but then I saw your schedule and paid attention that in the example you don't schedule A- and B- check always overlapping. Why? What can be a reason for such scheduling?

Can you help me to understand?
Your advises are highly appreciated.

Best regards,
AlexA

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 15, 2019, 09:22:18 AM
Good idea, but probably not for 21st century.
Boeing 767-400ER variant that exists in this GW does not make it in the reality. I don't like to use airliners that does not exist. The development of B767 is quite old and considered inefficient these days. Airbus A330-300 might be an option, but only if NEO variant would be used, which is comparable to A350.

Sorry to say, but you're essentially wrong.
AWS is a game that tends to mimic reality, but doesn't replicate reality. Here are 2 opposite examples.
Example 1: you can't use the DC-3 past 1960 in AWS (because of its economics), while it's still in service today (even if marginally)
Example 2: you can fly the Vickers Viscount until the early 90s in AWS without a problem. Won't be ultra efficient from the 80s on, sure, but still ok and saves you at least one renewal, if not 2.

If you don't mentally allow these discrepancies to the reality, then you'll have some trouble be effective in your playing.

Edit: for these particular examples: in AWS, the 767 is amongst the most efficient LH airplane, and the 400ER has the lowest cost/seat. The aging design will be pictured in-game by higher maintenance costs as time goes by (so the 767 becomes less and less efficient over time), but that doesn't prevent this fleet type to be pertinent until game end.
The A330 has the NEO variant in the game, but even the classic -200 can be used till game end. Again, not the most efficient, but still completely ok.

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 15, 2019, 09:35:46 AM
1. Should I leave turnaround time before the A-Check? Let's say "yes", because of passangers unload or probably aircraft preparations for the check itself. I am not sure, if the game calculates this time, or not.
2. Should I leave turnaround time after the A-Check? If "yes", then for what purpose? The airplance must come ready after the check, right?
3. Similar questions about B-check, but then I saw your schedule and paid attention that in the example you don't schedule A- and B- check always overlapping. Why? What can be a reason for such scheduling?

1°) Yes, leave the TaT before the A check.
2°) No, you can taxi the minute the A check finishes.
3°) Usually, A and B overlap perfectly. However, sometimes, you can set the B with an overlap on only your less efficient route of that particular schedule (when using 7-Day) while the one located right after the A is a real cash cow. For this reason, you prefer to "lose" the route that brings you less money than the one that brings you a full stash of cash.

there's generally 2 turnaround times used for a plane. For day to day scheduling most people aim for 1% delays. So on a 757 this is 1hr 55 minutes. There's then the minimum turnaround time, which is the absolute minimum allowed by the game. For the 757 this is 70 minutes. You'll normally schedule the maintenance A check to go round after the minimum TaT. The next flight can departure exactly five hours after the maintenance A check starts, there's no TaT after maintenance.

Example,

757 lands from Acapulco at                      1200
70 minutes minimum, maintenance starts 1310
5 hours maintenance                               1810
flight departs to Barabdos                        1810

S

Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 15, 2019, 09:45:30 AM
1°) Yes, leave the TaT before the A check.

Leave the minimal TaT before A-Check. For example, I'm playing with S2000s currently, with most my A-checks from 0020 to 0520. My first flight of the week takes of at 0520, and my last flight of the week lands at 2355. which means 25 minutes. The minimum TaT of S20000 is 25 minutes. All my other TaTs of the week are 40/45 minutes.

For the rest, I don't think I need to answer, you did it perfectly.

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 15, 2019, 09:22:18 AM
Good idea, but probably not for 21st century.
Boeing 767-400ER variant that exists in this GW does not make it in the reality. I don't like to use airliners that does not exist. The development of B767 is quite old and considered inefficient these days. Airbus A330-300 might be an option, but only if NEO variant would be used, which is comparable to A350.

I'll pile up with Tha_Ape, there. There are some potential planes that help a lot. In some circumstances, Fairchild-Dornier 928 are really an excellent choice(even though in a majority of cases, the Ejet will be superior). in many circumstances, the 764 ikicks ass, until the advent of the 788.

I've mentored a few dozens of players, and those who failed to thrive in the game where either completely inept(which you do not sound to be) or were/are blinded with their real world mental image. AWS being a simulation, to play it as its best, you have to play it as it is. It's true also for demand. for example, IRL, BVA-PIK makes no sense to fly. OTOH, in AWS, it's rather a nice destination. If you block your mind to what you know of the real world, you won't be able to play efficiently AWS. AWS is its own reality, which one has to assess as it is.

Said otherwise, B764 is a real thing in AWS, and you'd better take it into account, because if you don't, your opponents will. If you can fill it on a 3000-5000NM route, it's really a good, good, good plane. The best until the even better B788 arrives.

Quote from: groundbum2 on March 15, 2019, 09:59:21 AM
there's generally 2 turnaround times used for a plane. For day to day scheduling most people aim for 1% delays. So on a 757 this is 1hr 55 minutes. There's then the minimum turnaround time, which is the absolute minimum allowed by the game. For the 757 this is 70 minutes. You'll normally schedule the maintenance A check to go round after the minimum TaT. The next flight can departure exactly five hours after the maintenance A check starts, there's no TaT after maintenance.

Example,

757 lands from Acapulco at                      1200
70 minutes minimum, maintenance starts 1310
5 hours maintenance                               1810
flight departs to Barabdos                        1810

S

This approach may significantly improve my schedule. I will need to re-work the schedule for some of my airplanes. Beforehand I used tunraround time also after maintenance.
Thank you.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on March 15, 2019, 01:56:09 PM
Leave the minimal TaT before A-Check. For example, I'm playing with S2000s currently, with most my A-checks from 0020 to 0520. My first flight of the week takes of at 0520, and my last flight of the week lands at 2355. which means 25 minutes. The minimum TaT of S20000 is 25 minutes. All my other TaTs of the week are 40/45 minutes.

For the rest, I don't think I need to answer, you did it perfectly.

Thank you.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on March 15, 2019, 01:56:09 PM
I'll pile up with Tha_Ape, there. There are some potential planes that help a lot. In some circumstances, Fairchild-Dornier 928 are really an excellent choice(even though in a majority of cases, the Ejet will be superior). in many circumstances, the 764 ikicks ass, until the advent of the 788.

I've mentored a few dozens of players, and those who failed to thrive in the game where either completely inept(which you do not sound to be) or were/are blinded with their real world mental image. AWS being a simulation, to play it as its best, you have to play it as it is. It's true also for demand. for example, IRL, BVA-PIK makes no sense to fly. OTOH, in AWS, it's rather a nice destination. If you block your mind to what you know of the real world, you won't be able to play efficiently AWS. AWS is its own reality, which one has to assess as it is.

Said otherwise, B764 is a real thing in AWS, and you'd better take it into account, because if you don't, your opponents will. If you can fill it on a 3000-5000NM route, it's really a good, good, good plane. The best until the even better B788 arrives.

This is exactly the point.
Once I have a better choice, such as Airbus A350-800/900/1000, then why I would try B767-400ER?
In my humble opinion, A350 is better alternative for B767, as well as B787 is an alternative option, even though the price of lease is significantly higher for both of these planes.

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 16, 2019, 08:41:27 AM
Thank you.

This is exactly the point.
Once I have a better choice, such as Airbus A350-800/900/1000, then why I would try B767-400ER?
In my humble opinion, A350 is better alternative for B767, as well as B787 is an alternative option, even though the price of lease is significantly higher for both of these planes.

Because paying a 3.5m monthly lease is suicide. You don't lease end-game models as they are far too overinflated to actually be cash flow positive. For the 787/350, you own them to turn a profit. Which you correct deduce in your OP. Thus, look for cheaper alternatives (777/767/333) of which, the 764ER is decent against a MTOW limited 772/77E or early A333.

Talentz

And Talentz is right here.

In 2010 or 2020, you should be able to lease a 767-400ER for just a tiny fraction of the cost of the lease of an A350. Thus, even if the A350 or 787 is more efficient in absolute, you'll still make way more money with the 767 (if you ever manage to make some money with the A350, that is).

This is the reasoning behind what Gazzz, Talentz and I are saying.

Your thinking is right, however it covers only half of the matter. If you take the other half into account, the A350 or 787 becomes a burden while the 767 shines.

Quote from: Talentz on March 16, 2019, 09:51:25 AM
Because paying a 3.5m monthly lease is suicide. You don't lease end-game models as they are far too overinflated to actually be cash flow positive. For the 787/350, you own them to turn a profit. Which you correct deduce in your OP. Thus, look for cheaper alternatives (777/767/333) of which, the 764ER is decent against a MTOW limited 772/77E or early A333.

Talentz

This looks reasonable. Avoid leasing end-game model, as their return on investment way longer and will require quite significant time to ramp-up (especially, when I was using them on the new route, which I just started - 0 image)... I should try this way of thinking...

another part of playing AWS well, is to NOT chase every route possible. There's always the routes which are fat and juicy and unserved and gagging for shiny metal, your shiny metal, to be dropping in each day to pick up the grateful crowds. But usually you don't want these routes driving your fleet decisions by getting highly expensive metal. It's usually best to compromise and get a decent fleet that can serve 90% of your destinations, and forget the 10% that are just a few 100s of NMs beyond your reach. Mediocre wins on fleet choices, not vanity destinations. It's why most big players don't do ULH, or at least not until they've built their airline and add some ULH out or boredom and yes vanity!

S

Even ratty old 762 would be preferable for these types of routes and leases eternally cheaper than 350's

In the same thinking, another aspect to take into account is renewals.

Ideally, you'd always want the shiniest, youngest fleet. But:
1°) a renewal is expensive (buying all the frames and the time it takes to gather them
2°) AWS gives a penalty when you operate more than 3 fleets

Thus, sometimes you just skip a potentially better fleet.
Example:
737 Jurassic, Classic and NG/MAX are 3 different fleet types. But the Jurassic is a very solid plane, that can make it well into the 90s.
Thus, sometimes one will go directly from Jurassic to NG.
Sure, you'd lose efficiency (+ range=new routes) during ~15 years, but you'll save so much by not having this extra renewal that in the end you might even do better this way.

Perhaps Jurassic and Classic should be rolled into a single type to help...yknow, since NG and MAX are..

Quote from: groundbum2 on March 16, 2019, 10:41:54 AM
another part of playing AWS well, is to NOT chase every route possible. There's always the routes which are fat and juicy and unserved and gagging for shiny metal, your shiny metal, to be dropping in each day to pick up the grateful crowds. But usually you don't want these routes driving your fleet decisions by getting highly expensive metal. It's usually best to compromise and get a decent fleet that can serve 90% of your destinations, and forget the 10% that are just a few 100s of NMs beyond your reach. Mediocre wins on fleet choices, not vanity destinations. It's why most big players don't do ULH, or at least not until they've built their airline and add some ULH out or boredom and yes vanity!

S

Dear groundbum2,

I would be happy to try once ultra-long-haul flight. It looks interesting adventure. I am afraid that it is not economical at all. I did not try this yet, but somehow my feeling is that it would take enormous time and investment to develop the route and then the profit on such ruote is questionable...

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 16, 2019, 12:31:40 PM
Dear groundbum2,

I would be happy to try once ultra-long-haul flight. It looks interesting adventure. I am afraid that it is not economical at all. I did not try this yet, but somehow my feeling is that it would take enormous time and investment to develop the route and then the profit on such ruote is questionable...

It's overrated. Trust me.

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 16, 2019, 12:31:40 PM
Dear groundbum2,

I would be happy to try once ultra-long-haul flight. It looks interesting adventure. I am afraid that it is not economical at all. I did not try this yet, but somehow my feeling is that it would take enormous time and investment to develop the route and then the profit on such ruote is questionable...

As a beginning player I was always trying to chase long 8000nm routes with 500 demand, such as IAD-Jakarta. It's suicide. The foundation of most of my airlines (which always start with 737/MD90 medium haul) are routes under 1500nm which I have little competition on and around ~400-500 demand. For example, my Toronto based airline has 737 cash cows to Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton. Basing in Ontario I have routes to Sacramento and Portland that I fill with 737s that make handsome sums of cash.

When you advance in the game, say after 20 or so narrowbody Planes, you can try long haul by acquiring 2-4 used widebodies. Since I always base in North America this usually means I go for London Gatwick first. There is a lot more demand to the British Isles than you might think. For example, last BW1 I was flying 5 777s a day to Manchester with no competition. These are the kind of routes- to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, London Stansted/Luton- that will become the backbone of a North American Airline's long haul route network.

After the high demand (500+) longhaul routes are secured, you can try playing routes with 250-400 demand. These are tricky, as is any longhaul, because LFs will be low and you will lose massive sums of money in the beginning. Use marketing, and the LFs will quickly increase to around 50% and you'll begin to break even. Aim for a weekly profit of $1M+ on any widebody.

ULH to Asia is probably overrated, ESPECIALLY when leasing planes. I tried to lease 3 year old 777-200LRs to fly from Toronto to Bangkok and Singapore last game- the LFs will be amazing, as will the route profits, but the $2.7-3M leasing cost will kill you. I'd only recommend doing these routes over 6000nm with owned planes. And be sure to absolutely use 7 day on Asian routes. Your experience may be different if you're flying to Japan from North America, in which you may be able to lease at first.

As for fleet choices, reality doesn't line up with AWS. The MD90, which was essentially a failure that made only 116 units, is still in production in 2019 in GW3, with regular orders by large airlines of 40-50 units. Again, from the surface this seems like a terrible choice since the MD90 is hilariously inefficient compared to the MAX and neo. Much like the A350 vs 767 it comes down to purchase or leasing price. The MD90 is priced at ~72M, but a MAX or neo can easily add up to twice as much. You can expand much quicker using these older, cheaper fleets and make higher profits.

The 767, while dated nowadays, is still an efficient airplane. It is simply much easier to fill a 767 than a 777 on transatlantic routes with less than 400 demand. The 767 is adept at routes such as Toronto to Dublin or Milan, where a larger plane would struggle to break even. Take a look at airlines that use the 767 nowadays- Delta is still a huge operator because it can operate "skinnier" routes such as Cincinnati to Paris, Detroit to Rome, and Salt Lake to Honolulu that a 777 or A330 can't fill.

Hope you appreciate my advice, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask!
rntair

Quote from: Zobelle on March 16, 2019, 12:59:27 PM
It's overrated. Trust me.

I believe this, it conforms to my feelings... :)

Quote from: rntair on March 17, 2019, 02:56:01 PM
As a beginning player I was always trying to chase long 8000nm routes with 500 demand, such as IAD-Jakarta. It's suicide. The foundation of most of my airlines (which always start with 737/MD90 medium haul) are routes under 1500nm which I have little competition on and around ~400-500 demand. For example, my Toronto based airline has 737 cash cows to Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton. Basing in Ontario I have routes to Sacramento and Portland that I fill with 737s that make handsome sums of cash.

When you advance in the game, say after 20 or so narrowbody Planes, you can try long haul by acquiring 2-4 used widebodies. Since I always base in North America this usually means I go for London Gatwick first. There is a lot more demand to the British Isles than you might think. For example, last BW1 I was flying 5 777s a day to Manchester with no competition. These are the kind of routes- to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, London Stansted/Luton- that will become the backbone of a North American Airline's long haul route network.

After the high demand (500+) longhaul routes are secured, you can try playing routes with 250-400 demand. These are tricky, as is any longhaul, because LFs will be low and you will lose massive sums of money in the beginning. Use marketing, and the LFs will quickly increase to around 50% and you'll begin to break even. Aim for a weekly profit of $1M+ on any widebody.

ULH to Asia is probably overrated, ESPECIALLY when leasing planes. I tried to lease 3 year old 777-200LRs to fly from Toronto to Bangkok and Singapore last game- the LFs will be amazing, as will the route profits, but the $2.7-3M leasing cost will kill you. I'd only recommend doing these routes over 6000nm with owned planes. And be sure to absolutely use 7 day on Asian routes. Your experience may be different if you're flying to Japan from North America, in which you may be able to lease at first.

As for fleet choices, reality doesn't line up with AWS. The MD90, which was essentially a failure that made only 116 units, is still in production in 2019 in GW3, with regular orders by large airlines of 40-50 units. Again, from the surface this seems like a terrible choice since the MD90 is hilariously inefficient compared to the MAX and neo. Much like the A350 vs 767 it comes down to purchase or leasing price. The MD90 is priced at ~72M, but a MAX or neo can easily add up to twice as much. You can expand much quicker using these older, cheaper fleets and make higher profits.

The 767, while dated nowadays, is still an efficient airplane. It is simply much easier to fill a 767 than a 777 on transatlantic routes with less than 400 demand. The 767 is adept at routes such as Toronto to Dublin or Milan, where a larger plane would struggle to break even. Take a look at airlines that use the 767 nowadays- Delta is still a huge operator because it can operate "skinnier" routes such as Cincinnati to Paris, Detroit to Rome, and Salt Lake to Honolulu that a 777 or A330 can't fill.

Hope you appreciate my advice, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask!
rntair

Your view is interesting. In my humble opinion it just means that AWS does not implement what really happens, i.e. too small amount of crashes probably and AWS implements strategic of keeping airplanes, if there are active orders. Aircraft manufactures would stop production of old generations, after the new one has been revealed and put into the production, disregarding the orders queue.

It is probably means that AWS just relies on kind of "good will" of players...

Quote from: sasha2003_new on March 18, 2019, 04:51:42 PM
Your view is interesting. In my humble opinion it just means that AWS does not implement what really happens, i.e. too small amount of crashes probably and AWS implements strategic of keeping airplanes, if there are active orders. Aircraft manufactures would stop production of old generations, after the new one has been revealed and put into the production, disregarding the orders queue.

It is probably means that AWS just relies on kind of "good will" of players...

Effectively, AWS doesn't implement "what really happens". It simply can't, for various reasons.

About the crashes, it has been discussed a lot, and still is (even though it's quite calm lately). The decision not to implement them relies on the fact that it's a game. Yes, a simulator, but also a game. Let's say we play poker and suddenly I change your full house with a pair, what would you say? Same position here. I personally believe crashes could be implemented in the game, but their precise effects and triggers needs to be be discussed without passion.

And prod line now close. Certainly not like irl, but at least they close, no matter what the players do.

In order to make the game playable, one has to make concessions to the reality:
- demand is much higher than irl because you need to feed the players. With RL demand, a GW's capacity would be 20-30%
- you can't replicate the real unpopularity of said model because maybe the flaws were industrials, and not in the design. Thus is said a/c is efficient, it will be played
And so on and so forth...

And actually, I really like the possibility to diverge slightly from reality. Because I don't want to replicate reality, I want to build my own. Repeating reality would just be boring as hell.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 18, 2019, 05:12:39 PM
Because I don't want to replicate reality, I want to build my own. Repeating reality would just be boring as hell.

This, a thousand times this.

Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 18, 2019, 05:12:39 PM
(.../...)
And actually, I really like the possibility to diverge slightly from reality. Because I don't want to replicate reality, I want to build my own. Repeating reality would just be boring as hell.

Spamming USofA with 700+ Antonov 148s was a huge pleasure, I have to say. Impossible in the real world(Antonov sadly experiences a lot of production problems those days).

Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 18, 2019, 05:12:39 PM
And prod line now close. Certainly not like irl, but at least they close, no matter what the players do.

Really? Even if there are continuing orders? I must have missed that change but I'm happy to be corrected.

The three-fleet "rule" is also a big reason older fleets continue to be ordered for longer. Towards the end of the game it simply doesn't make sense to move to newer types that are not compatible. The CS300 is a prime example.  MD-90 has become a lot more popular in this game since it became common with the B717.  It's now possible to run a mixed fleet on MD-90/717 from the early 90s until the end of the game. This wouldn't happen in reality. Real-world operators of these types would either go all A320/737 or a mix of the two or add CS300s as well. Can you image if somebody said to Delta Airlines "Sorry, you can only have three distinct fleet types"? This rule is really ruining to game for me at the moment - it's becoming boring and I'm considering leaving all the long game words after about 2020 - the last 15 years are a waste of time. I don't even believe it has the desired effect of protecting the smaller airlines either.  Anyway, that's somewhat off-topic and an argument for another place.

Quote from: knobbygb on April 11, 2019, 08:11:24 AM
(.../...). I don't even believe it has the desired effect of protecting the smaller airlines either.

It protects airlines with smaller airframes, not smaller airlines. Below 1000NM, with A148s or MRJs, I'm gonna shred your 717s into sheesh-kebab. But on longer lines, you're gonna make so much money that you won't even notice I do exist. Even though I'm costing you a lot of money on SH.

But nope, smaller airlines leasing brand new A320s are dead from day one, whatever the commonality rules. If your point is that players with less game awareness don't have more survival chances with the comm system, I totally agree with you. I just want to point out that it's not the point of that rule. The point is that it does force you to make interesting choices. In current GW3, I fully bypassed larges. I'm spamming MAD with S2000s, and my market share is growing at a snail pace. But that's a choice I had to make, I could not just have every plane the industry flies. It would have been too easy. It's more interesting when it's hard, and when you have to make painful choices.

IIRC, it closes 25 years after real life closure. So you can still play the MD-90 till game end. Production ended in 2000, that makes 2025. So for your expansion in 2025-2035, you sure have to make calculations beforehand, but otherwise everything's fine.

Some models might be impacted (I mean seriously impacted), but probably not many (mostly models that weren't successful IRL and had an early closure of prod line, but are very popular in the game).

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on April 11, 2019, 08:19:58 AM
I'm gonna shred your 717s into sheesh-kebab.

Seekh Kebab.. not being pedantic, its just one of my favourite dishes :)

Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 11, 2019, 08:35:06 AM
IIRC, it closes 25 years after real life closure. So you can still play the MD-90 till game end. Production ended in 2000, that makes 2025. So for your expansion in 2025-2035, you sure have to make calculations beforehand, but otherwise everything's fine.

Some models might be impacted (I mean seriously impacted), but probably not many (mostly models that weren't successful IRL and had an early closure of prod line, but are very popular in the game).

So the production line will close in 2025 regardless, even if one keeps ordering new airframes?

Quote from: rntair on April 16, 2019, 03:20:58 PM
So the production line will close in 2025 regardless, even if one keeps ordering new airframes?

I guess it functions similarly to trying to order planes as the end of a game world approaches. It will give you an error if you try to order too many before the cut-off. I've noticed for game ends though, the compression on orders can be quite extreme, with some people receiving multiple frames from the same production line in a single day!!  :laugh: