The Sim is broken for History and the Future

[Kadachiman]

Just an observation, not sure who else may agree, but this simulation is not suited for the History part of commercial aviation.

I will explain my thoughts -
1. nearly all airlines operated on a Hub and Spoke method in the very early days - regionals brought pax to the hubs
2. majority of planes were built that served the hub and spoke method e.g. regionals - low seat numbers, short Nm type planes
3. the game only allows for point-to-point play - which does not really suit most planes until the 1970's onwards when Hub and spoke started to change

- this is the reason that planes are so hard to source from 1950 to 1970 as everybody wants the same planes because the vast majority of the planes on the Used Market are useless for a point-to-point type airline, which we all are in this sim
- this is also the reason why early game planes that suit point to point operations see the build demand extend out to 5-10 years

I am not sure that anything can actually be done about this as the game mechanics does not currently allow for region airlines to deliver pax to Hubs, to give a resultant increase in Hub pax numbers.
Perhaps if Sami can ever code this in, then we could see 2 or 3 airlines team up to act as regionals feeding their teammate in a hub, or we could be given the go ahead for every player to have the opportunity to run a regional airline AND a hub-to-hub type airline.

Just some food for thought, not a complaint. 

Kadachiman

[Robio44]

I completely agree with this assessment. I am sure that would be a major undertaking to add hub and spoke but I too, am having trouble finding the match for low pax and type of aircraft suitable to make it work. I haven't played Airway Sim in many years (about 8-10 years ago, I think) but I'm just getting back into it. Love it and realize how I missed it. I'm 60 now and I feel this keeps me engaged as a retiree and keeps me sharp. Thank you, Sami!

BTW, I'm negative cash now and about to go under with my airline(2nd time in about a week). This one's hard. I'm about to give up this scenario.

[duscatu]

Don't give up.

Start in a smaller/medium airport (if operating in a large market), or try a place with less traffic and no competition - sure that can be boring, but you'll never BK.

[NZelenkova]

One thing more people should realize is that especially early on when fuel prices really aren't a concern, there is a wide variety of Soviet aircraft that can actually do just fine if you don't want to wait in a ridiculously long unrealistic production line for anything better than a DC-3. I'd even argue that the Soviet knock-off of the DC-3, the Li-2 is a better aircraft as it has longer range and ten times the cargo capacity and sells for about $200k. The Il-12/14 fleet group is also a fantastic upgrade over agonizingly slow piston aircraft in the early years, modern engines, affordable price, and >40 seats able to go profitably out to around 700NM while demand is low.

Among the early jets I also dare make the claim that Tupolev has some models that are superior to the competition. The Tu-104 has better speed and fuel efficiency than the Comet with fewer staff and lower capacities for a lower demand era. A little later the Russians also offer medium sized jets that are significantly cheaper to operate.

I have also always found the An-10 to be intriguing as a large turboprop though I've never had the opportunity to test it. Comparable to a Britannia, it's notably faster and boasts a much larger cargo capacity albeit at shorter range. You don't necessarily have to take the plunge into the Iron Curtain but generally speaking you don't need to do exactly what everyone else is doing to succeed either. Consider all of your options as they arrive.

[gazzz0x2z]

IL-12/14

Exploitation costs of a CV440, for half the capacity.

But

But it flies. And is built quickly. Therefore, it's thousand times better than waiting for a CV440 or a F-27. Those babies served me more than well in Poland.

[schro]

Not sure I agree with the history perspective - I suppose it depends on country. When you look at the early days of US commercial airlines, the route structures were more like "milk runs" and point to point, versus today where they are "hub and spoke". Carriers were granted rights to fly routes by the CAB which also set pricing for the airlines, forcing them to compete on service. For a while, there was also a mail carrier aspect to gaining the routes by bidding to carry the mail which allowed you to pick up passengers as well - Eddie Rickenbacker famously bid $0 for a mail route with Eastern to be able to connect the route dots across Texas.

It was really the late 70's to early 80's when the idea of the hub was created - AA leading the way with DFW and Delta doing similar things in ATL. This was also at about the same time that deregulation occurred, allowing airlines to fly anywhere they want to fly at any prices they wish to set (which, subsequently caused quite the industrywide bloodbath of bankruptcies, which I'd argue cumulated ~30 years later to leave us with the 3 "legacy" carriers that we know today). During this time, AA noticed there to be an "S" curve effect on demand where demand for flights would grow more in relation to the number of frequencies flown from a hub.

I'd suggest giving "The Ascent of Bob Crandall and American Airlines" by Dan Reed a read if you can find it. It discusses a lot of the context of that era and related economics. I've got a few others on the bookshelf that I could reccomend if interested (i.e. for the history of commercial planes themselves, The Sporty Game is a good read (and there's a sequel that landed 10-15 years after to update some things)).

[ArcherII]

Yeah, early air transport (all the way into the mid 70s) was mostly - or purely - point-to-point. Even international routes.

Hub-and-spoke system as we have in AWS is basically what the vast majority of airlines use nowadays, with the exception of a limited number of ULCCs and Southwest-like airlines.