Messages

46

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?

« on: January 23, 2011, 04:07:40 am »

I don't see how you don't think it does. Most airlines operate a focus city in other airports. These are with a lot of less routes. But there still are, UA in Asia, NWA/Delta in AMS, ANZ in LAX. This is especially big with down under airlines. Most have a Asia airport to be a stop over for there European routes.

47

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?

« on: January 22, 2011, 09:49:22 pm »

Then welcome Optimum Airlines : P

48

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?

« on: January 22, 2011, 09:31:48 pm »

Could be a feeder for me in SFO/LAX?

Well I want to join this world as Virgin America, basing at SFO first.

Was playing around with what routes would be like and on paper this is what it came out as.

Major East:

SFO-JFK
SFO-ORD
SFO-DFW
SFO-DEN(I know this and DFW wouldn't be considered East, but I slipped them into this section then making a new one)
SFO-ATL
SFO-MCO

West Coast:

SFO-LAX
SFO-LAS
SFO-SEA
SFO-PHX
SFO-SAN
SFO-SLC

Then LAX would be opened.

Routes would be opened between the two list, but in the order I said. Say SFO-JFK, SFO-LAX, SFO-ORD. They'd go down there list.

With the time of the world, I'd probably stick to a fleet of A319, but with A320 entering when my cash flow is decent.

49

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?

« on: January 22, 2011, 08:33:40 pm »

But continuing on with what I was talking about with the time, I'm not sure the world would be long enough for some of the planes we may have. I have the plan of only operating A319/A320 and with this way of realistic type, I don't see me growing very much in that time with this frequency. But that's just my suggestion. My other is Cornfield and Stephen should join ; ) Cornfield could open United Sky Group! : P

50

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?

« on: January 22, 2011, 08:22:56 pm »

Love how I wasn't included in that "experience" group. Lol.

51

General Chat / Re: Todays random thread

« on: January 22, 2011, 06:31:01 am »

So full that we'd sell gates at ATL, ORD, etc for planes and other locations xD

52

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?

« on: January 22, 2011, 06:26:43 am »

Id be up for something like that. Maybe a few more years, but if not, that's not a problem. You got me in. I vote A319

53

Airline Reports / Re: Air Kiwi "The Future of the Down Under" (PW:#1807)

« on: January 20, 2011, 09:57:45 pm »

Air Kiwi today began service out of Tahiti Faa'a International in the French Polynesia. With island hopper flights offered on our fleet of Embraer EMB-120ER. Route map will be added to the second post route map.

54

Airline Reports / Re: Air Kiwi "The Future of the Down Under" (PW:#1807)

« on: January 20, 2011, 09:46:15 pm »

Air Kiwi enter talk today with Airbus and the future of maybe seeing the Airbus A330 in Air Kiwi colors. Even tho we are a bit away from making any final decision, we did want to give you guys a taste of what it look like, enjoy.

55

General Chat / Re: Show your colors - The Liveries Topic

« on: January 20, 2011, 09:41:53 pm »

.

56

Game Strategy / Re: Question about route length

« on: January 19, 2011, 09:28:45 pm »

This question is amazing tbh, simple but never been asked.

Range plays a part in pax. I like to think of it like real life, the farther away, the more realistic it is to fly then drive. Take SFO-OAK, you will expect most to drive(I know those lazy business men, but still). But SFO-YXD(Edmonton, Canada). Even tho OAK has more passengers, you will see a increase of pax and amount they will want to pay. SO, the pax of AM are realistic or...

Range plays a part in pricing. Each NM will increase the amount pax will pay by $X.XX. It may not play a big factor in close range airports, but as you start venturing into the farther out places, you will see that you can increase the amount of cash to sell seats as the nm to $$$ factor has more nm to increase that $$$. Say SFO-OAK is 20nm, and that each nm increases how much pax will pay buy $.10. So your looking at the regular price that you can get from that airport to this airport plus an added $2 for the distance. This may not seem much, but when it comes to 500+nm your looking at $50+ you can have them pay cause of the range. So In long distance flights, it may not be the airports trafic doing the key profit, but just how far they are.


*nm = nautical mile   **the "1nm= $0.10" was an example.

57

General Chat / Re: A340-500 vs. 777-200LR

« on: January 19, 2011, 09:12:25 pm »

Yet you complain about maint? And your buying these? Maint is broke for heavys. Even if used at the "correct" places, it will still not profit.

58

General Chat / Re: Maintenance Fees Status (Admins, look HERE to see maint fees status from users)

« on: January 19, 2011, 09:08:50 pm »

Suggestion: Try to stay away from heavys. Like 747 family, 777 family, a340 family, etc... Right now international routes with these planes just doesn't make profit, just by buying the plane you are asking for big maint cost and for your end month profit to go down till its negative. I would suggest not going higher then 767/a330, and even these can make it so your profit goes down. In the end, Heavys are just bad atm.

59

General Chat / Re: Todays random thread

« on: January 19, 2011, 03:12:20 pm »

A lot of work to change route pricing, but not too bad.

60

[++] Suggestions / Re: Airport-based turn times

« on: January 19, 2011, 04:34:26 am »

Would it be based on real-life traffic congestion or in-game congestion?

We cannot add in time for congestion in-game as people who created routes earlier in the game will have lower taxi times, and if they edit the routes the taxi time will go up.

Then why not a certain airport size will have this amount of added turn around time to aircraft off the start? Say...

350k=15min
300k=12.5min
250k=10min
200k=7.5min
150k=5min
100=2.5min
50k=none

This would help cut down the growth of the airlines in major airports(ex. ATL, ORD, LAX, etc...) compared to less dense(ex. MDW, SAN, AUS, etc...). Helping more balance the world in how fast airlines grow, at least at the beginning.