1
Bugs / Dash 8-100B
« on: August 05, 2008, 05:01:19 pm »
Fixed.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: 1
2
General Chat / Supersonic Aircraft
« on: June 26, 2008, 11:13:48 pm »
In terms of maintenance, an easy rule of thumb is purchase value * 0.025 for the month and the result/24 for the day. It appears to be less than that initially and will obviously increase beyond it as time passes, but it's near enough.
3
General Chat / Supersonic Aircraft
« on: June 26, 2008, 10:23:42 pm »Quote from: "Fleur-de-Lis"
Quote from: "mg35pt"...
Just pointing out that a quick look at the profit column in the aircraft screen does not tell the whole story.
...
Save your breath, mg35pt.
I've tried explaining that in several posts since they maintenance costs were changed. And so have you, and so has StephenM, and a couple of moderators / administrators too.
People either don't read the forums, or can't get out of what they think "should be" versus what it "really is".
You'll see posts by them complaining they can't make a profit, soon enough.
Good thing everyone in this thread appears to be aware of that already, eh?
4
General Chat / Supersonic Aircraft
« on: June 26, 2008, 07:02:06 pm »
130k seems very optimistic - probably more like 200k initial, I'd think.
5
General Chat / Supersonic Aircraft
« on: June 26, 2008, 06:15:50 pm »
Well, I'm sure you wouldn't, but you'll have to wait a couple of days on account of their delivery time being 120hrs.
6
General Chat / Supersonic Aircraft
« on: June 26, 2008, 06:02:12 pm »
Don't be snarky - profitable enough, as I did point out before I refreshed the bloody page and had to re-do the post.
e: for reference, this is a comparison of income/maintenance on a few planes to compare with those two; these are all the "best" example I'm running at the moment:
Il-18D: 327000 income/day, 47000 maintenance/day
Tu-114D (at least, being based in Russia, I have an excuse for using these ridiculous things): 332935 i/day, 75000maint/day
Tu-154B: 443700 i/day, 87000 i/day
Now, if you really want whining about profitability, wait till you see the numbers on the IL-86s I ordered.
e: for reference, this is a comparison of income/maintenance on a few planes to compare with those two; these are all the "best" example I'm running at the moment:
Il-18D: 327000 income/day, 47000 maintenance/day
Tu-114D (at least, being based in Russia, I have an excuse for using these ridiculous things): 332935 i/day, 75000maint/day
Tu-154B: 443700 i/day, 87000 i/day
Now, if you really want whining about profitability, wait till you see the numbers on the IL-86s I ordered.
7
General Chat / Supersonic Aircraft
« on: June 26, 2008, 05:11:14 pm »
They're not necessarily cost-effective, but they aren't unprofitable. I have two:
10733 CCCP-7000 Tupolev Tu-144S €507,796
10938 CCCP-7001 Tupolev Tu-144S €588,639
7000 does Moscow - Rome, Moscow - LHR, Moscow - Delhi - Jakarta - Sydney
7001 does Beijing - Moscow - CDG - JFK - Bogota - Sao Paulo
A couple of example legs:
Sydney - Jakarta: ~3300mi, 3.11 Hours, €170,800 income, €45,929 expense.
Moscow - LHR: ~1600mi, 1.74 Hours, €121,800 income, €25,993 expense.
They could easily make more money, too - all the fligts bar Bogota - S.P are 1freq compared to the 0.5 usual for long-range flights, since they were bought as a bit of a joke. This is 1979, so fuel price shouldn't be too horrendous - it is worth pointing out, though, that you're essentially paying for more than the aircraft is worth to begin with as high fuel consumption currently increases the price of aircraft - so by buying an aircraft with 3, 4 engines (or even 2 rather than 1) you're basically paying for the privilege of making less money on a route.
10733 CCCP-7000 Tupolev Tu-144S €507,796
10938 CCCP-7001 Tupolev Tu-144S €588,639
7000 does Moscow - Rome, Moscow - LHR, Moscow - Delhi - Jakarta - Sydney
7001 does Beijing - Moscow - CDG - JFK - Bogota - Sao Paulo
A couple of example legs:
Sydney - Jakarta: ~3300mi, 3.11 Hours, €170,800 income, €45,929 expense.
Moscow - LHR: ~1600mi, 1.74 Hours, €121,800 income, €25,993 expense.
They could easily make more money, too - all the fligts bar Bogota - S.P are 1freq compared to the 0.5 usual for long-range flights, since they were bought as a bit of a joke. This is 1979, so fuel price shouldn't be too horrendous - it is worth pointing out, though, that you're essentially paying for more than the aircraft is worth to begin with as high fuel consumption currently increases the price of aircraft - so by buying an aircraft with 3, 4 engines (or even 2 rather than 1) you're basically paying for the privilege of making less money on a route.
8
General Chat / When will a long-haul with huge plane will actually work?
« on: June 20, 2008, 01:47:45 pm »
Going by what I'd estimated on a bunch of aircraft, about 200000/day, although that'll obviously increase as the aircraft ages (and will probably provide you a profit margin of sorts to begin with)
9
General Chat / Maintenance Cost
« on: May 28, 2008, 08:45:12 am »
I think it starts out at 5% of the aircraft cost, or near enough - my (new) €35m 1-11s are each about €1.7m / month to maintain.
10
General Chat / Aircraft pricing problem [?] re: fuel
« on: May 27, 2008, 04:43:34 pm »
At the moment it appears that a more fuel-hungry aircraft costs more to buy than an economical aircraft - odd, at least on the surface, considering the former is going to give you higher operating costs.
Vickers Viscount 700: 56px, 281kts, 1728mi, 370fueluse : €16,221,296
Handley Page Herald-200 : 56px, 275kts, 2025mi, 175fueluse: €11,432,869
Similarly:
Avro RJ115: 128px, 412kts, 1530mi, 1468fueluse: €58,303,124
Avro RJ100: 128px, 412kts, 1725mi, 1102fueluse: €52,353,116 (!)
Boeing 737-200HGW: 130px, 500kts, 2761mi, 734fueluse: €55,963,184
In a convoluted sort of way some of them make sense - the Viscount probably would have cost you more than the Herald, just because of the multiple engines - but since the costs are apparently based entirely on a formula, having high fuel use as a price increase would seem to produce strange results more often than not.
Is there a reason for this that I've missed, or is it a mistake?
Vickers Viscount 700: 56px, 281kts, 1728mi, 370fueluse : €16,221,296
Handley Page Herald-200 : 56px, 275kts, 2025mi, 175fueluse: €11,432,869
Similarly:
Avro RJ115: 128px, 412kts, 1530mi, 1468fueluse: €58,303,124
Avro RJ100: 128px, 412kts, 1725mi, 1102fueluse: €52,353,116 (!)
Boeing 737-200HGW: 130px, 500kts, 2761mi, 734fueluse: €55,963,184
In a convoluted sort of way some of them make sense - the Viscount probably would have cost you more than the Herald, just because of the multiple engines - but since the costs are apparently based entirely on a formula, having high fuel use as a price increase would seem to produce strange results more often than not.
Is there a reason for this that I've missed, or is it a mistake?
11
General Chat / Quick question on creating bases
« on: May 13, 2008, 11:34:01 pm »
Actually, I guess I have two questions; I get that debt is usable for initial gate fees but not for aircraft purchases. But:
- Is there a limit to the amount of debt a company can take on?
- Can debt be used to finance the creation of bases?
- Is there a limit to the amount of debt a company can take on?
- Can debt be used to finance the creation of bases?
Pages: 1
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk