Messages

1

Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Commercial airlines through the mid-90's

« on: November 07, 2009, 06:33:10 am »

I like this idea of a realistic world!  Maybe I'll join next time around when I ahve a bit more time.

As for foreign airlines sticking a hub on another continent, other than the fact that it is prohibited by law with few exceptions (Northwest and United both have a hub in Tokyo due to mid-1900s agreements), it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so.  The airline would be at a disadvantage being a foreign airline and everything... for example, when you think about flying from Tokyo to other points in Asia, you don't normally think of flying Northwest -- you'd be thinking of flying Japan Airlines or ANA just because they're the home carriers; they're the carriers operating mainly in that area.

2

Game Strategy / Re: The Most Profitable Aircraft in AM

« on: June 30, 2009, 06:08:06 pm »

I won't even fly a 747, much less an A380.  Yes, the A380 is ugly and the 747 is awesome, but in terms of specs in Airline Mogul, it doesn't make much sense to fly one.  There would be very few routes which I could operate the route successfully... probably only routes between Tokyo Haneda (HND), Los Angeles (LAX), London Heathrow (LHR), Paris Charles de Gaule (CDG), Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL), and Chicago O'Hare (ORD).  The turn time is terrible though, maintenance is through the roof, and you would have to replace these expensive aircraft often just to remain profitable.  Personally, I've never flown anything larger than a Tupolev Tu-114 (200 seats), though I'll be operating Boeing 777s (440 seats) in my current world later on.  I'll see how that turns out.

3

Game Strategy / Re: Good time to create another base?

« on: June 18, 2009, 08:12:07 am »

I start a new base as soon as most of the profitable routes (usually about 150 flights, varying by airport and region) are gone.  After I max out my hubs, I go back and fly the less profitable regional routes, albeit with smaller aircraft.   I always operate a mix of aircraft just to right-size each market.

4

Game Strategy / Re: Fare pricing undercut strategy?

« on: June 18, 2009, 08:10:23 am »

LAX-SFO was a pain... I had to update the are multiple times each real life day... fare quickly dropped from 100 euros when I entered the market to 23 euros before I pulled out from the losses...

There really is no legal way to avoid this issue... you just have to hope that as you drop your fare, your competitors, who may be operating less efficient aircraft, will wisen up and pull out of the market.  I flew a high-cost Boeing 727 on that route, so I ended up pulling out earlier, but if you flew a more efficient aircraft, I'm sure you could still make money with those conditions.

That's the reason I tend to enjoy operating out of secondary airports... then you deal with 3 major competitors (CVG) at your hub instead of 9 (SFO).

5

Game Strategy / Re: What's the strategy for meal pricing?

« on: June 18, 2009, 08:05:06 am »

Sigh... I've always charged 7 euros for meals... -.-

6

General Chat / Re: Airbus or Boeing? which do you prefer

« on: June 18, 2009, 07:40:06 am »

Boeing all the way.

Personally, I love the Boeing 717... the 2x3 configuration is quite nice.  Of course, the Boeing 737NG is great for comfort, although the cabin is narrower.  My favorite aircraft of all time, of course, is the Boeing 747... the dome up in the front is just so much nicer than the competing Airbus A380... and the seating on a 747 is quite nice, roomy, and comfortable.  I've never been on a 777 but that's something I must try.

This is what I know...
[ul]

• Boeing 737 aircraft are lower to the ground, thus making them cheaper to maintain, with lower turn times for airlines.  That's why Southwest Airlines can turn a 140-seat plane in 25 minutes and be profitable!
• I was of the understanding that the Boeing 737NG is more fuel efficient than the competing Airbus A320 family, just because it is newer and utilizes newer technology.
• I appreciate Airbus' thought in the fly-by-wire technology and cockpit commonality (which is great)... but I feel safer with Boeing's traditional cockpit.  Of course, Boeing does utilize a glass cockpit which replaces the traditional instruments; however, unlike Airbus, the pilot actually has direct control of the hydraulics systems, rather than relying on a computer to fly the plane.
  
• The shape of the 737 seems to be more comfortable to me.  The windows are placed in more comfortable positions for passengers, although apparently Europeans find the Airbus design, with the wider fuselage at shoulder level more comfortable.
[/ul]

Aircraft I have flown in:
M80 -- AA
DC9 -- AS
CRJ -- DL
CR7 -- UA
ERJ -- AA
732 -- AQ
735 -- WN
738 -- DL
744 -- CX, SQ
752 -- AA
762 (?) -- HA
319 -- UA
320 -- UA

I have only flown Boeing 707s, 727s, and 737 Classics in the game.

7

General Chat / Re: New Airport Names

« on: June 18, 2009, 07:25:16 am »

Basically, we now have two columns in the database, the city name and the airport name. At this time, we are only showing the airport name, because that was the setting, and because we have not yet updated all the airports. The majority of the database has been updated, but there are still a few large countries that needs to be researched.

After the research is done, the code will be modified to show city name and airport name. We have also envisioned an option for the players to choose between both, or either one.

As you have said, this has been discussed, and this answer is final. Typing this post cut into the research time for 3 minutes in real time spents, and another significant amount for a drop in my mood, which is quite unfortunate.

In the future, in order to save your precious 3 minutes of real time and your attitude towards the players, it might help to put out a bulletin just to let everyone know.  If you'll try to put yourself into the feet of the players (which, may I remind you, are the source of your revenue to fund this game and keep this game free -- yay!), think of the precious minutes we spent pulling our hair out trying to figure out why "Atlanta" wouldn't show up in the route creation screen (because it got changed to "Hartsfield Atlanta").  Like Trans Global Airlines, I too have memorized most of the IATA codes for the airports I fly to... and the gate search feature takes care of the other places I don't know the codes for.  However, the route creation screen forces players to select cities from a drop-down menu... which conveniently omits those handy-dandy IATA codes and shows only the airport name.  Perhaps that's an additional feature for the future... allow users to type in the IATA code for route creation!

You don't have to reply to this... I don't want to take any more of your precious time... and you can save your rebuking for later.

8

Game Data / Re: How to calculate Maintenance Fees

« on: May 30, 2009, 04:57:49 am »

I know a general rule of thumb is that new aircraft can be operated with high profit margins up to around 3 years of age.  However, acquiring used, aircraft at a discount price is not a bad choice either.

9

General Chat / Re: Connecting HUBs

« on: April 22, 2009, 06:12:57 am »

D - to make your airline as realistic as possible.  The whole point of hubs is to cut costs for real life airlines so that passengers can go to many destinations through that hub.  If your hubs aren't connected, that sort of defeats that purpose.  There's little in-game benefit (just being able to use your aircraft in multiple hubs), its just to make it more realistic.

10

General Chat / Alliance Name Changes?

« on: April 22, 2009, 05:45:44 am »

Is it possible to change the name of the alliance if you are the founder?  If so, how?

Thanks,
XeniaAirways

11

Game Strategy / Re: [W350] A good replacement for the Fokker F27-400

« on: April 14, 2009, 12:48:47 am »

Too lazy to read through everything, so go ahead and delete if I repeated.

I suggest upgrading to the Fokker F27-200 or Convair 440 if you want to keep the same capacity with a cheaper (but slow -- same speed as F27-400) aircraft.

I personally like fast aircraft, so I'd go with the Tupolev Tu-124 (released 1968 I think), which flies almost twice as fast, but can seat 56 passengers and is great.

12

Game Strategy / Re: List of Replaceable Planes

« on: April 14, 2009, 12:46:53 am »

Convair 440/Fokker F27-200 -> Tupolev Tu-124
Working quite nicely for me in PW465.

Tupolev Tu-104V -> Boeing 737-200.

13

Game Strategy / Re: FAQ

« on: April 14, 2009, 12:43:49 am »

Interesting... I swear I heard that AirM factors in commonality into maintenance expenses... I guess a moderator could move this to the suggestions page then?

14

General Chat / Re: Massive fleet sizes

« on: April 14, 2009, 12:38:43 am »

Oh, I see... so the answer is GREED.

I am also having fun, but my motivation is to try to create a realistic airline, using a fleet mix and routing structure that makes sense for my carrier and ultimate purpose, to bring people to my sunny Paradise. That is why operating a Concorde from Barbados to Beijing, China just because I can isn't quite appealing to me.

Nevertheless I press on with my idealistic dribble.

islandflyer

For me in World 9, those long-haul routes, although not the most profitable due to the outrageously high maintenance expenses, were great because of the lack of competition.  Additionally, since the marketing research cost is so high on long-haul flights, players are less likely to adjust their prices, which gave me sort of a route that wasn't likely to change too much.  There are only so many profitable international routes, so we end up having to reach across both the Pacific and the Atlantic.  Also, those aircraft are expensive... so we try to save money by operating the cheapest aircraft that'll do the job... and then get killed by maintenance even more, as I learned. -.-

Its also fun -- by the time you are 10 years old, you will probably have filled up all of your domestic hubs and are probably operating every profitable route available from that hub... and updating routes and replacing your fleet isn't really that exciting...

15

General Chat / Re: Not making money - maintenance costs?

« on: April 14, 2009, 12:35:00 am »

Here's what I'm noticing with my Fokkers and Tupolevs in 1968... I currently operate a fleet of Fokker F27-200s, Fokker F27-400s, Tupolev Tu-104As, Tupolev Tu-114s, and Tupolev Tu-124s (replacing Fokker aircraft).

I have just begun to replace my F27-200s, F27-400s, and Tu-104As and I have noticed that after 1.5 years of service, the appraised value of my aircraft is roughly 80% of the price of a new aircraft.  Go figure.

From what I've heard as well, it seems like Airline Mogul may also factor in commonality into the game -- my costs have been relatively low compared to some of my rivals in my private world... at one point, with my Fokkers and Tupolev Tu-104As and with double the airplanes of my rival CominAir, my maintenance was half of his.  His aircraft weren't too old (average age was 0.7 years), but he operated Helio H600B Stallions, a variety of Antonovs, Ilyushins, and Pilatus PC-6/350 aircraft.  It appears that the commonality killed him.  Since you operate both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing aircraft, there is virtually no commonality, despite Boeing having acquired McDonnell Douglas...

@Stephen: In the game, 10 years for an aircraft = old, but in real life, 10 years is pretty good... in fact, if the average fleet age is around 10 years, at least among the U.S. carriers, that's great.  Just take a look at American Airlines' average fleet age... ;-)