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.
Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?
« on: January 22, 2011, 09:49:22 pm »Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?
« on: January 22, 2011, 09:31:48 pm »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.
Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?
« on: January 22, 2011, 08:33:40 pm »Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?
« on: January 22, 2011, 08:22:56 pm »General Chat / Re: Todays random thread
« on: January 22, 2011, 06:31:01 am »Private World Discussion & Invitation / Re: Realistic World?
« on: January 22, 2011, 06:26:43 am »Airline Reports / Re: Air Kiwi "The Future of the Down Under" (PW:#1807)
« on: January 20, 2011, 09:57:45 pm »Airline Reports / Re: Air Kiwi "The Future of the Down Under" (PW:#1807)
« on: January 20, 2011, 09:46:15 pm »Game Strategy / Re: Question about route length
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:28:45 pm »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.
General Chat / Re: A340-500 vs. 777-200LR
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:12:25 pm »General Chat / Re: Maintenance Fees Status (Admins, look HERE to see maint fees status from users)
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:08:50 pm »General Chat / Re: Todays random thread
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:12:20 pm »[++] 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.