Startup Low Cost Airline

[spuntch]

Airline Mogul - See my airline

What suggestions would you make for this airlines future expansion? Do you see any flaws up to this point?

[chastwood]

lol, i am in ur world!
though i am too busy with other worlds.....
i would say not to wait to save up for boeings but buy heaps and heaps of props and fly to every destination 0.6m> 
and than replace all the aircraft with jetliners. Along the way opening up other hubs.

[Virgin Serbia]

What year is it?

I would probably go for somthing cheaper than the 737-500. Maybe the DC-9-30 if it is still around.

[1993matias]

Use the gate search to fly to the best airports nearer than 1000nm. Begin guying something cheaper than a Boeing; maybe a Fokker 100? BAe 146 (although it's slow)? DC-9-50? MD-83? Use aircraft search!

Also, the year would be nice.

[zahrul3]

Use CRJs for lower-capacity routes and the 737-500 for trunk routes. Since its a private world, there won't be much competition. I'd prefer using one aircraft type as it reduces maintenance costs. Watch as your plane ages, after around about 5 years, the maintenance costs spike up and you have to get a new one. By common sense, widely used aircraft are cheaper to maintain overall.

[1993matias]

What I do is not letting the ticket price drop below 200 €. If the ticket price is too low I use a smaller plane. I normally use three or four aircraft sizes (50 seats, 100, 170, long range). The fact that having fleet commonality to maintain low mx costs is not true.

Long range planes become too expensive after 2-3 years, bigger planes in three years, CRJ-like planes in 4-5 and small turboprops in 7-8 years.

The maintenance costs are based upon overall fleet value and average fleet age.

The ERJ's are cheaper in comparison to what they can, but the CRJ's are earlier out. Boeing is more expensive than Airbus, but you have more to choose from with Boeing.

[zahrul3]

If so, and what you need is 50seater/100 seater/170 seater, here are some reccomendations:

50 seater:
CRJ-100/ER/LR (52 seater, good fuel consumption, good speed)
Fokker F28(65-85 seater, bad fuel consumption)
Fokker F50(58 seater, good fuel consumption but its a turboprop)
ATR 42-300/320/500 (50 seater, good fuel consumption, turboprop speed but has some extra speed on the 500 version)
ATR 72(74 seater, good fuel consumption, turboprop speed)
BAe ATP/J61(70-72 seater, you can choose options for the ATP. Good fuel consumption)
Saab 2000(58 seater, fastest turboprop out there, fuel consumption is a bit high for a turboprop 58 seater)
100 seater:
Boeing 737-200Adv (130 seater, excellent speed but fuel consumption is a bit high)
Boeing 737-300/500 (122-134 seater, moderate speed, moderate fuel consumption)
Avro RJ/BAe 146 (82-128 seater, slow for a jet, excellent fuel consumption)
Fokker 100(119 seater, moderate speed, good fuel consumption)
McDonell Douglas MD-83(139 seats, slow for a jet, moderate fuel consumption and range)
Valsan 727-100RE(131 seats, excellent speed, good range, horrible fuel consumption)

[zahrul3]

170 seater:
Airbus A320(179-180 seats, moderate everything)
Boeing 737-400 (159 seats, also moderate everything except bad fuel consumption)
Douglas DC8-72(189 seats, extremely long range, bad fuel consumption and misc fees)
Valsan 727-200RE(189 seats, excellent speed, bad fuel consumption and misc fees)
McDonell Douglas MD81/82/83/88(172 seater, slow for a jet, fuel consumption a bit high, bad range on the 81 and 82)
McDonell Douglas MD90-30/50/55(172-187 seater, slow for a jet but good fuel consumption)
*Excluded Soviets, due to their extremely high costs associated with them

Not much to choose from, though you might consider the 757 and the A310, they go in the long range category.

Aircraft are from the 90s time, the MD90 is released somewhere in 94'. My game year is in 1995, so planes after that are unknown. The CRJ-701 is an excellent aircraft in the 100 seater category, it has around 500 speed and its extremely fuel efficient. Jets might be better, though most turboprops are much more fuel efficient.

[1993matias]

May I say, that early Soviets are excellent! Tupolev 134 is an excellent 130-seater in the 60's. Ilyushin 18 is one of the best choices in the 50's. Tupolev 114 is the worlds fastest propeller; over 400 knots, but fuel consumption is low.

Later in the game, Tupolev 334 is an excellent regional jet, better than the Avro's.

Instead of Concorde, buy a Tupolev 144. Better range, better price, better fuel consumption. Even better speed, I think.

Sooo.... Soviets and extremely high costs? Yes, I would agree, the 80's Soviets are horrible, Il-86, Il-96, Il-62. Well, Il-62 is a decent low-capacity long-range plane. But they have waaaay to much crew, very high fuel consumption, and high price.

The DC-9 series are good planes during the 80's, and in the 90's the Airbus begin to come out. In the 00's, go for Embraer, as they are a tad cheaper than Bombardier, but still has the same range and capacity.

The CRJ's are not the best, ERJ's are a little better. But I don't think the difference is big enough to favour one before the other.

And as I've said in my first post here, try to use aircraft search. This will help you compare aircraft within the specs you want.

[AirbusGuy350]

Douglas DC8-72(189 seats, extremely long range, bad fuel consumption and misc fees)
Valsan 727-200RE(189 seats, excellent speed, bad fuel consumption and misc fees)

How do you calculate misc costs and what factors make an aircraft have more than another?

[zahrul3]

The Valsan and the DC8, and other planes with 3 pilots, have lots of misc costs as you pay more wage. Happened to me when I bought 4 DC8s, my airline suddenly became unprofitable so I ditched them.

[1993matias]

Yeah, but in the 70's and 80's, almost every plane has three or more pilots, so it doesn't make a difference. And if you have DC-8's during the 90's, you're a little bit too retro.