Sharing some AM experience (Product of OpenSkies)

[pTr]

Choosing where to start
Select a continent
a) North America: North America holds 6 out of 10 the worlds busiest airports, and a stunning 28 airports with annual passengers over 20 million. Difficulty Level:9/10

b) Central America: Departing from Central America, most the the important routes are within the range of a 737, and with smaller airports and less of them, means less competition from within the continent. Difficulty Level:5/10

c) South America: as a beginner, this could be your place to test out the game, and learn more about it. South America holds 399 airports, though most of them being tiny ones. Competition here in minimum.Difficulty Level:3/10

d) Europe: Europe has many large airports, and, very close to each other, while this means good profit, it also means extremely tough competition. Most of the time, within the first 1-2 years, the larger airports in Europe are always out of gates.(It doesn't get any better later on) Difficulty Level:10/10

e)Africa: Very much like Central America, the northern African airports are capable of transporting passengers to most of the European airports with a 737, though itself doesn't have any exceptional airports, this could be the place to avoid competition and yet still be able to access the European market. Difficulty Level:4/10

f)Middle East: As is has always been for the past one thousand years, the Middle East is the gateway to Asia, from Europe, or the other way around. While consisting of a couple of decent size airports, it is also capable of flying to different destinations in Europe and Asia.(This is critical in the 50's era, since it hasn't yet entered jet age) Difficulty Level:6/10

g)Asia: Asia is the wierd one, at least for the time being. With a massive Asian population in AM, Asia seems overly crowded. With major airports distanced far away from each other, and heavy competition; Asia, like Europe and North America, might not be the place a new player wants to start in. Difficulty Level:9/10

h)Australiasia: With large airports likes Sydney, Melbourne, Australiasia is an decent place to start out in. The negative side to starting in Australiasia would be that long hual flights to Europe and North America just isn't possible(except the 2000 era). Difficulty Level:6/10

Select a hub
The following should be noted while choosing a specific airport to create your hub in:
a) If you are planning to aim high, a high traffic volume airport can not be neglected; yet, if you are only playing for fun, and do not want to spends hours editing your routes everyday, then a smaller airport is suggested.
b) Location of your hub: An airport located near the center of your continent would be the best choice, since you would be able to fly everywhere with a single type of aircraft, thus making your fleet management easier
c) Do a little research before you choose your hub. For example, Hong Kong is the most crowded airport in Asia, not because of its location, nor of its passenger volume, but because of the Hong Kong population actually playing this game.

More hubs
a) The secondary hubs should be located closer to your primary one, since that way, flights could be created from both hubs to one airport, thus lowering your expense on gate rental.
b) As for the other hubs, distance to your primary hub shouldn't be the only factor. Other factors such as the distance to another continent, or the competition within the airport are also primary factors.

Choosing your fleet
In the early stage
The following factors are the reasons why I personally would choose one plane over another.
a) Cheap
b) The size of the plane isn't a consideration in the early stage
c) The range of the plane(The longer the better)

When competition starts
When competition starts to get brutal, these are the following things you would need to consider
a) Calculate the maximum amount of passenger an aircraft can carry in 24 hours, relevant to the range. Do a calculation of 1000nm, 2000nm, 3000nm, 4000nm. This way you could determine in the specified range, which specific aircraft could carry the most amount of passenger. Use it.
b) When competitors lowers their price, don't simply lower yours too. Increase the frequency of your flight. This way you could be making the same amount(almost the same) of money while matching your competitor's price.
c) Refresh your routes before lowering your price, cuz somethings a little "update" could turn a route with 0% to 100%.

Long-Hual
When I'm talking about long-hual, I'm talking about flights over 4000nm. Choose the fastest plane with the highest amount of seats. For example, in the 2000 era, 774 could do round trips in some routes where the 773 could only do one way. That means more passenger, thus lower price, better stand in the competition.

Will keep updating later... bored of typing

[Jps]

South America is actually good if your using the CW-20. But the problem is there is so little airports that have over 10m passengers yearly.

[LOT 737-300]

I think I might want to differ on your Europe part. Though Western Europe is crazy, Eastern Europe (Includes Russia west of the Ural Mountains) seems to be ok and the competition not as horrible as in Western Europe. Very Small airports compared to Western Europes big bases, so money will not come in as quick, but in the longer run, it can greatly benefit a airline to start out and grow in Eastern Europe. You also are right in the middle as a midpoint between the Middle East and the rest of Europe, which there in itself is a plus, meaning you won't need to invest in planes made just for long range as much as you'll need planes for capacity.

[ALFC]

More hubs
The secondary hubs should be located closer to your primary one, since that way, flights could be created from both hubs to one airport, thus lowering your expense on gate rental.

there are alot more considerations to be made, of whom i will not disclose any, but simplified, hubs close together allow for quicker growth in the beginning and diminishing gains in later stages.

I think I might want to differ on your Europe part. Though Western Europe is crazy, Eastern Europe (Includes Russia west of the Ural Mountains) seems to be ok and the competition not as horrible as in Western Europe. Very Small airports compared to Western Europes big bases, so money will not come in as quick, but in the longer run, it can greatly benefit a airline to start out and grow in Eastern Europe. You also are right in the middle as a midpoint between the Middle East and the rest of Europe, which there in itself is a plus, meaning you won't need to invest in planes made just for long range as much as you'll need planes for capacity.

you wont have good yields in the far eastern russian airports, money aint to be made there since you have a bad base yield and on top of that will face alot of incoming connections as the european market saturates.

[Dora]

I guess if base at all large airports (pax>20,000,000) without % of seats provided > 25%, the thraot cutting really hurts.
Last round I base at 5 large airports and my DOP and company value was no match to KFAI and MOMO Rabbit where some of their bases were in mid-size cities...
It really depends on who is your competitor. If it is Shanghai Airlines, then it should be a tough war.

[LOT 737-300]

More hubs
The secondary hubs should be located closer to your primary one, since that way, flights could be created from both hubs to one airport, thus lowering your expense on gate rental.

there are alot more considerations to be made, of whom i will not disclose any, but simplified, hubs close together allow for quicker growth in the beginning and diminishing gains in later stages.

I think I might want to differ on your Europe part. Though Western Europe is crazy, Eastern Europe (Includes Russia west of the Ural Mountains) seems to be ok and the competition not as horrible as in Western Europe. Very Small airports compared to Western Europes big bases, so money will not come in as quick, but in the longer run, it can greatly benefit a airline to start out and grow in Eastern Europe. You also are right in the middle as a midpoint between the Middle East and the rest of Europe, which there in itself is a plus, meaning you won't need to invest in planes made just for long range as much as you'll need planes for capacity.

you wont have good yields in the far eastern russian airports, money aint to be made there since you have a bad base yield and on top of that will face alot of incoming connections as the european market saturates.

I'm not talking about the Far Eastern parts of Russia, like Sibera (which then becoms Asia), but rather places like Russia (WEST of Urals, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. On top of that, you have to make a super strong base at the smaller airports, that way, when the mass amounts start noticing there is money to be made in your bases, you won't suffer too greatly. So you'll have to do a lot of focusing on flights to really small towns as well from your small base (they don't exactly make much, but at least 4K per day on the route, it should be ok, despite the lower profit from that). As you grow bigger though, it is always a smart idea to get onto bigger and bigger cities for new bases as you should be making enough to help back you up if things start to go a bit crazy at the bigger base.

~EDIT~ (10:49 AM EST)
This approach that I showed might not get you into the top 20 unless you really know what your doing. The great thing about AM is that it allows for so many approaches to be made, but also has to accomidate how you approach the game yourself If you want to be #1 in terms of value, and quickly, then basing out of a larger city initially is the way to do it. If you are more into "a day when you're profits are above ground is a good day", then my approach is better way to do it.

[pTr]

I guess if base at all large airports (pax>20,000,000) without % of seats provided > 25%, the thraot cutting really hurts.
Last round I base at 5 large airports and my DOP and company value was no match to KFAI and MOMO Rabbit where some of their bases were in mid-size cities...
It really depends on who is your competitor. If it is Shanghai Airlines, then it should be a tough war.

urgh... you're making it sound like I'm a mean competitor....

[Dora]

I guess if base at all large airports (pax>20,000,000) without % of seats provided > 25%, the thraot cutting really hurts.
Last round I base at 5 large airports and my DOP and company value was no match to KFAI and MOMO Rabbit where some of their bases were in mid-size cities...
It really depends on who is your competitor. If it is Shanghai Airlines, then it should be a tough war.

urgh... you're making it sound like I'm a mean competitor....

A bit tough...
You are a good competitor indeed.

[Max2147]

I've played the game in North America and Central America, and it's a completely different experience.

There's a lot more money to be made in North America (obviously).  Not only are there more big cities, but the big cities are closer to each other.  Even if your hub in North America is in a small city you can still make a lot of money by flying to the nearby big cities.  I had a hub in Buffalo last round that was wonderfully profitable due to its prime location, even though Buffalo itself is pretty small.

The biggest problem in Central America isn't the size of the hubs.  My Central American hubs this round are only slightly smaller than my North American hubs were last round.  The problem is location.  In Central America you really only make money by flying north, and you tend to use up lots of hours on your planes.  The number of quick short-hop profitable routes is minimal.  In Buffalo if I had a couple hours left on a plane I could send it to Toronto, Philadelphia, or any one of the huge New York airports.  At my Cancun hub I can send the plane to Cozumel or Merida.  Not quite the same!

The era also makes a difference.  In the 2000's long, thin routes were profitable thanks to the CRJ's and Embraer E-jets.  In the 1950's those same routes don't make much money because the long-range planes are either too big (Connie) or too slow (CW-20).  I had planned to make a killing on long, thin routes from Central America this round, and I had to completely change my strategy when I found there weren't any 1950's planes that could do those routes well.

In terms of being #1 on a continent, Central America is relatively easy.  I just took about a week off from the game, and when I came back I was still #1 on the continent by a big margin, and my average load factor was still over 90%.  If the #1 North American airline did that he'd get hammered.  

However, if you want to be high up in the overall rankings you're better off on one of the bigger continents.  I'm still the poorest of the continent leaders.

[Seattle]

I think I might want to differ on your Europe part. Though Western Europe is crazy, Eastern Europe (Includes Russia west of the Ural Mountains) seems to be ok and the competition not as horrible as in Western Europe. Very Small airports compared to Western Europes big bases, so money will not come in as quick, but in the longer run, it can greatly benefit a airline to start out and grow in Eastern Europe. You also are right in the middle as a midpoint between the Middle East and the rest of Europe, which there in itself is a plus, meaning you won't need to invest in planes made just for long range as much as you'll need planes for capacity.

As being based in Eastern Russia, I know the hardships of having widely spaced airports with low passenger counts....I would rate it 6/10. But I was away for 3 whole days and my average loadfactor only went down from 100% to 95.99%.

[LOT 737-300]

The era also makes a difference.  In the 2000's long, thin routes were profitable thanks to the CRJ's and Embraer E-jets.  In the 1950's those same routes don't make much money because the long-range planes are either too big (Connie) or too slow (CW-20).  I had planned to make a killing on long, thin routes from Central America this round, and I had to completely change my strategy when I found there weren't any 1950's planes that could do those routes well.

Have you taken a look at the Tu-70? It has can very well be described as a total "step in between" the CW-20 and L1049. Has more seats than a 20, but less than a 1049, more range than a 20, but less than a 1049. More speed than a 20, but less speed than a 1049. Has more crew than both the 1049 and 20 (6 people as oppsed to the 20's 4 and 1049's 5), but it still makes very good money for me. By the end of the round, more ideal aircraft will be in it. This is the the half of the decade when things were just getting back togeather.

[Seattle]

The era also makes a difference.  In the 2000's long, thin routes were profitable thanks to the CRJ's and Embraer E-jets.  In the 1950's those same routes don't make much money because the long-range planes are either too big (Connie) or too slow (CW-20).  I had planned to make a killing on long, thin routes from Central America this round, and I had to completely change my strategy when I found there weren't any 1950's planes that could do those routes well.

Have you taken a look at the Tu-70? It has can very well be described as a total "step in between" the CW-20 and L1049. Has more seats than a 20, but less than a 1049, more range than a 20, but less than a 1049. More speed than a 20, but less speed than a 1049. Has more crew than both the 1049 and 20 (6 people as oppsed to the 20's 4 and 1049's 5), but it still makes very good money for me. By the end of the round, more ideal aircraft will be in it. This is the the half of the decade when things were just getting back togeather.

Yes and for LONG RANGE I can use the Breda-Zapped.......... whatever. It works wonders on my alliance routes, so I can use my bigger planes on VVO-SIN, KHV-SIN, VVO-Jakarta. I'll try the TU-70... I am a Russian Airline, I gues I should make use of it.

[Max2147]

The era also makes a difference.  In the 2000's long, thin routes were profitable thanks to the CRJ's and Embraer E-jets.  In the 1950's those same routes don't make much money because the long-range planes are either too big (Connie) or too slow (CW-20).  I had planned to make a killing on long, thin routes from Central America this round, and I had to completely change my strategy when I found there weren't any 1950's planes that could do those routes well.

Have you taken a look at the Tu-70? It has can very well be described as a total "step in between" the CW-20 and L1049. Has more seats than a 20, but less than a 1049, more range than a 20, but less than a 1049. More speed than a 20, but less speed than a 1049. Has more crew than both the 1049 and 20 (6 people as oppsed to the 20's 4 and 1049's 5), but it still makes very good money for me. By the end of the round, more ideal aircraft will be in it. This is the the half of the decade when things were just getting back togeather.

I forgot to mention the issue of price.  The Tu-70's too much plane for what I had in mind.  It's in the top 10 of most expensive planes in the game (as is the BZ), and the routes I'm thinking of don't get very high aircraft utilization.  I'd like to fly routes like Monterrey to Madison, but I'm not going to buy one of the most expensive planes in the game to do it.

Last round I could pick up a Do-728 for $16 million, fly that route with 80 seats (nice profit), and still have plenty of hours left on the plane when it got back (I steadfastly refuse to fly 0.5 frequency flights).  This round the cheapest plane that fits that criteria is the HP.81, which is twice the cost of my beloved 728 in a round where profits are lower.

[LOT 737-300]

The era also makes a difference.  In the 2000's long, thin routes were profitable thanks to the CRJ's and Embraer E-jets.  In the 1950's those same routes don't make much money because the long-range planes are either too big (Connie) or too slow (CW-20).  I had planned to make a killing on long, thin routes from Central America this round, and I had to completely change my strategy when I found there weren't any 1950's planes that could do those routes well.

Have you taken a look at the Tu-70? It has can very well be described as a total "step in between" the CW-20 and L1049. Has more seats than a 20, but less than a 1049, more range than a 20, but less than a 1049. More speed than a 20, but less speed than a 1049. Has more crew than both the 1049 and 20 (6 people as oppsed to the 20's 4 and 1049's 5), but it still makes very good money for me. By the end of the round, more ideal aircraft will be in it. This is the the half of the decade when things were just getting back togeather.

I forgot to mention the issue of price.  The Tu-70's too much plane for what I had in mind.  It's in the top 10 of most expensive planes in the game (as is the BZ), and the routes I'm thinking of don't get very high aircraft utilization.  I'd like to fly routes like Monterrey to Madison, but I'm not going to buy one of the most expensive planes in the game to do it.

Last round I could pick up a Do-728 for $16 million, fly that route with 80 seats (nice profit), and still have plenty of hours left on the plane when it got back (I steadfastly refuse to fly 0.5 frequency flights).  This round the cheapest plane that fits that criteria is the HP.81, which is twice the cost of my beloved 728 in a round where profits are lower.

Well, what is the route critica you're looking for. I'm asking because I have 4 routes on my Tu-70 and of those 4 routes, only one of them is a .5. These are routes that are also close to 1000nm each. Price is a important factor, but we should be thinking in terms of 50s stats, so at the time, what we have now would've been seen as pretty darn amazing. so for what it's worth, owning Connies would be like owning a A332 in modern times, just like a Tu-70 would be like owning a 737, maybe a 757 for it's time. Those planes were not the cheapest (until they came on the used market it appears). You also have to remember that speed can also play a factor, if your plane goes faster, you can charge higher in most cases than one that flies something with even 40 kts less speed. At least that is my experiance. I'm planning to order one or two Tu-70s tomarrow morning. If you'd like to lease one for a short time (1-4 game months?)for evaluation purposes, just send me a PM and we can work out the details.

[jameswyhk]

What should I do in Australia? I am making little profit in Australia's regional market. It seems that Middle East is extremely easy. There are so many airports that have so many pax. There are less airlines than Oceania. Maybe I'll have to move again? (but I don't want to disturb the admins)