Is there anyway to make profit with them? Managed to bankcrupt my first airline because of Caravelles not profiting. Or should i just ignore them until 70s?
Jet planes in 60s
#1
Posted 26 December 2016 - 11:02 AM
#2
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:08 PM
I only find early jets profitable on medium to long routes because speed is the only advantage they have against the props, with the advent of the One Eleven and DC 9 shorter city pairings seem viable. But everyone have their own strategy...
#3
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:31 PM
The only really feasible Caravelles are 1 and 12. I make roughly $400k net a month per Caravelle 1 with them in a 6C 50Y configuration. Keep them on competition free routes serving less than 70% of demand and jack up the price of the tickets. Caravelle 12s are great if you have big runways, better than 737Js or DC9s
#4
Posted 26 December 2016 - 08:48 PM
Yeah really the best way to do early jets is to just emulate what actual airlines did.
707s, DC-8s and CV-880/990s go on your trunk routes, keep your props on short haul until at least the late 60s.
Also kudos on not just going straight for CL-44s and Tu-114s. Those aircraft are for men of weak will and cowards.
#5
Posted 30 December 2016 - 05:11 PM
The only really feasible Caravelles are 1 and 12. I make roughly $400k net a month per Caravelle 1 with them in a 6C 50Y configuration. Keep them on competition free routes serving less than 70% of demand and jack up the price of the tickets. Caravelle 12s are great if you have big runways, better than 737Js or DC9s
Yeah really the best way to do early jets is to just emulate what actual airlines did.
707s, DC-8s and CV-880/990s go on your trunk routes, keep your props on short haul until at least the late 60s.
Also kudos on not just going straight for CL-44s and Tu-114s. Those aircraft are for men of weak will and cowards.
I only find early jets profitable on medium to long routes because speed is the only advantage they have against the props, with the advent of the One Eleven and DC 9 shorter city pairings seem viable. But everyone have their own strategy...
Thanks for the replays. Tried putting all jet aircraft in long-medium routes and sure enough, they are profiting.
#6
Posted 30 December 2016 - 08:38 PM
They can be profitable. By 1964 the 727 and the Trident 1C are out, which are good short-medium haul aircrafts. By 1965 the Douglas DC-9 is out, an outstanding short haul aircraft. By 1968, the 737 is out, which is another amazing short-haul aircraft. By 1969, the 747 is out, which is simply amazing. In addition, the 707 is in production until 1978, the 720 is in production until 1967, and the DC-8 Series 10-50 is in production until ~1967. In addition, the DC-8 Super Sixties are introduced in ~1967. There's a lot of choices that are profitable, and I'm sure I missed some.
Discord: Farko#3900 lolbanned
#7
Posted 07 January 2017 - 08:54 PM
It is definitely possible with some, some are even better than a few propeller choices (because of the extra speed, range, and sometimes they have more capacity)
The good ones:
Boeing 707s (707-320Cs are my favorite) are very good, excellent range and capacity. Just check that you aren't buying a variant that has engines with bad fuel efficciency (like the 707-420). Same with DC-8s, I make good money with them on long routes. Those 2 models are pretty good long-haul planes with >5000 miles range. They're some of my most profitable airplanes in my 60s airline, in fact
Convair jets are very good (I use 880A Coronados), they have an acceptable fuel efficiency and still offer a decent range (slightly lower than 707's and DC-8's though). They go out of sale in the mid-60s so try to get some before that
Tu-124s are actually not bad, I tried them and I seem to be making some money with them (not much, though). They're the only regional jet available at that moment, I use them to bring passengers to hubs in low demand and/or short routes, sometimes as a backup to small 2-engine props (F-27s, HS748). The thing is they tend to use a lot of airport slots (High speed, low capacity, low range) but that's usually not an issue in the 60s
I'm about to receive the first DC-9s and I think they're good too. They're like an improved version of Tu-124s and seem to offer decent fuel efficiency for the era (I haven't tested them yet though)
The bad ones:
VC-10 and Super VC-10. These pieces of s*** use so much fuel that they will make you lose money most of the time. I ordered lots of VC-10 and I don't want to lose the deposit, but I can barely make a profit with them using Scam IFS on long routes. I normally have to use them together with other planes just to cover some more demand on routes with no competitors (if someone comes and starts a fare war against your VC-10s you'll lose it right away)
I chose Tu-104 as my starter plane but I regret it. It does make a profit but only a little, should've chosen a propeller plane instead. Bad fuel efficciency but not as bad as VC-10s
Conclusion:
It's definitely possible to profit with jets in the 60s (even with the s***ty ones I mentioned), but margins are much smaller. You should stay away from VC-10s and Tu-104s and you'll be fine. However, props are of course more profitable because they have much better efficiency (and we're taking about low-bypass turbofans here), but that doesn't mean you can't operate both. At the start grow your airline with some prop planes (CL-44s and Tu-114s are awesome), and when you have the extra money order some jets for longer routes (707s and DC-8s) and as backup for other routes (the rest of the jets).
To improve profit with jets, don't use them in routes with a lot of competition (so you don't have to lower your fares and go into the red), or compensate with IFS
EDIT: I forgot about the Caravelles and the Comets. They're both "meh". Not very good, but not bad like the VC-10s. Start to get them when you are idling and you have ordered all the better planes (and you're making money faster than you can order new planes)
#8
Posted 08 January 2017 - 12:27 AM
When comparing jets use the formula (# of seats * speed)/fuel flow
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users