Size companies!

Is completely insane one company have 2717 aircrafts!!!

In the real world there is not a company with such a volume of aircrafts!!!

Company 165: 2717 fleets.
Company 71: 1346 fleets.
Company 771: 1401 fleets.

In real world, AA: 647 + 54 in order.

Possible cause of the discrepancy: no conections in domestic and international routs. Fly point to point is no realy in various situations.

Is completely insane one company have 2717 aircrafts!!!

In the real world there is not a company with such a volume of aircrafts!!!

Company 165: 2717 fleets.
Company 71: 1346 fleets.
Company 771: 1401 fleets.

In real world, AA: 647 + 54 in order.

Possible cause of the discrepancy: no conections in domestic and international routs. Fly point to point is no realy in various situations.

This is in many worlds and isn't necessarily a problem so long as the airline is maintained. Believe me if you play with us a lot you will end up there someday.

The question is not the first place and yes the absurd number of aircraft in a company. This does not exist in the real world.

The question is not the first place and yes the absurd number of aircraft in a company. This does not exist in the real world.

Yes, there are no airlines that have 2000+ aircraft in real life, but this is how any well-maintained AE airline will end up.

I agree with clacobhz, i hate these mega AE airlines.

well I dont think its an issue, in 10-20 years maybe some real airlines will end up like that

Is completely insane one company have 2717 aircrafts!!!

In the real world there is not a company with such a volume of aircrafts!!!

In the next version of the game (currently in testing) we're working on slowing the expansion rate by making costs grow with operations. That is one of the major contributors to the exponential growth in AE.

That said, the game will never be fully realistic because in the real world, most air markets are saturated already. To start up and grow in that environment (as opposed to starting with empty markets in AE) is much harder, and most players would have a hard time surviving, let alone make enough profit to grow into a legacy-size airline.

In the next version of the game (currently in testing) we're working on slowing the expansion rate by making costs grow with operations. That is one of the major contributors to the exponential growth in AE.

That said, the game will never be fully realistic because in the real world, most air markets are saturated already. To start up and grow in that environment (as opposed to starting with empty markets in AE) is much harder, and most players would have a hard time surviving, let alone make enough profit to grow into a legacy-size airline.

Sounds good. I have nothing against competing with most large airlines (up to say 500 aircraft) but it gets highly frustrating when a mega airline (with several thousand aircraft) starts squeezing small airlines out of the market. This has become particularly problematic with openskies in Europe. I'm glad the developers are being pro-active and doing something to make things a bit more fair. I have nothing against competition and I know that markets get saturated but sometimes it is just getting crazy. Thanks again to the developers.

The problem is that the model of "buy anything that you could find and had wings and at least one engine, flood any route with the biggest possible aircraft, rake money" involves no organization, no strategy and is too much of an easy way to success. As a matter of fact, if you ever end up competing against one of these monster airlines, the only thing you can do is adopt the same non-strategy. Some of them have 20-odd different types in their fleets and use A380s to fly 200pax-day routes. Any real airline trying to do so would go bust in 10 days.

Now I realize AE, like any other game, will never be too realistic but this is the case of people that found the weakness in the game structure and are using it to their advantage, much like standing in front of the goalkeeper in old soccer games or cutting through corners in racing games, back in the '90s.

The result of this is that the further the game world progresses, the less fun the game becomes.

I had reasonable plans nicely lined out: phase out my aging fleet of B767s and A330s and replace them with A350s, then see if there was a real alternative to the A320s and B738s, the new Bombardier CS series perhaps?
Then one of these "Godzilla Airlines" came crashing into my domestic market.
I had to change "plans": no phasing out anymore, just buy anything on the market just to keep up. Had to order new A330s, new B767, B777s, B787s, CS100s, CRJ900s, A321s, B739s and essentially any other airplane type so that I had a steady flow of at least 7-8 planes delivered in a month. Just to keep up.

Then, mindlessly go to any route showing bad profit and spam it with the biggest bird the runways would fit, or open routes with no planning at all, point-to-point without even making sure one city is connected to all the other major ones. Not to mention hubs in tiny airport, for the extra passengers. Very messy, but this worked much better than planning everything carefully.

So, a couple suggestions about things that could potentially help changing this around:

- Make the cost of owning a messy fleet SKYROCKET. A fleet with more than 7/8 types should be in a tight spot, profits wise. An airline flying over 10 different types should be losing money like crazy. An airline with over 20 types should be bankrupt since long time. It's no mystery that the most of the RL airlines making steady profits are 1-type airlines (Southwest, Ryanair, EasyJet for example).

- Make it so that spamming A380s or 747-800s on just any route is not lucrative. Real airlines use planes as small as ATR42s and Q400s because they discovered that even on high demand routes not all the people wanted to fly at the same times. Short to medium haul routes flown on smaller planes, at a higher frequency, should bring a much higher passengers attraction, allowing for higher load factors while retaining higher ticket prices (an A380 could be more efficient than a A320 when fully loaded, but what would be the profit if you had to gift tickets for 1$ in order to fill the 600 seats?). Certainly there are routes that are an exception (a few in Asia, that I can think of), where 747s fly 100 miles stretches. But that should be that way, an exception. Make the "high frequency bonus" only apply for frequencies up to 28x weekly to avoid the opposite problem: Trislander and C152 spamming on Frankfurt-London.

I am sure the others will come up with more and better ideas. Let's start a discussion.

I am sorry for the length of the post and the rantish tone, but this issue is annoying me to no end and will probably cause me to drop a game that is just brilliant in other sections.

Aeroflot in the 30's used to fly 3000 obsolete planes So it's not that bad...

yeah, they were things like AN-2s though...

I have no idea how companies can make money on planes that can only carry like 10 people and use 10 times more fuel than a car...

I guess I am one of the large airlines you're talking about. I run Dangle which is currently no1. I'll explain a few of my observations and what I feel made me climb to the top. I joined R6 about a week after it started. Which means I'm somewhat of a latecomer. The massive airlines from back then are gone. Mostly abandoned or mismanaged. If you feel that I've invaded your territory I'm sorry. Although this isn't real life I never try to takeover a route by an active small player. If an airline hasn't been touched for a while I start directly competing on its routes and trying to take its routes over. Here are some of my tactics and observations that may help you compete. I have many types of aircraft and here's a little explanation behind some of them.
1. The A330-300 is the best medium widebody in R6. It's cheap to operate and can land on a lot of shorter runways.
2. I use the A330-200 on the shorter runways for long-haul service.
3. The 767-300ER is good on longer thin routes. It has longer range than the 767-400ER and both A330 models.
4. For large volume on long haul the 777-300ER is the most efficient plane. It's much more efficient than both the 747-400 and 8I models. It's even more efficient than the A380. I have both the 747-8I and A380 on order but am selling them as I get them and am trying to phase out the units in service. Not efficient and can't get frequency.
5. The 767-300 non ER can operate large capacity routes out of LGA.
6. The 777-200LR is my longest range hauler.
7. The 757-200 can give me lots of frequencies between the east coast USA and Europe.
8. The 757-300 is one of the most efficient planes without huge capacity to use on large capacity inter-USA routes. And I have a fetish for 757's Lol
9. The 737-700ER and A319-100LR are great for topping up capacity on larger routes or opening up long thin routes.
10. I use the AN-148 out of my DAL hub.
11. The C300ER is goning to be replacing 737-700's and A319's. It is somewhat more fuel efficient per seat and a little less capacity so I can add frequencies.
12. The TU-204-100 is cheap for what it does and no less efficient than its Airbus or Boeing rivals.
12. I have a motley crew of of Q400's, EMB 195's, CRJ700's, etc that I've used to open up small focus cities in the past. Some of my C300's are going there.

oops sorry wrong forum. My airline is in R6 not AE6

Criver, you're replying to a 1 year old thread....

Criver, you're replying to a 1 year old thread....

hahaha.. I've just noticed that this is exactly made on January 29th 2011... a year before today...

hahaha.. I've just noticed that this is exactly made on January 29th 2011... a year before today...

No wonder i thought it was up to date.