44 replies to this topic

[channy_thegreat]

I have been trying to create a regional airline. I have a hub at JFK and another at ATL. 

 

Both airports have 50 seater planes and fly very short regional routes, basically only to neighboring states. 

 

JFK: ~175 daily departures

 

ATL: ~125 daily departures

 

In the last month, I pulled in a net income of only $7 million on $110 million revenue. Roughly 6%. Whereas it is normally about a 30-40% margin for my last airlines, using mainline a/c. 

 

Now I realize using smaller airplanes means more flights and more gates; I am also aware JFK and ATL are expensive gates. However, the need to use those airports for my model exists because I need to demand to the secondary airports I serve. 

 

To help regional airlines, I think changing the landing fees and potentially gate leasing fees to a variable system based on seat count would be ideal. Landing/airports fees at least are indeed done like this in the real world. 

 

For instance: 

 

0-80 seats: 30%

 

80-150 seats: 50%

 

150-275: seats: 75%

 

275+ seats: 100% landing and gate fee costs

 

It would allow airlines like myself to actually work. There is no way under the current AE that a regional airline can work. 

 

As is, I pay all my employees $7/hr, 0% staff extras and a scam IFS and IFE that is bringing in 45m of my 110m. Without those scam programs, I am running in the red by 40m/month, probably -50/55m if I paid my employees a real wage. 

 

I am not one who enters worlds to scam the leasing system, horde planes to try and finish first. I simply pick a cool thing to do and try and build it. The idea that I basically have to cheat the system with the IFE/IFS in order to survive is insane. 

 

Something needs to be done to help the regional airline model in AE. 

[yusuf2]

i agree its very hard to create a regional airline in AE

[Pineair]

You want to change the game to fit your unrealistic business model. In the real world neither JFK nor Atlanta would want to entertain your needs. There are scores of airports in the US where, on AE, you can run the type of airline you are looking to build.

[Issac1709]

How about lower gate costs overall and then increase the landing fees by alot but give discounts to smaller planes

[Hake.]

I disagree with a lot of this. As a player who has had an airline with Metroliners, Short 360s and BK.117s (helicopter) out of LHR, and later extending to CDG. My example made plenty of money. The realistic regional airlines I have built have also made plenty of money.

[zahrul3]

Well, I use mainline jets and being on the exact same world as you are(based out of PMI), I'd say that since you're 350 ranks above me, you shouldn't be complaining at all. Yes, the gate costs at ATL may be high but for all it was worth, it was fully worth it. Your profit margin may be low, but since you have so many flights, props being cheap etc. , it kind of makes up for it in the early game - you get to expand quicker through sheer volume.

[Luft]

Landing fees make hardly a dent in the overall expenses.

However, gate fees are something that's being worked on in AE 4.

[Chubby Bear]

Making a regional or small domestic airline in AE is very hard work if no using some spamming help. The landing fees are ok but a bit overpriced for smaller aircraft but those gate fees for smaller aircraft are outrageous. How can they expect you to make it work if you are being asked the same amount for a gate a particular airport even if you are using an ATR 72 instead of a B777. That logic makes no sense.

[channy_thegreat]

Well, I use mainline jets and being on the exact same world as you are(based out of PMI), I'd say that since you're 350 ranks above me, you shouldn't be complaining at all. Yes, the gate costs at ATL may be high but for all it was worth, it was fully worth it. Your profit margin may be low, but since you have so many flights, props being cheap etc. , it kind of makes up for it in the early game - you get to expand quicker through sheer volume.

 

 

I am only 350 spots above you because we were close to month end and thus I had a huge cash payment for gates forthcoming. The valuation of my airline is only about 20m. 

 

I only have "a lot of flights" because I fly short routes and as such each airplane can run 50 flights a week and therefore has 7x departures out of JFK/ATL per day. 

[channy_thegreat]

 .

[PC Will]

You want to change the game to fit your unrealistic business model. In the real world neither JFK nor Atlanta would want to entertain your needs. There are scores of airports in the US where, on AE, you can run the type of airline you are looking to build.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

 

 

I have been trying to create a regional airline. I have a hub at JFK and another at ATL. 

 

Both airports have 50 seater planes and fly very short regional routes, basically only to neighboring states. 

 

JFK: ~175 daily departures

 

ATL: ~125 daily departures

 

In the last month, I pulled in a net income of only $7 million on $110 million revenue. Roughly 6%. Whereas it is normally about a 30-40% margin for my last airlines, using mainline a/c. 

 

Now I realize using smaller airplanes means more flights and more gates; I am also aware JFK and ATL are expensive gates. However, the need to use those airports for my model exists because I need to demand to the secondary airports I serve. 

 

To help regional airlines, I think changing the landing fees and potentially gate leasing fees to a variable system based on seat count would be ideal. Landing/airports fees at least are indeed done like this in the real world. 

 

For instance: 

 

0-80 seats: 30%

 

80-150 seats: 50%

 

150-275: seats: 75%

 

275+ seats: 100% landing and gate fee costs

 

It would allow airlines like myself to actually work. There is no way under the current AE that a regional airline can work. 

 

As is, I pay all my employees $7/hr, 0% staff extras and a scam IFS and IFE that is bringing in 45m of my 110m. Without those scam programs, I am running in the red by 40m/month, probably -50/55m if I paid my employees a real wage. 

 

I am not one who enters worlds to scam the leasing system, horde planes to try and finish first. I simply pick a cool thing to do and try and build it. The idea that I basically have to cheat the system with the IFE/IFS in order to survive is insane. 

 

Something needs to be done to help the regional airline model in AE. 

 

 

I don't think you realize, a 5% profit margin for an airline is considered "good" as airlines are notorious for making huge losses....

 

For you to be on 6% and be complaining that landing fees are too high, frankly I find ridiculous.

 

You chose to run a regional carrier, and so you can't complain when you make less profit... that's how it is.

 

Nor should the rules be changed (There's development work in this to implement variables and factors which will need changing to input what you want) to suit YOUR needs.

[Will101]

Well I mean there are some valid points included in it Will, A380s and DO328s won't receive the same gate charges and landing fees, but I'm pretty meh on the subject when it comes to AE as that opens a whole door of adjusting prices depending on size of aircraft, time of day, frequency etc. 

But the answer a few other concerns on this thread, regional airlines in AE are piss easy (if you actually do it from regional airports and not ATL...)

[channy_thegreat]

Couldn't agree more.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you realize, a 5% profit margin for an airline is considered "good" as airlines are notorious for making huge losses....

 

For you to be on 6% and be complaining that landing fees are too high, frankly I find ridiculous.

 

You chose to run a regional carrier, and so you can't complain when you make less profit... that's how it is.

 

Nor should the rules be changed (There's development work in this to implement variables and factors which will need changing to input what you want) to suit YOUR needs.

 

 

Why are you comparing this to the real world? AE is not real world. Real world is not relevant to this conversation.

 

In AE, 30-40% is average or good. 

 

5% is bad. 

 

EDIT: And if you want to compare it to the real world, in the real world A380s and ATRs/CRJs are not charged anywhere near the same landing costs, yet they are in AE. 

 

Lovely argument, too bad it holds no water when you actually look at what you wrote. 

[Hake.]

You're still dodging 101's statement that regional airlines are piss easy (which they are). And unfortunately your argument doesn't hold much water either. It's too simplistic.

[channy_thegreat]

You're still dodging 101's statement that regional airlines are piss easy (which they are). And unfortunately your argument doesn't hold much water either. It's too simplistic.

lol, you're not very smart.

[Hake.]

lol, you're not very smart.

Elaborate. I've run Metroliners out of LHR without a bother, so why should ATRs in JFK with Scam IFS be a bother? So let's not throw unfounded insults around shall we?

[channy_thegreat]

I don't want to be doing the SCAM IFS. I do it simply as a means of survival. 

 

My profits have grown as I achieved an economy of scale. However, I am still running negative net income without the scam IFS, which accounts for about 40% of my operations revenue stream. 

 

What I am saying is completely fair. Landing and gate fees are significant to a routes profitability and a huge line item on the income statement operations expenses. 

 

How is it fair that my 50seater ATR-400, CRJ100 and Q300s be charged the same as an A380?

 

Actually, it's not that it's even the same its up to x14  more expensive landing fees  because it takes me potentially 14 flights to carry as many people as one A380 flight. 

 

Furthermore, in reality, which is what one user above tried to cite as their reasoning behind being against it.... smaller planes are indeed cheaper on airport related costs. 

 

Either way you look at it, you're argument does not hold any weight. 

 

In AE a regional and a transcon or intl airline are all equally easy. They all require the same buttons to create routes and lease gates or buy planes..... So saying they're "piss easy" is dumbfounding and just a really, really, REALLY dumb argument. 

 

I've laid out my argument. Well no, not an argument, it's based in reality. 

[SirMoo]

Landing fees for smaller planes should be lower and scale based on weight class as they do in the real world.

 

That being said... Gate costs SHOULD NOT be lower for small planes. This isn't how it works. Gates tend to be a standard price regardless of the plane they park infront of it.

 

Nicer gates tend to be more, but AE doesn't simulate it. For all we know everyone uses airstairs.

[Hake.]

I don't want to be doing the SCAM IFS. I do it simply as a means of survival.


How is it fair that my 50seater ATR-400, CRJ100 and Q300s be charged the same as an A380?


Either way you look at it, you're argument does not hold any weight.

In AE a regional and a transcon or intl airline are all equally easy. They all require the same buttons to create routes and lease gates or buy planes..... So saying they're "piss easy" is dumbfounding and just a really, really, REALLY dumb argument.

I've laid out my argument. Well no, not an argument, it's based in reality.

So a few snippets of my opposition here.
1.*Your
2. With the variation of gates planned in AE4, there's no need for cheap gates, which regional airlines then take, resulting in even worse gate shortages for my transatlantic airlines (and yours too).
3. What if I want to fly a weeklu 767 and a 6 daily Cessna 208 into an airport? That's right,THE SYSTEM IS DEAD
4. Your is probably mismanaged as I didn't need Scam IFS, thus reinforcing my "I ran Metroliners from Heathrow so why can't you run ATRs from JFK" argument.
5. Ladies and gentlemen, backpedaling in its finest form. You've been complaining about how hard it is to set up your regional airline, and now you're saying its piss easy? Why should gate costs be a problem then...

[channy_thegreat]

1: When you point out grammar mistakes and honest typos as your main point, it really goes to show how weak and childish your argument as a whole is. 

 

2: I'm not asking for cheaper gates, I am asking for airport services priced by seat, not a universal dollar amount. 

 

3: No it is not. Not at all. Did you think using caps lock and emojis somehow makes your argument more valid? it doesn't. Landing fees would be based on the seat count of the plane landing. Add the variable amounts, based on your planes flown, and add it up to put it in the route finance page. Not hard. The exact same thing could be done for the gate pricing. It does not have to be a fixed dollar amount. Gates at airports in America have varying dollar amounts based on the gate. Do you really think a regional plane sized gate and a widebody, 3 people mover, A380 ready gate cost the same?

 

4: Let me quote you: "Your is probably mismanaged as I didn't need Scam IFS". Not only did you lean on simple, honest grammar mistake in this point, but you mocked it in a sentence that it's usage makes the sentence syntax and meaning completely incorrect. As for your completely unfounded claim about Metros/LHR argument... 

 

• That argument is a complete strawman. Just because it may be possible to do with Metros at LHR w/o scam IFS does not in any way make it possible for it to be done with ATR-400s from JFK. That is a total strawman argument. 
• Here, I just screenshotted my financial statements from that world. See below:

 

 

• In the last month, I had a net income of $74M. However, I had a scam IFS revenue stream of $96M. Without ScamIFS, I would have run a net income of ($22M). Granted I have now begun expanding to ATL, ORD and LAX.
• However in the months where I just had JFK(all of 1990), my margins were even smaller as you can see in the financial statements. For instance, in 1990, I made a Net Income of $55M for the entire year of which I had a ScamIFS revenue of $333M. Without scam IFS I would have a net income of ($278M)
• That strawman argument has been completely debunked

5: No, you should really learn to read. You claimed that setting up a regional airline is "piss easy". No let me quote you directly 

• You said: "regional airlines are piss easy (which they are)"
• I responded by saying that regional airlines are no easier to set up as a user than a transcon or international airline, as a user. They all require pressing the same buttons. My specific words were: "In AE a regional and a transcon or intl airline are all equally easy. They all require the same buttons to create routes and lease gates or buy planes..... So saying they're "piss easy" is dumbfounding and just a really, really, REALLY dumb argument. " I was CLEARLY talking in regards to the effort to set them up, from a user perspective. I went on to say calling them "piss easy" is Really, really dumb. 
• How is that saying "and now you're saying its piss easy?"?
• I mean literally I said "Calling them 'piss easy' is really, REALLY dumb." and you read that and took away "you're calling them piss easy?". Please, learn to read before you reply again. This is just embarrassing for you, this whole post
• From a FINANCIAL perspective, which is what allows sustainability and growth, a regional airline in AE is significantly more difficult than a international or transcon airline. 

Please, learn reading and comprehension before you reply again. Complete ignorance coupled with logical fallacies and immaturity is not a good look on anyone, including you.