Jump to content

Photo

profitable planes


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#21
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

Because you aren't suppose to use IFS on those small planes.

Most profitable for me is every aircraft actually, except for the Russian aircraft and kinda the MD-11.

Define Russian aircraft? The Il-18, Il-86, Il-96, Tu-114, Tu-154, Tu-204, SSJ etc. are all really easy to make a profit on, and the MD-11 is pretty profitable when used well (though obviously the A330 is a much better choice, but if you're in need of delivery slots the MD-11 is fine)



#22
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

I have an airline running seven Il-62Ms and yes, getting them to make decent money is a nightmare. My most profitable 62 makes about $2.3 million a month.

That's nothing compared with supersonics...



#23
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,458 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

ATR 72-500 was a surprise for me, great fuel economy and can make lots of money compared to its price and it's more economical than Q400 until the NextGen, but I guess most players don't care about that and are too lazy to be distracted by regional planes anyway (but not too lazy to send some remaining hours on a 747 or 767 to regional routes and check and crash prices every 20 minutes, and probably wonder why they're not competitive with 3 weekly departures)... 

 

I don't know why some people mention 767, it is not much more economical then A300/A310 or L1011, and it's certainly less economical then A330 and 777 when they appear... But it is a practical model, I like them, but I'm not fascinated by their economy...

 

So what most folks here care about, simple 777-300, about the same fuel economy as A333 and 772 with 25% more capacity, in a lot of situations makes more money then a 747. Since IRL the -300ER was more popular with airlines, I even wonder if the fuel numbers in AE are completely correct...

Small planes means bigger frequencies. Your Landing fees and Other Taxes and Fees would increased dramatically if you place too much flights within one routes. Unless the routes are quite small, using ATR 72-500 wouldn't be much beneficial, also, there are BAE ATP, which have more range and faster speed. So A320 or B737 would do the job better on most routes.



#24
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,458 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Because you aren't suppose to use IFS on those small planes.

Most profitable for me is every aircraft actually, except for the Russian aircraft and kinda the MD-11.

I try not using scam IFS, I've lost -$200 for each routes. the Scam IFS actually generate money.



#25
Hake.

Hake.

    Too Old For All This Jazz

  • Member
  • 4,295 posts
  • Skype Name:billfoster123
  • Website:http://willsweg.com

User's Awards

   8      

I try not using scam IFS, I've lost -$200 for each routes. the Scam IFS actually generate money.

International routes lead to higher fees, meaning most sub 10 seat aircraft are unprofitable on Intl.

#26
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,458 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

International routes lead to higher fees, meaning most sub 10 seat aircraft are unprofitable on Intl.

I never said International routes. It's a domestic airports with really low Monthly Gate Cost.



#27
konj1

konj1

    whatever

  • Member
  • 562 posts

User's Awards

3       3    3      

Small planes means bigger frequencies. Your Landing fees and Other Taxes and Fees would increased dramatically if you place too much flights within one routes. Unless the routes are quite small, using ATR 72-500 wouldn't be much beneficial, also, there are BAE ATP, which have more range and faster speed. So A320 or B737 would do the job better on most routes.

Not really.... Landing fees and other taxes are much smaller for a small plane. The only same expense is flight crew and a bit more of ground crew, but they're relatively cheap.

 

Especially if you fly domestic routes where you can build unlimited terminals (and they count as evaluation and take only a fraction of expense as leased gates) with smaller planes, the profits should be great.

 

Not to mention that bigger frequency for a large plane takes more turn time and sometimes holds a big plane more on the ground than in the air on a short route... That means zero profit when it's held on the ground, but I guess a lot of people don't know much about turn time.

 

Which is all why regional planes make a lot of sense.

 

By the way, some other profitable Russian planes, Yak-42 shouldn't do much worse then a 733, and An-24 is also a simple prop not much different then e.g. F-27.



#28
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,458 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Not really.... Landing fees and other taxes are much smaller for a small plane. The only same expense is flight crew and a bit more of ground crew, but they're relatively cheap.

 

Especially if you fly domestic routes where you can build unlimited terminals (and they count as evaluation and take only a fraction of expense as leased gates) with smaller planes, the profits should be great.

 

Not to mention that bigger frequency for a large plane takes more turn time and sometimes holds a big plane more on the ground than in the air on a short route... That means zero profit when it's held on the ground, but I guess a lot of people don't know much about turn time.

 

Which is all why regional planes make a lot of sense.

 

By the way, some other profitable Russian planes, Yak-42 shouldn't do much worse then a 733, and An-24 is also a simple prop not much different then e.g. F-27.

I've actually do a test on the same routes using 2 different aircraft. A320 and ATR72-500. I've got more profits using A320 and less frequencies. Also I need to pay more gates to accommodate more flights using small plane. Also Turn time would double or tripled if you using smaller aircrafts. ATR72-500 have turn time of 30 minutes while A320 have turn times of 35 minutes. It's no brainer to use ATR72-500 compared to A320 or even A319. In order to satisfy the demand for 400 passengers daily, I need to fly 14-15 flights a week with A320 while I need to fly 37-38 flights per week for ATR72-500. Using the turn time in the game, A320 would require 7.5 hours of turn time while ATR72-500 would require 19 hours turn time a week. Also, A320 have higher speed, which mean each aircraft could be used to carry more passengers per week compared to ATR72-500.



#29
konj1

konj1

    whatever

  • Member
  • 562 posts

User's Awards

3       3    3      

Well OK, for a 400 passengers route, of course A320 is the right choice, I was writing about players who send a 747 to cover a short 200 passengers route...



#30
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,458 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Well OK, for a 400 passengers route, of course A320 is the right choice, I was writing about players who send a 747 to cover a short 200 passengers route...

That wouldn't be a bad idea either. Since they would only send 2 flights per week and the cost for the operations would be way lower than Props. It would ended up just like my calculation with A320 and ATR72-500.



#31
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

The Russian Aircrafts I used, none of them made so much money compared with other aircrafts, except for the IL-96 and SSJ. The MD-11 is profitable, but compared to the 767 and A330 it's nothing. I replaced my MD-11 with a 767-400ER on a route and the 767 made more money than the MD-11, 'cause the MD-11 uses so much fuel.

Well of course since the fuel economy is so bad, it'll make less money, but the point is what planes are profitable, not what planes are more profitable.



#32
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

The Russian Aircrafts I used, none of them made so much money compared with other aircrafts, except for the IL-96 and SSJ. The MD-11 is profitable, but compared to the 767 and A330 it's nothing. I replaced my MD-11 with a 767-400ER on a route and the 767 made more money than the MD-11, 'cause the MD-11 uses so much fuel.

Well of course since the fuel economy is so bad, it'll make less money, but the point is what planes are profitable, not what planes are more profitable.

 

Well of course since the fuel economy is so bad, it'll make less money, but the point is what planes are profitable, not what planes are more profitable.

*topic, not point



#33
Tesla

Tesla

    Inactive

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts

I find the IL-96 is quite bad for fuel economy. IL-86 is ok, it doesn't thrash your pocket, but there are many better options including the B767-300 if it is available.



#34
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

I find the IL-96 is quite bad for fuel economy. IL-86 is ok, it doesn't thrash your pocket, but there are many better options including the B767-300 if it is available.

The Il-96 has horrible fuel economy, but it makes up relative to the Il-86 for its much longer range and much cheaper price. The Il-96 is technically only useful when you're low on money but want to operate long-haul services - one Il-96-300 costs less than an A321-200.



#35
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

I find the IL-96 is quite bad for fuel economy. IL-86 is ok, it doesn't thrash your pocket, but there are many better options including the B767-300 if it is available.

The A330-300 is way better than either for everything; it's probably the most profitable single-decker plane in the game.



#36
konj1

konj1

    whatever

  • Member
  • 562 posts

User's Awards

3       3    3      

The A330-300 is way better than either for everything; it's probably the most profitable single-decker plane in the game.

It is not. As I said, 777-300 has similar fuel economy with 25% more pax capacity. 

 

Talking about Il-96, please be more precise, there's a big difference between Il-96-300 which really has bad fuel economy for its capacity, and Il-96-400 which is not at all that wasteful, its capacity compared to fuel economy is basically not very different then some of less economical engine options on A333 or 772 and it can easily make 400K+ DOP without changing basic prices.



#37
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

It is not. As I said, 777-300 has similar fuel economy with 25% more pax capacity. 

 

Talking about Il-96, please be more precise, there's a big difference between Il-96-300 which really has bad fuel economy for its capacity, and Il-96-400 which is not at all that wasteful, its capacity compared to fuel economy is basically not very different then some of less economical engine options on A333 or 772 and it can easily make 400K+ DOP without changing basic prices.

The Il-96-400 has a ridiculously long turn time, but it is a lot more efficient compared to the Il-96-300.

As for the 333 vs 773 debate, the 773 has better fuel economy (fuel flow divided by seats, btw please use the correct terminology which is fuel flow) though higher fuel flow, and if your airline is based in places with high competition and/or short runways, the 333 is much better. The 773 also has a 58.4% higher capital cost, which means that the 333 is usually the safer bet. I agree that the 773 will be the more profitable aircraft if everything goes your way, but under most circumstances the 333 will be more consistently profitable.



#38
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

It is not. As I said, 777-300 has similar fuel economy with 25% more pax capacity. 

 

Talking about Il-96, please be more precise, there's a big difference between Il-96-300 which really has bad fuel economy for its capacity, and Il-96-400 which is not at all that wasteful, its capacity compared to fuel economy is basically not very different then some of less economical engine options on A333 or 772 and it can easily make 400K+ DOP without changing basic prices.

 

The Il-96-400 has a ridiculously long turn time, but it is a lot more efficient compared to the Il-96-300.

As for the 333 vs 773 debate, the 773 has better fuel economy (fuel flow divided by seats, btw please use the correct terminology which is fuel flow) though higher fuel flow, and if your airline is based in places with high competition and/or short runways, the 333 is much better. The 773 also has a 58.4% higher capital cost, which means that the 333 is usually the safer bet. I agree that the 773 will be the more profitable aircraft if everything goes your way, but under most circumstances the 333 will be more consistently profitable.

Your 'about' is pretty far-fetched; just comparing the raw fuel flow (not adjusted for seats), the 773 has a minimum fuel flow of 45888 at a price of 198000000, while the 333 has a minimum fuel flow of 40500 (before winglets), which adjusts to 38475 after winglets at a price of 128008500. This comes out as the 773 being 54.68% more expensive, while having a 19.27% higher fuel flow. The 773 only has 25% more seats, and hence using this basic model the 333 is more profitable per seat. Overall, obviously the 773 can be more profitable, but taking into account delivery schedules and dates (the 333 appears almost 5 full years before the 773, and is delivered once every 3 weeks compared to once every 4 weeks), the 333 will be, on average, more profitable, due to lower operating requirements.



#39
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

If you come up with statements like "the Yak-42 comes near the 737-300 in terms of profit" then you obviously don't know much about how this game works. The 737-300 has over 24% more capacity, with lower fuel flow, shorter turn time, greater range, shorter runway requirements and higher speed, and is only less than 19% more expensive. Obviously the 737-300 is much better than the Yak-42.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the 777-300. But the fact remains that the A330-300 is even better (of course, the best solution is to use both planes simultaneously, as they complement each other), and a safer bet for most airlines in AE.



#40
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

The A330-300 is way better than either for everything; it's probably the most profitable single-decker plane in the game.

Edit: The 777-300 comes close (or sometimes overtakes it in terms of absolute profit), as well as the 787s.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users