100 replies to this topic

[tchung]

I run these planes:

 

A310-300

An-28

737-300

Saab 340B

767-300ER

 

The Airbus A310 SUCKS. Don't buy it. Spend your money on a 767-300ER it has better fuel economy.

The An-28's and Saab 340B work really well for airports that cost $300-$2000 per month covering the whole airport's gates in one frequency. Also they always get max Legroom reputation.

 

Here is my routes

Attached Files

•  Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 9.55.57 AM.png   250.16KB   0 downloads

[TNT88]

Lol, why would you use A310 for short haul anyway? Use A300 instead

[konj1]

Well, I see a lot of people trying to use A310 where they could use A300, I just don't get what do you expect, do you think the name A310 is more modern and cool or what?

Why would you even compare it to 763???

Things are simple, 763 is meant to compete with A300 and A300 is arguably even more efficient, and A310 is a later down-size that was meant to compete with equally less efficient 762. That's it.

[LJ Aviation]

767-300ER is reeeealy profitable and economical, brilliant plane

Yup, I ordered tons of that plane

More profitable than 747s

[LJ Aviation]

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.

In general all Russian planes suck

I flew TU-154Ms and they were a NIGHTMARE

Plus 747SP sucks unless you need to fly routes like LAX-SIN

I only keep a few 747SPs

For me 767 and A300 and A320 and MD-80s make cash

[LJ Aviation]

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

Good for anything I use it to operate LAX-JFK

[LJ Aviation]

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.

777 and 330 serve completely different markets

777 are for LH

333 is for SH-MH trunk routes

[LJ Aviation]

I run these planes:

 

A310-300

An-28

737-300

Saab 340B

767-300ER

 

The Airbus A310 SUCKS. Don't buy it. Spend your money on a 767-300ER it has better fuel economy.

The An-28's and Saab 340B work really well for airports that cost $300-$2000 per month covering the whole airport's gates in one frequency. Also they always get max Legroom reputation.

 

Here is my routes

Why would you use A310 when you can use A300?

[PiggyWhiskey]

Why would you use A310 when you can use A300?

Dude! Seriously,

Why are you going around necro'ing all these old threads? With absolutely nothing new to add?

 

You're litterally the worst person to have in a Forum.

[TheGreatOP]

777 and 330 serve completely different markets

777 are for LH

333 is for SH-MH trunk routes

Firstly, you can serve whatever markets you want. This is AE.

Secondly, in real life the A330-300 runs way longer routes than the 777-300, which mainly runs intra-Asia or Japanese domestic trunk routes, not the other way round. If you can't differentiate between the 777-300 and 777-300ER, you need to look them up on Wikipedia.

Here, you're wrong whether you're talking about AE or real life.

[kingoftheskies]

777 and 330 serve completely different markets

777 are for LH

333 is for SH-MH trunk routes

 

You do know in Asia a lot of carriers (especially EK, SQ, CX) uses the 777 on short-haul trunk routes, especially routes with high demands and limited landing slots?

 

[OT]

Anyways, the above guy is right. Your username appears on every topic. Not that it's wrong, nothing wrong about frequent posters. But the thing is, I see your username on topics where there isn't any activity for 7 to 12 months, bumping old threads is not necessary unless you have something extremely important to post. Plus, on this page itself, you have five consecutive posts, each post as a reply to another post. It seems like your intention is to increase your posts count rapidly. Next time, I'd suggest combining the replies into one post.

[WAZZ]

Anyways, the above guy is right. Your username appears on every topic. Not that it's wrong, nothing wrong about frequent posters. But the thing is, I see your username on topics where there isn't any activity for 7 to 12 months, bumping old threads is not necessary unless you have something extremely important to post. Plus, on this page itself, you have five consecutive posts, each post as a reply to another post. It seems like your intention is to increase your posts count rapidly. Next time, I'd suggest combining the replies into one post.

He probably wants like 3000 posts like TNT or something.

 

Anyway I've experimented with a bit. Pretty much anything could be profitable. Hell, I bet even a TU-144S could be profitable. Even if it makes 1 dollar profit per month, profit is profit.

[TheGreatOP]

If you actually make the Tu-144S profitable I wanna see.

He probably wants like 3000 posts like TNT or something.

 

Anyway I've experimented with a bit. Pretty much anything could be profitable. Hell, I bet even a TU-144S could be profitable. Even if it makes 1 dollar profit per month, profit is profit.

[PiggyWhiskey]

If you actually make the Tu-144S profitable I wanna see.

Hypothetical,

Spam IFS/IFE,

Business/Economy only,

Super massive/busy route,

Limited flights

Jack up the prices

 

Would that do the trick?

 

You'd want a route as close to the max range (2890 miles) 

[WAZZ]

If you actually make the Tu-144S profitable I wanna see.

I'll do it.

[TheGreatOP]

Hypothetical,

Spam IFS/IFE,

Business/Economy only,

Super massive/busy route,

Limited flights

Jack up the prices

 

Would that do the trick?

 

You'd want a route as close to the max range (2890 miles) 

I know that the Concorde can make a profit with those settings (I've done it before), especially since its turn time has been reduced (previously it was an unreasonable 2 hours!), but is the Tu-144's fuel flow too much to overcome? I honestly don't know, but I think you'd need to schedule it on just about every single route with limited flights that you could jack up prices on that's near to the maximum range. It may be possible if the plane is only based at certain hubs with good geographic positioning.

 

I'll do it.

Good luck!

[KINGXyro]

Boeing 747 (Long Haul)

Airbus A320-200 (Short-Medium Haul)

[LJ Aviation]

Concorde

I can make profit out of it

[KINGXyro]

Concorde

I can make profit out of it

The Concorde is a fuel nightmare.

[LJ Aviation]

The Concorde is a fuel nightmare.

You can make $1 profit from them with spam IFS