106 replies to this topic

[Stevphfeniey]

Tu-144 is horrifyingly unprofitable, but still fun to have in your fleet.

[konj1]

VC-10 and Il-62 don't make a lot of money, but they make money, if you get used to the idea of getting less profit than with DC-10, you'll be content. They make the investment worth in 5-6 years (instead of most planes in AE paying off their value in ridiculous periods of 1-3 years), so no big deal, early jets are all pretty wasteful...

 

But I've never had real losses with those two except if there's too much competition so I don't understand people who say they just lose money. They're good planes for small long routes anyway, just like for 757 later (much more efficient, but just to make the point, I use them on the same type of routes), the kind of routes where I just don't get a lot of competition and it's all fine, and it's nice to fill all those spots.

 

 

I've never tried supersonics and I intend to keep it that way, numbers just don't add up. Maybe if I get reeeally bored sometime... 

[The Flying Cow]

There´s no bad plane, but one that has been scheduled on the wrong route

[Stevphfeniey]

Honestly after the first week or so of the game you can run pretty much any plane and be fine, assuming you haven't run the airline into the ground by then.

[Ejki]

I'd like to put forward the VFW-Fokker 614

[WAZZ]

Putting forward the Ilyushin Il-86. Too small of a range and bad fuel economy to be worthwhile.

[Tesla]

Putting forward the Ilyushin Il-86. Too small of a range and bad fuel economy to be worthwhile.

They aren't that bad. They're quite economical for a Jet introduced in 1986.

[konj1]

Not at all bad fuel economy for 70's-80's, wtf are you comparing them to? In the same age and size category, very similar to some (shorter range) versions of L-1011 and DC-10 (and actually better than LR versions), range similar to earliest versions of A300 and only a bit less economical, and they're great for dense short range routes, like many with a limited number of gates at the Asian market...

 

Too bad Russians ran out of money and screwed up development of the upgraded and longer range versions, and Il-96 came too late and also underdeveloped (reflected here also in bad turnaround times, but most people here don't get what that is)...

But for above mentioned purposes (dense markets, mid-range), they work just fine.

[SKDave]

The Russians threw up their hands in disgust over national aeronautical development and ran to Airbus.

[KINGXyro]

Helicopters are the worst in game. There is no possible way of making money with them. (Unless you know how)

[dazwalsh]

747- ugly turd of a plane

[hayhaa]

747- ugly turd of a plane

true

[mr_arj]

Helicopters are the worst in game. There is no possible way of making money with them. (Unless you know how)

I find that you can earn quite a bit of money if you fly the helicopters from a helipad to airports within 400 miles if the demand is there. E.G Hong Kong and New York helipads make profit from them.

[Denver.]

A321?

[Squarrel]

The worst plane is the Lockheed Constellation

[KINGXyro]

I find that you can earn quite a bit of money if you fly the helicopters from a helipad to airports within 400 miles if the demand is there. E.G Hong Kong and New York helipads make profit from them.

I make profits with my Bell 212. They're kinda amazing also I operate them between airports not helipads. Because not much of a helipad in Asia that I know of

 

A321?

You gotta be kidding me the Airbus A321 can make loads of profits (Only if you use the right configuration)

[mr_arj]

I make profits with my Bell 212. They're kinda amazing also I operate them between airports not helipads. Because not much of a helipad in Asia that I know of

 

There is a helipad in Hong Kong. The only other airport there. It is called Hong Kong Shun Tak.

[Appassionata]

A340-300 is very profitable. It is more profitable than A330-300. (Still, A330 is good enough and happy to pick it up from used market)

Surprisingly bad plane here is 777-300ER - the range is not any longer than 777-300, then is less efficient than it. I am happy to pick up this plane from used market, but I would rather fill the order book with normal 777-300s.

 

Good ones:

Tu-114, CL-44 Yukon (the "most" efficient aircraft with 2000+mile range), Trident 3B, ATRs, Q400 NextGen, 737-400, 737-900ER, A320-200, A319LR, 747-400, 757-300, 777-300, 787s, A340-300, A380-800, A350s

 

Bad ones:

737-500. 737-900, 744ER, 777-200LR, 777-300ER (relative to 777-300) A321-200, A318, A330-200 (fine when bought used; but much worse than A340-300), A340-500, A340-600

[vostok]

Concorde isnt actually that bad, Mine make about 1mil profit each. They just have be routed carefully and preferably with no competition

 

Ive never managed to get the TU-144S to make money though 

 

And a few helis are hard to make work, but I love the Sea king.

 

I also hate the fuel flow figure they have for the VC-10's, its so inaccurate. I am lucky enough to still work on them and all their data sheets on fuel/performance is competitive to 707's and DC-8's (For fuel flow/burn). I hope it gets changed

[LJ Aviation]

bads:

Supersonics (Concorde is better than TU-144)

Early jets

Yakovlev Yak-42

Ilyushin Il-86

RJ

 

Good jets:

Everything from Boeing and Airbus after 1975 besides the "M" versions of Boeings (eg 747-400M)

Any props larger than 100 besides Bombardier and ATR

 

Actually Il-96 is not that bad considering its purchase price.