Why not? Your #2 position is good and your unused fleet is not big, I had unused fleets as big as your entire plane count and used them in 2-3 real days. Use your unused planes (not that many really), use your cash to order more new planes, and get to it. And have fun.

 

 

If you have time, of course.

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... 

He has also used many more plans then Airbus and Boeing. That is good strategy. I usually think of what my passengers would like to fly in an A330-200 or a Boeing 737-700.. 

That's my strategy as well. Real people wouldn't like to fly in A330 if that means they'll have service 1x weekly. Because they could get a regular service with props 2x daily and have real flexible plans in their lives...

 

I always have at least ATR-72 in my fleet, and sometimes even Twin Otters or Dornier 228s (they're the last things that make some money).

Even with big big companies I find time for small planes because using them takes as much time as big ones on the same routes (same amount of clicking), big planes' turn times make them inefficient on short routes (many people don't get that) and small planes make things more fun and interesting, and realistic...

Holy s***, that is one big spamline. Kudos to you for putting in all that time and effort

+1, and there's a long way until O1 ends, but plane usage for this company is pretty low right now... If he goes on with it, it will be amazing.

 

My biggest was at 14,000 planes in R5 in US at the end and it was a lot of work to get there, this company could go over 30,000 until 2020, it would be so awesome to see if so many planes really get used.

How is Polish Resistance a current affair? 

WW2 more than 70 years ago. 

 

I kinda like Polish people but I honestly don't understand your obsession. Every nation has something to brag about but Poland's story in not that much different from the rest of East-Central Europe.

True, and they should not only connect, if they can't get any higher class they should also take single trips on highest available class because it's still better than a coach, and also spend more money on services even if they must fly economy, but that's not so in AE.

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.

Apart from connecting pax you also get a reputation boost, it won't help you much economically but it's nice to get a rep trophy.

There are not big advantages, but there are no disadvantages either, so join if you can.

Maybe there should be 40M pax limit to rent 25 gates isn't defining anything

And why should I be a guy who has the definite answers? I'm not a game developer so I'm not in a position to have authority and to have the final say, I can only suggest.

You can answer me by suggesting something else for whatever reason, not by saying I'm not definitive in my suggestions, I wanted to read what would others do either for realism or more fun game play...

If you play in European open skies era (aka EU) and expand outside Austria you migh even get to top 3. Otherwise, meh, similar as Egypt.

It's simple for the worlds I play mostly (after 1990), A320 if available, otherwise 737-300 and soon switch to -400.

NO

BECAUSE THAT WOULD DESTROY REALISTIC FREQUENCY AND EVERYONE WOULD BUY A380s. Dumb idea if you actually know how AE works.

Spamming should be limited by introducing further realistic expense and taxes, reducing available working h dependent on aircraft status, reducing connecting pax numbers at most big airports from the system, and many other good and intelligent ideas that circulated here.
NOT by the most simple thing that comes to your mind. This is a complex game that will get better by keeping it that way, not by such dumb-downs.

The title says it all. Why is this? How can I fix it?

?

 

If you're talking about Rd, the world is just starting, of course you don't have competition. Pretty soon things are going to change.

You're not earning anything yet, wait until it starts.

You need to define large airports.

 

Everyone have different views on what a large airport is

 

 

 

 

With the next update, real connecting pax will increase the demand

 

I did try to define it according to passenger numbers... I think connecting pax are not the real issue here.

 

 

I think very large airports like these should allow more gates to rent because they generally have a lot of gates to offer. Maybe there should be 40M pax limit to rent 25 gates, and 20M to rent 18 gates.

If feminists think they're being "oppressed," then lets deport 'em to third world countries that execute gays. They'll come crawlin' back to the same country they call "oppressive."

Okay, smartass, and if you think you live in an oppressive socialist / elitist dictatorship under Obama that you're nagging about, then let's send you to North Korea. 

Both & flood the market.

At least allow more gates for Chinese airlines in Hong Kong, because at the moment 10 is so low it doesn't make sense.

 

There's gotta be at least some special connection.

I'm probably not the first to write this...

 

Just my opinion, but I'm very annoyed by gates on large international airports being filled so fast with 10 gate limit, so if I'm flying to Toronto from US or to Manila from China I have to use only 747s and A380s on very short routes if I don't want to fill the limit with the first 6-7 routes I open with realistically expected frequency from other very large airports at short/mid range, like 10x daily with suitable A321s (or A330s or even 773, they clog the 10 gate limit too fast).

 

I think very large airports like these should allow more gates to rent because they generally have a lot of gates to offer. Maybe there should be 40M pax limit to rent 25 gates, and 20M to rent 18 gates.

 

Of course, someone's gonna call me a spammer now. (but I prefer thinking of my strategy as over-sized somewhat-realistic flooding )

Yeah, even Il-62 and VC10 are for pussies.

Wait, last time I checked, in order for aircrafts to be added onto the game is if they are being used by Airlines for scheduled passengers flights.

Yeah, or at least models being seriously ordered and constructed for near future with clear perspective, but MD's future ended long ago...

That's how I remember the rules constantly repeated in the suggestion section... It's pretty clear, but now some obviously have other thoughts...

 

I honestly don't understand why is -50 here, and -30 non-ER that had over 100 examples actually produced was forgotten.

No, 717 should have been called MD-95.

OK, I beg to differ, but even if it stays it needs to be reviewed, to me it seems both -30ER and -50 should have lower depreciation, longer range, and also -50 should probably have shorter turnaround time (40 min instead of 45), I see no reason why it should take longer than other series of MD-80/-90 of the same capacity.

And also, -30 non-ER should certainly be here because ot was the only mass-produced version (although it practically is because -ER now has its performance).

It's against my train of thought, but to be devil's advocate, maybe -55 should be considered if -50 was (I don't think so but that would be consistent, both were offered and had known engines etc but neither was produced, and it would be interesting to see the highest capacity DC-9 even if it makes little sense).

Offered yes, but was it ever produced? It seems there was also an offer for MD-90-55 with increased weight and passenger capacity but I can't find any info that it happened.

So it seems to me that bAnderson is right and brought up a very good subject, as it seems there should only be MD-90-30 (not in game) and MD-90-30ER. Because AE uses only produced and used planes, even prototypes that weren't in traffic shouldn't be in the game (there are a few like Tu-334 that should be removed) but only proposed planes belong here even less.

 

By the way, shouldn't -30ER have more range than only 2000 miles? By all sites I can find this seems like the range of the loaded -30 non-ER, and for ER should be some 300 miles more.

 

Also, there's a confusing depreciation rate, could someone explain to me why MD-90s should have higher depreciation than MD-80s? Just a glitch or there's a real reason?

Greenland have a really small  market, so it wouldn't be that fun. Maybe try Iceland instead.

Small market and also mostly very small runways that need very careful fleet planning.

 

Yeah, rather start on Iceland.

Higher OTP means better route reputation.

 

Improve it by the most logical thing - don't exploit the planes' hours to the max. Less usage means more punctuality.