This is tacky and obvious but goes very well with AE (in full expansion mode, haha     )

 

There are always opportunities in America, just don't expect an easy ride because competition is very annoying and you can get someone on your tail and crashing your prices just for the f*** of it every minute they get. -.- I'm running my first big airline in US and I've never been so annoyed in AE.

 

But it's always possible in US, simply too many big airports not to be successful.

 

Just don't fly ALT-ORD, DEN-CLT. SFO-DFW, LAX-JFK the first minute you come late in the game if there are already 5x more planes than demand, and I see many players do just that. -.- Search for best options, not jump in at your first idea of a good route.

India is surprisingly difficult. I'll say now that it isn't in Greenland or USA level but it isn't easy. It's a very large country, and many people fly to India. Domestic routes are much easier than international ones out of India.

Not always, I've played a few times in neighboring countries and I'm sure there was no serious competition in India. I was surprised as well.

 

I would say it's a similar case to other big but not biggest markets like Japan, Russia, Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil - sometimes you have worst competition imaginable, and sometimes it's very easy if you were lucky enough to have weak competition, and a few times I've seen literally no competition at all.

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. 

F-70 is really bad compared to Avro RJ70 or RJ85.

 

CRJ-700 is earning very similar compared to E170, so I can't see how it's "worst" when the only plane in its class and age has similar performance...

I think they're just fine for small but longer routes to bring 60K+ profits until ATR-72-600 and Q400 NG appear.

the 762ER is not very fuel efficient but has specific purposes - in AE at least

 

for 7000-8000mi routes with demands that cannot decently fill an A343 or 772E

for long haul on airports with short runways like HOU or AEP for some while 787 is not yet available

MDW can only use 772 or 762ER for long haul

 

762(ER) is not much less efficient than 757 and it's very good for 5000-7000 mi routes, which is what they actually fly IRL.

 

As I said many times, ULR sucks. If you're stretching your planes over 7000 or 7500 miles at most, that's just wasting fuel and good aircraft.

Especially from USA, it's really easy to find profitable LR routes rather than ULR.

 

 

All in all 762 is the only choice in its class and it can make good money if you don't overstretch it.

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.

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... 

?

 

MA60 is a solid prop, I never had problems with them and I played in China a few times, it was a patriotic duty of the company to buy something like 200 of them.

Its not when you are compatitng with 5 airlines which flew with more efficient planes,and made huge price dumping.

How the hell do you know exactly what they're doing? Your presumption is misleading.

They may have better scam IFS, they may even try to dump prices at a loss or zero profit to chase you away.Trying another plane in similar config and IFE by your company is the only way to know the exact difference.

 

A340-600 is a great plane in AE, it can make similar money as 777-300ER. 

Only A340 that's not very profitable is -500 because of the way AE doesn't recognize the max seats - 3 class config problem, and it's a gas guzzler just like 772LR, ULR doesn't make sense anyway.

 

(IRL A340's four engines would mean much higher maintenance but that's not so in AE)

MOST of the ruasian rubbish are quite thirsty

737-500/600 & A18,A319. For the very small increase in operating costs you might as well get the bigger brothers that can carry more.

737-900(non er variant) makes absolutely sod all sense in the game too, same seat count as 737-800

    No version of 737 or A320 belongs to this topic... Especially super-efficient A319.

 

Some people like to have a smaller plane fleet when building a "realistic" airline, and I also like picking them up as used market surplus when I build big airlines, they fit to many routes where A320 or 738 is a bit too big.

 

So simply, they should not be on this list. 

By the way, Il-96-300 has the same problem as A340-500 and 747-8, AE allows total of seats only based on maximum certified number ignoring real space available even if you put a 3-class configuration with less than nominal max seat number.

 

Its real cabin length and width should mean that there should be place for 2- or 3-class configs similar to A340-200, rather than being more similar to much smaller 757-300.

 

They say it will be different in AE4... Having fun waiting.

Fokker 100 is a good aircraft too, plonked them on uk regional routes and they outperform a lot of my European 737's

The funny looking AvroRJ100 is much better regional jet of that time in AE, much better fuel economy and also slightly better range. And also if you want to down-size in the same family (usually makes little economical sense, but it's fun from time to time), RJ85 and RJ70 are infinitely more economical and useful than F70.

 

F100's performance is more comparable to Yak-42 than AvroRJ. Order if you want to flood the market but it shouldn't be the first choice. I wouldn't call them "worst" since there wasn't much more choice, and there are planes with much worse performance, they can be somewhat solid and profitable equipment, but if you can get enough of 737-300s or AvroRJ100s, no need to buy Fokker.

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.

By the way, cruise speeds of both BAe146/Avro RJ and Fokker 100/70 are almost 500 mph (as far as I can find 497 or 498 mph) and you can easily see them flying at those speeds at fr24, so they should both be a bit more efficient, data is incorrect.

SJJ?

Been there.

 

How about Mestia - Queen Tamar Airport? Actually haven't used it, hiked passed it on the way to glaciers... A helicopter ride from Tbilisi by a Soviet legend Mi-8 was considered but we had a more down-to-earth real Soviet "marshrutka" experience, 10 hours in a shabby painfully overcrowded van instead... But the landscape on the way was amazing anyway.

It's even more fun to be able to play in a world realistically after it has started..

Most airlines here that most (whiny) players showed off as "realistic" had 19,92 h daily plane usage, $7 worker pay and had the most dense 3-class cabin with maximum prices, big planes 1/week on small crappy airports. So they were crap airlines not worth mentioning. But they were self-satisfied because they thought they resembled some small real airline that actually has only 1/2 of their routes (because they don't over-use planes).

 

But they declared my big airlines, with 15 h / in 24 day/m usage, salaries well above average, all pax200+ planes had less-than-max cabins, using RJs and props where needed to have good weekly frequency, as "spam".

Because I know what I'm doing, worked on making AE the greatest challenge this system can offer, and I had over 2000 or 5000 planes.

 

People who have realistic airlines (I had a few) usually don't whine, and they have enough fun with their fleet because they're not aiming for max valuation. AE is big enough for such airlines to exist without too much interference.

 

So I say most players who are whining are not looking for realism, they are just incompetent and envious, and have even more spammy tactics than most "spammers" because they don't know how to get more so they pull out unrealistic performance from the system, but more successful people are just turning to be annoying. Obviously so-called "spammers" make such people envious for the most simple reasons, not for doing wrong and illegal things that should be banned.

 

I am also sometimes annoyed by some other people who are trying to drag out more money for valuation, but I either do things my way all the way or go out, so either adapt and STFU or quit and STFU.

 

 

I say again, AE is too easy, but I play for a challenge. I absolutely want next AE to be more realistic because I'm trying to do it with my airlines, but here WRONG people are whining about issues, and banning people for success should never be an option. That's a SYSTEMIC issue, not an issue made by misuse of the game. And by the way,

good players in this system will be good players in a more complex and restrictive system as well, that's the simple truth so STFU if you can't handle it. 

No, nothing is misread. People read both things you wrote. The first thing you wrote is that some airlines should be banned, because that's how you named the topic. Don't pretend others are dumb now.

 

There shouldn't ever be such a thing. Each style has its place if players are not hacking the system under the same rules. You can make a systemic problem solved only by changing the system, not arguing some people are annoying to you and they should be arbitrarily kicked out.

 

If you want another AE world for "non-spammers", that's called a freakin sandbox free game. And you can have it if you want it now in any world, if you're not jealous and concerned with valuation. 

 

AE system is due to change to be more realistic and I'm waiting for that, until then getting bigger is the only way to have a really competitive game if you want to have some challenge in AE, because it's too easy. And in another restrictive and harder system most good "spamming" players will keep being best players in harder conditions. You better believe it!!!

Almost everyone can now have an easy sandbox game in any world without competing with the biggest guys, if you learn to keep your envy under control and don't mess with them, it's easy to have a (IRL huge) 200 plane fleet anywhere in the world, and even easily get a reputation trophy. In a harder AE you'd have it harder, who knows if that calm style of gaming would ever pass, so I don't know what's the point in bitching?

 

The main problem is that some people can't handle the fact that they're not doing as well as others, and they don't think what they really want, just nagging and whining how some others are "unfair". But a more "fair" and "realistic" world would probably make them survive even harder.

 

If you want it harder and more realistic start with reducing your 19.95/20 working exploitation. Just to begin with.

By the way to all the realistic geniuses who are put down by terrible cheating "spammers", check the "100 h world" topic in the new world suggestions and you'll see who were the greatest supporters for this more restrictive and basically simply put realistic idea. Certainly not the whiny incompetent bitches who barely turn the profit on the impossible 20 h / day.

You are the worst kind of spammer and you need to stop.

No, you need to start learning from him.

 

His style is not my style, I wouldn't do many things he does and even annoyed by some stuff, but on his topic, I also have my ideas on people who start messing with me, especially those who are in no position to do so. If I never destroyed someone's routes and that guy drops prices by half and he's much smaller, should I let it slide? If you are not aware of your opponent's strength, you made a mistake you'll pay for. That's not real?

 

 

If you can't understand that power and fear are real things in the corporate world, you'll fail when you start a war you can't win. That's very very realistic, my friend.

Why are you playing a business simulation if you can't handle basic things about competition?

I helped run (Did most of the work myself, but under shared control) a realistic airline that managed to get #1 rep. I kept to 10-12 hours on the fleet, and the only reason I did three class on short haul flights (2 F in the E-170 and RJ-85) is because I was mostly going from Morocco to Europe. I only really did as many seats as real life airlines did, and less on some. My Do228NGs had 18 of 19 seats, my E170s and E190s had 70 and 90 seats respectively. My Short haul IFS was 3 stars and all of my aircraft had at least free Wifi and Phone coverage starting in 2008. On some routes I was able to get 73% reputation, and these are 500-1000 mile flights. I did not put a four engine widebody through any airport throughout the game, and even replaced some of my 767-300ER/777-200 aircraft with 787s before the world ended. I never used spam IFS, and the only time the airline had more than the above daily hours was when I wasn't in control. Out of 115 or so airlines in the world, we were 54th overall. We phased out aircraft from 15-20 years of age and bought all aircraft at 10 years. Our employees not only enjoyed much higher wages than the rest of the airline industry's average, but also enjoyed a 30% profit sharing with the airline and about yearly bonuses of 5000-10000 dollars. It is possible to run a realistic airline sometimes.

 

However..

 

My airline is a low cost airline in the US based out of Memphis. It pretty much runs like Southwest with a bit more hub-and-spoke, but the airline itself is a domestic (not including Canada/Mexico) carrier. The largest aircraft is the 757-300. I like to keep around 40-50 hours for the fleet. My IFS is profitable, but as a US-based LCC, it mostly is just snacks and drinks for purchase, as in real life. I like having an AOD system in every seat, a good quality system. Most aircraft are B/E, but select 737-800s are F/E, just because. My pricing policy is, always will be, and has always been, for this airline, double fares, a business seat is twice the economy seat. Just a quirk that makes it easier for me to price low. But when a scam US airline has prices so low there is no way to make more than -$10,000, I can't do anything. I use FLL, LAS, BWI, MEM, SLC, and with modern spamliners every freaking city in the US is their hub with a 10 gate terminal. There's no way to avoid competition when the airline has every possible route in the country. The only reason they ever are able to keep alive is Spam IFS/IFE, and 20 hours per plane. When you start in R1 at 1985 in the US, there are 5 or 6 spammers just flooding every market, 1000 seats on regional markets is not fun. When you finally find a route without spam service, there's only 1 or 2 737s full of demand, so the 5 routes you can actually make a profit off of can't support your airline.

 

I'm all for Capitalism but when you abuse your employees, infuriate your passengers with late arrivals, and treat them like dogs, that's when it's unethical to be running that airline.

 

Also, you can't freaking own the US, Flying Cow, that's not how a free market works. Or how it should work. There's got to be room for entrepreneurs, but if you want to go 42 times a day on a 100 pax route with 747s, scam IFS, and $42 fares, just know that you are not playing the game, you are ruining it.

 

 

Also, if you think you're a good player because you can spam a world, it really means you don't have finesse, you can just make a lot of money (konj and Flying Cow). If you ran a realistic airline like the one mentioned above and got a valuation trophy or whatever you want, that would be a different story. But if you just run a spamline, you really don't have a good airline. Just a cash cow.

This is where you mix different players who get to high valuation and call them all "spammers", sorry to say but it sounds just offensive and whiny. I use very different tactics from the Cow (and I don't blame him for doing whatever he does even if I sometimes clashed with similar tactics).

 

As I said, I don't do 20 h, I usually don't use a lot of scam IFS (one of my gold trophies was without profitable IFS at all), so I don't go over some 50% of route's nominal pax number because it makes it unprofitable for my style, so I don't drop prices (except in an intentional precise price war), I never use and actually always argued on this forum, multiple times, against using wide-bodies on domestic routes; so I have loads of regional planes, etc. 

 

And I get to very high valuation anyway. 

 

You can call it flooding, but that's what big companies do in real life. If you want to call it spamming you have to define it more precisely.

IRW airlines don't get big on that scale but that's AE's flaw, not my tactics. I'm usually just trying to follow what most mainstream multi-hub/focus city airlines like Delta, Lufthansa or Air China do, but bigger because the system is too generous and I have to compete more, not because I don't want it to be smaller and more realistic, but it can be smaller only in a better system that would recalculate demand, make you more occupied with details and less with constant expansion. I always argued for and also proposed solutions to over-expansion.

 

And most other players get to top 3, if I may say so, easier than me and with less "finesse" with scams that are allowed, but why are you nagging about that? That actually also resembles some real life airlines, but I get there with less of such tactics. But I don't blame people who do that, why would I? I play as I like it. They do whatever they want that the game allows.

 

So you can nag all you want, but you have to change the game, not hate the player.

 

And you can't put all the successful players in one basket, just to be clear once again. I just hated when people talked all the fantasy "spamming" and "cheating" lines and preached sermons about my nasty airlines, just because they were big, they so often had totally wrong and unfair ideas about what I was doing.

So you're not a max level spammer. In fact, I think you are a skilled player. I don't know what your HR looks like, but what you said here is making me think you are a good player with finesse.

 

 

In the case of real world airlines, they don't exactly flood the market, they have connections to make. Sure, if only 1000 people need to go a day from New York to Los Angeles, and there's more seats that would be considered a flood. But in the real world, versus in-game, the airline simply cannot go from anywhere to anywhere at any time. These flights have schedules, so the more aircraft with maybe 70% of the seats full going from New York bringing passengers to Los Angeles to take a flight from there the better. The passengers always catch their flights, and the airline makes money. Here, there is no scheduling and no connecting, so all pax are point to point. So they are spamming/flooding.

You put my first quote as your text...

Anyway.

My HR - workers always payed above average to get average 85-90% happiness and sometimes even employing reserves above default levels, with high value airlines. When I play so-called realistic, they are 100% happy and above that, of course, because if I'm not after valuation I make much too much money not to spend it.

 

Second point, are your airlines are better because you can schedule your flights?  Come on, we all know it's not about players.

I'd gladly do it if someone changed the system.

 

When it comes to pax numbers, also not my fault, I'd be happy to see a big crackdown on that field. I said a few times, as many others did, the system needs a major rethink with PTP and hubs, some things must reduce some others because now it's ridiculous.

I even proposed, I don't think anyone else did, before a finer hub system of AE4 - just go straight to cutting off all connecting pax from the basic airport data, because in AE you make your own hubs - and without Delta such a huge number in ATL is overblown, as is DXB without Emirates etc. I think it makes perfect sense but I had little response on that idea.

 

 

I'd say the developers do something about the demand or how the passenger system work. I can literally dominate a route despite having a competition with the world's top airline. For example, JFK - ATL are being dominated by the top airline until I set a route there and make the prices $80 cheaper. Lets not ban them, lets just make their lives harder. Anyway, there should be a world specialized for spam airlines. That should segregate the serious players and troll players.

Hm, and what do you do with serious trolls?