It think there should be a world where there is a limit on how many planes and destinations an airline can have, actually just the amount of planes would work. Like have the max amount of aircraft at 800 or 1300. It just seems an airline having 6000 planes seems un realistic.

The number is smaller than currently largest airline, and all in all that certainly wouldn't help, it would just make people buy biggest planes and actually much less realistic.

The entire game model must be more restrictive, less passengers, less a/c usage, less profit, more costs, more problems, that's realistic.

Having caps on anything is not thought through, basically too simple of an idea. Capitalism is all about getting bigger in the possible market, and currently the market and the equipment is unrealistic, fleet sizes are just a by-product and not a reason. Symptom, not a disease.

  pains to other ... , ...  barriers and challenges otherwise not in the game

lol, this sounds like a cheesy death metal song.   

I'm in the middle between the last two, but really, I think that there can be streamlines and it is allowed but the concept is no fun to competitors, this is a multiplayer game and a lot of spammers want to make it a one-player game. If Spamliners were restricted to certain worlds that would be nice for a realistic world where all the players try their best to make their own airline that would be lawful in the real world. Not the carp these splinters use.

As long as you don't redefine a set rules in those worlds, you're just venting frustration and being annoying.  won't help you be a better person. Be happy. (p.s. and constructive)

And I bet "spammer" players in current lists will be top 10 in new worlds. I'm looking forward to it. I supported several ideas that would cut profit margins, a/c exploitation etc.

Bring on realism, but not by nagging about those that do better than you by the known set of rules.

Nice answers, guys, can't wait to read more.

The Sukhoi Superjets.

 

Don't get me wrong, the Superjets are just absolute beautiful short range jetliners! Sure, they can't go over 2,000 miles, but having them based in a hub like Oklahoma City, they can do fairly well for covering the US from the center of the country. I personally prefer the Superjets over the Bombardier C-Series.

How do you mean SSJ can't go over 2,000 mi? Not the basic model but SSJ100-95LR can reach almost 3,000 mi in multi-class config. Anyway, yeah, great one. I always choose them when I have small airlines in non-western countries in modern worlds, they can do awesome job.

The plane that could best compare is E190 (we miss the AR version here), Bombardier CS (I'd also count them as one of these neglected planes) is kinda more competing with bigger planes, E195, 737-7 and A319.

What are your favorite planes that most other players in most worlds don't bother buying?

Yeah, US Midwest mid-sized airports are usually not too crowded.

Hm, I don't know, there's not much room for really great routes outside EU at EID, maybe if you count Moscow, Istanbul, and Cairo that can be reached with 737s and a few other destinations that could fill a 757, but otherwise it's pretty week to reach America and East Asia and to fill real wide-body intercontinental planes with that passenger number (you can spam with connecting pax but it's not very profitable at the beginning when your company is small).

If you want a small company with no competition it might be a good thing, but I usually see a lot of ambitious airlines in the Netherlands.

You can get a 747 or A380, lol... Too bad for 773 and A346, but I don't know why would an airline based in Ireland really need something bigger than (with attention to right engines) DC-10 or A333/A343/772 or later A359/789.

And A345 and 772LR are a waste of money anyway. Going ULR sucks. I use those if they get to used market to fill my need for more spam on more rational routes from big countries, I don't ever order them new and don't use them at all when I'm in some smaller country.

Even for a realistic airline, that's nothing

Yup, that's very easy to do on such a huge route and such low competition.

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.

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. 

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... 

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)

?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any airline that's called by some place on the opposite side of the world from where it's actually based. It's retarded and for some reason too common in AE.

I've seen too many Qatars in US or Ethiopians in China or Singapores in Europe. I mean, just fuggin dumb...

Right now in S1 there's an airline in South Africa called ApartheidExpress, slogan "We're all better off flying our separate ways..."

http://ae31.airline-...e3s1&player=757

That's one step away from naming an airline KKK Aryan Rebel and two steps away from naming it III Reich Lufthansa and sticking a swastika flag over the plane.

This it the best easily doable idea I've yet read here!

I'm for that, sounds great!!! 

Bring it on soon! At least 2 worlds!

Come on, I'm getting impatient.

 It's still paused, is that normal? :?

Winglets here cost a lot if you retrofit, but if you order them with a new plane new the entire program is completely free...

And if you invest the big lump of cash in retrofit, that doesn't raise the value of a plane at all, why not?

The entire system doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

1,2,3,4,5.....150!1!1!11 I did it

Maybe it's just my sense of humor, but your threads are annoying. nhf