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. 

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.

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

 

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.

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.

 

I kinda liked PVG... Hard to say why. Didn't seem dirty to me, on the contrary, too sterile.

 

 

Best - hard to say, I'm impressed by efficient traffic flow and/or surroundings or architecture of the airport more than neatness

 

Worst - Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen (SAW) - worst transfer I've had so far, crowded and boring, tiny portions of food and drink but prices sky high even compared to Western standards, duty free shops not worth mentioning (almost nothing interesting and local, just loads of overpriced European luxury alcohol and perfumes...); none of staff or shop clerks speak English, at a freakin' international airport! Not to mention wifi and recharging... 

Also, no rapid transit to the city - making 12 h wait at the airport into a short visit to Istanbul made no sense, getting stuck on notoriously jammed streets in a bus or a taxi was not an option

(but I liked the city, at another trip...)

Well, my suggestion is to do some real world research. Find a city that is under-appreciated in the airline industry in real life. Such examples could be Birmingham in the UK, Portland, Oregon in the US, maybe Melbourne, Australia. Those are just only a few suggestions that I have, but it's all up to you on where you could set up shop on starting an airline.

 

Every country has an under-appreciated airport/destination. I do not know all of them, but if you set up shop at the right place and fly the right planes, your airline is going to thrive live crazy!

Sure, knowing real airports helps, but sometimes in AE it's not that easy, I have serious competition both in Portland and Birmingham in Rd.

 

 

turkey 

no one make's airlines there even though it has tons of annual passengers

It might be OK but had some very tough competition in Turkey from time to time, I wouldn't recommend it so straightforward.

 

 

A good beginning strategy is to watch if your choice of HQ already has airlines based there. For example, if you were thinking about starting in USA and you want to be based in south-western US, if you type DFW and you can see that 3 airlines have HQ there, 9 have hubs and 12 have terminals, think about searching for some alternative in Houston or Denver if they're less crowded.

 

The point being, don't listen to definite answers. Adapt to the game world you're trying to play.

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... 

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.

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.

?

 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

My only profitable strategy for helicopters was to fill them with first and business class, and maybe a few economy seats with overpriced tickets since there are few of them... Which actually makes sense IRL since helicopters are mostly very expensive to ride.

 

So they might work if you don't flood the route and there's no competition...

 

But I usually avoid them, I gave them only a couple of tries.