I think size and profitability need to be the balance you choose to make on a single spectrum: much like the real world, where the most profitable investments are often not in the largest companies which too often seem to be kept alive by bankruptcy protection or investment banks throwing good money after bad. I suspect the ability to thrive as enormous airlines in AE is an emergent system property based on its limited set of rules and human abilities to use them, rather than a generally inherent property of airline management in the real world. It would be good if AE had a declining ability to find or afford loans as loan ratios increased, a much decreased ability to profit from leasing, and random events with substantial impact that occured as a function of fleet size (i.e. 1% chance per year per aircraft) such as a crash, or global grounding of an aircraft model for safety inspections, or a pilot strike, or CEO resignation, or massive corruption fine. Then we can see profitability as a worthwhile goal, and system threats which are seriously challenging to deal with.

You might not even need four categories - the most profitable and least leveraged airline is perhaps the best investment choice, so it should rate highly even if it is small. I like running small airlines; I'd really like a measure like this looking at crafting an investment rather than bulldozing the skies. Perhaps airlines should have share prices which reflect things like 12 month profitably, rating and reputation averages, but which can neither be directly used nor sold as an investment nor offer dividends - they only show another measure of management skill than size.

Hi Brit Abroad, Moldova96 and others working on adding airport data. I really love this game. I particularly enjoy working with small aircraft on short routes and the western Pacific is perhaps one of the best places to do this. However, there is a big gap covering Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. All significant traffic in these countries is by plane. But passenger numbers are not available. We do know which airports are paved or unpaved (via http://www.aircraft-...eania/index.htm) and IATA/ICAO codes, runway lengths, and coordinates (via http://worldaerodata.com/countries/). I really appreciated you adding Malaysia and Indonesia's little airports, but early on you seemed happy to approximate passenger numbers - it appears you have been less willing more recently, meaning that places like the Pacific are now left out (apart from the international hubs at Honiara, Port Moresby, etc). Can I propose a compromise: we know that the paved runway airports are constantly being served by scheduled aircraft, usually ATR 42s and Dash-8s, hardly any at more than two flights a day, i.e. up to 100 pax per day (36,500 per year). We also know that the dirt airports with IATA codes are persistently served, but usually with Twin Otters and probably only once a day (7,300 per year). What if you added airports in the western Pacific on this basis and then amended them if and when people found you proper passenger data? I think a number of us would be enormously pleased, as it would increase the opportunity to enjoy AE without focusing on mega-budget, long distance airlines?

Thanks. These replies were helpful.

Hi. I'm puzzled about why I am losing money from my airline over the last several months with all profitable routes and planes? They are all old, leased aircraft, but I thought costs were taken into account when calculating aircraft and route profits. And anyway, half the leasing costs were paid up front and only when I had cash available (except by mistake for one plane after which I let my balance rebuild - which it seemed to be happy to do in the first few months).