This is a nice one. Good job!

 

Tbh, GIMP is not my favourite. I've it in my computer but haven't opened it for years.

I don't know why. I think it's because I don't like the interface.

GIMP is no one's favourite. It's hideous, unusually complex, and unintuitive. The only thing it has going for it is that it's free and powerful: something that has kept me with GIMP as much as I dislike it. I'm changing over to Photoshop first chance I get.

I searched maple leaf.That is the real logo,made by tronto maple leafs (owner).

Perhaps what OtakuWeebster was saying was that you should try making your own logos. Pre-existing logos you download from a Google search is 1) stealing, but perhaps more importantly, 2) uncreative (and yes, I know that people do it anyway). If you look into the gallery, I just made Northeastern's maple leaf a few days ago in GIMP. If you want, I can help you make your own logo.

I'm going to try and make a few suggestions, and I'm hoping they're "constructive" enough.

1. The blue: yes, blue and red lettering has won awards (and North Carolina's license plate is pretty great), but there's too much going on. From the waves at the bottom of the fuselage, to the stripes on the tail, to the jagged pattern on the engines, and the odd light blue on the top deck of the 747, it looks cluttered. If you have just one or two of them, it's fine. But having so many things going on at one time makes the eyes strain.

2. The font: Red provides a nice contrast. But, if you're going for a large airline (especially one that operates 747s and is #1 on S1), then you're going to need a different font. Writing "Wright Brothers" (especially with the apostrophe) with that font looks cartoonish and unprofessional. I'd recommend https://www.dafont.com/ and http://www.1001fonts.com/ for a new font: it's free, and you can make sure your text looks good before you download it.

3. All the characters: If I'm counting correctly, I see two airplanes, one man, a Boeing logo, your profile picture, and a bunch of text ("First in Flight," "Five Sins," "747-8i") smattered haphazardly onto the fuselage. If you're going to have the Wright Flyer as your logo, then so be it. But using actual images and then pasting them on isn't going to do it — that's unprofessional and messy. Same goes for everything else you've added — there's certainly a place and size for all of them, but they can't just be cropped images that have been pasted onto the plane. You need some organization in order to improve clarity and visibility. Otherwise, it looks amateur.

You're off and running in the world of template making. But before you keep going, you need to slow down, take some time off from the templates, and then come back to them with fresh eyes to see what needs work (and no, bashing Med's templates does not count as taking time off). Just like Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was the perfect livery. I see some promise in this, it just needs some... improvements.

Here's my two cents on this.

Today's rebrandings are all about keeping the core elements, and reforming the rest of them. I figured that what's most important here is the bear (which is on the Californian flag) and the sunrise colours (yellow, orange, red). Doing that, I got this:

I really hope the changes I've made aren't too radical to the brand's integrity. You previously said that you want something akin to Alaska, so I went for a low-costy approach. 

Not picturing what you're trying to say here, sorry man!

The so-called "dorsal fin" is the extension of the tailfin outwards, found on the 737-300 and later. 

Presently, the dorsal fin has been painted blue. Thus, a blue extension is seen.

Here, the dorsal fin has been left white. As a result, only the main part of the tailfin is painted.

Try changing your livery such that the tail leaves the dorsal fin (mostly) white, with an adapted curve.

I guess I'll include Middle West here...

you should ask oggey

Reserved for AFC Paris-Palaiseau

"C2" sounds kind of... unnatural. If you try and put it into a situation in which airline names would be used, it seems kind of choppy."

"Thank you for flying C2 Airlines."

"I'm flying C2 to Edmonton."

The name also doesn't fit well with the whole "legacy carrier" effect. It sounds low-cost, and I wouldn't consider flying a "C2" in business class transatlantically if I heard it off of name alone.

Not to mention, a name should have some history behind it. If it's going to be "C2," then the name should at least be derived from something with two C's. I personally still think CAS was a better name... although if you pull something of a JAS (Japan Air System), you might get by with sticking with the name rather than its acronym. "Canadian Air System" is still on the rough + choppy side though.

It just needs a simple range/payload demand curve. Code exists in other sims...

I think that the main issue with a "simple" fix like that is best described by your response in http://www.airline-e...de-share/page-2. 

 

 

Sorry I can't, I have bills, jobs, startup projects,  a life and adult things to do. 

It's going to be a long while before many things are even added to AE 3/4/whatever considering we all (including Yuxi) have things to do and lives to live. 

8400 feet as per this airliners.net thread (bottom reply).  

That is, however, not how planes work in real life. One of the main issues I've seen with take-off performance is that it doesn't vary like payload does because of range. Rather, it's a fixed value where being over a specific number means you can fly, and being below it means you cannot, even if there are many examples that contradict it.

London Luton is a good example of this, with a 7100-foot runway. Courtline, ATA, ECU Air / Air Ops Europe and others have all flown the L-1011 into Luton at some time. This, however, is possible because the 8400-foot statistic refers to at MTOW, which assumes that the aircraft is completely full of fuel, passengers, and cargo. This, however, is untrue mostly because aircraft flying out of Luton most likely didn't use a full load of fuel (and hence were under MTOW, using less runway). 

The same can be seen at many airports globally, where airports fall short of the 8400-foot line but still had L-1011 service. New York-Laguardia (7000 ft), Maui (7000 ft), Chicago-Midway (6500 ft) and others had some form of L1011 service, although all came with restrictions (LGA had regular service possible because most routes were limited in range, DL flew LAX-OGG as OGG-HNL-LAX on the return to deal with runway length, and MDW could only have occasional L1011 flights from ATA during rare circumstances in which the aircraft didn't fly far). 

Allowing the L-1011-1 into LTN in-game would require a change in how runway length usage is calculated, with factors like weight-and-balance and winds and whatnot taking part in limiting your actual range or payload from airports. 

My main issue with a North American livery contest is that most people already have a North American airline in the gallery. Assuming that you can't post pre-made liveries, you'd have to create your own, which is difficult when most major cities are already the hubs for 2+ pre-existing carriers. You'd end up stepping on a lot of people's toes.

I'm rather a fan of the whole "brand revival" thing. I like the choice to keep the classic Olympic look: the rings and the majestic dark blue color. 

My only suggestion would be to find a way to take over the blank space at the front and center of the fuselage. Maybe try a minimalist "rings-only" type-aspect and see how that looks? 

petition to include layer masks because they make nicer lines compared to fuzzy select

It's the aircraft age factor I'm thinking of. Cost isn't an issue currently

Looking at your airline, the average age of the 757-300 fleet is 1.41 years, and for your airline, it's 1.14 years. I wouldn't consider age a problem at all where you are right now. That being said, your reputation will drop as age increases — ie. running twenty-year-old aircraft is not a good idea. I personally tend to replace my aircraft when they reach around 10-15 years of age (depending on their versatility) — that way it keeps the average fleet age (the important metric) down. There are exceptions, such as the Saab fleet (which I keep around for longer because they're useful and cost-efficient) or niche aircraft like the 757-300, which I know is a low-cost, high margin plane that ceases production. 

Aren't you the "Fruits Rouges" guy?

R0 is in 1979... any sort of replacement for the DC-9 and the end of production aren't for the next few years. Nothing really ends up replacing the DC-9 for a while, so I'd keep replacing old planes with new DC-9's until the time comes. I personally like either upgauging to the B737-300 which keeps the same range, or switching to the BAe 146's for the same capacity with less range. 

Do y'all remember when the Avion Airport Replay Discord was still active? 

If you're talking about Spring Air, then it's 2015.

Seeing as you already have the A330-200 (and it's in a much denser configuration), you'd need something the same size/capacity of the existing model, not an upgrade. In that case, I'd steer you towards the 787-8, which has roughly the same capacity as the 767-300ER.

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend you a replacement for the 767-200ER (it's somewhat of a niche aircraft, with no real replacement that has the same range). You can only really go up or down in capacity and range, unfortunately. Closest in physical size going up would be the 787-8, but it would be too much aircraft for some routes. Closest in size going down would be the A321neo, although it would have fewer seats and less range. 

In all honesty, it makes the most sense (for me at least) to start here, even if it's only a draft. Elios is a longtime member with an excellent grasp on how USGovSim works, and this serves as a sort of penultimate rulebook that doubles as a fun read. The House itself is wildly complicated in real life, so I rather appreciate that as many of the processes and rules have been carried over. 

Because of this should I compete in the routes by pushing lower prices or should I just stick with routes that arn't being serviced by the 2 major airlines. 

I'm sure others will have a different strategy, but mine personally would be to do the following, especially in a very crowded world:

Initially, try and avoid competing directly with large carriers. As much as you can try to undercut their prices, they can do the exact same to you, but with one large difference: the large airline can run one or two routes with losses when all others are profitable; you cannot survive when all your routes are unprofitable. Initially, stick with lucrative yet underserved routes — it's common to find that people will sometimes ignore routes with huge demand, which you can exploit. I'd recommend only facing another competitor head-on when you are of a large enough size, so that way one or two loss-making routes because of competitions won't overly impact your bottom line. 

Some would disagree with me. Some would say that direct competition is a good way to serve markets with large amounts of demand when few routes have sufficient demand to warrant flights. Others would argue that not competing at all allows your airline to slip "under the radar" and grow large, then wiping out any competition. Neither is wrong — the key part of Airline Empires is to find a strategy that works for you. And it's not the same in every market or hub on the globe, so know that each world and country work differently. 

Hopefully this helps you. Good luck and enjoy playing!

That's more or less exactly how it works, but you might think of it as though it does it automatically. 

 

When your airline establishes a hub, you can get connecting passengers in flights to and from your hub airport(s).

 

When you join an alliance, you get connecting passengers from their hubs, and vice-versa. 

Not to mention the bonus in reputation you get. If your alliance serves over 600 destinations combined, you'll also get an extra 10% of your reputation, with that percentage amount varying depending on the number of destinations served (hence an alliance serving 300 destinations will have 5% extra reputation). If you're going for an airline with a really high reputation, I'd recommend joining an alliance for reputation purposes as well.

Is this even still a thing?