Anyone else have experience ordering from Same-Family aircraft groups. Generally when I order B737 or A320 aircraft, I tend to order 2 of each aircraft and alternate between them to quickly mass up on those types of aircraft. Anyone else have any experience on stacking such as this, or do you just order a single aircraft and order another variant separately?

If I'm trying to have a "real" airline, I'm patient and wait for only one aircraft family. If I want to flood the market I won't take only 2 types but as many as possible...

You won't get to #1 in valuation if you buy only Boeing. Buy everything that's profitable and go big, that's the only way.

If you're talking about #1 in reputation, that's much easier, just watch that your routes have good frequency and raise your advertisement expense in appropriate time.

You can do it with all-ATR fleet if you want...

If you have enough cash, just build terminals ASAP because they count as valuation and they save big amounts of money otherwise spent on gate rent.

Training costs go up due to number of new staff you have to recruit to replace those who leave.

Yes, that's a thing as well and people who recommend $7 wages ignore it completely.

I don't understand that cutting wages scheme, I never did it and I earned just fine, when my company is upstart I leave default wages, when it gets off I raise them. If you need to cut to $7 it you're doing other things wrong as well and the cut won't help you.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, this game is too easy anyway, why wouldn't I leave normal wages as and additional challenge.

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.

pointless, in all honesty

Some of the British Oversees Territories are listed as separate nations, while the Falklands, for example are not. Even the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are listed as United Kingdom, where is fact they are crown dependencies and not part of the United Kingdom.

I'm not sure if this is a mistake or a sneer at Britain.

It's the same with some French and US overseas territories that are not fully integrated with the country... I suppose that's a slightly complicated matter, not all of those territories are not in the same legal status, it would be a really big job to exactly define and program it for AE...

By the way stop the Falklands flame war. -.- It's boring, I don't want to read 20 pages of futile internet trolling, UK rules the islands as it is and that's it, if you want change fight somewhere else, AE is not a platform for your fictional world map, because the next thing for great internet warriors will be to "reintegrate" Kosovo with Serbia or to separate Catalonia. Don't do it.

737-700ER is a longer ranged 737-700 designed to better replace the 737-300 and partially the 757-200. It excels in replacing old 737-300s that your 737-700 cannot reach. It also can replace the medium haul routes of the 757.

What the hell are you talking about? 737-700 non-ER has longer range than 737-300, as do -800 compared to -400, it's basically expected from the next generation.

From Chile? No. You'd have to fly a 772LR with about 3/4 capacity to get there. 

 

IRL LATAM from Santiago to Beijing goes with a 787-9 from Santiago to Frankfurt with a stop in Madrid, then a 747-400 from Frankfurt to Beijing on Air China. So unless you have codeshares, you're not going to Asia.

There are some more direct routes with stopovers, Korean Air has a route ICN-LAX-GRU flown by A330-200.

Otherwise, without stops and with current technology it would be too expensive to fly a direct routes.

A300 is a big plane, so it has high maintenance cost, it's normal... Get more of the same type to make the base cost less damaging.

Neither realistic nor profitable. I had a few over 10.000 but I generally steer clear from URL.

There are a few 9,500-10,000 mi routes that make sense with 787 or A350, but that's about it. Older planes can do it for fun, but it's all nonsense.

I don't know why so many people now want longer worlds, 30 years is optimal before it gets really boring.

Anyway, yeah, it's too soon for current AE planes, and as some people noted before, what to do with WW2 political restrictions? 1945 would be the first year to open new options for now before this big question gets resolved...

But first of all, there need to be at least Ju-52, Li-2 and a few other most produced planes in the game, at the moment aircraft options are so limited that playing makes little sense.

According to Wiki the 777-200LR can fly 17,600km with max fuel and 301 pax/crew. So the longest routes it could fly with reserves could be SYD-LHR and MEL-JFK. AKA routes that Etihad could cover with its 777s.

?? Etihad? What does this have to do with them? It's not an Australian airline (or British or American), and they don't even have 772LR. They do have A345 that's about as long-range as 772LR (and actually A345 flew the longest commercial route), but how could Etihad fly those routes unless you brutally de-regulate the world market right now?

SIA quit its longest direct route SIN-EWR and is only thinking about returning with fuel price drops and when they get A350-900R, and that's the only thing that ever came close to 10,000 and even went over 9,000.

We'll have to wait for a while even for regular 10,000 mile routes like those above, even if there are planes that can actually do it, their efficiency is just not good enough. 12,000 makes no sense at the moment.

Hi, cheers - playing in S2, so 1990-2020 timeframe. Currently 2010.

 

Looking at AN72 which may fit the bill, it's fuel doesn't seem too bad if you compare say the BAe 146 / RJ family, ok not so great vs. later CRJ/ERJ types but it does offer range/runway.

 

It's actual capacity at 58 pax does decrease it's efficiency however.

 

ERJ145 is an alternative although 500m short on range. Problem is just no turbo-prop / RJ with 2000m range on the market. Going to a 100 seater (small A32X or B73X) eliminates the frequency.

How do you mean? The first thing to say is that An-72 is quite small and therefore has terrible fuel efficiency compared to BAe146 series, which is one of the most efficient RJs throughout the game even compared with more modern planes...

(and if you're all about realism, also not realistic because I've never found a scheduled pax service with An-72, I'm not sure why it's in the game)

If you need over 2000 mi and you're in the age after 2010, SSJ is by far the best solution. I loved it when I played in Africa... And ATR -600 for shorter routes, I agree, but I see you already have them, good choice.

If SSJ is too big for you, well, there's nothing smaller that flies that far, that's it...

(Someone talked about AR versions of smaller EMBs, but I don't know enough about that and they're not in game.)

Are any of these routes profitable?

The question is not profitable, 10,000 mi routes are barely profitable, but they are literally not possible, because 772LR maximum range (for 1 passenger) is 400 miles short for them.

Interesting challenge... I get routes over 12,000 all the time in China so I'd recommend to search in Asia. The first or second I tried to find over 12,400 was PVG and I got a longer one, PVG-STY 12,405 mi.

Look at this...

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Antipodes

... so you're most likely find most of them between East-Southeast Asia and South America, or much less between Iberian peninsula and New Zealand, maybe some between Pacific and West Africa.

Although I'm not sure what you mean by "longest possible route" in AE because neither A340-500, A350-900R, 787s nor 777-200LR can go over 12,080 mi even with 1 passenger (in real commercial aviation it would be even less acceptable even to go over 10,000).

I believed it was optimal, but now having great plans for small planes in HKG, I changed my mind about the limit.  I don't want to decrease frequency and make it less "realistic".

Is there any way to persuade game developers to increase it, at least in small countries with limited number of airports? To 250, it's a nicer number, pleeease?     

Think about it, 250 is so much better.

Interesting...

The airline I had the most fun with was in Nepal. Kathmandu is just big enough to have daily (up to 4x) flights to a lot of Asian places on standard 737s, close enough to have a few ATRs, and even big enough to have a few 767s/ replaced by 787s to several long-range destinations.

Please leave.

Please learn some manners.

I'd also have to say no to another 1950 or any earlier world, I don't see a point, 1950 is not a good start until more early (basically all non-American) planes are added, we don't have some essential and most produced airliners of that time like Ju-52 and Li-2.

I'd say 1955 is a much better start, for now.

That´s why flying anything below 100 seats is not optimal - our current top 1 has a nice pocket-planes fleet that in some years will bring so much fun as maintenance cost increase...

I don't worry about maintenance costs, maybe I don't get the mechanics of R1 (too long for my taste), but in 30 year worlds I never felt any problems with that.

I always get a nice fleet of profitable 50-100 seat planes, and I even started liking some smaller like Do328 and some others. And things like ATR-72 sure are profitable, trust me. At the internal market where I don't have to care for gate numbers because terminals are so cheap (except for 1-3 airports where I might get to occupying 200 gates), using small planes is sweet and simple. Why would I avoid them when I need more planes and can't get enough of bigger ones, and 2 of them make the same money as 1 big? And even if I have enough of big planes, I get used to the small-route 1 small plane scheme, it makes things more simple than 1 big divided to 2 routes. And you also get the big frequency rep plus, usually not very important but I just like it.

@TNT I don't know about page loading for too long when you have more planes, I felt that only when I got to over 10,000, otherwise I had problems when everybody else had problems because of server maintenance and whatnot.

And all of you trophied guys and those on the way to have a bunch, cut the crap and stop the pissing contest, what are you trying to do?

Don't turn against each other when there are always a few noobs who don't get the game and get pissed off for not being able to handle things and getting annoyed instead of trying to ask and learn, and even worse, those seasoned anti-spamming lobbyists who are still a mystery to me, but they just don't quit and always have something to nag about. Show those guys your trophies and not others who have them.

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.

There is no way. If there was, it would just facilitate the growth of giant carriers, which get hamstrung by fleet management at present.

Not really growth, it would just facilitate a major chore, sometimes too time-consuming to do and easier to ignore. Even very old planes are ridiculously profitable and don't distract passengers in any way so you can easily fly transatlantic routes on CL-44 or Tu-114 in 2000's (IRW not imaginable and everyone apart from hardcore enthusiasts would avoid that airline, and it almost certainly wouldn't even be allowed by regulators and inspectors).

So the game would be more realistic because you wouldn't see so many old planes flooding the world. Profits usually just stay very similar.

Anyway, that's why I play 30 year worlds, I replace some oldest, and generally allow planes to fly when they're 25 years old, that's what big real airlines do. Replacing entire fleets in longer worlds, that is too demanding and I'd hate to play with such old planes.

Short routes ftw. The longer it is, the more your plane becomes a heavy fuel tanker, routes over 7000 miles are barely profitable considering not only fuel but the fact that they must be operated by very expensive planes, but even reasonable 3000 mile routes are wasteful compared to short routes. Especially short routes with scam IFS earn so much more money, I had frequent flights on CRJ700s earning more than A330s on very good intercontinental routes with minimal competition, and ATR-72s earning more than A320s on mid-range routes, seriously, big short routes are the best thing in this game...

Just don't listen to people who say only wide-body planes make sense. Don't use large planes on shortest routes because it's lame since in real life those routes tend to be frequent, and more important for your game, because turn-time will waste your A330s, 777s or A380s usability and on very short routes you can get an A380 to fly only a third of flights that A320 would do and a 6x more expensive plane will earn almost the same money.  

The only thing that's bothersome with awesome short and frequent routes is that gates are sometimes limited...

The Olympics are a waste of time and money

Well, if you ask me, all professional sports are a waste of time and only sports I care about are my activities...

But dumb masses like all that crap despite all the disgusting doping and dirty money and the perverse fact that some dumb football clubs are worth more than GDP of an entire small poor African country, the fact that many troubled cities will spend on a stadium as much money that would buy them a metro rail system and a new airport and a new university campus.... and so on, it's hard to even count all the ridiculous comparisons, but it's hard to disagree with the majority who will pay more and more to be a part of that stupid corrupt circus.

I included dancing because, those of us that have done that in the past, trust me buddy, it's a sport...you need hours of moving your muscles around, getting you tired as hell and sometimes hurt to become a good dancer. 

Yeah, probably, currently to my eyes bizarre "sport" called dressage (nicely groomed horses dancing) is in the Olympics, I don't see why would that even be there, let alone why human dancing would be considered less of a sport.