|
I vote we bid for slots in British Hong Kong and make a route to launch an Asian hub ASAP. We missed the boat on London but we can still make use of our relations boon.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:
This line of thinking is misleading--routes in Aerobiz do not exist in a vacuum and as you expand your new routes will pull in additional passengers for your old routes as you start connecting people to more places. Unfortunately, we live in a sand-infested shithole and nobody is ever going to want to fly to anywhere in the Mideast anyhow, so we need to focus on expanding in Europe and Asia, which will drive demand for our lucrative Tehran-Rome and Tehran-Hong Kong routes as we provide our people more places to go to escape this rotting hellhole. Europe is probably the more tempting target right now with AirMarx stuck behind the iron curtain, so I vote we limit our Asian expansion to Bangkok for now to nab its tourist traffic and then pour our remaining resources into Europe (Paris and Athens should be our main targets.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
The other issue with expanding into another region is that we're going to have a very hard time filling those expensive seats when we don't have a solid network in both Europe and North America--especially since we'll be competing with someone who does. Supporting and expanding our existing inter-regional flights will give us a lot more bang for our buck.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
MadcapViking posted:and get in on the Africa game What, the "giant money hole" game?  Yeah, let's get in on that. Still voting for Bangkok as our next expansion. It's the highest tourism destination in Asia and will drive a lot of sales.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:All the other Airlines have chosen Tehran as their Mideast connection, though only ConAir has completed construction of their hub at this time. This actually works in our favor. It is literally impossible for anyone to overtake our position in the Mideast: we already have a huge majority of Tehran's slots, so with the leftovers are getting split 3 ways nobody is ever going to be able to run enough flights in our backyard to match us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
I'm going to buck the trend and say no to the Caravelle, buy DC6s forever (or until something legitimately better comes out). These newfangled jets are a fad. We can buy two DC6s for the price of a single Caravelle, which would still let us run more flights at a lower cost per flight. The DC6s are also more flexible; some of our IL14 routes don't have the passenger load to fill up a Caravelle running full time, which would make the Caravelle a waste where we might be able to stick a DC6 in and pick up more passengers. Also, right now we can't reach South America without piggybacking through the United States and Uncle Sam ain't gonna like that. We can reach Sydney with an L1049, though, and while we'd be competing with ConAir I think it would still be worthwhile to sponge up some more of their profits. Also look at buying some hotels or poo poo in Hong Kong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:You're forgetting that slots are worth their weight in gold. Caravelles can do the same job on fewer slots. You've got it backwards: Caravelles let you consume more slots per plane. Being cash strapped that could theoretically be useful since we'd have to buy fewer planes, but the Caravelles cost twice as much and can only run ~1.5 times as many flights so it's not actually cost-efficient. They're both 80 seaters, so they have the same revenue per flight, but the DC6 is slightly more efficient so it gets us marginally more profit per slot and our up-front order cost is lower per slot too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
It's boring, but I'm voting for more planes and businesses. Also crank up an ad campaign in Europe: there's a lot of potential there for us to tap, and if advertising will steal some customers from our competition it will lead to a virtuous cycle as our popularity buoys our passenger numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:
That screen is cumulative for the year, which I think is what the win condition uses. I don't think inter-regional passengers count for anything on it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Rome-Hong Kong would be a gamble. Triangular routes tend to hurt profitability since any two destinations have two possible routes that compete with each other. I would wait until we've built up our Rome and Hong Kong hubs some, to ensure that we'll have enough traffic through Rome and Hong Kong to support two competing international routes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Gonna buck the trend and vote for more routes. We aim for Moscow! We shall pierce the dying heart of AirMarx and lap up its precious lifeblood!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:I can't remember what happens if a company goes out of business. Do they just vanish or do the other competitors get to buy off some of their assets? Neither. If a CPU goes bankrupt (this usually takes some time as they will close routes and sell businesses to keep their corpse afloat for a while) they get bailed out with a new ~$1b in starting funds, plus whatever meager assets they had left. It doesn't really make any difference since they usually squander their war chest and go stagnant again within 2 years. It's hard for the AI to dig themselves out of the red route death spiral. The AI responds to tough competition and low profits by sticking oversized planes on marginal routes and slashing their maintenance budget, so customers will still avoid their flights since they don't go as many places they want to go and will also probably kill them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:Assuming we have an appropriate level of demand for the size of aircraft and number of flights on any given route, the number of additional tickets you sell by running a jet will almost always pay for the difference, and then some. The one key here is being able to fill flights. You have to pay maintenance overhead on your plane even if you cut flights per week, so if you can only fill part of a huge jet's flight time the cost will eat you alive. If you can fill max flights 100% though you're golden.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Pro boat, Hong Kong. It's easy to underestimate what businesses can do for you; while the smart play would probably be to build up our air service a bit more before investing in more businesses, the boat should still be a useful investment. EDIT: we don't actually have to overtake Murica to win, thankfully. If the AI wielded that cash flow competently we'd be in trouble but we have a decent shot. the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Yup, which means transportation services are most effective in cities with a high population and economy: more people who can afford to fly. If you want to juice a city with poor population or economy you should invest in tourist attractions, because tourism will drive traffic to a location even if it's tiny and poor. (This doesn't have that much impact in this scenario, but as the nascent tourism industry grows in the latter part of the 20th century all those little island resorts turn into big Aero-bizness despite poo poo population and economy.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
The only reason that this is contention is that we're stuck at 4 slots in New York and it's inefficient to stick a plane on a route that can't use all of its flight time. If we were dealing with a shittier plane flying to a shittier city this would be an issue, but this is New York and Doug will prevail. Plan A.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Diversification is actually a key component of lategame Aerobiz strategy  We just jumped the gun a bit.Actually, I still find myself unable to account for the mysterious malaise that gripped post-boat AirRan. I suspect sabotage from anti-boat extremists proverbially sunk our ship, and also literally sunk our ship.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:Honestly, Scenario 1 is one of the harder ones because of the limits that 50s aircraft slap you with in the early game. You can be much more flexible with what's on the table in 70s. You're also missing out on a lot of lucrative tourism destinations that haven't developed yet. Also the world has not yet reached  GLORIOUS NIPPON APOTHEOSIS so you can't break the game by spamming flights from Tokyo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Anyone who wants Tokyo should wait for scenario 4. Beautiful things happen then.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
I'll throw my official vote in for TrotSky in Moscow (I don't think AirLenin fits) because I've never actually played behind the wall.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
The Parisian airline should be Descart(es), so they can fly Cartesian planes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Slickdrac posted:Edit: Also, Doug, every scenario calls for Doug. They're basically the only ones to stock decent upkeep planes period, and also about the only ones to keep around good short haul planes and long haul planes. Except Scenario 3, where Doug completely shits the bed. In 1985 they offer no long-range planes at all and in fact their only plane for sale is the lovely outdated MD80, which is almost entirely outclassed as a short-midrange plane by their competitor's offerings. While they eventually get some pretty respectable super-long-range planes it takes a long time during the crucial early years, and even then you can still get cheaper planes from Airbus or bigger planes from Boeing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Oof. Why did we buuld 6 hubs? We're not going to be developing every region simultaneously and those hubs are eating up all our profits. My vote is to add more planes and more flights to our most successful long distance routes and add a couple mid-long range spokes from their hubs (although that may have to wait)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
raifield posted:Is there ever a reason to use the smaller jets in Supersonic? Anything from McDonnel-Douglas and Boeing's tiny B737-300 and B757 seem utterly pointless next to Airbus's A310 and A300-600. Using anything else seems odd, with the possible exception of a few B747's for inter-regional flights and maybe the B767 if you feel the need to buy American. That sounds like 1985, not 2000 (the "Supersonic" scenario.) Remember you get a discount for being a good customer and keeping >50% of your fleet with the same company, so if you want a discount on those 747s you need to buy some of the smaller Boeings too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 19:38
|
|