Planeopnik+math

"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer) 05/30/2019 at 00:22 • Filed to: None

2

36

There’s this stupid little game on Facebook called Airline Manager, a game I have taken way too seriously for way too long. By way too seriously, I mean I created a relatively crude spreadsheet to track my performance, and... aparently the B753 is the best investment in the game.

I started playing the newest version, controlling Interrobang airlines, a few months ago and this is my fleet thus far;

Evidently, this game is not concerned with representing reality as far as fuel economy goes. Or the actual value of jets

The “time to return” box is representative of the purchase cost divided by the profit per hour . Although in the game you have many costs, the most notable ones are the fuel, and the gate costs. Fuel costs fluctuate, but to compensate for the costs I ignore, I gouge the fuel cost a lot. It intentionally hurts inefficient, and larger jets (which also have more staff, cost more in maintenance, etc).

Now I’m trying to decide how to calculate the performance of each jet beyond those crude variables in order to plan new purchases. Initially I did profit per hour/ROI, which would yield which jets earned the most money relative to how long it would take to recover the investment.

The issue I have with this result in particular is that the best performing jets are the narrow body B753. I can’t have a huge fleet of B753s, just being micromanaged by me all day, since I’m not all day on Facebook and the videogame isn’t keen on letting players schedule flights automatically.

on the other hand, just looking at profit per hour would ignore that the jet that takes the longest to recover the investment on is the A380, so even if it wins the most money per hour, it takes the longest to recover the initial investment too. Which is why I made this;

This equation represents the “penalty”, where X is the amount of flights possible per day, my longest flight can be “triggered” every 1.3 days, so it’s penalty is around 1. The point of this, is that short haul flights are more likely to be on the ground given my inattentiveness. “New indicator” is this penalty multiplied by the profit per hour/ROI

Even after making a penalty, the B753 dominates, and the longer range flights are mostly left to the bottom-middle of the “new indicator” performance list, even if they make the most money per flight hour.

So I guess, all-hail the king: the B757

In the end, all of this work is for a stupid video game. I feel like Jerry Smith sometimes:

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 00:30

1

Please repost this when the Yankees are awake

Spanfeller is a twat > For Sweden 05/30/2019 at 00:31

0

why?

ItalianJobR53 - now with added 'MERICA and unreliability > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 00:34

1

The Yankees are interested in this but too tired to go through it right now.

Spanfeller is a twat > ItalianJobR53 - now with added 'MERICA and unreliability 05/30/2019 at 00:34

0

oh...

I mean if I have permission from a mod....

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 01:57

0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Control_(video_game)

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 02:06

3

I used to play a similar game on the Palm Pilot way back when, and even purchased an expensive airline sim for the PC. I remember doing something similar with spreadsheets all for a silly game. Like the real world I found that the best solution was to buy planes that were just a little smaller than my routes could handle, gouge the fuck out of the passengers on the fares until the load factors started dropping, and then lower the fare just enough to fill every available seat. Ridiculous profit then followed.

My years and years  in the weird world of commercial aviation left me just a little jaded...

Spanfeller is a twat > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/30/2019 at 02:28

1

I don’t think this sim takes route capacity into consideration, I fly a 764 to Oaxaca from Dubai ; hard to argue for a daily service in that route, yet its profitable. So is mu Md11 to Hermosillo, or the 757 to Vadodora.

None of those routes would make sense in the real world, yet here we are

TheRealBicycleBuck > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 06:38

1

It could be worse...

https://kotaku.com/if-you-re-playing-eve-online-you-basically-already-have-1835048929

Jayvincent > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 07:08

0

you’re not wrong... B757 is the best plane. Unless you are cargo. Cargo likes 767s and 747s.

Spanfeller is a twat > TheRealBicycleBuck 05/30/2019 at 11:29

0

In this game losing money is hard... I once had the A380 flying at a third capacity because of the seat configuration and it would still break even.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 11:38

1

EVE is supposed to be one of the hardest mmorpg space sims out there. I enjoy some of the management style games like SimCity, but once it goes online and other players can tear you up when you’re offline, it’s not fun any more.

Spanfeller is a twat > TheRealBicycleBuck 05/30/2019 at 11:41

1

Oh, yeah it seems like a stressful thing.

I wished cities skylines had some of the tools of older Sim City games, like the chance to negociate and connect to adjacent cities.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 11:52

0

I picked up the free online version of SimCity, found myself consumed with it (especially the trading), then realized it was consuming an unhealthy amount of my time and quit playing.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 12:48

2

Sounds like you need to pick up a fleet of used and abused 767s for pennies on the dollar and fill them up on long haul routes with 0 competitors and try to gouge people for the convenience.

753 shouldn’t be your default winner unless the airplanes are just too cheap relative to a 738, sounds like the game just isn’t quite realistic. 

BahamaTodd > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 12:59

0

Which is why Boeing needs to hurry with the 797.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 13:10

0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Control_(video_game)

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW 05/30/2019 at 13:11

1

The 757-300 is a lot cheaper than the 737-900, and also has a longer range, though it has worse fuel economy.

ItalianJobR53 - now with added 'MERICA and unreliability > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 13:16

1

I don't think you need permission to repost

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 13:17

1

I’m surprised it has longer range actually. That helps. I’m sure it’s more $ to maintain as well.

For a more realistic estimate I would use an annual depreciation number and use that expense. The trick there is that an airplane may have a 30 year useful life, but if you buy a 15 year old plane you depreciate it over 15 years not 30.

Also need to factor maintenance and major overhaul costs but maybe you already do that. 

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW 05/30/2019 at 13:22

1

Part of the gouging the fuel accounts for maintenance . As for depreciation, the jets depreciate like a stone in the game, my oldest jet in service, an A321, already lost something like 70% of it’s purchase value, it’s not “old” but I can’t assume jets are stable assets.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 13:28

0

No I mean depreciation as an expense. If you buy it for $10M and it has 10 years of life left, your annual depreciation expense would be $1M.

Whether it’s actually worth $9M a year after you buy it doesn’t really matter unless you’re actually selling it.

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW 05/30/2019 at 13:47

1

I understand now.

In the game the B757 can be had “new”, same is true of the MD11, and other older planes in my fleet. my threshold for depreciation is the first big maintenance, at 1000 hours.
At 1000 hours the jets are pretty much worth less than the maintenance applied to them, and it becomes more expensive over time, at 2000, 3000, and 4000 hours. So the more money you can extract from the jet before 1000 hours (ie, the smaller the ROI) the better.

The only j ets I ’ve sold before the 1000 hour threshold were the small commuter planes I started the game with, right now my oldest jet has around 850 hours, and it’s already worth 7% of what it cost new.

This clearly would mean that jets with shorter ROIs are better, but on the other hand you need to keep in mind off time with shorter flights.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 14:23

1

I feel like you would enjoy EVE Online lol

Future next gen S2000 owner > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 15:02

1

On the plus side, people get paid butt loads of money to do what you just did for a game.

Spanfeller is a twat > Future next gen S2000 owner 05/30/2019 at 15:04

0

I started using spreads five years ago when I was in middle school. And the game was on it’s first version.. .All if it is grade level math.  T he notion that someone gets paid for something like this blows my mind.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 15:06

0

  That math makes me think that maybe short hops is th e best way to win that game. Ie, maximize revenue per flight hour. It might take you longer to get to 1000 hours but maybe it makes more $$.

Note that’s not how you’d do it IRL , but just thinking out loud. 

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW 05/30/2019 at 15:11

1

IRL, I guess it would depend. On expensive airplanes you’d be mostly guided by the pressurization cycles, whereas on long haul airplanes you’d be guided by the fuel economy.

Those actually fight eachother; as you extend range you worsen fuel economy, but as you extend range, you improve the amount of flight hours per pressurization. 

Future next gen S2000 owner > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 15:12

2

Unless you are deep into math/engineering/physics. Most business math isn’t that far beyond HS level. It knowing what to do with the information and making sure you use the right inputs/formula that makes the difference.

How to apply the knowledge is far more important than the plug and chug nature of the equation.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 15:16

2

IRL it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Route optimization is a science unto itself. Generally speaking though, you want the airplane flying as much as possible, and as far as passengers go, you want to maximize revenue per flight - which doesn’t necessarily equate to filling every seat.

And yeah, the life of an airplane I believe is still determined by cycles not hours or age.

WilliamsSW > Future next gen S2000 owner 05/30/2019 at 15:22

0

^^^^ corporate finance guy here, can confirm 

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > WilliamsSW 05/30/2019 at 15:50

1

The 757 (4500nm range) was used on the long thin routes that some airlines are now using A321LRs for. It’s also the focus of Boeing’s NMA (new midsize aircraft) program. 737-900 range is 3,800nm.

WilliamsSW > Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom 05/30/2019 at 16:17

0

Yes - I forgot, but I think someone was running transatlantic flights in 757s from the east coast at one point.

someassemblyrequired > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/30/2019 at 16:30

2

Turns out that Gran Fury is actually former United CEO Jeff Smisek...

f86sabre > Spanfeller is a twat 05/30/2019 at 22:36

1

And that is why we fly a bunch of 757-300s.

f86sabre > WilliamsSW 05/30/2019 at 22:40

1

In the real world the 757, with a decent maintence org, awesome engineers and access to affordable spares is very reasonable to operate. Fuel burn costs are  negated by increased passenger and payload capability over the 737s.

WilliamsSW > f86sabre 05/30/2019 at 23:40

1

Good to hear -sad it seems to be slowly going away, I like that airplane (and pilots have told me that they love it)