Hello guys! i have a complaint also

[AirSebati]

i really like the game but there is a problem with the logic of "other cost".

I want to know what exactly is it and why is so low for my a320-200 and so high for cs300 in exactly the same route?

there is almost 40k dollars difference in my average routes. It sounds unlogical.

[AirSebati]

images of the issue have been added.

And im still waiting for an answer.


https://imgur.com/gallery/mwdh8

[KernAir]

In fairness, you did post it on a Sunday and it is early on Monday morning. It could take a while longer before you get an answer.

That said, I do agree that the 'other costs' need to be clarified. At the moment the new generation of airplanes (A320neo, B737 Max etc) are outclassed by their older counterparts primarily due to the 'other costs' balancing. My older generation B737-900ER's make just $6,000 per flight less than an A321neo despite the fact that the A321neo should be far better according to the stats shown to us on the user end. This is important information to know in advance.

I had to buy an A321neo and run it alongside my fleet of B737-900ER's to see if it was financially worth it to upgrade my fleet. I should have that information before, not after, buying an airplane.

[AirSebati]

And how exactly should acalculate "other cost" of my airplane without any knowladge what its refer.

Im not saying all things in the game should be calculatable but we have to know operating costs of a plane just like we know wear rate and fuel consumption of the plane.

Furthermore, even we dont know fuel consumption wia this game we still can get information about fuel consumption of the plane we consider to buy.

The thing in this matter is, even we have some foresights of other costs or operating costs, it still should be the opposite direction. "Newer plane are more economic than the older ones." Meanly thats why they are new.


I can understand that they may want to keep balance in the game. But making unrealistic some key parts of the game cant help you to balance the game.


And of course, i was trting to get a formal answer for at least one week, from digferent platforms. Thats why im impatient littl bit.

[Dinomad]

Hello AirSebati,

It is a good question, you have.

Indeed, the "other costs" seems different between different planes in the same route.

Like all caracteristics in Airlines Manager, those additional costs/benefits depends on the plane you are using. Like in real life, there are some information you won’t be able to get on the planes you are buying. Some planes may generate more additional costs, others may help sell more things while flying, thus generating more income...

These information, like the one you just spotted, are advanced mechanics, reserved for observative, skillful and wise players.
Now that you spotted them, they can be of use in the choice of your next plane purchase.

Congratulations in finding those very specific pieces of informations.
Best Regards

[KernAir]

Like in real life, there are some information you won’t be able to get on the planes you are buying. Some planes may generate more additional costs, others may help sell more things while flying, thus generating more income...

I appreciate your answer in the topic but it does raise some more questions. Particularly relating to what you said which is quoted above. Why is it then that 'other costs' appear to be confined primarily to new airplane types with low maintenance requirements?

Logic would dictate that it would, in fact, be the opposite as older airplanes are more likely to break down or have other issues relating to their age. Planes that are no longer in production become more costly over time as new spares and other equipment need to be found to keep the aircraft serviceable.

As it currently stands, the way that other costs are calculated makes it a financially idiotic decision to buy say an A321neo over the far cheaper and far more profitable B737-900ER. The annoying part is that, according to the stats available on the airplane purchase page, the A321neo should be far superior. We as airplane buyers have no way of knowing this until buying and comparing them.

[lusankya]

i really like the game but there is a problem with the logic of "other cost".

Plus l'avion est ancien, plus les autres coûts diminuent

When the plane is getting older, the other costs are decreasing. There are totally no logic (according to the real world) and it would be false to try finding any reason (other than for this game). For example, an Airbus A321 don't have ''other costs'' on my company but a A321NEO have ''other costs''. In that case, I'd better continue to buy A321 than A321NEO.

This system permits you to still fly with ''rather old'' planes. It means that you really have to think well about which plane to use In this way, it's very interesting and well done.

[arastafaryan]

Hi all!

I wanted to write on the same subject and glad to see some people already noticed the same thing.

I am using two different planes (A330 and A350-900) on the same route. Both planes are all economy seated (so 440 seats for A330 and 475 seats for A350).
As the route is the same, ticket prices are the same. So A330 generates 2.8m from 880 tickets and A350 generates 3m from tickets. They are both class 8 planes, so they pay the same airport tax and i believe fuel cost is negligible in comparison (they differ by only 14k). However, 'other costs' which is not explanatory at all is 464k for A350 and 200k for A330. Now, the difference in the number of passengers on a round trip is less than 10%, but the other costs are 2.5 times more.
That makes A330 a much more profitable plane even though it carries less passengers (and the initial investment is less as well).

This really needs further explanation from game developers' side. We need to know what are the factors that affect 'the other costs' to be able to make sure we are making the optimal investment. Otherwise, until you pay the money to purchase the plane, you do not know what the 'other costs' are and that becomes a trial and error rather than analysis and planning.

Thanks,
Aras

[wrenlen]

Here is my experience:

Running a A319-100LR on a SFO-ATL route, I see the CS300 as an alternative. it is 10 years newer, better fuel efficiency, 2.375 vs 2.77, better wear 1.2 vs. 2.0, costs less and has the same passenger load with less range, perfect for my 4K KM where I need a filler.

Both flights, max out on tickets sales and cargo is the same, 47/30/14/2, turnover and anc. rev are exactly the same, $393,450
CS300 fuel is slightly less and expected 15,357 vs 17911
Taxes are the same 44,382
However, the other costs is 52,561 vs 16933

that is a 10.54% difference! or 33K which is tremendous for a less than 400K turnover flight. The rub of it, you need to also invest 18M R$ just to try it out and find out the numbers suck.

So I think, what would make it more expensive, one extra pilot or attendant, but that wouldn't total 33K, do they change the tires each flight? is the wifi carrier really charging that much, it seems silly.

This game is meant for the min maxer, the stat freaks that dive in to the analysis and when there are HUGE discrepancies like this, it discourages one from playing because you cant trust the numbers.

This is just one example, there are several I have found and not just other costs, I have seen two planes with the same config have different taxes, which is boggling in its own right. DO I get taxed for flying a particular brand.

Not a big deal, I will just fly the more cost effective plane, just diminishes the credibility of the game a bit, but hey it is a simulation who cares about a few K here and there LOL

Cheers,
Wrenlen