Well for the next 12 hours that makes sense, at least with Shanghai. Shipping out event going there means more passengers/cargo want that as a final destination
I don't think it makes a difference which side you decide to shortchange unless one of the sides has a significantly larger distance. If you have four ports in a line and don't account for distance then you have A B C D. You can either feed A's D to B, and C's B to D, and fly B to D, or you can feed D's A to C, and B's C to A, and fly A to C. Either way one of the sides is feeding "backwards". The only way to fix this is to do double layovers, where you feed A's D to B, then layover in C where you pick up D's A, then move those with your feeder planes, but I think that'd be far too much a pain in the behind. But if your A to B distance is much farther than your C to D distance, then you should want to feed forward from A to B, rather than from D to C. So I don't know off the top of my head but if you're feeding Honolulu to LA I think that distance is farther than Shanghai to Tokyo. But if you're feeding like San Francisco or Phoenix to LA, then I would imagine the Shanghai to Tokyo distance is larger. You would also have to take into account the population of your feeders, so that you can ensure a steady stream of layovers... I'm not sure if this makes any sense, I've read over it and retyped it about 4 times...
Well basically, LA --> Beijing is SLIGHTLY more profitable. Not only that, but Beijing supplying Tokyo is essentially supplying a further away airport with slightly less valuable jobs. It's like saying you'd supply Honolulu with jobs from LA, to then go back across to Tokyo. What's the point in supplying jobs backwards further away, to go the other way again!
Too many letters of the alphabet to me. It's just common sense. Honolulu --> LA for layovers works because Honolulu is a class 2. Beijing supplying Tokyo with layovers to LA makes NO sense whatsoever, because they're both class 3 airports and if you're doing Beijing --> Tokyo, just to go back along the track to LA, you're losing money. If that's what you're doing, there's literally NO logical explanation for doing that as opposed to the opposite. There's NO benefit
Yeah you're right, you're doing A --> B <===> C <--- D, right? Taking C's from A and B's from D. Or rather Honolulu ---> LA <====> Shanghai <--- Tokyo, Taking Shanghai trips from Honolulu and LA trips from Tokyo, right? And then just loading for cash or bucks when you pull your feeder planes back to the ends, right?
Good point. I think I'm gonna try for a Lima -> Tokyo Route to see if better than LA -> Beijing, purely because it seems to be a much more linear distance. Did you find Tetras or Sequoias to be a big step up from Fogbusters for money? Sitting at well over 1k bux and no idea what to do with them. Not sure if I should upgrade my fleet or save them for massive overhaul in the near future (only at lvl 23, so not quite at Tetras)
Basically, your main route doesn't have to be the longest - it needs to be the longest, with an extra FURTHER airport either side. That way, you're ALWAYS feeding the main route with even more profitable jobs. I've got 4 planes doing that journey. I've got 4 planes (2 either side) doing the feeding (layovers), and then i've got 3 planes serving the west side of the route and 3 planes serving the east side of the route - these deal with good bux jobs, and do full planes etc. then I have an extra 2 'jobbers' that just work the whole route picking up extra jobs! Essentially though, my first paragraph is the most prominent. Just because LA -> Tokyo is a longer journey, doesn't mean it's actually more valuable. You want to be feeding the longest journey possible, with the most valuable jobs. So Honolulu ==> LA <--> Beijing <== Tokyo is the best, because Tokyo and Honolulu are providing better value jobs than you're getting already.
Sequoia make about 2k more per hour than Fogbusters on my main route - big step up. Tetra makes pretty much the same as the Sequoia so basically, the more you can carry, the more profit you make - even though the Sequoia are a lot slower. The profit per hour stat is based on amount of time in the sky (it doesn't take into account the amount of time you're offline, or they're sat in the airport) so it's an accurate figure. My biggest earner is a Sequoia that doesn't do the LA --> Beijing journey, it just jobs between cities with full planes, which proves that shorter flights make more profit.
Just noticed my Cyclone's projected profit per hour is 237,564! I'm also up to 973,580 daily revenue now. Edit: Think I'll test out the Cloudlinders before calling it quits.
I'm up to 1,224,767 average daily revenue I can only assume the first job your Cyclone did was a very short, full loaded layover!?
What are you going to do with all those coins? Yup, it's only been up for 35 minutes but I had enough layovers to fly it around several times. Second Cyclone is 108,743 and third is 11,667 (). Edit: it's up to 265,000 now.
I have no idea - probably just run more jobber planes! The setup seems good at present for profit, so that's all I can do. Not going to bother with Cyclones myself.. Going to aim towards 3 Tetra and 1 Cloudliner for the long-haul journeys to balance out the P/C because I run only M planes.
Where are the best areas to set up "feeder" cities? I run a route all the way from LA to Tokyo, through six cities in between. I feel like the Eastern seaboard of the US and Asia to be the best places to do so, but what exactly is the concept of a "feeder" city?
A feeder city in your example, would be honolulu. You would run a plane from honolulu to LA, simply taking jobs destined for Tokyo, but drop them off in LA instead (layovers) - for your bigger planes to do those journeys. As stated a little earlier, I would suggest running LA --> Beijing / Shanghai (whichever you've gone for), and use Tokyo as your feeder city at the other end.
Neat, but why Tetras over Cyclones or even Sequoias? I only run M planes as well but decided to skip over the Tetras completely for Cyclones and Sequoias. The P/C ratio is too uneven for me since my feeder planes are Birchcraft-Ms (2P/2C). The Tetra is also much faster (higher flight costs), has much shorter range (2300), and weighs the same as my more profitable and evenly distributed Sequoia. Like Pearjets to Aeroeagles. It's also completely inferior in every way compared to Cyclones.
Well my feeder planes are nearly all Aeroeagles now, so i get a very even spread of P/C layovers. I could run a mix of P and C cloudliners I guess, but it could get messy. I know the cyclones will make a lot more money than my Sequoia and tetra, but I need to work out the strategy before chucking my bux around. EDIT: In fact you're right - i'm totally stupid not to use cyclones even if it's in the short team. 2 x P and 2 x C cloudliners would be a great approach so i'll probably just do that. Just got my first cyclone now!
Bloody hell, why does it have to be in San Jose this time?! Prize is only 60 bux anyway I'm gonna skip.
A quick tip I use for those who use the layover/regional/International flight method: I use New York and London as my transatlantic hubs, but I realized that I was filling up London with layovers both going towards New York and heading to Tokyo. It was a terrible log jam, and would take a lot of time to sort out. I decided to open Paris and split the traffic. Now, all my east-bound traffic stops at Paris, and my west-bound stops at London. This makes the layovers more manageable for me. I'm sure this has been covered before, but if not, enjoy! Sadly, I only have Boston for doing that in NA. But it's working out so far. Also, there is an achievement bug. Transatlantic flight award is not working for me. Thought I would report that if it hasn't been reported already.
