Expensive planes provide disproportionally low return in Passive Income considering their price

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

Description of the issue:
In Career Mode, it seems like the passive income system is giving a thumbs up to spreading your cash across several budget-friendly aircraft instead of splurging on one pricey plane. Take the Robinson R66 helicopter, for instance—costing about 390,000 credits, it can rake in roughly 100,000 credits in just six hours. On the flip side, a Pilatus PC-12, with a price tag of around 5 million credits, brings in roughly 380,000 credits in that same stretch of time. So, for the cost of one PC-12, you could snag around eleven R66 helicopters, raking in about 1.1 million credits in just six hours—almost triple the earnings of that lone PC-12!

On top of that, keeping those pricey planes in tip-top shape can really take a bite out of their profits! Community chatter backs this up, pointing out that splurging on pricey aircraft (over 2 million credits) doesn’t really boost passive income as you’d hope, and those sky-high maintenance costs can really take a bite out of your profits. Take the Cessna 172, for example—it can pay for itself in just about 24 hours of flying. Meanwhile, the pricier Grand Caravan is on a 70-hour mission to break even. Toss in maintenance woes and the occasional bug-induced crash, and suddenly your passive income dreams are looking more like a grind. Who knew flying high could feel so low? Expensive planes are more like expensive headaches!

With all this in play, it seems like the current setup could use a little tweaking to make sure those pricey planes pay off in the end. After all, who wants to invest in a sky-high ticket without an appropriate reward?

Below is another example how the expensive planes yield to passive income is miscalculated. If you don’t want to give us appropriate money for passive income, at least lower the maintenance costs on expensive planes. Then again, it just makes absolutely no sense to buy expensive planes in Career mode, since they are very costly to maintain and bring disproportionally low income.


:loudspeaker: For anyone who wants to contribute on this issue, Click on the button below to use this template:

Do you have the same issue if you follow the OP’s steps to reproduce it?

Provide extra information to complete the original description of the issue:

If relevant, provide additional screenshots/video:

3 Likes

I just got passive income for nearly 17 flight hours with 16% wear costing me more than twice as much in maintenance as income. The maintenance is insane for only 16 flight hours.

The maintenance is costing me way more than I’m earning.


Note:
The 737 was actually passive for 2.5 hours not 16.
It generates 0.5% its own value per hour but also 1% wear per hour, so it’s a big loss to use for passive.

Looks like R66s rake in the money!

They have very low maintenance costs because they’re so cheap. They also seem more durable than the planes.