787 is designed for long thin routes, which is the major type of my long haul market. I don't think it can make a lot of money for me, but I expect it can still make a profit. However here are the numbers:
Sold tickets 750 779 USD
Line maintenance (A+B) -18 888 USD
Insurance -92 696 USD
Fuel cost -379 562 USD
Route fees (1) -136 975 USD
Weekly leasing cost -456 145 USD
Total -333 487 USD
(I'm the launch customer so I've enjoyed the 10% discount on leasing already)
the config is F4C10Y200 flying 3 times weekly on SAEZ - PHNL - KPDX - PHNL - SAEZ
yes, I have some planes can make a profit, all flying routes >6000nmbut why I use 787 to fly those routes if 767 can do with less fuel burn, only a bit smaller in pax number and fly "a bit" slower?
especially there are no cargo in the game, this make the plane even less profitable to airlines relayed on long haul flight
the range between my base and Middle east cities are 6000+km, East Asia cities are 8000-10500km, even Europe cities are 5300-7200km. I don't mind to stay in a bad hub, but please give me something as good as I can have in real life
I thing most of the players do not have this kind of problem as the don't need such a long range, but for those who have a similar situation, the high fuel burn and no cargo can be deadly
it is not making sense at all, sami.
787 is just a deadly product under current config/fuel burn. This take place at the routes which 787 designed for.
If this is something happened in real world I don't think 787 can get so many orders
please review the fuel burn, try to make it bigger to put more pax/cargo, or even introduce financial leasing system, to make it work like Beoing designed.