AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Alternative to 767  (Read 1346 times)

RisteMakedonski

  • Former member
Alternative to 767
« on: May 11, 2010, 11:34:03 PM »
Well the 767 didn't work out so well for 4000NM+ routes so now I need a different aircraft. Any ideas?

auerbacs

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2010, 11:41:05 PM »
We had a lot of conversation about the 767 and it's inability to turn a useful profit on LH. I think the discussion was called "So I'm tanking, now what", if you like to search for it. People seem to be very fond of 757s on 2000-3000 routes. If you want LH, it's better to go higher capacity than the 767. Given the wait times for some planes right now, you might want to look at alternative planes that you won't have to wait forever to get your hands on.

Offline highways1

  • Members
  • Posts: 145
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2010, 11:45:29 PM »
I think the 767 is being knocked excessively here. First off for those who have the 764's, those planes are superb and compare reasonably well to A333's and usually have better commonality because they fit in with existing 762's and 763's. I run routes with my 763's that make nearly 200K daily and the planes more than cover their other costs.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2010, 11:46:11 PM »
Hmm, more than 4000NM range
Options are:
A310-300
A330-200/300
A340-200X/300X/500/600
B747-400
B767-200ER/300/300ER/400ER
B777-200/200ER/200LR/300
IL 96-300
MD-11/11ER

auerbacs

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2010, 12:17:14 AM »
yeah, 767s aren't awful, but they're not great starter planes (at least not on LH). And I agree that the 764 is a really good plane, but you have to wait until 2001 for it, so it's not the best option for the impatient.

twothousandgt

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2010, 12:34:49 AM »
A300/310s are relatively cheap and have enormous range. Seating is comparable to the 67 as well. I'd have to look, but I don't think you can order them new any longer. I have seen a handful floating through the used market however. I had tried the A310 in another game world on the same route I'm using a 767-200ER in this game and it performed wonderfully; ~80k daily profit on KPHX-TJSJ (a route with only ~300 daily pax) AND I never even got a chance to ratchet prices back up to default after going -30% when opening the route. I think it could have done 100-120k/day easy once I had high RI.

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2010, 01:31:03 AM »
I've found in ATB 767s to be very very good. I have a fleet of them running from FAJS to LFPG and they are making daily profits of ~$100-150k.

My whole airline is built on them. I've only just started to order other things, namely 744s and 772s.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2010, 02:29:50 AM »
A300/310s are relatively cheap and have enormous range. Seating is comparable to the 67 as well. I'd have to look, but I don't think you can order them new any longer. I have seen a handful floating through the used market however. I had tried the A310 in another game world on the same route I'm using a 767-200ER in this game and it performed wonderfully; ~80k daily profit on KPHX-TJSJ (a route with only ~300 daily pax) AND I never even got a chance to ratchet prices back up to default after going -30% when opening the route. I think it could have done 100-120k/day easy once I had high RI.

The A310-300 is basically a B762 with no business class section size-wise.  If you add one, you get 4 less C and 21 less Y seats compared to the B762.  It burns more fuel than the B762, requires more cabin crew, and needs a longer runway.  About the only thing going for it is that it costs slightly/passenger to buy.  I'd go with the B762 every time.  (saying this as someone who's not a big fan of the B762ER, they're hard to make money with if you're flying long routes and fuel spikes)

The A300-600R (the longest range variant) barely has a range of 4000NM (and then only with one engine type and a boosted MTOW) and so isn't really relevant to a search for a jet to serve 4000NM+ routes.

The only type with that much range besides the B767 that I've ever used before is the A330-300, and I like those jets.  I've only used them once, but they made me some major cash in ROTMA.  Never tried the -200 though.

twothousandgt

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2010, 03:42:00 AM »
The A310-300 is basically a B762 with no business class section size-wise.  If you add one, you get 4 less C and 21 less Y seats compared to the B762.  It burns more fuel than the B762, requires more cabin crew, and needs a longer runway.  About the only thing going for it is that it costs slightly/passenger to buy.  I'd go with the B762 every time.  (saying this as someone who's not a big fan of the B762ER, they're hard to make money with if you're flying long routes and fuel spikes)

I overlooked the cabin crew requirement entirely, very good point. Runway shouldn't matter since 99% of the airports on either end of a profitable 4k+ NM route are going to have a 10k+ runway. I too would go with the 67 every time, I was only trying to think of alternatives. The A330 has some mighty interesting numbers...

mikk_13

  • Former member
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2010, 08:41:32 AM »
I think it comes down to where your base is. You have to consider how many places are with in the 767-400 range. This plane does really well, the furl burn is low and has very good capacity. If most of your long haul routes are within its range, eg europe to us- europe to asia, well go this one over the rest. However, the 767-300 doesn't do aswell.They still make money but over about 5800m it gets thinner the further you go. There for if many routes are more that the 767-400, go the busses or 777's.

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2136
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2010, 05:38:47 AM »
I've had better luck with the 767-300 series given the extra seating capacity.  My take on both the A310 and 767-200ER is that you can't just view them as a long-haul plane...try to configure your scheduling so they can also work in a high demand short haul route over the course of the week since this can tip you over to a weekly profit.  Overall I'd still choose the 767 over the A310.  The A310 has better turn times and can be quite profitable; but depending on the lease price and your slot costs, you will have a 767 headache x 2 if there is a massive spike in fuel prices....especially if flying between two expensive airports.

Offline Unbornio

  • Members
  • Posts: 662
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2010, 11:29:07 AM »
The 767 is one of the best long-haul aircraft in this game. No doubt about it. Just don't get the fuel-thirsty first-generation 767s. 767-200ER is AWESOME!
Beta Tester

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2010, 11:43:45 AM »
Why so little love for the 767?

The best 767-200ER makes 750 000usd/w
The worst 767-200ER makes 300 000usd/w

A brand new 767-300ER almost brings in a 1 000 000usd/w
All with standard configs and almost all my routes are longer than 4000NM






« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 07:49:01 PM by lilius »

Offline highways1

  • Members
  • Posts: 145
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2010, 02:56:52 PM »
My feeling on the 767-200ER is that it's great for hitting relatively low-demand, long-distance routes that really don't support a bigger plane but have enough demand to allow you make 100-150K a day on them.

Offline Unbornio

  • Members
  • Posts: 662
Re: Alternative to 767
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2010, 02:08:27 AM »
If you really want capacity, try 767-400ER?
Beta Tester

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.