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: 787  (Read 2229 times)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: 787
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2010, 11:54:06 PM »
Um, that's the entire point of what I wrote.

The 787 is heavy.  It's heavy because it carries a lot of fuel.  It's less efficient because it has to move so much.  As a result, even though it's, per PR-speak, "20% more efficient", that's not taking into account the fact that a lot of that added "efficiency" is simply moving its ponderous bulk around (not just fuel, but more cargo space as well) and does not mean that it's burning 20% less fuel per-seat.  On a per-seat basis, it's actually not a heckuva lot better than a 764ER.

On a per seat basis, it actually looks worse than 764ER.  As we discussed in another thread, 767-400ER receives no penalty in AWS because it cannot carry as much cargo, and 787 gets no benefit for being able to carry more cargo.

If in the future versions of AWS we do have cargo, 787 will be more competitive.  In the meantime, we can either just live with stats as they are, or possibly subtract the extra cargo from the planes and extend their ranges and possibly lower fuel consumption.  But that is probably too much work and not a worthwhile exercise...

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 787
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2010, 12:27:44 AM »
It is a good plane.  Too bad it is not always the range you are looking for.

Rex_Kramer

  • Former member
Re: 787
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2010, 07:06:08 AM »
On a per seat basis, it actually looks worse than 764ER.  As we discussed in another thread, 767-400ER receives no penalty in AWS because it cannot carry as much cargo, and 787 gets no benefit for being able to carry more cargo.

If in the future versions of AWS we do have cargo, 787 will be more competitive.  In the meantime, we can either just live with stats as they are, or possibly subtract the extra cargo from the planes and extend their ranges and possibly lower fuel consumption.  But that is probably too much work and not a worthwhile exercise...

Or give the 787 in AWS a more accurate seat count to put it's capacity on a par with the A332.

 

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.