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: B777 Comparison  (Read 2889 times)

Pepsico8

  • Former member
B777 Comparison
« on: August 09, 2011, 11:13:18 PM »
How good is the 777-200 compared to an A330/A340 in General Profits?

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2011, 11:15:37 PM »
In short:

A330-300 >>>>>> B777-200
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 901
    • FmFreaks
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2011, 11:54:38 PM »
How good is the 777-200 compared to an A330/A340 in General Profits?

Keep away from 777 it loose against 330 and 767 and on the distance where its force is it only make profit if you own it.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2011, 12:55:28 AM »
777 is a loser.  It is awful.  Honestly I think Sami nerfed them into the earth.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2011, 01:04:14 AM »
Keep away from 777 it loose against 330 and 767 and on the distance where its force is it only make profit if you own it.

Yup, there is very little profit to be made with super expensive long distance aircraft on ULH routes (> 5000nm).  The high lease payments and low revenue make earning profits very challenging.

And as you said, if you purchase the aircraft, and the lease payments disappear, some "profit" is possible, but it is not really profit.  Just subsidy from other profitable routes that made it possible to purchase aircraft in the first place...

cht7520

  • Former member
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2011, 02:47:37 AM »
Uh oh...

No wonder I'm struggling, I've got 103 of them :-\

Offline pascaly

  • Members
  • Posts: 405
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2011, 06:27:45 AM »
Just Google 'economies of scale' and those 103 will look like flying gold bars  ;)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2011, 07:08:12 AM »
Just Google 'economies of scale' and those 103 will look like flying gold bars  ;)

AWS has a very limited (to non-existent) economies of scale when going from, say 10 777s to 103 777a.

coopdogyo

  • Former member
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2011, 03:21:47 AM »
If you grab them used and under value and fly them on the right routes they will print money

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2011, 07:06:07 AM »
777 is a loser. 

It is awful in this game, but I was watching a programme on the 777 and  operators and engineers were saying that the 777 is an awsome aircraft as it can be used for short haul ( I assume by this they meant 1000NM+ routes) and long haul operations as it's profitability and economy is excellent hence another reason why its proven extremely popular for Real World operators and the is one of the best aircraft in the market today....so why it is so bad in AWS I do not know  :-\

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 843
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2011, 08:07:55 AM »
I think there are 3 problems in AWS: cargo, leasing cost and ticket sale

In real world the cargo is very important and this will also effect the range a lot. In AWS we can send 333 on 5000nm+ route, however nobody do that in real world because this means almost no cargo can be taken--and cargo actually more profitable than pax so airline will never wanna give it up. I think that's the market of 777-200ER in real world, but this almost never work in AWS without changes.

The leasing cost is another problem. 777 is larger and more expansive than 330(and even 340). Under the leasing system of AWS we have now, the leasing cost is only used to maintain the right of usage of the plane. We have to pay another amount of cash to own them. This is different from the real world, where we can choose finance leasing and own the plane after paying for those payments in years. I'm not sure what's the idea of sami on this issue, but I do think it's important to improve the financial performance and make smaller airlines easier to face competition from big airlines. Why I need to choose a plane that can do the same as A333 but cost me more?

Also the ticket system in AWS seems to be Y class oriented, every airline is DL/KL/CO/AF/BA even CA/CZ/MU and CX/SQ/JL/NH/KE are all airlines from Mars. And lack of competition over on board service make the usual way of "service+hardware improvement--> increase price" almost not possible in AWS. CX can still make big money with only 297 seats (F6J53Y238) on 77W, and in AWS you will get killed by this.

Offline Meicci

  • Members
  • Posts: 821
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2011, 05:48:12 PM »
It is awful in this game, but I was watching a programme on the 777 and  operators and engineers were saying that the 777 is an awsome aircraft as it can be used for short haul ( I assume by this they meant 1000NM+ routes) and long haul operations as it's profitability and economy is excellent hence another reason why its proven extremely popular for Real World operators and the is one of the best aircraft in the market today....so why it is so bad in AWS I do not know  :-\

I bet that program was american  ;)

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2011, 05:51:02 PM »
I bet that program was american  ;)

Nope it was a UK Documentary  ;)

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2011, 07:03:53 PM »
Also the ticket system in AWS seems to be Y class oriented, every airline is DL/KL/CO/AF/BA even CA/CZ/MU and CX/SQ/JL/NH/KE are all airlines from Mars. And lack of competition over on board service make the usual way of "service+hardware improvement--> increase price" almost not possible in AWS. CX can still make big money with only 297 seats (F6J53Y238) on 77W, and in AWS you will get killed by this.
Thats because on airlines like BA, Singapore, Emirates, CX, Qantas, Qatar, Korean and all the other heavy premium airlines 60-80% of the revenues come from the smallest cabin spaces of first and business (thats a quoted percentage from insiders). Thats why when the GFC hit, BA and a lot of the Asian airlines took major hits and went from being profitable to loosing tons of money and some having to greatly reduce capacity.

as for the 777, that must ahve been why my first airline bk-ed. i introduced it to my all a320 fleet and instantly stopped growing. then when all the A320's disappeared from the market, in a last ditch effort, i used 727's which caused me to bk. i dont really know why when i have seen others use them to great success and my competitor was using them as part of his other 9 family fleet that consisted of 60 a/c... must have been all his intl flights providing the profits

Generally speaking, the A330 and A340's are lighter than their respective 777 variants which means they are going to burn less fuel (yes a 777W burns more fuel than a 340-600), however the 777 can lift considerably more payload and take it further than the 330/340's. This is still even the case with the 777 vs A350, hence the reason why Airbus is now trying to change the 350-1000 to match the 77W. Passenger wise, they are relatively the same, but the increase in payload for the 777 comes in the belly. The 777 actually carries the most belly cargo of any passenger airliner. Without having cargo, that is where the disavantage comes for a lot of the planes that underperform in this game. I personally think, cargo should be a top priority. like type said, cargo makes more money for an airline than passengers do.

ACfly

  • Former member
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2011, 12:36:22 PM »

Generally speaking, the A330 and A340's are lighter than their respective 777 variants which means they are going to burn less fuel (yes a 777W burns more fuel than a 340-600), however the 777 can lift considerably more payload and take it further than the 330/340's. This is still even the case with the 777 vs A350, hence the reason why Airbus is now trying to change the 350-1000 to match the 77W. Passenger wise, they are relatively the same, but the increase in payload for the 777 comes in the belly. The 777 actually carries the most belly cargo of any passenger airliner. Without having cargo, that is where the disavantage comes for a lot of the planes that underperform in this game. I personally think, cargo should be a top priority. like type said, cargo makes more money for an airline than passengers do.

AWS currently does not factor into account cargo, so from a game perspective, the 777 is a disadvantage.. it's much more expensive which in some routes can be offset by higher passenger count, but in most cases it does not rival the 340/330.

Offline mark320

  • Members
  • Posts: 101
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2011, 01:27:42 PM »
There is also the fact that lease cost for new aircraft are around 4 times as much as in reality!

ACfly

  • Former member
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2011, 03:10:15 AM »
There is also the fact that lease cost for new aircraft are around 4 times as much as in reality!
That also applies to used market aircraft leases.

Offline mark320

  • Members
  • Posts: 101
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2011, 12:52:21 PM »
Yes, exactly.

No one seems to care about this. Even though it is huge hit on fixed costs!

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 843
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2011, 01:31:48 PM »
what can we do if sami decided to choose only part of the game to be realistic? ;)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: B777 Comparison
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2011, 02:26:22 PM »
It's so easy to throw some random lines ("4 times as much..") out of thin air. If you have some proper improvement suggestions (incl. proper facts) please post them to Feature rq. forum for future consideration & analysis.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 02:31:00 PM by sami »

 

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.