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: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage  (Read 3463 times)

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« on: September 19, 2011, 03:50:53 PM »
Just finished some calculation, post here for you guys  ;)

Number Wide-body aircraft operated:
SkyConnect: 2111
Elite: 706
WorldLink: 497

Number Wide-body aircraft operated: (excluded 767)
SkyConnect: 1726
Elite: 190
WorldLink: 408

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2011, 04:31:22 PM »
Just finished some calculation, post here for you guys  ;)

Number Wide-body aircraft operated:
SkyConnect: 2111
Elite: 706
WorldLink: 497

Number Wide-body aircraft operated: (excluded 767)
SkyConnect: 1726
Elite: 190
WorldLink: 408

What is the stat of "Wide-body aircraft operated: (excluded 767)"?  Why exclude 767?  Does that include A300, A310, A332, A333?  If it does, what is the point of excluding 767?

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2011, 04:32:09 PM »
Just finished some calculation, post here for you guys  ;)

Number Wide-body aircraft operated:
SkyConnect: 2111
Elite: 706
WorldLink: 497

Number Wide-body aircraft operated: (excluded 767)
SkyConnect: 1726
Elite: 190
WorldLink: 408

And the 767 has been excluded because why? Has it suddenly become a narrowbody? Or do you just want to make it look good for you lot? FWIW 98% of all statistics are made up.

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2011, 04:46:54 PM »
And the 767 has been excluded because why? Has it suddenly become a narrowbody? Or do you just want to make it look good for you lot? FWIW 98% of all statistics are made up.
There is not correct to exclude 767, for the sake of accurate statistics. However, just want to share the strange clues in it.

kone_alta

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2011, 04:53:17 PM »
And the 767 has been excluded because why? Has it suddenly become a narrowbody? Or do you just want to make it look good for you lot? FWIW 98% of all statistics are made up.

I don't see excluding 767 is a make up. Fact is fact, it shows 767 is a favorable model for this alliance.

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2011, 05:04:08 PM »
I don't see excluding 767 is a make up. Fact is fact, it shows 767 is a favorable model for this alliance.

How, you are trying to prove Elite don't use widebodies, by excluding a type of widebody that is well known to perform well in this game? Just because Elite doesn't solely fly A330s and B777s doesn't change anything. You may as well exclude the A330s from that list, they are pretty similar.

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2011, 05:07:10 PM »
How, you are trying to prove Elite don't use widebodies, by excluding a type of widebody that is well known to perform well in this game? Just because Elite doesn't solely fly A330s and B777s doesn't change anything. You may as well exclude the A330s from that list, they are pretty similar.
I haven't said it out but seems the statistics implied. That's your impression on your alliance strategy or the opinion from others? you can tell.

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2011, 05:09:56 PM »
I haven't said it out but seems the statistics implied. That's your impression on your alliance strategy or the opinion from others? you can tell.

Well, I thinks its blatantly obvious what you are trying to do. And for what it is worth I don't fly any LH operations, but due to a humorous reason fly three of the not 767s. 

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2011, 05:12:27 PM »
Well, I thinks its blatantly obvious what you are trying to do. And for what it is worth I don't fly any LH operations, but due to a humorous reason fly three of the not 767s. 
Just a statistics, you have the right to interpret. (What you commented is also a kind of interpretation) 8)

kone_alta

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2011, 05:17:34 PM »
How, you are trying to prove Elite don't use widebodies, by excluding a type of widebody that is well known to perform well in this game? Just because Elite doesn't solely fly A330s and B777s doesn't change anything. You may as well exclude the A330s from that list, they are pretty similar.

Well, I am not the one who start the post, how can you jump on this conclusion and put it onto me?  ;) My understand is, 767 is favorable for Elite Alliance.

One more thing, last time I've told you to keep number of fleet group as low as possible, but your A330 series has 3 aircrafts and it's a little bit odd. You may consider switch to 767 for better usage and better fleet commonality with other members.

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2011, 05:26:45 PM »
Well, I am not the one who start the post, how can you jump on this conclusion and put it onto me?  ;) My understand is, 767 is favorable for Elite Alliance.

One more thing, last time I've told you to keep number of fleet group as low as possible, but your A330 series has 3 aircrafts and it's a little bit odd. You may consider switch to 767 for better usage and better fleet commonality with other members.

Long story, I mean to keep to the three I had and open a second base with a much bigger fleet of A330s and A340s, gave up that idea after it was explained it would kill me so I'm left with those three.

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2011, 06:11:20 PM »
There is not correct to exclude 767, for the sake of accurate statistics. However, just want to share the strange clues in it.

Ok, not a problem.  I like statis of all kind.  So from your list it looks like Elite flies 516 767s.  And I fly 112 of them alone, with several more on order.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2011, 06:31:41 PM »
I could not careless what any other airline flies...it's nothing to do with me what other people do...good luck to em' I say, WL, SC or Elite, but what you say about Elite and 767's we could say about SC and 777's....there is no right and no wrong - it personal preference and that's allowed and perfectly fine by me.   If people make wrong choices they'll go bust...simple...that is the ultimate judge of peoples fleets - not another alliance who's views really are irrelevant !


...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2011, 07:17:10 PM »
...infact Vito, I would love to know why this is an issue to you ?   

It is obvious to me that 767 is a sensible choice for long haul....it is cheaper than 777/747, fuel usage is better, it is smaller so you can beat competition with frequency - it is no surprise to me that airlines go for them.  It is no lesser airline that flies them.

We build airlines to survive the game world that is thrown at us, and it is the general view that 777's & 747's struggle with high fuel prices.  It seems sensible to avoid them IMO as they will without shadow of a doubt get beaten by smaller more frequent and efficient LH a/c (757/767) when the going gets though.   These are sensible arguments for airlines choosing 767's....why is that wrong ?
...it's not over until I say it's over

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2011, 01:29:22 AM »
...infact Vito, I would love to know why this is an issue to you ?   

It is obvious to me that 767 is a sensible choice for long haul....it is cheaper than 777/747, fuel usage is better, it is smaller so you can beat competition with frequency - it is no surprise to me that airlines go for them.  It is no lesser airline that flies them.

We build airlines to survive the game world that is thrown at us, and it is the general view that 777's & 747's struggle with high fuel prices.  It seems sensible to avoid them IMO as they will without shadow of a doubt get beaten by smaller more frequent and efficient LH a/c (757/767) when the going gets though.   These are sensible arguments for airlines choosing 767's....why is that wrong ?
I have never said using 767 is wrong and you can see in the RL there are a number of operators of 767. And well, 757/764ER are efficient LH aircraft? with tech-stop only and IMO shouldn't be use to abuse the frequency in routes longer than it range.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 01:33:49 AM by vitongwangki »

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2011, 02:17:35 AM »
Sac and DAve, i dont get why you are making such a big deal out of a stat... thats all it is... no where did he say using 767 is stupid or bad or anything negative about them... he was just highlighting something about your alliance that probably supprised him. Having been in the alliance last round, im not supprised by it, because i remember everyone using them as their whole fleet then as well...

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2011, 10:52:34 AM »
I have never said using 767 is wrong and you can see in the RL there are a number of operators of 767. And well, 757/764ER are efficient LH aircraft? with tech-stop only and IMO shouldn't be use to abuse the frequency in routes longer than it range.

So in other words you want to operate your aircraft on routes to/ from your base, yet cant because we will destroy you with the frequency advantage of the smaller wide bodies if you dare tried?

If you think even for a second that you have a hope in hell of banning tech stopping then think again, its a perfectly legitimate way of playing this game.

Also, with 117 767 in service, I find it a little offensive to imply its a 'narrowbody' and I can assure you its anything but.





Peanutoil

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2011, 11:10:04 AM »
So in other words you want to operate your aircraft on routes to/ from your base, yet cant because we will destroy you with the frequency advantage of the smaller wide bodies if you dare tried?

If you think even for a second that you have a hope in hell of banning tech stopping then think again, its a perfectly legitimate way of playing this game.

Also, with 117 767 in service, I find it a little offensive to imply its a 'narrowbody' and I can assure you its anything but.

767 are widebody! I think it's funny that Elite Alliance thinks vito is teasing them with heavy rely on 767.
I think 764ER is not a bad plane, so if you are operating 764ER i am truly respect your choice.

What i do think is bit out of acceptable is someone operating out of few big bases still operate only NARROW body! with near 600 of them! I am not going to say it's unacceptable in game since it's LEGAL to do so. But if for simulation, i think it's not good to do so.

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2011, 11:14:31 AM »
So in other words you want to operate your aircraft on routes to/ from your base, yet cant because we will destroy you with the frequency advantage of the smaller wide bodies if you dare tried?

If you think even for a second that you have a hope in hell of banning tech stopping then think again, its a perfectly legitimate way of playing this game.

Also, with 117 767 in service, I find it a little offensive to imply its a 'narrowbody' and I can assure you its anything but.
Even you flood me planes you couldn't destroy me, even your whole alliance send me 757/764ER using tech stop you can't do that.  ;D

Banning tech-stop is not wise (It will be hard time for JA players and it isn't practical), but if introduce more penalty to tech-stop when direct flight is present (Definitely the real case the pessengers would choose direct flight rather than flight with tech-stop, when direct flight is common), it would be able to drive you guys to use widebody fleet (or long-range widebody planes).

If you feel offended, that means in your mind 764ER is also a small plane. :laugh:


Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2011, 11:18:26 AM »
767 are widebody! I think it's funny that Elite Alliance thinks vito is teasing them with heavy rely on 767.
I think 764ER is not a bad plane, so if you are operating 764ER i am truly respect your choice.

What i do think is bit out of acceptable is someone operating out of few big bases still operate only NARROW body! with near 600 of them! I am not going to say it's unacceptable in game since it's LEGAL to do so. But if for simulation, i think it's not good to do so.

So youre going to go off to southwest airlines tomorrow and demand that they order 150 A340 series aircraft for long haul ops, because you dont think they run a proper airline without a widebody?

please, go ahead.

 

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.