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 3464 times)

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2011, 11:48:39 AM »
This thread and others like it are great advertisements for new players to stay out of alliances.

Regards Darryl

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2011, 11:56:04 AM »
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.
Comparing the domestic operator and the global operator (JetCity)?  :laugh:

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2011, 11:58:13 AM »
This thread and others like it are great advertisements for new players to stay out of alliances.

Regards Darryl

alliances are great things, theyre a plethora of support and advice when you need it most and really add another dimension to the game.

Its just when alliances clash that things can become ugly.  :laugh:


Offline eleritz

  • Members
  • Posts: 390
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2011, 12:14:38 PM »
Speaking of funny statistics, I've got some funny and thought provoking statistics too:

Number of Elite members based in airports which IATA code's  first letter is M:    8
Number  of SC  members  based in  airports  which  IATA code's first letter is M: 0

This is quite a big difference, donīt you think? I wonder if it's not out of acceptable not to have in the alliance any airline based in an airport which IATA code's first letter is M? I mean it's not illegal in this game but do you by any chance discriminate airlines based in airports which IATA code's  first letter is M? Or do you discriminate such airports? What about your integrity guys?;)

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2011, 12:24:08 PM »
Speaking of funny statistics, I've got some funny and thought provoking statistics too:

Number of Elite members based in airports which IATA code's  first letter is M:    8
Number  of SC  members  based in  airports  which  IATA code's first letter is M: 0

This is quite a big difference, donīt you think? I wonder if it's not out of acceptable not to have in the alliance any airline based in an airport which IATA code's first letter is M? I mean it's not illegal in this game but do you by any chance discriminate airlines based in airports which IATA code's  first letter is M? Or do you discriminate such airports? What about your integrity guys?;)
Wow, what a coincidence :O

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2011, 01:55:50 PM »
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:

I would be all for other variables (such as price, speed, quality of seating etc) to have more of an effect.  Also, the fleet commonality is not implemented all that well.  When AWS "rewards" things that work in real life more, good AWS players will do those things.

As long as AWS treats most other variables as not very important, good AWS players will ignore those variables, and concentrate on variables that do have strong effect.  And nothing has more of an effect than frequency...

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2011, 02:04:01 PM »
I would be all for other variables (such as price, speed, quality of seating etc) to have more of an effect.  Also, the fleet commonality is not implemented all that well.  When AWS "rewards" things that work in real life more, good AWS players will do those things.

As long as AWS treats most other variables as not very important, good AWS players will ignore those variables, and concentrate on variables that do have strong effect.  And nothing has more of an effect than frequency...
You played AWS well, but you are not necessary be the "good" player.

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2011, 02:22:14 PM »
You played AWS well, but you are not necessary be the "good" player.

you make less sense to me with every reply you post  :laugh:

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2011, 02:30:09 PM »
you make less sense to me with every reply you post  :laugh:
Do you know why an AWS player can be a good one? Not only his/her performance in the game but the attitude to others. I think someone played the game well, but he isn't a good player. :laugh:

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2011, 02:46:18 PM »
You played AWS well, but you are not necessary be the "good" player.

I am flattered that you are taking the time to take a look at my airline and our alliance.  And I appreciate the time to collect the stats.

As far as the distinction between being a good player and playing well, I am not sure what you mean.  I was actually talking more about about Herman and SAC being good players (not myself), since you apparently don't approve their style of play.  They do what works well in AWS, what AWS (through its algorithms) rewards.

AWS is getting better with every revision, but it does not exactly match the real life.  We are plaaing AWS, not RL.  So if you have an issue with style of some players, it is probably more of an issue with AWS.  So a good place to raise these issues might be the "Feature Request" forum, where you can make suggestions how AWS can be improved.

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2011, 02:53:34 PM »
I am flattered that you are taking the time to take a look at my airline and our alliance.  And I appreciate the time to collect the stats.

As far as the distinction between being a good player and playing well, I am not sure what you mean.  I was actually talking more about about Herman and SAC being good players (not myself), since you apparently don't approve their style of play.  They do what works well in AWS, what AWS (through its algorithms) rewards.

AWS is getting better with every revision, but it does not exactly match the real life.  We are plaaing AWS, not RL.  So if you have an issue with style of some players, it is probably more of an issue with AWS.  So a good place to raise these issues might be the "Feature Request" forum, where you can make suggestions how AWS can be improved.
Jumboshrimp I guess you know tech-stop has some penalty on it, but it isn't enough to reflect RL.
And once again, I didn't said they are not good players, and not pointed to members of elite alliance. I am quite sad someone will always take a general comment that seriously (like Ansettaddict123 and Dave4468).
Well, once again if some of you feel offended due to the statistics or the data, you can simply change it by yourself.

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2011, 02:57:26 PM »
Jumboshrimp I guess you know tech-stop has some penalty on it, but it isn't enough to reflect RL.
And once again, I didn't said they are not good players, and not pointed to members of elite alliance. I am quite sad someone will always take a general comment that seriously (like Ansettaddict123 and Dave4468).
Well, once again if some of you feel offended due to the statistics or the data, you can simply change it by yourself.

Well, lets be honest it was a dig aimed pretty much directly at Elite. I doubt this thread would ever have happened had there not been a massive drop when the 767 was removed.

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2011, 03:05:20 PM »
Well, lets be honest it was a dig aimed pretty much directly at Elite. I doubt this thread would ever have happened had there not been a massive drop when the 767 was removed.
Give you other pieces of stat:
B757 used:
SkyConnect: 343
Elite Alliance: 942
Worldlink: 164

Q400 used:
SkyConnect: 122
Elite Alliance: 266
Worldlink: 616

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2011, 03:16:17 PM »
Jumboshrimp I guess you know tech-stop has some penalty on it, but it isn't enough to reflect RL.

Yes, and so does flying turbo-probs at longer distances.  I don't necessarily think a tech stop should be singled out for a particular penalty.  Just a faster flight should be rewarded.  BTW, in RL, there are airlines flying ABCBA routes, which have similar increase in flight time as a tech stop, and passengers still fly these...

And once again, I didn't said they are not good players, and not pointed to members of elite alliance. I am quite sad someone will always take a general comment that seriously (like Ansettaddict123 and Dave4468).
Well, once again if some of you feel offended due to the statistics or the data, you can simply change it by yourself.

I can only speak for myself.  I posted twice that I appreciated you posting the stats, and I was being sincere.

I also appreciate Jona's post on another forum that sparked some good discussion.

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2011, 03:33:44 PM »
Yes, and so does flying turbo-probs at longer distances.  I don't necessarily think a tech stop should be singled out for a particular penalty.  Just a faster flight should be rewarded.  BTW, in RL, there are airlines flying ABCBA routes, which have similar increase in flight time as a tech stop, and passengers still fly these...

I can only speak for myself.  I posted twice that I appreciated you posting the stats, and I was being sincere.

I also appreciate Jona's post on another forum that sparked some good discussion.
And if you admit passengers favour direct flight rather than flight with tech-stop or stopover, I think Sami should have some algorithm to reward those direct flight. That reflects in RL some operators tends to order planes with longer range to serve direct flight, and the reason why B744 used a lot in Cross-pacific route because they need not stopover at Anchorage.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2011, 04:16:09 PM »
And if you admit passengers favour direct flight rather than flight with tech-stop or stopover, I think Sami should have some algorithm to reward those direct flight. That reflects in RL some operators tends to order planes with longer range to serve direct flight, and the reason why B744 used a lot in Cross-pacific route because they need not stopover at Anchorage.

If the effect of frequency is reduced, all the variables that are already there will have more of an effect.  Even in situation where 2 airlines have 1 flight each.  One direct, one with a tech stop.  If frequency accounts for, say 75% of competitive value of the flight, and each airline have frequency of 1. both of these flights are 75% the same.  Now when you take into account that there are number of other variables, let's say 5 other variables in total, each accounting for 5% of competitive value, flight time being only 1 of the 5, then the these direct and indirect flights are 95% the same.  The 5% they differ in, the direct flight may be 10% faster, so we are down to .5% difference.

Now, if frequency was not such an overwhelming influence, all the other variables would become more significant.

As far as passengers favoring direct flight, a lot of LH leisure passengers overwhelmingly prefer cheaper flight, and are willing to transfer between flights, wait 3+ hours for their connecting flights.  A tech stop in comparison is far less hassle compared to that.  And as we know, cheaper price does not amount to very much in AWS.

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2011, 07:30:24 PM »
Well, lets be honest it was a dig aimed pretty much directly at Elite. I doubt this thread would ever have happened had there not been a massive drop when the 767 was removed.
there is nothign about this that is a dig though... get your panties out of a bunch... IT is a STATISTIC, nothing more. Just like the since posted Q400 and 757 useage

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2011, 04:25:50 PM »
In fact it's vitongwanki's thread and if he want to post such numbers or a pic of his naked mum or a poem he likes it's up to him.

What's a bit odd is the fact some people see this as a direkt insult while others post here always whining about they never ran a bigger airline with widebodies. But whatever, maybe it's some kind of replacement shoulder here.

wapp11

  • Former member
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2011, 10:43:40 PM »
Stat

SC uses 2111 Wide bodies
I, CEO of JUMP IN, member of SC use 0

SC uses 343 B757s
I use 0

SC uses 144 Q400s
I use 0

 :o

Offline FlyTO

  • Members
  • Posts: 260
Re: Funny statistics on Wide-body aircraft usage
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2011, 11:07:17 PM »
Stat

SC uses 2111 Wide bodies
I, CEO of JUMP IN, member of SC use 0

SC uses 343 B757s
I use 0

SC uses 144 Q400s
I use 0

 :o


Impressive Wapp!  ;D I think the only downside to running large widebodies 777/747/34X is when there are other airlines flying smaller wide-bodies (764/332) and large narrow bodies on the same route (753/A321) - usually with a tech stop.
But without competition, large widebodies are really profitable $$$$ :D

 

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.