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: B777-200ER  (Read 7720 times)

Pepsico8

  • Former member
B777-200ER
« on: March 25, 2012, 03:27:17 AM »
Does this plane make sense on lh routes?

Offline andyair

  • Members
  • Posts: 47
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2012, 03:57:36 AM »
Don't even try. I BK because of these 777-200ER with 4/21 Owned/Leased.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2012, 11:28:12 AM »
777 = fail

If you dont own it outright AND have 100% LFs, completely forget about it.

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2012, 11:52:25 AM »
777 = fail

If you dont own it outright AND have 100% LFs, completely forget about it.

Well, for AWS I must sadly agree, because sami (somehow) completely destroyed this awsome plane...

IRL the 777 is the best one can have for LH operations :)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2012, 02:52:56 PM »
Well, for AWS I must sadly agree, because sami (somehow) completely destroyed this awsome plane...

IRL the 777 is the best one can have for LH operations :)

All true, if you fill the cargo hold up.  Essentially, these planes fly 60% full in AWS. 

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2012, 08:38:09 PM »
777 = fail

If you dont own it outright AND have 100% LFs, completely forget about it.

Well while I agree that it is definitely not the best choice of aircraft for most airlines, saying the 777 is a fail in any way is quite an exaggeration.
I manage to operate them profitably on leases while having them fly routes far in excess of 6.000 miles. So according to any of the common formulas this should be a programmed fail. However, it is not.
I will admit that operating them on leases in a high fuel price environment is a near zero-sum game, but it's still nothing to necessarily bankrupt over.
If you don't need the range of the 777, the 767-400ER is probably the better plane. Arguably, operating the 764 and, on routes that are too long for it, the 763, may always be a better decision.
But the 777 is definitely not the complete failure it is made in this thread and others. Period.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2012, 09:01:49 PM »
Well while I agree that it is definitely not the best choice of aircraft for most airlines, saying the 777 is a fail in any way is quite an exaggeration.
I manage to operate them profitably on leases while having them fly routes far in excess of 6.000 miles. So according to any of the common formulas this should be a programmed fail. However, it is not.
I will admit that operating them on leases in a high fuel price environment is a near zero-sum game, but it's still nothing to necessarily bankrupt over.
If you don't need the range of the 777, the 767-400ER is probably the better plane. Arguably, operating the 764 and, on routes that are too long for it, the 763, may always be a better decision.
But the 777 is definitely not the complete failure it is made in this thread and others. Period.

I ran a scientific test with the 772.  I actually de facto blogged about it.
If you lease it, you WILL lose.  There is no question.  Unless you are flying unopposed on short routes, don't ever order it. 
Long routes may return some small profits but those do not come CLOSE to covering the fixed costs that are not calculated into the profit model.   Once fuel is close to 1000, this plane is better off in Arizona.

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2012, 09:44:18 PM »
How stupid do you think I am? Of course I have considered the fixed cost. They can be run profitable. Period. I would be really interested in seeing those "scientific tests" (rolleyes), they are obviously flawed unless I have managed a miracle, which I don't want to rule out.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2012, 12:07:05 AM »
How stupid do you think I am? Of course I have considered the fixed cost. They can be run profitable. Period. I would be really interested in seeing those "scientific tests" (rolleyes), they are obviously flawed unless I have managed a miracle, which I don't want to rule out.

trust me.  I ran them in every fashion possible.   ULH, LH....  I ran it.  The 772 is an airline breaker in this sim.  You will have to take my word on it.  They will BK you.  If you lease a 772, you will lose.  Trust the other veterans who agree.  Many were as skeptical as you, but they all came around.   Unless you are somehow flying unopposed, these planes will lose you money.   Unless gas is really really cheap.

Offline swadeepc

  • Members
  • Posts: 76
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2012, 02:56:28 AM »
what about 777-300ER then? I currently run ATRs and Boeing 737NG but for long haul I am planning 77W and 787. Should I forget it then and go for airbus? But i prefer to keep the fleet to boeing. I dont want to add too many fleet types. The only one more that i will add is probably Embraer 170-190 to fill in MH/LH medium demand

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2012, 06:23:40 AM »
trust me.  I ran them in every fashion possible.   ULH, LH....  I ran it.  The 772 is an airline breaker in this sim.  You will have to take my word on it.  They will BK you.  If you lease a 772, you will lose.  Trust the other veterans who agree.  Many were as skeptical as you, but they all came around.   Unless you are somehow flying unopposed, these planes will lose you money.   Unless gas is really really cheap.

You know, your ignorance makes me very angry actually. I have run the 777 for 10 game years now, I am still there. I started with heavy competition on every route, everyone but me bankrupted. I now have once again competition on most of my routes and despite somewhat high fuel prices they are profitable.
Take your word on it? I simply obviously know better from simply looking at my airline, why would I take your word for it?

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2012, 10:45:41 AM »
what about 777-300ER then? I currently run ATRs and Boeing 737NG but for long haul I am planning 77W and 787. Should I forget it then and go for airbus? But i prefer to keep the fleet to boeing. I dont want to add too many fleet types. The only one more that i will add is probably Embraer 170-190 to fill in MH/LH medium demand

Well, for the 77W (773ER) the same thing goes as for the 772ER, unless owned, don't exceed 5000NM (which for me is barely Long-Haul, but my definition varies a bit from the general one); anyhow, if you own them, go for the 7000NM or whatsoever routes if you like to profits won't be amazing, but still okay, if leased however (which means 3M/mth) you will barely break even on those routes unless you have a config with huge C and F classes (given you have the demand ofc ::) ) But thanks to samis last tweak on the LH-income thingy these probably won't cover your cost as well.


@ saftfrucht:

We (or actually swiftus; but I had this discussion with him as well) talk about high fuel prices, 700USD is kindof child's play... tell us about your profits when fuel is at $1200+ that is when you are screwed... f*cked my airline in last MT as well, had nearly 500a/c of which 150 were A330/340 and about 220 were 772/3/ER. Until the fuel hit the 1200 marker I was fine, after that my airline died...

cheers,
Jona L.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2012, 10:51:53 AM »
Sorry to "anger" you.  Go look up 777 broken in the search.  There's many people who have agreed.  Are your 777s leased?  What are your LFs?  

I tested 777s from Newark.  Some I flew across the Atlantic.  Others I flew to their max range.  I discovered that for trans Atlantic they were easily beaten by 752s.   On ULH, their "profits" on the screen were nowhere near enough to cover their fixed costs.  

I can't speak for your airline.  I am not in this game and can not see your fleet.  Perhaps you have a ton of short haul that are keeping you afloat?  I dont know.  Unless something was changed in the sim in the last few months, I'd avoid the 772 like it was a nuclear plant in Japan.

I wrote this while Jona wrote his response.  I had no idea that fuel was that cheap still.  Have fun with a fuel spike
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 11:17:18 AM by swiftus27 »

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2012, 11:03:36 AM »
1050 is a high fuel price in my book. I never said it was the optimal aircraft, I only wanted to point out that the 777 is not the palestinian explosives-belt wearer it is made here.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2012, 11:16:36 AM »
They will be.  Get rid of them asap.  Fuel of 1050 is common later on.  I'm not trying to battle with you.  Just wait and see like Jona did.  He was the exact same way you were and came back with hat in hand when his massive airline failed due to them. 

I don't play modern scenarios because frequency always wins above all else and there are too many plane types available to defeat the ones flown irl. 

Offline mark320

  • Members
  • Posts: 101
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2012, 01:21:07 PM »
You know, your ignorance makes me very angry actually. I have run the 777 for 10 game years now, I am still there. I started with heavy competition on every route, everyone but me bankrupted. I now have once again competition on most of my routes and despite somewhat high fuel prices they are profitable.
Take your word on it? I simply obviously know better from simply looking at my airline, why would I take your word for it?

Would you moderate your language please. You really come across as an arrogant person. Why? Did someone offend your beloved 777? I also think you should appologise to Swiftus, he was only trying to help.

regards,

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2012, 01:36:31 PM »
Economics of 777 can be tough.  Comparing it to closest competitor (333/767), the cost of 777 is higher and you spend an extra ~ 2hrs per day turning around the aircraft, which only increases the cost per pax mile flown.  There may be a few places where 777 can work (better than most other places).  LAX may be one, LHR, if you own all the slots, maybe some SE Asian airports...

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2012, 02:04:56 PM »
I would say that 777s work if you don't fly the to their full range (6000+nm) but then if you are flying them transatlantic (~3000nm) then they are just going to get eaten up by 757 and 767 on frequency. It's a bit of a catch 22 situation. I'm going to fly my 777-200 TATL in DOTM when they arrive just replacing them one for one with DC-10 so hopefully nothing will go wrong. Fuel burn is less but leasing costs more so I wonder which will be more profitable.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2012, 04:16:08 PM »
I don't mind ppl being terse with me.  That is only if theyre willing to eat crow later on when theyre proven wrong.  It seems to happen alot but they all come around eventually.  Jona, admittedly just said the same thing above.  He felt the same way until fuel killed him.   

The 772 simply is a loser.  80%+ lfs running a 7 day schedule and you'd imagine that thered be no issue generating a profit.  all of them showed green numbers but the back of house staff is what took me out as well.  Forget them transatlantic and use them on routes with no competition on for routes 5000nm and less.

The 777 is a great trans ocean plane.... in real life.  In AWS, narrow bodies reign supreme. 

Offline knobbygb

  • Members
  • Posts: 605
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2012, 06:30:16 PM »
But i prefer to keep the fleet to boeing. I dont want to add too many fleet types.

schansrichavala, you seemed to have stepped into the middle of an argument in progress and been ignored.

Fair enough, if you want to keep to Boeing simply as a personal preference but don't do it for fleet commonality reasons alone. There is NO benefit in operating a 737/777 combo over a 737/A340 combo. - the fact that it's all Boeing is not modelled in this game.  I'm not favouring either, just saying that a single manufacturer makes no difference.

Quote
for long haul I am planning 77W and 787

Really. DON'T go there.  If the 777 sucks and is maybe 'broken' in the game the 787 is even suckier and more broken!  Been there, been bankrupted.

Quote
probably Embraer 170-190 to fill in MH/LH medium demand

Can't you do that with smaller 737s?  Really, the E-jets are also very marginal when fuel is high, except for maybe the E195 on short routes (4 turns per day).


Sorry, I don't mean to be so negative. Good luck. MT with high fuel is very errr... real-world - airlines failing everywhere.

 

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.