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 7649 times)

Offline swadeepc

  • Members
  • Posts: 76
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2012, 02:38:33 AM »
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.

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.

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.



Hi Thanks very much for your reply. Yes after reading all like you said I think i may avoid 777 for long haul. At the moment i am serving routes only up till 3400nm because that's what 737-700 can do. Would you say that i should move on to 330/340 for LH and ULH or 767s? Or no preference really?

Thanks again for your advice.

Swadeep

zilchster

  • Former member
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2012, 02:48:57 AM »
I think you should just think small and stay in Phuket. If you're thinking of going big, that will kill you eventually.
....
 
As for the 777 family, as long as they are not owned, don't think of flying them, unless you can get them on cheap leases.

The 333s and 767-400ERs are more sustainable in the long term with high fuel prices...but if you don't own them and if you're face with heavy competition, you will bleed $ eventually.

345s are bad, 343s too, 346s are bad unless you own them.

knobby, the reason why u BK-ed in MT5 was because you had the 787s on expensive leases. Fuel wise, it's quite good. But when the fuel went a little over, coupled with the leasing cost, that kills.

Offline swadeepc

  • Members
  • Posts: 76
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2012, 03:06:39 AM »
I think you should just think small and stay in Phuket. If you're thinking of going big, that will kill you eventually.
....
 
As for the 777 family, as long as they are not owned, don't think of flying them, unless you can get them on cheap leases.

The 333s and 767-400ERs are more sustainable in the long term with high fuel prices...but if you don't own them and if you're face with heavy competition, you will bleed $ eventually.

345s are bad, 343s too, 346s are bad unless you own them.

knobby, the reason why u BK-ed in MT5 was because you had the 787s on expensive leases. Fuel wise, it's quite good. But when the fuel went a little over, coupled with the leasing cost, that kills.

I think i will expand to VTBS also but i will watch out for the aircrafts. I maybe start off with 737s first and once I have enough money ill buy LH aircrafts. But lets see. Because i cant really expand any more routes at Phuket. Maybe only a few more.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5991
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2012, 03:44:01 AM »
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.

Prior to MT5, 787 was useless.  Since MT5 it is more what you would expect it, an upgrade to 767 line the same way A350 is an upgrade for 330/340 line...

Monk Xion

  • Former member
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2012, 04:53:22 AM »
Prior to MT5, 787 was useless.  Since MT5 it is more what you would expect it, an upgrade to 767 line the same way A350 is an upgrade for 330/340 line...

This is exactly why veterans like me prefer to use smaller planes... and keep the airlines simpler.

Along with other reasons :P

And everyone, esp swiftus and saftfrucht, watch your tone :) lets keep the forums a welcoming place :)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 05:14:50 AM by Monk Xion »

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2012, 12:40:25 PM »
345s are bad, 343s too, 346s are bad unless you own them.

I DISAGREE.

That being said, I'll try to give the reasons why:
A345 and 342 are crap, indeed, BUT, A343 and 346 are awesome planes, but they suffer from the same problem as the 777 (just slightly less), as they get either frequency busted or eaten up by sami's crappy cut in the LH C and F income. The A332 is also not the most recommendable aircraft, as it has a pretty high fuel burn for few pax, but if you need the range and don't want to start a new fleet for those routes, go ahead, but keep some shorter routes as well, to have a mix that will more likely let you make profit.

The biggest problems are 2 things, one having always been there, but being more (ab)used nowadays then earlier, the other having been created on top of the existing.

a) is the frequency bonus thing, often discussed, thus I don't see a reason to explain here.

b) a problem that I had been discussing with some people (most won't have noticed, or don't remember, or haven't been on AWS at that time) over a year ago. That problem was the admins decision to limit the usage of magic carpets (C and F only planes, used to be used in the beginning of games to print HUGE amounts of cash). Therefor 2 tweaks were made, of which one was really effective, and the other ruined long haul flying completely.

First was to limit the percentage of C and F seats to be sold on a route in relation to the total seats, based on the Company Image. To explain: say your CI is 50, then a certain percentage of your pax can be C and F class, even if you supply far more seats, vice versa that means: an C and F only plane in the beginning of a game (with CIs of 20 and less) would remain (nearly) empty, as in relation to the total seats, the number of C and F was too massive. This was the one that actually helped out.

Second was the one to screw up LH routes: A tweak that cut the income (read: price to be accepted by pax) for Long Haul flights which felt like 200%; actually I noticed a drop of about 30% in LH-income.
So lets open the maths:

I will use values, that are just about year 2000 standard for that route length, these don't have to be fully accurate, but are supposed to show my point.

Let's take a route of 5000NM with a demand of 300Y|60C|10F.

The ideal plane would be a B744 (or later B773/ER) in a seating of 340|64|10 all standard (is my default config for those two types).
Given there is no competition and you have a good CI and RI you will have 85-95% loadfactors, we'll take 90% for the calculation.

The default prices for those routes are now (were before): Eco: 600$ (800$); Business: 1600$ (2000$) First: 2600$ (3400$)

Monthly leasing for a B744 or B773 would be 3 million --> 800k/week.
Fuel burn would be average 7.000Kg/week (average between 773 and 744); fuel price $900
90% LF means we sell:
F 9
C 58
Y 306
Which results in ticket sales of (used to result in): $300.000 ($425.000)

Now given we can make 6 of such rotations in a week + A-check.

The route leg takes roughly 24 hrs of flight --> 22,5x 7000 + 1,5x 9000 (Takeoff has increased fuel needs, considering the climb time to be ~40mn + 20mn to reach cruise speed @ crz alt.) means we have a fuel usage of 171.000Kg, multiplied with the fuel price this means: $155.000 for fuel.
Adding the personnel cost for a week of a B744/773 operation (~50k); also not to forget the cost for fees (~30k/week)

So in conclusion:
-800k (lease)
+1.800k (tickets)
-930k (fuel)
-50k (staff)
-30k (landing and handling fees)

------
Subtotal is: -10k/week

Now given we didn't have that tweak:

-800k (lease)
+2.550k (tickets)
-930k (fuel)
-50k (staff)
-30k (landing and handling fees)

------
Subtotal is: +740k/week

--> Sami with that tweak, cut the income by 750k/week for a 773/744, given this route length is the one you only fly with that plane. Of course, the longer the flight, the higher the PAX-Mile costs are, but this as an example shows that even with fuel only at 900$ the 773 is not operating at a profit on routes over 5000NM.


I conclude: good idea to limit magic carpets, first tweak was a good step, but the latter step was a shot going deeply into the oven.

cheers people, sorry for the long post ;)

Jona L.

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2012, 12:43:27 PM »
And everyone, esp swiftus and saftfrucht, watch your tone :) lets keep the forums a welcoming place :)

I think, that the explicit naming of swiftus is inappropriate, as he, from what I have read seemed to have reacted very calmly to a pretty offensive and really aggressive post. I have never noticed that swiftus would react heatedly or in a wrong tone, he always stayed on topic, and tried to calm down the rest as well.

However I agree to your last statement, and thus repeat it: Let's keep the forum a welcoming place :)

cheers,

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2012, 02:24:56 PM »
Thanks Jona, I don't know how I was instigating at all.  If you feel I was doing something wrong, please PM me and explain what it is.   My words were not out of ignorance and are backed by facts (I've run small airline tests, large airline tests, small runway games).... Let's say I've grown very tired of uber competitive games from ORD/LAX/LHR/CDG/HKG and have been more-or-less testing the sim with different aircraft.  

I am sorry if other people took what I said as a personal affront, but please read the comments for yourself.  They in no way fanned the flames.

-------------

Edit:   Some previous threads on this matter... sorry Jona, it includes the one where you and I got into it a bit about it in a heated fashion:

Long Haul (again)
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34677.0.html    Where Jona found out this issue for himself

Is ULH Dead?
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,33611.0.html

Done with it?
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,33520.0.html
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 02:38:34 PM by swiftus27 »

Offline mark320

  • Members
  • Posts: 101
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2012, 08:21:03 PM »
I really don't think you need to apologise, especially when it was someone else who committed the indiscretion.

I agree that we should keep this forum clean, but one has to assume responsibly for his actions too.

Regarding the topic at hand, thanks Jona, very informative, wonder how the 788 and 350 or maybe A380 and 748 would work out?

regards,

Offline pascaly

  • Members
  • Posts: 405
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2012, 11:29:02 PM »
Don't sweat it Swiftus, you do more than enough around here, some people need to be a little more appreciative of that. 

Jona, great post.  I've never run ULH (5,000nm+), after reading that, now I know why!  :laugh:

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2012, 11:55:27 PM »
I've never run ULH (5,000nm+), after reading that, now I know why!  :laugh:

ULH... LOL ;D

SH is <2000NM
MH is 2001-3500NM
LH is 3501-6000NM
ULH is 6001-8500NM
SLH is 8501-11000NM

But as said somewhere above, my definition of routes is a bit different to the general one, must be due to my home base having been LHR for all games so far. But I switched to KATL now, which may let my definition change :)

Anyhow, I have been doing those LHR-MEL/SYD/AKL routes nonstop on owned B772LR planes, making 140k/week each plane... but that was still before the tweak.... good old times ;D

but thanks for the flowers :)

cheers,
Jona L.

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2012, 12:01:40 AM »
I really don't think you need to apologise, especially when it was someone else who committed the indiscretion.

I agree that we should keep this forum clean, but one has to assume responsibly for his actions too.

Regarding the topic at hand, thanks Jona, very informative, wonder how the 788 and 350 or maybe A380 and 748 would work out?

regards,


I'll make some calculations on them once I re-join a game at which these may be available, which will not be before the Long Games, as yet I haven't been any good in MT games (as said above, swiftus was right, LH planes suffer from frequency or from route length). This is also the reason why I will not start mentoring anyone in there,

If you give me data on fuel burn, seating capacity, Turn times, etc. I can try from my experience. But to stick on topic, I could possibly open a new topic for those things.

cheers,
Jona L.

Offline Erikas1

  • Members
  • Posts: 35
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2012, 07:10:58 PM »
Not sure why you need this  "propaganda" against 772 Jona.

But for the record. I fly nonstop LHR-MEL with 772LR at MT6.

LF-80%
Profit yesterday    247 173 USD
Cumulative profit this week    827 530 USD (Sat)
Cumulative profit last week    1 189 637 USD

Fuel price- 717 USD

Let people do math for themself.  ;)

Regards,

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5991
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2012, 07:38:18 PM »
Not sure why you need this  "propaganda" against 772 Jona.

But for the record. I fly nonstop LHR-MEL with 772LR at MT6.

LF-80%
Profit yesterday    247 173 USD
Cumulative profit this week    827 530 USD (Sat)
Cumulative profit last week    1 189 637 USD

Fuel price- 717 USD

Let people do math for themself.  ;)

Regards,

1,189,637
-881,602 weekly lease price
-----------
308,034

With higher fuel price, that weekly "gross" profit would shrink further.  Take into account other overhead, and you are losing money.

But, if you have cash to buy the aircraft, you will do better financially flying 777LR compared to keeping money in SamiBank, collecting very small interest...

Offline Erikas1

  • Members
  • Posts: 35
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2012, 06:01:19 AM »
1,189,637
-881,602 weekly lease price
-----------
308,034

With higher fuel price, that weekly "gross" profit would shrink further.  Take into account other overhead, and you are losing money.

But, if you have cash to buy the aircraft, you will do better financially flying 777LR compared to keeping money in SamiBank, collecting very small interest...

Nobody was talking about leased aircraft . But thank you for your 2 cents anyway.

Bottom line is - you can fly ULH profitably at particular airports and if you own your fleet. And no need to whine about "old times".  ;)

Cheers

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2012, 11:28:25 AM »
Nobody was talking about leased aircraft . But thank you for your 2 cents anyway.

Bottom line is - you can fly ULH profitably at particular airports and if you own your fleet. And no need to whine about "old times".  ;)

Cheers


Actually, we were talking about leases alot:

Don't even try. I BK because of these 777-200ER with 4/21 Owned/Leased.

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.

777 = fail

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

700 usd fuel is CHEAP.  When it gets over 1000 usd, kiss your butt goodbye.   Even if you profit on this plane, there are so many fixed costs associated with it that are NOT included in the "cumulative profit".  I had all of my planes in the 'green' and I was still losing money.  That profit does not take into account baggage handlers, gate attendants, management..........

Seriously, why are there so many combative people here?  If you don't want help, don't ask for it.  
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 11:33:45 AM by swiftus27 »

Offline Boot

  • Members
  • Posts: 199
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2012, 11:49:50 AM »
these don't have to be fully accurate, but are supposed to show my point.

So in conclusion:
-800k (lease)
+1.800k (tickets)
-930k (fuel)
-50k (staff)
-30k (landing and handling fees)

------
Subtotal is: -10k/week
This goes probably under the category "these don't have to be fully accurate, but are supposed to show my point" but I just wanted to correct your staff costs, because they were way off :) Otherwise some others might start to think that staff costs are negligible compared to fuel & leasing.
My calculations about my A332 (which should be quite similar to 772 in terms of staff costs) show that actual staff costs are more like ~325K per week.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2012, 11:52:32 AM »
This goes probably under the category "these don't have to be fully accurate, but are supposed to show my point" but I just wanted to correct your staff costs, because they were way off :) Otherwise some others might start to think that staff costs are negligible compared to fuel & leasing.
My calculations about my A332 (which should be quite similar to 772 in terms of staff costs) show that actual staff costs are more like ~325K per week.

More so his point that there is even less profit   :(
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2012, 11:57:37 AM »
At this point, I don't care any more.  Im not in MT6 so let me know when fuel spikes and I will be here with the popcorn waiting for a few people to show some contrition. 

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: B777-200ER
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2012, 03:36:00 PM »
At this point, I don't care any more.  Im not in MT6 so let me know when fuel spikes and I will be here with the popcorn waiting for a few people to show some contrition. 

BAM!!!! ;D ;D ;D

Not sure why you need this  "propaganda" against 772 Jona.

But for the record. I fly nonstop LHR-MEL with 772LR at MT6.

LF-80%
Profit yesterday    247 173 USD
Cumulative profit this week    827 530 USD (Sat)
Cumulative profit last week    1 189 637 USD

Fuel price- 717 USD

Let people do math for themself.  ;)

Regards,

As I said in my maths-post, I take fuel price to be set around $1200 and not your easymode $800...

as swiftus said, let me know when fuel spikes ;) And I'll be joining in on the popcorn ;)

 

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.