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: 757-200 longhaul  (Read 2529 times)

emilopez_88

  • Former member
757-200 longhaul
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:04:27 AM »
Hi everyone!

I'm flying my 757s on my BOS-ORY route, with a route image of 100 and CI of 65 and my LFs are not higher than 50%. I have no competition and as far I was concerned, the 757s are capable of flying such long haul flights...whats the problem? Could anyone please help me? I have also a Boston-Vienna flight with the same problem and I don't know what to do!

Thank you in advance!

Regards

Emilio

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2012, 10:11:29 AM »
Something I noted in the test game.  There is no valid reason 757's should suffer this way.  Dozens of 757's cross the atlantic every single day in real life 2012, never mind 1997 when there we're probably even more.  I have lost count how many 757's I have traveled on from the UK to the US and back.

My test got loads no greater than 65% on routes with no competition and 100 CI.

A 757 on BOS - ORY is the perfect equipment choice IMO, the game is treating 757's unfairly and it needs looking at.
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2012, 11:12:17 AM »
+1
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline elvis141

  • Members
  • Posts: 402
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2012, 01:23:40 PM »
+1

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2012, 01:51:27 PM »
Sorry, I disagree.

Due to the game's dynamics, applying real-world here is not good for the sim.  It makes it far too easy to 'win' with 752s crossing the pond.   

If you want to use the real-life argument, until individual airports can refuse you flying a certain plane type on a route (it makes NO sense flying a 752 from EWR to LHR) then this should never come back.   It would be an abuse of these airports to use this plane type (and yes, in real life too as billions in fee revenue is lost) by having 15 minute ferry service across the ocean. 

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2012, 02:19:19 PM »
Who mentioned frequency raping EWR-LHR ?

Passengers now prefer wide body to narrow body if a choice is there anyway and the effects of frequency reduced, so that should counter your argument.  

But there are many thinner long haul routes out there with no competition that demand is too small (say from 100-175 demand) for a 767 really, but used to be viable with a 757...they are now barely worth bothering about as there is no suitable type that isn't either too big (767) or the correct a/c is penalised (757).
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 02:22:03 PM by SAC »
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2012, 02:22:25 PM »
Who mentioned frequency raping EWR-LHR ?

Passengers now prefer wide body to narrow body if a choice is there anyway, so that should counter your argument.   

But there are many thinner long haul routes out there with no competition that demand is too small (say from 100-175 demand) for a 767 really, but used to be viable with a 757...they are now barely worth bothering about as there is no suitable type that isn't either too big (767) or the correct a/c is penalised (757).

Yeah BOS-ORY does sound like a 757 route to me, if it is going to be flown at all.

Then again, maybe players will focus on profitability now and not fly all the insignificant routes...  :-\
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline AndiD

  • Members
  • Posts: 131
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2012, 02:25:03 PM »
A310-300? Since it is a very large aircraft you probably won't get ever a "too small" warning.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2012, 02:41:01 PM »
Who mentioned frequency raping EWR-LHR ?

Passengers now prefer wide body to narrow body if a choice is there anyway and the effects of frequency reduced, so that should counter your argument.  

But there are many thinner long haul routes out there with no competition that demand is too small (say from 100-175 demand) for a 767 really, but used to be viable with a 757...they are now barely worth bothering about as there is no suitable type that isn't either too big (767) or the correct a/c is penalised (757).

This is why the 787 was being pre-engineered at this point.  Those were the routes Boeing was hoping to capitalized with by using the Dreamliner. 

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2012, 03:02:47 PM »
Yeah BOS-ORY does sound like a 757 route to me, if it is going to be flown at all.

Then again, maybe players will focus on profitability now and not fly all the insignificant routes...  :-\

If there is enough demand to warrant 757 service then I don't think it can be considered insignificant. Until connecting passengers can be modelled then thin point-to-point routes like BOS-ORY should be viable on a 757.

mean123

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2012, 04:00:42 PM »
If I had the choice between a 752 and 762/3/4 or a 772/3 or any other widebody I would always choose the widebody. On the ORY - BOS route I would rather stopover at JFK or IAD from a widebody for the short narrowbody leg there. Thats the reason I dont fly Continental (sorry United) LHR - EWR cos when they schedule a 772 for the route it is so often changed to a 752 equipment last minute. VERY UPSETTING! And i think most people that have the knowledge of which aircraft they will be flying in would do the same.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2012, 04:15:46 PM »
Itīs the same discussion over and over again.
If you turn attractiveness back to 757, you will see it dominating all transantlantic routes again.
How about lowering your fares a bit to fill those narrowbodies?

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2012, 04:25:09 PM »
Itīs the same discussion over and over again.
If you turn attractiveness back to 757, you will see it dominating all transantlantic routes again.
How about lowering your fares a bit to fill those narrowbodies?

I understand the "too small" concept, but my feelings are it should be modified a bit. Put a filter on the "too small" warning so that if the daily demand is over, say, 200, a narrow body plane gets a warning. If demand is under 200, a narrow body plane can fly the route (Large aircraft or bigger) up to its designed range (so an A321 will not get a warning flying on a 2800nm route if demand is 180, but will if demand is 210).

Thoughts? Sami, is it even feasible?

Don
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2012, 04:27:46 PM »
Itīs the same discussion over and over again.
If you turn attractiveness back to 757, you will see it dominating all transantlantic routes again.
How about lowering your fares a bit to fill those narrowbodies?

But here we're talking about thin routes where a 757 is the right size aircraft for the route. When there is no competition on the route the 757 shouldn't be penalised. If someone was to go head to head with a 767, the there is an argument that the 767 should attract more passengers. But with no competition the 757 is perfectly acceptable.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2012, 04:28:59 PM »
So lets say a 752 works for a few years and then demand goes up a little... Then the rules change during the game and cause a penalty in yr 3 but didn't yr 1.  

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 04:32:39 PM »
But here we're talking about thin routes where a 757 is the right size aircraft for the route. When there is no competition on the route the 757 shouldn't be penalised. If someone was to go head to head with a 767, the there is an argument that the 767 should attract more passengers. But with no competition the 757 is perfectly acceptable.

It appears that a 734 is great for phx to hnl.  Doesn't mean it's the correct plane just because it has range and demand.  Many times these planes are used when they couldn't have been legally.

The 757 was designed to replace the 727 on higher demand domestic routes.  Because some airlines bastardized them over the past few years for these routes doesn't mean that was the original design for this plane.  The 57 was cancelled because the 739 carries almost the same number of pax.  

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2012, 04:36:21 PM »
System reflects peopleīs "feelings" about travelling in a narrow tin can for long hours regardless of otherwise demand.
System doesnīt reflect additional freight income yet, so revenue per passenger has to be different on NBs.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2012, 04:42:07 PM »
System reflects peopleīs "feelings" about travelling in a narrow tin can for long hours regardless of otherwise demand.
System doesnīt reflect additional freight income yet, so revenue per passenger has to be different on NBs.

Wonderful point.  And I reiterate how major airports would require airlines to fly appropriate aircraft.

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2012, 04:54:37 PM »
It appears that a 734 is great for phx to hnl.  Doesn't mean it's the correct plane just because it has range and demand.  Many times these planes are used when they couldn't have been legally.

The 757 was designed to replace the 727 on higher demand domestic routes.  Because some airlines bastardized them over the past few years for these routes doesn't mean that was the original design for this plane.  The 57 was cancelled because the 739 carries almost the same number of pax.  

The fact remains that the 757, regardless of what it was designed for and whether you agree with it personally, has found a successful niche as a longhaul aircraft for thin routes. It should be possible to replicate this in AWS. I am not talking about LHR-JFK and the like, but specifically low demand routes which cannot support a wide body.

And I reiterate how major airports would require airlines to fly appropriate aircraft.

I cannot comment on the US, or other parts of the World, but in Europe that is certainly not the case. An airport may urge, persuade and encourage the use of larger aircraft on certain routes, but they cannot insist in it. And if they did, many existing routes would be cancelled which is neither beneficial for the airlines, the airports or the passengers.

If the owners of MAN insisted that United use a 767 rather than a 757 on their route from EWR then United would most likely ditch the route altogether. Same could be said for many other routes.

Even LHR cannot require or insist that an airline uses a certain type of aircraft. If the airline has a slot, they can use whatever aircraft they want to make use of it.

Offline elvis141

  • Members
  • Posts: 402
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2012, 05:03:20 PM »
Take a look at the flight schedule for United airlines they fly the 757 to LHR. So it should be ok to use it on such routes.

 

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.