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 2532 times)

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2012, 05:12:58 PM »
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.

All it would take is for non-stop flights to not be penalised, regardless of plane size, unless there is competition on the route using a bigger plane. So if BOS-ORY has 180 daily pax demand and a single 757 flight, all 180 will be happy to fly it, subject to price & random change, same as they would for BOS-New Orleans, if that's 180 pax. But if someone else puts a 767 on the route, rather than both planes getting 90 pax when everything else is equal, it will be more like 120 on the 767, 60 on the 757. So on big routes, that people fly big planes, 757s will not be viable. But thin routes without competition, a niche they are very good for, will be unaffected.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2012, 05:27:08 PM »
No, it should not. Repeated over and over ; we´re not playing RL here. RL schedules are completely insignificant for any game mechanic.
You seem to have missed the complete discussion before,during and after alterations.
Nobody forbids usage of 757 across the pond or other long flights it was not intended for.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2012, 05:28:51 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.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2012, 06:41:21 PM »
Wonderful point.  And I reiterate how major airports would require airlines to fly appropriate aircraft.

Again do not agree.  Many pax do not know what a 757 is, price is king, not what they fly on.  

And there are plenty of LH 757's in many major airport in the world, not that that is where I was talking about them being used, but you insist on keep bringing massive hubs up....what about PHL, BOS, BHX, GLA, DUB, MAN, HAM, DUS and more etc etc - they are the places that 757's suit.

You also mention 787's....what are we to do until 2012/3+ when these are in production.  MT7 started in the late 90's...787's were still a pipe dream.  787's anyway are more a 767 replacement also if you ask me.  Even today the is room in the market for a smaller long haul a/c than 767/787....and it is still filled by 757's !!

Sorry Swiftus, like it or lump it, there is a need for LH 757's even in 2012, and they should not be penalised in AWS.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 06:44:52 PM by SAC »
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2012, 06:56:05 PM »
All it would take is for non-stop flights to not be penalised, regardless of plane size, unless there is competition on the route using a bigger plane. So if BOS-ORY has 180 daily pax demand and a single 757 flight, all 180 will be happy to fly it, subject to price & random change, same as they would for BOS-New Orleans, if that's 180 pax. But if someone else puts a 767 on the route, rather than both planes getting 90 pax when everything else is equal, it will be more like 120 on the 767, 60 on the 757. So on big routes, that people fly big planes, 757s will not be viable. But thin routes without competition, a niche they are very good for, will be unaffected.

Good points.  That's how I envisioned it would have worked.  That is, the changes in pax allocation would happen only on competitive routes.  The change would be a substantial increase in pax allocated to aircraft more appropriate for the route.

I think it was difficult to implement seamlessly.  To make it happen, the algorithm had to be aided with 2 of penalties: for tech stop and for aircraft too small...  This may be less than ideal, but I think it is still a significant improvement compared to previous version of pax allocation...

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2012, 06:57:07 PM »
I don´t know what you have with that airplane.
Before restricting it the whole game was out of balance, leaving all planes bigger than it completely useless.
65 % LF is a quite common one for all gamers. Try to push it by fare.
Or just accept that some routes just don´t pay for themselves, like 10 PAX SH routes or ULH.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2012, 08:49:25 PM »
You know, I understand what the purpose of this was. 752 (and 753?) abuse can get ugly. Nobody likes to see there right sized 773 get rip a new one by 3x daily 752s. We do have to put a limit to that... But bring out the nerf bat and taking a clean hit to all narrow bodied aircraft isn't the way too.

The effects are to over the top and leave a gap in LH flying. Pretty much were telling everyone in AWS: If that route is not big enough for a 767 or 310.. can't be done, don't even try. Seems like its counter-productive if were pushing everyone to not base at large airports and quit crying about slots.

With this new feature, you might as well base at a large airport because you can't fly long thin routes anymore. You start forcing players to compete more for those slots at LHR when you make the top 5 airports in a country the only places you can too, based off game mechanics. How is that truly helping AWS or solving the above problem?

Does that mean we need to revert back to the status quo? No, of course not. However a one-size-fits-all LF penalty obviously wont work either.

A progress LF penalty based off several variables should have been where we started from.

-10% off maximum allowed pax for (large narrowbodies: 757, Tu-204, 707, DC-8, Il-62 Starting 1996 and onward)
-15% off maximum allowed pax for (small narrowbodies: 737 family, 320 family and pretty much anything thats not listed above)
-30% off flying a narrowbody vs widebody. Penalty is in addition to other penalties occurred from flying NB on LH routes.

Penalty for flying distance is also modeled and reflects the following:

~3000nm - 10/15% (LNB and SNB)
~3001-3100nm :: -1%
~3101-3200nm :: -2%
~3201-3300nm :: -3%
~3301-3400nm :: -4%
~3401-3500nm :: -5%
~3501-3600nm :: -6%
~3601-3700nm :: -7%
~3701-3800nm :: -8%
~3801-3900nm :: -9%
~3901+ :: -12%

Frequency benefits for LNB and SNB on LH flights do not stack. In other words, A 752 x3 daily vs 1x daily 772 will be seen as a daily 752 vs daily 772. That should remove flooding a LH route. At least as far as NBs are concerned.


Something along the lines of this would help solved our problems while still retaining some LH playability.


LNB = Large narrowbody
SNB = Small narrowbody

As referenced above.


Talentz



Offline Andre

  • Members
  • Posts: 1091
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2012, 09:07:35 PM »
Continental/United flies OSL-EWR using 757 every day.. and every flight is packed to the brim. I hear people complaining about flying in a narrowbody, but fact is that people still buy tickets. The same route has competition from SAS with A330/A340.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2012, 09:14:45 PM »
In Y class I doubt the is much difference in seat pitch, IFE etc etc to be honest.  I know AA's 757's are crap, but so are their 767's.   

Talentz explains what I was trying to say much better than I did by the way.   So many thinner LH routes now are pretty pointless, where as before 757's made them viable.
...it's not over until I say it's over

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2012, 09:19:51 PM »
Yes, I agree. Looks like a new overhaul again....

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2012, 10:29:42 PM »
Stats from Seatguru:

Delta 757: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_757-200_C.php
17" width, 30-32" pitch

Delta 767: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_767-300ER_I_Version_2.php
18" width, 31-32" pitch

Delta 777: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_777-200LR_Version_2.php
18.5", 31-32" pitch

And just for fun:
Delta CRJ: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Canadair_CRJ700_C.php
17.5" width, 31" pitch (Yup, CRJ is more comfortable than 757)

Delta A330: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Airbus_A330_Version_2.php
17.5" width, 30-33" pitch

So based on seat dimensions, A330's should get nerfed against 777's, right?
No replacement for displacement

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2012, 10:43:35 PM »
One part of the functions had overlooked a situation of low-demand but long distance routes and should be adjusted a bit now.

emilopez_88

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2012, 10:57:02 PM »
As I can see, the administrator(s) has/have no intention of changing the 757 parameters in the game...I have ordered an A310 to see if results improve, but I think it's not fair. if 757 can fly up to 3940 NM (2x Pratt & Whitney PW2040) I don't understand why it's not profitable for routes over 2500 NM and profitable for routes under 2500 NM...I have 1500 useless NM to reach the 3940 NM limit which won't give any profit...

There are a number of thin routes flown by 757s worldwide so I decided to imitate this and put it into service in AWSim... but seems to be absolutely unprofitable! hope Delta, AA, United or Avianca  get better results than me with their longhaul 757s...

Definitely, I have paid a lot of extra money for long haul 757s (3940 NM and 2840 NM) in order to fly BOS-EUROPE which will end up flying 1000-2000 NM routes over the US as they are not profitable for long haul services... I could have saved 12000000 USD per plane and get exactly the same result...

Hope sami could change the 757 configuration in order to make things clearer and more fair.

Regards and thank you for the replies!

Emilio

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2012, 11:03:19 PM »
Did any of you read the game change log?  You knew this was coming.  9erosnally, I think many of you didn't read anything and decided to use the OLD strat and are now feeling the pain because of it. 

This is turning into a serious whine thread aand you were told that this is going to happen!

Im sorry.  I find the change fair.  The 757 was never designed as a plane for transtlantic.  Airlines irl had to use them accordingly because they were able to fit the bill.  

In other games, the 757 was ordered 20x more than they were irl.  

I agree with the change.  There's just some things you have to do as a sim and this was one of them.  It was far too easy to win with the 752 from ewr, jfk, bos, tor and more
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 11:09:35 PM by swiftus27 »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2012, 11:28:37 PM »
Frequency benefits for LNB and SNB on LH flights do not stack. In other words, A 752 x3 daily vs 1x daily 772 will be seen as a daily 752 vs daily 772. That should remove flooding a LH route. At least as far as NBs are concerned.

I was trying to get this across.  That on certain routes, frequency would "disappear" as a factor completely, and pax allocation would be a function primarily of capacity.  So if a route calls for a 772, and one airline supplies it with a 772, while another supplies it with 2x757, the 2x757 would be treated as one larger aircraft (~772).

The end result de-emphesizing frequency and allocating by capacity is that all the airlines would have very similar LF.

So as far as a way to achieve this, some combination of:
- "remove benefit" (of frequency)
- "add penalties" (for narrowbodies, and techstopping

My preference would have been majority of the deisred effect to come from "remove benefit" of frequency, and only minority of the desired effect to come from addition of penalties.  With that approach, long thin routes would have been only minimally affected.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2012, 11:47:17 PM »
As I can see, the administrator(s) has/have no intention of changing the 757 parameters in the game...

Sorry, why don't you read what I just posted above your post there?

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2012, 11:52:54 PM »
Sorry, why don't you read what I just posted above your post there?

His diatribe was written while you posted yours and he just clicked post anyway.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2012, 11:57:59 PM »
Maybe Emiliopez can post here how his LH 757's now perform after this tweek, might help me decide whether to try LH on 757's myself or not  ;)
...it's not over until I say it's over

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2012, 12:05:56 AM »
MM.. So what do we do about the 737-700ER and A319LR; Remove them from the game cause they serve no purpose now?

Remember AWS is still an Airline Business Management Simulation... Whether we like or dislike what that entails is irrelevant to our stated identity and mission.

Makes life much more difficult, but we still have to balance this out as best we can and not throw our hands up in the air and say "this is how it is, whatever"



"Free your mind.... Swifty"

(ok, now im just messing with you.. lol!!)


Talentz

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: 757-200 longhaul
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2012, 12:07:09 AM »
The 767-200ER does not burn much more fuel (about the same amount comparing the max range 752 compared to the min range 762) and does not need any more staff and only has 10 more minutes of turn time.
It seats a few more people and thus enables for growth over time, to which every route is subject.
I don't know about the difference in maintenance cost, but it can't be that bad.

So where does anyone need a 757? Also, you save an additional fleet type if you also employ the 763 and 764 for denser long haul routes. So any potential savings on maintenance that I might not have considered become irrelevant due to the savings of having one less fleet type.

 

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.