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: 737-700ER  (Read 1094 times)

Offline ClassicNZ

  • Members
  • Posts: 22
737-700ER
« on: September 08, 2012, 12:49:43 AM »
I know it's a while away but when the 737-700er is launched is it actually viable to operate 4000-5000 nm routes with 120-200 demand? Just wondering because of the new system which will probably say that the aircraft is to small.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2012, 12:55:56 AM »
I know it's a while away but when the 737-700er is launched is it actually viable to operate 4000-5000 nm routes with 120-200 demand? Just wondering because of the new system which will probably say that the aircraft is to small.

If there is enough demand to fill the plane, and you can get some C or even F pax onboard, it's probably fine. The 737 fuel burn is low, so a small plane like that is probably the only way to make a route of such distance and low demand viable.

If the demand is only 120-200/day, you probably will not get a miniplane warning or penalty. And you probably won't have widebody competition because the route is too small to support a widebody.

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2012, 01:05:01 AM »
If there is enough demand to fill the plane, and you can get some C or even F pax onboard, it's probably fine. The 737 fuel burn is low, so a small plane like that is probably the only way to make a route of such distance and low demand viable.

If the demand is only 120-200/day, you probably will not get a miniplane warning or penalty. And you probably won't have widebody competition because the route is too small to support a widebody.

737-700ER, with the tweaks to the system, will be ok on these routes.

To make them viable, however, you need to do 3 things:

1. Own them. Lease 737-700ER's are about as good as Concordes.
2. 7 day schedule them to get every last minute of flying time out of them.
3. Find routes that can support at least a 5C/114Y config, and preferable a 3F 15C rest Y config (not likely if we are talking about routes with 100 daily demand).

They will not make tons of money, but if you have cash to spare and are looking for a unique aircraft to play with, the 73G ER fits the bill.

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

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2012, 01:27:31 AM »
I'll be flying them on routes too small for a 763/764.

How much money they make remains to be seen.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2012, 02:21:23 AM »
Lease 737-700ER's are about as good as Concordes.

Excuse me! What's wrong with Concordes?  ;)

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2012, 02:22:14 AM »
They will not make tons of money, but if you have cash to spare and are looking for a unique aircraft to play with, the 73G ER fits the bill.

Especially if you already have the 737NG group and so you can add this model for "free."

Offline Shlongdog

  • Members
  • Posts: 61
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2012, 02:44:36 AM »
Mate concordes look cool but in this game they are horrible

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2012, 02:46:13 AM »
Excuse me! What's wrong with Concordes?  ;)

Nothing, but you are the first player ever to successfully operate them  :laugh:
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline ClassicNZ

  • Members
  • Posts: 22
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2012, 02:47:18 AM »
Thanks for the info guys. Very helpfull

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2012, 03:49:52 AM »
1. Own them. Lease 737-700ER's are about as good as Concordes.

Nah, I would say they are more inline with 77Ls. They can turn a profit easier then the CONC, but as you stated: Owning them is a must. Leasing costs just kill any chance of a decent profit margin on both the 737ER and 77L.

Even then... a 130-150 daily route in the 4000-4400nm route range would probably be just as good served by an owned 762 prem config. Least you can grow the demand with price and retain LF better vs taking the LF hit* and sacrificing price to sustain meaningful loads.

But anything below 120 daily is 737ER metal though. The break even cost is far lower then a 762.


Talentz


Offline pascaly

  • Members
  • Posts: 405
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2012, 12:39:12 PM »
I used them in the past, mainly to fly from the US to Iceland and some thin European routes.  Agree with what everyone else has said; own, max schedule, part of a larger 737 fleet.

The other thing to keep an eye on is fuel; you won't have great revenue per kilometer due to small pax numbers, so if fuel goes too high ($1200 +) you may lose money per plane, that's why it's much better as part of a larger fleet.  I used them right up until the end of Modern Times with fuel over $1450, so it can be done.

Also, you'll get basically no competition as no one else is crazy enough to try them out on such routes!!  :D
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 12:41:54 PM by pascaly »

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2012, 12:53:08 PM »
Which means for the initial poster, since he joined this world a few days ago, he merely can own the plane nor is it part of a bigger fleet.
So I would reconsider serving other demand first.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2012, 07:48:19 AM »
Here is an example of a long, lean/medium route that a 737-700ER works reasonably well on.
No other narrowbody can fly this nonstop.

(It's also a good plane for p***ing people off.)

« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 08:01:42 AM by EsquireFlyer »

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2012, 08:56:18 AM »
OMG haha... Last night I was thinking about dropping some 762s in Prem configuration on those 737ERs your flying. I wondered what your reaction would have been.

In the end, I figured it wasn't worth bankrupting my airline over. So I hit up my fav ORD route instead  8)



Talentz

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2012, 05:47:36 PM »
OMG haha... Last night I was thinking about dropping some 762s in Prem configuration on those 737ERs your flying. I wondered what your reaction would have been.

I have a fleet of 7x more 737ER reinforcements on order just in case someone tries that!

In the example above, the 764 is configured for 24 premium C and 272 standard Y, and it's probably getting ~30% LF in C, and 35% in Y. The 2x 737ER both receive around 80% LF on standard C seats.

Sadly, it seems AWS pax still do not recognize the difference between premium C and standard C, because on a looong route like this, the passengers should prefer the premium seats. But no, they only want frequency.

In my opinion, this should be changed to provide a real benefit for premium seating on routes above a certain length (e.g. >8 hours), in the way that standard seats provide a real benefit on routes above ~2 hours.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 06:18:16 PM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2012, 05:59:00 PM »
These routes bug me.  I've said my peace in the past.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2012, 06:44:28 PM »
Sadly, it seems AWS pax still do not recognize the difference between premium C and standard C, because on a looong route like this, the passengers should prefer the premium seats. But no, they only want frequency.

In my opinion, this should be changed to provide a real benefit for premium seating on routes above a certain length (e.g. >8 hours), in the way that standard seats provide a real benefit on routes above ~2 hours.

Well since the frequency part of the calculation is still in play (meaning it hasn't topped out), that's probably why were seeing the route like this. Frequency is still King, though now it caps out at x number of flights.
 ~I wonder though... Is the calculation the same (narrowbody nerf) for long domestic routes? This route is 4000+nm. The 764 under the new calculations should be better off then 70/30 demand split right now.

So, I guess, the calculations only effect international and LH routes as opposed to long domestic routes?
(Feel free to chime in here Sami ;))

Talentz

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 737-700ER
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2012, 08:36:17 PM »
Well since the frequency part of the calculation is still in play (meaning it hasn't topped out), that's probably why were seeing the route like this. Frequency is still King, though now it caps out at x number of flights.
 ~I wonder though... Is the calculation the same (narrowbody nerf) for long domestic routes? This route is 4000+nm. The 764 under the new calculations should be better off then 70/30 demand split right now.

For domestic, the miniplane rules are more relaxed, but not eliminated. I am not sure of the exact cutoffs for domestic, but the demand matters as well as the distance. For example, the "fatter" route ATL-HNL gets a miniplane warning if you schedule it on a 737ER. But since JFK-HNL is a leaner route with only 300 daily pax, the 737ER does not receive a miniplane warning.

 

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.