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: 757-300 unfair?  (Read 1233 times)

Offline Shlongdog

  • Members
  • Posts: 61
757-300 unfair?
« on: October 10, 2012, 09:14:48 PM »
So I'm going To upgrade my fuel hungry 767-200s to 757-300s. They carry more pax and consume far less fuel.
I will be flying routes up to 3400 nm. But when I go to schedule my routes the mini plane warning will appear. This is ridiculous because the 753 is bigger than the 762 and can carry much more pax. I I schedule these routes anyway will I get a reduction in load factors? If so then the 757-300 is a unfair aircraft and it probably needs to be changed to very large aircraft instead of large aircraft.

Any suggestions thanks.

Shlongdog (Airways of Pakistan)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2012, 09:28:59 PM »
Ahm.

You know AirwaySim is based on reality, so the 753 is no made up aircraft by some random Finn wizard?

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2012, 10:06:27 PM »
So I'm going To upgrade my fuel hungry 767-200s to 757-300s. They carry more pax and consume far less fuel.
I will be flying routes up to 3400 nm. But when I go to schedule my routes the mini plane warning will appear. This is ridiculous because the 753 is bigger than the 762 and can carry much more pax. I I schedule these routes anyway will I get a reduction in load factors? If so then the 757-300 is a unfair aircraft and it probably needs to be changed to very large aircraft instead of large aircraft.

Any suggestions thanks.

Shlongdog (Airways of Pakistan)

Miniplane warning is based on fleet commonality group (757 or 767) not the specific model within that group.

Offline Shlongdog

  • Members
  • Posts: 61
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2012, 11:08:46 PM »
Yes I realize that the 757 is a real aircraft. All I'm saying is that it really shouldnt be classified as a large aircraft due to its capacity

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2012, 11:42:30 PM »
It is still a narrowbody. The high capacity is because it's really long.


And don't forget:
Between 767-200 and 757-300 are several years of service time. The 767 (except the -400ER) isn't such a good aircraft at all in AWS, so no big surprise many other aircraft are better.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2012, 12:01:33 AM »
Sounds quite fair for me. You change in some advantages for some disadvantages, so no aircraft has all the positives on itīs side. Exactly that was the reason of introduction of those warnings. Itīs opening that same old discussion backwards.

Offline Shlongdog

  • Members
  • Posts: 61
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2012, 12:44:10 AM »
Yes that's a good poInt. Not sure if you can say the 767 is a bad aircraft in aws as a lot of airlines use it.

brique

  • Former member
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2012, 01:02:44 AM »
Its a warning, not a prohibition : you can still fly the route with that aircraft : its just that it wont match up well in competition with anyone flying a more suitable aircraft for the route : so you may have to tweak prices, seats, etc to compensate, but its not that big a deal : you'd have to do the same with any competition, on any route, with any aircraft, 'suitable' or no....

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2012, 01:08:38 AM »
Not sure if you can say the 767 is a bad aircraft in aws as a lot of airlines use it.

That's because lots of airlines are lead average or below average, so no abnormality here.

In fact not a problem, casuals simply have other priorities and not everybody is good in games.



The 767 has it's right to exist, like the 747SP or other niche aircraft but for the mass of airlines and for most of the time there are (much) better aircraft available. The things that made 767 in real life a very successful aircraft aren't important in AirwaySim, for example the commonality with the 757 or modern cockpit layout in general.

And yes, 753 is a killer and the perfect aircraft in the post A300 era for bigger airports.

Anyway, we are far from your opening question...

Offline Shlongdog

  • Members
  • Posts: 61
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2012, 01:45:12 AM »
Yes but do you not agree that the 757-3 should be classified as a very large aircraft? Regardless of it being narrow body it still is bigger than a 762.

Offline PH1517

  • Members
  • Posts: 1220
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2012, 05:38:30 AM »
I don't see the necessity of this penalty.  Or at least it should be relaxed.  It's really not reflecting reality at all.!
I just came on a trip and all of the 4 legs were each at or above 2000nm and using single lane aircraft, ie. A320 and 753. All were booked solid.

And anyways, why bother building these aircraft with there ranges if you will be penalized by it.  These route by themselves affect negatively profitability.  To add another penalty to that is non-sense.

I'm seeing penalties on a 2000nm routes with 733s, demand is about 4-500 pax. is 3 flights a day is a problem?
mini-plane should mean mini-plane, ie a 20 seater for a 2000 pax route.  And anyways, slot costs are really high in busy airports to start routes with mini-plane, there's your penalty.
 

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2012, 05:40:30 AM »
That's because lots of airlines are lead average or below average, so no abnormality here.

Never really thought of myself as below average, TY I guess...

Quote
And yes, 753 is a killer and the perfect aircraft in the post A300 era for bigger airports.

It is... within it's mission profile. After 3500nm, the 752 can take a payload further. It really depends on the range your looking at...
What I find missing from the 757 vs 767 argument here is the fact the 767 family has 4 variants that offer greater range outside of the 752 and 753s mission profile. 

That's why you choose the 767 family...

Back to the OP, it doesn't matter if your flying against your self. But if your flying against competition... then I guess the operator of old, inefficient and useless 767 will get the last laugh... and pax too.  8)

Talentz

Offline ClassicNZ

  • Members
  • Posts: 22
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2012, 08:47:12 AM »
Yes, but if you think about it, longer ranged aircraft genrally have more fuel consumption than shorter ranged aircraft. So really the 767 has a reason to consume more fuel. There is really no other aircraft to operate thin long routes 5500nm-     

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2012, 09:36:24 AM »
The biggest problem of the 767 is the high range. The further you fly, the less profit per pax per mile you make.

There's a timeframe where this makes sense because fuel is cheap, competition less and demand is low. I can imagine a few airports where the 767 is the perfect aircraft.

For most people they can utilize A310-300 (it's ok after the last update) because they already have A300 fleetgroup or use their DC-10 and L1011 and oversupply the demand a bit.


Unfortunately AWS reality is: Random big airline out of a major airport throws random 767 variants on high demand routes.



753 is relased ~1999, if you still fly big amounts of 767-200 this time, you are either sticking to an extremely thin fleet commonality (2-3 fleetgroups out of a smaller airport that can't serve a bigger long haul aircraft, so you can't go for A300 or 757) or you're doing it wrong.

So, has the 767-200ER a superior range? Yes. Can it make profit on those routes that can't be covered by bigger aircraft beyond 1999? Not much.



@ Talentz

I didn't see myself posting this to you. I haven't seen you playing for a while, but as far as I remember you are one of the players who exactly know which aircraft is the best at what time to optimize their airline.
Bummer if this has changed and you fly 767 out of JFK. But for Puerto Plata it's perfect, one of the few airports it fits very good.

Question on this: Fuel prices are (very) low yet in MT7, but how long do you think you can keep your 762(ER) routes like to Doha?





exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2012, 09:52:18 AM »
"I just came on a trip and all of the 4 legs were each at or above 2000nm and using single lane aircraft, ie. A320 and 753. All were booked solid."

Itīs starting the old discussion again. And any observations on some flights you made by coincidence are no valid argument for game systematics at all. Discussion was around two Boeing models and their use.
Please make yourself acquainted to the reasons the "penalty" was installed for in the first place, archives are full of it.Feel free to use these aircrafts for these routes and as long nobody is already filling them with "appropiate" models you will still see good profits.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 10:22:06 AM by exchlbg »

Offline mark320

  • Members
  • Posts: 101
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2012, 01:37:47 PM »
I said it several times on these fora, there is a simple formula used in RL, which could be applied as relationship to aircraft type but it falls on deaf ears!

Regards.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2012, 03:28:14 PM »
IRL very few 753s were produced for various reasons.  AWS ignores a lot of real world factors such as natural disasters, politics (Russian airlines can buy Boeing during cold war) and manufacturer supply chain issues.  The 753 is AWS is a beast because it uses the same algorithms as every other aircraft in the game and ends up with an advantage.  The 752 is the most common though and is certified first and aircraft class is by fleet type and not model specific, so if the 753 is classified as very large then the 752 will be also.  Remember that you don't create routes for 752 or 753, but you create routes for the 757 fleet group.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2012, 12:12:33 AM »
@ Talentz

I didn't see myself posting this to you. I haven't seen you playing for a while, but as far as I remember you are one of the players who exactly know which aircraft is the best at what time to optimize their airline.
Bummer if this has changed and you fly 767 out of JFK. But for Puerto Plata it's perfect, one of the few airports it fits very good.

Question on this: Fuel prices are (very) low yet in MT7, but how long do you think you can keep your 762(ER) routes like to Doha?

During the mini fuel crisis, I was at break-even or near break-even flying long thin routes. Now that I own the aircraft(s), I would assume fuel no higher $750.

Each aircraft has its advantages and disadvantages which is all relative your airline situation.
 

Btw, Schro is doing fine @ JFK w/ his little fleet of 767s  ;)

Owl Powerrr!


Talentz


Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2012, 05:22:14 AM »
schro did fine with hundreds of A300 out of LAX :D

I don't know what exactly he mixes in his fuel, but it seems to work. :D


But good to see you have some reserve left making profit. I always like the nice airlines you build out of smaller airports. Too bad the mentoring system won't let me access all pages.

mean123

  • Former member
Re: 757-300 unfair?
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2012, 12:32:37 AM »
I can honestly say i never thought i would hear the 767 family described as niche. Wow!

 

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.