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: B763 vs A332  (Read 1700 times)

Offline DiCH

  • Members
  • Posts: 201
B763 vs A332
« on: March 09, 2014, 03:30:33 PM »
Which is better?

Now I'm using leased 763 which give me not serious profit. Thinking of replace it with leased A332 (and possible buy them out in future).

All my demand for long-haul is 21 B763/A332 (out of my total 300 AC's fleet), so I'm also thinking if they have same low profitability, maybe it's better to leave long-haul market.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2014, 03:36:33 PM »
I would not bother flying long-haul with just 21 aircraft, especially in your case where it adds a fourth fleet group.

If range is ok and demand is ok I might try to use A320neo/A321neo on max range, maybe even with tech-stop. This could maybe work if business/first is on the route.



767-300ER isn't very good at all and the A330-200 is bad, too, just another nice to have (like most of the A340) if you use the whole A330/A340 fleetgroup.

Online ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2014, 08:15:49 PM »
Which is better?

Now I'm using leased 763 which give me not serious profit. Thinking of replace it with leased A332 (and possible buy them out in future).

All my demand for long-haul is 21 B763/A332 (out of my total 300 AC's fleet), so I'm also thinking if they have same low profitability, maybe it's better to leave long-haul market.

The A330-200 is far superior to the 763 for the simple reason that the 767 line in AWS is horribly broken. The smaller size creates the dreaded "too small" warning for the type at stage lengths as low as 2500nm. Despite being a wide body, long haul aircraft it is treated more like a 757.

I would not bother flying long-haul with just 21 aircraft, especially in your case where it adds a fourth fleet group.

If range is ok and demand is ok I might try to use A320neo/A321neo on max range, maybe even with tech-stop. This could maybe work if business/first is on the route.



767-300ER isn't very good at all and the A330-200 is bad, too, just another nice to have (like most of the A340) if you use the whole A330/A340 fleetgroup.

I agree. The 4th type creates a crazy commonality penalty that can reach 1,000% as you approach 600+ frames and will be more than 100% at your fleet size of 300.

As for the 332 being bad, compared to the 333 it is (higher fuel burn for fewer passengers) but overall I have had success with them in the past and would not shy away from using them again if you need the extra range over the 333.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2014, 08:16:19 PM »
The A330-200 is far superior to the 763 for the simple reason that the 767 line in AWS is horribly broken. The smaller size creates the dreaded "too small" warning for the type at stage lengths as low as 2500nm. Despite being a wide body, long haul aircraft it is treated more like a 757.

I agree. The 4th type creates a crazy commonality penalty that can reach 1,000% as you approach 600+ frames and will be more than 100% at your fleet size of 300.

As for the 332 being bad, compared to the 333 it is (higher fuel burn for fewer passengers) but overall I have had success with them in the past and would not shy away from using them again if you need the extra range over the 333.

What routes are those?

I don't get a too small warning with 767 on DFW-LHR in 2016 with over 5k peak day demand, which is over 4k nm

Nor do I get one on DFW-ICN which is 900 peak day demand, and nearly 6k nm.

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2014, 08:48:52 PM »
What routes are those?

I don't get a too small warning with 767 on DFW-LHR in 2016 with over 5k peak day demand, which is over 4k nm

Nor do I get one on DFW-ICN which is 900 peak day demand, and nearly 6k nm.

I do get the warning in 2000 operating from TPE to west coast US.

Online ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2014, 12:04:31 AM »
What routes are those?

I don't get a too small warning with 767 on DFW-LHR in 2016 with over 5k peak day demand, which is over 4k nm

Nor do I get one on DFW-ICN which is 900 peak day demand, and nearly 6k nm.

Every route I fly with them in GW2/DOTM6. I am waiting to see if the warning drops off when the -400ER is certified and the average size increases.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Online ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2014, 03:35:54 AM »
Just a couple examples from GW2:

No reason a modern wide body should be warned, let alone penalized, but I have been told the system is "working as intended"....
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2014, 07:35:17 AM »

No reason a modern wide body should be warned, let alone penalized, but I have been told the system is "working as intended"....




Doesn't seem so. I attract more than double the pax you do. And the price is default

I am waiting to see if the warning drops off when the -400ER is certified and the average size increases.

Not sure about this, but I've never had any warning on B763 in last MT8. Even at the beginning when the B764 hasn't been available yet

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 901
    • FmFreaks
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2014, 05:23:47 PM »
Its just so hopeless and so wrong, that the 767-300ER is getting penalized, more hopeless is the fact that Sami says its working as intended.

Online ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2014, 06:38:57 PM »
Its just so hopeless and so wrong, that the 767-300ER is getting penalized, more hopeless is the fact that Sami says its working as intended.

I agree with you completely, yet when I posted a bug report about it, it got swept it under the rug.

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,52006.0.html
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2014, 09:58:02 PM »
One of the reasons why I asked sami to play his game in a real gameworld. It's the little (and not so little) things that are strange and annoy.

The screenshot of Mr.HP shows it.

Offline m320au

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2014, 10:57:32 AM »
Just a couple examples from GW2:

No reason a modern wide body should be warned, let alone penalized, but I have been told the system is "working as intended"....

I've never had this warning in my history of playing AWS. Unsure why.

Passengers not liking an aircraft because it's too small? Provided the aircraft has the range to fly the route non stop, passengers shouldn't care about the size of the aircraft.

Or if passengers are so informed, surely what they should care more about is unnecessary tech stops. That is a sure sign of an aircraft being too small - and also causes inconvenience and delays.

In my opinion, tech stopping flights should incur a 20% penalty in passenger numbers when a direct alternative exists. Number of aisles or diameter of cabin is surely a less significant factor.

M

Offline xyeahtony

  • Members
  • Posts: 684
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2014, 04:57:45 AM »
i used to get the warning on all 767 flights between east coast and Europe but lately in GW2 those are gone. Either Sami fixed it or the 764 introduction balanced it out? who knows.


Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: B763 vs A332
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2014, 01:05:38 PM »
767-400ER release increased the average seat size noticably.

 

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.