747 vs. 777 vs. A380 in AWS and in real life

[JumboShrimp]

Real life as of 2010.  Built to date:
B747: 1,418
B777: 864
A380: 50

AWS, ATB, year 2014:
B747: 979
B777: 2080
A380: 455!!!!!!

In service, real life:
B747:   100s, probably > 1/2 of 747 built
B777: 864?
A380: 50?

In service AWS, ATB:
B747: 68
B777: 1253
A380: 409!!!!!!!!!

On order real life:
B747-8: 109, 76 of the freighter version, 32 of the passenger version
On order AWS, ATB: 0

Where I am heading with this is that 747 consistantly stinks in AWS, throughout different time periods, while in real life, it is the most successful aircraft ever built.  Can anyone offer an explanation?  Are the specs correct in AWS?

Looking at the A380 and B747-8, it seems that the specs of A380 are in the right ballpark in AWS, but when I try to configure 747-8, AWS seems to be way short.  Boeing claims "467 seats in a three-class configuration".  The most I can squeeze using the configurator, nothing at all premium is 434, or 33 less than Boeing claims.  AWS factory default configuration only offers 321 with premium F and C classes.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/747-8_facts.html

Fuel consumption is another thing that may be wrong.  Boeing claims:
"The 747-8 is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane."

Taking AWS figures of 525 seats for A380 vs. 321 seats for 747-8, AWS fuel consumption per passenger is 50% higher.  So it looks like the fuel consumption specs are very much screwed up as well in AWS.

In this article, there are competing claims.  Boeing claims it is 13% more efficient with 747-8 than A380, Airbus claims 747-8 is only 2% more efficient.  In AWS, it is 50% less efficient.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/17/205137/boeings-747-8-vs-a380-a-titanic-tussle.html

Seating and fuel consumption per passenger are related, so if seating of 747 is adjusted, it will change the per seat.  But fuel consumption has to be adjusted significantly in addition to the seating to get into the range with real life.

Is it possible that the specs of other 747 models are also wrong by similar magnitude as 747-8, which would explain why 747 is such a loser with AWS players?

[Sigma]

Is it possible that the specs of other 747 models are also wrong by similar magnitude as 747-8, which would explain why 747 is such a loser with AWS players?

No, the problem is, as you mentioned, the seating on the 747-8 is way less in AWS than it should be.  It's been reported many, many times but never been fixed.  Once that is fixed, the 747-8 will be a much more viable aircraft.

As for all the other 747s... who knows.  There's a million reasons why a plane might be popular in real-life but not popular in AWS and most certainly vice versa.  If I had to name one (or two) the massive profit margins in AWS make super-large aircraft unnecessary (outside of a couple highly slot-constrained airports) and the importance of frequency makes them less desirable.  The A380 is simply a "cool" plane to have and, again because of the huge profit margins we have here, people buy it up in big numbers simply because they can.

[JumboShrimp]

No, the problem is, as you mentioned, the seating on the 747-8 is way less in AWS than it should be.  It's been reported many, many times but never been fixed.  Once that is fixed, the 747-8 will be a much more viable aircraft.

I seem to recall a thread on the seating.  But, in addition to seating, even if it goes up 10% or 25%, the fuel consumption is still 25% to 50% too high (assuming A380 is correct).

As for all the other 747s... who knows.  There's a million reasons why a plane might be popular in real-life but not popular in AWS and most certainly vice versa.  If I had to name one (or two) the massive profit margins in AWS make super-large aircraft unnecessary (outside of a couple highly slot-constrained airports) and the importance of frequency makes them less desirable.  The A380 is simply a "cool" plane to have and, again because of the huge profit margins we have here, people buy it up in big numbers simply because they can.

That's a good point.  A380 is vanity for players with nowhere else to invest money.  I could make anyone flying A380 bleed money in AWS by flying with higher frequency, but there is no point, because players flying 380s are pretty much immune to a small money bleeding on one of their routes.

There should be a huge commonality advantage in having 747, since it spans 4 decades, but if players are not buying 747 early on, prior to, say 777 arriving, there is no commonality advantage later on.

Another possible reason could be that there are no scenarios that start in early 70s, continuing through 80s, when 747 could be the most competitive, and commonality would dictate sticking with that fleet group as newer aircraft in 747 family arrive.

[Dave4468]

In those numbers I think you'll find the real 777 numbers are;

Built: 864
In Service: 863

AFAIK there has been one hull loss of a 777 and that was when G-YMMM missed the runway at Heathrow a few years ago.

[JumboShrimp]

I had a question mark after 864 for 777. 

[ban2]

Just a thought...

Also don't forget when the 747 came out the uk airspace was not "Openskies" so all the Flag carriers could invest the huge sums of money in the Jumbo and have no competition on the routes they operated on.

Look at all the carriers who had big fleets of Jumbos, where are they all now?

[schro]

You've got to consider the start dates for some of the worlds - ATB started in 1998, after the 772 was already available and the 744 had been on the market for over 10 years.  During the same time, the A330's came to be and in combination, the two of them obsoleted the 744 before the game world even started.

[samomuransky]

One of reasons is that real world airlines are trying to maximise profit. In AWS, some people fly A380 just because it's A380

[JumboShrimp]

Just a thought...

Also don't forget when the 747 came out the uk airspace was not "Openskies" so all the Flag carriers could invest the huge sums of money in the Jumbo and have no competition on the routes they operated on.

Look at all the carriers who had big fleets of Jumbos, where are they all now?

There are still a lot of them in service.  Service life is up to 30 years.  You will see them in every big airport.  When I was at Narita in mid 90s, probably half the planes there were 747.

[JumboShrimp]

You've got to consider the start dates for some of the worlds - ATB started in 1998, after the 772 was already available and the 744 had been on the market for over 10 years.  During the same time, the A330's came to be and in combination, the two of them obsoleted the 744 before the game world even started.

Yeah, that's probably the key here.  At the start of ATB, no one starts with existing fleet of 747s were commonality would dictate buying more, replacing older 747s with newer 747s.

While I was looking this up, I came across another interesting comparison.  If you are in ATB, compare 757-300 with 787-3.  The aircraft with the most efficient engines barely inches ahead of a discontinued design - at 2x the purchase price.  I am not sure if the fuel consumption of the 787s is correct to begin with, but when taking off with 74,000 kg less of take off weight compared to 787-9, cruising and landing with 74,000kg less, the fuel consumption has got to be lower for the 787-3 model.

[Alexandre Meniuk]

I didn´t do such deep study, but all said about de 747-8 I would like to say that also applies to the Airbus A310, that, according to airbus can seat up to 247 Y at 32/31in pitch.