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: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life  (Read 955 times)

Frogiton

  • Former member
Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« on: October 27, 2010, 05:46:00 AM »
Hi everyone, I took the liberty to do some fairly in-depth research on airplane capacity. I noticed that most of the short-haul planes and mid-haul planes are correct capacity wise. But as we get to long-haul, airlines operate very different seating ranges (i.e. Emirates operating 10-abreast on a 777) making the research on a little difficult, so I can see where any mishaps in AWS capacity came into play. But after sampling airlines configurations for certain planes you can get a just of if it is off of real life or not.

B777-200: AWS (285 passengers at 250,25,10)
Wikipedia average: 301 (3-class)  Air France: (309, economy-business-first class fairly equivilant to AWS).  Emirates: 290 (running 42 business which means that the number if similar to AWS class-ratios would be much higher). Korean Air: (301, similar ratio as AWS). We can conclude that the 777-200 is at least 15 seats too small.

B777-300: AWS (385 passengers at 350,25,10)
Wikipedia Average: 365 (3-class)       Air France (325 with 67 business class seats which would mean that that is close to AWS). Emirates (364 with 42 business, but they run a tight economy so once again, close to AWS). British Airways (297 at 4 classes which would still come short of AWS). Korean Air (376, close ratio to AWS). The 777-300 on AWS is accurate.

B747-400: AWS (347 at 310,25,12)
Wikipedia Average: 417 (3-class)   Air France (392 with 58 business which puts it close to the wikipedia average with a regular ratio). Korean Air (384 with 58 business which puts it 1 row less than Air France). The 747 is vastly under-seated making by at least 60-80 seats making it litteraly pointless to buy in AWS.

A340-500: AWS (276 at 252,16,8)
Wikipedia Average: 313 (3-class)   Emirates (258 with 42 business which puts it at around 300 if it had a ratio close to AWS). TAM runs the exact same seating). The is puts the A340-500 to be just a tad under-seated.

A340-600: AWS (325 at 297,20,8)
Wikipedia Average: 380 (3-class) Iberia (342 with 42 business which puts it way above AWS). Lufthansa (345 with a staggering 65 business putting it way over AWS). Bottom line, under-seated by at least 40 seats.

B767-400: AWS (284 at 256,20,8)
Wikipedia Average: 245  Delta (245). Continental (256). Ironically the 767-400 is the only long-haul plane that is actually overstated. Both Continental and Delta don't even run first class and the the seating is still far below AWS.

If anyone is confused, when I put the number of business class seating, it doesn't mean that there aren't first and economy classes. In fact all planes and airline configurations are 3-class unless otherwise stated. And by ratio-similar-to-AWS, I mean if the airlines seating configuration had a balance of economy-business-first similar to AWS. Well, hope you guys found this interesting.  :)

Offline raptorva

  • Members
  • Posts: 889
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2010, 06:00:49 AM »
I already knew about the 747 but not the others.
The vast capacity difference is why the jumbo is pretty much a loss-maker in AWS as it has no advantages at all currently with its lower than standard seating. Same with the 747-8I too as far as I am aware.


Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 7730
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2010, 06:22:13 AM »
I think you need to look into how the seating is configured in default plane configurations in AWS.  A majority of very large aircraft with business class is configured as premium business class, and 747-400 even has premium first class.  It can be configured as 330 + 56 + 15 = 401.

One issue with 767-400ER is that with full passenger capability, it has limited cargo capacity, so some of the airlines may be trading passenger capacity for cargo.  Since we don't have cargo in AWS, 767-400ER is very efficient in AWS.

But back to my original point of default plane configurations in AWS, it is something that separates new players from experienced players.  New players don't realize that they are flying a pointless configurations of the planes and suffer the consequences...

Offline ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2010, 06:29:14 AM »
I think you need to look into how the seating is configured in default plane configurations in AWS.  A majority of very large aircraft with business class is configured as premium business class, and 747-400 even has premium first class.  It can be configured as 330 + 56 + 15 = 401.

One issue with 767-400ER is that with full passenger capability, it has limited cargo capacity, so some of the airlines may be trading passenger capacity for cargo.  Since we don't have cargo in AWS, 767-400ER is very efficient in AWS.

But back to my original point of default plane configurations in AWS, it is something that separates new players from experienced players.  New players don't realize that they are flying a pointless configurations of the planes and suffer the consequences...

Exactly. I managed to fly 77Es with 315 pax. But I guess the game needs to take into consideration the different seating options that passengers will have, right now I can put a 77W with 415 packed souls and they don't mind if there's another airline with premium economy available at the same price. Perhaps it makes a BIT of difference in the game but I can't recall it.

Sigma

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2010, 06:36:04 AM »
In many cases, you just need to stay away from the default setting because the longer-range aircraft automatically upgrade service to very high pitches between seats here -- MUCH higher than any real-life airline runs.  Many of the airlines you mention are running tight in Coach -- sometimes a meager 30-31" seat pitches in their Economy Classes, that's 1-2" huge inches tighter than even some domestic US airlines run and closer to what AWS considers "High Density" seating.   For instance, Iberia runs the same seat pitch in their A340-600 in Coach as American Airlines uses in their CRJs.  A single inch may not sound like much, but in a large plane like an A340-600 with some 50 rows, that single inch can easily equate to an extra few rows over the entire plane putting in potentially dozens more seats (American took out 2 rows from its Super-80s when increasing seat pitch by about an inch, and that's a small Super-80).  So if you configure your A340-600 with high-density seating, giving it seat pitches much closer to what Iberia runs, you'll find that you can run about the same seating counts in AWS as they actually run (though I don't recommend it, though pax used to not care too much about that seating in long-distances, sami had to tweak it so that they do to cut down on the mammoth profits people were making).

Take the 777-200, which you claim is at least 15 seats too small...

Default is 250/25/10.  Emirates runs 236/39/18... and what do you know -- you can configure your 777-200 to 240/40/20 in AWS.  That's virtually identical.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 06:42:27 AM by Sigma »

Offline Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4560
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2010, 06:46:40 AM »
Exactly. I managed to fly 77Es with 315 pax. But I guess the game needs to take into consideration the different seating options that passengers will have, right now I can put a 77W with 415 packed souls and they don't mind if there's another airline with premium economy available at the same price. Perhaps it makes a BIT of difference in the game but I can't recall it.

Running a 77W on GUM-HNL daily in MT2....talk about making a killing.....over $3 million weekly profit! Of my 70-ish plane fleet, this one plane makes about 1/5 of my weekly profit.
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Jackson

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2010, 11:27:07 AM »
Why not create a "personalise your seating/cabin" installation where each player can directly dive into what each of their aircrafts will look like. For instance, choosing the seat size, comfort, type of seat, X amount of seats abreast, the location of or how far forward or behind each class extends, colour, you know, to go with your livery and hub you represent instead of just choosing between four setting that you cant see. The different flatbeds, business seats and economy range differs in real life as there are dozens. If you look at the standard seating for a MRJ and a ERJ, you will see that although a similar size, the MRJ carries less because it's ecomomy seats are so spaceous.

Food service, themes, general in-flight service and simulate how ALL this has an effect on each airlines reputation, expenses and income. How about it? Yes it will take work, but I believe that Airwaysim is one of the best online sim out there. However, with it's ability combined with actual visual effects such as in depth customizing, this game would launch itself to the moon and beyond.

Frogiton

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2010, 01:34:06 PM »
In many cases, you just need to stay away from the default setting because the longer-range aircraft automatically upgrade service to very high pitches between seats here -- MUCH higher than any real-life airline runs.  Many of the airlines you mention are running tight in Coach -- sometimes a meager 30-31" seat pitches in their Economy Classes, that's 1-2" huge inches tighter than even some domestic US airlines run and closer to what AWS considers "High Density" seating.   For instance, Iberia runs the same seat pitch in their A340-600 in Coach as American Airlines uses in their CRJs.  A single inch may not sound like much, but in a large plane like an A340-600 with some 50 rows, that single inch can easily equate to an extra few rows over the entire plane putting in potentially dozens more seats (American took out 2 rows from its Super-80s when increasing seat pitch by about an inch, and that's a small Super-80).  So if you configure your A340-600 with high-density seating, giving it seat pitches much closer to what Iberia runs, you'll find that you can run about the same seating counts in AWS as they actually run (though I don't recommend it, though pax used to not care too much about that seating in long-distances, sami had to tweak it so that they do to cut down on the mammoth profits people were making).
[/b].

Interesting... I configured the A340-600 with standard seating and got exactly 381, almost identical to wikipedia.  :-[ One thing that I did realize from the research is that it is almost impossible to actaully compare real-life to AWS due to the differences in seat pitch, width, ratio of Economy-business-first. Oh well... The 747-400 is still rediculously small.

Oh, and, I really like Jackson's idea. Currently we have the option of standard, cattle, and luxury, we don't get to pick anything else that goes on.

Sigma

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2010, 01:49:06 PM »
Interesting... I configured the A340-600 with standard seating and got exactly 381, almost identical to wikipedia.  :-[ One thing that I did realize from the research is that it is almost impossible to actaully compare real-life to AWS due to the differences in seat pitch, width, ratio of Economy-business-first. Oh well... The 747-400 is still rediculously small.

The 747-400 isn't small.

You're comparing to airlines that aren't running Premium-level Business/First-class seating whereas AWS' does.  Air France's "Business" class on many of its 747s is little more than a barely-upgraded Coach, giving you a couple more inches of room, a meager 34" -- that's about what Southwest runs on its 737 fleet or about what American was running during its' "More Room" campaign on the Super-80s.  AWS default configuration puts in a Business class that would have something more like 60"+ of pitch, hence FAR fewer seats.  First class on both Air France and Iberia, your two examples, is reclining only -- no lie-flat (though AF gets close).  In AWS, the default First Class setup is a lie-flat setup that takes up WAY more space.

The example you used, Korean Air, uses 310/58/16.  I just configured one in AWS with 310/56/20 with the exact same configuration of service (all reclining, no lie-flat anywhere).  That's actually a couple more seats than Korean Air uses.

Quote
Oh, and, I really like Jackson's idea. Currently we have the option of standard, cattle, and luxury, we don't get to pick anything else that goes on.

Until those options really mean anything, all that would be is useless numbers.  Sorta like all the Marketing choices that confuse people but all it's really asking you is 'how much money do you want to spend on Marketing'?  All the Configurator is doing is asking 'How many seats do you want to put on this plane'?  Anything more, at this point, would just be busy work.

There's a couple dozen preference variables that need tweaking before we worry about whether passengers prefer 17" or 19" seat widths in Coach.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 01:57:07 PM by Sigma »

Frogiton

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2010, 01:58:48 PM »
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Korean_Air/Korean_Air_Boeing_747-400_C.php

Close to AWS... yes, but Korean runs with 180 degrees lie-flats in first. Regular lie-flats in business (61). And the 262 economy are just regular.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Korean_Air/Korean_Air_Boeing_747-400.php

This represents what you did, except it has 310 economy, 58 business, and 16 first, which still puts it at more.

Sigma

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2010, 02:05:56 PM »
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Korean_Air/Korean_Air_Boeing_747-400_C.php

Close to AWS... yes, but Korean runs with 180 degrees lie-flats in first. Regular lie-flats in business (61). And the 262 economy are just regular.

And in that particular setup, AWS runs a bit short -- about 20 business seats short.  The game cannot possibly account for every variation of seating -- in this case Korean has lie-flats in Business in a fairly small seat-pitch for that feature, so AWS is using more inches to get the Lie-Flats in Business than Korean uses.  Sami's attempted this by trying to get information on interior cabin dimensions of aircraft, but that information is virtually impossible to get on more than a handful of aircraft, so he's not been able to do anything with it.  Try hard enough and I'm sure you'll find more examples where AWS isn't quite matching up to reality since every airline has their own way of doing things and many have many different examples, but simple fact of the matter is that the configuration isn't a fraction as incorrect as you thought it was.  For being "generic" it actually works pretty damned well and is capable of reproducing virtually every operating configuration out there pretty darn closely.

Quote
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Korean_Air/Korean_Air_Boeing_747-400.php

This represents what you did, except it has 310 economy, 58 business, and 16 first, which still puts it at more.

In AWS that same service has 310/56/20, that's more seating (by 2).  Not less.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 02:12:59 PM by Sigma »

Frogiton

  • Former member
Re: Researched Airplane Capacity AWS vs. Real life
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2010, 02:54:27 PM »
Arguing with Sigma = Dividing by zero.  :P

You may be right  on the fact that AWS couldn't possibllly account for all seating configs. But maybe a little more flexibility in seating would allow us to get close.

 

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.