CAn I have a smaller plane please ?

[Zabuti]

Hello fellow players !

I've got a question for open thoughts here. Please note that this is NOT a complaint topic at all. I'm just trying to solve an issue with any available material (aka... planes)

I'm based in Nairobi, Kenya. This is a medium size airport : decent demand, but not very big. (for example, 5 or 6 cities in Europe only have more than 200pax per day demand). Therefore, I was looking for an aircraft that could do long distances with less passengers (like the B787 is supposed to do IRL : consume less fuel so that it carries about 200 pax over long distances).

But, I just can't find the right balance. What I'm looking for is a plane smaller than A332 or B772, but still breaking even on my flights with less demand.

I did not come across a similar topic with small planes, but this is something I wish to invest in.

Any good advice, please feel free !

Kind regards

PS : I'm aware that 3000nm routes with 150 pax are not really profitable... but this is a game and I'd like to test some nice things I wouldn't suggest my boss to do in our company IRL ;-)

[swiftus27]

Unless the 787 works youre screwed.  The 777 is currently 'under repair'... unless you own the plane, DONT do it.

[MidlandDeltic]

This just highlights the gap left by the 757-200 in real life, as well as in AWS.  A321NEO anyone?

MD

[TranceAvia]

This just highlights the gap left by the 757-200 in real life, as well as in AWS.  A321NEO anyone?

MD

Like!

[Zabuti]

Unless the 787 works youre screwed.  The 777 is currently 'under repair'... unless you own the plane, DONT do it.

But I've heard that 787 is not really a good profit maker in AWS right ? So... I'd better own it if I don't want to be owned in return...

So I'd better stick with A332 and configure them with "less seats" so that I burn less fuel? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but if you guys tell me this is the best thing to do, why not give a try ?

Kindest regards

Flobacca

[psw231]

  You might try the A 313, it is not as economical as the others like it, but as it is in low demand it will be very cheap to aquire.

[swiftus27]

But I've heard that 787 is not really a good profit maker in AWS right ? So... I'd better own it if I don't want to be owned in return...

So I'd better stick with A332 and configure them with "less seats" so that I burn less fuel? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but if you guys tell me this is the best thing to do, why not give a try ?

Kindest regards

Flobacca

No one has flown the 787 in 1.3 yet so the jury is still out on that one.

[castelino009]

A310-300

again Airbus commonality comes in handy here A310-200, A310-300, A300 series incl A300-600R. just perfect I think mate.


cheers
VJC

[schro]

757 for routes up to 3890nm, 757 with a fuel stop for routes up to 2x that. 

[Jona L.]

757 for routes up to 3890nm, 757 with a fuel stop for routes up to 2x that. 

Most players want nicely looking route maps, not the screwed crap you usually produce

[swiftus27]

757 for routes up to 3890nm, 757 with a fuel stop for routes up to 2x that. 

This should never ever happen...  But does make sense.  I think Sami needs to nerf the 757 until something can be done to re-balance the sim out.

[minerva]

Okay, I've not jumped on the anti-B757 bandwagon, but there is something really wrong, when on a transatlantic route (YYZ to LHR) in the Europe/NA challenge my competitor using 7 B757s can have a CI of -4 and still have 67% LF (and running a profit) while my 6 L1011s only have a 64% LF and I have a CI of 34.  I know my planes are older, but they are also faster, and being widebodies they are appropriate to the route.  They are due to be replaced soon.  I have nothing against my competitor -- he's doing what he knows will win on the route.

I think it was correct to reduce the income premium on LH flights, but I think the frequency bonus also ought to be removed for LH entirely. That would reduce the implausibility of narrow bodied aircraft always beating out more appropriate a/c just because you fly more of them -- at least until something else, like cargo, is modeled.

Edit. my CI is 37 and my LF are now aroung 50%.  My market share is about 45%, his about 41%.

[schro]

Most players want nicely looking route maps, not the screwed crap you usually produce

Actually, if you take a look at my DOTM route map right now, all of the fuel stops are pretty much along their respective great circle routes, so the only change is more red balloons. 

[Sanabas]

I have a competitor in DOTM flying a 3000+ nm route with a 757. I'm running 2 f100s with a tech stop. 

I try and make sure my tech stops are as efficient as possible, though I suspect it might not be quite as practical IRL to fly right along the spine of the himalayas with a tech stop in Kashmir.

Once the soviet union breaks apart I'll see just how screwy a route map I can make.

[Zabuti]

Many Thx for your advice guys.

Since I like risk... I'll wait to try the B787 in 1.3... so I'll wait a bit more :-)

Thanks for all your tips

Kind regards

Flobacca

[diskoerekto]

what about LR 737s? nearly all of them except the -900 can fly up to/around 3000nm (and carry between 120 and 215 pax depending on the model and configuration). -700 may be the one you are looking for (126 pax, 3400nm). 757 was phased out because 737NG was capable of doing the same thing.

[schro]

what about LR 737s? nearly all of them except the -900 can fly up to/around 3000nm (and carry between 120 and 215 pax depending on the model and configuration). -700 may be the one you are looking for (126 pax, 3400nm). 757 was phased out because 737NG was capable of doing the same thing.

The 700 and 800 are too small to fly on 3000nm+ segments and remain highly profitable. The 900/900ER could do it, but they don't quite have the range of the 752.  For example, if yo'ure based in europe, you can hit most of the eastern US nonstop in a 752, but a tech stop would be required for the 739, which would make you less competitive on every single route you flew rather than just on the 4000nm+ routes.

[JumboShrimp]

The 700 and 800 are too small to fly on 3000nm+ segments and remain highly profitable. The 900/900ER could do it, but they don't quite have the range of the 752.  For example, if yo'ure based in europe, you can hit most of the eastern US nonstop in a 752, but a tech stop would be required for the 739, which would make you less competitive on every single route you flew rather than just on the 4000nm+ routes.

I have done 900ER with a tech stop, and it is effective (within it's range).  It may even outrun the 752, due to shorter turnaround...