My planes don't need to fly on Friday

[swiftus27]

I will dare say that.  Here is why.  When I ran my experiments, I ran standard seating and premium seating.  I ran them on 4000nm up to 7000nm routes.  I changed pricing around.  In the end, 80% of the planes were losing money weekly.   I hade more than 6 777s with 70% or higher lf but losing over 300,000 to 800,000 per week.

I also dare say it because you didn't release all of your data.  You can not just publish results from two examples and declare it a success.  

In every experiment there will always be outliers.  Your examples were just those.

Got about 10 more minutes in the millenium line now.

[Peanutoil]

I will dare say that.  Here is why.  When I ran my experiments, I ran standard seating and premium seating.  I ran them on 4000nm up to 7000nm routes.  I changed pricing around.  In the end, 80% of the planes were losing money weekly.   I hade more than 6 777s with 70% or higher lf but losing over 300,000 to 800,000 per week.

I also dare say it because you didn't release all of your data.  You can not just publish results from two examples and declare it a success.  

In every experiment there will always be outliers.  Your examples were just those.

Got about 10 more minutes in the millenium line now.

You seemed know all the truth in AWS! It will be a pity for SCIENCE for you claiming Jona's examples were outliers without looking into his data.
I did not operate B777 in this world, I have nothing to tell indeed. My belief is 777-300 and 777-300ER are those excellent planes among all available in AWS. They are as great as A333, A346s even taking the leasing cost into account.

[swiftus27]

I did look at the data.  He purposely held back some information.  And yes, I do understand why he wouldn't want to divulge any secrets.    Personally I tested the 777 in all its forms across many flight ranges and found them to be underperforming. 

[Jona L.]

I did look at the data.  He purposely held back some information.  And yes, I do understand why he wouldn't want to divulge any secrets.    Personally I tested the 777 in all its forms across many flight ranges and found them to be underperforming.  

Well, if you look at my airline, you can see very well, that I only operate A33X/34X and B77X, despite a very recently started group of EMB 17X/19X aircraft, and have very good financial results. Thus these aircraft cannot be that bad... So either something was different about your airline, or you just didn't do it right. (as I said in the other topic, a thing of knowing how to play or not)

As Peanutoil is in my alliance I did share some more info with him about my aircraft so he can confirm that my aircraft produce decent results. And I am not eager to give you more data than I gave out publicly because I know I do not have to justify myself infront of you.

I will dare say that.  Here is why.  When I ran my experiments, I ran standard seating and premium seating.  I ran them on 4000nm up to 7000nm routes.  I changed pricing around.  In the end, 80% of the planes were losing money weekly.   I hade more than 6 777s with 70% or higher lf but losing over 300,000 to 800,000 per week.

I also dare say it because you didn't release all of your data.  You can not just publish results from two examples and declare it a success.  

In every experiment there will always be outliers.  Your examples were just those.

My B777 run in all standard configs (as you could see from the other topic) and fly routes between 3000NM (e.g. LHR-JFK) and 6600NM (LHR-HNL) and they almost all make great profits (some only make few but a number around the 0 makes losses)

You say your problem yourself: you had 6 of them, which is either seriously stupid or just completely random. You can't do a 7-day-rotation which is the ONLY way of operating profitable over 3500NM and thus you cannot fly all day giving you a serious impact in LFs. Also your fleet is very small which drives commonality cost up MASSIVELY when I got rid of my 2x B733 in the beginning of MT#5 I halved my commonality cost from 22.5M/mth to just 11.5M/mth.
So what killed you was a bad scheduling method and a crappy fleet management in regard to fleet types, and before you say you wanted to check the new commonality system (or the tweaks made), I don't believe you. Same as I didn't believe DanDantes when he quit DotM#1 because of "real life commitments" while he was just too lazy to reschedule 200 30yr old DC-9.

Anyhow, your liability shall not be out topic, neither shall be DanDantes. I just repeat that somehow my aircraft make profit, while yours don't (or didn't). So either of us used the wrong strategies and I am surely not the one...
And if with 70% LFs you lost money, you just failed seriously, because some of my aircraft with 55% make more than 500k/week!

cheers,
Jona L.

[swiftus27]

you misread one thing I was saying, I had 6 of them that had 70% LFs or greater that lost more than 300k...  That wasn't my whole fleet of them.... In my fleet I had almost 30 before I pulled the plug...     They were all flying almost non stop (except the 2:45 break they needed).  Some flew ULH, some flew transatlantic.     Ill give you a great example.  I was trying to fly EWR to Narita with zero competition and still couldn't make profits with a 772 or 773... one ULH plane at 80% LF was losing 600k per week. 

You are in the minority making profits that way.  There are far more players losing their butt on the plane. 

I do know how to schedule planes.  I wasn't checking the commonality system.  My only goal in MT5 was to fly LH only.  I only ran LH using 777 and 757 (two types don't get penalized much).  I had about 60-65 planes when I bankrupted out (the other player and I killed ourselves). 

I know someone said it in another thread... airports like LHR produce much more C & Y which will skew the numbers a bit. 

No one is asking you to justify a thing.  I am just saying that I can not compare your results with the rest of my data using the limited output given.  I am always testing the sim in most major games except when I am an alliance officer. 

One other item you may not be considering is that even though a plane shows a gross profit, they are not helping your bottom line at all.  Each of those massive planes need to make a ton before they cover their fixed costs. 

More food for thought:  There are only 20 active 777s in Europe/NA and only 6 on order.   There are 291 767s and 542 757s.   I think that speaks for itself. 

I am sure there are more people who were/are in the same situation but they don't always speak up.

[Jona L.]

you misread one thing I was saying, I had 6 of them that had 70% LFs or greater that lost more than 300k...  That wasn't my whole fleet of them.... In my fleet I had almost 30 before I pulled the plug...     They were all flying almost non stop (except the 2:45 break they needed).  Some flew ULH, some flew transatlantic.     Ill give you a great example.  I was trying to fly EWR to Narita with zero competition and still couldn't make profits with a 772 or 773... one ULH plane at 80% LF was losing 600k per week. 

You are in the minority making profits that way.  There are far more players losing their butt on the plane. 

I do know how to schedule planes.  I wasn't checking the commonality system.  My only goal in MT5 was to fly LH only.  I only ran LH using 777 and 757 (two types don't get penalized much).  I had about 60-65 planes when I bankrupted out (the other player and I killed ourselves). 

I know someone said it in another thread... airports like LHR produce much more C & Y which will skew the numbers a bit. 

No one is asking you to justify a thing.  I am just saying that I can not compare your results with the rest of my data using the limited output given.  I am always testing the sim in most major games except when I am an alliance officer. 

One other item you may not be considering is that even though a plane shows a gross profit, they are not helping your bottom line at all.  Each of those massive planes need to make a ton before they cover their fixed costs. 

More food for thought:  There are only 20 active 777s in Europe/NA and only 6 on order.   There are 291 767s and 542 757s.   I think that speaks for itself. 

I am sure there are more people who were/are in the same situation but they don't always speak up.

Sorry for my mistake about the 6 aircraft. Well, I never disagreed about the ultra-longhaul (>6000NM) my point was your transatlantic comment ("heavies are broke for transatlantic flying" or so) Over 6000NM it is hard and over 8000NM nearly impossible to make cash. I never said anything else. The trick for me to get them all running (and throwing out 30-35M/week) is the decent mix between 2 routes >5000NM (such as LHR/FRA to Asia or SA) and 3x 3-4000NM (LHR/FRA to NA/middle east) and usually 1 flight around 400-700NM to fill the remaining gap.

I do also agree that A333 is better than B772, also here: I never said anything different. But with what I just said about the "trick" is a way how both aircraft types run well. And this is also what I meant about knowing how to schedule a plane. I know you know how to do 7-day-schedules, and I know as well that you know how to fly on a tight schedule, the point is just the ideal mix of routes of different distances.

I know that LHR has more C and F demands but (as I said in the other topic):

*IIRC C and F pricing on LongHaul has been cut by about 30% which is completely unfair in relation to real world. In the end this is a simulation and not a game. As someone (can't remember who, sorry) said: the point of a simulation is not to recreate the result but recreate the realistic ways of gaining the goal, which may be a different from reality, as that is highly influenced by other characteristics [such as free fuel for the USSR Aeroflot and nowadays for Emirates] So if regional airlines FAIL in AWS this is not a result of wrong reproduction of reality but more of different outer factors. Many (if not most) regional carriers are run by big airlines or work under a contract for them to provide regional service for bigger airlines and would operate at a loss without such contracts. (as an example Augsburg Airways or Contact Air are contract airlines for Lufthansa and not even de facto subsidiaries.)
So in the end I am of the opinion that we should have kept it the way it was or at least do not have such big tweaks.

Europe/NA challenge has just recently started, and most players don't yet have enough money for these planes, or don't want to start a new fleet group. 767 and 757 are way more used in AWS than IRL I think also due to the (still about 1000% too high IMO) frequency bonus. If route shares were only calculated by the available seats people would start to think more slot(-cost) efiicient and fly an A321 instead of 3 DHC8 or a B773 instead of 3 B757...

I chose for the startup on regional routes in that game with an option to expand into longhaul whenever I want to.

cheers,
Jona L.