This aircraft type may be too small for this route

[diskoerekto]

Hi,

How realistic is this? The aforementioned route is a 4000 nm route and the aircraft is a DC-8-62 which is very suitable for that kind of route for that year. Currently in JA6, only 747s and DC10-10s do not get this warning for this kind of routes. How much penalty does this cause?

Regards,
Emrah

PS: The remainder of the warning is as follows:

Passengers do not prefer to fly long routes with small aircraft types and if you choose this aircraft type to this route you may not be able to attract all of the passenger demand.

[Sami]

The warning is actually not valid for JA#6 yet, part of the new system.

haven't tested the old age properly yet, will adjust soon

[diskoerekto]

thanks for the quick response sami

[Saul Goodman]

This one is for the DOTM 4.
I've attached a couple of pics so you can see that it is unrealistic.  I don't see how it is a problem to put an B732 with 120 pax on a 300pax route, apparently the system will penalize me for that. 3 flights daily is totally ok, I think this should be fixed.  I have also seen that on other routes. 

[NorgeFly]

This one is for the DOTM 4.
I've attached a couple of pics so you can see that it is unrealistic.  I don't see how it is a problem to put an B732 with 120 pax on a 300pax route, apparently the system will penalize me for that. 3 flights daily is totally ok, I think this should be fixed.  I have also seen that on other routes. 

You won't be penalised. The warning is visible in all worlds now, but only actually valid/effective in MT7.

[swiftus27]

please don't put me on a 732 for 2000nm....

[alexgv1]

please don't put me on a 732 for 2000nm....

Haha exactly! Read my mind.

[Zombie Slayer]

please don't put me on a 732 for 2000nm....

For the time frame (1985) would a DC8 or a 707 really be any better? Still 5 and 6 abreast respectively...

[Jona L.]

For the time frame (1985) would a DC8 or a 707 really be any better? Still 5 and 6 abreast respectively...

Still more comfortable, and more spacious, at least for the feeling.

Flying a CRJ for more than 1h30 I feel a bit squeezed in, but flying a 777 or 747 for quite some hours is just alright, because it gives you a better feeling, and you have the possibility to walk around a bit. (Admittedly driving the CAs completely nuts, but still, it works )

[Sami]

Dudes, 2000 nm is a 6 hour flight. On a 737-200... Huh.

=> works just fine there.

[alexgv1]

For the time frame (1985) would a DC8 or a 707 really be any better? Still 5 and 6 abreast respectively...

Regional jet designed for smaller, shorter routes than 727 was being used on... hence the 737 was born. Thus I wouldn't say the most appropriate metal for a >2000NM flight (even if it does have the range).

[ArcherII]

I've been 12hrs on a Metro. I'll take the 2000nm on a 732 ANYTIME

[Jona L.]

I've been 12hrs on a Metro. I'll take the 2000nm on a 732 ANYTIME

How often did you have fuel stops?!

[ArcherII]

How often did you have fuel stops?!

2 stops most of the time...

[alexgv1]

I must admit, being a person of average height and legroom not being an issue on most narrow body seat pitches, the soft product is much more important to me than the hard product on longer flights over 2 hours. That could be the difference between 732 and 707 which has space for more/bigger galleys and lavs, etc. Maybe this will come to play when cabin services are updated.

For example LHR-IST flight (~1500nm/4hrs) is much more bearable with a nice meal, IFE, free drinks on THY (ok exit row seat helps  ) compared to LTN-SAW flight of same length on EZY. Although both were acceptable really.

[schro]

The DC-8 is a 6 across plane.

The 707, 727, 737 and 757 all share the SAME cross section, so the passenger comfort level is really no different between ANY of the types in reality...

[Jona L.]

The DC-8 is a 6 across plane.

The 707, 727, 737 and 757 all share the SAME cross section, so the passenger comfort level is really no different between ANY of the types in reality...

Well said, mate, so: 757 should fall under the same "aircraft is too small"-limits as 737.

Btw. from Experience in handling them: 757 has a lower cabin interior than a 737NG!! I must pull my head in a bit if I walk in a 757, while I can stand upright in a 738 (being about 6"8 [2m] high)

[swiftus27]

The DC-8 is a 6 across plane.

The 707, 727, 737 and 757 all share the SAME cross section, so the passenger comfort level is really no different between ANY of the types in reality...

This does not include seat pitch, restroom sizes, galleys, etc...

[schro]

Well said, mate, so: 757 should fall under the same "aircraft is too small"-limits as 737.

Btw. from Experience in handling them: 757 has a lower cabin interior than a 737NG!! I must pull my head in a bit if I walk in a 757, while I can stand upright in a 738 (being about 6"8 [2m] high)

There have been changes to the standard interior over the decades, but there's nothing stoping anyone from putting a new interior on a 757 to resolve that issue. They're the same tube!

This does not include seat pitch, restroom sizes, galleys, etc...

Which is all configurable/specifiable by the airline...

[swiftus27]

Which is all configurable/specifiable by the airline...

Sure, I understand this.... but you just can NOT compare 1960s planes to 1990s...   Doing that solely based on the width/height of the tube the cabin is in isn't a fair way to assess.