B767 plane too small warning?!

[Boot]

GW1, FAJS - HEGN: 3215NM, 410pax.
Trying to create route for 767:
This aircraft type may be too small for this route.

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

WTF?!

[LemonButt]

You can still fly the route, but pax like to fly on larger aircraft on long routes as the message indicated.  If you fly a 250 seater you should be fine.

[Boot]

Well, you know, I'm not a total noobie, unlike your reply suggests.

In the meantime I found out another thread about the issue and the bug report.

Just really ridiculous warning, I think this anti-frequency-rape-thingie has gone way too far, I'm seriously thinking about bailing out after my 2 credits run out...

[Zombie Slayer]

Discussion about this in the 767 vs 332 thread in GW2 forum as well. It is a problem and needs to be fixed, yet bug report gets an immediate [-].....

[Curse]

The problem with this is, sami doesn't play the game in real gameworlds so he doesn't stumble in such problems himself and notice "oh, ok, this may work as coded but it somehow sucks". When we report it seems technically correct, so the bug reports are closed.

[Sami]

The problem with this is, sami doesn't play the game in real gameworlds

Bah bah.

I investigated the previous report on this issue, and first of all - the WARNING pops up there early to alert of the CHANCE that the plane MAY be in disadvantage (there's a bit of threshold for the warning to give allowance to demand changes etc). It does not yet mean that the plane doesn't work on that route. (the warning text says "may" two times  ..similar to the payload warnings, depends on the "actual conditions".)

And why 767 triggers this warning on some routes is that the a/c warnings are calculated on per-fleet basis and since the average capacity of 767 is low (before -400 model is available) it lowers the threshold to trigger the warning. However, in actual conditions this should not be an issue since it does not create an immediate one off huge penalty (what some seem to think and spread as their "facts" here) but is instead a gradual effect. And that too isn't in force either if you are flying that route alone.

So to make it short, you shouldn't be too worried of this.

(And further, I do not see any warnings on that route the topic opened specific on that game world at this time. May have been just on the limit there before => basically no effect at all even if it was displayed.)


edit/typos etc.

[Curse]

@ sami

I hate the 767 myself, however, there is this screenshot and I don't think it's fake. It actually fits what I heard from others and I know several people who avoid 767 just because of this issue:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,52521.msg300214.html#msg300214


The problem is: We as users don't see when the message is a warning that will not have an effect. Or a warning that has a slight effect. Or the ultra total warning that will destroy your airline. We just see a single message - every time. Without the possibility to look behind and in the code like you can.

For example: I get the same message in GW#2 for A320 in US domestic on longer routes. The consequence is I don't fly there with A320/A321 - because I don't know how hard the effect actually is at this second, because I don't want to recreate the rule each year when the effect gets stronger and because I don't want to mess with my airline at all finding this "out" over an over again.

[Sami]

A single screenshot of a market share of a single route is by no means an effective way to judge anything, given the amount of things that can be different between the airlines. Currently for example that same route's market share ratio is 57.6% vs 42.4% ... (= in that linked image, some maintenance/cancellations or other stuff driving the market share of the other airline lower than usual?)

[Curse]

I can't look behind the curtain and see the actual data. For me as a player all that is provided is this market share pie chart. The low efficiency for "too small aircraft" is something that is a big topic in discussions about (future) aircraft and it seems many people have made negative experiences with aircraft that are on the edge (767 series, A320/A321, 737-900ER).

Don't get me wrong, I like the message at all and I am and I was a big hater of the frequency spam that was, mostly, caused by 767. For me it's ok if the message stays the same.



However, maybe the message could be extended with a more accurate indication how bad this will affect the route. A simple percentage display that is halfway accurate would be nice. If I know the route is 99% effective I would fly it, if it says 60% I may step away and if it says 30% I fly somewhere else.

[Zombie Slayer]

A single screenshot of a market share of a single route is by no means an effective way to judge anything, given the amount of things that can be different between the airlines. Currently for example that same route's market share ratio is 57.6% vs 42.4% ... (= in that linked image, some maintenance/cancellations or other stuff driving the market share of the other airline lower than usual?)

I can tell you on that linked image (FCO-ORD) in the other thread, both of us have standard pricing. At that time, I was getting a too small warning on just about every 767 route with demand over 150 and stage length over ~2200nm. On that FCO-ORD route the week that screen shot was taken, the flight operated all 7 days with no canceled flights and my load factor was in the upper 30% range. Mr. HP said prices were default, mine were a couple percent below default as I had not reset prices in a year(ish). A single 333 vs a single 763 with more or less default pricing should produce nearly a 50/50 split yet it was 70/30 in favor of the "appropriate" 333.

I was wondering if things would change when the -400ER was introduced, and it appears it has. Today, 57.6% vs 42.4% is due to a cancellation. The ORD route is pulling in 70+% LF's, a nearly 100% improvement. I am no longer getting a warning on any route the 767's are flying that I can find (I looked as far as FCO-NRT at ~5400nm) and all the routes mentioned in the previous thread are now warning free. My system wide load factor is up almost 6% since I last checked, just about 36 hours ago, so whatever changed made a -huge- improvement in the performance of my 767's. What gets me wondering is the 764 is still 11 months away from certification, so why all of a sudden does the 767 fly penalty free?

Regardless, there is an inherent problem with the 767 for a significant period in the 90's up to the 764 certification. The plane was designed and built to fly routes over 5,000nm and still does to this day. It is obvious the frame is pretty heavily penalized for an extended period and, whether the system is working as intended or not, something is -wrong- and should be addressed. I discussed this in my bug report about this problem, but I will recap here:

Size alone should not determine a planes suitability to operate a flight. Widebody vs. narrowbody should play a role as well. After twin aisle aircraft are introduced in the late 60's, single aisle aircraft should start to take a penalty (with a several year grace period) on long haul missions. Any wide body should be able to operate penalty free on any route it flies up to designed range with the only limiting factor being the feasibility to operate older models in modern times due to fuel and maintenance costs. A size penalty should -never- be assigned to a widebody aircraft.

Just my 2 cents...

Don

[Mr.HP]

Currently for example that same route's market share ratio is 57.6% vs 42.4% ... (= in that linked image, some maintenance/cancellations or other stuff driving the market share of the other airline lower than usual?)

One of my A333 is under C check

I am no longer getting a warning on any route the 767's are flying that I can find (I looked as far as FCO-NRT at ~5400nm) and all the routes mentioned in the previous thread are now warning free. My system wide load factor is up almost 6% since I last checked

Good to know. Bad news for me, then 

[Gevans]

However, maybe the message could be extended with a more accurate indication how bad this will affect the route. A simple percentage display that is halfway accurate would be nice. If I know the route is 99% effective I would fly it, if it says 60% I may step away and if it says 30% I fly somewhere else.

I like this idea.
I'm running into a somewhat similar problem except with medium sized aircraft.

I'm flying the Embraerer STD 195, a 104 seater with a speed of 455 kts and for medium aircraft the too small aircraft warning activates at about 1,200 nm.
First of all.......is this a penalty that gradually gets worse the farther you go past 1,200 nm and if so what are the percentages.
Or, are all the passengers happy at 1199 nm and p***ed off at 1,200 nm........or wherever that threshold is ?

Also common sense would dictate that it's the amount of time passengers spend in a cramped, narrow body cabin vs a spacious wide body cabin that this penalty is based on.
Am I correct ?
Ok, assuming this makes sense...........lets compare a smaller, medium sized turboprop aircraft flying at 240 kts like the Fokker 27 ( a 40 seater ) vs a larger medium sized jet aircraft flying at 455 kts like the STD 195.
Passengers in the 195 would spend 47% less time flying in that medium sized cabin than the F 27 ( the 195 is 90% faster).
Shouldn't they be happy about that ?
But apparently they are not because I'm pretty sure they both have the same penalty starting at about 1,200 nm

This makes no sense whatsoever.

[LemonButt]

You guys are looking at this way too objectively.  I have received the warning many times when replacing a BAC 1-11 with an F100 despite them being essentially the same aircraft in terms of size/speed.  You do not schedule a route for an aircraft variant, but for an entire fleet group.  If you schedule a route for a 767 it could have 186 seats or it could have over 400 depending on the model.  The same goes for the BAC 1-11 which could have 50 seats or 100.  The F100 is grouped with the F70 and could have 70 seats or 100 seats.  Thus the reason the message says "may" repeatedly.  I just ignored the warning and ended up with the same load factors.

The 767-200 is essentially the same size as the 757-200 and we all know the real reason the penalty exists is to nerf the Transatlantic 757 flying max range ~4000nm.  I'm not saying the system is perfect as I've also experienced some irregularities, specifically on tech-stopped monopoly routes flying ultra long haul.  An aircraft too small warning is a warning and should not be taken as gospel, but most players seem to when they see it.

In regards to the E195 and F27, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Passengers aren't happy at 1199nm and p***ed at 1200nm--you are look at it too objectively.  Yes, the time in the cabin is important, but the time difference between an F27 and E195 is only significant when flying long distances as the E195 will only reach speeds faster than the F27 for a short period otherwise and a large chunk of flight time is spent on the ground where airspeed is insignificant.

To my knowledge, the calculation is done using seats versus distance.  I can also say from firsthand experience that for many routes a 767 truly is too small.  I flew on a 777 from Washington DC to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia last year and it was great.  I flew back on a 767.  Spending 16 hours on a 767 (with a tech stop in Rome) was probably the worst flight I've ever been on, even if it were just the 7 hour ~3000nm leg from Addis to Rome.  The example flight provided is actually Chicago to Rome--you couldn't pay me enough money to fly in a 767 on that route IRL.  But an A330?  Sign me up.  I flew an A330 for 4400nm from Rome to Dublin to JFK and I felt like a million bucks when I got off the plane.

[Gevans]

Thanks LemonButt.

Small differences in speed alone won't make much impact on total flight time but the kind of difference in speed I'm talking about make a huge impact on total flight time.

I'm also hoping Sami will help us out with some answers to these questions.

[Gevans]

I'm flying the Embraerer STD 195, a 104 seater with a speed of 455 kts and for medium aircraft the too small aircraft warning activates at about 1,200 nm.
First of all.......is this a penalty that gradually gets worse the farther you go past 1,200 nm and if so what are the percentages.
Or, are all the passengers happy at 1199 nm and p***ed off at 1,200 nm........or wherever that threshold is ?

Also common sense would dictate that it's the amount of time passengers spend in a cramped, narrow body cabin vs a spacious wide body cabin that this penalty is based on.
Am I correct ?
Ok, assuming this makes sense...........lets compare a smaller, medium sized turboprop aircraft flying at 240 kts like the Fokker 27 ( a 40 seater ) vs a larger medium sized jet aircraft flying at 455 kts like the STD 195.
Passengers in the 195 would spend 47% less time flying in that medium sized cabin than the F 27 ( the 195 is 90% faster).
They should be happy about that.
But apparently they are not because I'm pretty sure they both have the same penalty starting at about 1,200 nm

Were still hoping to get some kind of answer on this........at least on a rough percentage of penalty once you go past the threshold.

[Sanabas]

Were still hoping to get some kind of answer on this........at least on a rough percentage of penalty once you go past the threshold.

The threshold isn't a fixed number, it depends not just on distance, but also on size of route and what year it is. E195 I assume is in Euro challenge or GW3. Go to route creation there with a 40 seat f27, and see when the too small warning appears. It'll be at a much shorter range than it is in jet age. An E195 may be flagged for a 300 pax, 1200 NM route, but it might show as fine on a 50 pax, 1400 NM route. So nobody can give you a percentage, the only way to see exactly how badly you're affected is to fly the route & see what happens.

[Curse]

The threshold isn't a fixed number, it depends not just on distance, but also on size of route and what year it is. E195 I assume is in Euro challenge or GW3. Go to route creation there with a 40 seat f27, and see when the too small warning appears. It'll be at a much shorter range than it is in jet age. An E195 may be flagged for a 300 pax, 1200 NM route, but it might show as fine on a 50 pax, 1400 NM route. So nobody can give you a percentage, the only way to see exactly how badly you're affected is to fly the route & see what happens.

And that's what sucks.

When creating a route a percentage should be shown how badly the route is affected. That's what I explained and wanted as a new feature some posts above - you might have read that over.

[LemonButt]

And that's what sucks.

When creating a route a percentage should be shown how badly the route is affected. That's what I explained and wanted as a new feature some posts above - you might have read that over.

Because that's what happens IRL?  There are so many variables that go into calculating LF that even if a value was thrown out, it wouldn't mean anything because of all the other variables: departure time, CI, RI, frequency, pricing, seating config, and I'm sure I'm missing a few...

[Curse]

In Real Life you can estimate the influence of a specific value - either by common sense or by asking the PAX.


In AWS for example the ticket prices has very low influence on LF (own experience), while frequency has a huge influence.


I'm not a transportation expert, but I would bet in real life it's vice versa. My private opinion is I would always prefer flying for less money (and the same seating etc.) to a reasonable departure time than paying more but can choose between two times.

Same goes for premium seats. PAX in AWS do not care about other seats than Standard and maybe HD to a point where it actually matters. I once had the fun moment to configurate an aircraft with premium seats to increase the maximum range and PAX still didn't prefer it over my competitor (same CI, RI etc.).




So, yes, as one of the top players here around I can say a percentual display of negative impact of too small warning would actually help me to decide if I want to fly a route or not. Even more transparency and more value to price and seating and less to frequency would, of course, be a better solution at all...

[LemonButt]

In Real Life you can estimate the influence of a specific value - either by common sense or by asking the PAX.

Yes...they can do surveys etc, but common sense should prevail that you don't want to be stuck on a CRJ for 2000nm etc.

In AWS for example the ticket prices has very low influence on LF (own experience), while frequency has a huge influence.

I beg to differ.  I have experienced wild swings in LF due to manipulating my pricing.  Once you get to 130% and higher things seem to fall off sharply.  Likewise on the downside.  I have flights with LF over 85% that leave at 2am thanks to pricing (they are "profitable" at the gross profit level).

I'm not a transportation expert, but I would bet in real life it's vice versa. My private opinion is I would always prefer flying for less money (and the same seating etc.) to a reasonable departure time than paying more but can choose between two times.

You are not a business traveler where timing (frequency) is everything.  An hour or two could be the difference between being stuck in a hotel from the night and spending another day away from your family.  Paying extra for a flight with a 2 hour layover instead of 5 hours is nothing for businesses because that 3 hours of downtime often costs them far more than the difference in the ticket price.  It is all based on opportunity cost.  City-based demand will take into account leisure and business travel to make things more dynamic, but to say all pax care about across the board is price is a gross over-generalization.  If that were the case, first and business class wouldn't exist.

Same goes for premium seats. PAX in AWS do not care about other seats than Standard and maybe HD to a point where it actually matters. I once had the fun moment to configurate an aircraft with premium seats to increase the maximum range and PAX still didn't prefer it over my competitor (same CI, RI etc.).

My experience is they don't care much about the upside, but they do the downside.  That means if you are flying long haul with high density seating then they care.  If you are flying 100nm routes with premium seating, they don't.

So, yes, as one of the top players here around I can say a percentual display of negative impact of too small warning would actually help me to decide if I want to fly a route or not. Even more transparency and more value to price and seating and less to frequency would, of course, be a better solution at all...

The point is that even if there were a percentual display, it would be wrong.  The only thing worse than no information is bad information.  If it displayed you'd get a 25% reduction in load factors due to a plane being too small, but there is no competition then the penalty is 0%.  If a competitor enters the route with the same exact equipment, the penalty would still be 0%.  If a competitor enters the route with a too small plane that is bigger than yours, the penalty is somewhere between 0% and 25%.  If you schedule a 767 it is going to spit out values for worst case scenario 767-200 and the value would be different if you used a 767-400.

To my knowledge, there is (still) a small bonus involved for small planes because pax prefer small aircraft (less loading/unloading time).  No one wants to sit around for 2 hours waiting for an A380 to load/unload if they can hop on a Dash-8 and arrive before at their destination before the A380 ever takes off.

So in the end, all you can really do is rely on common sense because any sort of values that could be displayed would be wrong.