B767 plane too small warning?!

[Gevans]

Sami needs to weigh in on this.......after all, he's knows what's true and what isn't.

But I bet the way the system is set up now it's not very realistic.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit that a much smaller and over 100 knt  slower aircraft like a Dash 8 turboprop has the same approx. 1,200 nm threshold as the larger and much faster Embraer 195.......and both in the same game world.

Anyways........what I thought should be a pretty basic question still hasn't been answered.

Does this distance & aircraft size penalty gradually increase as the distance becomes longer.......like perhaps a 10% penalty for an extra 20% in distance for instance.
Or whatever it is.

Lol......this shouldn't be this hard and Sami is the only one who knows because he's the one who set it up.
The rest of us are just guessing.

Even if we were told this is set up based on the real world and common sense.......... that would give us something to go on.
But, if the Dash 8 and the Embraer 195 are treated the same just because there both classified as medium aircraft then that means this is not the case. 

[Sanabas]

Does this distance & aircraft size penalty gradually increase as the distance becomes longer.......like perhaps a 10% penalty for an extra 20% in distance for instance.
Or whatever it is.

Yes.

But, if the Dash 8 and the Embraer 195 are treated the same just because there both classified as medium aircraft then that means this is not the case.

They're not the same just because they're both medium. IF they are very similar, that is because they have a very similar average cabin size for the two fleets.

[Zombie Slayer]

At the end of the day, the issue at hand boils down to narrow body vs widebody aircraft. Under no circumstances should a modern, wide body aircraft that is still in production take any penalty at all for being "too small" even if it is a 767-200. It is still 7 abreast, twin aisle yet it is being treated like a 757....

[Gevans]

Yes.

They're not the same just because they're both medium. IF they are very similar, that is because they have a very similar average cabin size for the two fleets.

Sanabas.......are you saying that I guessed it right, that it's about a 10% penalty for every additional 20% distance you go past the threshold ?

Or was that just a generic, benign "Yes" meaning that .....yes there is an increasing penalty of some kind although you have no idea how much that is.

[Sanabas]

Sanabas.......are you saying that I guessed it right, that it's about a 10% penalty for every additional 20% distance you go past the threshold ?

No.

Or was that just a generic, benign "Yes" meaning that .....yes there is an increasing penalty of some kind although you have no idea how much that is.

This. If you're just over the threshold to trigger a warning, there won't be a huge effect. If you're flying double the length on a huge route, you'll hardly get a passenger. It's not an on/off switch.

[Sami]

Someone needed some comment to this still? (Please repeat the question if still valid....?)

[Gevans]

Yes Sami.

We are all wondering how quickly the penalty increases when you get the warning that the aircraft your about to use may be too small for the route you want to use it on.

I speculated that it could be about a 10% penalty for every 20% you go past the warning threshold.
Sanabas says no, but it's also not like an on/off switch that's at 0% or 100%........which I knew anyways
But getting some kind of an idea how it work's would be helpful.
To say it's a variable somewhere between 0% and 100% over an unknown distance is not helping at all.

[LemonButt]

So because I don't have any Q-400's I contacted a couple airlines in my game world that fly them and asked them.

You don't have to operate the aircraft to create a route with it--you could easily test this just by selecting Dash-8 from the fleet type dropdown when creating a route.

[LemonButt]

Actually, I just tried creating the route that was used as an example ORD-FCO (I am based at ORD in GW2 where the route is operating, so it is 100% accurate).  When I select 767 there is no warning that the aircraft is too small for the 4200nm route.  Therefore, there must be no penalty being imposed for "aircraft too small" and the marketshare discrepancy is due to other factors.

I also tried ORD-LAS which is 1300nm and get no warning for the E195 fleet group.

However, if you are only using the fleet groups listed at the top of the list that you operate, it is taking into consideration the specs of the least capable aircraft that you have in that fleet group.  So if you have a 767-200 and plan on using the 767-400, you will get the warning for the -200.  If you have E170 and plan on using an E195, you will get the E170 warning.  See this: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,51894.0.html

[Gevans]

I just tried that myself LemonButt and I got totally different results than what this other guy running Q-400's told me.

Yes......the Q-400 defiantly gets the warning sooner than the Embraer 195.

Thanks again LemonButt

[LemonButt]

I just tried that myself LemonButt and I got totally different results than what this other guy running Q-400's told me.

I'm 99% certain that it is also based on passenger demand on the route.  If the route you're testing has 1000 pax/day demand the one someone else is trying has 100 pax/day, it will be different.

[Zombie Slayer]

Actually, I just tried creating the route that was used as an example ORD-FCO (I am based at ORD in GW2 where the route is operating, so it is 100% accurate).  When I select 767 there is no warning that the aircraft is too small for the 4200nm route.  Therefore, there must be no penalty being imposed for "aircraft too small" and the marketshare discrepancy is due to other factors.

I also tried ORD-LAS which is 1300nm and get no warning for the E195 fleet group.

However, if you are only using the fleet groups listed at the top of the list that you operate, it is taking into consideration the specs of the least capable aircraft that you have in that fleet group.  So if you have a 767-200 and plan on using the 767-400, you will get the warning for the -200.  If you have E170 and plan on using an E195, you will get the E170 warning.  See this: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,51894.0.html

The warning disappeared sometime between Jan1 01 and Feb 22 01. During that time frame, the 764 passed the 1 year to in service mark, so I assume the larger 764 took the average size of the 767 line over some make believe seat count so passengers all of a sudden don't think it is too small.

Again, the *problem* is the 767 being treated as a narrow body pre 764 launch. That is waht needs to be fixed,

[Curse]

The huge fleet groups are a general problem. It would be good to make something like connected fleetgroups so for example 330/340 share commonality costs but are treated differently. Same for the 767-200 and 767-200ER/767-300(ER), while the 767-400ER a third group of this fleetgroup would be.

[Peanutoil]

The huge fleet groups are a general problem. It would be good to make something like connected fleetgroups so for example 330/340 share commonality costs but are treated differently. Same for the 767-200 and 767-200ER/767-300(ER), while the 767-400ER a third group of this fleetgroup would be.

But is there anyone think that, passenger will care the length of fuselage? I think even Yao won't care.
So why do we care treating 767-200/300 and 400s in a different way. Indeed it is nonsense.

[Curse]

It's the system sami uses.

[Peanutoil]

It's the system sami uses.

I admit Sami is taller than Yao in this game!