What's the purpose of having large aircrafts?

[stealy]

I have been playing for a little over a month now and for the most part, I like this game. But lately, I am starting to realize that AWS really doesn't like very large aircrafts. It seems like 747/777/380 or any other aircrafts with more than 300 seats have no purpose in this game. Everybody (and now including me) just frequency spams with 767-200ER or 300ER for long-haul and killing the aircrafts that actually make sense in real life, like the A380, B747, and B777. The same thing for short haul. A320/321 and B737 are useless against CRJs/ERJs/ and ATRs.

Is there something that can be done to make the very large aircrafts at least relevant when competing against smaller aircrafts?

In real life, most people pick the flight based on the price/ time and the airline that offers the best on-board services and comfort. Airline's reputation is also a big factor. Some people also look at the type of planes being flown. In modern days long-haul, brand-new A380/747/777/350/787 are probably more desirable than a 25 years old 767-200ER. In short-haul, A320/737 are usually more comfortable and desirable than an ATR 72. But in AWS's world, passengers always seem to prefer smaller aircrafts no matter what, making very large aircrafts useless under any sort of competition. Currently, price and time do influence LF as well as frequency, but not to the extent smaller aircrafts do. On-board services (IFE, meals, wifi, welcome drinks...) is not a factor, comfort (type of seats...) makes small difference, and I am not sure how much does an airline's reputation (company image) affect LF. It probably does make some differences, but I doubt a CI of 90 vs 100 would be the deciding factor in LF.

Turbo props with 50 seats should have no business in the year of 2020 flying routes with super high (1000+) demand that are normally served by A320/B737 family of aircrafts. 25 years old B767-200ER should have no business flying 6000+ NM long-haul routes and win against brand new A350-900.

When will bigger aircrafts be relevant? 

[wapp11]

Join a regular game world, things are much different.

[Cardinal]

Join a regular game world, things are much different.

Not really.  The 747 and A380 are pretty much useless unless you have a monopoly on the route. Any competition and you'll be flying with a barely-breakeven load factor.

[Zobelle]

Not really.  The 747 and A380 are pretty much useless unless you have a monopoly on the route. Any competition and you'll be flying with a barely-breakeven load factor.

This, even DC10/MD11 are somewhat marginal in the time they're relevant. Cargo has helped keep them profitable but considering the ticket prices have been nerfed to "make up the difference" it becomes a zero sum in effect.

[Talentz]

I wish I could win with 25yr old 762ERs on VLH routes... I thought I knew 


Talentz

[NovemberCharlie]

Not really.  The 747 and A380 are pretty much useless unless you have a monopoly on the route. Any competition and you'll be flying with a barely-breakeven load factor.

But in a (real) modern scenario this is also true. (748 barely flies and the A380 wouldn't have nearly been as much of a success without Emirates)

What also nerfs these types is that they fulfill a very specific role and offer no flexibility.
This is also what makes the A330/A340 so incredibly good in this game. You have your small widebody (A332), a workhorse (A333), planes for when the first two can't make the distance (A342/A343), a ultralonghaul jet for those who dare (A345) and a high capacity jet (A346). What makes it even more attractive is the future replacement opportunity with the A330NEO.

Since (if your trying to maximize profits) you are stuck to three fleet types a flexible family of aircraft is a must.
Depending on what your base is you can change your priorities.

I currently fly out of CAI, which has a lot of demand below 3000nm which is perfect for a "large category aircraft", hence I have two large types (A320 series and MD90, with CSeries replacing and expanding for the latter).
For long haul there is a lot of routes with 200-250 demand per day. So I want at least one aircraft in my line up that can fly those routes efficiently.
Since the 747/777/A350/A380 do not provide such an aircraft they are simply eliminated from my list.

It has nothing to do with frequency or price (A380 is actually one of the cheapest LH ac right now), it has to do with the bigger picture...

On the other hand, if I were based out of JNB for example, where you make your money on routes over 3000nm, I would more than likely go for two VLA types and one medium or small type.

Long story short it isn't as simple as it seems on the surface and it is just one of many considerations that (I think) makes this game so interesting.

Cheers,

NC

[[ATA] Sunbao]

This, even DC10/MD11 are somewhat marginal in the time they're relevant. Cargo has helped keep them profitable but considering the ticket prices have been nerfed to "make up the difference" it becomes a zero sum in effect.

Somewhat marginal ? half empty dc10 print cash ?

[Zobelle]

Somewhat marginal ? half empty dc10 print cash ?

Compared to DC8 and 707 yes they do, introduce the 767 into the shark pool and it's over Johnny.

[stealy]

748 barely flies and the A380 wouldn't have nearly been as much of a success without Emirates
...
What also nerfs these types is that they fulfill a very specific role and offer no flexibility.
...
It has nothing to do with frequency or price (A380 is actually one of the cheapest LH ac right now), it has to do with the bigger picture...
...
Long story short it isn't as simple as it seems on the surface and it is just one of many considerations that (I think) makes this game so interesting.

Cheers,

NC

Fair points. But in real world, the 747 was a huge success. It's no longer as relevant as it used to be and many airlines have retired their 747, but it doesn't change the fact that the 747 was massively popular among airlines worldwide at one point. However, I don't think the 747 has ever been relevant in AWS based on what I read on the forums and in the short time I have played this game. It isn't just bad because it's thirsty for fuel (that, too), but because it's a very large plane with almost double the seats as other long-haul capable planes like the A332 you mentioned.

I understand what you are saying about flying the right plane in the right airport, but what if I am based in a large international airport like JFK or LHR? I have enough demand to fly an A380, B747, or B777 long haul, but by doing so, I am making myself a target for competitors to frequency spam me with smaller long-haul planes like the A332 you mentioned. Of course, I can do the same thing and switch over to smaller long-haul planes like the A332, but that's the exact issue I was trying to raise. Very very large aircrafts are useless in AWS under any sort of competitions. The smaller ones always win. It doesn't matter if your tickets are 20% cheaper or you offer premium economy seats instead of economy. 

Forget 747 and A380, let's talk about B777-300ER. This is probably the most popular long-haul plane in real life right now, but it's useless in AWS when competitors put a A332 or B762 on the route as you will be automatically half empty. It's not as bad for 787 or A350, but they still suffer against A332 and B762ER.

^ true story   

[Tha_Ape]

Got the feeling Shrimp's Parish got one more believer
(real answer coming later)

[Zobelle]

Fair points. But in real world, the 747 was a huge success. It's no longer as relevant as it used to be and many airlines have retired their 747, but it doesn't change the fact that the 747 was massively popular among airlines worldwide at one point. However, I don't think the 747 has ever been relevant in AWS based on what I read on the forums and in the short time I have played this game. It isn't just bad because it's thirsty for fuel (that, too), but because it's a very large plane with almost double the seats as other long-haul capable planes like the A332 you mentioned.

I understand what you are saying about flying the right plane in the right airport, but what if I am based in a large international airport like JFK or LHR? I have enough demand to fly an A380, B747, or B777 long haul, but by doing so, I am making myself a target for competitors to frequency spam me with smaller long-haul planes like the A332 you mentioned. Of course, I can do the same thing and switch over to smaller long-haul planes like the A332, but that's the exact issue I was trying to raise. Very very large aircrafts are useless in AWS under any sort of competitions. The smaller ones always win. It doesn't matter if your tickets are 20% cheaper or you offer premium economy seats instead of economy. 

Forget 747 and A380, let's talk about B777-300ER. This is probably the most popular long-haul plane in real life right now, but it's useless in AWS when competitors put a A332 or B762 on the route as you will be automatically half empty. It's not as bad for 787 or A350, but they still suffer against A332 and B762ER.

^ true story   

Solution to make everything less than 747/777/A380/DC10 a large and thus "too small" 

[stealy]

Got the feeling Shrimp's Parish got one more believer
(real answer coming later)

I do hope I am wrong and that the size of the plane doesn't affect LF under competitions, but it seems pretty accurate in my (limited) experience.

Please share your answer. I really do hope I am wrong and that there's a way to make very large planes work. 

[JumboShrimp]

I wish I could win with 25yr old 762ERs on VLH routes... I thought I knew 


Talentz

You just "graduate" to 788 for similar effect.  (Except the lack of cargo)

[gazzz0x2z]

Problem with very large is real. Sacrificing one fleet group for a niche aircraft likt the 380, 747 or concorde is problematic. They have their uses, but not broad enough to justifiy sacrifying a flet group.

For large, errrrm, no. I destroyed nearly all opposition in many games flying 739/MAX9, in various setups(HQ in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and small European bases, HQ in Detroit, base in JFK, base in CDG, etc.....). I even killed a Q400-only company in ORY by spamming it with 738s(price standard + 10%, not even a price war). I'm playing now with A321s in Algiers, and they are nearly the only solution there to the lack of slots(MAX9 might also do the job, maybe. Nothing else is big enough).

I also use medium aircraft in plenty of settings, they are sometimes very useful(Twice I used more than 600 A148s). But if you think they can win in a big airport against bigger single-aisle aircraft, you really need more real game experience in real harsh game worlds. Frequency is powerful in this game, but it's not all that counts. By far.

Only survivors to my attacks/HQs in 5 GW3s were a guy with a similar strategy to mine in Detroit(who succeeded very well, surprise, surprise), and a guy with CRJ100s & ERJ145s in Warsaw(we both struggled there, I should never have landed there). All others((and they were many) collapsed. One of the reasons is the "too small" penalty. In ORY, I could also land 738 flights to destinations further than my opponent could, and therefore make money outside the warzone. He could not, and was limited to the capacity of his planes. Even if his cost per flight was inferior, and I didn't have more pax per flight, I was profitable in my ORY base while he was losing money on his ORY HQ.

[NovemberCharlie]

Fair points. But in real world, the 747 was a huge success. It's no longer as relevant as it used to be and many airlines have retired their 747, but it doesn't change the fact that the 747 was massively popular among airlines worldwide at one point. However, I don't think the 747 has ever been relevant in AWS based on what I read on the forums and in the short time I have played this game. It isn't just bad because it's thirsty for fuel (that, too), but because it's a very large plane with almost double the seats as other long-haul capable planes like the A332 you mentioned.

One difference between the game and the real world is anticipation. When I start a game I know what aircraft will be available when, what their specs will be and what use they are to me. Though I don't usually play the early games, I'd imagine going for the DC8/707 as they are quite good, especially given the low demand of the early ages. However I'd plan my replacement around the A300/B767/DC10/L1011 as these are the more flexible types. B767 and DC10(/MD11) have the advantage that they can be used profitably until very late in the game. (767 can for sure be kept until the end. No experience with the MD11 though...). This makes life so much easier. Less replacement cycles (or within the same aircraft fleet), more flexible aircraft, etc.

On another note the 747 was more popular due to it's range than it's size. In real life this could be compensated by flying a destination one or two times a week, but in the game we are basically forced to fly daily... But that's a different discussion 

Forget 747 and A380, let's talk about B777-300ER. This is probably the most popular long-haul plane in real life right now, but it's useless in AWS when competitors put a A332 or B762 on the route as you will be automatically half empty. It's not as bad for 787 or A350, but they still suffer against A332 and B762ER.

Besides in the long run with higher fuel prices, running a 762 on a route above 5000-6000nm against a 77W will cost you more than your competitor.
Perhaps on a airplane basis your profits might seem higher, but if I were to run a single 77W it will save me in personnel costs, maintenance, insurance, lease/depreciation and fuel:
- You need crew for an additional flight. So in stead of 2 cockpit you need 4 to cover the same demand. Cabin evens out for a bit, but more aircraft means more reserves required and thus more CC in total
- You have to pay maintenance for two aircraft. Two aircraft will be out of rotation each year (c check), requiring again more mx personnel and the associated lost revenue.
- Two aircraft need to be insured (which is expensive for leased aircraft, admittedly not so much for owned ac)
- Using GW3 as an example. A 767 is more than half the price of a 77W, so capex or lease will be higher as a total, while not adding significant revenue (especially on longer flights)
- Two 762s together use 8760kg/hr. This opposed 7320kg/hr for a 77W. That is quite a difference and needs to be compensated with a significant higher revenue....

Also I personally have never had the feeling that the 787 lost out the slightest bit. It is extremely versatile. 783 for large trunk routes 2500-3000nm, 788 as a 200-300 seater, 789 for its range and the 78J is an absolute profit beast. But that might just be my experience...

To conclude: I think 767s getting used on long routes as double daily frequency boosters is annoying as hell and not realistic. However the problem is not due to the size of larger aircraft. It is due to other problems within the game dynamic. These "problems" have been installed to keep the game fun.
- Without the three type "limit" I could probably expand insanely with A320/B737CL/B737NG/B757 all being delivered at the same time.
- You can not put a 747 on a 200 pax per day route for say three or four days and catch the passengers from another day (this should be changed IMHO)
- We know what is coming, we plan and anticipate and there are better ways to expand than via a 747, as used to be the case IRL

[JumboShrimp]

Besides in the long run with higher fuel prices, running a 762 on a route above 5000-6000nm against a 77W will cost you more than your competitor.
Perhaps on a airplane basis your profits might seem higher, but if I were to run a single 77W it will save me in personnel costs, maintenance, insurance, lease/depreciation and fuel:

If the 762 is deployed properly, the 777 will be limited to the same number passengers as 762.  Meaning up to 200 full seats, 150-250 empty seats.

Just recalculate everything on bases of both 762 and 777 flying the same 200 passengers, and see the result of your calculation.

- You need crew for an additional flight. So in stead of 2 cockpit you need 4 to cover the same demand. Cabin evens out for a bit, but more aircraft means more reserves required and thus more CC in total

But you have 2x revenue with 2x 762.
If you have 2x 762, they will be allocated approx. 2x the number of passengers of 777 on an oversupplied route.
(not always exactly 2x, but a lot closer 33%/33%/33% split than 25%/25%/50%)

- You have to pay maintenance for two aircraft. Two aircraft will be out of rotation each year (c check), requiring again more mx personnel and the associated lost revenue.
- Two aircraft need to be insured (which is expensive for leased aircraft, admittedly not so much for owned ac)
- Using GW3 as an example. A 767 is more than half the price of a 77W, so capex or lease will be higher as a total, while not adding significant revenue (especially on longer flights)
- Two 762s together use 8760kg/hr. This opposed 7320kg/hr for a 77W. That is quite a difference and needs to be compensated with a significant higher revenue....

Edit: if 2x762 carry 2x passengers as 1x 777, than fuel usage of 777 is nearly 2x higher than 767 per passenger.  Again, we are looking at only 200 full 77W seats and 200 empty seats, while all of 762 seats would be full.

To conclude: I think 767s getting used on long routes as double daily frequency boosters is annoying as hell and not realistic. However the problem is not due to the size of larger aircraft. It is due to other problems within the game dynamic. These "problems" have been installed to keep the game fun.

It all stems from the system allocating per flight rather than on any other bases.

When you put a Twin Otter on a route, the system starts out wanting to allocate it equal number of pax as Boeing 77W.

[NovemberCharlie]

If the 762 is deployed properly, the 777 will be limited to the same number passengers as 762.  Meaning up to 200 full seats, 150-250 empty seats.

Maybe I've been lucky but from 5000nm or so I don't think this is as noticeable as below said distance. Even less so at 6000+ routes....
And that is something that quickly would tip the balance.

But if they are both to carry 200 pax, then yes you are correct ofcourse

[Tha_Ape]

I tend to agree with NC and Gazzz. Both their post are really balanced and don't try to put the guilt on the smallest available no matter what.
Sure, JS is somewhat right, but only somewhat (in my opinion).

Here are a few other things / comments on previous answers:

1°) Demand supply aspect
the demand has been strongly increased compared to RL so that a GW can comfortably host around 250-300 airlines, out of which around 100 are probably quite large. Is there the same number of large airlines IRL? Sure no. So while the demand has been increased, it's still divided amongst more airlines, making smaller planes more efficient, and this is only indirectly linked to frequency.
Example: 4 airlines in the same base, each flying the same LH route with 650 demand. Has the demand been multiplied by 4? No. Result: a smaller allocation per plane, thus a smaller plane is better suited. We're very far from the definition of frequency and there will be nonetheless be a real thick oversupply.
Increase the demand presumably to allow bigger planes to be used would drag more airlines, and the result would be (for example) 6 airlines, 6 flights per day, demand=650*1.5. Same result as before.
Basically, the players themselves partially dug the very large aircraft's grave.

2°) Demand shifting
As NC said, demand from monday doesn't shifts to tuesday if there is no flight (or not enough) on mondays. However IRL it is very, very common that a route isn't flown every day, making the use of larger planes more relevant.
And even if this would work: the AWS player wants to cover everything and won't let the smallest amount of pax to the competition otherwise the competition would have air to breathe, so he's still fly everyday, making the report useless.
This would have a meaning only on a few monopoly routes representing maybe 10% of the ops (at the max), and usually the thinner routes with less reasons to put a large plane on per se.
Again, the players dug the grave.

3°) Aircraft design age
The GWs' end date has been changed first to 2030 and now 2035.
This means that aircrafts designed earlier will have higher maintenance costs than younger birds, even if the plane itself is brand new. And what is younger is usually bigger. Thus the 767 till end game might become proportionally quite costly compared to the A330NEO, 777 or 747-8.
Example from GW#2: a new Viscount costs a little more to maintain than a F100. A new Britannia costs 50% more to maintain than a 767-300ER.
-> those are obviously extreme examples, but they give you the rough idea.

4°) Special case - the 747
As NC said, the range was an important aspect. In-game specs (and especially the range) were incorrect and have just been adjusted. Might make it a little more attractive.

5°) RL LH / in-game LH / connexions
IRL, there were really few LH routes, and flag carriers hold mega-hubs (for the era), driving all the demand through them. Connexions or code-sharing are not implemented in the game. As a result, in current GW#2 1962 I was flying from Moscow to over 15 destinations in the US. Fewer routes meant thicker routes meant larger aircrafts.
This is a most wanted feature and hopefully it should come relatively soon (remember that Sami does AWS as a side-job).

6°) Going out of the warzone
What Gazzz said is basically very important. When struggling against fierce opposition, you need to ensure a way out, a segment where you still make money. And in GW#2 I was actually doing so with a larger plane than my competitor (Viscount vs. F.27). Larger, and more expensive to maintain (4 engines, 1 more pilot, 1 more CC). But I was able to reach the 1050-1500nm sector which my competitor couldn't. And even if it surely ain't the best sector, it was the only one available. Thus even if the profit was small, it was still a profit, while my competitor had none.

[lpopa93]

I think that being able to transfer passenger through a base airport would sort out the issues with very large aircraft. If we would be able to take the small demand for a long haul airport from multiple airports, transfer the pax to the base airport, and fly a very large aircraft to the final destination, the game would be different, and a lot more challenging. 

[Tha_Ape]

I think that being able to transfer passenger through a base airport would sort out the issues with very large aircraft. If we would be able to take the small demand for a long haul airport from multiple airports, transfer the pax to the base airport, and fly a very large aircraft to the final destination, the game would be different, and a lot more challenging. 

Agreed. However be aware that even then a struggle will oppose hub/spoke model to point-to-point model. So hubs will finally have a meaning, and will be able to drag more demand, but they will also be vulnerable to point-to-point, as both systems have their advantages and drawbacks.
Still, would be a very good thing as it would make the game way more dynamic: you'll have to adapt to your competition to circumvent it, not just increase frequency or lower prices.