What's the purpose of having large aircrafts?

[gazzz0x2z]

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. 

Yes, but it would not prevent vocal players to complain : their favorite strategy is suddenly broken down. Imagine a french player used to serve all Africa. Me, playing in Algeria, takes A LOT of traffick from France for direct purposes. Which is realistic, ties are strong(even if not always friendly, but that's another topic, not fit for this discussion). if Suddenly I spam the african market, I do transform Algiers in a de facto hub(with limited slots, but let's forget this, and imagine I am good enough to schedule all this despite the lack of slots). And a good part of demand from France to subsaharian Africa is now denied to the former colonial power. Even if it makes perfect sense, I can already hear the complaints.

[Alpha]

Thing is frequency spam is also true in RL - otherwise we would see A380s on JFK - LHR instead of 744s or smaller

The reason behind 77W being one of the more popular widebodies atm is probably due to its low acquisition & operating costs, allowing airlines to lower ticket prices, which is valued more by corporate bookings in the post-GFC world.

Perhaps it can be nerfed by making Y passengers more sensitive to price (and care less about time of the flight and frequency) whereas J/F made more sensitive to frequency / time of the flight (not sure if this has been done atm)

[stealy]

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. 

That would be nice!

I imagine it wouldn't be easy to program and implement... but the idea is fantastic.

[tyteen4a03]

Pretty sure the new CBD system is supposed to have connections implemented at a later point?

[Talentz]

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

That's why I was mocking this supposed strategy. The 763ER at range doesn't even compete with a MD11C, let alone a 77E with max weights. 762ER is ok for thin VLH routes but outside of that, it isn't that great all things considered.

As for the 788, I am not that impressed with its cargo hold. Quite small and unable to fully take advantage of its max payload range. Much like the 77E in that regards. However, the 789 is a much better platform. Aside of the improved operating economics, it can mostly haul ton for ton against the 77E. Maybe a RR Trent variant might pull a few more kg, but not enough to wash out the 787 family's improved economics.


---- Also to a general point: I don't think some of these players, even those who are seasoned, understand how to effectively compete with there rivals. I read day after day about this, that and the other. It's mostly hogwash.

To compete with anyone is to understand who they are and what their capabilities are. Fly to your strengths and rival's weakness. In order to do that, you have to know what aircraft can do what, when and where. Simply put, it's trial and error. No one aircraft is the "best" at everything and no one fleet group is "best" at everything for that matter too. They all have weaknesses, It takes time to learn them.

For the OP's general question: Instead of bashing a whole range of aircraft, it would have been much better to ask: What is the best way to compete with VLG aircraft such as the 747, 777 or A380? There would be more positive postings such as NC's post. Stuff that helps build AWS knowledge not warp it.

I get player's frustration. Frustration just means there's more to learn. AWS is very complex; seek the answer you know not of.


Talentz

[stealy]

For the OP's general question: Instead of bashing a whole range of aircraft, it would have been much better to ask: What is the best way to compete with VLG aircraft such as the 747, 777 or A380? There would be more positive postings such as NC's post. Stuff that helps build AWS knowledge not warp it.

I get player's frustration. Frustration just means there's more to learn. AWS is very complex; seek the answer you know not of.


Talentz

It wasn't my intention to create negativity. I apologize. I was only trying to raise the problem and hoping to find a solution.

I get that you are an experienced and excellent player who know a lot more than me, and perhaps many others playing this game, so would you mind sharing some thoughts on this question?

What is the best way to compete with VLG aircraft such as the 747, 777 or A380 (more specifically the 777-300ER) when oppositions drop double daily with 767ER or A332 and make your 77W nearly half empty?

NC discussed the pros of one 77W vs. double 767ER/A332 (e.g. less crew, less maintenance, less insurance, less fuel = less operating costs). Fair enough, but the smaller 767ER or A332 are at 70%+ LF while the 77W remains around 50% LF. That means the 767ER/A332 are bringing in more revenue and market share. I guess the 77W still beats them for cargo capacity, but cargo is not a reliable source of revenue in every route. Some are good while others have little to no cargo demand.

[Talentz]

Where are you based and what kinda of OPS are you running as a plan?


Better yet, send out a mentor request so I can actually look into your airline. 


Talentz

[connorc17]

This is definitely not a beginner vs. pro kind of situation though. I've played this game for a long time and just getting back into it and I'm having real trouble trying to get the 777-300er to even work for me, let alone other widebodies in GW3. For a set of 773er's I have fleet utilization at 19.7 hrs, load factors on all routes in the 90's(with the front of the plane filling up the same) decent cargo in the 50's and a premium heavy cabin 40C 5F(standard config) and I am not even breaking even on them. The leasing costs are truly out of control. Nearly 5 mil a month to operate? Kind of crazy. It seems like you have to own this plane to get it to work, which isn't the most realistic. Granted fuel is a little high in this game right now, but this plane should have the economics to perform with fuel even higher. So something is a little amiss here.

[Talentz]

This is definitely not a beginner vs. pro kind of situation though. I've played this game for a long time and just getting back into it and I'm having real trouble trying to get the 777-300er to even work for me, let alone other widebodies in GW3. For a set of 773er's I have fleet utilization at 19.7 hrs, load factors on all routes in the 90's(with the front of the plane filling up the same) decent cargo in the 50's and a premium heavy cabin 40C 5F(standard config) and I am not even breaking even on them. The leasing costs are truly out of control. Nearly 5 mil a month to operate? Kind of crazy. It seems like you have to own this plane to get it to work, which isn't the most realistic. Granted fuel is a little high in this game right now, but this plane should have the economics to perform with fuel even higher. So something is a little amiss here.

Yes, leasing costs are very high in the modern GWs. Its not recommended to have a huge, leased fleet. During your growth and rapid expansion phase, once you begin to have more money coming in then going out (IE: the money left over after you've hit the UM and/or placed your new aircraft order for the day), you should start buying back your aircraft.

I small fleet of owned aircraft will go alot further then a medium fleet of leased aircraft. Leasing costs you can control, fuel, you can't. Make it a self rule that you never pay more then 3m a month for leases. Anything past that and your survival hopes are in the hands of the oil god, Sami.

Side note: JNB is very unique in that most of the largest routes start at 4800nm and soar to 9000nm+. The longer you fly, the more fuel hurts you. Owning aircraft should always be your top priority once you've established yourself.

Here is a pic from the largest user of the 77W:



Talentz

[Zobelle]

Yes. You leased it.

Own it or go broke trying.

[JumboShrimp]

That's why I was mocking this supposed strategy. The 763ER at range doesn't even compete with a MD11C, let alone a 77E with max weights. 762ER is ok for thin VLH routes but outside of that, it isn't that great all things considered.

There are places that have 100% of their LH demand within the range of 762ER (Turkey) and very many (most of Europe) with > 90% LH demand within 762er.

But it 767 does not have to be a jack of all trades forever.  If it kills competitors flying larger aircraft between 1985 and 2010 by exploiting the AWS allocation of demand on a "per flight" basis, it has more than achieved its purpose

For the OP's general question: Instead of bashing a whole range of aircraft, it would have been much better to ask: What is the best way to compete with VLG aircraft such as the 747, 777 or A380? There would be more positive postings such as NC's post. Stuff that helps build AWS knowledge not warp it.

My reply would be: First, fly 767 to kill all your competitors, and then, flying 747, 777, A380 will be a breeze, they will print money if you have no competition. 

Otherwise, when flying these (747, 777, A380) in a competitive situation, player has to realize that he is playing defense.  In AWS, these are weak weapons.  So adding more than 1 flight to heavily oversupplied route will result in player suffering disproportionate percentage of losses from that route and should generally be avoided.

Staying at the periphery (6500 - 8000nm) will generally be profitable (less competition), but ULH, > 8000nm, profits will disappear, even on monopoly routes.  (Plus, there is no cargo there).

[JumboShrimp]

This is definitely not a beginner vs. pro kind of situation though. I've played this game for a long time and just getting back into it and I'm having real trouble trying to get the 777-300er to even work for me, let alone other widebodies in GW3. For a set of 773er's I have fleet utilization at 19.7 hrs, load factors on all routes in the 90's(with the front of the plane filling up the same) decent cargo in the 50's and a premium heavy cabin 40C 5F(standard config) and I am not even breaking even on them. The leasing costs are truly out of control. Nearly 5 mil a month to operate? Kind of crazy. It seems like you have to own this plane to get it to work, which isn't the most realistic. Granted fuel is a little high in this game right now, but this plane should have the economics to perform with fuel even higher. So something is a little amiss here.

If this is GW3, then yes, the aircraft prices are extremely high for 777 fleet.  They came down about 10% from the highest they have been, but they are still quite high.  LH with leased aircraft, especially very desirable leased aircraft is going to be extremely difficult.

My advice on these would be to fly where you can fill cargo holds, or only fly these as a way to earn higher return on the money than the bank.

Meaning, if you have more money in your account than you know what to do with, invest this money in a 777 as a Direct Purchase, it will earn higher return than if you leave the money in your account.

[JumboShrimp]

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. 

Yes, ability to transfer passengers and cargo would go a long way to make large aircraft safe to fly in AWS.

[gazzz0x2z]

As other said, leasing new planes is suicide in this game, especially state-of-the art planes, and especially in the late eras. the usual advice is "grow with using old cheap crap, and as soon as established, consolidate by replacing it with brand new owned state-of-the-art beauties".

Some aircraft, especially soviet one, can be interpreted as "old crap" even as brand new. I used A148 a lot of time, and IL96 once in this role, and they fit. The IL96 you'd better to get rid of quickly(i.e. before 8 years), but they can help you open routes up to 6500NM for a decent cost(especially the P&W engines version). In most games, in their category, the A148 are 3/4 times cheaper than any other regional jet, which more than compensates their 10% higher cost per seat. But old hushkitted F28s can do exactly the same job, opening routes for a ridiculously low price, and prepare the way for real aircraft.

Leasing new wonderful aircraft has killed many companies. And it's especially deadly on the LH market. My first try on 737-700ER was a disaster because of that(but I was saved because the 737-800 were doing great at the same time, and the A148s were conquering Europe). As bird prices are very dynamic(which is not really realistic, but adds a very interesting strategic layer), you should extra care about how much costs the bird, before even looking at its operating costs.

[Alpha]

Another thing (or complaint) about large aircrafts is their rather ridiculous default seat plans

A380 - 20F/25C
A332 - 8F/12C
B772 - 10F/25C

Does anyone even put that much F seats without a proportionately large C class in a plane?

[deovrat]

Another thing (or complaint) about large aircrafts is their rather ridiculous default seat plans

A380 - 20F/25C
A332 - 8F/12C
B772 - 10F/25C

Does anyone even put that much F seats without a proportionately large C class in a plane?

Sure you can wave your fist at Sami for that, but since you can always change the configuration easily and quickly at the time of taking delivery, I don't think thats topping any list of "things to do".

[JumboShrimp]

Another thing (or complaint) about large aircrafts is their rather ridiculous default seat plans

A380 - 20F/25C
A332 - 8F/12C
B772 - 10F/25C

Does anyone even put that much F seats without a proportionately large C class in a plane?

Those may just be typical configurations by manufacturer.

[NovemberCharlie]

Those may just be typical configurations by manufacturer.

Though if we aren't getting real life discounts for game purposes, maybe we could get realistic configurations...

[groundbum2]

large planes should have a ticket price advantage over smaller planes, and so operators of large planes should be able to fly with cheaper ticket prices and this should translate through to higher load factors. My input was I don't think ticket prices change LF% enough, so I would tweak whatever logic is involved. The problem with sorting this would be that it would allow the larger airlines to crush smaller airlines with anti-competitive pricing.

Simon

[Alpha]

Though if we aren't getting real life discounts for game purposes, maybe we could get realistic configurations...

Yes this is indeed a small complaint only... That extra 1M or so probably wont change much in the grand scheme of things, but you never know... adding them up together can be quite a sum, particularly on large widebodies

Perhaps instead of charging for a fee to install non-default seat configurations when we order planes fresh, a better way would be deduct the price of default seats from the current prices, and charge us separately for the seats we choose to install on our planes.