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.
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
thanks for the quick response sami :)
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.
Quote from: PH1517 on July 26, 2012, 01:50:09 PM
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.
please don't put me on a 732 for 2000nm....
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 26, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
please don't put me on a 732 for 2000nm....
Haha exactly! Read my mind.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 26, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
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...
Quote from: JetWestInc on July 26, 2012, 03:30:14 PM
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 :) )
Dudes, 2000 nm is a 6 hour flight. On a 737-200... Huh.
=> works just fine there.
Quote from: JetWestInc on July 26, 2012, 03:30:14 PM
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).
I've been 12hrs on a Metro. I'll take the 2000nm on a 732 ANYTIME
Quote from: ArcherII on July 26, 2012, 04:02:54 PM
I've been 12hrs on a Metro. I'll take the 2000nm on a 732 ANYTIME
How often did you have fuel stops?!
Quote from: Jona L. on July 26, 2012, 06:07:52 PM
How often did you have fuel stops?!
2 stops most of the time...
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 :D ) compared to LTN-SAW flight of same length on EZY. Although both were acceptable really.
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...
Quote from: schro on July 27, 2012, 11:36:25 AM
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)
Quote from: schro on July 27, 2012, 11:36:25 AM
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...
Quote from: Jona L. on July 27, 2012, 11:45:27 AM
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!
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 27, 2012, 11:47:23 AM
This does not include seat pitch, restroom sizes, galleys, etc...
Which is all configurable/specifiable by the airline...
Quote from: schro on July 27, 2012, 11:55:41 AM
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.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 27, 2012, 12:31:29 PM
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.
IRL, no, but in AWS nothing changes from 1950 to 2010. As far as we can tell, the seats in a 1958 DC-8 are the exact same ones being installed in a 2012 737-900ER. If we can't tell the difference I am sure the system can't either, so in AWS life the passenger likely would not be able to tell the comfort difference between a new build DC-8-63 or a new build 737-200Adv.
Don
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 27, 2012, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: schro on July 27, 2012, 11:36:25 AM
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...
The point exactly. Cabin width is just one thing, I'm sure we all know the above mentioned fact. Hence why I spoke of seat pitch and not width. Now does anybody have any thoughts on the proposed idea of cabin comfort (or whatever it is to be called) coming into play or will someone reel off A330 wingspan to the nearest inch or seat width on a Fokker 50 to the millimetre because I know what is more constructive.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 27, 2012, 12:31:29 PM
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.
In what way did the interriors change between 1960s and 1990s?
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 27, 2012, 02:16:32 PM
In what way did the interriors change between 1960s and 1990s?
Look at Boeing's new Sky Interior for example. Innovations such as overhead lockers, no smoking in cabin, mood lighting over the past decades as well.
Quote from: alexgv1 on July 27, 2012, 02:23:41 PM
no smoking in cabin
a) that was an unvelopment
b) only with passengers on board... you wouldn't believe how many flight crews smoke in the cabins (mostly the rear galley) during the Turn Arounds... about 30% of the pilots smoke in the cockpit as well...
Quote from: alexgv1 on July 27, 2012, 01:56:35 PM
This does not include seat pitch, restroom sizes, galleys, etc...
The point exactly. Cabin width is just one thing, I'm sure we all know the above mentioned fact. Hence why I spoke of seat pitch and not width. Now does anybody have any thoughts on the proposed idea of cabin comfort (or whatever it is to be called) coming into play or will someone reel off A330 wingspan to the nearest inch or seat width on a Fokker 50 to the millimetre because I know what is more constructive.
Obviously, its the Fokker seat width...
*hides
Quote from: brique on July 27, 2012, 02:35:57 PM
Obviously, its the Fokker seat width...
*hides
Well you may as well go find out and share the actual dimensions now ;D
No need to hide from
me ::)
Quote from: alexgv1 on July 27, 2012, 02:39:11 PM
Well you may as well go find out and share the actual dimensions now ;D
No need to hide from me ::)
Apparently, you have a choice : 17.8 inches.... or 18inches....
in metrical milli-meterers.. that's... that's..... narrow....
Quote from: brique on July 27, 2012, 03:19:55 PM
Apparently, you have a choice : 17.8 inches.... or 18inches....
in metrical milli-meterers.. that's... that's..... narrow....
So standard size right? Always interesting to know. And kudos for actually going out and finding it :D
I don´t understand this discussion at all. Making the huge advantages of smaller planes a little bit smaller was the effect a lot of people wished to see in the first place. Now that they begin to see some of the consequences they cry out loud: this is not realistic ! Not in MY case !
The warnings say you MIGHT have a disadvantage using this plane. But you still have the advantages of keeping your fleet lean, being able to tolerate lower fares, quicker turn-arounds and so on. And as long nobody with more "appropiate" plane crosses your way you will be fine....or have to offer lower fares.
Quote from: alexgv1 on July 27, 2012, 06:05:12 PM
So standard size right? Always interesting to know. And kudos for actually going out and finding it :D
wasn't hard, the googlers did the work... but you wouldn't believe how many sites there are seemingly devoted to the accumulation of every known aircraft type's seat widths, pitches and lay-outs... its slightly scary :'(
Quote from: brique on July 27, 2012, 06:45:32 PM
wasn't hard, the googlers did the work... but you wouldn't believe how many sites there are seemingly devoted to the accumulation of every known aircraft type's seat widths, pitches and lay-outs... its slightly scary :'(
Just ask seatguru.com (http://seatguru.com)
I have to say this would be a great new feature, but the fine tuning is very important. In my original post, I had this message in JA6 which does not use this feature but in JA7 that would be a problem in my opinion. Didn't people fly 3000-4000nm routes with DC-8s in the past? I've never flown with one but would that be such bad experience?
Flying on a techstopping 737 from Zurich to Hong Kong is one thing, a direct flight with an appropriate plane of an era is another thing.
Quote from: diskoerekto on July 30, 2012, 08:18:01 AM
Flying on a techstopping 737 from Zurich to Hong Kong is one thing, a direct flight with an appropriate plane of an era is another thing.
People sailed the Atlantic taking a month to cross...
I don't care if you gave me $1 seats on the next sailing of the Nina or Pinta.... I am not going.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 30, 2012, 11:20:55 AM
I don't care if you gave me $1 seats on the next sailing of the Nina or Pinta.... I am not going.
That part about Nina or Pinta... is that a common saying in English? I recall the quote from S1E1 of "The West Wing". Still finding it pretty funny ;D
However in a JA scenario a DC-8 is already a
good choice of an aircraft for these routes... I'd call it worse if he was using Bristol Britannias still :P
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on July 30, 2012, 11:45:50 AM
That part about Nina or Pinta... is that a common saying in English? I recall the quote from S1E1 of "The West Wing". Still finding it pretty funny ;D
However in a JA scenario a DC-8 is already a good choice of an aircraft for these routes... I'd call it worse if he was using Bristol Britannias still :P
cheers,
Jona L.
Jona, Christopher Columbus sailed to the new world on 3 ships.... Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.
Quote from: alexgv1 on July 27, 2012, 02:23:41 PM
Look at Boeing's new Sky Interior for example. Innovations such as overhead lockers, no smoking in cabin, mood lighting over the past decades as well.
Actually that's an interesting point.. the 707s had overhead racks, not overhead bins..I can just imagine the kind of injuries that falling suitcases caused during turbulence!
But I do think that the standards for plane size should be lower in JA7 as compared to MT7, due to the lack of availability of long-range widebodies for most of that period.
Quote from: JetWestInc on July 27, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
IRL, no, but in AWS nothing changes from 1950 to 2010. As far as we can tell, the seats in a 1958 DC-8 are the exact same ones being installed in a 2012 737-900ER. If we can't tell the difference I am sure the system can't either, so in AWS life the passenger likely would not be able to tell the comfort difference between a new build DC-8-63 or a new build 737-200Adv.
Don
This is the interior of a Saha Air 707-320C. The last airline still flying 707s. The seats and cabin are not exactly the same as a 2012 737-900ER. It looks more like a bus in the sky. :P
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Saha-Air/Boeing-707-3J9C/0923419/M/
And this is a sister plane (but I think this one is not flying anymore):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Saha-Air/Boeing-707-3J9C/0594147/M/
The caption says that the lack of overhead bins is due to conversion from a military role, but that's not correct. The original cabin design of the Boeing 707 used overhead racks and not bins, as shown in this old pic of a TWA 707:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/0038883/M/
Also, it seems the the discussion above has focused on Y seats, but F and C seats have obviously improved dramatically from 1958 to 2012.
In the next Jet Age game, I think the A/C size limit should be modified from the MT limit, to allow flying 707/DC8 up to their maximum range, because it's realistic and accurate for the era. On the other hand, tech-stopping classic 737s across oceans should still incur a penalty, because it's neither realistic (no ETOPS) nor historically accurate.
Quote from: sami on July 26, 2012, 03:56:25 PM
Dudes, 2000 nm is a 6 hour flight. On a 737-200... Huh.
=> works just fine there.
same here. YUL-LAX on A319s are flown regularly, 5.5 hours ... no big deal :)
Lots of places to land between montreal and la to land a plane
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 31, 2012, 06:54:02 AM
In the next Jet Age game, I think the A/C size limit should be modified from the MT limit, to allow flying 707/DC8 up to their maximum range, because it's realistic and accurate for the era. On the other hand, tech-stopping classic 737s across oceans should still incur a penalty, because it's neither realistic (no ETOPS) nor historically accurate.
Same goes for LH flights in even smaller planes like DC-7s, Starliners, Comets or VC10s
Agreed.
Quote from: AndiD on August 01, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Same goes for LH flights in even smaller planes like DC-7s, Starliners, Comets or VC10s
These WERE lh planes
What about a 767-200ER on a 13hr flight (CPT-LHR)? It is 1600nm within its max range (6800nm). If I am going to be penalised for this flight in future games then it seems pointless having aircraft that can do that kind of range...
Regards
Richard
If you told me that I had a 13 hour flight on a 762er in today's world, you'd better be the cheapest fare out there. That plane wasn't built around creature comforts.
then again in the 1980-90s, that plane may have been acceptable.
Quote from: swiftus27 on November 10, 2012, 03:29:29 PM
If you told me that I had a 13 hour flight on a 762er in today's world, you'd better be the cheapest fare out there. That plane wasn't built around creature comforts.
then again in the 1980-90s, that plane may have been acceptable.
It depends on the configuration. The Y seats on the 767 line are wider than 10 abreast 747's in most cases, and wider than Air Asia X's 333/343 seats. At 17.2", they are narrower than 9 abreast 777's, 787's, and 10 abreast A380's.
This would be a good time to mention that configuration age and the ability to add amenities such as IFE and catering options would make a difference to most customers as to whether or not they would find a 762 acceptable on a 13 hour flight....
Don
Again: Most customers don't know what a 767 is.
And still this all is about warnings again. We all know why these warnings were implemented in the first place, and they obviously can´t be triggered exact enough for all game situations. A warning is no statement, it doesn´t say "your aircraft IS too small". So feel free to ignore it when you are sure about what you are doing. And as long no competitor is able to offer "appropiate" service due to lack of such aircraft models you should just ignore it. Route will work as intended.
Even if it is only a warning, it is my perception that there may be a penalty associated with that. So if I am going to be penalised for using an aircraft that is operating well within its design criteria, then should I avoid using 767-ER's for long flights? Is there a list of aircraft that will not be penalised on a scale of distances?
Is there an explanation of how this is (or will be) applied in the game-worlds so that I can read how/when/why/what?
Regards
Richard
It's a negative value. If you are the only operator on the route most pax don't care about this and still fly with you. If you face competition with the same aircraft type, you both get the negative value so no problem.
Problem occurs when your competitor uses something without this warning, for example 777-200LR. Then pax will prefer his flights because you have the negative factor on your side and he's clean.
Quote from: alexgv1 on July 26, 2012, 02:29:54 PM
Haha exactly! Read my mind.
Or an EMB-145 for IND-MIA...
Oh...
Wait...