With the new game year (1983 in GW2), punctually arrived another step in the too small penalty for DC-8.
Now also the -63 are affected on uncontested LH routes between 300 to 400 pax demand where I only get ~90 pax per leg.
Regardless of the correctness to penalise an aircraft (just upgraded to -73) that has been designed for LH in the era where I'm using it, but why is the only jet (with the exception of the VC10) to get the penalty?
The 707 doesn't get it, the 757 that is much more modern but way smaller, nor the Ilyushin Il-62 that is smaller and older, not even the Tupolev Tu-114 that is smaller, older and much slower being a prop. Just to speak of similar aircraft that (barely in some case) reach the same range of DC-8-63.
Ok, I've learned (is the first time I use them) and I've already ordered new planes to substitute them but I'm curious to know the rationale behind it.
Thanks.
To make you buy new frames.
Can't have Airlines hoarding money, now.
Quote from: Zobelle on February 28, 2018, 04:31:42 PM
To make you buy new frames.
Can't have Airlines hoarding money, now.
Ok, that's the
principle.
But look at the
reality and its absurdity in this precise case.
-> Not telling that "too small" has no use. Only that it's broken in this case. The DC-8-63 is 15 years old and the -73 was made available in 81. We're in 83!!!
All users of the DC-8 Super Sixties and Seventies are conscious that the bird is old and needs a relatively fast replacement. Its fuel burn is not that good and else, it's not viable for long. And I think everybody got its replacement on the way. No need to spoil our last years of use. Really.
As I've said before, the too small warning was brought in to deal with a very specific problem, and the DC-8 was and is not part of that problem, and running old, low cost to buy/lease but expensive to maintain/fly/staff airframes is not something that should be nerfed.
Hey. If I could hoard up 80-100bn from flying DC86's for 24 years I could very handily afford a transition to widebodies if and when I absolutely needed to. And if the maintenance didn't get absolutely stupid I could just keep them running out to forced retirement (35yrs)
Exactly Zobelle
There is the fuel cost, the maintenance, the 3 pilots. There is not need to add further penalty.
And in a way that they was profitable with a LF of 90% on 31 December and one day later I'm loosing money with a LF of 50%.
And we are speaking of planes, not cars that you change every 4 years. They should be an investment that last 25 years if not more.
Well what routes are you talking about ?
As i recall it you should not get into trouble as long as no one else fly the routes.
Maby its your tech stop not the to small that is the issue ? at some point the game penalize tech stop routes.
Quote from: Zobelle on February 28, 2018, 10:15:07 PM
Hey. If I could hoard up 80-100bn from flying DC86's for 24 years I could very handily afford a transition to widebodies if and when I absolutely needed to. And if the maintenance didn't get absolutely stupid I could just keep them running out to forced retirement (35yrs)
Not completely sure of what you mean.
The Super -60s and -70s have bad economics since the late 70s, more or less. Saving 80-100bn with their (relatively) poor performance just seems really complicated to me, to say the least.
Regarding my own case: I'm flying it because it's small because my routes are thin. And I'm transitioning to the next smaller one (762).
I don't see any reason I should get penalized (even on a few routes) for using the bird that suits my demand.
I don't see any reason I should get penalized for using a bird on the routes he's made for within it's real life lifespan.
I don't see any reason an aircraft that didn't even pass it's 2nd D-check should get penalized (and that would be the oldest 63 ever produced).
I don't see any reason I should have bought some DC-10s or TriStar that carry twice my average demand just because it's "better".*
I don't suffer the penalty much because of my low demand, but it's still absurd. And the other players that have a thicker demand are getting really hurt by that rule because of that nerf initially made for the 757 and late long range A&B NBs (and some others).
The OP, Luperco, he mainly has only one bird per route, and almost always with a tech-stop (Australia). So he got 50% from the tech-stop and an increasing percentage because of "too small". On most of his routes, he's still unopposed. No need for a nerf agains spamming in those conditions, he is not spamming. We are not spamming. We're just trying to use a plane within it's reasonable lifespan.
Plus, the DC-8 is already hindered by its not-so-good economics in the 80s, as said above.
Makes a lot of burdens when not all of them are deserved.
* Just like I wouldn't buy hundreds of A321 because the A319 is not available yet (or any such other odd example).
@ Sunbao
If it's only the tech-stop then it's much more than 50% now. ~ 350 demand and 90 actual passengers when unopposed? Wow! That's almost 75%.
How are the guys in Australia supposed to do until the A340 or 777-200ER?
Quote from: Tha_Ape on February 28, 2018, 11:37:51 PM
@ Sunbao
If it's only the tech-stop then it's much more than 50% now. ~ 350 demand and 90 actual passengers when unopposed? Wow! That's almost 75%.
How are the guys in Australia supposed to do until the A340 or 777-200ER?
Australian airlines has allways been weak in this game, its probally one of the hardest spot to sent a player to, even the best ones struggles there.
I think it's the tech stops. Interesting the routes where you can go there non-stop but need a tech stop to return...Sao Paulo is one until GRU opens...my DC-8s are doing fine on the outbound / but terrible on the return.
on the dc-8--super 60/70s...the economics aren't awesome by today's standards, but they also aren't terrible which is the reason RW airlines kept flying them into the 1990s....it's also why there was something like 200 of them flying cargo well into this century vs hardly any 707s still operating. UA and DL were going to ground them but kept them running through the 80s to their 25+ year lifespans because they realized they were still profitable and could keep flying until they built out their 757 and 767 fleets.
the other point I would make, is I get the small warning at different points in the game, but it should be a bit more based on some semblence of reality. It seems like the comet/connie/DC4-7 trigger about the right time vs 707s and DC-8s...however, factoring in the first ETOPS was only allowed on a TWA 767-200ER in mid-1985 and both sides of Atlantic were extremely cautious about allowing airlines to operate to 120 minute ETOPS until they could prove they could do it for a year without problems...strikes me the DC-8 warnings shouldn't start triggering until about the mid-1980s.
while it's great and fun that the game is designed to let you fly routes that only became viable in the past 20 years from 1950s onward (not complaining :) ...the reality through 1980s is that most international routes went through big hubs vs non-stop...think Pan Am flying 747s to London or Frankfurt then putting you on their European fleet of 727s to most places they served in Europe...like Hamburg, Geneva, Budapest, etc. Even big cities like BRU and AMS was a stop in LHR and transfer to a PA 727
Even from a place like ORD, United and American didn't start transatlantic flights until the 1990s. some of that was regulator y, but it was also because you simply couldn't make those routes work until the 767-300ERs came into the picture.
long ramble/history lesson...but I do think early 1980s is too soon to trigger the dc-8 warnings...if the game could be segmented...then ok on major routes like JFK-LHR which was 747s, D10s and L1011s..but a bit early for the 200-300 pax routes as technically even if a 767-200 can cover the distance, they lack the ETOPs certificiation to make it work.
Quote from: spiff23 on March 01, 2018, 03:34:45 AM
I think it's the tech stops. Interesting the routes where you can go there non-stop but need a tech stop to return...Sao Paulo is one until GRU opens...my DC-8s are doing fine on the outbound / but terrible on the return.
It is not. I've got a low LF on all my DC-8, even those sent on nearest LH route without tech stop but big demand. Only those sent an routes with less than 250 pax got more than 120 pax (more or less half the demand), enough to have the plane profitable (more or less 200K per week).
Quote
...however, factoring in the first ETOPS was only allowed on a TWA 767-200ER in mid-1985 ...
I think that you are speaking of ETOPS for two engines aircraft. Those with 4 engines was allowed much earlier than 1985.
In any case Australia to Europe is not ETOPS if it would modelled in AWS, which is not.
Quote from: Zobelle on February 28, 2018, 10:15:07 PM
Hey. If I could hoard up 80-100bn from flying DC86's for 24 years ...
80-100bn? At 250K per week (before the penalty), they are little more than 300 millions in 24 year. And this is without the D and C check and company fixes expenses.
I've made a rough calculation and in my company, to be profitable, a DC-8 must have at least 180K of profit per week, this mean that a DC-8, if kept for 24 years, gives less than 90 Millions.
Take away the initial cost of 30 Mlns and you don't have even the money to replace it with a more modern aircraft.
Don't really see the need to further nerf it ;)
Quote from: Luperco on March 01, 2018, 09:21:12 AM
80-100bn? At 250K per week (before the penalty), they are little more than 300 millions in 24 year. And this is without the D and C check and company fixes expenses.
I've made a rough calculation and in my company, to be profitable, a DC-8 must have at least 180K of profit per week, this mean that a DC-8, if kept for 24 years, gives less than 90 Millions.
Take away the initial cost of 30 Mlns and you don't have even the money to replace it with a more modern aircraft.
Don't really see the need to further nerf it ;)
Well your in australia and fly them way to long so thats really not you we need to compare it at, at 250k pr week those dc8 is more or less already there making no profit at all, as not all costs are counted in, so they are just for fun and for the stats.
DC8 flying out of bases where you don't make tech stop is making up around a million not 250k in the good years and then you end up around a billion for a 24 year life span.
@ Sunbao
I personally use a rather Std config for my -72 (that is, already upgraded and with reduced fuel burn) and they are far, really far from the weekly million.
Rather 450K for the best ones, those with no "too small" penalty yet and no tech-stop, with a 83% average LF. And usually more around 350K.
And my -73 don't do much better.
I might squeeze a little more money from them, but really not much. I think you clearly overestimate the DC-8.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 01, 2018, 10:20:42 AM
@ Sunbao
I personally use a rather Std config for my -72 (that is, already upgraded and with reduced fuel burn) and they are far, really far from the weekly million.
Rather 450K for the best ones, those with no "too small" penalty yet and no tech-stop, with a 83% average LF. And usually more around 350K.
And my -73 don't do much better.
I might squeeze a little more money from them, but really not much. I think you clearly overestimate the DC-8.
We are not talking now but back from when people got them i know they are not doing good now
Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on March 01, 2018, 12:05:34 PM
We are not talking now but back from when people got them i know they are not doing good now
Back then, sure. But the problem is now, not before. Not doing good already and piling up another penalty? That penalty is useless, we're already trying to get rid of them, no need to be pushed.