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? :-\
Join a regular game world, things are much different.
Quote from: wapp11 on March 27, 2018, 09:30:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Cardinal on March 27, 2018, 10:25:14 PM
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.
I wish I could win with 25yr old 762ERs on VLH routes... I thought I knew :-[
Talentz
Quote from: Cardinal on March 27, 2018, 10:25:14 PM
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
Quote from: Zobelle on March 27, 2018, 10:49:23 PM
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 ?
Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on March 27, 2018, 11:34:03 PM
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.
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on March 27, 2018, 11:22:36 PM
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 :-[
Got the feeling Shrimp's Parish got one more believer ;)
(real answer coming later)
Quote from: stealy on March 28, 2018, 12:43:56 AM
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" ;D
Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 28, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
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. ::)
Quote from: Talentz on March 27, 2018, 11:12:11 PM
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)
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.
Quote from: stealy on March 28, 2018, 12:43:56 AM
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 ;)
Quote from: stealy on March 28, 2018, 12:43:56 AM
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
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on March 28, 2018, 09:23:20 AM
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.
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on March 28, 2018, 09:23:20 AM
- 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%)
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on March 28, 2018, 09:23:20 AM
- 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.
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on March 28, 2018, 09:23:20 AM
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.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 28, 2018, 09:42:22 AM
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
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.
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. :)
Quote from: lpopa93 on March 28, 2018, 11:32:03 AM
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.
Quote from: lpopa93 on March 28, 2018, 11:32:03 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: lpopa93 on March 28, 2018, 11:32:03 AM
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.
Pretty sure the new CBD system is supposed to have connections implemented at a later point?
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 28, 2018, 05:19:44 AM
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
Quote from: Talentz on March 29, 2018, 12:21:10 AM
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.
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: connorc17 on March 29, 2018, 03:55:27 AM
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:
(https://s17.postimg.org/thtql7l73/Meh_high_Fuel.jpg)
Talentz
Yes. You leased it.
Own it or go broke trying.
Quote from: Talentz on March 29, 2018, 12:21:10 AM
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
Quote from: Talentz on March 29, 2018, 12:21:10 AM
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).
Quote from: connorc17 on March 29, 2018, 03:55:27 AM
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.
Quote from: lpopa93 on March 28, 2018, 11:32:03 AM
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Mr. Alpha on March 29, 2018, 01:23:37 PM
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".
Quote from: Mr. Alpha on March 29, 2018, 01:23:37 PM
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.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 29, 2018, 04:00:40 PM
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...
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
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on March 29, 2018, 04:44:41 PM
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 ;D
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.
Quote from: Mr. Alpha on March 29, 2018, 01:23:37 PM
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?
I think you don't know what it's like to operate from Brazil... in GW2, even from GRU I get half of these seats occupied on many LH flights, so I see no point in changing the default seat configuration of my Tristars (18C, 8F) to seat more C/F passengers. I even considered adding more Y seats on my planes because of that, but it's just too expensive to do! ;D
Quote from: wilian.souza2 on March 29, 2018, 11:42:29 PM
I think you don't know what it's like to operate from Brazil... in GW2, even from GRU I get half of these seats occupied on many LH flights, so I see no point in changing the default seat configuration of my Tristars (18C, 8F) to seat more C/F passengers. I even considered adding more Y seats on my planes because of that, but it's just too expensive to do! ;D
Perhaps I wasnt clear on my point :-[
My complaint was the large F cabin relative to the size of the C cabin.
Say for example, a better L-1011 (and a more normal) config may be 4F 24C and the rest filled with Y, rather than having to fly 8F seats with very few routes being able to sustain such a large F cabin.
I use 10F cabin and have low LF. Lesson learned and I'll likely go 4-6F on my next fleet change. No sense throwing $150mm in the toilet to reconfigure a fleet that'll only be with me another 5 years at best.