Hi,
here's a brief history of large class freighters from the 70s on:
- the 737 Jurassic, 727 and DC-9 all have a freighter version
- ten years later comes the 757F
- then, 15-20 more years later, the 733 and 734, as well as the MDs finally got a freighter version. And the 737 NG and A320/321 P2F around 2017/2018.
The only other NB with a freighter variant is the Tu-214 (Tu-204 family), not yet in the game, released IRL in 2001.
Basically, it means that if you want to fly cargo continuously, you have to either:
- fly the 737 Jurassic / DC-9 until the late 2000s
- fly the lame Tu-204
- fly the absolutely-not-polyvalent 757
Consequence is either that you become a pure freighter airline, or dedicate one of your 3 types to a large freighter, or hit the 4th type penalty.
Or give up good part of your MH cargo network for 10-15 years.
I think most of us will agree that there is an issue here. Nothing dramatic, but still unpleasant. That's the reason I wanted to bring up this matter.
Obviously, allowing a 4th fleet without big penalty would be a disaster as this would just end a rightfully placed limit and big boys would take advantage of it to kill their opponents.
I came up with only one idea so far, with more variants.
The basis is that you'd have a 4th fleet penalty halved if - and only if - you have a pure freighter as 4th fleet
Works like that: lets say you fly 777 + DHC-8 + 733 + 732F, if you still have a 732 pax, bam, full penalty (so the 732 -> 733 renewal is as costly as it is now).
Stronger variant: further increase that half-penalty, and introduce a 100% penalty if you have both a 732F and a 733F (thus also considering this part as a full renewal), the penalty would be halved only for the time with no transition underway.
Even stronger variant: renewals done during this period would be even more costly than usual (120%?).
Following timelines could speak for themselves.
The values given are pure fiction and would need balancing if such proposal is considered, please don't howl for 5 or 10% and let's just consider the idea. And any other proposal is more than welcome.
Yet, keeping things as-is adds a significant strategic challenge to the large players and isn't a big deal for the small players (4th type under 300 planes isn't airline breaking)....
Could you please give some more details about your thoughts?
I agree on the "significant strategic challenge" under certain circumstances, completely. But under some others I feel this is just impossible to achieve.
Some LH airline (LHR, HKG, DXB, SIN, etc.) could use the 757, fine. The others? Give up cargo for 15 years and then getting back to it, is that what you mean? (not suspicious, just curious).
or fly TU-204. Mhhh, that's an idea, actually... When does teh cargo variant appear?
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on April 16, 2018, 03:38:22 PM
or fly TU-204. Mhhh, that's an idea, actually... When does teh cargo variant appear?
Not sure. Talentz said that each Russian plane has 50 variants. Seems true.
For the Tu-204, I found the -204-100C, the -204-120C, the -204-200C, the -204-220C and the -214C Combi and the -214C freighter.
Seems to be available at the end of the 90s (1998 for early cargo versions?).
None is currently in the game.
Speak Russian?
https://web.archive.org/web/20110927235750/http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=181 (https://web.archive.org/web/20110927235750/http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=181)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110927235811/http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=183 (https://web.archive.org/web/20110927235811/http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=183)
Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 16, 2018, 03:10:59 PM
Could you please give some more details about your thoughts?
I agree on the "significant strategic challenge" under certain circumstances, completely. But under some others I feel this is just impossible to achieve.
Some LH airline (LHR, HKG, DXB, SIN, etc.) could use the 757, fine. The others? Give up cargo for 15 years and then getting back to it, is that what you mean? (not suspicious, just curious).
What Schro means is that the cost of a 4th fleet isn't deal breaking as most people seem to think. You can survive and thrive beyond 4 fleets as long as you run a strong airline.
I mean, in GW3 I have over 700 aircraft and four fleets with only 65 aircraft that make up my fourth fleet. By all accounts and advise, I should be hurting. If look at my commonality, the 747 fleet per aircraft is very high compared to others:
(https://s17.postimg.cc/eztyr8w9r/Common.jpg)
But to be ruthlessly honest: One of my 748Fs makes 7m a week in profit. One of several... So, just because my costs are higher, doesn't negate the fact my revenue and thus my profit is much higher as well.
Doesn't mean that
everyone can handle the increased costs, but doesn't mean
it can't be done.
Talentz
PS: Tu-204 family update: Eventually...
I am missing the 767 and the DC-10/MD-11 in your thoughts. The 767-300F launches in the early 1990's. The MD-11F launches even earlier in the mid 80's.
Airlines focussing on LH could easily pick DC-10 or 767 and then incorporate cargo using the same fleet type (especially since DC10 and MD-11 are the same fleet type now). Don't forget there are 747 cargo freighters, too. Yes, the 747 barely made sense for pax airlines. But maybe it's really profitable when your main focus is cargo.
QuoteConsequence is either that you become a pure freighter airline, or dedicate one of your 3 types to a large freighter, or hit the 4th type penalty.
Or give up good part of your MH cargo network for 10-15 years.
Hmm, no. Depends on your fleet choice obviously. In current GW2 I am running 3 fleet types: NAMC, 737-200, VC10. I am currently replacing NAMC with 737-200 to have room for a 3rd fleet type (767). As of now, both the 737-200 and the VC10 have both pax and cargo operations. VC10 will be replaced with 767-200ER and 767-300F. 737-200 will later be replaced with 737-300F and 737-300. Yes, the transition is late (around mit 2000's), but why not? The 737-200 is a good aircraft. Same goes for the VC10.
I see others are focussing on DC10 for cargo and can equally transition to MD11 or 767 later on. It's no big deal really. Medium haul is a bit more limiting indeed, but both the 737-200F and the DC9 do wonders even until later stages of the game. I never played 727, but I guess it works too. Only real issue I see is having hushkits available in case the transition comes very late (think 2004-2006 approx in the EU).
@ André
My post was purely about large class, not VL.
Depending on where you play, you don't have the same use of L or VL freighters: should I put a VL on a 11000kg 600nm route? Hell no. A L-class? Hell yes.
And my GW#2 airline has more MH cargo potential than LH cargo (LH is 5-6 routes, that's all).
Otherwise I completely agree that there is plain continuity as for VL aircrafts.
Going back to the focus on L-class, you sure could try to bring the 732 until the 2000s, or the DC-9, or the 727. But again, depending on where you play this could prove impossible because of other factors. You mention noise regulation, and this is one. But you're currently playing in cargo-rich Germany, where the large income will compensate for the late use of such birds. What about places where cargo isn't as large? Because it now is a very important source of income for an airline, that means either:
- not enough cargo to compensate for the aging fleet
- give up cargo to have a newer fleet.
Another aspect: I'm thinking relatively to my current situation (USSR). The 732 is doing great, but limited to 2050nm (or 2150 if you squeeze it). USSR requires range. I could surely give up the range, but it means giving up something else. Makes a lot of things to give up.
How about bringing some currently "medium" aircraft to large class? BAe 146 and Ejets comes to mind. Conisidering the BAC 111s and DC9s capacities start from 70, they could be considered large, too.
The BAC and DC-9 are considered large because they were somewhat large for the era. All aircrafts grew over time (737-100 vs MAX-9, for example).
Thus, smaller old planes tend to be considered large for their era, not necessarily in absolute.
(the BAC used to be medium, the VC-10 used to be large, etc., until the start of current GW#2, before such considerations were implemented)
So we are left with few options besides having a 4th fleet.
If it took so long in real life to appear cargo versions of newer models, I guess it's because airlines could operate, let's say, A300s and A330s without commonality problems. Here we have this commonality penalty that will limit our operations some time during the gamespan. I'd like to have a total lift of 4th fleet penalty if the 4th one was a pure freight operation.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 16, 2018, 03:10:59 PM
Could you please give some more details about your thoughts?
I agree on the "significant strategic challenge" under certain circumstances, completely. But under some others I feel this is just impossible to achieve.
Some LH airline (LHR, HKG, DXB, SIN, etc.) could use the 757, fine. The others? Give up cargo for 15 years and then getting back to it, is that what you mean? (not suspicious, just curious).
Sure. The strategic challenge is exactly what you have been posting about in this thread. The airline must make a decision between running more than the ideal number of aircraft types, running less than ideal aircraft on routes, selecting less than ideal aircraft types for their overall route demands or choosing not to service a particular type of demand.
You'll see in GW1, I'm running the 727, 757 and DC10 out of LAX. The 757 has been poor choice from there ever since the tech stop nerf, yet, with cargo, it makes it an interesting play, as the usual LAX formula says you should go to MD80/90, 737NG or A320 direct from the 727 and call it a day. By adding in the 757, it will extend the life of my DC10/future MD11 fleet by a significant amount of time, and I'll have a challenge to swap out the 727s not converted to 757 to a better type.
You'll see in GW2 that I kept 707s around until ~1988 for freight purposes until the L1011F became available. I could have had those gone 8-10 game years earlier. You'll see that I have consciously decided not to fly pure cargo flights within Europe (though, the upcoming 733F will change that).
Quote from: Talentz on April 16, 2018, 04:22:36 PM
What Schro means is that the cost of a 4th fleet isn't deal breaking as most people seem to think. You can survive and thrive beyond 4 fleets as long as you run a strong airline.
I mean, in GW3 I have over 700 aircraft and four fleets with only 65 aircraft that make up my fourth fleet. By all accounts and advise, I should be hurting. If look at my commonality, the 747 fleet per aircraft is very high compared to others:
[snip]https://s17.postimg.cc/eztyr8w9r/Common.jpg[/img]
But to be ruthlessly honest: One of my 748Fs makes 7m a week in profit. One of several... So, just because my costs are higher, doesn't negate the fact my revenue and thus my profit is much higher as well.
Doesn't mean that everyone can handle the increased costs, but doesn't mean it can't be done.
Talentz
PS: Tu-204 family update: Eventually...
The commonality numbers you're posting for ~750 in service are quite a bit lower than what I'm used to seeing. I'd have to dig up old posts to remember better, but when you get closer to 1000 frames you'd see a jump from $82m/month to 955m/month in commonality costs (oh look, found a reference here - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,62017.msg357564.html#msg357564).
Quote from: wilian.souza2 on April 16, 2018, 05:57:30 PM
So we are left with few options besides having a 4th fleet.
If it took so long in real life to appear cargo versions of newer models, I guess it's because airlines could operate, let's say, A300s and A330s without commonality problems. Here we have this commonality penalty that will limit our operations some time during the gamespan. I'd like to have a total lift of 4th fleet penalty if the 4th one was a pure freight operation.
You may want to be cautious of what you ask for. The folks running the large airlines would benefit significantly from this and make the game far easier. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but you wouldn't enjoy sharing a base with one of my 1000+ plane airlines that suddenly gets a 4th fleet type to play with...
I think it's fair to say that the best cargo planes are not necessarily the best pax planes. IRL, the 747, the MD-11 and latterly the 757 have been cargo behemoths, whilst these planes as pax carriers.... have not been, or at least have not stayed relevant.
Airlines have to make a decision on how and when to run cargo, and then work out how they can keep it running.
My GW2 solution is to run 727s, in some form until a round the year 2000.
My GW1 solution is to switch my entire short haul operation to 757 (when the standard play is 320, MD80 or 737), then once I've replaced the wide body fleet into something resembling game end in the 1990s, I'll keep 757 cargo and switch out the passenger 757s into something more competitive with the 3rd slot.
Both are brand new strategies based around cargo operations. Both are proof that there are options out there. I think it's great, because it adds complexion and strategy but they are choices. Changing up to 4 fleets would lessen the challenge for me.
Quote from: schro on April 16, 2018, 06:20:53 PM
/.../
Dec 2016 is when I'll find out. My global plan of domination starts then.
On the other hand, if the costs become absurdly high as observed, the 777X handles the 748Is mission and I can rapid retire the fleet with no loss in capability (as the freighters just improve efficiency for me).
Fun times for all ~
Talentz
Thanks for your ideas / strategies. It sure opens some horizons.
Still, I'm kind of stuck with the idea that in some places... Well, I feel that playing out of tier 1 airports tends to bend a little the idea of the elasticity some other airport require, because those tier 1 airports don't require a medium aircraft, and you can toy around your large class and potentially merge them into one sole group (taking the 757 as temporary workhorse, as example). As for me, I'm in Moscow. It's an enormous hub... for medium aircrafts.
As for the strategic renouncement, it's probably best to give up cargo, even if this hurts. Made the choice long ago to run the Viscount for ages, before I knew cargo would be introduced in GW#2, and I'm kind of stuck with this initial strategy: their currently low profitability + my fleet size doesn't allow me a 4th fleet group, and I need the range sooner rather than later. Well, this cross off options.
Thanks!
@ Wilian: trust schro on that one. No free 4th fleet group is better. That's why I proposed heavy limitations.
Quote from: Talentz on April 16, 2018, 06:42:08 PM
Dec 2016 is when I'll find out. My global plan of domination starts then.
Let me guess: adding a new fleet type?
Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 16, 2018, 07:10:21 PM
@ Wilian: trust schro on that one. No free 4th fleet group is better. That's why I proposed heavy limitations.
Or even better. leave the fleet commonality as is.
New opportunities from cargo come with a price. It should not be free.
The price is a more challenging fleet strategy.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 16, 2018, 07:24:25 PM
Let me guess: adding a new fleet type?
Fleet change (D checking 27yr freighters :laugh:) and growth; The 737NG freighters bring a whole new capability over the 737 classics. I can hit KCDB/CDB and one hop to the US with 19k kg payload (20k w/ 738F). This brings all of Canada, USA and most of Mexico within one hop.
Also, both the 738BCF and A321F can better challenge the 757F on tech-stopped routes... you'll able to enable
your revenge as well ;)
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on April 16, 2018, 07:50:43 PM
Fleet change (D checking 27yr freighters :laugh:) and growth; The 737NG freighters bring a whole new capability over the 737 classics
I figured that.
These late in the game additions address what The_Ape is asking, but a bit too late in the game.
Re: classics
They are definitely a possibility for 90s transition of pax and early 2000 transition of cargo.
In GW2, I'll probably give up Cargo for 20 years. 727s are not fit for the 21st century, and 757s are waaaaaay too big for Poland's needs. I just won't replace 7 planes out of nearly 400.
My 7 best planes.
Choices, choices, choices.
I think the current system works pretty well, for one it's harder on the guys with huge fleets, so it's keeps them in check at least a little bit.
And secondly it also reflects real life very well in this regard. How many airlines do you know that run a large passenger ops and also a cargo ops with dedicated freighters in the large-aircraft class? Yes, there is Lufthansa Cargo and Korean Cargo and so on, but the all use VL aircraft only for their cargo ops. I personally can't think of a single global passenger airline also using 737Fs/757Fs/727Fs/A320Fs or are planning on doing so in the future. Usually these aircraft are only used by cargo only airlines such as DHL or UPS/FedEx/TNT sub-contractors.
So I think having a hurdle to run a 500+ aircraft passenger ops as well as Cargo in the "large" class in the same company is very realistic. Maybe we should let this part of the market that we can't get with belly-cargo but is still not enough for a VLA freighter to the cargo specialists ;)
Greets,
Cedric
@ Cedric
Maybe you're right. I personally lack experience on cargo, and this is probably the case for all of us (not a single real GW with cargo over yet).
I got one concern, though: that "middle" countries would become harder to play in: rich countries have enough cargo (LH and belly) to provide a nice income complement all the time, even when you can't have avery plane. Small countries are usually "owned" by a single airline that can raise prices quite a bit (those countries where you can have a 4th fleet without it being a problem). Medium countries would still have the competition, but without the extra cargo income that is so important now.
Saying this because my belly cargo numbers are usually atrociously low, even though I'm often close to the plane's max range (thus having very limited payload dedicated to cargo).
Let's see what the future brings us.
This may be a case where getting shut out of the new plane market for so long ends up working out in my favor. We all know what happened with the 737 Jurassic models. As a result, I have some of the youngest 732Adv in the game. By the late 1990s they'll just be hitting their second D-check. Prime conversion age ;D
Quote from: Tha_Ape on April 16, 2018, 07:10:21 PM
Thanks for your ideas / strategies. It sure opens some horizons.
Still, I'm kind of stuck with the idea that in some places... Well, I feel that playing out of tier 1 airports tends to bend a little the idea of the elasticity some other airport require, because those tier 1 airports don't require a medium aircraft, and you can toy around your large class and potentially merge them into one sole group (taking the 757 as temporary workhorse, as example). As for me, I'm in Moscow. It's an enormous hub... for medium aircrafts.
As for the strategic renouncement, it's probably best to give up cargo, even if this hurts. Made the choice long ago to run the Viscount for ages, before I knew cargo would be introduced in GW#2, and I'm kind of stuck with this initial strategy: their currently low profitability + my fleet size doesn't allow me a 4th fleet group, and I need the range sooner rather than later. Well, this cross off options.
Thanks!
@ Wilian: trust schro on that one. No free 4th fleet group is better. That's why I proposed heavy limitations.
Even with heavy limitations a 4th fleet would just make the biggest airlines even bigger. I'd guess that most of the top 10 airlines in GW3 (outside of Talentz) are waiting for 737NGF or A320/321Fs to come along. If we had a 4th fleet it would have been easy to just start those long/thinner cargo routes using 757PFs and transition them to the new narrowbody freighter of choice.