Staff for Medium a/c is getting ridiculous

[Curse]

DC-9 is so bad modeled in AWS (especially due to the missing DC-9-3x longrange and the overhelming competition - sorry sami!) and compared to the BAC, it just went out of production totally in September 1978, while the BAC still has 432 (!) orders.

Quote from Wikipedia Germany (translated by me):
"BAC One-Eleven went obsolete during mid 1970s after DC-9 and 737 were able to transport more passengers with the same costs."


Global statistics procuded:
4146x BAC 1-11
3300x 737 1st generation
540x Fokker 28
976x DC-9

[[SC] - King Kong]

Now write a nice thesis about this and I will grade it within 10 working days.

[Asiamat]

That BAC 1-11 commercial success is somehow ridiculous and unreal I think! So definitely is something wrong with this aircraft modelization in AWS.

[Kadachiman]

Putting the the BAC 1-11 range into the LARGE aircraft type instead of its current MEDIUM aircraft type category is incorrect due to the fact that all of the above arguments are based on the BAC 1-11 500 which is the largest of the fleet at 100 seats...the argument needs to be based on the entire range of the BAC 1-11 variants if you are to change the fleet type

The BAC 1-11 consists of 5 types -
BAC 1-11 200 - 70 seats
BAC 1-11 300 - 75 seats
BAC 1-11 400 - 75 seats
BAC 1-11 475 - 75 seats
BAC 1-11 500 -100 seats

Total seats for range = 395 seats
Variants in range = 5
Average seats per variant = 79 seats
Which clearly is in the MEDIUM Regional Jet category not the LARGE category

Why is it so popular?
- My guess is the same reason that the 737/300/400/500/600/700/800/900 and the A318/A319/A320/A321 are later in the game...being a great plane for its game play era

[Curse]

I don't agree, the older BAC variants are released some years before, so they can account as large aircraft of their time.

I already used DC-6 and Constellation as well as Comet as example of other aircraft with <100 pax that are "large".


Also connected with DC-9 BAC is a large aircraft.

[Kadachiman]

I know you don't agree...so we will just have to go with a difference of opinion on this one :-)

DC6 - 85 seats
DC6B - 102 seats
Average for range = 93.5 seats (14.5 seats more than BAC 1-11 range)

Comet - 8 variants
Total seats for all variants = 608 seats
Average for range =  76 seats (3 less seats than the BAC 1-11 range)

IMO it is the Comet that is in the incorrect category

[Curse]

No, the Comet is a large aircraft of it's year (mid/end 1950s), as well as the Constellation (it may even be a very large aircraft but then it would become impossible to play, same for DC-6B), while for example the B377 as a medium aircraft is wrong.

The BAC in the historical context is a hybrid between first and second generation jets and therefor it must be rated as the first and second generation jets - and that's large. A medium jet of the same time is clearly the Fokker 28 - and it doesn't get magically a small aircraft just because BAC is one.

Again: BAC 500 is just a tad smaller than DC-8-10 or DC-8-20 and the 720. But of course they are clearly very large aircraft.

Also 727 is a large aircraft (obviously) but is way bigger than the other large aircraft of its era, it's even bigger than most DC-8 and 707, but in the context of its introduction its a large aircraft as well.



So, when the 727 is the absolute top of large aircraft (together with the questionable VC 10), then BAC is clearly at the lower end of large aircraft.

[Luperco]

Hi

The BAC, in my opinion, is somewhere in the middle to between a medium aircraft and a large one.

Is bigger than the F28 but is smaller than the DC9 and VC10.

In the Wikipedia english page they say: "The One-Eleven 475 of 1970 was launched to compete with the F28. ".
The larger 500 was introduced to compete with DC9 and 737. Anyway, "the delay in the development gave competing US aircraft (being the Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737) the chance to make up for the One-Eleven's early penetration of the U.S. domestic market."

The BAC was not as succesful as the competitors in real life, also is because U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board stopped U.S. airlines from using BAC. So it  was gottten only by few non U.S. companies.

So the reasons for which the BAC is not as succesful in real life as on the game, are not modelled in the game itself.

The metagame is broken, not because the BAC is medium (that may help) but because the game rewards smaller aircrafts. In this game it is generally better sends on a route 3 Fokker 27 than a BAC. And is better sends two BAC than one 737. Or, again 4 Fokker 100 than 3 MD80. Unless you are in a desert island with no competition.

I'm in the process to substitue (on Game #3) older MD80 with new Fokker. Just moving the routes from the bigger to the smaller plane I go from 250K per week to 400K per week of income per plane. And I still not checked the saving with the staff.

And now I've space to send more plance to the same route without oversupply it.

The problem is not if the BAC is medium or big but the fact that the smaller aircraft doesn't have disadvantages. Even older turboprop like F27.
One evidence is that has been needed to introduce an artificial limitation to avoid to sends small aircrafts on big routes.

In my opinion, the competition should be played more on prices, services (travel time, seats quality and staff) and images (both of company and aircraft) than on frequency.

[JonesyUK]

That BAC 1-11 commercial success is somehow ridiculous and unreal I think! So definitely is something wrong with this aircraft modelization in AWS.

It's (lack of) success in RL was more due to politics than the characteristics of the aircraft. Same goes for other British aircraft of the time.

I've used the 1-11 since my first JA game 5 or 6 years ago and it's always  served me well. Many people playing this game go for Boeing or Airbus aircraft as a default as they dominate the airline world today, not necessarily because their aircraft are/have been that much better than the competition, but because they've got the politics right.

Besides, I do not see how the 1-11-200 (with 70 standard seats) should be in the same category as the 737-100 (with 96 standard seats), a near 40% increase. At the other extreme, Compare it to the 727-200Adv, which is an increase of 130%, it would seem even more ridiculous! Should we be moving the 727 to the 'very large' category?

[Curse]

I already answered the BAC 1-11 200 vs. 727-200Adv thing. :/

[schro]

For those of you interested in some of the history behind the politics, I highly suggest reading The Sporty Game

[Curse]

Just to add to his:

BAC 1-11 200 was delivered 1963, DC-9-10 1966 (GW#4 numbers)
BAC 1-11 500 was delivered 1967, DC-9-50 1975 (GW#4 numbers)


Also BAC 1-11 500 is the most popular aircraft of that line, so it should count most. To give out a compromise:
Why not add the 1-11 prototypes in the 6xx range? They offer again more seats, in the size of the DC-9-50. This would increase the "so important" average fleet seating as well as giving BAC players an even newer version.
Together with the range increased DC-9-3x we would have two attractive new lines: One for smaller operations below the 737-200Adv, the 1-11 line with less range and less fuel consumption, and the DC-9 as smaller variant but with way more range then the 1-11.

For even smaller and shorter operations then the F28 would be interesting.


With those small changes players would have way more models to choose from, all with advantages and disadvantages, all in real world borders.

[Jona L.]

The point of this whole thing is to compare aircraft in their respective timeframe.

The comparison Kadachiman drew between the BAC 1-11 and the A320 family is absolutely pointless, as it has no relevance towards the timeframes. It is like comparing the Boeing 787 with the Boeing 707, as both airplanes were/are very large in their timeframe, and both highly economical. Of course by todays standards a B707 would be a large a/c being just as big as a B737-800/900 or an A321. As you see, that comparison makes no sense at all.

The BAC is an aircraft comparable to the DC-9 (range, size, etc.) and their versions also roughly correspond in launch dates. The DC-9 is however a large aircraft, and the BAC is not. Same goes for the SUD SE Caravelle, which is classed as a "large" a/c, but being the same size of a DC-9 and BAC. just because in the late 60s/early 70s the Caravelle 12 is launched to be as large as a 737-200Adv.

Just to add to his:

BAC 1-11 200 was delivered 1963, DC-9-10 1966 (GW#4 numbers)
BAC 1-11 500 was delivered 1967, DC-9-50 1975 (GW#4 numbers)

These 3 years between the BAC 1-11-200 and the DC-9-10 are a HUGE timespan in that era. Same as the 8 (EIGHT!!) years between the 100 seater BAC 1-11-500 and the 130 seater DC-9-50. The rate with which planes grew in size and efficiency in that era is staggeringly fast. Nowadays there is not much more to be pulled off, unlike back then, which is why the growth from the 737-3/4/500 to the 737-6/7/8/900 isn't very much, and neither is the impact in fuel consumption.

The F28 being a 65 seater (default, MAX 79) as late as the late 70s (launch '76, deliveries '78 in GW4) in the Mk 4000 series is indeed a medium aircraft, as it is considerably smaller than the other aircraft of its era. With the first version (F28 Mk 1000) being delivered in 1968, a year after the largest BAC 1-11 has started deliveries makes it a medium aircraft, and also more evidence for the BAC 1-11 being in the wrong class.
That 100 seater is in the same category of a 65 seater. That is like putting a 767-300 in the same class as an A321 (being roughly 35% smaller), which no one can argue is nonsense.

Yes, the BAC 1-11 has the -200 variant being a 70 seater with less than 1000NM range, but that is early 60s, when the DC-9-10 with a larger range was still 3+ years away, by which time BAC already had the -300 and -400 out with a similar range, making it equal to the DC-9.

Indeed the B737 and the B727 are a lot larger, but also have a larger timeframe, and a different "use". You don't pick a 727 because it looks nice (though it does), or is super efficeint (which it really isn't compared to aircraft of their time), but because it reaches the places you can't reach with BAC 1-11, DC-9 or B737 even. The B737, being comparably efficient (still not quite as much though) to the BAC 1-11 is also not chosen for its beauty, it is chosen because it goes further than a BAC. Which however doesn't change the fact, that the BAC 1-11 is the same size as the B737-200 and just slightly smaller than the B737-200Adv, thus making it the same size class. The fact alone that it is more efficient on the short legs it is designed for, makes it a good aircraft, and also because its production line is not as crowded as the 737 or the 727.

If you don't need the B727 or B737 range, you will use the BAC 1-11 anyways, if it is a medium a/c or a large a/c. And the other way around, if you need the range, you won't use the BAC anyways, just because it has more advantages, that in the end are of no use, when you can't utilize the plane itself.
It being a medium aircraft just gives it many (unfair) advantages over the B737, B727, DC-9 and Caravelle. Such as faster deliveries, and lower staff requirements.


So in conclusion: A more efficient aircraft is buffed to become a cheatcode, by giving it more advantages than it already has anyways.


I have no objection to an Embrear ERJ, a Fokker F100, or a Bombardier CRJ being a medium sized aircraft, even though they are the size of the BAC 1-11. It is okay, because it is in a different era, in fact 35 years apart. And the EMB 195 (and for that matter CRJ1000 and F100) is a 100 seater in a time when all planes are generally larger. In their era they are medium aircraft, but 35 years earlier they would have been large.
A B757-200 is a large aircraft, 30 years earlier a B707-320B being the same size, and having a similar range was a very large aircraft. So basically the classification goes "1 down" in these 30 years. Same as the DC-6 being a large aircraft, with the B727 being a large aircraft, too, despite its greater capacites, it is just 20 years later.

The fact, why the B737 remains a large aircraft is, that it grows following the timelines, with the B737-400 being 40 seats larger than a B737-200Adv. and the B737-900 being another 30 seats larger than the B737-400. Same with the "DC-9 based aircraft", the MD-80 and MD-90, both being 150 seaters, so equal to a B737-400 and -800, and the A320.

The B717 however could again be considered a medium aircaft, because it is roughly equal to the F100 and the ERJ195 and being the size of a "large a/c" DC-9-30 from 40 years before.


To do a final sum up of the points made above in detail:

- BAC 1-11 should be large because it is the same size as it's direct rivals, just with better fuel economy than the planes for longer routes.
- As a comparison, same sized aircraft are sorted differently in different eras, such as the B757 vs. the B707, being rated "1 down" in fleets size class.
        --> The modern medium sized aircraft are just as large as a BAC 1-11, 35 years earlier, and should thus be treated just as the B757, rated "1 down" to their predecessors of
              same size and range, and making them "small" would be outrageous, so work the other way around, rate the BAC 1-11 "1 up".
- B737 remain a large aircraft through their generations due to their continous growth along the timeline.
- A320family are late generation aircraft, being the same size as the late generation B737, thus large, and irrelevant for a comparison to a plane 25 years older anyways.

--- END OF SUMMARY ---


Thanks for reading this, and I hope these points don't need to be made another time over as already done by me just now. This has all been said before in this thread.
I hope people finally understand the points made, and stop ignoring them, to just write the same arguments, that have been made, and have been invalidated before.

cheers,
Jona L.


--- EDIT ---

P.S.:
I am not doing this out of spite or to haze other people using BAC or so, I operate a fleet of over 200 BAC 1-11-475/500 in GW4, and used to operate a fleet of ~110-120 BAC 1-11-500 in GW1 myself. And it feels so bad to just crush airlines using 737, 727, DC-9, and Caravelles. Not only that, a BAC 1-11 even kills props and turboprops, like the F27 and the NAMC YS-11. I speak from experience, and it just feels wrong. I of course use the plane, because it is in the best interest for my airline, and I would still use it if it were a large aircraft, just for the fact it is more efficient aircraft and from a less crowded production line as a B737. But it being a medium sized aircraft gives me the additional bonus of super-fast deliveries AND near to no staff needed compared to large aircraft (and also the pilots being cheaper).

[bdnascar3]

At the risk of being slammed, has anyone thought of making the DC9 a medium aircraft?

[Curse]

@bdnascar3

Yes, this was discussed but it would be absolutely wrong in the context of its timeframe as well as in the context of the 737-100, 737-200 and 727-100 as well as in reality.

DC-9 is absolutely clearly a large aircraft on the lower to average size but with huge range (not implemented in AWS yet!) and a direct competitor to the 737 1st generation series that's also a large aircraft.


@ Jona L.

Thanks for the nice summary. I just hope sami would comment in here, either with him agreeing or saying why exactly he is not yet convinced of why BAC 1-11 must be a large aircraft.

[LemonButt]

In reality, the problem isn't that the BAC is a large and/or medium aircraft, but that overhead costs are converted from continuous data to arbitrary discrete data values which skew the game for ALL aircraft, not just the BAC.  The long term solution would be to institute type ratings for pilots and then calculate support staff based on the continuous data.

[[SC] - King Kong]

So what about introducing a sub group? Medium Large?

[knobbygb]

Isn't it obvious that the real problem here, rather than any specific aircraft's size category, is that classifying aircraft as either medium or large is just an arbitrary, unrealistic concept that has no base in the real world and thus can never be perfect in the game?   

Having said that, it's also totally necessary in the game as many things are tied to that category - the new base-size concept, for example.

The only true solution would be to re-model everything so that the concept of fixed-size-class didn't exist but that is not practical (even though it would fix other issues such as the A318 and the A321 being the "same size" and requiring the same turnaround time, for example).  The landing and navigation fees have recently been moved out of the "size class" influence and are now individual, but that's easier because there is no user interaction there.

The best that could be done, as King Kong has just suggested would be to have more, smaller size classes - maybe five or six.  But this just adds more complexity.  Staffing with five or six bases and four classes of pilots is difficult enough to manage as it is! I think the current situation is pretty good actually and at least it's the same for everyone.

If you want to add a big dose of realism (and discussing British vs. US aircraft in the 60's is a good example) then you need to (a) remove foresight (we all know that the one-eleven will be "good" even before it's launched) and (b) model - POLITICS into the game.  Not gonna happen.

[Curse]

I'm aware total concept changes may also solve this and I'm aware sami is, if, introduces them over many years step by step.


That's why Jona, I and some others suggest changing the BAC 1-11 from medium to large. That is, most likely, two mouse clicks (and a short search in the master DB) for sami. The many advantages and realism improvement was already discussed several times here and I think my arguments are valid, while there are basically no disadvantages.

Now it's just sami who must decide.... or at least comment his thoughts.