767-300ER versus 787

English Boards General
21

Everyone should be worried to operate an aircraft within the typical capacity-range IMO.

My opinion is that the judgment of the AS-passenger regarding the comfort and decision to book, the ability to operate aircraft with too few seats profitably, and the aim to get high ratings to please the AS-passenger are unrealistic as long as a game with airline-business in focus is not taking the “seatmile cost” much stronger into account – with a similar importance as the rating, demands of passengers etc.. Such numbers should be one of the most important numbers for an airline to compare the cost-structures, to optimize the flight ops etc..

A little more realistic view would “force” the majority of airlines to make good use of the available space aboard their aircraft. It would also increase the “difficulty” to offer long haul flights with very small aircraft (Boeing 737-600s etc.) because of devastating operating costs and lack of enough income due to too few available seats for example. Many routes won´t be viable anymore as long as bigger aircraft are used. In case of lack of demand, it is like in real world: Suspend the route.

Nevertheless I am very pleased about the improvements made with the new editor (regardless of all the complaints) and I am sure that airlinesim will be further enhanced.

The demands of my passengers are not my first priority and the rating is the most unimportant thing for me.

My priorities at Sparrow Air:

-          Making money to ensure the future of Sparrow Air

-          Offering an attractive  network which is sustainable

-          Making full use of my tools (airplanes) at Sparrow Air

-          Operating Sparrow Air at reasonable costs

-          Closely monitoring the cost-structure of Sparrow Air

-          Taking care of my employees to ensure their jobs at Sparrow Air

-          Offering our passengers dependable, friendly and safe service

-          Ensure a very high technical condition of the aircraft at Sparrow Air

-          Ensure clean cabins at Sparrow Air

-          Retain profitability as good as I can

-          Secure markets which are doing well for Sparrow Air

-          Increase markets which are doing well for Sparrow Air

-          Retain some sort of simplicity within Sparrow Air

The aim to be efficient is additionally fueled due to the fact that the majority of my fleet is rather classic. This results in the fact that I have to make compromises to compensate disadvantages and to make full use of the advantages. The less economical operation of parts of my fleet urges me to make good use of an aircraft. I simply can´t operate an MD-80 with only 70 or 80 seats (at very high comfort-standards) because the operating-costs would directly result in losses – despite the full aircraft. I always have to look for an “optimal configuration” and the ideal mix of Business Class/Economy Class, and a large enough number of passengers to break even at xx% load factor to ensure profits with every additional seat sold. This is always highly individual but a very nice orientation is to look at real world.

The configuration of an aircraft should not be influenced primarily by the acceptance of the passenger or ratings.

The configuration of an aircraft was, is and will always be a compromise:

- Demand/supply of capacities/markets

- Requirement of the offered standard/service

- Performance/payload/regional requirements

- Cost-structure of the aircraft

The compromise is finally advertised in nice brochures like the one at Sparrow Air:

“The McDonnell Douglas MD-82 is configured to seat 137 passengers. Enjoy the fact that 80% of all passengers get a seat at an aisle or window due to the 5-abreast seating!” :wub:

  :wub:  :wub: 

The passenger shouldn´t be aware that Sparrow Air researched three years to find the optimal configuration where 44 seats can be sold as Business Class and 93 as Economy Class. The 137 seats also allow Sparrow Air to schedule their MD-82s on longer routes without payload-restrictions because the aircraft can be operated with up to 172 seats (35 more people + baggage). The difference in payload really helps Sparrow Air.

In short: I agree with your opinion ;) 

22

Hi,

I am happy to see another Mad Dog fan, and equally interested in your opinion about the way our virtual passengers choose their flights.

But please sir, with all due respect, allow me to clarify the subject of this topic.

In some planes you can install as many standard seats as the plane is certified for. The 747-800 is certified for 495 passengers on the main deck, and you can install 495 standard seats on the main deck. Perfect.

In many planes the difference between the number of seats you should be able to install, and the number of seats you can actually install, is marginal or at least acceptable. Excellent.

Unfortunately, in a few planes the difference is big... you can only install 352 standard seats in a A330-300 instead of 440. And only 287 standard seats in the 767-300 (instead of 350). Other types of seats give similar discrepancies.

;-)

Jan

23

Jan,

Is the number of seats really the problem with the A330 and B767 here? I looked up seat config's on the internet and I was able to create about the same configuration on an A332 in Airlinesim as with, for example, KLM; 30 business class (140 lie flat) and 210 economy (comfort). This does not give me a 2-4-2 in economy but it does provide a total of 250 seats (comparable with real life) with reasonable ratings. So from that point of view you should be be able to operate it on long haul routes. So, what makes the A330 en B767 not viabel in airlinesim? Fuel burn? Maintanance costs? Or is the B787 just to positive in airlinesim?

I had the plan to go all airbus with my new airline, but I am seriously considering to lease B787's now...

24

I looked somewhat further into the B787 and I found that you can install just to many seats in the B787 comparred with real life seating config's. I installed 21 full bed's and 240 comfort seats, a total of 261 seats. If you compare that with real life seating, you wil come to around 205 seats (e.g.  United). That is a difference of almost 50 seats! I'm beginning to think that it's not the A332/B763 that are off in airlinesim, but the B787 is the one that is off?

25

 I looked up seat config's on the internet and I was able to create about the same configuration on an A332 in Airlinesim as with, for example, KLM; 30 business class (140 lie flat) and 210 economy (comfort). This does not give me a 2-4-2 in economy but it does provide a total of 250 seats (comparable with real life) with reasonable ratings. 

I did the same for the A340 and found the same. I could configure the plane as in real life, plus a couple of seats more.

26

Hi Arjen,

the 767-300ER is an excellent plane as far as fuel consumption is concerned. The 787 was only marginally better. But wide bodies and long haul flights are less profitable in general. At least in the game.

My 767's fly long haul routes. On these routes the comfort seat gives me a rating of 2, the lie flat 140 gives a rating of just 1 green bar. You need a high ORS rating on long haul flights, because there are thousands of possible routes between for instance Peking and London. Passengers prefer a direct flight, but that only means that a direct flight gets more passengers than a connecting flight. So every flight from Peking to X that connects to a flight from X to London gets a few of these passengers.

If you use cheap seats on these long haul routes, you have to lower your prices so much that the flight isn't profitable anymore. There is another aspect... low quality seat means low product rating. You can balance that out by lowering your prices in order to get a high overall rating for the flight itself, but you loose connecting passengers.

I invite every player with a fleet of wide bodies on long haul routes who operates cheap seats to step forward  ;-)

I am afraid that making the other wide bodies in the game more realistic, would just result in everybody making less money on their wide body flights. To the point where it is pointless to operate wide bodies.

Jan

27

Hi Arjen,

the 767-300ER is an excellent plane as far as fuel consumption is concerned. The 787 was only marginally better. But wide bodies and long haul flights are less profitable in general. At least in the game.

My 767's fly long haul routes. On these routes the comfort seat gives me a rating of 2, the lie flat 140 gives a rating of just 1 green bar. You need a high ORS rating on long haul flights, because there are thousands of possible routes between for instance Peking and London. Passengers prefer a direct flight, but that only means that a direct flight gets more passengers than a connecting flight. So every flight from Peking to X that connects to a flight from X to London gets a few of these passengers.

If you use cheap seats on these long haul routes, you have to lower your prices so much that the flight isn't profitable anymore. There is another aspect... low quality seat means low product rating. You can balance that out by lowering your prices in order to get a high overall rating for the flight itself, but you loose connecting passengers.

I invite every player with a fleet of wide bodies on long haul routes who operates cheap seats to step forward  ;-)

I am afraid that making the other wide bodies in the game more realistic, would just result in everybody making less money on their wide body flights. To the point where it is pointless to operate wide bodies.

Jan

Now it's already quite meaningless to operate widebodies except long-haul. With the current situation effectively crippling the B767 & A330, I am grim towards the future of widebodies in the game.

28

You can balance that out by lowering your prices in order to get a high overall rating for the flight itself, but you loose connecting passengers.

I'd like to ask if this is very much different compared to short and medium haul? Even with the old cabin configurator I used the "cheap" standard seat for every plane no matter the distance in Europe. Even on very heavy competition I managed to fill my planes to 100%. I have an overall ratio of 60% connecting passengers.

Right now, on domestic routes I use the slimline-HD and have 100% connecting passengers in some cases.

29

So do you want realism? Adapt! That's how it goes in real life, wheter it's fuel prices, strikes, fluctuations of demand... As far as I can understand there are here some players who simply want a seating configuration, ahd therefore it must be achievable. The irony on all of this is when you state some real life configurations, and I recall that most of the real economy flyers would rate those seats even worst than AS.

Long Haul is, the most profitable area of the game. No matter the plane.

30

So do you want realism? Adapt! That's how it goes in real life, wheter it's fuel prices, strikes, fluctuations of demand... As far as I can understand there are here some players who simply want a seating configuration, ahd therefore it must be achievable. The irony on all of this is when you state some real life configurations, and I recall that most of the real economy flyers would rate those seats even worst than AS.

Long Haul is, the most profitable area of the game. No matter the plane.

Yes, I do want some more realism, as the current pitch and/or floor plans for some airplanes are not correct. And no, I do not want a specific seating configuration, what I'd like to have is the possibility to add a row of economy seats on my 763s keeping a decent rating or a revision of the actual seat ratings or a revision of the seat/aisles width. Just to be clear, I do not ask this to be applied only to the 763s because I operate them, but also to the A330/340s (or any other plane affected) since many player use them and are complaining about seatings and their ratings. I don't know if You have ever flown in economy on a 763 or in an A330/340? I did, 2-3-2 on the first and 2-4-2 on the second ones, and honestly speaking I was satisfied with them, whereas I felt extremely uncomfortable in an LH A321 on a 45 minutes flight.

About long haul being "the most profitable area in the game", many other players seems to disagree with You. Anyhow, I'm going to give You some numbers of my own airline:

A320, 1h50m flight, 125/20 configuration with old seats, owned plane, 100% booked, profit margin 43%

B763, 10h05m flight, 203/18 configuration with old seats, owned plane, 100% booked, profit margin 27%.

Now, with the plane evaluation tool, on the same route, we'll get:

Aircraft type                       Flights per week Seats  Capital cost Total per seat  50%                    60%                   70%                 80%                  90%                  100%

Airbus Industrie A330-200 10.00                  222     53,607         624 AS$         -79,899 (-133%) -68,261 (-95%) -56,623 (-68%) -44,985 (-47%) -33,347 (-31%) -21,180 (-18%)

Airbus Industrie A330-300 10.00                  234     54,064         617 AS$         -82,430 (-130%) -70,263 (-93%) -58,096 (-66%) -45,400 (-45%) -33,233 (-29%) -20,537 (-16%)

Boeing 767-300ER            10.00                  216     46,503         566 AS$         -65,060 (-112%) -53,951 (-77%) -42,313 (-52%) -31,204 (-34%) -19,566 (-19%) -7,928 (-7%)

Boeing 787-8                     10.00                  245     49,092         532 AS$         -65,907 (-100%) -52,682 (-66%) -39,986 (-43%) -26,761 (-25%) -14,065 (-12%) -840 (-1%

That is with a 135% price factor (much higher than mine) and the tool, as You know, doesn't allow for a mixed class evaluation, which means there are roughly 30 less seats than those available in this example. If I were using a leased plane instead of an owned one, I'll be not simply loosing, but bleeding money on that route and on all my other long haul routes.

As You could see, A330s also have an higher capital cost compared to 787s, they're all certified to carry more passengers than the 787: 26 more for an A332 and 59 more for an A333 and yet they can carry less.

As I said before, I'm glad it works out for You, it's not going to be the case for me and for some other players. Fortunately for You, You're operating the planes with the widest fuselage cross section, which obviously have the better floor utilization.

Kindly

A.

31

So do you want realism? Adapt! That's how it goes in real life, wheter it's fuel prices, strikes, fluctuations of demand... As far as I can understand there are here some players who simply want a seating configuration, ahd therefore it must be achievable. The irony on all of this is when you state some real life configurations, and I recall that most of the real economy flyers would rate those seats even worst than AS.

Long Haul is, the most profitable area of the game. No matter the plane.

Hi,

I don't mind realism. But realism also means that an airline buys seats that actually fit in their planes. If a 767 is certified to carry 350 passengers, you should be able to install 350 standard seats. In a game, 340 seats would be acceptable. But I don't want a 767 with maximum 287 standard seats and two meter wide aisles. If you think that is more realistic and more profitable, feel free to buy/lease 767's from now on.

If you believe that wide bodies on long haul flights are the most profitable thing in the game, I think you are... euh... mathematically challenged. Unless you can back up that statement with facts and numbers.

But the problem is solved. The same magic that makes the seats too big to fit in my 767, has made the suites smaller than they should be. At least, that is what I think because I can install more suites than I can install full beds wide. I can sell these suites in business class, sell the tickets at the maximum price (200%) and still get a high rating. It means my test planes are now flying with 143 passengers (if fully booked). Not very realistic, but at least the planes will now make a decent profit.

As I haven't heard from the AS-team, I shall spend another 7 million and also change the cabin configuration of my other 767's. Jeez, I wonder how difficult it is to say "hang on, we'll discuss it internally", "no we won't change things", or "yes, we shall look into it".

Jan

32

I agree with Jan, I can live with any answer, but it would be nice when SK or Martin would react to this topic, we need to know to adjust our strategy.

33

We have some internal discussions right now if we slightly increase the cabin width for Airbus Widebodies (except A380) and the 767. Due to the christmas holidays there is not much participation - unfortunately. I think we can give you some more details within the next few days.

34

That is much appriciated SK, thank you! Looking forward to the outcome.

35

Thanks Sascha.

Although writing those two lines yesterday would have saved me 7 million  ;-)

Jan

36

People say the B787 is off well it's due to of Premium Economy. Untied has quite a lot of seats that are Premium Economy. Premium Economy has a config of that R LH or R SH.

Also I configure the B787 and I only get around 200seats F C Y so it is right. 

37

I'd like to ask if this is very much different compared to short and medium haul? Even with the old cabin configurator I used the "cheap" standard seat...

Hi,

I would say long haul is the same as regional, with only a few remarks...

- profits are bigger (in numbers) but profit margins are smaller;

- you're talking about bigger planes (more passengers), so usually you need an interlining partner at the other side of the world;

- cargo is important. You hardly make a profit if the cargo hold is empty (even if passengers are fully booked);

- standard seats give you red ratings on long flights. You need decent seats.

Jan

38

We have some internal discussions right now if we slightly increase the cabin width for Airbus Widebodies (except A380) and the 767. Due to the christmas holidays there is not much participation - unfortunately. I think we can give you some more details within the next few days.

Thanks, we'll wait for the details then.