A330-300 242t

I don't use comfort plus in Y at all because it has a very bad space/rating/price ratio compared to leisure, recliner short haul and recliner long haul. You are worse off using comfort plus than any of the three other mentioned seat types from perspective of maximizing the revenue with factors being occupied space and achievable maximum rating at the maximum possible price for that rating to occur.

On a shorthaul aircraft (A320, 737, 757) whit 6 seats in whith Confort plus is the best for Y together whit lie flat 140 for J.

On a shorthaul aircraft (A320, 737, 757) whit 6 seats in whith Confort plus is the best for Y together whit lie flat 140 for J.

From a revenue maximization standpoint - comfort plus is not a good seat and I will PM you why.

It's getting funny from the spectator point of view. In aviation, you don't usually argue with someone that has more stripes on shoulder or hours on type. Guess it's also applies here, don't argue with someone that has more posts than you, just like the captain, he usually has the final say.

Very sorry to help derail this 242T A330-300 discussion into some advance mathematical model formulation. To get it back on topic, I guess AS will add A330-300 HGW in addition to current A330-300 and A330-300X. I think this will be the highest MTOW for A330 before A330NEO. 

It's getting funny from the spectator point of view. In aviation, you don't usually argue with someone that has more stripes on shoulder or hours on type. Guess it's also applies here, don't argue with someone that has more posts than you, just like the captain, he usually has the final say.

Very sorry to help derail this 242T A330-300 discussion into some advance mathematical model formulation. To get it back on topic, I guess AS will add A330-300 HGW in addition to current A330-300 and A330-300X. I think this will be the highest MTOW for A330 before A330NEO. 

-- I would like that --

I don't argue for argument's sake :) I usually try to present my point of view, and my business model, which is backed up by very nice profitability in competitive markets such as USA, Brazil, Turkey etc. While other airlines are gasping for survival at 750-AGEX, I am adding planes daily.

Sometimes what I write may not necessarily make a lot of sense to an outside observer, who does not know all intricacies of my business model, but there is logic in what I write backed by hard data from my airlines.

Now I think CBE has some finance/business background, as well as some other players on AS (e.g. F.H. and I think AK as well) so for those cases, it's better to take discussions offline over to private messages, so as not to spam forums with a talk many players would not even understand. Concepts like revenue maximization may be hard to fully understand for some, as for me is hard to fully understand non-basic physics.

and really you don't need to advertise your business model every where.. I keep adding aircraft to my fleet, 3 daily actually, and keep growing at AGEX 750 or less and not a single drop in load factor, and don't see the point to highlight my business model to the whole world  :)

It's getting funny from the spectator point of view. In aviation, you don't usually argue with someone that has more stripes on shoulder or hours on type. Guess it's also applies here, don't argue with someone that has more posts than you, just like the captain, he usually has the final say.

...

This one really made me laugh. You don't really think that the number of posts has anything to say, do you?

As for the question on the finance/business background: While I don't see any relevance for such easy and straight forward calculations we have in AS, yes, I enjoyed numerous years at Universities studying business admin. and mech. engineering. For what it's worth, I love to play sims like AS since the Amiga times (that's way back to the 80s)

As for the discussion we have here:

Rubio has one severe error in his calc. rendering his revenue points comparison useless - I hoped he'd find the error himself and even pointed him to.

So what do we have:

His data as supplied:

788:

42.450 RU

costs: 2.2*RU = 93,390

seating: 28/171

333:

45.600 RU

costs: 2.27*RU = 103,512

seating: 30/184

359:

52.050 RU

costs: 2.17*RU = 112,948

seating: 35/207

So far everythings fine, as he chose to have a const. C/Y ratio: 35/207 ~ 30/184 ~ 28/171 ~ 0.16

If he would change the config on only one aircraft, his entire calculation model would have given him obscure values, showing him that somethings terribly wrong.

And here's the error:

With this, it is easy to calculate aircraft viability, I just divide total per trip cost with the revenue units, and I get a cost to generate one revenue unit.

...

Nope!

Because if you do this, you end up ruining everything you calculated so far. As I said: If you want to have several classes, you need to calculate for each class! Look at my minimum price formula to get an idea of how it's done.

Your results are:

788: CRU 2.2

333: CRU 2.27

359: CRU 2.17

So, you conclude, the 359 is the best option. It is - but only for your preset seating.

Remember: I said with calculating one CRU you ruined everything calculated so far.

Why?

Here's a the quick calc. using the way AET does it:

Costs per seat (costs as supplied / total seats in cabin):

788:

93,390/(171+28) = 469.3

333:

103,512/(184+30) = 483.7

359:

112,948/(207+35) = 466.7

Ok, so the numbers look different, though the result is exactly the same:

Crosscheck 1:

469.3/2.2  = 213.3

483.7/2.27 = 213.1

466.7/2.17 = 215.1

Check (ignore rounding error) - Rubio, you left out one Y-row to keep your calc. in balance right?

Crosscheck 2 with data supplied:

Y seat is 150RU, C seat is 600RU

Seat ratio is roundabout 0.16 as said above.

That gives us a const. of:  0.16*600RU+(1-0.16)*150RU = 222RU

333:

469.3/222 = 2.11 CRU

788:

483.7/222 = 2.18 CRU

359:

466.7/222 = 2.10 CRU

Again, those are multiple rounding errors. But otherwise, qed.

So, to make a long story short:

If you want to compare by classes, you should do so all the way.

If you really need your RU / CRU, well, that's a personal choice. Personally I prefer to have costs per unit and class.

Finally, back to the Comfort+ seat:

The 359 wins, because you are using Recl.Short seats. Those seats fit for a 787, 747 or 350, but absolutely not for a 333.

Hence why I asked you to compare with different seats.

If you really want to have a correct comparison, you shouldn't calculate with available seats anyways. Calculation with the available cabin space (or an average seat) + cargo payload over the entire payload/range array would be in order.

I am packing and preparing for my vacation so I haven't had a chance to actually analyze and re-analyze neither your post nor my original post, I will do that sometimes over the course of the next two weeks.

And no, I haven't omitted any Y row, at least not intentionally... when I have a chance to review this thread I will double check.

Just for the fun of it....

that's how a comparison could look like.

Remember, the 350 is beeing patched anyways, so this is just for the fun of it....

And without any Cargo!!!

Note that this comparison is ONLY "correct" for the selected route and config. As I said, a general comparison is a hell of a lot more complex, no time for integration, curve sketching and all that kind of math. stuff right now...

Excuse for any typos or errors in here. Not much time before wife and kid return... :o

Config:

A330-300X: 184 ReclinerShort in Y / 30 FullBed in C

-> CabinCrew: 4+1

A350-900XWB: 216 ReclinerShort in Y / 35 FullBed in C

-> CabinCrew: 5+1

Route: KHH-SHJ

The following is calculated WITHOUT any maint windows to allow for a more correct comparison (the 350 is faster, hence COULD do more flights)

A330-300X:

fuel: 24,434

maint: 10,600

handling: 553

ATC: 3,118

Landing: 388

Capital: 728,750 / ((24h*7)/9.267h) = 40,198

Crew: (81,900+16484+4605) / ((24h7)/9.267h) = 1,399

=> Total per Flight: 80,690

A350-900XWB:

fuel: 28,000

maint: 10,208

handling: 553

ATC: 3,344

Landing: 441

Capital: 795,000 / ((24h*7)/8.85h) = 41,879

Cockpit/Purser: (81,900+20484+4605) / ((24h7)/8.85h) = 1,438

=> Total per Flight: 85,863

Costs per Seat:

Y

A330-300X:

(80,690 * 0.724) / 184 = 317.5$ per seat                   that's the ratio how the individual class consumes total cabin space

A350-900XWB:

(85,863 * 0.738) / 216 = 293.4$ per seat

C

A330-300X:

(80,690 * 0.276) / 30 = 742.3$ per seat

A350-900XWB:

(85,863 * 0.262) / 35 = 642.7$ per seat

Conclusion:

As it is already obvious from the AET and Cabin Config, the A330 is neither good for seating a Recl.Short nor for a FullBed when compared to a 350.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from the comparison...

Let's analyse this post:

I don't use comfort plus in Y at all because it has a very bad space/rating/price ratio compared to leisure, recliner short haul and recliner long haul. You are worse off using comfort plus than any of the three other mentioned seat types from perspective of maximizing the revenue with factors being occupied space and achievable maximum rating at the maximum possible price for that rating to occur.

So, how's the result, when we exchange the Recl.Short in favour for a Comfort+ on the 330?

Let's do the calc. with a real flightplan now instead of one optimised for comparison as above.

My 333 does one daily trip KHH-SHJ

fuel: 24,434

maint: 10,600

handling: 553

ATC: 3,118

Landing: 388

Capital: 728,750 / 14 = 52,054

Crew: (81,900+16484+4*605) / 14 = 1,812

=> Total per Flight: 92,959

We keep C and everything else as is, just change Recl.Short for C+: That's 210 instead of 184 seats

Recliner:

(92,959 * 0.724) / 184 = 365.8$ per seat

Comfort+:

(92,959 * 0.719) / 210 = 318.3$ per seat

 

So we can offer the C+ at 365.8-318.3 = 47.5$ cheaper than ReclinerShort.

Let's have a quick check as to how the ratings are:

I scheduled two identical A330-300X flight KHH-SHJ (age, conditions, departure time, service … all the same)

At "standard" price (357$), the ORS ratings are 70 for the Recl. and 64 for the Comfort+

Recliner seat is offered to the calc 366$+ 38$ (catering+handling) + 50$ margin = 454$

Comfort+ is offered to those 318$ + 38$ (catering+handling) + 50$ margin = 406$

....and that's what the ORS scores:

Recliner at 61/99 points

Comfort+ at 59/99 points (remember: we DON'T have an additional FA for those 26 seats extra!)

So with an almost identical rating which shouldn't get noticed in bookings, we could get the additional profits of 26 seats, that's 26*50$ = 1,300$ per flight.

I honestly don't see what should be so bad in having Comfort+ seats...

Let’s just compare ratings of both at

recliner short haul 549 AS$

Comfort plus 483 AS$

Can you please post them?

The rcreo liner short haul price is set as I would sell it because I do not think anybody is going to operate wide body for a measly 9000 as dollar profit on long haul even on legacy worlds. The comfort plus has been calculated to give roughly the same numbers as recliner short haul.

This should give roughly the same revenue and profit for both seat types. Actually same profit and a few as dollars more revenue for comfort plus, so as not to not pick on this.

We’re at:

52/92 for Recliner

50/90 for Comfort

Wow....let me just shake myself awake after reading all that....

I just choose the aircraft I think is the prettiest.... :D  Fill 'em with happy punters, give them as much of everything as possible....

Watch the money come in.

Job done.

Any news on when we will have this model enter our game? Maybe as an IGW? 

Any news on when we will have this model enter our game? Maybe as an IGW? 

Or maybe as a A330E which is the real name of the model? We can hope it comes in the nest patch together with the improved A350, the A320NEO and the ARJ21.

I think Spezialist said a patch for A350 should be coming maybe this (coming) week. I do not think A320 neo or ARJ21 would be in that patch as there is no flight data available yet. Remember that A350 is now with new data on Quimby III but not on all other servers, the patch should remedy that within the next few days, hopefully.

Or maybe as a A330E which is the real name of the model? We can hope it comes in the nest patch together with the improved A350, the A320NEO and the ARJ21.

You are right and I think I mentioned this when I started this thread. For me it should be:

A330 (233t ? I m not sure on this one)

A330 E (235t)

A330 IGW (242t)

A330 Regional (199t, on order from Saudia) 

You are right and I think I mentioned this when I started this thread. For me it should be:

A330 (233t ? I m not sure on this one)

A330 E (235t)

A330 IGW (242t)

A330 Regional (199t, on order from Saudia)

A333 Regional (199t)

A333 (230t)

A333X and A332 (233t)

A333E and A332E (242t)

Why call the 242t model IGW when airbus calls it A330Enhanced. The model you call A330 E (235t) does not exist. Airbus considered launching it in 2010 but they never did.

A333 Regional (199t)

A333 (230t)

A333X and A332 (233t)

A333E and A332E (242t)

Why call the 242t model IGW when airbus calls it A330Enhanced. The model you call A330 E (235t) does not exist. Airbus considered launching it in 2010 but they nev

Yeah sorry about the 235 I was mistaken. Your line-up sounds fine and since we already have the X at 233 it will be easy to differentiate with the E at 242. 

Shouldn't there be another WV of the A380 also?

I hope a330 regional will be added soon. I chose a330 instead of a350 for long haul because of a330 is also good for regional route.

I hope a330 regional will be added soon. I chose a330 instead of a350 for long haul because of a330 is also good for regional route.

The A333 Regional will not be added until it is first delivered.