With the new data and addition of the CRJ 900 NextGen , I did a Aircraft evalution between the old 900 an the new one and the profit on the JNB-CPT route it makes 200 less . Is that correct or is that a fault ?
Why else would anyone buy the new aircraft if it is worse then the old one ?
Rubiohiguey2000 also pointed exactly this issue out and SK said:
"Have a look at the website of Bombardier ... don't know why, but these number seem to be correct (looks like the old ones where wrong)."
An Rubio also pointed exactly this out and SK said:
"Have a look at the website of Bombardier ... don't know why, but these number seem to be correct (looks like the old ones where wrong)."
The only difference between the two are the MTOW the new ones can carry 1 Kg less then the old ones , but it uses alot less fuel . It just worrying because I operate 24 CRJ 900 on Deveu and would like to add more later on but , it will not be the best aircraft .
I can not give you an official response but I would suggest that you send a message to Math and ask him as he is the one who made all the new data.
I think the data is reasonable. Once fuel prices go up again, the NextGens will actually be more efficient. And you get improved starting and landing performance.
The CR9 was the only aircraft that did just not fit in anywhere compared to the others. No matter what I tried, with the previous range values, all the other aircraft would have values that were utterly strange.
That's why I needed to adjust the range values to the correct ones also stated in the Bombardier manuals (although it became worse).
So if you don't change your flight plans, you can still benefit from the previous, extended ranges, once you change, you will have to live with the new values. At the same time we retired the old CRJs and introduced the all new NextGen versions which have the better and more realistic fuel burn values.
For really long segments, CR9 LR NG seems to give quite bit of range, this might be a possibility when you need to change the aircraft.
The CR9 was the only aircraft that did just not fit in anywhere compared to the others. No matter what I tried, with the previous range values, all the other aircraft would have values that were utterly strange.
That's why I needed to adjust the range values to the correct ones also stated in the Bombardier manuals (although it became worse).
So if you don't change your flight plans, you can still benefit from the previous, extended ranges, once you change, you will have to live with the new values. At the same time we retired the old CRJs and introduced the all new NextGen versions which have the better and more realistic fuel burn values.
The base of my airline is build on the CRJ 900 , even with the less fuel burn the profit I will make is average about 150 . Even the comac makes more profit . But anyway I will stick with the CRJ 900 just because of the extra maintenance cost it will cost me to add a new type .
I'm sorry that it does affect your airline, but as I said, there was not really a choice, unless having one aircraft be completely odd in the landscape.
I'm sorry that it does affect your airline, but as I said, there was not really a choice, unless having one aircraft be completely odd in the landscape.
But is that not the point , to find the correct aircraft for the mission. Otherwise you are picking aircraft according to capacity and price .
Quimby IV was running with the new aircraft data for almost 10 days, I think many players opened up account on Quimby to test values of the aircraft that were most important for them and made suggestions, I have even seen some values implemented to be slightly different from Quimby, most likely because of user suggestions by ticket(s)?
As mentioned, your flights will not be affected unless you edit the flight plans and the flights themselves. So your airline is not going to go bust because of impossible payload to carry.
There were some other aircraft that I see now have higher fuel burn and airlines that may have used them may complain. But other aircraft went down with fuel burn, and significantly so.
I think the whole update was quite balanced, as the saying goes, you gain some you lose some. Some aircraft made improvements, some were made worse off as I see, but both are now more realistic.