New game world without game-induced Aircraft 'bias'

English Boards Suggestions and Ideas
21

Getting back to the objective of this thread, I do honestly think the B737-900 is well represented in its performance in this game and I do not wish anything taken away from it. It is a capable and competent aircraft that has matured from years of hard-work from Boeing. If the game wants to introduce some 'likeability' index to allow passengers to rate longer distance flights in an aircraft then that is all very well.

My focus here however is to encourage a game world in which other aircraft types will have the ‘burden’ placed on them by inbuilt game ‘balances’ taken off. It would be nice to see a Tu-204 in A/S that is not burdened with ‘biases’ - being able to handle cargo and do better on fuel even if it does suffer in other areas such as maintenance, rate of manufacture and turn-around-cycle (a true reflection of reality). As much as I love the AN-148 (my absolute favorite aircraft in the real world currently), I must question its performance and range in A/S. It is just too rosy… Here is a useful performance chart from Ilyushin finance page (IFC) for the An-148;

http://www.ifc-leasing.com/en/catalog/an-148/

 

I do love and appreciate the implementation of the Tu-154 and Yak-42 data on A/S. Very balanced and nicely done. I am not interested in advocating for a slant here or there. I just think there is a market and appreciation for a very balance world. I believe there is a business case for a world in which there is more balance and no game induced 'biases', 'favors' or 'burdens' placed on any aircraft. 

In finality, …when are we getting the AN-158??? I could die if I don’t get to fly one soon and you know who is to blame…

22

The reason is simple.

While the thread opener might be correct about the naked performance data he overlooks the important part:

Airbus or Boeing offer a carefree package around their aircraft like spares supply, 24/7 customer support, crew training, planning, delivery reliability or at least compensation, etc.pp...

The Russian industry still suffers from their Soviet heritage. They will sell you airframes far below western prices, but that's it. With this, all you get is some crap customer support from a company of which you never know if it still exists when sun's rising the next morning.

What's the use of the cheapest - and probably well engineered - aircraft when the customer is confronted with uncertain operation, poor support, or simple noncompliance to western standards?

AS only has the performance data to determine the "success" of an airframe, but doesn't incorporate all the things behind those aircraft deals.

Going with this simplyfied way, we'd truly have a game world full of Russian or Chinese cheapo equipmet as SK said.

Such "spoilers" and "bias" is highly welcomed in order to balance.

Wouldn't it be possible and much more suitable to represent all these added secondary costs derived from bad reliability, bad support and spare parts availability with much higher maintenance costs?

This would balance out these cheaper airplanes so that the actual running costs (leasing + maintenance) actually adds up to slightly more then an equivalent Boeing or Airbus like in reality, even if the purchase price is cheaper?

23

I agree Alex, it is the same thing I have been suggesting.

24

out of curiosity, can any AS staff hint us will there be any changes on aircraft data?

25

Yes, all changes concerning the aircraft and airport data will be posted soon. Currently we are working on some data and as soon as these are finished, we will publish that.

26

Yes, all changes concerning the aircraft and airport data will be posted soon. Currently we are working on some data and as soon as these are finished, we will publish that.

Glad to have your clarification and thanks for all the effort.

27

Yes, all changes concerning the aircraft and airport data will be posted soon. Currently we are working on some data and as soon as these are finished, we will publish that.

SK, ....are the following - Antonov AN-158 and Ilyushin IL-96-400 going to be implemented with the new data??

28

I don't really see a difference between having servers filled with cheap russian ac or servers filled with b737-9/700s.

I really wish the performance would be fixed- I would prefer this way before seating plans and all the rest.

All long haul air craft are horribly inefficient so this effects the game in a bigger way then people realize. It is very difficult to have one longhaul (eg a330 or b777)  flight with rating 100 and be profitable- and then a shorter connections and compete with 2 b737-900 flights via a different hub with 2 medium range flights. . 

29

I don't really see a difference between having servers filled with cheap russian ac or servers filled with b737-9/700s.

I really wish the performance would be fixed- I would prefer this way before seating plans and all the rest.

All long haul air craft are horribly inefficient so this effects the game in a bigger way then people realize. It is very difficult to have one longhaul (eg a330 or b777)  flight with rating 100 and be profitable- and then a shorter connections and compete with 2 b737-900 flights via a different hub with 2 medium range flights. . 

I think that's probably more an issue of long haul price elasticity and the way ORS rates flights than the actual performance of LH aircraft.

30

I don't really see a difference between having servers filled with cheap russian ac or servers filled with b737-9/700s.

 

I really wish the performance would be fixed- I would prefer this way before seating plans and all the rest.

 

All long haul air craft are horribly inefficient so this effects the game in a bigger way then people realize. It is very difficult to have one longhaul (eg a330 or b777)  flight with rating 100 and be profitable- and then a shorter connections and compete with 2 b737-900 flights via a different hub with 2 medium range flights. .

True, what I got mostly is 99. Although I am still barely profitable, I would prefer wider use of widebodies my fleet rather than the 737. Take a look of Cathay Pacific, I would also like to operate a widebody only aircraft

31

I don't really see a difference between having servers filled with cheap russian ac or servers filled with b737-9/700s.

I really wish the performance would be fixed- I would prefer this way before seating plans and all the rest.

All long haul air craft are horribly inefficient so this effects the game in a bigger way then people realize. It is very difficult to have one longhaul (eg a330 or b777)  flight with rating 100 and be profitable- and then a shorter connections and compete with 2 b737-900 flights via a different hub with 2 medium range flights. . 

I once had a big issue with this strange reality too! After studying the problem for a while, here is what I discovered on how to fix it; either the widebody aircrafts have to have their performance data enhanced or the narrow body aircrafts (particularly the Boeings) have to have their performance data (especially with regards to fuel burn) updated to reflect reality. Imagine a true world airline that can make solid profits flying a B737-900ER HGW to London from West Africa despite the fact that the services offered onboard is over-the-top (meaning expensive)! I mean, ...it is almost impossible not to make money with the Boeing 737 in A/S even though the airfare in this particular instance was a meager $303!!! This airfare is not even close to what should be charged yet the fantastic Boeing 737-900s are churning out fantastic profits on each flight.

So, ....like i said, either the widebody aircrafts get performance enhancement (with regards to fuel burn) or the narrow bodies get their fuel burn and profitability upgraded to reflect reality. I personally prefer that narrow body aircrafts have more realistic fuel burn or something that tones down their crazy ability to make profit on long haul flights that should be the exclusive preserve of wide-bodies. If the Boeing 737-900 was so profitable in longhaul flights in reality, I do not think any real world airline would think twice about operating them on long haul flights however, as we all know, the B737-900 is never used on longhaul flights in the real world. There is such a thing called 'scale of economy' - it means that the more people you carry in one giant vehicle, the better your profitability and the lower your cost. This age old business principle does not seem to hold any water or truth in A/S......

32

True, what I got mostly is 99. Although I am still barely profitable, I would prefer wider use of widebodies my fleet rather than the 737. Take a look of Cathay Pacific, I would also like to operate a widebody only aircraft

Like Emirates, Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific? They can do this because their capitals are high though.

I think that could be risky because widebody aircraft consumes more fuel than narrowbody does. Probably you would gain lower profit margin for your short haul flights if you use B777 or A333. But, this can be working for bringing more connection passengers.  :D

33

But, this can be working for bringing more connection passengers.  :D

That's the point. In real life (of course they do have other options and a lot of employees to do so) the slots at the airports are seldom and the airline has other effects we couldn't manage to simulate in AirlineSim right now. So they are interested in bringing a widebody ... I know that the tools and variaty in some aspects are not satisfying, but in AirlineSim the most player start a flight and when it's full, it's full. The most player do not change it to a larger aircraft which would have the effect that other feeder may be booked better - and there is the problem I see. We are thinking about this a while and there are a lot of suggestions in the forums. We will see, what we will be able to help in here.

34

About "scale of economy", in addition, do wide bodies have an advantage over the narrow bodies in terms of fuel burn per mile per person?

35

About "scale of economy", in addition, do wide bodies have an advantage over the narrow bodies in terms of fuel burn per mile per person?

I suppose that they should have cheaper fuel burn because widebody aircraft carrys more passengers. Of course we can expect the landing fee and airport fee would be expansive because it is indeed the way it should be. The only thing that we have to worry is the load factor. Otherwise, we can earn more profit.

36

... player start a flight and when it's full, it's full. The most player do not change it to a larger aircraft ...

Hi,

slots are often a problem if upgrading to a bigger plane includes longer turnover times.

Jan

37

That's what I meant, yes ;)

38

I once had a big issue with this strange reality too! After studying the problem for a while, here is what I discovered on how to fix it; either the widebody aircrafts have to have their performance data enhanced or the narrow body aircrafts (particularly the Boeings) have to have their performance data (especially with regards to fuel burn) updated to reflect reality. Imagine a true world airline that can make solid profits flying a B737-900ER HGW to London from West Africa despite the fact that the services offered onboard is over-the-top (meaning expensive)! I mean, ...it is almost impossible not to make money with the Boeing 737 in A/S even though the airfare in this particular instance was a meager $303!!! This airfare is not even close to what should be charged yet the fantastic Boeing 737-900s are churning out fantastic profits on each flight.

So, ....like i said, either the widebody aircrafts get performance enhancement (with regards to fuel burn) or the narrow bodies get their fuel burn and profitability upgraded to reflect reality. I personally prefer that narrow body aircrafts have more realistic fuel burn or something that tones down their crazy ability to make profit on long haul flights that should be the exclusive preserve of wide-bodies. If the Boeing 737-900 was so profitable in longhaul flights in reality, I do not think any real world airline would think twice about operating them on long haul flights however, as we all know, the B737-900 is never used on longhaul flights in the real world. There is such a thing called 'scale of economy' - it means that the more people you carry in one giant vehicle, the better your profitability and the lower your cost. This age old business principle does not seem to hold any water or truth in A/S......

I agree. The basic science behind economy of scale is really simple.

Drag is derived by the frontal area of the aircraft.

Payload is derived by volume.

If you make an identical aircraft scaled x2 in all directions it would have 4 times frontal area (effecting drag) and 8 times payload (effecting carried passengers).

Larger engines also tend to be possible to make more fuel efficient.

Of-course reality is many many times more complex, but that is the very basic principle behind why cargo ships, oil tankers and airplanes are just growing to be as big as possible (as long as demand for big enough).

A real world comparison:

A380 => 853 seats * 15,700 km / 323,500 liter fuel = 41 seat km / liter fuel

B737-900ER => 189 seats * 5,500 km / 30,000 liter fuel = 34 seat km / liter fuel

A318 => 117 seats * 5,700 km / 24,200 liter fuel = 27 seat km / liter fuel

CRJ700 => 70 seats * 3,200 km / 11,000 liter fuel = 20 seat km / liter fuel

Conclusion, the A380 is about 2 times more fuel effective per seat compared to the CRJ700, 1.5 times more then an A318, and 1.2 times better then the B737-900ER (just using my very quick Google numbers and very rough calculation)

My guess would also be that that long range A380s probably has bigger seats then smaller shorter range changing the numbers even further in it's favor.

39

The Aircraft evaluation table shown below illustrates the problem with using wide-body aircrafts in A/S, better than any words could describe. This is exactly why almost all players gravitate to the Boeing 737-900 while abandoning the use of wide-body airliners. Imagine going through the risk and trouble of filling in 380 - 420 seats and ending up with a profit that is no better than the 'fantastic' B737-900 can generate with 215 passengers.

Aircraft comparison : Destination - EWR to LHR

Aircraft type:                     / Available seats / Fuel /  total per seat / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100%

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

Airbus Industrie A330-200:  380 / 38,334 / 267 AS$ / -40,886(-65%) / -28,764(-38%) / -16,642(-19%) / -4,520(-5%) / 7,602(7%) / 19,724(16%)

Airbus Industrie A330-300:  420 /  38,277 /  272 AS$ / -47,094(-68%) / -33,696(-41%) / -20,298(-21%) / -6,900(-6%) / 6,498(5%) / 19,896(14%)

Boeing 737-900ER HGW (winglets):  215 / 14,719 /  215 AS$ /  -12,108(-34%) / -5,090(-12%) / 1,609(3%) / 8,627(15%) / 15,326(24%) / 22,344(31%)

Boeing 767-400ER:  375 / 34,760 / 248 AS$ / -33,466(-54%) /-21,344(-29%) / -9,541(-11%) / 2,581(3%) / 14,384(13%) / 26,506(21%)

Boeing 787-8: 381 / 35,075 /  251 AS$ / -35,036(-56%) / -22,914(-30%) / -10,792(-12%) / 1,330(1%) / 13,452(12%) / 25,893(21%)

40

Above, I have highlighted as follows;

Available seats / Fuel /  total per seat / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100%

You can see the profit for all % of load factor. You can also see how many seats are available. 

I found myself thinking again (a dangerous past-time, if you ask me  :P), …perhaps part of the problem for wide-body airliners is not just the fuel burn figures but also the cost of acquisition? After a little investigation, I found no evidence this was the case. The A330-200 costs $132 million in A/S and the Boeing 737-900ER HGW costs $67.5 million - about half and this makes sense. It has to be the fuel burn…  :unsure: