This could be solved by instituting a 10% ORS rating penalty for using SH aircraft on LH routes. this can also be done for using turboprop on medium haul routes, e.g. ORS rating penalty for using dash 400 on routes over 1500 nm, and for using 737-900ER or A319LR on routes over 2500 nm ...
This could be solved by instituting a 10% ORS rating penalty for using SH aircraft on LH routes. this can also be done for using turboprop on medium haul routes, e.g. ORS rating penalty for using dash 400 on routes over 1500 nm, and for using 737-900ER or A319LR on routes over 2500 nm ...
The problem goes beyond ratings and popularity. Even if the WB airliners were filled due to high popularity, you will still have a problem of low profitability. The ROI is simply terrible! Looking at the Aircraft evaluation table that I posted in the preceding page, do you honestly think a business man would prefer using WB airliners for long haul flights? I mean look at the choices, ....you need to fill an aircraft with 380 to 420 passengers just to make $19K, whereas you could simply take less risk and make more money by using Boeing 737-900 to do the same trip and end up with $22K in profit while only requiring 215 passengers to do so! It gets worse if you do not have a full flight for any reason in the WB aircraft. At 70% LF which is equivalent to 266 passengers in the A330-200, you will already be losing money big time! At 70% LF ( a mere 150 passengers), the B737-900 will not even break a sweat and will still make more profit than all the other WBs combined. This A/S reality is a joke .....isn't it??
As a business smart player, …if I really had a passenger demand of about 420 passengers per day for a route, do you honestly think I will use an Airbus A330 or a Boeing 767 for that route? NO way! It makes a lot more sense to schedule 2 flights of Boeing 737-900 (215 X 2) and thus get an opportunity to make $22K profit two times per day rather than fly one WB aircraft and end up with a pathetic $19k. (compare 44K profit to 19K profit). There is a lot wrong with the way things have been set up and I just think the performance and fuel burn data for many of these aircrafts need to be reviewed. It seems to me that some aircrafts have been overtly favored while others have been left to languish in the shadows. Things are very lopsided. I am not complaining, …I am simply making an observation that can’t be denied.
Mfg stated range/fuel capacity=/= fuel bun per mile.
Fuel burn per mile varies greatly with mission legnth for any given airframe.
Fuel burn per mile varies greatly with mission legnth for any given airframe.
The game mainly uses two variables: fuel per cycle and fuel per km. They don't always seem very logical, but I guess in some cases one variable is used to balance out the other variable.
Remark... when you look at the manufacturer's page, you see a performance graph. It usually has two bends. Up to the first bend, you fly with full capacity. Past the first bend, you trade passengers fir distance. Past the second bend, a third fuel variable comes into play. Probably because you burn extra fuel to carry extra fuel over such a long distance. But we can ignore this third variable, because it would mean you are flying an (almost) empty plane.
I have done a quick calculation on the EWR-LHR route that MIDAS gave as an example.
The A330-200 burns:
13497 liter per cycle
and 8.33 liter per km.
On the EWR-LHR route that means 60084 liter or 158 liter per passenger.
The 767 300ER burns:
9245 liter per cycle
and 7.69 liter per km.
On the EWR-LHR route that means 52259 liter or 149 liter per passenger.
The 788 burns:
12212 liter per cycle
and 7.65 liter per km.
On the EWR-LHR route that means 54976 liter or 144 liter per passenger.
The 73J burns:
3000 liter per cycle
and 3.59 liter per km.
On the EWR-LHR route that means 23071 liter or 107 liter per passenger.
Conclusion... hurray for the 73J :D
Jan
Talking about fuel consumption, it reminds me the wonderful IL96-300 - the ultimate plane without any chance to have profit :). Amazingly, you can still order them as "new"
So the solution would either be:
1. Raise the fuel consumption of 737s
2. Lower the fuel consumption of WB <-- it seems to be a better choice
With the new server only having new planes, hope that AS team could take some time to review these so that WB would be more favoured. This might also solve the annoying full slot situation too. Personally I don't mind further if such review means further delay
MIDAS, you, of course, make sense :)
Using wide-body aircraft would definitely reduce the uses/needs of slots especially in popular airports.
Using narrow-body aircraft will spend more slots as compared to WB, but good for marginal profit.
Two choices...that's easy.
...I have done a quick calculation on the EWR-LHR route that MIDAS gave as an example.
…
As the topic was originally about an unbiased game, I feel the need to remind you and MIDAS to stick to an unbiased calculation too.
What you both seem to completely ignore is cargo.
So let's do the EWR-LHR route with (true AS) MPL-values to calculate the MPL/fuelburn ratio (in kg/l) - which is a rather useful ratio in AS.
Here's some figures for EWR-LHR for the fun of it:
0.94 for 73J
0.94 for 333
0.85 for 764
0.84 for 748
0.83 for 788
0.76 for 332
0.72 for 346
0.62 for 388
0.58 for 742
0.33 for 703
You see that the 737-900ER (WL) is as fuel efficient as the A330-300X on this route. Interestingly, with EWR-LHR MIDAS got rouhly the route length in which both types have the same fuel efficiency, on shorter trips than this, the 73J does better, on longer trips, the 333 wins.
That said, I too think that the 739ER series are superior over widebody types on medium haul routes. But it's not only fuel burn. Costs for maint/pax are almost only half compared to a 333.
I have no clue where you all get your facts or figures from however if you look at the table i gave at the bottom of the preceding page, you will see that all my values were actually copied and pasted from A/S's own aircraft evaluation tool. I did not cook those figures from the thin air. These figures are from A/S!!
I will take the pain to copy and paste the information here again;
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%)
Anyone who takes a good look at this knows that everything is wrong with this figures! Take a look at the "Total Cost per Seat" in the table. Both Airbus A330-200 and A330-300 have a "Total Cost per Seat" of $267.00 and $272.00 respectively. The Boeing 737-900ER HGW however manages to trump every single aircraft with a value of only $215.00 per seat - and this miracle is performed while only offering 215 seats in the example above! The 'economy of scale' principle has obviously been turned upside down here. Shouldn't the cost per seat reduce as number of available seat is increased. Even the brand new B787-8 ($251.00) does not come close to matching the "Total Cost per Seat" in the Boeing 737-900 despite the fact that it is offering 381 seats (a whopping 166 more seats!). Nothing can touch the B737-900 in A/S because it has been made to be so (mind you, this is an aircraft model that nearly failed and recorded less than 100 unit sales for a long time until recently).
Another anomaly is the way all the figures compare to one another. Using the table above, you can see a lot of anomalies. For instance, the Airbus A330-200 is shown to be more efficient than the larger A330-300 (granted that the maximum number of seats, which does not reflect what will be used in reality may have caused this). The Boeing 767-400ER is shown to be superior in per seat efficiency than the B787-8. However, the undisputed king remains the great, versatile, incredible, fantastic, unbelievable, economical and indefatigable Boeing 737-900!! (I tell you, ....if you pushed hard enough, this aircraft can do all things, even replace submarines and cargo ships ..lol :lol: )
Seriously, ...do you have any idea just how much more efficient and superior an aircraft has to be in order to achieve what was shown above??? In order to be able to make more profit from 215 seats than other airliners could make out of offering 380/420/375/381 seats? It is one thing to have superior profit and economics when two similarly sized airliners are compared, it is quite another thing to be able to make more profit from a flight in which you are carrying only half the passenger of the other airliner! This means the the Boeing 737-900 is probably something like 60%-70% more efficient than the others!!
As the topic was originally about an unbiased game, I feel the need to remind you and MIDAS to stick to an unbiased calculation too.
What you both seem to completely ignore is cargo.
So let’s do the EWR-LHR route with (true AS) MPL-values to calculate the MPL/fuelburn ratio (in kg/l) - which is a rather useful ratio in AS.
Here’s some figures for EWR-LHR for the fun of it:
0.94 for 73J
0.94 for 333
0.85 for 764
0.84 for 748
0.83 for 788
0.76 for 332
0.72 for 346
0.62 for 388
0.58 for 742
0.33 for 703
You see that the 737-900ER (WL) is as fuel efficient as the A330-300X on this route. Interestingly, with EWR-LHR MIDAS got rouhly the route length in which both types have the same fuel efficiency, on shorter trips than this, the 73J does better, on longer trips, the 333 wins.
That said, I too think that the 739ER series are superior over widebody types on medium haul routes. But it’s not only fuel burn. Costs for maint/pax are almost only half compared to a 333.
Your calculation includes cargo factor, which MIDAS’s calculation omitted. Nevertheless, both calculations confirm that 73J is seriously overpowered. Plus, with the lesser deposit, rent, shorter turn around time and easier to fill a 737, there isn’t any reason to get a WB - resulting a world with 737s
From my personal opinion, the cargo should only be counted as a BONUS, rather than something to compensate the inefficiency caused by weird data.
As the topic was originally about an unbiased game, I feel the need to remind you and MIDAS to stick to an unbiased calculation too.
What you both seem to completely ignore is cargo.
So let's do the EWR-LHR route with (true AS) MPL-values to calculate the MPL/fuelburn ratio (in kg/l) - which is a rather useful ratio in AS.
Here's some figures for EWR-LHR for the fun of it:
0.94 for 73J
0.94 for 333
0.85 for 764
0.84 for 748
0.83 for 788
0.76 for 332
0.72 for 346
0.62 for 388
0.58 for 742
0.33 for 703
You see that the 737-900ER (WL) is as fuel efficient as the A330-300X on this route. Interestingly, with EWR-LHR MIDAS got rouhly the route length in which both types have the same fuel efficiency, on shorter trips than this, the 73J does better, on longer trips, the 333 wins.
That said, I too think that the 739ER series are superior over widebody types on medium haul routes. But it's not only fuel burn. Costs for maint/pax are almost only half compared to a 333.
He talks about being unbiased and look at what he offers as an argument. This is nothing but a sorry attempt to cover up lopsided data!! In spite of the effort, the B737 still comes out on top and then the author goes on to postulate that under certain conditions the 333 could be better! Is that your idea of a balance??? It is blatant and obvious that the B737-900 figures are seriously favoured - even when the cargo hold of WB airliners are included, they do not still match the 73J!! EWR - LHR is long range (even so in A/S) and the 737-900 still trumps every one, cargo or no cargo!
It is worth noting that no airline, …I repeat, no airline procures a WB passenger aircraft on the basis or calculation that the ‘extra’ cargo income will help them break even! Cargo income is added bonus that may or may not be available depending on the destination! I find the argument irritating cos ‘AK’ seeks to even an obviously uneven playing ground by seeking to use factors outside normal consideration and when that does not work or adequately justify, he then proceeds to play with words by phrasing his words in such a way that the superiority of the Boeing 73J would be less obvious and painful
You see that the 737-900ER (WL) is as fuel efficient as the A330-300X on this route. Interestingly, with EWR-LHR MIDAS got rouhly the route length in which both types have the same fuel efficiency, on shorter trips than this, the 73J does better, on longer trips, the 333 wins.
That said, I too think that the 739ER series are superior over widebody types on medium haul routes. But it's not only fuel burn. Costs for maint/pax are almost only half compared to a 333.
It is intellectual dishonesty at its very best! Of course, the A333 is better at longer range (duh??), afterall the B73J is already nearing its limits in range! I do wonder what it will take to simply acknowledge that the Boeing 737-900 performance data is heavily rose-tinted and exceedingly favored in A/S?? I can't stand it when people show an inability to acknowledge a plain and simple truth!
Funny thing is I am not necessarily interested in seeing the Boeing 737-900 performance data downgraded or anything like that. It may actually make more sense to take a close look at the performance data of WB aircrafts and some of the other airliners 'with game induced disadvantages' and find a way to make them reflect reality more! It is that simple.
Oh well, it’s all about reading comprehension…
So you have no clue where I got those figures from. Apparently so.
Seems to be an hopeless case here so I better move on.
Hi Alex,
you are absolutely right. I completely forgot about the cargo. Probably because I am running passenger airlines and well... cargo is something annoying we have to load and unload manually, while the passengers are self loading cargo ;-)
And at Midas: I am a very curious player who wondered why the same plane was more profitable on short routes and less profitable on longer routes. So I figured out the fuel burn for several planes and found the game uses these two variables. If you are into mathematics, you can use algebra (one unknown factor) if you compare the fuel burn on two different routes. But the easy way is to use the plane performance check tool...
Enter EWR to EWR and you will get a fuel burn of 3000 liter
The total fuel burn from EWR to LHR is 23071 liter. This consists of the above 3000 liter plus 20071 liter to cover the 5590 km between EWR and LHR. So the 73J uses 3000 liter per cycle (taxi, take off and climb to cruise altitude) plus 3.5 liter per kilometer. Fuel consumption remains the same until the second bend in the performance graph. From that point it goes up, probably because the plane needs to burn extra fuel to carry the extra fuel it needs for such a long distance. I never bothered to figure out the formula because at that stage I would be flying around empty planes.
Anyway, here are the numbers again for passengers only and the corrected numbers including cargo. Fuel burn is for the EWR-LHR route and ignores the fact that the 73J may not be able to carry 17 cargo units if only standard seats are used.
The A330-200 burns:
158 liter per passenger.
126 liter per unit (passengers plus cargo)
The 767 300ER burns:
52259 liter or 149 liter per passenger.
113 liter per unit
The 788 burns:
54976 liter or 144 liter per passenger.
108 liter per unit
The 73J burns:
23071 liter or 107 liter per passenger.
99 liter per unit.
So the 73J remains indeed the most profitable plane.
Jan
This is nothing but a sorry attempt to cover up lopsided data!!
You mean his intentions are bad ?
Oh well, it's all about reading comprehension...
You mean he is too stupid to understand ?
:P
...
You mean he is too stupid to understand ?
No, not at all. He's just getting my post in the very wrong context (see quotes below) and failed to read my last sentences. His reaction on my post just doesn't make me wanting to further interact with him.
.. It has to be the fuel burn.... :unsure:
Talking about fuel consumption...
...
What you [...] seem to completely ignore is cargo.
...
As for your figures given in your last post, you need to take the actual MPL as given in AS when unit load capacity is higher than actual load capacity in kg (see MPL in performance tool).
Take the 788 for example:
It could theoretically load 381 pax and 128 cargo units, leading to your figure of 108 liters.
However, if stuffed with 381 pax, there's only capacity left for 91 cargo units, giving you a unit consumption of 116 liters. That's why I prefer the use of the MPL/liter ratio as the loadable units depend on selected seats.
Hi,
you were both playing the man instead of playing the ball ;-)
And I hate to admit it (not really) but you are again correct.
But in defense of my wrong calculations, I am practical. Just like the 73J is probably not able to carry 17 cargo units on that distance, the 788 may not be able to carry 91 cargo units when stuffed with standard seats. Being practical, I assume people also have business class on long haul flights. I even use ecoplus and business premium in every single aircraft.
Jan
You mean his intentions are bad ?
No, ......I mean that he is being intellectually dishonest.
And at Midas: I am a very curious player who wondered why the same plane was more profitable on short routes and less profitable on longer routes. So I figured out the fuel burn for several planes and found the game uses these two variables. If you are into mathematics, you can use algebra (one unknown factor) if you compare the fuel burn on two different routes. But the easy way is to use the plane performance check tool...
Whether you assess the performance using the Aircraft Evaluation table which I supplied (which also gives Cost per Seat) or you use your method of deducing fuel burn and spreading it over available seats, as you can see - the results are pretty much the same!
No, not at all. He's just getting my post in the very wrong context (see quotes below) and failed to read my last sentences. His reaction on my post just doesn't make me wanting to further interact with him.
Your last sentences are the very basis of my irritation. You could have been clear and absolute without any equivocation about the fact that the B73J had superior advantage (as represented in A/S and as available statistics show) and left it at that, ....but you had to play smart by trying to present a scenario where that might not be the case. When one thinks about it, that was the entire purpose of your drivel. As a matter of fact, that has always been your angle and perspective from the beginning (go ahead and read your post in page (1) of this thread). When one is found bending the scenarios, evidence and focus to reflect the conclusions that they prefer, there is a name for that kind of attitude - intellectual dishonesty!
Oh well, it's all about reading comprehension...
So you have no clue where I got those figures from. Apparently so.
Seems to be an hopeless case here so I better move on.
If I were you (thankfully I am not), .....I will take my own advice.....
...But in defense of my wrong calculations, I am practical. Just like the 73J is probably not able to carry 17 cargo units on that distance, the 788 may not be able to carry 91 cargo units when stuffed with standard seats. Being practical, I assume people also have business class on long haul flights. I even use ecoplus and business premium in every single aircraft.
Jan
No need to be in defense of something. We're doing this kind of stuff just for the fun of it.
As far as premium seating is concerned, be sure that we both have the same seats installed, in our 739s anyways ;)
Same goes for my 333s, though it's hardly possible to earn a dollar with them on the fairly short hop between our two hubs. It's the cargo that earns the few dollars extra there to make it worthwhile. Though the 333 is a great option for me due to slot shortage.