Poor efficiency of B777 & A330

With the new evaluation tool launched, I just noticed that both B777 & A330 are the least favourable widebodies. While B777 may not be as efficient as B787, it would not be so inefficient as in the game. For A330, it is even absurb because new A330 are ordered and delivered at this moment. Seems it is not related to size of cabin, rather it is related to the current high fuel consumption setting.

Hi,

concerning the A330s, at the moment it is unrealistically efficient. On most routes the A330 has a lower cost per seat than the 787 (if you are using comfort seats) which is unrealistic, keeping in mind that the A330 is a design from the mid-90s. Especially the fuel burn is too low, as it burns less than the 787. The 787 has a lower MTOW and more modern engines, therefore it should use less fuel than the A330. In game the only reason why the 787 can keep up with the A330 is is lower capital cost and it's higher speed - which is unrealistic. So I think we should not improve the A330, but make it a little bit worse again.

Concerning the 777 I agree, the aircraft is unrealistically unefficient. This should be changed.

Hi,

concerning the A330s, at the moment it is unrealistically efficient. On most routes the A330 has a lower cost per seat than the 787 (if you are using comfort seats) which is unrealistic, keeping in mind that the A330 is a design from the mid-90s. Especially the fuel burn is too low, as it burns less than the 787. The 787 has a lower MTOW and more modern engines, therefore it should use less fuel than the A330. In game the only reason why the 787 can keep up with the A330 is is lower capital cost and it’s higher speed - which is unrealistic. So I think we should not improve the A330, but make it a little bit worse again.

Concerning the 777 I agree, the aircraft is unrealistically unefficient. This should be changed.

I do agree with your point about fuel efficiency. But it seems the aircraft evaluation tool is telling me another story, which I am not sure why.

Aircraft Evaulation tool is not working right now, but IIRC correctly on routes like MEX-GIG or even MIA-FRA (where the A333X already has to leave some cargo behind because of the range) the A333X was better than the 787, by between 5 and 30AS$ per Pax ...but I will check again when the performance tool is working

Okay, now that the performance tool is working again, I give you some examples. Take the route MIA-FRA. If you are using comfort seats the A333X is 21AS$ cheaper to operate per pax than the 788. Now we take into account the higher cargo capacity of the 788 (almost 17cu), we still have a difference of 4AS$ in favor of the A333X.

On the route LHR-DXB the performance tool gives a difference of 17AS$, considering the difference in cargo capacity the aircrafts have the same operation costs per seat. The situation on CGK-SYD is the same.

So we see that the 787 and A333X have the same economics, in some cases the A333X even has an advantage. There are some routes (mainly the longer ones) where the 787 is better. But I think that the 787 should have an advantage over the A333X considering that is was designed in the 90's, where as the 787 is a new design.

Okay, now that the performance tool is working again, I give you some examples. Take the route MIA-FRA. If you are using comfort seats the A333X is 21AS$ cheaper to operate per pax than the 788. Now we take into account the higher cargo capacity of the 788 (almost 17cu), we still have a difference of 4AS$ in favor of the A333X.

On the route LHR-DXB the performance tool gives a difference of 17AS$, considering the difference in cargo capacity the aircrafts have the same operation costs per seat. The situation on CGK-SYD is the same.

So we see that the 787 and A333X have the same economics, in some cases the A333X even has an advantage. There are some routes (mainly the longer ones) where the 787 is better. But I think that the 787 should have an advantage over the A333X considering that is was designed in the 90's, where as the 787 is a new design.

i looking for long range aircraft, and i made compared 787 and A330

A330 - 300 is mid range 6000 -10000 km

A330 - 200 is long range 8000 -16000 km

but

B787 cover me from 6000 - 20000 km,

I think this is best buy aircraft in game.

and 787 have faster turnaround

When you look Aircraft type evaluation

ONT-SYD A330-200 - 6 flights on week

ONT-SYD B787-8 - 8 flights on week

its one more turn. more money, better utilization on long route

Okay, now that the performance tool is working again, I give you some examples. Take the route MIA-FRA. If you are using comfort seats the A333X is 21AS$ cheaper to operate per pax than the 788.

to tell you the issue of your calculation:

the "comfort seats" are offering 8 seats per row on a A330 (total 336) and 8 seats on a B787 (total 296).

if I’m using "leisure plus" i get the same amount of seats on a A330 (total 336) but  i get 9 seats per row on a 787 (total 333).

with "leisure plus" you could operate a 787 cheaper than a A330X.

there is a perfect seat for every aircraft and there are a lot of seat options which create a loss for certain type of aircrafts.

if you take into consideration the floor space, the 787 would be cheaper than any A330.

But if you are using seats which are perfectly fitting into a A330, but creating a lot of non-revenue free space at a 787, the A330 is winning.

i looking for long range aircraft, and i made compared 787 and A330

A330 - 300 is mid range 6000 -10000 km

A330 - 200 is long range 8000 -16000 km

but

B787 cover me from 6000 - 20000 km,

I think this is best buy aircraft in game.

and 787 have faster turnaround

When you look Aircraft type evaluation

ONT-SYD A330-200 - 6 flights on week

ONT-SYD B787-8 - 8 flights on week

its one more turn. more money, better utilization on long route

Well, the 787 flies faster as well :)

And yes indeed the 787 is awesome, you can fly ultra long haul missions where an A330 and even an A340 can't...

Hi,

I think in most cases the fast turnaround time and speed of the 787 is only a theoretical advantage. Of course there are some routes where you can really add more flights, but on shorter long haul flights (~8h flight time) you will have one return flight each day, so I really doesn't make a difference if the whole rotation takes 20 or 21hours, as long as your maintenance ratio is enough.

The range of the 787 is of course an advantage, but as I said before, on some/most shorter/medium longhaul flights the A333X is as good as the 787 or on some routes even better.

@andreamilano: Yes, I know that. The problem is that you get one red bar on the longer flights. And on shorter flights the A333 will get a better rating, if you use the seats which are good for the A333. So in fact it's a disadvantage, if you operate 787s: either you have the more efficient aircraft, but a not so good rating or you have a good rating but a not-as-efficient aircraft (compared to the A333X). And yes, I know that 1 green bar is what passengers expect - but if the operator using the A333 has two green bars it will get a greater share of passengers than the airline operating a 787 with one green bar.

I made a detailed comparison between the 333 and the 788 a few weeks ago using the aircraft type evaluation tool.

The result was that for every type of seats except Lie-Flat 140 the Boeing 787-8 requires less investment per seat you can have (even if the margin is small for some of the seats).

In many cases the 333 is 17-26% more expensive per seat and this is why it is not competitive in a comparison for most distances.

Here is the results:

AUcaiNX.jpg

But that isn't true on all routes!

Try PEK - SEA with comfort or comfort+.

Back to the topic, will there be any chance for B777 to be adjusted soon?

Yes ! But how soon I can not promise since we are currently working and thinking about it how to adjust it properly. By doing so whe have to consider what these changes then mean for all other planes .... then we have to test it and then will let you know. So it is coming  ^_^

Yes ! But how soon I can not promise since we are currently working and thinking about it how to adjust it properly. By doing so whe have to consider what these changes then mean for all other planes .... then we have to test it and then will let you know. So it is coming  ^_^

Thanks for your reply. It's always nice to know the team is putting effort in making the airlinesim better continuously.

Any news on this front? Would be nice to lease something different then a 787 for long haul ;-)

Yep, there are intensive discussions within team and some voluntary player. I think we are close to a solution, but it will take some more days.

Alright, thanks for the update Sascha!

Hi guys,

We are a week further, any progress on this story? It's getting boring with only the 787 ;-)

Yes, I would also like to order 777s, I need a VLA to supplement the 787 on heavy demand routes, but I think the A380 might be too much of an aircraft for my market (would only work on 3 or 4 routes and I am not going to add a maintanence category for maximum 8 aircraft) and the 748 doesn't have enough range for all missions (thinking about opening a certain ULH route with 772LR...)...so the only thing that keep me from ordering 777s is its poor economics...

Yes, the data are "ready" for deployment on the testserver and afterwards to the game-worlds.