Reduce Passenger Popularity for Russian Aircraft

Apologize to all Russian here. Sukhoi SSJ 100 is quite good an aircraft though ;)

42,5 million Tupolev Tu-204-100 can fly max 214 pax over 4,250 km with speed 850 km/h

67,5 million Airbus A321-200 can fly max 220 pax over 3,700 km with speed 840 km/h

 

The advantage of flying Russian is undisputed in this data, however in real life, you see more A321 than Tu-204 for a reason. This somehow should be reflected in aircraft popularity in the game. At least especially in Riem which claimed to be more advanced server specially tune for increased competition.

 

So the proposal is to reduce Russian aircraft's popularity with passengers by at least two bars.  :D

Apologize to all Russian here. Sukhoi SSJ 100 is quite good an aircraft though ;)

42,5 million Tupolev Tu-204-100 can fly max 214 pax over 4,250 km with speed 850 km/h

67,5 million Airbus A321-200 can fly max 220 pax over 3,700 km with speed 840 km/h

 

The advantage of flying Russian is undisputed in this data, however in real life, you see more A321 than Tu-204 for a reason. This somehow should be reflected in aircraft popularity in the game. At least especially in Riem which claimed to be more advanced server specially tune for increased competition.

 

So the proposal is to reduce Russian aircraft's popularity with passengers by at least two bars.  :D

Have you looked at how much fuel the TU-204 guzzles versus the A321-200E and how much it costs to maintain the beauty? DME-CDG it uses 7,758 versus 4,711...

In real life, most kettles (you can Google the term) probably would think they were getting on an (really old) 757-200 when getting on the plane and unless they paid attention to the flight attendant or safety card they wouldn't know (or care).

			Aircraft type
		
			Flights per week
		
			Available seats
		
			Fuel
		
			Aircraft Handling
		
			ATC
		
			Landing Fees
		
			Maintenance
		
			Capital cost
		
			Crew
		
			Fixed costs total
		
			per seat
		
			50%
		
			60%
		
			70%
		
			80%
		
			90%
		
			100%
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=3050'>Airbus A321-200 standard (enhanced)</a>
		
			28.00
		
			216
		
			4,711
		
			289
		
			1,143
		
			846
		
			2,190
		
			12,232
		
			735
		
			22,145
		
			103 AS$
		
			<span>427</span>&nbsp;(<span>2%</span>)
		
			<span>4,816</span>(<span>17%</span>)
		
			<span>9,414</span>(<span>28%</span>)
		
			<span>13,803</span>(<span>36%</span>)
		
			<span>18,401</span>(<span>43%</span>)
		
			<span>22,999</span>(<span>48%</span>)
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=30700'>Tupolev TU-204-100</a>
		
			26.00
		
			210
		
			7,758
		
			347
		
			1,229
		
			978
		
			4,438
		
			8,173
		
			791
		
			23,715
		
			113 AS$
		
			<span>-1,770</span>(<span>-8%</span>)
		
			<span>2,619</span>(<span>9%</span>)
		
			<span>7,008</span>(<span>22%</span>)
		
			<span>11,397</span>(<span>31%</span>)
		
			<span>15,786</span>(<span>38%</span>)
		
			<span>20,175</span>(<span>44%</span>)

The AN-148 and SSJ are better examples, but they are truly good machines! Why nerf them when they are truly popular because they are Extra Wide Body compared to EJets, CJets, and ERJs...

Also as a Russian, I am offended that you singled out Russian jets. How bout Chinese? When the ARJ21 or C919 come out should they have -5 bars? Are you basing this on American ethnocentrism? I am sure that many Africans and SE Asians will have no qualms whatsoever about getting on a TU, ARJ, C919 or other plane!

/rant over

Russian Aircraft are not more popular then in real life on older servers. In Reim, Quimby or Ellinkon player want in first hand to start fast and to get a large airline as quick as possible and before others are big. So they get russian aircraft. Quimby as an example lool how many IL-18Ds are used there. 

After a year or 2 players will dump the russian aircraft and get some bettre aircrafts...

My post was opened with an apology, so I don't feel necessary to repeat it.

Yes, I do check on the fuel burn, but with current low oil price, the effect can be overlooked. Your aircraft type evaluation does confirm it, with lower capital, you can get similar profit, without have to worry about the image. Pretty good deal I would say, which I think should be discouraged in Riem. 

I'm not sure about other South East Asians but in Indonesia, I believe the people have general preference for western aircraft, which represented by the airline orders and interest. The turn around moment came when Sukhoi bring SSJ100 to Indonesia for a series of customer demo flights. Unfortunately the tragic ending sealed the general public view toward Russian aircraft. Two airlines have initially ordered the type, one actually get to operate it for a while, but both now have ceased operation.

I might have to rephrase the title to include Chinese aircraft as well, but in general the original post suggest to adjust aircraft popularity with real world condition. Sharing same fate with the operators of the Russian, the only operator of Chinese type in Indonesia has also ceased ops.

My post was opened with an apology, so I don't feel necessary to repeat it.

Yes, I do check on the fuel burn, but with current low oil price, the effect can be overlooked. Your aircraft type evaluation does confirm it, with lower capital, you can get similar profit, without have to worry about the image. Pretty good deal I would say, which I think should be discouraged in Riem. 

I'm not sure about other South East Asians but in Indonesia, I believe the people have general preference for western aircraft, which represented by the airline orders and interest. The turn around moment came when Sukhoi bring SSJ100 to Indonesia for a series of customer demo flights. Unfortunately the tragic ending sealed the general public view toward Russian aircraft. Two airlines have initially ordered the type, one actually get to operate it for a while, but both now have ceased operation.

I might have to rephrase the title to include Chinese aircraft as well, but in general the original post suggest to adjust aircraft popularity with real world condition. Sharing same fate with the operators of the Russian, the only operator of Chinese type in Indonesia has also ceased ops.

The Sukhoi Superjet crash in Indonesia was due to one factor: Hotshot Pilot showing off for his guests. It did not help he turned off the annoying ground radar warning. If that's all it takes to turn an entire country off...c'mon have you seen Jakarta streets! Nobody has given up driving!

The Superjet is called the Tankecito (little tank) by Interjet who just topped off their order, again. No worries, they'll make 44 this year which is a record for the Russian Aviation industry since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The MS-21 will be amazing!

If you can do a regression analysis and show AS that an S7 or RedWings flight on a TU-204 is consistently cheaper than a 737-400 (old, classic 737 yuck!) or another western design they offer, I'd consider this...but it just smacks of the usual, outdated western centrism. 

P.S. The Indonesians still trust Sukhoi to defend their airspace from China, Malaysia, etc...

SSJ is operated by Interjet (Mexico) and they cannot sing more praises to the aircraft! It has much better dispatch reliability than they expected, and now they converted their options into firm orders! I root for SSJ! Belgium's VLM also decided to go with SSJ100 and has been added to the Western-world SSJ operators' list. Interjet operates SSJ both on domestic Mexican, as well as transborder flights to the USA. SSJ is fully EASA certified since 2012.

If I were to start a new LCC startup in medium-density LatAm markets (e.g. operating out of Medellin, Cali, San Jose CR, Santo Domingo, etc.), SSJ would be among the first aircraft I would look into, as it could be sourced at very favorable rates, and with operational performance comparable to the expected CS100 (and much better than current E190)

It's being said that the passenger comfort on SSJ100 is better than E190/5 (which is way better in itself than CR9/CRK), and that the overhead bins are huge for this being a 100pax plane.

lol, this getting interesting but I would refrain from further argument before it gets too personal and gets even more out of topic. :)

As much as I love our Sukhoi fighter jet, the popularity of fighter jet doesn't encourage people to board the passenger version, lol.

Also, Jakarta streets' traffic doesn't have anything to do with AS, lol.

As much as I love our Sukhoi fighter jet, the popularity of fighter jet doesn't encourage people to board the passenger version, lol.

The populartiy is not much of an issue in my eyes. More fuel burn, less room (compared to the A321), higher maintenance bills, etc ... are reasons enough for my for not buying the Tu204. Especially the landing distance at MLW can be annoying with the TU-204.

The Superjet is actually a nice additon, given that there are only few alternatives (as there are only brandnew aircrafts available). I used to start by leasing Fokker 100 and Fokker 50 to start my airline. This isn't possible on Riem. The Superjet will certainly not challenge the 737s and A320s.

In the end, the problem is going to resolve itstelf. If there was to be a rush on the TU-204, the order book will be so enormous, that you'll wait months for the delivery of the aircraft. If I remember correctly, there were some people ordering IL-18D on Quimby even though the order book was filled for way beond April 1st (They'll obviously never take delivery of those aircrafts).

I don't think that a rush is to be expected. Afterall the TU-204 isn't exactly cheap.

It takes 6 days for a Tu 204 to be delivered. Once immediate delivery credit runs out, nobody will order it. 

It takes 6 days for a Tu 204 to be delivered. Once immediate delivery credit runs out, nobody will order it. 

I do :)

Seriously, the Tu 204 makes itself a good cargo plane. The only obstacle in real life hindering wide use of Russian passenger plane is their low delivery rate. Tu-204 received orders but they just can't be fulfilled.

I do :)

Seriously, the Tu 204 makes itself a good cargo plane. The only obstacle in real life hindering wide use of Russian passenger plane is their low delivery rate. Tu-204 received orders but they just can't be fulfilled.

I ordered 60 TU-204 as it has similar operating costs to a 737-700C when oil prices are below 80 or so...while giving you 300 cargo units instead of 182.

TU-204C KJA-HGH: 16,800 Flight Related Costs, 11,770 Fixed Costs = 28500/300 = $95/unit

737-700C KJA-HGH: 10,765 Flight Costs, 11,608 Fixed Costs = 22,373/182 = $122/unit

I don't mind waiting for them as I am up-gauging my 737-700C routes with TU-204 slowly.

I agree. I am also considering T20 for my future cargo airline project but here I am talking about passenger version. On server starts nobody orders a plane with 6 days delivery time.

So the proposal is to reduce Russian aircraft's popularity with passengers by at least two bars.  :D

What an utter nonsense. We're talking here about "Passenger Popularity".  Except for the 1% of aviation nuts like us, no one in the world cares if he boards a SSJ, a CRJ or an Embraer. They don't even know the type of aircraft they're flying.

What an utter nonsense. We're talking here about "Passenger Popularity".  Except for the 1% of aviation nuts like us, no one in the world cares if he boards a SSJ, a CRJ or an Embraer. They don't even know the type of aircraft they're flying.

You under estimate the flying public, which kinda the same with nonsense. Can only say 'good luck' for real world airline operating your unusual aircraft type, they certainly won't boast it on their in-flight magazine.

Can only say 'good luck' for real world airline operating your unusual aircraft type, they certainly won't boast it on their in-flight magazine.

Unless an aircraft has a very high rate of crashes, no mainstream passenger is bothered about what aircraft is used. The TU-204 seems to be quite safe as an aircraft in RL. I don't see any reason why it should be unpopular in Airlinesim. 

And please remember: What you save in capital cost, you'll have to pay in higher fuel consumption. On the route LAX-JFK, the TU-204-100 has a higher costs/seat ratio than the A321, thus making the Airbus more profitable for the airline.

I'm not sure about other South East Asians but in Indonesia, I believe the people have general preference for western aircraft, which represented by the airline orders and interest.

Im Indonesian, live in Indonesia, yes people here afraid of flying with Chinese aircraft or the crashed-Sukhoi in Gunung Salak, but do they prefer an airline for its aircraft country production? Nope.

Are they prefer Boeing and Airbus? Yes. Are they going to only fly a Boeing and Airbus airline? Nope again.

People in Indonesia fly an airline for the price.

Even if Lion Air crashed its plane every single day and they talk sh*t about it, admitting that they won't fly Lion Air ever again, taa-daa... in the end they will fly Lion Air for its low price.

Indonesian people cant even tell you which one is Boeing which one is Airbus. So how come they will reject an airline because its Russian aircraft? They dont even have any problems with Russia. If the aircraft is Malaysian made, maybe they will consider about flying the aircraft. (Im not against Malaysia. But majority do.)

So again, as this topic is about Russian aircraft, I do think its nonsense.

If Rusdi Kirana decided to buy Tupolev for his Lion Air, I believe he will still get popularity.

What I know about many Indonesian I met when we're talking about aircraft popularity: they're prefer jets than propeller. And this kind of simulation has already been implemented in AS as all modern prop didnt have popularity more than 3.

Unless an aircraft has a very high rate of crashes, no mainstream passenger is bothered about what aircraft is used. The TU-204 seems to be quite safe as an aircraft in RL. I don't see any reason why it should be unpopular in Airlinesim. 

And please remember: What you save in capital cost, you'll have to pay in higher fuel consumption. On the route LAX-JFK, the TU-204-100 has a higher costs/seat ratio than the A321, thus making the Airbus more profitable for the airline.

Not anymore maybe :)

Have you seen fuel prices today? They now have basically the same trip costs now due to the higher acquisition costs of A321's. I realize fuel prices will go up, but lets see how the MS-21 compares to the A321NEO/737MAX in the future!

			Aircraft type
		
			Flights per week
		
			Available seats
		
			Fuel
		
			Aircraft Handling
		
			ATC
		
			Landing Fees
		
			Maintenance
		
			Capital cost
		
			Crew
		
			Fixed costs total
		
			per seat
		
			50%
		
			60%
		
			70%
		
			80%
		
			90%
		
			100%
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=3100'>Airbus A321-200 heavy</a>
		
			20.00
		
			216
		
			8,143
		
			289
		
			1,947
		
			884
		
			2,240
		
			17,125
		
			1,029
		
			31,657
		
			147 AS$
		
			<span>-2,605</span>(<span>-9%</span>)
		
			<span>3,044</span>(<span>8%</span>)
		
			<span>8,962</span>(<span>21%</span>)
		
			<span>14,611</span>(<span>30%</span>)
		
			<span>20,529</span>(<span>38%</span>)
		
			<span>26,447</span>(<span>44%</span>)
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=3150'>Airbus A321-200 heavy (enhanced)</a>
		
			20.00
		
			216
		
			7,666
		
			289
		
			1,947
		
			884
		
			2,240
		
			17,375
		
			1,029
		
			31,430
		
			146 AS$
		
			<span>-2,378</span>(<span>-8%</span>)
		
			<span>3,271</span>(<span>9%</span>)
		
			<span>9,189</span>(<span>22%</span>)
		
			<span>14,838</span>(<span>31%</span>)
		
			<span>20,756</span>(<span>38%</span>)
		
			<span>26,674</span>(<span>44%</span>)
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=3000'>Airbus A321-200 standard</a>
		
			20.00
		
			216
		
			6,934
		
			289
		
			1,905
		
			846
		
			2,128
		
			16,875
		
			1,029
		
			30,005
		
			139 AS$
		
			<span>-953</span>(<span>-3%</span>)
		
			<span>4,696</span>(<span>13%</span>)
		
			<span>10,614</span>(<span>25%</span>)
		
			<span>16,263</span>(<span>34%</span>)
		
			<span>22,181</span>(<span>41%</span>)
		
			<span>28,099</span>(<span>46%</span>)
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=3050'>Airbus A321-200 standard (enhanced)</a>
		
			20.00
		
			216
		
			6,327
		
			289
		
			1,905
		
			846
		
			2,128
		
			17,125
		
			1,029
		
			29,648
		
			137 AS$
		
			<span>-596</span>(<span>-2%</span>)
		
			<span>5,053</span>(<span>14%</span>)
		
			<span>10,971</span>(<span>26%</span>)
		
			<span>16,620</span>(<span>35%</span>)
		
			<span>22,538</span>(<span>41%</span>)
		
			<span>28,456</span>(<span>47%</span>)
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=30700'>Tupolev TU-204-100</a>
		
			18.00
		
			210
		
			10,376
		
			347
		
			2,049
		
			978
		
			4,277
		
			11,806
		
			1,143
		
			30,975
		
			148 AS$
		
			<span>-2,730</span>(<span>-9%</span>)
		
			<span>2,919</span>(<span>8%</span>)
		
			<span>8,568</span>(<span>21%</span>)
		
			<span>14,217</span>(<span>30%</span>)
		
			<span>19,866</span>(<span>38%</span>)
		
			<span>25,515</span>(<span>43%</span>)
	
			<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pearls.airlinesim.aero/action/enterprise/aircraftsType?id=30900'>Tupolev TU-204-120</a>
		
			18.00
		
			210
		
			10,162
		
			347
		
			2,049
		
			978
		
			4,277
		
			13,333
		
			1,143
		
			32,289
		
			154 AS$
		
			<span>-4,044</span>(<span>-14%</span>)
		
			<span>1,605</span>(<span>5%</span>)
		
			<span>7,254</span>(<span>18%</span>)
		
			<span>12,903</span>(<span>27%</span>)
		
			<span>18,552</span>(<span>35%</span>)
		
			<span>24,201</span>(<span>41%</span>)

Not anymore maybe :)

Have you seen fuel prices today? They now have basically the same trip costs now due to the higher acquisition costs of A321's. I realize fuel prices will go up, but lets see how the MS-21 compares to the A321NEO/737MAX in the future!

Aircraft type Flights per week Available seats Fuel Aircraft Handling ATC Landing Fees Maintenance Capital cost Crew Fixed costs total per seat 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Airbus A321-200 heavy 20.00 216 8,143 289 1,947 884 2,240 17,125 1,029 31,657 147 AS$ -2,605(-9%) 3,044(8%) 8,962(21%) 14,611(30%) 20,529(38%) 26,447(44%) Airbus A321-200 heavy (enhanced) 20.00 216 7,666 289 1,947 884 2,240 17,375 1,029 31,430 146 AS$ -2,378(-8%) 3,271(9%) 9,189(22%) 14,838(31%) 20,756(38%) 26,674(44%) Airbus A321-200 standard 20.00 216 6,934 289 1,905 846 2,128 16,875 1,029 30,005 139 AS$ -953(-3%) 4,696(13%) 10,614(25%) 16,263(34%) 22,181(41%) 28,099(46%) Airbus A321-200 standard (enhanced) 20.00 216 6,327 289 1,905 846 2,128 17,125 1,029 29,648 137 AS$ -596(-2%) 5,053(14%) 10,971(26%) 16,620(35%) 22,538(41%) 28,456(47%) Tupolev TU-204-100 18.00 210 10,376 347 2,049 978 4,277 11,806 1,143 30,975 148 AS$ -2,730(-9%) 2,919(8%) 8,568(21%) 14,217(30%) 19,866(38%) 25,515(43%) Tupolev TU-204-120 18.00 210 10,162 347 2,049 978 4,277 13,333 1,143 32,289 154 AS$ -4,044(-14%) 1,605(5%) 7,254(18%) 12,903(27%) 18,552(35%) 24,201(41%)

Dear sir, you really need to find a way to present your data. I try to copy paste it to text editor, spreadsheet, etc, and I can't really digest it. Maybe a screen capture would be more readable?

Dear sir, you really need to find a way to present your data. I try to copy paste it to text editor, spreadsheet, etc, and I can't really digest it. Maybe a screen capture would be more readable?

Sorry, it looked correct when you copy-paste from AirlineSim....

Here is the data:

The 18 or 20 flights per week are not necessarily accurate, so the capital cost may actually be even lower for the TU.

Sorry, it looked correct when you copy-paste from AirlineSim....

Here is the data:

The 18 or 20 flights per week are not necessarily accurate, so the capital cost may actually be even lower for the TU.

there you are, thanks! no worries :)