So I was just reading a post on here regarding the range of the 737-900ER HGW and an idea came to me. Personally I don't always like the idea of transatlantic flight with 737's, however I understand why they make sense in game. So my idea doesn't take away the ability to do this, but add a feature to make Widebody's preferable. For sake of conversation let's say Airline A and Airline B both fly ORD-LHR, Airline A uses the 737-900ER HGW (Scimitar) and Airline B uses the 787-8. We will also say they both offer the same service, seats, and both have the same price. So the idea is to give Airline B a small boost because the distance is over 4,500 miles and Airline B utilizes a Widebody. This method doesn't make the 737 not usable and won't really effect bigger airlines, but it does give airlines who use widebody a small boost. The same principal could applied to Narrowbodies vs Regional Jets. Please let me know your thoughts.
Personally I don't like these kind of solutions. There is in this case some formula/algorithm to determine how likely it is that a passengers flies with an aircraft that seems to be oversimplified on certain points that causes some weird behaviour (relative to real-life) with as a results that some none realistic aircraft are chosen on certain routes (for example narrow-body on transatlantic high-demand routes). I would rather see that formula/algorithm be changed to make it more realistic somewhere in the future than to put even more unrealistic coding in to overcome certain problems. That solution often leads to weird results (that might not always be foreseen) that can seriously affect businesses. In this case there is a certain distance after which wide-body aircraft get an advantage, this might mean that an airline flying from France or Italy to North America can have a (big) advantage over airlines from the UK or Ireland as it has a longer distance to fly and thus has more routes on which this advantage will be applied making it unfair competition. Another possibility is that it works the other way around and airlines from Iceland will have the advantage as they have more routes where the narrow-body aircraft have an advantage and thus can open more profitable routes than their competitors in the UK and mainland Europe. The exact results are often unpredictable and don't truly resolve the issue. I would rather wait three years (or more) to see a proper adjustment of the formula/algorithm than to use tricks to overcome its flaws (which you would always have when trying to replicate a real life system).
Boost? In what way? Ors?
Personally I don't like these kind of solutions. There is in this case some formula/algorithm to determine how likely it is that a passengers flies with an aircraft that seems to be oversimplified on certain points that causes some weird behaviour (relative to real-life) with as a results that some none realistic aircraft are chosen on certain routes (for example narrow-body on transatlantic high-demand routes).
None realistic how? The 757, a narrow body, has been a mainstay across the pond for a good ten years. A quick glance shows United operating them from New York to London, it doesn't get any more high demand than that. Delta is flying the 757 from PHL to LHR and CDG, not small potatoes there either. I am sure there are more.
As the NEO, MAX and C series become more common we will continue to see these aircraft more and more flying TATL.
None realistic how? The 757, a narrow body, has been a mainstay across the pond for a good ten years. A quick glance shows United operating them from New York to London, it doesn't get any more high demand than that. Delta is flying the 757 from PHL to LHR and CDG, not small potatoes there either. I am sure there are more.
As the NEO, MAX and C series become more common we will continue to see these aircraft more and more flying TATL.
Of course you can find narrow-body aircraft on TATL flights, even on the London to New York route there is an A319 in service, but in general it is wide-body that performs the bulk of these flights.
Of course you can find narrow-body aircraft on TATL flights, even on the London to New York route there is an A319 in service,
Then you can't call the use of narrow-body flights in this game "non realistic".
Boost? In what way? Ors?
Maybe like a small 5 or 10 point boost in total ORS. So while it doesn't make a narrow-body any less useful just increases the reason to use a wide-body. As someone who flies alot I will take a 767 or 777 over a 757 going to CDG/LHR/AMS any day.
I think that some of these types of issues will be resolved by the new passenger types coming soon-ish
I know for example that Icelandair uses 757s and is now going to fly out of my home city of YVR direct to Iceland. The economy price is 300-500$ Once there you can connect to many places in Europe via WOW and Icelandair. This is not for everyone as they might prefer to pay more and fly direct. Ex i flew from YVR to Frankfurt direct via Lufthansa (nice flight good service) but it cost 1500$
Now I can access more destinations for less, but have to fly an older 757, which i probably will do because the service from what i have read is decent and reliable.
Hopefully the new passenger types will allow value passengers to choose these narrowbodies and passengers seeking more comforts and direct routes may choose widebodies
The 737 already is less prefered in the ORS, as it is slower so the journey takes a lot longer.
I use 737-900 HGW and 787 on transatlantic routes and i always have to make the 737 cheaper.
Then you can't call the use of narrow-body flights in this game "non realistic".
The "non-realistic" is not in the fact that they are used but rather in the amount in which these are used. I don't know how it is in some of the permanent game worlds, but on Quimby at the moment it seems that at about half of the flights from JFK to Europe are flown with narrow-body aircraft. That, to me, seems unrealistic.
The "non-realistic" is not in the fact that they are used but rather in the amount in which these are used. I don't know how it is in some of the permanent game worlds, but on Quimby at the moment it seems that at about half of the flights from JFK to Europe are flown with narrow-body aircraft. That, to me, seems unrealistic.
Well... if the game reflected reality 100% would it still be fun to play?
I believe, more than 90% real life passenger won't check whether the flight they're going to buy will use narrow or wide-body aircraft. In fact, airlines change it all the time as they desired. The website tell us we will fly on 777, later we found ourselves flying with 330. So for me, adding a small boost for aircraft preference is actually the one that's not realistic. Either the price or the schedule that a passenger will make a decision on. Maybe us, an aviation geek, will do research on what aircraft we will fly in. But not my Grandma. "Just get me a flight that lands at 10 o'clock and of course the cheapest one." Never in my life my Grandma asked me to book a flight of, "Just get me a flight on Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which the battery hasn't been burned yet, and seat config 3-3-3 with 32 inch pitch, et cetera, et cetera."
I think we should just wait the "Passenger Type" feature to be implemented. That way, both narrow and wide can have their own passengers.
I believe, more than 90% real life passenger won't check whether the flight they're going to buy will use narrow or wide-body aircraft. In fact, airlines change it all the time as they desired. The website tell us we will fly on 777, later we found ourselves flying with 330. So for me, adding a small boost for aircraft preference is actually the one that's not realistic. Either the price or the schedule that a passenger will make a decision on. Maybe us, an aviation geek, will do research on what aircraft we will fly in. But not my Grandma. "Just get me a flight that lands at 10 o'clock and of course the cheapest one." Never in my life my Grandma asked me to book a flight of, "Just get me a flight on Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which the battery hasn't been burned yet, and seat config 3-3-3 with 32 inch pitch, et cetera, et cetera."
I think we should just wait the "Passenger Type" feature to be implemented. That way, both narrow and wide can have their own passengers.
There shouldn't be a boost in ORS, but difference in image. Widebodies usually have better entertainment installed, have more space to walk, more toilets to choose from. Image in game is subjective, and reflects situation from 10 years ago, a lot has changed since then, we have new plane models. I believe it should be 3 bars for 737, 4bars for 747, and 5 for 787, A350, A380.