31 replies to this topic

[Infestation]

In your history of AE, what is the least profitable wide body aircraft you have operated and why do you think that?

[zortan]

Let's see - There is the Il-86. Huge gulper of fuel - not very good. For the same reason, there is also the DC-10 (other than the -30) and the L-1011 (other than the -500). Otherwise, I would say the A340, it's a huge guzzler. The A300 and A310 aren't the best because of pretty short range, as well as the 767-200 (no ER). I think I covered it, but I'm sure there are a few more.

[Marb1]

Let's see - There is the Il-86. Huge gulper of fuel - not very good. For the same reason, there is also the DC-10 (other than the -30) and the L-1011 (other than the -500). Otherwise, I would say the A340, it's a huge guzzler. The A300 and A310 aren't the best because of pretty short range, as well as the 767-200 (no ER). I think I covered it, but I'm sure there are a few more.

DC-10? Seriously? It's actually quite GOOD! Plus, can you stop hating Airbus for like ONCE?

[Infestation]

Airbus is my favorite but I'm still a fan of Boeing also. I'm not even European lol

[zortan]

DC-10? Seriously? It's actually quite GOOD! Plus, can you stop hating Airbus for like ONCE?

I'm not hating I'm saying DC-10-30 is good just not the others.

[jleonnn]

Let's see - There is the Il-86. Huge gulper of fuel - not very good. For the same reason, there is also the DC-10 (other than the -30) and the L-1011 (other than the -500). Otherwise, I would say the A340, it's a huge guzzler. The A300 and A310 aren't the best because of pretty short range, as well as the 767-200 (no ER). I think I covered it, but I'm sure there are a few more.

 

What? I've made huge profits on the L1011. I'm quite sure you can make very decent money with the DC-10 too. Their fuel burn is comparable to that of the 772, which is about the same size, especially seeing as the 772 was developed much later. I mean sure the L1011 and the DC-10 have short ranges but if you're somewhere with huge population centres in close proximity (as in the US, or in China / Japan) these aircraft can be gold mines. And of course, the actual earlier models of the L1011s and DC-10s were put to widespread use on domestic US flights.  

 

As for the A340-300 its fuel burn is actually lower than its A330 sisters which is strange considering it has twice the number of engines. I don't have a whole lot of experience here either but I would imagine that means it should actually be decently profitable. According to the game stats it's actually just about 18% less fuel efficient than the 787 but it still carries about 15% more people, which is quite good considering the 787 is of a whole new generation. 

 

I do recall making less-than-wonderful profits on the A340 but on hindsight I think that's because the only routes I would put the A340 on are very long haul flights that don't have the demand to warrant a 747, and those routes are usually the least profitable regardless of what aircraft you fly. 

 

But otherwise yeah I suppose the least profitable widebodies are the Russian ones like the Il-86 / Il-96 

[zortan]

What? I've made huge profits on the L1011. I'm quite sure you can make very decent money with the DC-10 too. Their fuel burn is comparable to that of the 772, which is about the same size, especially seeing as the 772 was developed much later. I mean sure the L1011 and the DC-10 have short ranges but if you're somewhere with huge population centres in close proximity (as in the US, or in China / Japan) these aircraft can be gold mines. And of course, the actual earlier models of the L1011s and DC-10s were put to widespread use on domestic US flights.  

 

As for the A340-300 its fuel burn is actually lower than its A330 sisters which is strange considering it has twice the number of engines. I don't have a whole lot of experience here either but I would imagine that means it should actually be decently profitable. According to the game stats it's actually just about 18% less fuel efficient than the 787 but it still carries about 15% more people, which is quite good considering the 787 is of a whole new generation. 

 

I do recall making less-than-wonderful profits on the A340 but on hindsight I think that's because the only routes I would put the A340 on are very long haul flights that don't have the demand to warrant a 747, and those routes are usually the least profitable regardless of what aircraft you fly. 

 

But otherwise yeah I suppose the least profitable widebodies are the Russian ones like the Il-86 / Il-96 

I agree that the russians are inefficient, but for the rest, I'm going to have to rebut that. The L-1011 and DC-10 were designed for the US domestic market, except for the variants I've already mentioned. While they may be good for pretty short routes and maybe trans cons, they aren't the best otherwise. The L-1011's variants other than the -500 and maybe the -250 can't make almost any LH flight unless it is a short transatlantic or transpacific hop. Same with the DC-10-10, etc. A340: the -300 variant is only more efficient because it uses A320 engines, just 4 of them. That gives a lot less power, which IRL would be unsafe, I've written articles about this, which I'll publish soon on LayoverHub. In terms of the other two variants, they are very inefficient, especially compared to the 777-200LR. The 77L also has longer range, enabling JFK-SYD, and other ULR routes such as that. In terms of 340 vs 787, I'm not sure if those numbers are correct... The 787 isn't larger , however, it has the benefit of efficiency as you mentioned, as well as pax comfort (Ik that it doesn't count, but still), and it also is longer range, which enables long-haul, low-demand flights. The final good thing is that it is available until the end of game worlds, while the 340 has an end of production - so the 787 is more modern, etc.

[zortan]

Now that i think of it, 787 would be a good 340 replacement on some routes.

[Med.]

The A340-200/300 is one of the most profitable airplanes in AE despite its real-world shortfalls! I've seen worse than the Il-86/96. The MD-11 is rather inefficient in AE compared to the Il-86/96. But to me, any widebody can be profitable.

 

But there are some widebodies that I find more useful than the others.

 

Here are some widebodies whose uses are rather limited:

 

A380 - So big. Hard to fill it up.

A300/A310 - Limited range. I choose 767 most of the time.

777-300/300ER - Runway requirements are too much. I can't fly it in a lot of airports that see the 777-300 IRL.

[Ryan_D96]

As for the A340-300 its fuel burn is actually lower than its A330 sisters which is strange considering it has twice the number of engines. I don't have a whole lot of experience here either but I would imagine that means it should actually be decently profitable. According to the game stats it's actually just about 18% less fuel efficient than the 787 but it still carries about 15% more people, which is quite good considering the 787 is of a whole new generation. 

 

 

The A340-300 has lower fuel burn because it has its power spread over 4 smaller engines. This means if there is an engine failure the aircraft only loses 25% of its thrust which is not a big deal. If an A330 loses an engine that's 50% of its power output which creates a significant power imbalance. In order to correct this a larger vertical stabiliser and rudder had to be fitted, otherwise the aircraft would struggle to fly in a straight line. This in turn creates higher levels of drag in normal flight. 

 

A340: the -300 variant is only more efficient because it uses A320 engines, just 4 of them. That gives a lot less power, which IRL would be unsafe, I've written articles about this, which I'll publish soon on LayoverHub.

 

Good luck with that article, your premise is a crock of s***e.  

The A340-300 is more efficient as it has lower drag in cruise.

The thrust rating difference on both aircraft with the weakest engines is less than 5,000lbs.

Having 4 engines is far safer than having 2. Why do you think it took so long for twin jets to be allowed to fly transatlantic? Statistically an engine failure is unlikely but if you were on a plane would you not rather you had 75% of your power left as opposed to 50%? 

IRL? Are you for real? You do realise that A340-300s fly every day? If they were unsafe they would be grounded. 

[HanTseng]

The A340 -200s and -300s are actually one of the better widebody jets on AE. They have the same amount of seats as the A330, 777-200/ER, etc., but their fuel flow is less than all of them. 

[zortan]

The A340 -200s and -300s are actually one of the better widebody jets on AE. They have the same amount of seats as the A330, 777-200/ER, etc., but their fuel flow is less than all of them. 

ok ok guys stop gang-bashing me! I'm just stating an opinion, i never said you had to agree with it!!!

[Ryan_D96]

ok ok guys stop gang-bashing me! I'm just stating an opinion, i never said you had to agree with it!!!

We're not gang bashing you You stated your opinion and other people stated their opinion, nothing wrong with that.

I corrected the factually incorrect tripe you presented as facts because it was simply not true.

[zelalemon]

ok ok guys stop gang-bashing me! I'm just stating an opinion, i never said you had to agree with it!!!

You stated an opinion, then other people stated their contrasting opinion, and backed it up with facts. 

[Book Siberia]

It is the combination of fuel burn/hr AND turn time that is the most significant 2 factors in how well your wide body (or any body for that matter) performs.

 

Note that the shorter the route, the less significant the fuel burn/hr is as a cost, and at the same time, the shorter the turn time the better.

 

Widebody airplanes that have larger turn times must be used on longer routes to maintain effectiveness, but if the fuel burn/hr as a cost is too high at the same time, that widebody will cost much more than what most would find acceptable. 

 

naturally, of course, your mileage may vary! lol

[Jamesthomeson]

747-100 for sure. This thing made me around 400,000 in ticket sales from DFW to DUB but my profit was only 100,000$. And this was on a route with no competitors at base price. Seats were 410 in y class.

[zortan]

Okay - whatever. I'm not arguing anymore on this - you keep your opinions and I'll keep mine. I'm done here.

[Tesla]

Il-96-300 killed me. It has a 110 minute turn time, which is awful and fuel efficiency to make even jet a1 heads cry. 

 

Il-86 is not great, but I still made excellent money with it. It's a pretty good aircraft for russia based airlines, especially near its initial release date.

 

A380 is awful on short haul, which explains why almost no airline uses it on flights under 4 hours ( ). But it's excellent around the 10-13 hour sweetspot.

 

I have no experience with any 747s, or A300s and A310s. A330-200 is decent, 300 is very good. A340-300 is great in AE, but I think that's not right.

 

A350-800 is very good, 900 is exceptional. The range offers so many possibilities, and the fuel burn and turn time are best in class.

 

No experience with 707s, but they look quite bad. They seem good for the time though. 

 

757 (narrowbody I know but a medium-haul plane), pretty profitable, but it is way out of depth in the early 2020s.

 

767-200er is quite good, although the fuel burn is a bit high. 300s I have little experience with. 400er is very good and a good relatively cheap alternative to a 200 series 777. Also takes less time to turn around. A fairly safe aircraft, but not the best you can have.

 

777-200 I haven't used, but it seems pretty good. It's pricey for what it is though. 300 series is one of the best widebodies out there due to it's low fuel flow. Only issue is the runway requirement and understandably slow turn around time. A pretty damm good aircraft.

 

787-8 is a brilliant aircraft and has many good use cases. Would even do short haul very well if that is what was wanted. Although medium long haul is the best for it. 10 was better but then the seat count got corrected incorrectly (I think).

 

Least profitable is definitely the il-96 for modern aircraft. The Comet (not widebody but still a long haul aircraft by the time standards) is the worst non supersonic jet I have found  

[zortan]

Il-96-300 killed me. It has a 110 minute turn time, which is awful and fuel efficiency to make even jet a1 heads cry. 

 

Il-86 is not great, but I still made excellent money with it. It's a pretty good aircraft for russia based airlines, especially near its initial release date.

 

A380 is awful on short haul, which explains why almost no airline uses it on flights under 4 hours ( ). But it's excellent around the 10-13 hour sweetspot.

 

I have no experience with any 747s, or A300s and A310s. A330-200 is decent, 300 is very good. A340-300 is great in AE, but I think that's not right.

 

A350-800 is very good, 900 is exceptional. The range offers so many possibilities, and the fuel burn and turn time are best in class.

 

No experience with 707s, but they look quite bad. They seem good for the time though. 

 

757 (narrowbody I know but a medium-haul plane), pretty profitable, but it is way out of depth in the early 2020s.

 

767-200er is quite good, although the fuel burn is a bit high. 300s I have little experience with. 400er is very good and a good relatively cheap alternative to a 200 series 777. Also takes less time to turn around. A fairly safe aircraft, but not the best you can have.

 

777-200 I haven't used, but it seems pretty good. It's pricey for what it is though. 300 series is one of the best widebodies out there due to it's low fuel flow. Only issue is the runway requirement and understandably slow turn around time. A pretty damm good aircraft.

 

787-8 is a brilliant aircraft and has many good use cases. Would even do short haul very well if that is what was wanted. Although medium long haul is the best for it. 10 was better but then the seat count got corrected incorrectly (I think).

 

Least profitable is definitely the il-96 for modern aircraft. The Comet (not widebody but still a long haul aircraft by the time standards) is the worst non supersonic jet I have found

For the time, 707 is the best plane, just saying. DC-8 is competing, but 707 still wins IMO. Comet is TERRIBLE - no way to make profits, i totally agree with you on that one. If we're doing longhaul from old times, I'd also say that the Concorde is cool, but really quite a guzzler. 777-200: I don't see why ppl hate it. It is efficient enough, plus its cheap and it has a really long range (ER and LR). VC-10 is also pretty trash and so is IL-62 all variants. 

[Ryan_D96]

 VC-10 is also pretty trash and so is IL-62 all variants. 

 

I actually found the VC-10 ideal for operating longer flights out of airports with short runways. It's been a while since I've played in the 60s but I'm sure I had it in a 4F |  12C  |  96Y (Super VC-10) config and managed to make an alright profit with it. Plus look at it, it's sex on wings