A Thank You For All The Loyal AE Players...
#21
Posted 01 June 2007 - 10:32 AM
A330 has 100 more seats and is cheaper by a long way.
787 has lower base costs.
Why would people buy something $30m more for 100 less seats?
#22
Posted 01 June 2007 - 10:43 AM
Very Very expensive though - Compared to something of a similar price A330-300:
A330 has 100 more seats and is cheaper by a long way.
787 has lower base costs.
Why would people buy something $30m more for 100 less seats?
Many reasons:
Lower operating costs
More enviromentaly friendly
More range
Don't forget that most airlines almost never pay the list price for aircraft , there are nearly always discounts and incentives given for medium / large orders.
#23
Posted 01 June 2007 - 10:45 AM
2.operating costs
3.fuel consumption
4.for the satisfaction of flying a brand new plane
By the way miller, has the engine bug been fixed? Does the aircraft still use base range or do they vary by engine now?
#24
Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:01 AM
Very Very expensive though - Compared to something of a similar price A330-300:
A330 has 100 more seats and is cheaper by a long way.
787 has lower base costs.
Why would people buy something $30m more for 100 less seats?
If u exclude the price from the equation, the B787-8 in AE would be ideal for mid-size airports with decent hubs to open long-range routes without the need to use the capacity or size of the A330 or above. It should give raise to more choices in the game me thinks.
#25
Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:30 AM
#26
Posted 01 June 2007 - 07:55 PM
#27
Posted 02 June 2007 - 01:49 AM
If u exclude the price from the equation, the B787-8 in AE would be ideal for mid-size airports with decent hubs to open long-range routes without the need to use the capacity or size of the A330 or above. It should give raise to more choices in the game me thinks.
Exactly. I was already considering it as a replacement for routes where a B753 would normally be used. It will also work to replace the A333 on some routes that have lower demand.
#28
Posted 02 June 2007 - 03:11 AM
Exactly. I was already considering it as a replacement for routes where a B753 would normally be used. It will also work to replace the A333 on some routes that have lower demand.
Great minds thinks alike, as they say
#29
Posted 02 June 2007 - 07:59 AM
#30
Posted 02 June 2007 - 11:16 AM
#31
Posted 04 June 2007 - 01:08 AM
#32
Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:07 AM
Seems the script still fluctuates wildly with new entrants.
#33
Posted 04 June 2007 - 01:50 PM
Congrats Glennos!
Your $$$ has been deposited.
So, what'cha gonna spend it on?
A Miller Big Mac
#34
Posted 05 June 2007 - 02:57 AM
#35
Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:44 AM
#36
Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:17 PM
http://www.geae.com/...genx/index.html
ID: 1754
#37
Posted 10 June 2007 - 04:51 PM
Plus, with the info given, you need to remember that the more passengers, the lower the range will be. I think Miller give them the benfit of the doubt on this.
#38
Posted 10 June 2007 - 04:52 PM
I noticed it said the range of the 787 was 7,900. According to Boeing, the 787-8's range is a maximum of 8,200. Also, on GE, it says the GEnx's maximum thrust is 75,000.
http://www.geae.com/...genx/index.html
The range will always vary upon how much weight its carrying, and which way its going dependent upon the prevailing winds. If max is 8,200, then its still pretty liberal to assume it will always make 7,900.
We had a problem with the GE thrust numbers when we first put the 787 in. The fact of the matter is that the GEnx may be capable of 75,000 lbs, but they severly de-rate it for the 787-8. 75,000 lbs. is just way too much for an aircraft this size, and it hurts all of your fuel flows anyways. You want that thrust number as low as you can get it for Airline Empires.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users