60 replies to this topic

[FiveZeroBravo]

Miller, would it be possible to chuck the Airbus bias out over Boeing? All the Airbus are better than Boeing in AE. (I.E.- A319 having more range then a 738, the A345 having more range than a 772LR, operating costs higher, etc)

It really is ludicrous that those gleaming errors have been able to survive this long..

Thanks in advance,

Jason

[PacificEcho]

Boeing 737-800: 2 class set up seats 162. Range 3,383.
Airbus A319: 2 class carries up to 124. Range 3,700.

Your comparing a small medium range aircraft to a bigger medium range aircraft? How many airlines do you know fly the 319 3,700NM? That's 5 hours in the 319. That's a long flight. I can think of several airlines that fly the 737-800 on 4-5 hour flights. Besides the 737-800 carries 40 more people, more cargo, and it's airbus competitor is the 321, not the 319. The 737-700 is the 319's main competition..

Boeing 737-700: 2 class carries up to 126. Range 3,752. Obviously, what I said above proves my point. And becuase the 737-700 carries 2 more people and is able to fly 52 miles further.. obviously Airbus isn't better. Both are roughly the same.

Boeing 777-200LR: 3 class set up seats 301. Range: 9,420
Airbus 340-500: 313 passengers. Range: 8,650.

The 772LR flys further than the 340-500. It seats 10 less than the 340-500 though.

All specifications were pulled from the manufacturers website.

Want to try to edit your post and correct your information now?

Actually I just realized that you mean the planes in the game.. not in real life. Sorry. Yeah I agree.. the A340-500 doesn't have a seating capacity of 360 something.. only 313. And airbus's website says it doesn't fly 9,9-- nm... not even that long..

[Edited on 5/2/2005 by PacificEcho]

[FiveZeroBravo]

Originally posted by Nathaniel
i have sat on the a319 for 5 hours and a half or a bit more, it was fine.. its a good plane.. there is no bias here, and he would find the info off of other sites... just stop complaining about this stuff... most of the info is correct.

A340-500 has 313 yeah.. but the a340-600 has 380 .. you can pack the 500 with 500 ... but yeah, just stop complaining, most of the stuff is correct.

Haha, sorry buddy, most of it is not. I'm not talking real life, or how comfortable it is- I am talking in AE. The Airbus are obviously biased and if you can't see that, well, perhaps you should check out the real numbers and see for yourself.


[Edited on 5/2/2005 by FiveZeroBravo]

[awfs]

Perhaps it will be a lot easier for miller to correct this if you post all the corrections that need to be made in the fleet along with reference websites to confirm the information.

[ithboy]

All info was taken dirrectly from Boeing and Airbus sites. the thing is Boeing usally takes results of a fully loaded flight where as Airbus does it empty. This result in them both having different results. Everything is fine in my mind and A/c info is probley the least Miller has on his mind. I am sure sooner or later miller will fix it to the closest it can be. You seem like a boeingonlyflyer so if it bothers you so much just don't buy airbus. It is that simple!

[awfs]

Airbus displays both loaded and unloaded data ass well as over loaded http://www.airbus.co...performance.asp

[FiveZeroBravo]

Originally posted by ithboy
You seem like a boeingonlyflyer so if it bothers you so much just don't buy airbus. It is that simple!

When it comes to AvB, yes, I am hardcore Boeing. When it comes to operating economics, I'll take what is best.

As of right now, I'm only an operator of 8 J-31's and 3 D328's. Soon, Boeings and Airbuses will come.

[FiveZeroBravo]

Originally posted by Nathaniel
another way to look at it, is that those saying that the info is wrong, even tho it is quite correct, are looking for boeing bias maybe.. just maybe

The point you are missing is that is it not 'quite' correct. Open your eyes and stop being thick-headed about glaring falsities. I am not looking for a Boeing bias, only a fair competition.

I'm done with your immature arguements. I know the correct numbers, which are not displayed. You can enjoy living in your fantasy world as long as you like, it is only an internet game. Perhaps go outside with a member of the opposite sex and take a long, deep breath. It will do wonders for you.

[Maestro69]

Ummm, you know, i also has look at the figures from Airbus, Boeing and some other websites and to me, the figures on AE looks pretty much the same and look accurate.

Look, if your a hard-core Boeing fan, i suggest just buy boeings, because at the end of the day, nobody cares what planes you buy, becuase its just a game.

At the present moment, this is not an important issue for Miller. He has other things more important to fix than the aircraft page, so at the moment, please, just buy the plane that will suit your airline!!!!

[Berky-Woodstock]

Boeings should have much less ops cost.

- They do not have nearly as much computer-related systems in their aircraft and therefore the mechanics don't have to be computer wizzes and deal with the script and errors caused by them. It is much cheaper and easier to repair a boeing.

- Seat per mile on Boeings are less.

Also, whoever mentioned the A319 to the 738 is an idiot, because they are different aircraft. The A320 is what you compare the 738 to. Generally, realistically, the numbers are off.

F0B is a real world pilot and avid aviation enthusiast, as myself.

Why do you think more 737's have been sold than the entire airbus fleet?

Smart airlines know that 737's are cheaper to operate and maintain, and twice the room and comfort (thanks to the double-cylinder fuse we got off MD).

Airlines don't just throw out another $20 million on aircraft, especially in bulk like the most successful LC airline of all time, Southwest. They know they are getting much better aircraft for their money.

[Berky-Woodstock]

Originally posted by ithboy
All info was taken dirrectly from Boeing and Airbus sites. the thing is Boeing usally takes results of a fully loaded flight where as Airbus does it empty. This result in them both having different results. Everything is fine in my mind and A/c info is probley the least Miller has on his mind.

Let me get this straight.

You think it is fine because you are comparing different types of data resulting in many inaccuracies in AE's aircraft list, yet in "your mind" it is fine. Wow. This game is called AIRLINE empires, as in dealing with aircraft. If this was lemonade empires, then yes, aircraft inaccuracies would be fine but this is rediculous.

Also, there is no way an A319 would get Etops certification to fly transatlantic. Or over any vast body of water. Just because it has the range doesn't mean it is allowed to do it. I was laughing when I saw LGA to Heathrow with an A319. That is another thing, airport and political inaccuracies. LGA cannot have flights past the mississippi or over the atlantic, and this is to protect business at JFK and EWR. Just one of many examples.

We might as well make C172's have $20 ticket price and fly them 9,000nm.....

[Edited on 5/2/2005 by Berky-Woodstock]

[Maestro69]

Well, first of this aint the real world. In this game, you fly from any airport to any other airport. This is part of the AE world, where is no system of regulating airlines, and thus, people can fly La Guarda to Londo Heathrow, no problem at all.

Secondly, do you really think people care about small differences in operating cost between Airbus and Boeing aircraft????? It been like that since the last game and mostly, people have excepted the aircraft available and choose which aircraft they would like in their fleet.

[FiveZeroBravo]

Originally posted by Maestro69
Well, first of this aint the real world. In this game, you fly from any airport to any other airport. This is part of the AE world, where is no system of regulating airlines, and thus, people can fly La Guarda to Londo Heathrow, no problem at all.

Secondly, do you really think people care about small differences in operating cost between Airbus and Boeing aircraft????? It been like that since the last game and mostly, people have excepted the aircraft available and choose which aircraft they would like in their fleet.

Op costs isn't the big issue, huge (1000+nm) range errors is a big issue.

[Berky-Woodstock]

Originally posted by FiveZeroBravo

Originally posted by Maestro69
Well, first of this aint the real world. In this game, you fly from any airport to any other airport. This is part of the AE world, where is no system of regulating airlines, and thus, people can fly La Guarda to Londo Heathrow, no problem at all.

Secondly, do you really think people care about small differences in operating cost between Airbus and Boeing aircraft????? It been like that since the last game and mostly, people have excepted the aircraft available and choose which aircraft they would like in their fleet.

Op costs isn't the big issue, huge (1000+nm) range errors is a big issue.

And the fact that $20 million isn't small at all for the same qualities in this game, boeing has better qualities but you pay much more up front. Airlines ordering bulk for a modest profit usually buy airbus because $20 per aircraft ads up.

[Berky-Woodstock]

Originally posted by Nathaniel
put it this way !!! it doesn't really matter, let miller worry about more important issues like getting new features and the game running again. The figures are basically correct, and if you want boeing, just use boeing...

seriously. just stop whining and crying about it, its not going to get anywhere, we have had this discussion before, and it is fine how it is, so just let miller alone and let him do more important issues that like 3 people's ideas...

You don't seem to understand. Using boeing is an economical crutch in this game, it makes no sense. If these were real figures, no airline would use boeings today. It is not basically correct. It is not fine how it is.