I personally think, the 744D should not be sold anymore. People are buying it instead of the 744 because it has descent range and carries more people than the A380 and people put it on a route where it couldnt even come close to flying and oversaturates the route right then and there.
Just my 2 cents
744D
Started by wdleiser, Jul 22 2005 06:29 PM
#1
Posted 22 July 2005 - 06:29 PM
#2
Posted 22 July 2005 - 06:32 PM
Ditto. It gives airlines a VERY unfair advantage on certain routes. I dont think the A380 or the 772LR should be sold either considering their not even done testing yet. But back to the topic, 744D shouldnt be sold because in real life only 2 airlines operate it; JAL and ANA. Just like only 2 airlines flew the Concordes and their not in this game, the 744D shouldnt be alowed either.
#3
Posted 22 July 2005 - 07:00 PM
I'm split both ways. It is a free market economy, and the 744D is still offered by Boeing. However, it is annoying that it is used on routes where there is only enough market for the amount of people it carries.
#4
Posted 22 July 2005 - 09:37 PM
It's true that only 2 airlines flew the Concorde, but the Concorde's not even in production anymore. Only 2 airlines operate the 744D, but Boeing was hoping US airlines would soon purchase it. Got that from a book.
#5
Posted 22 July 2005 - 09:42 PM
But none of the U.S. airlines saw a market for it here. United is about the only one I can think of that would have considered them because they use their 744s on many domestic routes.
#6
Posted 22 July 2005 - 09:49 PM
No but those are linking flights not just plain domestic travel. They route IAD-SFO-NRT or something of that nature.Originally posted by deltafan
But none of the U.S. airlines saw a market for it here. United is about the only one I can think of that would have considered them because they use their 744s on many domestic routes.
#7
Posted 23 July 2005 - 12:05 AM
We all know the info, especially the B747-400D is wrong. U'll never see it in real life fly more than 2-3 hour sectors and they only really use them in Japan.
I'll bet that in the next version, the info will be corrected and thus, everything will be normal and u wont have B747D flying like long-haul routes.
I'll bet that in the next version, the info will be corrected and thus, everything will be normal and u wont have B747D flying like long-haul routes.
#8
Posted 23 July 2005 - 03:45 AM
That's right. But, in the mean time, I'm sure people will still complain when someone puts a B744D on LAX-ATL or a similar short route.
#9
Posted 23 July 2005 - 04:48 AM
Originally posted by drv4truk
That's right. But, in the mean time, I'm sure people will still complain when someone puts a B744D on LAX-ATL or a similar short route.
Cause someone is already doing that.
#10
Posted 23 July 2005 - 05:15 AM
and I've seen 747Ds turn around in less than 90 minutes while spotting at Haneda...
In the next version, I hope that one can choose seating configurations with more seats incurring fuel burn and range penalty. The number of seats you want should range from 1(one) to the FAA certified limit.
It is also theoretically possible to cram 500 people in an ordinary 747-400...same fuselage. 747Ds in Japan just has terrible seat pitch.
[Edited on 7/23/2005 by Pacific]
In the next version, I hope that one can choose seating configurations with more seats incurring fuel burn and range penalty. The number of seats you want should range from 1(one) to the FAA certified limit.
It is also theoretically possible to cram 500 people in an ordinary 747-400...same fuselage. 747Ds in Japan just has terrible seat pitch.
[Edited on 7/23/2005 by Pacific]
#11
Posted 23 July 2005 - 12:24 PM
The seating config. idea, I was told, is in the works, but is at the bottom of the list. Currently they are working on the stock market.
I still don't know, it is a free market and people should be able to buy what they want and place them where they want, but for a startup like me, it's hard, especially since I wan't to eventually get into LAX-ATL or routes like it, so it still is annoying and a little unfair. Perhaps there should be a limit as to how many large airplanes you can have on a shorter route. 1 or 2 maybe for a 747.
I also like Pacific's idea about incurring fuel/range penalties for seats.
I still don't know, it is a free market and people should be able to buy what they want and place them where they want, but for a startup like me, it's hard, especially since I wan't to eventually get into LAX-ATL or routes like it, so it still is annoying and a little unfair. Perhaps there should be a limit as to how many large airplanes you can have on a shorter route. 1 or 2 maybe for a 747.
I also like Pacific's idea about incurring fuel/range penalties for seats.
#12
Posted 23 July 2005 - 03:51 PM
I don't know if they (Hooters and Central) want to be an annoyance, or really don't know how to look for routes. Because they have constantly been flooding and bugging a couple at times.
#13
Posted 23 July 2005 - 11:05 PM
What I also think would be cool, would be say... you can route a flight with a 1 stop. (IAD-SFO-NRT) but it be marketed as IAD-NRT. So you could carry a few people to SFO and get a few more on the NRT portion and then be able to make some more money as you would be offereing an alternative route to NRT than non stop from IAD.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users