10 replies to this topic

[dhon]

My airline always reserve 20-30hrs for each plane and the overall aircraft usage is around 16.X (with some planes not yet decided how to use and being on ground with 140hrs available). However, my on-time performance just going down when more route is establsihed.... is that we can only schedule for half (70hrs) if we would like to have a green bar in on time performance?

Also, the leg room is my concern. I have read from other post where Yuxi said that we need to hold far below maximum capacity to earn a good leg room rating. What is far below means? Is that for a 137Y B737-200Adv just holding 68Y? My seating is 2F 12C 106Y (120 in total) but still rating only around 60-70%. Can I ask how to improve leg room rating with reasonable/profitable seat arrangement?

If a profitable seat arrangement will never earn a green bar for leg room, is that means the leg room rating is not realistic?

Please feel free to comment~

[Tesla]

Bit late now, but using 3 class config to reduce seat number doesn't increase legroom rating. I'd recommend switching to the A319-100LR if your game goes up to 2002. In that, put 150 Y, and steer clear of 3 class configs.

[Hake.]

8 | 102 is best (and only) A319LR config.
Even for a -100 go 144Y.

[Tesla]

No. LR is good for LCC carriers. I'd recommend 141 Y for A319lr, and 147 for -100. Extra row to make up for fuel consumption. FSC can happily put 126-132 on A319, however, profitability is impacted, and 150 can earn green legroom just about.

[Tesla]

No. LR is good for LCC carriers. I'd recommend 141 Y for A319lr, and 147 for -100. Extra row to make up for fuel consumption. FSC can happily put 126-132 on A319, however, profitability is impacted, and 150 can earn green legroom just about.

[Hake.]

No. LR is good for LCC carriers. I'd recommend 141 Y for A319lr, and 147 for -100. Extra row to make up for fuel consumption. FSC can happily put 126-132 on A319, however, profitability is impacted, and 150 can earn green legroom just about.

But for realism irl it makes no sense to pay $10 million extra a pop for an LR 

[Tesla]

What, you see no difference. The LR is so much more fuel efficient for a reason.

[Hake.]

What, you see no difference. The LR is so much more fuel efficient for a reason.

It's 1/16 more efficient, I've done the maths.

[Tesla]

Il give you the profits all 3 variants gave me on a particular route once.
-100 24,000
-100lr 30,0000
Neo 39000
Almost 40 percent greater profit, on that route. On razor thin margins, you want the most efficient aircraft, not a load of tosh off the street. Note that I'm not referring just to A319.

[Hake.]

You can do the calculations, the LR burns 16.1lb per 100 miles. The -100 does 17.1lb per 100 miles. You don't have to pay attention, but if you factor in the $10 million extra you pay increases maintenance too. Given the record of the LR on almost all airlines, I'd rather stick to the less efficient models, or even less efficient A318/20/21s.

[Tesla]

LR offet long haul enough said k