The Cat-alyst

bump

there's nothing wrong with flynig an a319 on that route, but it's not ideal. likewise I ask what is wrong with flying a 767-200 from Winipeg to PUnta Cana or Toronto to Vegas?

49,000 feet. Very realistic

 

And choosing larger aircraft gives an advantage to certain airlines because they make more money.

 

Think about it. An A321 obviously makes more money than a 737

i meant 39,000 feet, i forgot to fix that typo.

so what about this flightplan chooser, do you think it'd work or not?

to me, I thin kit could work because you then have more control of when the flights happen so yuo can pick the days of the week that are most likely to have the most customers and you can pick your ideal altitude and speed.

49,000 feet was a typo, and i was an idiiot for not editing it earlier.

Your earlier examples Air Transat & Sunwing both have narrow-body aircraft.  Transat uses 737s on several of their routes (leased I believe) & I've personally flown in a Sunwing A320 to MZT.

 

To add to that, Transat also started out with some narrowbody aircraft.  When they were just a startup, I flew with them from YVR to YUL.  The YYZ-YUL leg was in a 757.

Remember, I said that air transat is primarily wide-body.  and sunwing has a320's? holy s***! I always thought it was all b737-800!

I wish sunwing had some airbus aircraft, it'd help diversify their fleet from all just 737-800's. 

I feel like you guys think i'm attacking boeing all the time.  Boeing's cool too, it's just I personally like airbus better.

now:

Let's discuss the flight plan chooser portion of this discussion.

example of flight plan chooser options:

I'll use YWG to PUJ with a boeing 767-200 as an example:

to:

flight day": Friday

Flight time: 07:300 AM

Cruise speed: 463 kts.

Cruise altitude: 49,000 feet

return:

departure day: Friday

Departure time: 04:)) PM

Cruise speed: 459 kts.

Cruise altitude: 40,000 feet

that's the other thing that I feel should be implimented.

Perhaps they prefer westjet type airlines where we use nothing but 737-300's, even though in reality those are not really the best jets out there.  I don't care what sales say, I take cumfort into consideration.

And what about those that want to do pretty much all long-hall routes? the best a 737 can do is maybe winnipeg to Punta Cana, maybe a little further.  These types of routes are more ideal for a wmaller wide body like a 737-200 or a310-200.

Cumfort does attract customers believe it or not. Think of it developers, would you want to sit on a 737-300 for 6 hours?  I've done it, and while I love flying, it's not exactly the best way to fly.  wide body aircraft feel more fit for those flights even if a narrow body is capable of such distances.

Yes, a narrow body old ass aircraft like the 40 year old version of the 737 is cheep, but at what point does comfort come over cost?  to me it comes when you want to attract potential customers.

This is a good airline, the planes are nice, comfortable and spacious, something you'd be able to handle for 5 and a half hours at 33,000 feet.

It's not all about the company's wants but it's more about the customer wants. 

if I was running an airline in real life, I'd put passenger comfort pretty high on the list.  Plus it makes for good marketing to be able to truthfully bost that you have a comfortable plane.

Not everyone wants to run a regional airliner with turbo props and older 737's, I don't care how realistic it is.

That's the thing that needs to be remembered about RPG's as well that have major options.  Yes, your goal is to have the best airline, but, you are also able to create a fantasy airline of your own, like I did with best air.  I made into the 3 billions of dollars with that idea, but I would have made more had i not have had that damned 737-300 at the start.

and don't site sunwing for a vacation airliner, again, I would not recommend a flight for more than 3 hours on a 737.  They feel more like regional airliners, to me. 

Es they're mainline aircraft, as is the airbus a319 and a318, but they're one step above being a regional jet. a half-step in the case of the 2-2 embraer e190.  Not exactly the aircraft I'd imagine flying 3000 to 400 miles, is it?  that's just me though.  I'm going to write a blog entry about this and i also encourage you to look at my pole about the subject. http://www.airline-e...ation-airliner/

there, I give you the opertunity to give your side, so don't act like just because i'm opposed to only having old narrow-body aircraft as a starter that I'm opposed to peoples' oppinions.

thanks, and sorry for the length, I just had to get a few things accross  and didn't want to double-post.

goodnight/day