#1
Posted 17 February 2017 - 03:52 PM
#2
Posted 17 February 2017 - 04:04 PM
747s are fading away, so I would have flown them anytime if I could... They are a symbol of aviation.
#3
Posted 17 February 2017 - 04:58 PM
I don't buy to many 747s most of the time, on my UA at R3 we have 4 747s and the rest are DC-10s and 767 that are on order
jomama
#4
Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:55 PM
Certainly, 747 won't make losses if used properly. My 747s are quite profitable, and I don't think it has too many seats. Even so, you can reduce the number of seats to get higher legroom rating if needed.
#5
Posted 18 February 2017 - 03:34 PM
To make 747s work, you have to have routes that you know can support it. For my current airline, I don't have any 747s yet because all of my large routes are good with MD-11s and A330s. If you have a route that supports the number of passengers, you should go for it.
#6
Posted 19 February 2017 - 07:50 PM
I stick to titanicman. I Made all versions except the 400D work.. mostly in R0/1 or in R alpha. I don't like the 400D and I don't put aircrafts like this on a 200 mile route like many others.. But if there's demand on a long haul route giving the opportunity to save slots I always use the aircraft that would fly the route in reality. As of today, this much more will be the 777, but in former times this was the empire of the 747.. And as airplane09 mentioned.. they are really a symbol of aviation, so why don't give it a try?
#7
Posted 19 February 2017 - 08:31 PM
I just happen to find the 777 and A340 better looking than the 747...I stick to titanicman. I Made all versions except the 400D work.. mostly in R0/1 or in R alpha. I don't like the 400D and I don't put aircrafts like this on a 200 mile route like many others.. But if there's demand on a long haul route giving the opportunity to save slots I always use the aircraft that would fly the route in reality. As of today, this much more will be the 777, but in former times this was the empire of the 747.. And as airplane09 mentioned.. they are really a symbol of aviation, so why don't give it a try?
#8
Posted 20 February 2017 - 05:23 AM
I just happen to find the 777 and A340 better looking than the 747...
That's the beauty. Nothing like the 747 existed back in the day, so the large aircraft attracted airlines. Once they had spare parts, Boeing continued the line. Only now is competition emerging.
#9
Posted 20 February 2017 - 05:27 PM
I just happen to find the 777 and A340 better looking than the 747...
Talking about design my top 3 are:
1. a350
2. 787
3. 777
but that's way off topic
#10
Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:30 PM
A330-300
787-9
A340-500
Every other widebody aircraft ever made
Genital warts
Boeing 777
Boeing 747
#11
Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:54 PM
Nah nah you got it all wrong, the correct answer is
don't know who said this, but "oppinions are never "wrong"". So I accept yours as a330 is the ancestor of a350 and a340-500/600 are the only western airplane I know with 2-2-2 main gear construction.. and those engines!..
but why don't we start a thread "the most beautiful plane now and then?"..
maybe we come back to the 747 somehow then
#12
Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:01 PM
#13
Posted 23 February 2017 - 05:10 PM
If you run an airline in the US you would end up running 80+ A380s, 150+ 747s, 400+ 777s, 400+ A340s and still craving for more long haul aircraft.
#14
Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:46 PM
It's good for Spam Though.
#15
Posted 27 February 2017 - 09:55 AM
#16
Posted 03 March 2017 - 06:44 PM
747 is one of the best planes in this game. Before 777/330 come out, nothing in the widebody world beat 747 efficiency. Also 660 seats is not that much, it can fill a lot of LH routes. Unless your airline is based in the middle of nowhere. Also they are the only planes that can fly from Asia to East Coast US before 777-200ER.
#17
Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:17 PM
747 is one of the best planes in this game. Before 777/330 come out, nothing in the widebody world beat 747 efficiency. Also 660 seats is not that much, it can fill a lot of LH routes. Unless your airline is based in the middle of nowhere. Also they are the only planes that can fly from Asia to East Coast US before 777-200ER.
Well, A340-200/300 is extremely efficient compared to B747-400.
#18
Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:16 AM
Well, A340-200/300 is extremely efficient compared to B747-400.
But 747-400 is still very efficient, and an airline needs a TON of planes to expand, so 744 is not avoidable by any airline.
#19
Posted 04 March 2017 - 01:32 PM
http://ae31.airline-...e3r4&player=218 Here you'll see that I can do without 747s...But 747-400 is still very efficient, and an airline needs a TON of planes to expand, so 744 is not avoidable by any airline.
#20
Posted 04 March 2017 - 04:02 PM
But 747-400 is still very efficient, and an airline needs a TON of planes to expand, so 744 is not avoidable by any airline.
I haven't run an airline with 744s in years
It's completely avoidable for those who care about other things besides how big our virtual airlines are
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users