737ER

MrOrange · **Reply #30 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:08:36 pm

Hey, you got your get-mad-topic, I want mine

StephenM · **Reply #31 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:09:08 pm

Quote from: "dktc"

*sigh*... what's the big deal?? this is a game~~

This thread is keeping me entertained.

As long as its a nice clean debate theres nothing wrong with it.

dktc · **Reply #32 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:12:59 pm

Quote from: "MrOrange"

Hey, you got your get-mad-topic, I want mine

Actually, that sentences was not meant to you :wink:
Anyway, not keeping you from enjoying "getting-mad"

(...go sit beside StephenM to watch the show...btw, who brings pop-corns?

)

juancho · **Reply #33 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:15:38 pm

Just go by the Boeing .PDF posted by Singapore chucklenuts.

Just use one variant of the 737-300, 737-400 & 737-500, make it the HGW varient so people don't bitch and moan about the range. But don't call it the ER or HGW! The difference between the HGW and non-HGW isn't so big that Beoing didn't deem it important enough to class them as ER and non ER versions. They're only a few thousand pounds different.

MrOrange · **Reply #34 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:26:30 pm

First, who exactly is chucklenuts? As far as I know, there's not actually a forum member named chucklenuts, so who are you referring to?

Second, people like to have a choice. Even if they're "only a few thousand pounds different." (BTW, what's your source there?) And if you allow people to make a choice, you have to make sure they can actually see what they're choosing from, which can easily be done by adding a designator like ER, or HGW, to the aircraft name. Which is the same as Boeing is doing, by the looks of the PDF.

Third, why do you keep going on about realism when you want to deny game airlines a choice Boeing gives airlines in real life?

juancho · **Reply #35 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:33:07 pm

Quote from: "MrOrange"

First, who exactly is chucklenuts? As far as I know, there's not actually a forum member named chucklenuts, so who are you referring to?

That's my nickname for Singaporeair since he's so friendly & funny.

Quote

Second, people like to have a choice. Even if they're "only a few thousand pounds different." (BTW, what's your source there?) And if you allow people to make a choice, you have to make sure they can actually see what they're choosing from, which can easily be done by adding a designator like ER, or HGW, to the aircraft name. Which is the same as Boeing is doing, by the looks of the PDF.

Well if you really want choice then you might as well go all out. Add the Combis, freighters, ERFs, BCFs, winglet versions, etc. That would be great actually. The winglet version could have slightly higher range and fuel efficiency.

But my point is lets be somewhat accurate. If you want to offer choice then offer something realistic. Ok if a few thousand pounds is important to you then have the 737-300 and 737-300HGW. Good. But please not the 737-300ER.

Quote

Third, why do you keep going on about realism when you want to deny game airlines a choice Boeing gives airlines in real life?

As in the 737-300ER?

MrOrange · **Reply #36 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:40:30 pm

Quote from: "juancho"

Well if you really want choice then you might as well go all out. Add the Combis, freighters, ERFs, BCFs, winglet versions, etc. That would be great actually. The winglet version could have slightly higher range and fuel efficiency. But my point is lets be somewhat accurate. If you want to offer choice then offer something realistic. Ok if a few thousand pounds is important to you then have the 737-300 and 737-300HGW. Good. But please not the 737-300ER.

So basically, after going on about removing the ER version, you've switched to saying the letters ER should be replaced with HGW? Fair enough. BTW, the game doesn't support cargo for now (so no -F, BCF, ERF, combi), and the option to add winglets has been considered and might still be.

Quote from: "juancho"

As in the 737-300ER?

-HGW, yes. Clearly, Boeing allows airlines to go for the basic GW instead of the HGW version, so why not allow in-game airlines to do the same?

StephenM · **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:43:37 pm

Cargo will be brought in eventually, not on the cards for the moment. But when we do combis etc will be added.

juancho · **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:48:24 pm

Quote from: "MrOrange"

So basically, after going on about removing the ER version, you've switched to saying the letters ER should be replaced with HGW?

Most definitely, that ER designation for the 737-300, 737-400 & 737-500 is horrendous. Lets just please not mix up & confuse HGW with ER.

MrOrange · **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2007, 06:53:31 pm

But, considering your urge for realism and your attitude towards ER, ( :wink: ) how do you want to name the Extended Range version of the 737-900?

juancho · **Reply #40 on:** August 13, 2007, 07:03:49 pm

Quote from: "MrOrange"

But, considering your urge for realism and your attitude towards ER, ( :wink: ) how do you want to name the Extended Range version of the 737-900?

What are you talking about? I have no problem with using ER where Boeing uses ER.

I would only have the 737-900 and the 737-900ER.

Dora · **Reply #41 on:** August 13, 2007, 07:55:48 pm

Entertaining thread

well i think juancho got mad with the super long range 737s here in game.
there are many unrealistic data about all planes...at least i want a longer range A345...

Anyway, in this game, 737 had won A320family in terms of orders.

sla31 · **Reply #42 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:29:16 pm

True but the A320 familys prices are way to high. We've talked about that and we decided to wait till after the round is over to change them.

sla31 · **Reply #43 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:31:42 pm

although the CRJ price change seem to go through without any big problems. Maybe they could be changed now.

Dora · **Reply #44 on:** August 13, 2007, 08:39:36 pm

Yes, it's time for a change in price of 737s.
And about range of 737s, i think we should wait until next round.