A340-300

sam051 · **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2008, 12:46:28 am

Quote from: "zkvac"

Quote from: "sam051"
Quote from: "zkvac"
Quote from: "yourefired"
Anyway speaking of which I find that any airplane that has more than 400 seats has pathetic performance, especially on long-haul (I'm looking at you, 747). Though I blame that on the pricing system....which can't tell between LAX-SYD and JFK-ATL. AM price for LAX-SYD: 350 euros. Real world price: $1500+.

If I'm not mistaken the A330-200 doesn't come out until 1996.

Note to self: NEVER, EVER lease or buy 747's. Concorde costs as much and they bring in 150k-180k per route. Take out fuel expenses of about 30k on an average 4000mile route, and I can often cram 7-8 of these into a Concorde's schedule with hours to spare (then I profit about 700-800k per Concorde). And then there's the cool factor.

Yeah I'm starting buying Concorde's now. Got two 744's on order though for their awesome range.

yourefired: hmmm if you want range i would go for the A340-500, the worlds longest range aircraft. but i don't think they'll bring that into the game.....

zkvac: oh and you're comment about the price of a normal world ticket thing being $1,500+ i completely agree. some prices in here are way lower than what the real prices are. (I'm in Australia) From SYD-LAX it costs around about $2,500 real life. And the Concorde was one expensive ticket. My friend who's like 60 or 70 went on a Paris to New York JFK flight and it cost him around $7,000 euro WOAH! so Real world $7,000 x 121pax = around $840,000 for ONE flight! and those flights went at quite a reasonable frequency.

You got a it mixed up there, I commented about 747s for Long range, and yourefired was talking about ticket prices.

I'd get A340-500's if I could. Know of anyone who sold them in 1992?

Yes i most probably actually no, certainly got it mixed up and my apologies are granted.

No unfortunately i do not, hence my statement on "but i don't think they'll bring that into the game".

My greatest concern and regret for any inconvenience or misunderstanding.

insertsoul · **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2008, 01:23:59 am

sow which aircraft can i better order the A332 or A343

Wizzie · **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2008, 01:37:42 am

Quote from: "yourefired"

Note to self: NEVER, EVER lease or buy 747's. Concorde costs as much and they bring in 150k-180k per route. Take out fuel expenses of about 30k on an average 4000mile route, and I can often cram 7-8 of these into a concorde's schedule with hours to spare (then I profit about 700-800k per concorde). And then there's the cool factor.

I should have read this BEFORE leasing in a 747-300.
Now I've f**ked up AGAIN!

Blue Sky Mine · **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2008, 11:04:22 am

Just buy the 747s for the coolness factor...

Wiseman · **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2008, 02:02:40 pm

Insertsoul, it depends on what goal that you want to achieve.

If you want to create a real-world airline that mimics the real world situation, then go for the A330-200! It is the best of all other Airbuses and Boeings, it certainly beat out the 767-300ER all over! While A330-300 is a no-no, because there is the 777-200, however it still retain its commonality with other Airbuses as an advantage. A330-200 is sure to be the most brilliant aircraft Airbus ever thrown to the market!

A340-300, four engines, under powered, extra maintenance cost, pre-production series has weak structural strength (which resulted in lower airframe value), this is one of the reason why i don't want to buy A320-200 in world 4 before 1994, where the A320 has been improved (eventhough it is not implemented by AM). The only good thing about A340-300 is that it has the quietest cabin in the sky at the first time when it was in the market.

I don't know how will this aircraft behaved in AM, but i think every aircraft will work pretty well in AM, only one giving you less profit than the other one, but will not cause you to lose the competition.

Blue Sky Mine · **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2008, 04:53:01 pm

Nice, the A333LR is only 204 mio

herrgoda · **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2008, 05:45:02 pm

Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"

Nice, the A333LR is only 204 mio

With plain wrong range specifics. Airbus lists the 333 standard range as 5669nm, whereas in AM the 333LR has 5450nm (or miles, as you can't really be sure what's what in distances...). The capacity is even more off reality. 440 seats is more that 100 seats more than a standard 2-class-config on the 333 is (335 seats).
Where did you get this data?!

Edit: Speed's also wrong, but only slights (6 kts more in reality)

Wizzie · **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2008, 07:53:27 am

Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"

Just buy the 747s for the coolness factor...

Now I can brag about being the only Australian based airline with a 747.
That's the only good thing about it

yourefired · **Reply #23 on:** May 12, 2008, 07:56:30 am

Coolness factor? Try being the launch customer of the concorde.

Now back to reading my 400 page casebook for my administrative law final

zkvac · **Reply #24 on:** May 12, 2008, 08:40:40 am

Quote from: "Wizzie"

Quote from: "Blue Sky Mine"
Just buy the 747s for the coolness factor...

Now I can brag about being the only Australian based airline with a 747.
That's the only good thing about it

I own two 747-400's, probably not in the same world as you though.

insertsoul · **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2008, 12:57:03 pm

i ordered 11 A333LR

Wiseman · **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2008, 08:25:28 am

That is a very reasonable choice since 777-200 is not out yet.

OliAir · **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2008, 03:14:31 pm

They should reduce the capacity of the A330-300LR soon, an A333 carrying 440 Pax is ridiculous while the A343 only carries 335.

OliAir

lhenning · **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2008, 03:47:33 pm

The A333 with Thomas Cook has a seating capacity with 410 PAX and that´s really large number of seats and it´s really narrow. A better seating number would be around 375 for both the A333 and A343.