Tridents and the license to print money

stegs · Post by **stegs** » 02 Feb 2007, 23:00

Having been a pilot for CBFS for a couple of months now and thoroughly enjoying myself I can't help but notice that the Trident seems to earn a rake more money than other aircraft.
Is this a reflection on real life or just the way the aircraft is setup in Flynet?
As I prefer the 1-11 and VC-10 this is not sour grapes :sad:
Well not much anyway

Steve

Post by **MALTBY D** » 02 Feb 2007, 23:37

Yes the Tridents are set up wrong on FlyNet, they carry way too much cargo.
Works out at something like a 23000kg payload for a T3, when it would really only carry 14000kg or so.
I only use the passenger weight & ignore the cargo figure when I'm setting it up in FS.

Can't remember now, but I think the Vanguards do even better.

I think we take the view that we would get it corrected, but we like the extra dosh too much.

DM

DanKH · Post by **DanKH** » 02 Feb 2007, 23:44

Aren't we the clever ones.....

The Classic British Virtual Mafia....

Post by **DaveB** » 03 Feb 2007, 00:33

Steve..

Don't get type-rated for the Comet then as you'll really know what sour grapes are about

As DM has intimated.. both the Trident and Vanguard are setup incorrectly in FlyNET. Couple this to the fact that when the Comet was a go-er.. fuel prices were lower and ticket prices were much higher (though.. she stayed in service long enough to experience a bit of both!) so you'll find it hard to make any significant money on any Comet run.

Basically.. the Vanguard and Trident (DC3 too if we're picking hairs) are entered in FlyNET with incorrect data which will, at some point, come back to bite us.. and the other airlines that use these aircraft. Don't feel too cheesed off about it

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Garry Russell** » 03 Feb 2007, 00:48

Just as well you keep quiet about it :roll:

Garry

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 03 Feb 2007, 00:52

Love it while you can. MTOW restriction is high on the list of things to implement on the website-side, so most of that high-priced cargo hauling will be going away before you know it.

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 03 Feb 2007, 06:31

DM - I just noticed what you meant about the Vanguard - I would love to think you could get 30000lbs of belly cargo - FUnny that the Merchantman is much more closer to the mark. - Ah well we didnt got into this for the v$'s anyway so machts nicht.

Chris - If they are going to correct the MZFW problem they also need to
add an RTOW and MLW function as well - I still see far too many folks flying things like 747-400s and 777s from places like Stansted to Toykio
with a full load which is nye on impossible.

In the real world we are governed by RTOW on the west coast (working as you did at DEN you should be well aware of that, and on the east coast we are frequently ruled by MLW restrictions due to the fact that we have some light geared MD80s

Oh Chris - Maury says hi btw - he'd write, but hes too busy ringing the bell at the stockexchange - we've doubled in the first 6 weeks of trading

Leif

Post by **DaveB** » 03 Feb 2007, 12:02

Leif wrote:

Ah well we didnt got into this for the v$'s anyway so machts nicht.

You've hit the nail straight on the head there matey

I'm a little concerned how this 'fix' is going to work too Leif. There are a lot of variables.. perhaps too many :think:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 03 Feb 2007, 16:24

Dunno how I missed your IPO, but tell Maury to have fun ringing the bell while he can. Gotta get some stock before it hits Google or Yahoo levels.

Meanwhile, my company is going private in a couple of months after being traded on the exchange since 1996. Not because we're underperforming, but because we just got bought out by an investment firm and they want us as a private operation.

I am aware of RTOW and MLW needs. It's something coming in the future but since MTOW is already in the database we'll be implimenting that first and then phasing in other items. As part of the desire to remain desirable to the largest group of people, we will probably make RTOW a CEO / VA Staff function and not a hard-coded issue. MLW may be factored in by detecting if the aircraft landed over the posted MLW and then multiplying the damage done to the aircraft by a certain factor for an "overweight landing" which would trigger most VA's internal maintenance plan and require the airplane to get "inspected" and maintained before flying again, thus making it costly for a VA to fly the plane overweight and push the VAs and its pilots to ensure that their FS aircraft has the proper weights and that they're flying with what they're loaded for.