[Other] - Gate Category Flexibility for Boeing 757 family and 767-400

Feature requests Gameplay
1

:bullseye: What is your suggestion?
One thing has always bothered me about the aircraft category assignments in World of Airports, and I wanted to bring a suggestion for it.

In the game, aircraft are divided into ICAO categories A–G, which is accurate to real-world standards. However, there are a couple of aircraft where real-life airport operations show some flexibility that could make gate usage in the game more realistic:

Boeing 757 Family:

In the game: Category D

In the real world: Also Category D

However, many airports treat it operationally as a Category C aircraft for stand/gate planning because its wingspan (38.05 m) is well within the upper limits of Category C (36 m max, but many gates are built with some margin).

Example: Some real life airports (INN and MSY for sure) allow 757s to use gates meant for A320/737 families without major modifications.

Boeing 767-400ER

In the game: Category D

Real-world classification: ICAO Code E (almost — its wingspan is ~51.9 m, just below the 52 m cutoff).

Operationally, many airports treat it as an E aircraft because of safety margins, jet bridge reach, and pushback constraints.

For example, the 764 often shares gates with 777s or A330s at major hubs.

:hammer_and_wrench: How would it work in the game?
Consider classifying the 767-400ER as an E in terms of gate compatibility (or allowing it to use both D and E gates depending on airport design).

Allow 757s to occasionally use C stands/gates in the game at airports where that’s realistic. This would reflect real-world flexibility and make stand management more dynamic.

:balance_scale: Why is this a good idea?
Adds realism to gate and apron management.

Reflects how airports adapt to aircraft variations in real life.

Improves gameplay variety and planning depth for larger airports like INN, MSY, and other airports that have C gates with plenty of clearance.

:camera_with_flash: Optional: Image or reference
4K | Full Flight (MSY-ATL) | Delta Air Lines Boeing 757-200 (N545US) Comfort Plus

Delta Boeing 757-200 parked at gate C6 at MSY in real life. C gate in WOA

2

Yea, I’ve also made the same recommendation for the 752, and I agree with the 764 as well…
Let’s see what the new update might bring at least for the 752

2 Likes
3

I think this was talked in multiple threads before and I recommended to rewrite the system to be like lines on the tarmac so it will be detailed to specific aircraft types, this is the most complicated one but it solves the problem for all.

Other recommendations talked about [C+] for B757 and [B+] for certain smaller cat C planes.

Don’t know which would be better but I suppose to fix this problem forever shall we? :thinking:

5 Likes
4

Yeah, C+ and D+ would be great. It would remove all confusion. The lines on the tarmac might be harder to add for existing airports, though.

3 Likes
5

I’d even go so far as to add the 77W in an E+ category
Some airports like AMS have gates that can accommodate E planes up to the 777-200 and A330-300 but not the 777-300 due to its length
Even add the Q400 in a B+ as well lol

2 Likes
6

It would be also nice to readjust the runway exits of these specific categories. It’s weird to see at Bari airport for example an a300, 767-200, 757 or a Comac that need to go down the whole runway as if it were an 747 to get off it.

9 Likes
7

Very true… B77W needs more pushback clearance than most other E jets. Boeing 777-9 is going to be even worse :sob:

3 Likes
8

Imagine the X will be F

9

SXM as well
I know a lot of people hate it but a lot of the B jets need to back track
Seeing a F70 exit directly at E is soooo unrealistic

4 Likes
10

The X was originally supposed to be in the F category, but since it has folding wingtips, it is classified as code E

1 Like
11

Yeah, I know

image
image1175×537 97.9 KB

Considering even if planes land a bit earlier than the landing mark, it’s still like 2,000 ft of runway

2 Likes
12

This is relevant to your points regarding SXM but not as much to the post. Well, maybe it is. Anyway, a video of a Fokker 50 landing at the landing mark at SXM and having to turn around and backtrack just to emphasise your point.

Edit: Found his full video. The ATR’s and Saab both have to turn around as well. Love the sounds from the planes, I wish we could have that in-game especially at spotting points like this.

4 Likes
13

Even so, jet airplanes need more than that to land

1 Like
14

How about the An-12 being a C plane, to more closely match its contemporary, the C-130? Both are technically D class in real life, but the An-12 has a shorter wingspan than the C-130 so I think it could fit. Additionally, it often isn’t worth using up a large cargo stand for the An-12 because of its class and how it performs, so it may be worth downgrading(?) it to be C class like the C-130 to allow flexibility in aircraft choice.

On that note, hopefully the B752F gets downrated with the B752 if this is implemented. It would be a much better competitor for the A321F in that case.

2 Likes
15

Yeah, the An-12 wingspan is 38.1 meters, so it should fall into the D category

2 Likes