In-flight service, Food and Beverages, catering

[Seattle]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but will there be food and beverages, like tea, coffee, dinner, etc.... ?(I'm to lazy to go through the forum  )

I think it would be a good idea to add it and then depending on the cost of the meal, it would effect the route profit/loss.

What do you think?

[Seattle]

Maybe someone can answer..... 

[Sami]

In-flight service is somewhere on the to-do list. But not a very high priority yet.

[Seattle]

In-flight service is somewhere on the to-do list. But not a very high priority yet.

ok thanks, but that would be cool if we could arrange to have different food at different prices, but if youdont want to go in to detail you can just chose cheap, medium, and expensive.

[Sami]

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,268.0.html
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,11950.0.html
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,24134.0.html
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,9480.0.html
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,3054.0.html
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,9556.0.html

[DarkVenegance]

I think in-flight service could be modelled by changing of the Route Image works. Right now, just flying is all you need to do to get a RI of 100. What I propose is a modification to take the in-flight product into account.

The RI should consist of the following components (RI values are just made up on the spot):

• Regularly flying the route like now should get you to a RI of 50 (or whatever number) only.
• Having multiple flights over the day gets a bonus up to 10 or so (so max 60 from flying).
• Better seating gives a further boost (average seat comfort like the config window shows over all flights in a week or something; probably not that important)
• Catering and entertainment also give a boost (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,11950.msg53741.html#msg53741 IMHO has a good idea how to do this)
• And finally route marketing also increases RI when active, slowly falling back to the base of the above components when it doesn't run anymore. Would make route marketing actually useful.

This would probably also need a bit of tweaking how much influence the RI has on the LF so that RI 50 still gives a decent LF.

[JumboShrimp]

This In-flight service seems to be an obsession....

[Ansettaddict123]

This In-flight service seems to be an obsession....

agreed 

[tarbyonline]

OK, i'm going to weigh in on this debate as well (lol)

How about being able to offer Tea, Coffee, Drinks etc as a starter.  You choose a supplier (for all or some of the goods?) who then charges you a set price based on volume.  if you do not sell the volume that your contract demands then you are charged a penalty.  You then dictate the selling price which in turn affects the number you sell/profit.  Could be expanded that different brands sell better but prob way too early to over complicate.

Im thinking of this from more of a revenue earning point of view rather than affecting CI/RI.  Afterall, it may make low cost more viable in the game hence making it more realistic.  Higher ticket priced airlines could then perhaps offer these items for free hence improving image?

[Maarten Otto]

It is a micro management thing and not welcomed by players who start up their airline... On the other hand, It gives more things to do with your airline and to stay busy with your airline when you near the limits of expansion or start to get bored.

Personally I think we should have far more features like this to stay busy improving your airline and by doing that having more control and the ability to attract more pax to your airline.

Route advertising should have a larger affect on ANY route. Say that Leeds to Amsterdam has 200 pax a day, by advertising that route (on paper, TV, internet / in combination with a certain ticket price) you might attract up to 400 pax.

By doing this you might establish even new connections that are not worthwhile in the current game engine. Like running a LCC from Amsterdam Lelystad airport to the UK or south European destinations

[JumboShrimp]

It is a micro management thing and not welcomed by players who start up their airline... On the other hand, It gives more things to do with your airline and to stay busy with your airline when you near the limits of expansion or start to get bored.

Personally I think we should have far more features like this to stay busy improving your airline and by doing that having more control and the ability to attract more pax to your airline.

Route advertising should have a larger affect on ANY route. Say that Leeds to Amsterdam has 200 pax a day, by advertising that route (on paper, TV, internet / in combination with a certain ticket price) you might attract up to 400 pax.

By doing this you might establish even new connections that are not worthwhile in the current game engine. Like running a LCC from Amsterdam Lelystad airport to the UK or south European destinations

But it will only postpone implementing real passenger connections in AWS...  Which really would keep players entertained.  You add a route to a new city, and some of the passengers from city will transfer to your other flights out of that hub, increasing your demand.  As you add more cities, each one of your existing routes from the hub will grow in demand...

[Sami]

Writing my toughts down:

"onboard service" will consist of two modules:

#1: Aircraft equipment:
  - To be adjustable under 'seat config' function
  - includes settings for choosing following (available by certain game year): earplugs/music, aisle TV, overhead TV, seatback TV early version, satphone, seatback TV midversion, internet/wlan, seatback TV/IFE late version. ... what else?
  - introduce a 'cabin condition' value as additional measure to control cabin's overall state; improves on maintenance and sets to 100% when config changed


#2: Service levels on flight:
  - Own page to manage/edit/create

  - Consist of two main modules, + additional module:
       * Number of extra CAs. A/c data has the minimum requirement but additional attendants can be added for service.
       * Meal service onboard
       * (additional:) inflight magazine - three levels of 'quality' choosable, price depends on fleet size +  a fixed cost.

  - Meal service: system provides options for various meal levels from none to luxurious hot meal; user can combine these as he wishes, and choose if it's free or not. This creates a 'service profile' similar to seat config profile => The profile can be assigned to routes from this page, or from route open/edit/manage pages. Profile should be editable; affects all flights it's assigned to. Show price/(income?) per passenger when chosen.

  - Internal value; service level points => Calculated for each profile from the level of service, used for pax calc.

  - Default service profiles provided for LCC, commuter, shorthaul, longhaul for easy startup; not editable since computer-generated, but can be used by all airlines.

  - Limits: no hot meal service possible for planes under 30 seats (max capacity)

  - A/C config does not depend on ability to serve meals other than above; assumed that ovens and stuff are standard.


Other notes:

  - Incomesheet; new row - onboard service (either + or -).

  - Staff: no effect, except additional CAs if used in profiles. Catering bought from external suppliers.

  - inflight sales (non-food/alcohol)?  (too complicated probably)

  - No effect to CI; but tie service level to RI instead of just effect on single fights?

   - Need to order 3d models of seats/equipment/foods/.....

[JumboShrimp]

I was very skeptical about this, and I very much remain sceptical.  We already have at least 3 differntiating features that don't do anything perceptible:
- seating quality (HD vs. standard on short flights, standard vs. premium on LH)
- speed (duration of flight) - turbo prop vs. jet
- price - almost completely irrelevant.

Why add another irrelevant feature when 10 x ATR or Q400 will always beat 5 x 737?  Before the frequency is tamed, this will have no material difference.

[alexgv1]

Why add another irrelevant feature when 10 x ATR or Q400 will always beat 5 x 737?  Before the frequency is tamed, this will have no material difference.

Perhaps see this as something that will level the playing field. Larger jets will get an advantage because they can offer better service, given the larger cabins. This goes back to the using widebodies appropriately for long haul argument. Then a 777 would have more of an attraction to passengers than a 757. Also maybe the pricing system will be modified soon, given that these things can either be used to charge passengers more for better service, or used as being a more enjoyable experience than another airline.

[Sami]

We have a new talented designer, and graphics related to this feature are on the way, bit by bit ... (they won't be this big in the final interface)

(though no ETA for this feature either yet)

[Hillians]

Looks like an interesting concept and here are some ideas I'd like to float surrounding this.

#1: Aircraft equipment:
   - To be adjustable under 'seat config' function
   - includes settings for choosing following (available by certain game year): earplugs/music, aisle TV, overhead TV, seatback TV early version, satphone, seatback TV midversion, internet/wlan, seatback TV/IFE late version. ... what else?
   - introduce a 'cabin condition' value as additional measure to control cabin's overall state; improves on maintenance and sets to 100% when config changed

This looks good, perhaps rather than choosing the number of seats, we should get an option of seat pitch (and number of seats) and then there should be a lot more differentiation between airlines. As it currently stands many people tend to have similar configs and can easily find out competitors configurations.

In terms of service levels, Sami's thoughts seem to be in line with what I'd expect most people would want.
One thing I would like to see though is that this ultimately affects CI (and maybe also RI) and have some sort of ranking (similar to skytrax awards) of airlines based on their ac conditions/cabin conditions/seat pitch/service levels/punctuality/staff morale/pricing, etc..  It would be nice to see that not all airlines have CI of 100.. IRL there is also a ranking of best airlines and I feel that CI should reflect that.

my only main concern is  that a lot of these factors can differentiate from one another, but the real question is, will it be worth it given the current pricing model isn't biased enough towards rewarding better seats/services on routes. I guess Sami would need to find a balance on whether pax prefer more comfort/service and pay a higher price or prefer a lower price but forfeit some of the comforts, which I imagine may take some time to program.... I personally think that would need to be addressed as well if some of these new features are added, otherwise it will just be as pointless as the insurance options in my opinon..

look forward to hearing other's thoughts.

[Solemus]

You'll be wanting to have police at the airports next to arrest the drunks 

[Sami]

Some rice and meat, with some pudding anyone?

Meal graphics are all done now by our designer (100% custom and just for us..), he will move on to seats and IFE soon once I get the docs done.


(but don't get too excited yet, there's no coding going on with this at all yet, some other stuff first)

[azdozer]

Nobody wants any of this stuff, they want to get from point A to B as cheap as humanly possible. Why do you think Spirit Air is doing so good? You don't even get water for free, the seat pitch is 28, and they charge for everything besides a small backpack. According to SkyTrax they are not only one of the worst airlines in the United States, but the World and they're posting profits over the mainline carriers and people keep coming back. Why? Because I can get from Phoenix to Denver for $62.00 round trip and the nearest closest carrier to that is $210.....And you might get a soda if the air isn't "too rough."

I guess I could see this working when the glory days of flying were still around, unless in-flight sales would be coded in as well so players could run ULCC type airlines. I see seat pitch and in-flight service being a factor pre-2000's, after that there shouldn't be a reason why a packed A320 with 180 seats can't outsell a A320 with two classes 156 seats and in-flight service on the same route.

http://ir.spirit.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=878527

[[SC] - King Kong]

you yes but i, flying for business see it as one of the few spots where i can take some rest. Not flying on s***ty clubs like ryanair, spirit and othrs