You are looking the whole thing in a completely wrong way, like many others. I did note of this on other topic of the same issue too, but shortly:
The LF % is irrelevant in such comparison. Naturally a smaller plane will have a higher LF if same number of seats is (roughly) sold as in larger plane. Paxes also do not know how many seats has been booked on to a flight and it's also irrelevant. Each plane does have a comfort and speed rating but Q400 for example is as good and comfortable as BAe 146 in the eyes of a regular Joe Pax.
The system counts HOW MANY people will buy the ticket to each flight, based on variables like price and dep/arr time etc. You should look at the actual number of seats sold in each flight and not the LF if planes are not same sized, otherwise makes no sense in comparing them.
The number of seats sold on each flight is just as irrellevant as the LF, sami. There's only one thing that matters -- and that's which plane will yield me the most passengers with my "allotment" of seats. How many seats I sell on a given flight is completely irrelevant, what my LF is is irrelevant; all that matters when competing for a route is how many seats I can sell in a given day
If a route has a demand of 1000, you are only allowed to supply 2000 seats. Period. The ultimate point of competition is to get as many of those 1000 pax as you possibly can.
You can choose to supply that with either 5 flights of 400 seats, 10 flights of 200 seats, or 20 flights of 100 seats.
In real-life, any one of those options would have merit. Different pricing models and/or different cost structures would come into play between them. But in AWS there is only one "right" answer
. And that is 20 flights of 100 seats. Every other option is a LOSING one. You can't effectively compete on operating costs, competing on price is minimally effective at best, ultimately only competiting on the size of the aircraft
works. You can say that it's not a preference for the size of the aircraft itself but rather the flight frequency if you want, but that's exactly the same thing
. Since there is a cap on allowed seat supply, "more frequency" MEANS "smaller aircraft"
. They're essentially interchangeable terminology.
Sure you can say that those 20 flights cost more money to operate, and you'd be right, but the sheer fact is that the cost of doing so isn't detrimental to the benefit that one receives. LFs stay higher on smaller aircraft, costs are more easily covered, prices can stay MUCH higher, and profitability is maintained longer than the opponent operating fewer (but much more expensive) aircraft at lower seat prices to even hope
to compete, though they will
lose to the ultimate power of the smaller aircraft operator. And with the way margins are so overblown there is no deterrent to operating money-losing routes that there is in reality. When margins are slim as they are in real-life, slight cost differences make all the difference and such cost-intensive ventures wouldn't last long, but here, for a well-run business, the difference between the varying options is simply the difference between a mind-blowing 50% margin and a slightly-less-so 25% one.
Find me an example, ever, where in real-life one airline combated another on a route by going on the offense with a huge fleet of smaller aircraft. And, what's more, they did it while charging a higher price
. And not only did it, but did it successfully
. Because that's exactly
how it works here. Anyone who knows anything about competition in this game knows that's far and away
the most effective form of "competition".