AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency  (Read 3482 times)

Offline m320au

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2012, 07:39:04 PM »
Well, against your couple of 757s you named in the example you have at least 25x as many A33X/34X, B77X, B76X, B74X and A380s crossing the Atlantic every day, carrying a multiple of the passengers each, and those are just the flights to the east-coast cities going to/from Europe. Adding the Middle east and the west American Cities you can easily reach 50-75x as many appropriate planes versus 757...

cheers for not reading my work out on your post....

Jona L.

Jona - I do appreciate your work out and I also appreciate very much that your solution as one way to solve the problem. The argument to me however is not that "the game should be rewarding the player who chooses the most popular aircraft type currently operating a particular route in the real world" but rather "the game should allocate fewer passengers to tech stopping services than direct services, whilever direct services exist."

The whole driving principle of running an airline is about being able to judge the size of equipment to place on a particular route, with the most widely regarded principle being "send the largest piece of equipment you are confident you can fill." It is not "Send the piece of equipment with the lowest seat mile cost" - although this is certainly a factor in achieving the above. It is certainly not "send the piece of equipment that requires two tech stops to make the distance but gives me a frequency benefit over my competition who flies the route non stop."

On some routes, due to very high passenger volume, slot restrictions, or curfew arrangements, this is obviously a 747 or a380 to some airlines.  On other routes, and to other airlines, it clearly is not. Your argument above of "may as well send a 777 because it's twice the seats for 50% of the cost" overlooks the fact that if you can't sell those extra seats, you'll lose a lot of money very quickly. Yes, aircraft generally become more efficient the larger they get. But yes, as we all know, if you can't fill them, your losses get larger as well.

The weak link in AWS is that the algorithm does not currently make the fundamental distinguishment that prevents ATRs from tech stopping over the atlantic in real life - and that is that "passengers don't like unnecessary stopovers."

Until such time as the game recognises this principle, particularly with the possibility of a second tech stop now available, airline behaviour is being skewed towards less and less realistic solutions.

I appreciate your input on this thread and I think we both agree with each other, we are just saying the same thing differently.

Incidentally, FWIW, I attach the below link indicating that united-continental operate a significant transatlantic service using 757-200's as well - in fact - they are using them to replace 777s. Why? Because they can't fill the 777 is my guess. And then there's Open Skies .. Wasn't that an airline that operated only 757s on transatlantic routes?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-to-begin-deploying-757s-on-dulles-transatlantic-routes-353351/

Apologies if I sound like I'm banging the drum but I feel very strongly that this needs to be addressed. I am also appreciative of your input.

Regards
European One




Offline m320au

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2012, 07:40:53 PM »

All the questions have the same answer, and it will answer your A321 question as well...

I Fully agree. So where do we write to have it addressed?

Regards

European One

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2012, 08:00:46 PM »
I Fully agree. So where do we write to have it addressed?

Regards

European One

Something like this feature request (which was Jona's original idea, which I slightly refined) would go a long way in addressing problem of inappropriately small aircraft being used, in order to gain frequency advantage:
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,38007.0.html

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2012, 08:24:37 PM »
Test

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2012, 08:26:46 PM »
System won't let me post my text here ;(

---- OWNED by SYTEM

Offline Jackson

  • Members
  • Posts: 279
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #45 on: March 09, 2012, 12:00:05 AM »
 I and I'm sure atleast a few hundred others will agree 200% with m320. There are a few little things that let this game down abit. One being unnessesary techstops. Interesting debate although I did sense a bit of snarcky replies which is uncalled for.   
Anyway, in my opinion, with AWS, if I want to be the sole carrier on a particular route, I will just supply it with the smallest competing a/c. I don't agree with this strategy ALL the time but it works magic let me tell you.

I've played MT games in the past. I'm not sure if there is any change in how seat types are recieved by pax but i don't think it reflects reality....AT ALL. I'm pretty sure 2 years ago there were talks of a more in depth seating model for the game. How much fun and great would that be. Seat quality matters so much in RL but i can still fly high density flight across the pond and not affect my CI.

My 2 pence  ::)

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3083
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #46 on: March 09, 2012, 12:31:09 AM »
You keep looking at a subset of an issue.  You should look at:
- Why are there far more ATRs in AWS than in RL
- Why are there far more Fokkers in AWS than in RL
- Why are there far more Q400s in AWS than in RL
- Why are there far more EJets in AWS than in RL
- Why are there far more 757s in AWS than in RL

- Why are there fewer 747 in AWS than in RL?
- Why are there fewer 777 in AWS than in RL?

All the questions have the same answer, and it will answer your A321 question as well...

The source of this isn't due to frequency, but due to the demand models used, lack of hubs/connections and the pricing of new planes on the market. 747/777's are priced rather insanely compared to the narrow body planes.  From the demand model perspective, a route that I know well as I fly it on a regular basis, ATL-GSO is showing 1180 pax/day of demand in MT in 2005. I'm fairly certain that GSO barely sees 1180 passengers to ANY destination on a daily basis. Current RL service on that route right now is about 1x D95, 2x M88, 8x CR2 (which is around half of 1180/day).

So given the exagerated level of domestic demand, the ability for players to know what aircraft types are the most economical through futurevision goggles, lack of politics in selecting engines/airframes/etc, and higher than RL profit margins, it causes some distortions in the playing field.

In RL today, the A321 and 739 simply don't have the legs to make a TATL flight. I think it will be VERY interesting with the NEO iterations as they might finally have the range to do so, and it wouldn't shock me to see them tasked to it soon.

Offline [ATA] frimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Long Haul Flight Route Frequency
« Reply #47 on: March 09, 2012, 08:56:39 AM »
But these things (available ranges) change throughout the game - from Jet Age to Modern Times.  And the tech stop just means slower effective speed.  Speed makes some difference, but none of the variables amount to much vs. overwhelming frequency benefit.  If the frequency benefit is turned down a notch or 2, the difference in effective speed would make a bigger difference.

Let's me just pull some numbers out of the hat to illustrate:
Let's say 2xA330 with a tech stop vs. A380 direct.  A330 may get a -20% penalty due to slower speed and +80% benefit due to frequency.

So if you are going to be dealing with slower speed (tech stop or otherwise), you are dealing with secondary or tertiary symptom of the frequency problem, rather than tackling the frequency benefit head on.  It would not be a good approach.

Personally, I think it should work like this when there are stopovers involved:

I live in UK so will use an example of flights between London & Las Vegas where there are several direct & indirect options:
The pricing for the direct options are all around 500/600 in economy

If you choose to fly indirect, you will tend to pay at least 100 less than the direct option.
I believe somewhere in the game it would be nice to model in a route pricing penalty for indirect flights if there are direct alternatives available.
(It could be based on flying time)
If there are no direct flights available then there would be no penalty for those flights with stopovers (which would work for JA scenarios)

In addition, Business & First passengers wouldn't be flying indirect if there was a direct option available. In my opinion, if there are direct flights, Business & First Pax would prioritise these direct flights over indirect flights.

This would deter people from flying A321 across the atlantic with stopovers as it would reduce their turnover/profit. It would encourage people to use the "correct" aircrafts.

That's just my opinion.

regards

Fred

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.