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: Aircraft size penalty question  (Read 1565 times)

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Aircraft size penalty question
« on: July 24, 2012, 07:41:13 PM »
Will a 737-400 receive a LF penalty when flying a transcon route such as BOS-LAX or SFO-IAD?

It appears that these routes show the size warning for the 73-3/4/5 fleet group, but not for the 736/7/8/9 fleet group.

However, the 734 is the same size as a 738. So is the size penalty based on the specific plane size, or is it done as a class for the whole commonality type?

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14545
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2012, 07:54:05 PM »
No such thing as "LF penalty" first of all.

And, yes, if you try to fly a narrowbody/small plane over atlantic or such, you will lose against "proper" planes on the same route.

(The warnings on route open screen may not be fully adjusted yet)
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 07:57:15 PM by sami »

Offline ARASKA

  • Members
  • Posts: 1336
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2012, 07:55:56 PM »
No such thing as "LF penalty" first of all.

And, yes, if you try to fly a narrowbody/small plane over atlantic or such, you will lose against "proper" planes on the same route.
There's a difference between a trans-con route and crossing the Atlantic.  

Edit: My dad's airline fly's narrowbody's transcon and averages 91-93 % loads on these routes. There should be no penalty on trancon routes for narrowbodies.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 08:00:03 PM by ARASKA »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14545
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2012, 08:03:41 PM »
Oh yes, did not see that. You can do "longhaul domestics" with 737 and 320 series, as that's what's done normally too.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2012, 08:41:29 PM »
(The warnings on route open screen may not be fully adjusted yet)

I was looking at routes, trying to work out at what point it generates a warning for an a320. I found that any route with 0 demand won't cause a warning, even if it's 3000 NM in an a320. What was slightly strange was that a couple of 2340NM routes flagged warnings, but a 2360 route did not. That was with an a320.

With an MD80, a 2100 NM route (FCO-BAH) is flagged, but various 2200+ NM route (such as FCO-ABJ or FCO-DKR) are not.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 08:44:09 PM by Sanabas »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2012, 08:44:50 PM »
Oh yes, did not see that. You can do "longhaul domestics" with 737 and 320 series, as that's what's done normally too.

OK thanks! So it's safe to ignore the plane size warning for a 737 on a domestic transcontinental route like LAX-BOS.

And when you say "no such thing as LF" penalty, do you mean that the penalty is not applied as by capping the LF% per se? But instead by reducing the amount of "visible" demand, similar to when you have a low RI?

So if you fly a 737 across the Atlantic, you can still get 100% LF if there is no competition and the demand on the route is huge? For example if you are flying JFK-LHR with a 737, and supplying only 80% of the total demand, and have RI near 100, and no competition (due to LHR slot lock for example), you can still get ~ 100% LF?

Does the "tech stop penalty" also work by hiding demand, or directly by capping your LF%?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 08:51:56 PM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2012, 09:01:50 PM »
Sami's said a few times that LF has nothing to do with the pax assigning algorithm. It's just a way to report things after the pax are assigned. If you tech stopped a 10 seater from Sydney to Melbourne, and nobody else was on the route, you could probably find 10 of the 10,000 potential pax willing to put up with that, and get 100% LFs.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2012, 11:06:33 PM »
As I understood it:  How many people know that you fly at all (RI) ? How many people of those are willing to travel with you at all (CI)?
How much those people want to pay for the ride, if too expensive, slow, unconvenient they travel with someone else or dont travel at all.
Is there someone flying cheaper, more comfortable, more often, quicker ?
All this is evaluated in a special formula we never will know about before assigning people to every single flight, yet randomized by daily flow.
And that what you see afterwards is how full your plane is (LF).
Would that explain it ?

Edit. Its been computed rhis way ever since, only that now some variables are tweaked, so that mainly the question of frequency is not as valuable for the passenger  any more. He cares now more for price, speed  and comfort.
Warnings just should give you a hint that this configuration might not work as before or intended, its still possible and might be, under some circumstances, especially lack of competition, successful.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 11:21:29 PM by exchlbg »

Offline AUpilot77

  • Members
  • Posts: 756
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2012, 11:10:39 PM »
So generally on trans-oceanic flights pax will prefer the larger aircraft?

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2012, 11:26:59 PM »
Especially that was the reason to start this overhaul in the first place.
But not just bigger -better, but more appropiate - better.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 11:34:53 PM by exchlbg »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2012, 02:30:46 AM »
Sami's said a few times that LF has nothing to do with the pax assigning algorithm. It's just a way to report things after the pax are assigned. If you tech stopped a 10 seater from Sydney to Melbourne, and nobody else was on the route, you could probably find 10 of the 10,000 potential pax willing to put up with that, and get 100% LFs.

What if you made all 10 of those seats C and F seats? Does the magic carpet ban work by capping LF? Or is it also by makind demand invisible?

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2012, 02:36:40 AM »
There is no invisible demand. The shown demands reflect the people wanting to be transported when everything suites their needs.
No magic carpets allowed anymore. C/F travellers need very high CI anyway.
There is NO such thing as LF capping, that was said repeatedly.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 02:39:08 AM by exchlbg »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2012, 02:48:21 AM »
What if you made all 10 of those seats C and F seats? Does the magic carpet ban work by capping LF? Or is it also by makind demand invisible?

Yeah, I'd guess that (and for flights too close together) would be done by indirectly capping LF, in that the system would see them as breaking the rules, and therefore treat them as much smaller flights than they actually are. But that'd be done before it gets fed into the pax assignation. Stuff that isn't breaking the rules though, that is simply undesirable to pax, such as expensive prices, poor CI/RI, night flights, tech stops, HD seats, planes that are too small, etc, all get done as a direct part of assigning pax. So even with lots of negative factors, an ATR flying LH with 2 tech stops, you could still fill your plane if it's a big enough, empty enough route.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2012, 02:56:52 AM »
And , I guess, if you are cheap enough.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2012, 03:13:51 AM »
Yeah. That is going to be interesting to watch in this gameworld. What happens when someone decides to attack a smaller, or fragile, competitor by offering free seats for a month on their biggest routes?

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2012, 03:17:42 AM »
Yeah. That is going to be interesting to watch in this gameworld. What happens when someone decides to attack a smaller, or fragile, competitor by offering free seats for a month on their biggest routes?

There is also the dynamics now that the pax demand goes up with lower prices.  Meaning that not all pax will just move from Airline A to Airline B, some of the Airline B customers will be from extra demand...

Offline CVACEO

  • Members
  • Posts: 601
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2012, 03:38:08 AM »
There is also the dynamics now that the pax demand goes up with lower prices.  Meaning that not all pax will just move from Airline A to Airline B, some of the Airline B customers will be from extra demand...

Ah, interesting ... Southwest effect ...creating market where none previously existed through discount pricing.  I didn't realize that was now modeled.  This will be interesting.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2012, 03:44:30 AM »
Yeah. That is going to be interesting to watch in this gameworld. What happens when someone decides to attack a smaller, or fragile, competitor by offering free seats for a month on their biggest routes?

They get reported for cheating?   :laugh:

Offline ARASKA

  • Members
  • Posts: 1336
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2012, 03:45:25 AM »
They get reported for cheating?   :laugh:
Its called it strategy, not cheating.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Aircraft size penalty question
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2012, 03:48:56 AM »
No magic carpets allowed anymore. C/F travellers need very high CI anyway.

Not sure if the 2nd part is true when you're talking about small capacities (magic carpet style).
With a CI of only 17 right now in MT I am still selling almost 100% of my C and F seats.

So, if not for the separate mechanism enforcing the magic carpet ban (and now the A/C size penalty also), it would have been possible to fill a small plane with 30-50 F and C pax, when flying into the correct airports (LHR) even with a low CI.

 

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.