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: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty  (Read 4174 times)

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« on: December 26, 2012, 10:50:59 PM »
When the plane is too small penalty was introduced, there were some issues with it, that longer routes simply weren't viable, even if comp-free. A setting was tweaked, and now if you fly a single 757 3000 NM on a 200 pax route, you'll be able to get pretty much all 200 pax once RI climbs, but lose out significantly if somebody provides an appropriately sized plane.

I believe tech stops need the same treatment/the same penalty setting needs tweaking. DOTM, My RI is 90+, CI is 70, pricing is default. Route 449 & 453 are great examples. The Y demand on the outward leg for those 2 days is around 280-290. I supply 260 Y seats, there is no competition. Over the past month, I average 120 Y seats sold, only about 40-45% of demand.

It makes sense to punish tech-stops that much when there is a direct flight as competition. But it doesn't make sense to do it when there's no comp, when there's no plane in the game that can fly the route direct. Anything long enough to require a tech stop seems like the actual demand you can possibly fill is roughly half the displayed demand. Which is counter-intuitive, and will dramatically reduce the available routes.

Aerlingus1916

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2012, 11:46:56 PM »
When the plane is too small penalty was introduced, there were some issues with it, that longer routes simply weren't viable, even if comp-free. A setting was tweaked, and now if you fly a single 757 3000 NM on a 200 pax route, you'll be able to get pretty much all 200 pax once RI climbs, but lose out significantly if somebody provides an appropriately sized plane.

I believe tech stops need the same treatment/the same penalty setting needs tweaking. DOTM, My RI is 90+, CI is 70, pricing is default. Route 449 & 453 are great examples. The Y demand on the outward leg for those 2 days is around 280-290. I supply 260 Y seats, there is no competition. Over the past month, I average 120 Y seats sold, only about 40-45% of demand.

It makes sense to punish tech-stops that much when there is a direct flight as competition. But it doesn't make sense to do it when there's no comp, when there's no plane in the game that can fly the route direct. Anything long enough to require a tech stop seems like the actual demand you can possibly fill is roughly half the displayed demand. Which is counter-intuitive, and will dramatically reduce the available routes.
Personally, i strongly agree with what sanabas is saying.

Offline Frederik

  • Members
  • Posts: 162
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2012, 12:16:04 AM »
I would also like to support this point

We shouldn't look at tech stops with our 2013 eyes!
In JA and DOTM scenarios stops (not only tech but also "commercial" stops were the norm, not the exception for LH flights and therefore perfectly accepted - the Anchorage stop on Europe-Japan routes sere not an issue as non stop was not even imagined! Similarly for Singapore-Europe where even the early 747s and Dc10s had to stop in the Gulf!
In fact tech stops should incur no particular penalty but be replaced by elapsed travel time where passengers would show a preference for shorter flights (jet vs prop or ns vs stop) if there is an alternative. The same algorithm could later be used when connecting flights will be introduced
Swiss quality all over the world

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2013, 04:05:28 PM »
+1

The reason for a tech stop is usually due to using an aircraft too small anyways--not sure if there is a double penalty being calculated.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2013, 04:41:39 PM »
My issue is that the demand chart is turning into an "under ideal circumstances, this is how many people will pay standard rates" chart instead.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2013, 06:02:55 PM »
Fuel in DOTM is going a little nuts, which has given me the impetus to go through all my LH 707 flights and see if I can't fix some of them. I've discovered an even more ridiculous example. Two screenies below. One is route planning, one is my flights. The Y demand on a Monday in that graph is 377. CI is 70, RI has been 100 for well over a year. I have sold 64 & 67 seats the last two weeks. Less than 20% of the demand, despite default pricing, no comp, and what was an appropriately sized plane when I created the route ~2 years ago (though flagged as too small now). The DC-10s are definitely not too small, have 240 Y seats, so I'm selling 120-140 seats, for 300+ demand. I'm attracting well under 50% of true demand, purely because I have a tech stop. Again, even though no plane in the game can fly it direct. That's nuts.

The too small penalty is obviously being applied fairly heavily there, too. 60 out of 350+ on the too small 707, 140 out of 350+ on the DC-10.

That should be a great route, with nearly full planes. I should be trying to switch the 10-10s to 10-30s, in order to fill all the extra seats, given the average demand is 400+, 10% or more of it C & F. Instead, the planes flying those routes are barely breaking even after staff & maintenance are factored in, and I'll likely shut them down shortly once I find a new airport to fly direct routes from.

Most importantly, I shouldn't be looking at a demand chart that says 400 daily pax, and be supposed to read that as 175 daily pax if I'm lucky.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2013, 10:12:50 PM »
I agree that tech stop penalty is probably redundant, since we already have an "aircraft too small" penalty and increased flight time penalty.  In theory, you can get hit by all 3 of these penalties, making otherwise un-served route uneconomical.

Maybe the flight time penalty should be a much more sensitive - not in an absolute sense, but vs. competing aircraft, and tech stop penalty could be scrapped.

Then, a sole airline serving the route with a tech stop would have no penalty if aircraft is appropriate, a "too small penalty" if aircraft is too small.

When there are 2 or more flights serving the route, one with, another without tech stop, here the increased sensitivity to flight time should kick in, giving a boost to faster flight, penalty to slower flight.  And if the tech stop aircraft is too small, there would be additional penalty for that.  That should make the hard coded tech stop penalty redundant.

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2013, 10:22:50 AM »
100% agree here,

I tried to fly a 767-300ER from LOWW->YMML with a tech stop in china somewhere.

Couldn't get it over 50% LF despite there being more than enough demand to cover the seats and my route image at 100.

It was more profitable to fly the 767-300ER a 1000nm flight.

I mean why am I being penalised for making a tech stop when no plane that I know of can fly close to 9000nm?

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2013, 03:43:32 AM »
I mean why am I being penalised for making a tech stop when no plane that I know of can fly close to 9000nm?

To suggest the availabilities:

A345, B77L, A388 and B748 (a bit short but you talk "close to", so...)

anyways, I also agree that if no better option is available, it should just be a "normal" flight.

cheers,
[SC] Jona L.

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2013, 05:16:33 AM »
Couldn't check the stats on any of those except the a34 - none have been launched yet ? But what I'm saying is for those kind of routes - if nobody is providing an alternative why do we get punished especially if its >8500nm ....

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2013, 01:19:03 PM »
Maybe to compensate for the fact, that PAX would have to stay on board during tech-stop. So they are glued to their seats for an unacceptable time-span between departure and arrival. Thatīs the reason many  airlines are closing those routes in RL, besides fuel effectivity reasons.(See Qantas-Emirates deal).
It shouldnīt be punished in Jet Age games, when you where free to leave aircraft and tech-stopping was common practice.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2013, 07:18:13 PM »
When we have passenger connectivity in AWS, this type of demand would be served by connecting flight, which is in fact worse than a tech stop from the passenger point of view (2x to 5x wait for the next leg).

Without passenger connectivity, there is not way to serve certain demand, other them by tech stop (destination too far or demand too thin).

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2013, 07:43:17 PM »
So why are we punished so heavily for makings tech stop. Passengers obviously have a want to go from Sydney to Austria - why would they turn down a direct option over multiple connecting flights ?

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2013, 07:58:31 PM »
So why are we punished so heavily for makings tech stop. Passengers obviously have a want to go from Sydney to Austria - why would they turn down a direct option over multiple connecting flights ?

Some players demanded it, when their big aircraft was losing out to smaller aircraft with tech stops.

This problem was fixed with he new pax allocation algorithm by:
- favoring "appropriate" aircraft, which on long routes favors larger aircraft
- increasing some sensitivity to flight time (favoring jets over turbo props, but also direct flight vs. tech stop flight).

So problem solved as far as I am concerned,  But the crybaby players kept crying and crying, and Sami eventually slapped the 20% extra penalty for tech stop to make them happy...

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2013, 09:29:04 PM »
I understand the penalty on small aircraft but if I'm flying a 747-400 vs a 747-8i they're roughly the same size - and one can't make the distance but there's no completion so why can't I have a full plane? Or at least a decent load factor

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2013, 09:53:43 PM »
I understand the penalty on small aircraft but if I'm flying a 747-400 vs a 747-8i they're roughly the same size - and one can't make the distance but there's no completion so why can't I have a full plane? Or at least a decent load factor

There is not that much difference with small a/c.  You now get penalized 3 times.
1 - with "aircraft is too small"
2 - with longer flight time vs. non-stop due to tech stop
3 - and with tech stop penalty on top of that

That's just too much in my opinion.  First 2 are enough.  #3 just destroys the viability of a lot of otherwise unserved routes.


Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2013, 10:09:45 PM »
Perhaps the serve every route mentality is the wrong one for success. Should it not be serve every profitable route. There are very few ultra long haul routes in the real world. Roughly under 50 routes flown above 7000nm direct, so not popular even without tech stops. Not even that many over 6000nm. Perhaps they are not so successful in AWS for the same reasons in the real world.

Edit: some examples http://www.oagtravel.com/Travel-News/Archive-2008/November/The-25-Longest-Flights-in-the-World

For example from real world you do not see Lufthansa trying to fill its A380s to Darwin. An AWS example, you will struggle to make a profit flying 777-200LR LHR-SYD this was before pricing and long haul were changed respectively.

My opinion, please let's stop changing the game. I think it's pretty well balanced and I'm much more interested in moving forwards than developing new game mechanics for people to milk. First short haul starts were overpowered then they were nerfed. Then long haul was nerfed because it was too profitable. C/F prices were nerfed. Tech stops were nerfed because they were used and abused. What next? Do you see where I'm going here? There will always be one thing but I think right now is the best it's ever been with the pax allocation system in favouring frequency. Better to have city based demand than a circular argument. Possibly if people changed their expectations or definitions of success they might enjoy the game more (I hope so).
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2013, 10:22:00 PM »
It's not serve every route - flying to Darwin is silly because nobody lives in Darwin or goes there - SYD-LHR is probably one of the biggest routes around. It's got very high demand in reality and should fill a 777lr in this game too ... I'm not saying we try to make another mechanic to milk I'm saying ULH is almost suicide when in reality for the right routes its not. Australia is a prime example because its so far away but as a 'passenger' I'd prefer to fly a single stop route to LHR than fly 4 different connecting flights that takes longer and Costs more ...

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2013, 10:22:38 PM »
Every 7000nm + route is flown in the real world, majority with connecting flights.  Since we don't have those yet, tech stop flights should fill in the need...

 

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.