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 4170 times)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2013, 10:25:29 PM »
Precisely because that's what they are just minus the ability to load extra pax

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2013, 10:30:04 PM »
Jumbo: don't know what you're on about. Just re read what you said. Thought you were saying every 7000nm route possible was flown lol. Yeah there are many more itineries which are over 7000nm but say an Emirates flight to Aus will be taking feed from many different flights so you can't really count it as one. However Air NZ flying LHR to Auckland via LAX you could count as one flight. Do you see what I mean in that they are done in different ways. Many more 7000+nm itineries than flights. I guess connecting pax is solution for the first, and ABCBA routing with all possibilities to travel (A to B and A to C etc) would be the answer to the second. But I think already said was that these freedoms won't be modelled as they're specific bilaterals.

ReedME: the problem wasn't filling the plane with passengers, it was making money (maybe possible now toucan charge pax more without a large drop in LF). Darwin was simply an extreme comparison to illustrate the point that not even the biggest routes (eg Sydney) are profitable let alone marginal ones.

I mean there are 100-150 pax routes in Euro challenge right now which are over 1200nm away from me. I could fly them in my E195, doesn't mean I will though. Probably wouldn't even bother in a 737.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 10:35:07 PM by alexgv1 »
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2013, 10:32:20 PM »
A full plane with a reasonable price and no competition will make money. Probably not as much as it could flying elsewhere but it needs to be an option

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2013, 10:36:36 PM »
This statement just is not true.Neither in RL nor here.And as I said before, RL airlines are stopping to fly ULH for this reason. And I wouldn´t go on a 20 hr-trip strapped to my seat ever. Feels like being kidnapped.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2013, 10:38:00 PM »
But the fuel will go up or competition will come along at some point and the route will become a liability. Yes it is an option but it doesn't need to be profitable just because it can be flown in my opinion. Finding which routes are profitable is part of the skill in the game I guess, which we should exercise.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2013, 10:56:54 PM »
Ever flown Sydney to LAX or Houston? These are both non stop flights - both insanely popular. More so LAX which is 6500nm in itself. Note in a plane you are not strapped to a seat there are opportunities to stretch your legs and it is generally advised. 15-20 hours is not that bad and common to any Australian traveller that wants to goto Europe or America. Most people sleep for a good portion of the flight. The reason such a route is not profitable in this game is because we're being unintentionally punished because some babies decided they didn't like people undercutting them with 727s and tech stops.

Fact is this suggestion would put an end to this ridiculous punishment from tech stops and make them a viable play strategy.

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2013, 10:57:24 PM »
And if the fuel increases then prices will increase just like in reality

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2013, 11:06:11 PM »
And if the fuel increases then prices will increase just like in reality

And if price increases less passengers will fly.... And you might make less money.

Plus fuel price isn't really tied to ticket price in game (well ticket price is becoming a completely independent thing soon set by CEO or algorithm). If the price of oil doubled tomorrow it doesn't mean it will all of a sudden become acceptable to me to pay twice as much as I did yesterday to go to the same place.

Also nobody is denying the existence of long flights (6000+nm) in the real world, just that there are not that many, certainly not as many as people would like to fly on AWS. How exactly are the tech stop punishments effecting non stop flights from LAX/IAH to SYD?
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2013, 11:10:09 PM »
They punish some of the earlier planes that have to stop on the way to lax.

Over time customers become accustomed to higher prices and your market returns. This doesn't happen overnight of course. And excessive competition would make it completely unviable however that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to fly a tech stopped 747 LHR to SYD and get reduced load factors for stopping. I may as well just fly the entire distance and copp the reduced max load.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2013, 11:20:20 PM »
As for your dilemma, I don't know what you should do for best results if you are determined to fly the route. I think I am right in thinking that pax tolerance to tech stops is better in the early days such as 60s and 80s but goes down in the modern era. And yes there might be some routes where pax preference to tech stop should be different (maybe preferential to sitting in plane for 20 hours) such as Oceania to Europe but this is a handful of routes and I believe it works okay in most other circumstances. But I can see that this issue may be close to your heart, being Australian, so I can understand why you would feel that way if it is isolating how you would like to play the game. To be honest, myself I very rarely fly routes over 6000nm unless I can especially justify them. But I'm a pretty conservative player so I am not fussed about flying everywhere possible (marketing and overhead costs rise too, for example) but of course there are different play (management?) styles. People that I've spoken to who have played Australia on long haul keep a route open to heathrow for prestige but don't fly much to Europe because its not worth it for them. Anyway past my bedtime haha we can continue this chat tomorrow if you don't mind.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2013, 01:08:12 AM »
Also - Qantas recently launched the SYD-JFK Route. Admittedly you change at LAX to a code share flight. Since we don't have connecting flights/codeshares wouldn't it be fair to assume that tech stops can facilitate this? Thus allowing us to serve these 8500nm routes that can quite often have a lot of demand.

If an airline in the real world can warrant opening longer routes such as this surely Airwaysim can actually accommodate this and allow it to operate profitably.

Just doing some quick maths here. Assume you're flying a 744 with a tech stop in LAX - so SYD->LAX->JFK - The 744 burns roughly 9000kg/hr - and Lets say we reconfigure that to give people more space similar to the seating chart here http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/aircraft-seat-map-boeing-744/global/en lets call it all premium in the airwaysim system... that gives us 232Y 20C 12F - now assume we use the pricing that Airway sim provides at default for an 8500nm flight Y = 790 C = 2079 F = 3482 - this is in 1996. Say we get 100% LF 183280 for Y 41580 C 41784 = 266,644. This flight goes for 23 hours according to qantas including the stop in LAX so that means we burn 23*9000 207000kg of fuel at the current cost of fuel being  403/1000kg  so 207*403=83421 giving us 183223 left to play with. Take off 30k for landing and pax fees that leaves 150k profit off a full plane.

In reality qantas being qantas is charging 1900 for economy seats. Couldn't find the price of C and F. At the personally reasonable price of 1900 maintaining the airwaysim ratio for F and C we make - 440k for Y alone. which gives us 300k profit off the bat.

can you see where I'm going with this...

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #31 on: March 17, 2013, 01:29:58 AM »
I see your point. But $400 is pretty cheap fuel. I agree that the flight may be profitable for that fuel price. Also costs such as leasing/purchasing and staff should be considered. Then factor in a more realistic fuel price for MT of $1000+ and the margins get thinner (of course there are more fuel efficient planes for that price though). Add in competition (because other people want to fly all routes as well) then you might be onto a loss there.

As you can see there are two sides of the coin and it depends whether you are happy to fly a route that will only turn a profit in optimal conditions or not. I can't stop you from flying any route so please feel free   :laugh:
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #32 on: March 17, 2013, 02:01:46 AM »
I'm just saying that by default airwaysim is deeming a very low price to be average. Man if I could fly to New York for 750 I would do it right now. Then whilst at default price we get a load factor hit simply for stopping to get fuel. Whilst I do agree with you on the margins getting thinner point. I could buy a 747-8 which would reduce my fuel costs or a 787 with fuel burn of 4500 and a significantly faster speed 0.85 to combat the rising fuel costs. I'm on my iPhone at the moment let me factor in staff and other overheads when I get home.

I don't mind the default prices being incredibly low for long flights - they're pretty much perfect for short hauls. But I'm not a fan of the tech stop punishment.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2013, 08:37:43 AM »
Actually there might be an ancient feature request to increase default prices on the ultra long flights like from Aus. I guess it's still relevant with the new pax algorithm because you could just increase the threshold at which the pax are still happy to pay. Might be good to resurrect or make a new one?
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2013, 09:29:56 AM »
I'll see if I can find that thread. Since it's a little off-topic for this one but still related.

I didn't notice it until I did a little bit of playing around with the system to see what it threw me, but it does need a higher default for these longer hauls.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2013, 02:48:58 AM »
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.

The primary reason for that is that the real world treats pax differently to AWS. The only way for an AWS pax to get from Melbourne to Amsterdam is to fly it, with a tech stop. A RL passenger will be much more likely to fly it as 2 separate legs, with some amount of time spent wandering around Dubai, Singapore or wherever. The demand is still there IRL, there are just other options beyond the direct flight.

The demand system is set up based on real life, on there being 300 people wanting to get from Melbourne-Amsterdam daily, or whatever the 2013 ingame number is. But the pax algorithm will only produce ~120 people willing to fly that route, because it requires a tech-stop. But since it requires some sort of stop IRL too, that shouldn't happen. 300 RL people want to fly the route with a stop, then 300 virtual people should want to do the same.

The biggest issue with this is that the demand graph is essentially off by 50% or more. If I look at a route that says 400 daily pax, and I stick a 300 seat plane, most appropriate to that route, on it, then when my RI and CI are high, competition is non-existent, I should get close to a full plane. But I don't. In fact, I get half the stated demand, or even less.

The problem isn't whether a ULH flight should be profitable, whether default pricing should be different (that's an entirely separate argument), the problem is whether an appropriate plane/s on a given route should be able to get roughly 100% of displayed demand when RI is 100, CI is 80+, and pricing is at the default. And right now, that doesn't happen. Players shouldn't be expected to look at the displayed demand, listed as 95% accurate, and instead treat it as being more than 100% optimistic compared to the true demand. Tech stops should only get penalised if there is a competing, direct flight.

At least until some future point where there is a much more complicated algorithm, and a virtual pax wanting to get from MLB-AMS has the same sort of options as RL, a 'direct', tech-stopping flight, or a connection in SYD, LHR, DXB, etc.

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2013, 03:04:39 AM »
I think you covered that very well! Ultimately what I was trying to get at despite going off on tangents.


Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2013, 09:58:34 AM »
Ouch she bites... We did cover that later Sanabas.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

ReedME

  • Former member
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2013, 02:44:11 AM »
This is just ridiculous


Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Treat tech stop penalty like 'plane is too small' penalty
« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2013, 02:46:41 AM »
Wow - what did you do to your passengers? ;)

 

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.