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: Combined Route Demands  (Read 1418 times)

Offline LUP

  • Members
  • Posts: 10
Combined Route Demands
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:35:18 AM »
A lot of small airports go unused in airwaysim and i think a good way of changing this and creating a need for airlines in the more isolated areas of the world (thus being a even more realistic game) would be to combine route demands. For example, I would like in the future to expand my small Greek airline to the UK. If I was to open a route to just Manchester the route demand would only be approx. 60 pax per day. But, if I was to open a flight to say Manchester via Gatwick I would be able to gain about 120 pax per day on the route and thus use larger more fuel efficient A319s. In the past when this multi route system was operated you would only be able to get the pax demand from Gatwick to Manchester which is unrealistic as some airlines could make huge expansions and dry up the market for local based airlines. In simple terms, what I think would be cool would be 120 pax for Manchester via Gatwick. Drop off 60 at Gatwick then the last 60 off at Manchester. Vice versa, on the way home, pick up 60 at MAN then 60 at LGW. Obviously I understand fluctuations in pax numbers! Also, airlines in Africa could utilize this to their advantage and become successful even though most of their routes do not have a high demand.

I apologize if this has already been spoke about but i think its what the game is lacking:)   

Offline Dan380

  • Members
  • Posts: 389
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2013, 12:29:05 PM »
You're sort of right. There are a small number of flights in the world that operate like this. The main examples are long haul, where the aircraft have to tech-stop anyway, and small regional airlines like you describe (in the UK we used to have Air Southwest who flew all flights to Newquay via Plymouth or the other way round), but there needs to be no direct alternative for that to be considered "ok" by pax.

I think the main problem with implementing this in AWS is it would be open to over-use. Large airlines who don't need it but would still benefit from it, would just fly these routes all the time (and that wouldn't be at all realistic).

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2013, 03:04:24 PM »
Wrong forum, this belongs to the Feature Request forum.

I think a better way of solving this would be to combine the demand of multiple days into one flight, so you serve the routes weekly demand with 3 flights instead of a daily flight. Of course, this should be heavily penalized when another airline flies the route daily.

Offline Andre

  • Members
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2013, 04:29:54 PM »
Wrong forum, this belongs to the Feature Request forum.

I think a better way of solving this would be to combine the demand of multiple days into one flight, so you serve the routes weekly demand with 3 flights instead of a daily flight. Of course, this should be heavily penalized when another airline flies the route daily.

100% agreed. There could be a catchment time period of for example 100% pax on the same day, 75% pax the next day, then 50% the day after that, 25% of the day after that. If another airline opened daily flights, your own could suffer a penalty similar to tech-stops or something. But it would make a lot more destinations viable.

Offline Dan380

  • Members
  • Posts: 389
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2013, 05:29:31 PM »
I will +1 this idea too. Not sure how viable it is with the current code though (and I'm sure if it was easy, it would already have been done).

Offline NovemberCharlie

  • Members
  • Posts: 604
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2013, 07:49:11 AM »
Isn't this essentially the ABC(B)A system?  ???

Offline Dan380

  • Members
  • Posts: 389
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2013, 08:49:47 AM »
I think in the ABC system you could only carry pax from A to B and B to C. Not mix it with pax from A to C.

Wardie9

  • Former member
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2013, 12:58:33 PM »
Eastern Airways (UK) do this a lot actually.
Ive flown on a flight from Cardiff, via Newcastle to Aberdeen

Mind that Eastern Airways operate small Jetstreams for these flights, they charge a hell of price for a ticket!

Offline TerryMcKenna

  • Members
  • Posts: 120
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2013, 01:42:35 PM »
I think a good way of implementing this would be to make ABC routing apply to only smaller airports and/or smaller size aircraft.
As LUP has correctly mentioned, there are a lot of smaller airport connect routes that are unusable, and smaller aircraft like Metros or Jetstreams that are too economically challenged.
This would open up a whole new dimension to the games and could even be a new game world..... 'Regional Empire'..... where the boundaries could be limited to smaller areas like country or state borders, similar to the extra 'European Challenge' type games.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 02:28:54 PM by TerryMcKenna »

Offline GustavoOliveira

  • Members
  • Posts: 1
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2013, 11:37:16 PM »
Way this way is not realistic? In Brazil this is the way the most flights are flown. It's strange to me, a Brazilian, to play a game that simulate a airline that can't fly a ABC route, or fly to X via Y. Where you can have pax Flying from A to B and from B to C, or pax flying from N to Y and X mixing the passenger in the same plane. In Brazil all this are very common, specially in the regional airlines that can fly routes bigger indeed, like, ABCD mixing the passengers, or even bigger without mixing the passengers. Sorry for any mistake in my writting, for I don't speak english very well.

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2013, 07:54:30 PM »
This game has itīs limitations for good reasons. Not everything you know from home is possible here.In fact we had ABC routes a long time ago.It didnīt work out and wonīt come back, no matter how often someone requests it, clearly stated by Sami.
Try a search through forums.

Offline Dan380

  • Members
  • Posts: 389
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2013, 09:12:28 AM »
This game has itīs limitations for good reasons. Not everything you know from home is possible here.In fact we had ABC routes a long time ago.It didnīt work out and wonīt come back, no matter how often someone requests it, clearly stated by Sami.
Try a search through forums.
That is clearly not what he asked for. In fact, he explains how it would be different from the old system in his original post.
Try reading.  ;)

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Combined Route Demands
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2013, 09:47:33 AM »
That was what he described, with the only difference that he wants to partly load/unload people on the way.Also this was proposed over and over and -guess what- declined repeatedly, also for good reasons.I kindly pass that reading advice back to you.
It surely would change the game... but where? OP wants to serve small airports, but his system would also be used by big airlines serving big airports, we had that abcba-problem, got rid off it and he wants it back, even more complicated to handle (also in the interface) .Same with transfer flights,also realistic, but simply not doable (yet).I once had a very specialized  discussion about that topic in the past with all upcoming problems if you really think this through.
Small airports will stay small demand places even under new demand model and Greek Island summer vacation boost and winter zero wonīt be modelled neither.(I know that by READING Samiīs rare comments on that btw)
Game canīt always reflect all possibilities to stay streamlined and playable for the average member with limited online time and airline business insight.Thatīs one limitation Iīm talking about.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 10:18:12 AM by exchlbg »

 

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.