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: Donkey route not working  (Read 4119 times)

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Donkey route not working
« on: August 04, 2013, 03:12:10 AM »
Thanks to whiners who have 'high post' numbers in the forum, I was unable to make money with my owned A318 on 2000nm route.

I'm the only sucker flying the route with 100% RI.
I'm supplying almost the demand.
I charge 10% less than the default price (eventhough I'm the only one flying that route) and yet I cannot break 70% LF.

As per Sami LF means nothing, so sold seats count. Cool.

Sounds OK until now eh! I mean, there exists a thing called true demand so no complaints so far.

However, the moment I put A320 on the route, I'm the king of the road! While I was able to sell 90(Y) seats on a Friday with A318, now I'm selling 127(Y) Friday (btw that's 100% of the advertised(95% accuracy) demand) seats with default pricing. And I get +1 C with A320.

If there exists a such thing called true demand, it shall be damn true.

That's all I have to say about it. If you want to know more about it, read last years 'test world' thread.

Sami, this does not make any sense atm. Either introduce 'transit passenger' or apply 'true demand' regardless of aircraft type. Especially for the routes with no competition.  

Or should I play the game with only Widebody Aircraft?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 09:23:29 AM by Tias »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2013, 03:12:02 PM »
Do you really think the A318 is designed to do trans-continental routes?  Same reason it isn't made to fly JFK-LHR.    Airbus made that plane around quick turnarounds and not long haul flying.   An A318 is much better used flying 3x short routes per day and SITTING on the pad all night versus a 2000nm flight and maybe a short jump (if there's enough time left over)

You use the same number of pilots that you would on an A321 on that route.    Sure cabin crew is more on the A321 but the seating makes up for it in revenue.   It is like going from a 737-5 to a 757-2 in terms of room (but commonality in-game makes that tough until the 737-9 comes out)

Why don't you take a peek at the expected prices of a route for 1000nm?!? I bet it isn't that different.   So why fly twice as far (and burn 2x the fuel) when it isn't economically viable?        

Just because a plane has the range doesn't mean it's meant to fly it.     Hey a Fokker 50 can go about 1100nm.   Why not buy a few and see what happens there (even with standard seating)?!?

Really, what you're advocating is the exact structure of airlines today.     Fly short hops with 60-150 to hubs where you can load 150-300 to the next major airport.    It's EXACTLY how the wheel-and-spoke system works.... and it is due to the fact that what you are complaining about doesn't make ANY money.
---------------------

So, getting into your rude comments.....

Who are these 'whiners' who have "high post" numbers you speak of?     Are you mad that realism was injected into this game?  

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2013, 04:10:56 PM »
A318 for a 2000nm route?  You probably should have received a "plane is too small for this route" warning, but since you create routes by fleet type and the A318 is lumped in with the A319/320/321, you didn't get it.  As swiftus said, just because it can fly 2000nm doesn't mean it should.  The B777-200LR can go over 10,000nm, but I know no better way to BK an airline than fly it that far (except maybe flying the CRJ705 on a 1900nm route).

Offline Karl

  • Members
  • Posts: 156
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2013, 07:48:39 PM »
Then, again, in the current real of 2013 in the USA, United is ding just this - flying super long segments on CRJ ad RJ.  They wer not made for these markets, but....

Maybe it's time for AirwaySim to rethink the ability to use small aircraft on long routes.   :-\

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2013, 08:10:38 PM »
Then, again, in the current real of 2013 in the USA, United is ding just this - flying super long segments on CRJ ad RJ.  They wer not made for these markets, but....

Maybe it's time for AirwaySim to rethink the ability to use small aircraft on long routes.   :-\

If you told a passenger who actually knew what a CRJ was that he had the option of flying 4 hours direct in one or have two 2 hour flights on a big bird with a short layover, no one in their right mind would pick the CRJ (unless it had business class).  The only way to model this in AWS is the small aircraft penalty...

I used to fly in the tiny BAe Jetscreams with American Eagle when I as a kid where the only thing between you and the pilot was a shower curtain.  We'd fly CVG-ORD to get to an American hub, or if we were really unlucky, CVG-DFW which was about a 2 hour/700nm flight.  I could make a huge list of things I'd rather do than spend 2 hours in a Jetscream, but I'll spare you all :)

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2013, 09:16:57 PM »
If you told a passenger who actually knew what a CRJ was that he had the option of flying 4 hours direct in one or have two 2 hour flights on a big bird with a short layover, no one in their right mind would pick the CRJ (unless it had business class).

I know what a CRJ is, and I'd pick the direct CRJ flight over a layover one 1000times...


Seat pitch and width always depends on the airlines, not planes, so no advantage or disadvantage there...

CRJ passenger loading times are faster... luggage is disembarked faster as well, so that means you'll wait less to get it, plus your bags don't change planes, so it's half the chance of a lost baggage...


The only CRJ drawback is turbulence, which affects this plane more than others... but for me (and many people flying, especially frequent flyers) that's not a problem at all...


On the other side, a short layover would make your 4hs trip into a 6hs one (counting boarding, deboarding, taxiing time, etc)... anywhere shorter than that and you'll find yourself literally running across the airport in order to catch the connection...
Let's not even talk if the plane doing the first leg of the trip leaves delayed and you miss your connection... then you'll probably be many hours waiting for the next plane to leave...


I'd only prefer the layover if it involves a super cool new plane like the A380 or B787 (which I'd love to flight into), but that's because I'm an aviation enthusiastic... common people won't care about that at all...


I really canŋt imagine any normal person, going for the layover instead of the non-stop CRJ flight...

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2013, 09:56:03 PM »
To prove your case it would be very interesting to know how those long, thin flights pay off in reality or if thereīs maybe some other reason why some airlines do it, despite losing money.
Itīs simple math to tell that a 50-seater canīt catch up with overhead flying only 2-3 routes a day. There arenīt enough PAX in total per day to make a revenue, compared to 4,5,6 or more flights a day, since fares canīt be doubled for a double distance flight.Same goes to trans-atlantic minis.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2013, 10:20:28 PM »
The only CRJ drawback is turbulence

LOL

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2013, 10:40:34 PM »
Why would I be mad to see realism in the game? and also how is this a realism?

If there's a demand of 10 pax between A and B, and 7 out of 10 pax is true demand, meaning they need to fly that route on that given date, how is it realistic to limit that true demand to 5 due to non ideal aircraft choice? What will those 2 people do, catch a magic carpet ride?

If there's a demand between two cities and there are no other airline flying the route, people will fly even if you cater the route with flying donkey cart. Simple is that.

I've seen TK flying IST-ADA (55min route) with A340, and I haven't seen any passenger complaining that it wasn't an ideal aircraft. Also, TK flies to various cities of Europe with their A330s. Why? Because there's a demand, when there's a demand, you supply it. Well, also they'd like to utilize the aricraft between their LH flights.

You can't just put an artificial cap on demand and claim that it's just realism. A320 on that route was a waste of capacity. I could have use A320 on a different route, hence I swapped with A318.

Why do you think I was flying 2000nm route instead of 1000nm? I'll give you a hint, it's not because I like to live dangerously.
To give some perspective, my revenue is ~13-14mil a week and I'm pulling ~5mil profit a week. So, it's not that I can't do math either.

As for the rude comment, I was angry when I wrote it so my bad.

Again, single airline serving non stop, and lay over/connection is not built into the game.




exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2013, 11:21:06 PM »
You sound as you had a human right to transport all the PAX system is suggesting by any means you find suitable.All demand within this game is the product of some hard data of an airport from a certain period of time adjusted to actual period and combined with those of a second airport by a fixed formula. There are no hard data from any route pair in RL considered if thereīs not a special reason. So that shown ,estimated demand is not reflecting RL data of a route, itīs constructed.So there is no demand you can rely on. That demand only is willing to use your service if all circumstances are perfect. In your case they are not perfect for our sim-PAX so they donīt travel at all or use other flights departing from other airports nearby or just transfer. (Yes, system numbers already incorporate transfers, we just canīt see or direct those yet. PAX numbers to and between real-life hubs reflect with their high numbers not only PAX to and from those hub cities proper, but also PAX that come from and change to other flights there).So thereīs always a theoretical alternative for system PAX. Small plane penalty was incorporated not for realism, but for game balance sake as a general rule.Like any general rule it doesnīt accept exceptions for whatever reason.Before it there was an insane number of single-islers serving the atlantic corridor, beating the big birds out of the sky by simple mass and frequency advantage.You will never win an argument about some RL numbers of any special route pair by claiming "realism". This game tries to calculate reasonable traffic numbers worldwide and to keep this game in a playable balance at the same time, it is not your task or right to replay any hazardous RL situation 1:1, itīs building a sim airline under sim conditions. Since city-based demand is in the pipeline, demand allocation system wonīt be changed anyway, so just fly this route or leave it at your pleasure.No reason to get angry at all.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 11:44:22 PM by exchlbg »

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2013, 12:42:28 AM »
You sound as you had a human right to transport all the PAX system is suggesting by any means you find suitable.All demand within this game is the product of some hard data of an airport from a certain period of time adjusted to actual period and combined with those of a second airport by a fixed formula. There are no hard data from any route pair in RL considered if thereīs not a special reason. So that shown ,estimated demand is not reflecting RL data of a route, itīs constructed.So there is no demand you can rely on. That demand only is willing to use your service if all circumstances are perfect. In your case they are not perfect for our sim-PAX so they donīt travel at all or use other flights departing from other airports nearby or just transfer. (Yes, system numbers already incorporate transfers, we just canīt see or direct those yet. PAX numbers to and between real-life hubs reflect with their high numbers not only PAX to and from those hub cities proper, but also PAX that come from and change to other flights there).So thereīs always a theoretical alternative for system PAX. Small plane penalty was incorporated not for realism, but for game balance sake as a general rule.Like any general rule it doesnīt accept exceptions for whatever reason.Before it there was an insane number of single-islers serving the atlantic corridor, beating the big birds out of the sky by simple mass and frequency advantage.You will never win an argument about some RL numbers of any special route pair by claiming "realism". This game tries to calculate reasonable traffic numbers worldwide and to keep this game in a playable balance at the same time, it is not your task or right to replay any hazardous RL situation 1:1, itīs building a sim airline under sim conditions. Since city-based demand is in the pipeline, demand allocation system wonīt be changed anyway, so just fly this route or leave it at your pleasure.No reason to get angry at all.

Do you even read what I post?

I made clear distinction between demand and true demand. I've never ever said anything about the complexity of the demand calculations.

I used real life examples because realism was brought into the topic.

I just gave my 2 cents regarding current system, and referred everyone to last years topic.

It's my right to give my opinion since I'm a player in this game regardless of paying with real money or not. So, I should just either create a major airline in a big hub or stop playing? Is that what you are saying? Because, the reason I flew that route was the fact that it was the only available at the time. I was slot and destination restricted. Instead of flying a 50 seater to the closer destination, and adding another aircraft type to my small fleet, I choose to fly that route. Funny enough economically and operationally it makes sense.

I know why the artificial cap was introduced, again, I refer people to last years topic, and I'm not arguing here that I should be able to fly narrowbody over atlantic, or screw competition with frequency. I just didn't get up one day and decided the flood the forum how I can't make money with a certain aircraft. I did search and try to find out why I'm failing.

I'm running a small airline serving from small airport. You can't keep giving me examples from how big airlines failed in big airports previously. Or how big airlines lost a battle to narowbodies previously. Again, single airline serving non stop on non competitive route.

Read again, I'm not complaining on how I can't fly 20x Daily to major hub with my 50 seat aircraft. I think swiftus' idea of revamping slot allocation was a better idea than putting an artificial cap on demand.

I realize this a sim and I'm just giving my opinion how I like it or not. I didn't say I liked it previously and wanted it back, in fact I said let's introduce transit or apply true demand regardless of aircraft type on non competing routes.

System incorporating transfers is a false information according to what I gather from previous forum posts and my experience with the game. Can you be more clear on why you know/think that is the case?

« Last Edit: August 06, 2013, 01:17:59 AM by Tias »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2013, 02:45:43 AM »
apply true demand regardless of aircraft type on non competing routes.

This would solve most of the problems, I think. If you got 90% of true demand for a too small plane, 90% of true demand for using a tech-stop, 60% of true demand for a 2.30am takeoff/landing when they were the only option available to pax, but lost out heavily when competing against a proper size/direct/daytime flight, then I think the frustrations with looking at a 120 pax route and wondering why you can't get more than 50 people onboard would disappear.

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2013, 04:08:35 AM »
This would solve most of the problems, I think. If you got 90% of true demand for a too small plane, 90% of true demand for using a tech-stop, 60% of true demand for a 2.30am takeoff/landing when they were the only option available to pax, but lost out heavily when competing against a proper size/direct/daytime flight, then I think the frustrations with looking at a 120 pax route and wondering why you can't get more than 50 people onboard would disappear.

You can always reach your destination with a donkey operated carriage... sami says pax demand is only theoretical... if nobody supplies them in a way a 7-star skytrax airline would, they'll always find another way to reach their destinations; even if they need to cross two oceans in a handmade raft...


Here's a nice alternative over a 2 tech stop B307 leaving 2am and arriving 4am in a non competing route...

« Last Edit: August 06, 2013, 04:13:06 AM by ezzeqiel »

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2013, 04:28:15 AM »
Sure. But most of the angst, frustration and misunderstanding comes from the fact that right now, you can look at a 100 pax route, fly it with a 120 seat plane with the right range and very suitable to the demand amount, and discover the counter-intuitive result that there are really only 40 pax for you, and that there are actually no suitable planes for the route. Because anything big enough to not get a warning and fly it direct is too big to put on a 100 pax route. And any route too long to be flown direct in the gameworld will only ever give you half the listed demand.

It's a straight gameplay thing, to make listed demand be close to actual accessible demand. And if that means some people end up putting an a318 on a 2500 NM, 70 pax route, some people put a 762ER on a 10,000 NM, 100 pax route, some people (like me) try and fly a longhaul Piper or Fairchild, all on routes that wouldn't get flown by anyone else anyway, who cares? It doesn't hurt anybody else's airline, doesn't take away a single pax from any other player. I don't see where the negatives are. And the positives are that it stops the frustration, it prevents players getting inexplicable results, and in earlier worlds, anything pre-762ER, and especially pre-4500NM DC8s, it significantly increases the number of viable airports.

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2013, 04:33:29 AM »
I guess it's my bad that I have not given out enough information on the route I was complaining about. Donkey cart serves ADA-FAO (2054nm), between 08:10 and 20:35 with an aircraft "designed" to serve 2340nm. I wanted to post this just to rule out 23:00-05:00 restriction comments, since it looks like I have to be very precise about what I say otherwise AWS religion kicks in.  ???


Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2013, 05:45:20 AM »
all on routes that wouldn't get flown by anyone else anyway, who cares? It doesn't hurt anybody else's airline, doesn't take away a single pax from any other player. I don't see where the negatives are. And the positives are that it stops the frustration, it prevents players getting inexplicable results, and in earlier worlds, anything pre-762ER, and especially pre-4500NM DC8s, it significantly increases the number of viable airports.

Well... then some players will start to moan that this game is not real, since not real airlines fly cross atlantic narrowbody...

So, an artificial cap is made, in order to force the game into "reality"...


What I've sayed is that airlines do not fly widebodies over the atlantic not because plane designs, but because the way airlines work today, but that airlines do not exist in AWS, so there would not be any need to replicate that here...

That's what it seems really hard to realize for some people here...


Mr. Ryanair (O'Leary) has stated, he'll start narrowbody cross atlantic service in a more O&D configuration (as ryanair is all about), so we are back to the basic principle that AWS tends to shape RL airlines replicas, instead of AWS airlines shape new bussiness models and a fictional world (which is what RL airlines made with our world)...
« Last Edit: August 06, 2013, 05:48:00 AM by ezzeqiel »

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2013, 05:51:35 AM »
Well... then some players will start to moan that this game is not real, since not real airlines fly cross atlantic narrowbody...

So, an artificial cap is made, in order to force the game into "reality"...

So it's all about how much noise you make instead of realism...

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2013, 02:19:28 PM »
No sir.   Frequency bonus is huge.     The sim revolved around the 752 before this was implemented.    Cargo isn't in the game either.    So the sim had to be balanced to force players away from Freq Raping in planes that try to fly these routes. 

Quit trying to make the community out to be a bunch of whiny p***s.  You keep making snide comments.

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2013, 10:06:18 PM »
Stop religiously defending a system that is not actually working for certain use cases.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2013, 10:21:41 PM »
Stop religiously defending a system that is not actually working for certain use cases.

Can you restate what the actual problem is?  I'm confused as to what you're even complaining about at this point.  You put a smaller aircraft on a larger aircraft route and didn't get much demand.  You put a more appropriate, larger aircraft on a larger aircraft route and everything worked out.  What is the issue exactly?

 

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.