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 4107 times)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2013, 12:07:45 AM »
Stop religiously defending a system that is not actually working for certain use cases.

Stop being a 4 year member who is only now discovering this.   

Sorry if realism was injected and ruined your plans with an A318, bro.   Seriously, it must be hard sleeping at night knowing that the only programmer, Sami, altered HIS sim to make sure people didn't just spam smaller planes to out-frequency a route. 

As for being upset at the almighty equation (how pax demand works), you will see I am highly critical that seat pitch, price, speed, age of aircraft and others are not weighted more heavily.   Since there is/was no change there AND that frequency was king, the KEWR + 752 = Win needed to end.

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2013, 01:21:50 AM »
Stop being a 4 year member who is only now discovering this.  

Sorry if realism was injected and ruined your plans with an A318, bro.   Seriously, it must be hard sleeping at night knowing that the only programmer, Sami, altered HIS sim to make sure people didn't just spam smaller planes to out-frequency a route.  

As for being upset at the almighty equation (how pax demand works), you will see I am highly critical that seat pitch, price, speed, age of aircraft and others are not weighted more heavily. Since there is/was no change there AND that frequency was king, the KEWR + 752 = Win needed to end.

Oh come on now man. I'm not being upset because I can't spam routes. I'm presenting a valid use case.

I'm being upset because you automatically assume that I'm mad because I can't spam routes anymore with the new system. I've never spammed any routes. Have a look at my airline and show me how I'm spamming. If I'm doing something wrong I'll gladly correct it. I try to play this game as I would run the airline in real life.

You keep saying the same thing: "I'm upset because realism was introduced and I can't spam routes"
That's the religious thinking I'm talking about.

I don't even fly the stupid route anymore since now the big player in my base bankrupt and I can actually fly to different cities easier.

Talk about snide comments.
Yes, I can't sleep at nights knowing that I can't give my opinion to improve the sim I'm paying to play thanks to people's assumptions and their 'everything we say is right, shut up and play' attitude. You keep sounding like I should accept everything without a question because it's HIS sim.

I know Sami has limited resources, and I'm more than happy to help him with the programming tasks in my spare time if he requires so. I'm sure there are other programmers playing the game wouldn't mind helping if the request was made so. Because guess what? You're not the only one enjoying playing this sim.

As far as I can remember, I might be wrong tho, even you were skeptical with this system and said slot allocation changes would be a better idea.

Anyway, I think it's still possible to keep the system which helps stopping people to spam but also allows small airlines to serve thin routes with no competition without a penalty so that they can survive. Also, less assumption more reading/listening.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 09:51:17 AM by Tias »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2013, 02:07:22 AM »
The reason your situation didn't work is a byproduct of what we are all saying.    long routes with small planes was restricted because of the ease it allowed players to win.   Until he alters that code (kept more secret than how Experian calculates a credit score), change can't happen.  

I test this sim.  I don't play major airports. I fail out of most games.   Sadly I find that you need to base yourself In A top tier airport with tons of the most efficient planes possible.   The only way to muscle market share is to have more planes flying a to b than your opponent
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 02:09:46 AM by swiftus27 »

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2013, 02:37:52 AM »
The reason your situation didn't work is a byproduct of what we are all saying.    long routes with small planes was restricted because of the ease it allowed players to win.   Until he alters that code (kept more secret than how Experian calculates a credit score), change can't happen.  

No man, this is the product of rushing a change because people complained + spammed (to win) so much that he implemented something half working.

Again, I'm happy to work on bugs while he is working on new features. I'm happy to sign any NDA since the code is precious. It wouldn't be my first NDA and definitely wouldn't be the last one. At the end of the day, it would help for the greater good.

I test this sim.  I don't play major airports. I fail out of most games.   Sadly I find that you need to base yourself In A top tier airport with tons of the most efficient planes possible.   The only way to muscle market share is to have more planes flying a to b than your opponent

I know you do. I was bit surprised that you got offended and slammed whatever I say without even understanding what's going on.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2013, 05:34:56 AM »
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?

The problem is only on routes with low demand, routes without competition.

The small plane penalty has certainly helped with things like people trying to run 4 x 318s or 3 x 752s against a competitor's single a333. That's a good thing, nobody in this thread is suggesting it needs changing.

But as a side effect of that, many smaller routes have simply stopped being viable for anyone. They're too small for a bigger plane. Say Adana-Cork, little over 2000 NM, ~80 pax in 2007. Or Casablanca-Jeddah, LH, 95 pax in 2007. An a318 is better than an a320, because you don't need the extra seats, and you use 20% less fuel and pay less fees. If 2 airlines fly it, one with a more comfortable plane, then no worries, penalise the 318. But when you're the only plane flying, the small plane penalty (or the tech-stop penalty) means that you'll be lucky to get 40 of those 80 pax, the others just won't bother. So lots and lots of routes that are relatively long and thin, that have the right demand for 1 flight/day of a smaller plane, stop being viable, even if you have a monopoly. Smaller airports stop being viable (Kenya, Reunion, Mauritius, Port of Spain, Pointe a Pitre were all fun places to build LH airlines with lots of skinny routes, lots of tech-stop routes). That's the actual problem. It's also something Swiftus noticed when trying to base in New Zealand in JA, the tech-stop penalty made all the smaller, 50-100 pax LH routes that should have worked stop being viable, which made the whole country stop being viable for any sort of JA airline beyond a handful of medium planes.

I don't think anybody is asking for the penalties to disappear entirely. They're only asking for it to be more or less ignored when there is only 1 flight/day, when there is no non-penalised competing route. Which by definition doesn't hurt anyone else.

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2013, 08:45:38 AM »
The problem is only on routes with low demand, routes without competition.

The small plane penalty has certainly helped with things like people trying to run 4 x 318s or 3 x 752s against a competitor's single a333. That's a good thing, nobody in this thread is suggesting it needs changing.

But as a side effect of that, many smaller routes have simply stopped being viable for anyone. They're too small for a bigger plane. Say Adana-Cork, little over 2000 NM, ~80 pax in 2007. Or Casablanca-Jeddah, LH, 95 pax in 2007. An a318 is better than an a320, because you don't need the extra seats, and you use 20% less fuel and pay less fees. If 2 airlines fly it, one with a more comfortable plane, then no worries, penalise the 318. But when you're the only plane flying, the small plane penalty (or the tech-stop penalty) means that you'll be lucky to get 40 of those 80 pax, the others just won't bother. So lots and lots of routes that are relatively long and thin, that have the right demand for 1 flight/day of a smaller plane, stop being viable, even if you have a monopoly. Smaller airports stop being viable (Kenya, Reunion, Mauritius, Port of Spain, Pointe a Pitre were all fun places to build LH airlines with lots of skinny routes, lots of tech-stop routes). That's the actual problem. It's also something Swiftus noticed when trying to base in New Zealand in JA, the tech-stop penalty made all the smaller, 50-100 pax LH routes that should have worked stop being viable, which made the whole country stop being viable for any sort of JA airline beyond a handful of medium planes.

I don't think anybody is asking for the penalties to disappear entirely. They're only asking for it to be more or less ignored when there is only 1 flight/day, when there is no non-penalised competing route. Which by definition doesn't hurt anyone else.

MOTHER OF GOD!

Someone who can actually READ!

I mean not only you can read, but you also do understand!
I mean not only you do understand, but you also are able to drive conclusion out of it.
I mean not only you're able to drive conclusion, but you also can summarize..!

Dude you're wasting your forum post numbers!
You're clearly eligible to claim 'everything I say is right and rest shall shut up'.
You're supporting the wrong side. And you're wasting your potential.

Here, I'll give you more hints:
If 'everything I say is right' doesn't work or someone logically challenges you... you can always fall back to drama.
You know... how sami works by himself... all alone... and it's always at late night... etc.
Come on now don't you learn?
Wasting your potential. Don't do it!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 09:17:24 AM by Tias »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2013, 11:54:49 AM »

I know you do. I was bit surprised that you got offended and slammed whatever I say without even understanding what's going on.

I dont like it when people say inflammatory comments about the community.    You've mentioned "people with high post counts" who are the issue.  

You've consistently mocked the community in every subsequent post.    

I see others trying to understand and discuss only to get more negative comments made about them (see your more-recent post).

Simply put, you're going about it the wrong way.     This is less of a discussion and more of you screaming about an issue that is dead and buried in this sim.   Until CBD happens, this is the way its going to be.    Sami surgically dealt with the freq spam with a shot gun and not a scalpel.

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2013, 05:30:25 PM »
I dont like it when people say inflammatory comments about the community.    You've mentioned "people with high post counts" who are the issue.  

You've consistently mocked the community in every subsequent post.    

I see others trying to understand and discuss only to get more negative comments made about them (see your more-recent post).

Simply put, you're going about it the wrong way.     This is less of a discussion and more of you screaming about an issue that is dead and buried in this sim.   Until CBD happens, this is the way its going to be.    Sami surgically dealt with the freq spam with a shot gun and not a scalpel.

I'm not mocking the community, if you don't want to be mocked, stop religiously defending a topic without even understanding clearly what other person is saying. Discussion is not what you tell others why A318 was designed for or how Sami is busy so I better shut up.


Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: How I couldn't make money with owned A318 on 2000nm route
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2013, 06:30:05 PM »
This is less of a discussion and more of you screaming about an issue that is dead and buried in this sim.   Until CBD happens, this is the way its going to be.    

Well, that decision is not yours to make, since AWS is "HIS sim" (sami's) and not yours...


Some people here (including me), are saying that provided no competition on a route, there should be no penalty for small airplanes... If, there's competition, the story changes, but that's not what Tias stated in the beginning of the thread...


Now, if that could be done or not (gameplay or technically feasible), then sami should be the only authorized person to make the final decision... yours is an opinion (since you are a player and not the owner here), and all opinions among equal players are equally valid...
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 06:32:26 PM by ezzeqiel »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2013, 07:04:21 PM »
I don't disagree with that either.    I was really sad I couldn't get loadfactors of Akl in JA the last time I played and they were large enough planes.     

 The benefits far outweigh the consequences for the sim in general.   

To me, routes like this naturally are demanded but no plane can suit them properly.  This is supposedly why a short Dreamliner was designed.   

I don't like any route / plane unfairly restricted either but with how the economy works, I let the owner paint his sim with a very broad brush

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2013, 07:20:46 PM »
Ahem, to my understanding running a B757 transatlantic, for example, does work just fine if there is no competition (widebody ie. "correct" aircraft) on that route. When you have, it doesn't work that well anymore. Should be like that at least.... But all possible combinations haven't been of course tested but the math should be the same of course.

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2013, 12:40:23 PM »
Then why this guy managed to sell 41% more tickets when he changed the A318 for A320 ?


Tias... I think you should test further and post the results...

Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2013, 01:53:27 AM »
Tias... I think you should test further and post the results...

Will definitely do, but not right away unfortunately. I'm cash and aircraft restricted, also route hasn't been flown for a while. It will take me a while until I can replicate the issue. But I will replicate and test it again. I do regret not taking a screenshot before I closed the route tho.

tm07x

  • Former member
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2013, 06:40:02 PM »
To Tias' defence the A318/319/320 etc are basically the same. For a passenger sitting inside, he or she wouldn't notice the difference between the 321 or the 318 in terms of comfort.
Now, I get that there is a programmed cap to prevent smaller AC from going "too far". But at the same time I can understand that it would seem or feel unfair that you couldn't operate the "same" aircraft on a route with no competition without getting hit by some "invisible" penalty that results in fewer sold seats.

If there was competition on the route I could understand the need for such a cap. But the A318 and A319 should be a bit cheaper to lease and I don't know if you get away with fewer crew. But at 100 pax demand why not let someone fly a 100 seater if the size is right?

I could understand that such a penalty was imposed on a CRJ, and IMHO turbulence is NOT the only issue with a CRJ compared to bigger metal. I for one would NEVER sit inside that beer can for 4+ hours just like I never fly United's 757 on trans-atlantic routes.

For some players in some bases there simply might not be enough of a demand to justify getting a second fleet that allows you to operate those 3-4 2000+nm routes that have you have no competition on. It seems unfair that bases with limited destinations and lower demand should be forced to fly bigger metal just because "the game says so".

Again, I get that flying a CRJ trans-cont is stupid. But at the same time, if you don't allow for that 3rd or 4th fleet type to be added without any penalty for those with challenging bases, then I see no reason why players shouldn't be allowed to operate an AC that is considered a heavy, on a route with no competition without getting penalised. To me that just doesn't make sense.

OTOH, people would still fly in Cessna 172 trans-cont US non-stop if it were free.

Just like mega airlines can justify adding a 4th fleet simply because the added fleet will still make them more money, operating a single fleet should also be made possible. You might have to lower your ticket prices significantly, but the penalty you would get from lower ticket prices could be offset by having to add a second or third fleet.

I'm all for competition and different ways of playing the game. The demand for low-price tickets on LH flights in smaller AC isn't the same, but there could very well still be a demand even when facing competition. But if that demand was different to the demand of "regular" seats, both could survive or both could at least compete, on slightly different terms and strategies.


Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2013, 08:43:29 PM »
It seems that none of these replies (criticizing OP for flying narrowbody a long distance, criticizing OP's tone as being "entitled," etc.) address the OP's actual point, which (if true) is a real bug that needs to be fixed. Specifically:

If the A318 was only getting 70% loads, the A320 (which is in the same size class and thus either both or neither will be subject to miniplane penalty) should be getting even lower loads (same number of seats sold / greater number of seats available).

If the demand system works the way sami has described it, there is no reason why switching from an A318 to an A320 should increase the number of paying passengers by 40-50 per day, when the A318 itself was not even flying at full capacity (so there was no overflow). So either the demand system explanation was incorrect, or the programming is not working as intended.

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2013, 02:47:11 AM »
I have quite several 100 pax demand trans-atl routes serving by A319, and they get all the demand, even at 10% premier price

Not sure why the OP's route didn't work


Offline Tias

  • Members
  • Posts: 60
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2013, 08:13:52 AM »
I started the route with A320 again. I want to replicate it again as it was to see if I get similar output. It may take a bit before I switch to A318 since RI is 0 atm. This is bit costly since I'm running a strictly on budget airline. I will also replicate the seat assigments (HD/STD), but I can't replicate the CV or CI. My CI was ~40 at that time.

Mr.HP is there any chance you can fly the same route with A320, A321 and A318? At least 2 weeks each.

What are the differences between A319 and A318 in terms of design and how far they should 'actually' fly? If same comparison is valid, otherwise invalid.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:11:02 AM by Tias »

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2013, 01:50:15 PM »
If A319 can fly with almost 100% LF, then no reason A320 and A321 won't get all the pax

I'll find a shorter routes to fit A318 range, and see how things happen

Btw, my other route to GYE, is 300 pax demand, 2500nm range and my A320 was suffering from low LF. So I think it's the demand that make my A320 suffer from mini-plane penalty

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2013, 05:45:50 AM »
Mr.HP is there any chance you can fly the same route with A320, A321 and A318? At least 2 weeks each.

What are the differences between A319 and A318 in terms of design and how far they should 'actually' fly? If same comparison is valid, otherwise invalid.

Don' have opportunities to test the 2500 ranges routes on A318 simply because I don't have any long range A318 variant

But found this route which resembles yours, and it is sold out at 10% premium price


Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Donkey route not working
« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2013, 11:12:18 AM »
When comparing, check (/post) also the demands of the routes as that is one part of the equations there.

 

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.