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: JA era props versus jets on long haul  (Read 2878 times)

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3068
JA era props versus jets on long haul
« on: August 08, 2013, 07:41:02 PM »
I have been struggling a bit trying to figure out whether this observation is a bug or this is something that is by design, but either way, it doesn't quite seem right. I've discussed this observation with a number of other players who are all observing the same thing within this game world and also agree that it doesn't seem to be right.

In short, this observation is coming from routes that I have setup as techstops with my DC6's to over long haul out of both KDAL and KSFO on routes that are 4000-6000nm with one tech stop. Many of the routes have demand right around 100 pax/day, which is a decent fit for the DC6.   In general, with discounted pricing on the DC6, CI around 80 and RI at 100, sales tend to be in the 30-40 seats per day. This appears to be somewhat reasonable due to 1. the tech stop and 2. the trip time being about 2 days round trip.

When upgrading these frames to 707s (or other jets), with the same variables, but a total round trip time running about HALF of the prop, we're still only selling 30-40 seats per day.  When a jet competes with a prop on such a route, each appears to sell the same number of seats.

Overall, it seems to me that the speed bonus is not working at all on long haul flights (bug) AND the tech stop penalty is a bit extreme in the JA era where no plane has a functional range over ~3000nm thus a techstop is more of the expectation rather than the exception.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2013, 07:46:19 PM »
Same experience. Pax don't seem to care about prop vs. jet speed, even on longhaul, and so when I switch from props to jets, it hurts my profits because I get about the same total number of pax (even vs. a prop competitor) and pay much higher fuel costs.

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2013, 08:53:26 PM »
Wasn't this already known ??

According to EsquireFlyer Concorde experiment thread, he managed to get only 30% bonus speed on his tickets on Y and 10% on C...


If we compare its speeds, concorde has even more advantage over subsonic 2.0 to 0.8, than 707 over DC6s 0.8 to 0.45, so we are looking for <30% bonus here


If we apply the 30% to the 30 DC6 pax, you won't get more than 40 pax with the 707... (which's what you are getting)...




Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3068
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2013, 09:51:56 PM »
Wasn't this already known ??

According to EsquireFlyer Concorde experiment thread, he managed to get only 30% bonus speed on his tickets on Y and 10% on C...


If we compare its speeds, concorde has even more advantage over subsonic 2.0 to 0.8, than 707 over DC6s 0.8 to 0.45, so we are looking for <30% bonus here


If we apply the 30% to the 30 DC6 pax, you won't get more than 40 pax with the 707... (which's what you are getting)...

I haven't spent much time reviewing his experiment thread. However, could you tell me whether the flights in his experiment were nonstop or tech stopped? Also, what year did they happen in?

Overall, if it is the early 1960's and a passenger has the option to go from SFO-Asia for the SAME price with the SAME techstop in Cold Bay Alaska, how many would chose the 24 hour ONE way transit time compared to the 13 hour transit time?

If you extrapolate that from 707 to Concorde, you're talking 13 hour transit time versus 6.5 hour transit time... not nearly as big of a time difference to the point you're getting into diminishing marginal returns on speed....

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2013, 11:39:04 PM »
Overall, if it is the early 1960's and a passenger has the option to go from SFO-Asia for the SAME price with the SAME techstop in Cold Bay Alaska, how many would chose the 24 hour ONE way transit time compared to the 13 hour transit time?

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm with you on that... I also think that jets quieter, higher and more comfortable operation should be a decisive factor in this era...


I'm just trying to understand the math behind the pax bonuses or penalties, and I always taught speed bonus was marginal (when provided competition)...


That concorde numbers were from JA, from LHR-JFK nonstop, but of course Esquire can explain it much more better than me (there's always a chance I misunderstood his findings)

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2013, 03:15:35 AM »
Ezzeqiel's report is generally correct (the markup was higher that what he said on JFK-LHR in particular; but his 10%~30% figure was accurate for most other markets). Including both techstop and nonstop routes.

However, on Concorde I was using HD seating which should have a negative effect, so in theory, I should have been able to charge a higher premium using standard seating (i.e. the seating penalty cancels out some of the speed bonus). So the speed bonus should be more than the 10%~30%. Personally I suspect that the seating penalty actually doesn't work properly (when I test premium seats, I get even worse loads than using standard seats for example) but that is a separate issue altogether.

While I did see a speed bonus for Concorde vs. subsonic jet, I have yet to see any speed bonus for subsonic jet vs. prop. A jet player and a prop player usually seem to split the route exactly 50/50 when running one frequency each, and IMO that is just wrong.

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3068
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2013, 10:46:50 AM »
Ezzeqiel's report is generally correct (the markup was higher that what he said on JFK-LHR in particular; but his 10%~30% figure was accurate for most other markets). Including both techstop and nonstop routes.

I would also content that JFK-LHR and any other ultra high demand route would mask the effects of this observation. If the result of the techstop and speed reduced potential tickets sold to 60% of demand, well, if you're only supplying 10% of demand, you're going to get a full bus every time. However, in cases where your one flight per day meets the full demand, that's when you realize there's not a speed bonus assigned.

The other quandary that has surfaced in discussions is... which should a pax prefer? A techstopped jet or a non stop prop, when the total transit time of the techstopping jet is lower than that of a nonstop prop. As it stands now, they'd prefer the prop, and I'm not convinced that's the right answer either...

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2013, 10:53:13 AM »
The other quandary that has surfaced in discussions is... which should a pax prefer? A techstopped jet or a non stop prop, when the total transit time of the techstopping jet is lower than that of a nonstop prop. As it stands now, they'd prefer the prop, and I'm not convinced that's the right answer either...

Primarily they are looking for the overall time, not "speed". Each stop/landing also decreases their interest. Aircraft comfort factor has an effect but it is small.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2013, 10:50:17 PM »
Primarily they are looking for the overall time, not "speed". Each stop/landing also decreases their interest. Aircraft comfort factor has an effect but it is small.

So basically the bug is that the pax are not looking at overall time either.
On every route that I have with competition against a prop, when I change from prop to jet, the ratio of market share stays the same (50/50, or 33/66 if I have only one frequency, etc.), with no additional market share being captured by me, even though I now have a faster plane and kept the same pricing against the same competition.

And since jets burn more fuel, changing to jets is actually counterproductive.

Maybe in addition to a "plane to small" warning there should be a "plane too slow" warning which is based on distance, with standards that become gradually more strict as technology/date advances? Realistically, pax may not care about flying a slow prop plane 300 nm, but when they are going 3,000 nm, they should care.

And like "plane too small," the penalty can be made to kick in only when a competitor is serving the route with appropriate equipment. That would completely change the dynamics of Jet Age and avoid having people fly DC6Bs and Bristol Britannias into the 1990s or whenever sound bans come into effect. (And actually, these prop plaes are probably not that noisy compared to turbojets, although the props did not obtain formal noise certifications because they were out of use already by then.)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 10:53:56 PM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2013, 02:35:58 AM »
See the pics below. In the first one, one airline running jet and two airlines running props, each gets 1/3 of the demand.

In the second picture, passengers actually dramatically prefer a non-stop prop operated only 4 days a week to a tech-stopped (but still many hours faster) jet operated 7 days a week. Such a big preference that the 4x weekly prop can actually take more market share in just 4 flights than the jet gets in 7 flights.

Add in the much higher fuel consumption of jets, and you have a big jet penalty, and there is no reason to change from props to jets at all.


Offline Tube

  • Members
  • Posts: 102
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2013, 03:27:24 PM »
Primarily they are looking for the overall time, not "speed". Each stop/landing also decreases their interest. Aircraft comfort factor has an effect but it is small.

Interesting, but this is not what I was seeing in my limited testing I did. I flew both L749's and 707's on the same routes from SFO - Asia and SFO - Europe (demand was high enough to justify 2 flights a day, 1x 707 and 1x L749). Both  L749 and 707 were flying the exact same route with 1 tech-stop each (same airfield). I ended up with a similar number of transported passengers on the L749's compare to what I was seeing on the 707's. This resulted in a much lower load factor for the 707's (as the 707 was much bigger). The 707's even had a premium layout (Business and First) which apparently didn't make a difference for the passengers to choose this above the standard Business and First layout on the L749's.

If passengers would be looking at overall time I would have expected the actual number of passengers (not percentage) to be higher on the 707's compare to the L749 (as the flight was way shorter on the 707's). This was not what was happening. Fuel and additional leasing cost made the 707's actually lose money while the L749's on the same route was making money. On other routes I was competing with DC-6B's and here the introduction of 707's didn't work in my favor either. Actual transported passengers stayed the same (although larger aircraft) and due to fuel/leasing costs my profits went significantly down.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2014, 07:29:59 PM »
I have a similar problem in the current Jet Age. Some of the routes I fly with techstop have the load factors I expect and some have way to low load factors:

King Airways, GW#4

RI 100 for several month, CI 90

No competition, no oversupply

http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/50474/

http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/50475/

Most comperable routes don't have this problem.

There's _no_ reason why I don't have 100% Economy LF and 50-75% Business LF as well as a First Class pax every now and then. Other routes work better, for example: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/38575/



This is cleary a problem, because obvisously there is demand and obviously people have no other choice than using my offer. It's also a fair offer, no rip off and the best that could be done in this timeframe. There's simply no nonstop aircraft available that could do it better.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2014, 07:46:17 PM »
For what it's worth, I had a similar problem in the 1990s in GW2.  I had two flights, one was Paris to Melbourne (about 9000nm) and the other was Paris to Auckland (about 10000nm).  I was flying it with an A310-300 with a tech stop--no competition, 90 CI, 100 RI.  No aircraft in the game could fly a 9000+nm route, so it was tech stop or no flights at all.  Both routes had 300+ demand and I had 200 seats.  Interestingly enough, the Melbourne flight was full and I couldn't break 50-60% load factors to Auckland for some reason.  I suspect this is the same issue.

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3068
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2014, 08:33:03 PM »
For what it's worth, I had a similar problem in the 1990s in GW2.  I had two flights, one was Paris to Melbourne (about 9000nm) and the other was Paris to Auckland (about 10000nm).  I was flying it with an A310-300 with a tech stop--no competition, 90 CI, 100 RI.  No aircraft in the game could fly a 9000+nm route, so it was tech stop or no flights at all.  Both routes had 300+ demand and I had 200 seats.  Interestingly enough, the Melbourne flight was full and I couldn't break 50-60% load factors to Auckland for some reason.  I suspect this is the same issue.

That could be different - there is a limitation on the amount of time that a flight can take before the nerf cannons fly out per this thread - http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,44469.0.html

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2014, 09:07:08 PM »
The routes with "problems" I linked above are ~500nm shorter than another route that has 80%-100% load factors.

The 80-100% LF route is, of course, bigger, but also under heavy competition pressure. It is also longer than 26 hours (in a Constellation!) compared to the 21 hours to the "problem" route.



EDIT:
Maybe a solution would be a mechanism that disables (!) tech-stop penalty in Jet Age era completely and then only kicks in if there is an aircraft type available on the market that could reach a destination without tech-stop.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 09:10:29 PM by CUR$E »

BD

  • Former member
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2014, 03:22:45 AM »
As a cross reference for additional related detail:

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,45058.0.html

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2014, 02:49:51 PM »
Gameworld #4, King Airways

I have another route with this or a similar bug:

http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/38794/

The first leg is bugged (12% LF), the second leg is still low but much better.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2014, 05:44:39 PM »
I have another route with this or a similar bug:
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/38794/

Not a bug, very poor departure time.


http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/50475/

Most likely cause= Return flight is on a different day (saturday) than outbound flight, and return flight's demand is smaller.


(and what you've also missed is that currently having a techstop does create a negative effect on the flight, and it's not very linear (like the plane size's factor on longer flights is, ref previous link to feature rq. So it's not a bug, and also not related to this topic which is on entirely different matter)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 05:51:45 PM by sami »

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2014, 05:47:58 PM »
Since when is 4 o'clock very poor? And why do other 4 o'clock flights have much better times? As far as it was in the past 5-23 are perfect, 23-0 and 4-5 are decent, 0-4 is bad?

And why does my competitor has much higher load factors on tech-stop flights departing between 0000 and 0400, so even worse than I have?


Example for a better 4 o'clock flight:
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/33833/

The demand on this route is also heavy oversupplied while the other route was heavily undersupplied (I had to put it on Comet 3 in the meantime, the route is still underserved).

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2014, 06:01:41 PM »
Since when is 4 o'clock very poor? And why do other 4 o'clock flights have much better times? As far as it was in the past 5-23 are perfect, 23-0 and 4-5 are decent, 0-4 is bad?

And why does my competitor has much higher load factors on tech-stop flights departing between 0000 and 0400, so even worse than I have?


Example for a better 4 o'clock flight:
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/33833/

The demand on this route is also heavy oversupplied while the other route was heavily undersupplied (I had to put it on Comet 3 in the meantime, the route is still underserved).

0400-0459 is very bad.  based on a quick check of my routes in GW4 it appears to be equivalent in badness to 0000-0059.  2300-2359 is significantly better than either of them, though still appears to have a substantial penalty.  I want to say that 0100-0359 is worse than 0000-0059 and 0400-0459 but it's been awhile since I've stuck a flight in there so I might be wrong on that and 0000-0459 might be all equally terrible. 0500-0559 appears to get a slight penalty, and then 0600-2259 would be the perfect range.

I think it used to be as you outlined but iirc that change occurred several years ago at this point.

 

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.