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 2880 times)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2014, 06:36:05 PM »
Hm... I have several flights without any problems between 0430 and 0455, but, again, even the 0335 flight is much better than the 0400 flight in this example while all other conditions are worse, too.


So the one is 0400 with perfect demand and no competition and 15% LF and the other is 0335 with extreme competition and oversupply and 50% LF.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2014, 09:37:58 PM »
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.


This is a thing that I feel is really important the longer I play the current Jet Age game. The loadfactors on some routes are extremely low and there is no sense in opening longhaul routes that have an average demand below ~150 at all. They are not going to make profit because you will just attract 50-70 pax.


I can understand such a limitation later in the game, but for example there is simply no aircraft in the game available that could reach Los Angeles to Frankfurt nonstop. So why do pax penalize the tech-stop flight?




Please, sami, consider turning the tech-stop penalty off in Jet Age era games and trigger it on as soon as long-range aircraft like the DC-10-30ER, L1011-500 or 767-200ER are released.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2016, 10:34:02 PM »
The effect of trip time should greatly outweigh the effect of tech stop.

Also, IMO, the only time tech stop should be used as a variable (with very strong influence) is when there are direct and tech stopped flights on the same route.  Otherwise, it should have no effect at all.

If the 10s of hours of difference in flight time between prop and jet makes no difference, than less than 1 hour of refueling stop should not such an overwhelming effect.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2016, 02:55:50 AM »
Executive summary:

Experiment to find out how much influence the speed of aircraft (duration of flight) matter in passenger allocation.

Conclusion:

No influence at all.

Details:

2 jet flights scheduled on route with only props.  Waited until RI equal at 100.

Average speed
Jet: 0.74
Prop: 0.463
Jet speed advantage: 59%

Seating:
Jet: standard
Prop: most likely some HD on DC-6
Advantage Jet

Average CI:
Jet: 75
Prop: 58.8
Advantage Jet.

RI: all 100

Pricing: unknown, assuming default.

Timing of flights: approx. the same

Flights:
Jet: 2
Prop 18
Jet%: 10%
Prop: 90%


Capacity per day
Jet: 196
Prop: 1745
Jet%: 11.2%
Prop: 88.8%


Passenger allocation:
Jet: 10.99%
Prop: 89.01%

(this is a snapshot, the range of my observations over time was 9.8% to 11.2% for the jet)

I have been observing this route for some time, results continued to be consistent over time.

The fact that the DC-6 takes extra 3h 20m (possibly in HD seat) and DC-7 takes extra 2h 25m made absolutely no difference as far as which flights the passengers are allocated.

GW1, LAX-HNL
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/KLAX/PHNL/?go=1
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 02:59:05 AM by JumboShrimp »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2016, 04:56:06 AM »
The way I would remedy this is taking weighted average speed of all flights:

2x Comet at.74
13x DC-6 at .45
5x DC-7 at .50

This weighted average is .4915

Now, comparing aircraft speed vs. average, I would take a factor by dividing the given aircraft speed  / weighted average.

Comet with speed of .74 Mach would have a factor of 1.50 - 50% boost in pax allocation
DC-6 with speed of 0.45 Mach would have a factor of 0.91 - small 9% penalry in pax allocation
DC-8 with speed of 0.50 Mach would have a factor of 1.02 - small 2% boost in pax allocation

similar factors should be developed for seating quality, factor being dependent on the type of seating and duration of flight.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3082

The person who likes this post:
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2016, 01:12:13 PM »
Seating quality is already addressed and I don't think the Mach numbers are a good way to determine how to sell tickets as its all comparative to the aggravation factor experienced by the passenger. For example, for modern era jets, there are variations in flight speed, but forba long haul flight, a 20-30 minute variance is all that would result, and that's immaterial for an 8 hour flight. However, if it is a prop versus a jet, then suddenly you have a 15 hour flight or an 8 hour flight - that's something passengers should care about. When you look at shorter flights, the difference is still not as bad from passenger's perspective and it should be treated accordingly.

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1394
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2016, 01:58:00 PM »
I fully agree with Schro, total time should matter, not speed. And you should add 2 hours or so(time to go to the airports and other things) before making variations.

Imagine Kansas City- Los Angeles, 1182NM
A320, time airborne, 3h15. Total travel time, 5h15 - 315 minutes
E145, time airborne, 3h25. Total travel time 5h25, 325 minutes - penalty 3% against the A320
Q400, time airborne 4h19. Total travel time 6h19 - 379 minutes - penalty 20% against the A320
A140, time airborne 5h18. Total travel time 7h18 - 438 minutes - penalty 39% against the A320

It's not a travel through the whole world. now imagine a much shorter flight : Kansas-City Des Moines. 143NM
A320, time airborne 0h29. Total travel time 149 minutes
E145, time airborne 0h31. Total travel time 151 minutes - penalty 1.3 % against the A320
Q400, time airborne 0h36. Total travel time 156 minutes - penalty 4.7% against the A320
A140, time airborne 0h40. Total travel time 160 minutes - penalty 7.4% against the A320

Maybe it's still too much, but it's clearly more realistic than a pure speed-based penalty. It makes the slow A140 completely unefficient on long routes, but still useful on very short routes.

Or maybe the penalty should be proportional to the TIME difference. 10% penalty per hour difference. On a very long flight, 15 hours against 8 hours would be deadly - 70% penalty. On a very short flight, it would not even be noticed. Between Kansas City and Des Moines, the A140 would have a 11/60*10% = 1,8% penalty. Peanuts. And it would fairly take in account the tech stops. A plane quick to refuel as the E170 would have less penalty linked to the tech stop than a IL62. A tech stop that costs 1 hour would always cost 10%.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2016, 02:43:16 PM »
Seating quality is already addressed

I don't think sufficiently, but agreed, the system does not totally ignore HD vs. Standard seating.  It however largely does ignore the premium seating.  The differences are barely perceptible.

and I don't think the Mach numbers are a good way to determine how to sell tickets as its all comparative to the aggravation factor experienced by the passenger. For example, for modern era jets, there are variations in flight speed, but forba long haul flight, a 20-30 minute variance is all that would result, and that's immaterial for an 8 hour flight.

Right.  I was just using the Mach to get the factors quickly.  Factors are easy to plug into formulas, by multiplying some results by it, when the factor centers around 1.  And the factors would account to just fine for very small variations of speeds of modern jets (that may result in 20-30 min travel time on a long trip.  they may result by small factors, say 1 +/- 0.03.  So, yes, largely immaterial, but they would work with generic formula that works across the board.

However, if it is a prop versus a jet, then suddenly you have a 15 hour flight or an 8 hour flight - that's something passengers should care about. When you look at shorter flights, the difference is still not as bad from passenger's perspective and it should be treated accordingly.

Right, and the system does not address these right now at all, and apparently, when the system does address it, it seems it does it with bunch of special cases (like is if prop in year x do a otherwise do b, if tech stop in year x, do c otherwise do d) instead of addressing the issue in generic fashion.  It seems that if something does not fit into some pre-determined conditions, it is ignored - such as this case, which calls for a generic approach.

In addition to the raw time of flight factor, this factor could be modified by another to take into account how big a deal the differences make, or how the passenger would perceive it.  If 5-10 min difference is barely perceptible, and 7 hour difference is nearly a show stopper, it calls for a factor that is an exponential function (based on total time traveled) where it sticks around 1 for a while, but then it takes off...

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994

The person who likes this post:
Re: JA era props versus jets on long haul
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2016, 03:13:47 PM »
I fully agree with Schro, total time should matter, not speed.

It was just a shortcut.  One is the function of the other.

Imagine Kansas City- Los Angeles, 1182NM
A320, time airborne, 3h15. Total travel time, 5h15 - 315 minutes
E145, time airborne, 3h25. Total travel time 5h25, 325 minutes - penalty 3% against the A320
Q400, time airborne 4h19. Total travel time 6h19 - 379 minutes - penalty 20% against the A320
A140, time airborne 5h18. Total travel time 7h18 - 438 minutes - penalty 39% against the A320

It's not a travel through the whole world. now imagine a much shorter flight : Kansas-City Des Moines. 143NM
A320, time airborne 0h29. Total travel time 149 minutes
E145, time airborne 0h31. Total travel time 151 minutes - penalty 1.3 % against the A320
Q400, time airborne 0h36. Total travel time 156 minutes - penalty 4.7% against the A320
A140, time airborne 0h40. Total travel time 160 minutes - penalty 7.4% against the A320

I agree.  I mentioned above that the speed difference could be modified by a factor exponential function to account how big a deal it is.

But the big deal here is that it centers around 1.  Meaning there is a proportional boost to one airline to offset the penalty to another airline.

In my example, DC-7 is much slower than Comet, it is faster than DC-6, and it is faster than average (dominated by DC-6), so it would still get some boost in pax allocation.

If everybody is doing the same thing (flying roughly same speed prop, everybody flies same speed jet, everybody tech stops) - no difference.

Only when the differences exist, there would be boosts and penalties to the passenger allocation.

My first post showed that differences are ignored (currently).  The 2nd post is about one possible way to make the differences significant.  I am not saying it is the one and only way to do it.  The main point is that the differences should not be ignored.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 05:35:48 PM by JumboShrimp »

 

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.