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: W-routings  (Read 1383 times)

Offline COUGAR

  • Members
  • Posts: 14

The person who likes this post:
W-routings
« on: May 08, 2015, 04:10:38 AM »
I know this was allowed back when AWS was new. Allowed for some smart scheduling! For some reason it was done away with!

How about reintroducing this feature in future with some riders - that is the starting and end point should both be HUBS for the airline.

So something like LHR-CDG-MAN-CDG-LHR should be allowed provided both MAN and LHR are hubs for the airline.

Thoughts?


Offline Teadaze

  • Members
  • Posts: 777
Re: W-routings
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2015, 06:40:58 AM »
doesn't make sense(unless you are a frequent flyer or someone who is after points....)

Offline Frederik

  • Members
  • Posts: 162
Re: W-routings
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2015, 02:08:05 PM »
yes please!

Let's not forget that this game is not only in the USA in 2015 but also in Africa and in 1950!

This feature is a must
Swiss quality all over the world

Offline COUGAR

  • Members
  • Posts: 14
Re: W-routings
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2015, 07:53:08 AM »
@Aoitsuki - The 2 segments will be separate flights.

so LHR-CDG-MAN-CDG-LHR will be 2 separate flights with diff nos.

LHR-CDG-LHR and MAN-CDG-MAN

Offline BOEING717

  • Members
  • Posts: 1783
Re: W-routings
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2015, 05:29:13 PM »
I too miss being able to schedule flights with a stop. I think it is to keep things simple, in the real airline world A/C RON at out stations and the same A/C is not flying the same routing everyday giving more flying time. Would be tough for many of us to schedule though.

Offline [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 603
Re: W-routings
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2015, 07:43:18 AM »
I will make sense in places like Africa indeed! but i don't see this implemented in other area's.

Maybe when the other point is a registered hub it might work but otherwise would spoil the game too much in my opinion

Offline Frederik

  • Members
  • Posts: 162
Re: W-routings
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2015, 06:37:49 PM »
Maybe I am missing a point but I do not understand how the implementation of W and/or triangular routes could spoil the game. Could you elaborate please?
Swiss quality all over the world

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: W-routings
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2015, 07:16:39 PM »
I will make sense in places like Africa indeed! but i don't see this implemented in other area's.

Maybe when the other point is a registered hub it might work but otherwise would spoil the game too much in my opinion

ABCBA flights are needed even for the big sexy countries.  For example, if you have hubs in Lyon, France and Nice, France there is long haul international demand, but it's difficult to serve it completely with 7 day scheduling.  However, if A and C can be Lyon and Nice respectively, it makes it much easier to fill up the schedule and flying widebodies becomes economical.  This is even more useful/needed now that you can have more bases.  France has other good examples of this when you throw in places like Tahiti, St Maarten, and Reunion. 

Once upon a time, there were no bases--you picked a single airport and were stuck with it, but you could fly ABCBA routes.  This was "abused" by making C the same airport for every flight and players would have a defacto second base at no additional cost.  I had epic airline once upon a time based out of Atlanta where every route was ABCBA and the C airport was ORD.  Add the fact you could use flying carpets (I had hundreds of Dash-8's in an all C/F config) and you could crush it.  Flying carpets are now gone, but the ABCBA routes disappeared after the implementation of bases to prevent players from creating "free" bases.  I believe it was also eliminated to prevent players from having over 100 aircraft at non-home bases since your home base is uncapped, but since the rules have since changed I'm not too sure why ABCBA routes wouldn't be added back in with the caveat that C is an existing base.  The only way to game the system otherwise is to avoid the increased commonality costs for aircraft at your non-home base.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: W-routings
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2015, 08:03:50 PM »
So something like LHR-CDG-MAN-CDG-LHR should be allowed provided both MAN and LHR are hubs for the airline.

Why not just schedule it as 2 separate flights, if both are your bases?  I really don't see the point in making things complicated, for no benefit at all.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: W-routings
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2015, 08:08:18 PM »
Maybe I am missing a point but I do not understand how the implementation of W and/or triangular routes could spoil the game. Could you elaborate please?

Generally, people want to pick up pax from an airport without paying the cost of having a base at the airport.  So let's say, you don't have a base at ATL, and want to fly MIA-ATL-LAX-ATL-MIA.

Sami made the bases very flexible, very easy to open, size based on demand, so just open the base, and pay the cost.

Offline COUGAR

  • Members
  • Posts: 14

The person who likes this post:
Re: W-routings
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2015, 11:55:13 AM »
Yes.

But the way I suggested doesnt allow users to scedule W-routings unless they have a base in both the end points!

for Eg: MAN-CDG-LHR-CDG-MAN should be allowed only if user already has bases both in MAN and LHR.

Allows for efficient scheduling.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: W-routings
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2015, 07:01:17 PM »
Yes.

But the way I suggested doesnt allow users to scedule W-routings unless they have a base in both the end points!

for Eg: MAN-CDG-LHR-CDG-MAN should be allowed only if user already has bases both in MAN and LHR.

Allows for efficient scheduling.

I don't quite see the efficiency.  You have (effectively):
MAN-CDG
CDG-LHR

If you have 2 out of these 3 bases, you can set these up as 2 separate flights.

Edit: or just CDG
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 07:12:25 PM by JumboShrimp »

Offline Frederik

  • Members
  • Posts: 162
Re: W-routings
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2015, 11:05:20 PM »
can be if use if an aircraft type is only present in one of the two bases and as a matter of schedule optimisation. much less interesting than a real W route but still worth having.
Swiss quality all over the world

Offline EYguy

  • Members
  • Posts: 563
Re: W-routings
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2015, 09:16:45 PM »
I know that Lufthansa is shutting down its base at DUS and the wide-bodies a/c based there will be redeployed to either FRA or MUC and operated to/from DUS with a "W" scheduling, like MUC-JFK-DUS-JFK-MUC in order to operate the a/c from a "bare bones" base at DUS without actually basing the a/c there.

Offline KEMKid

  • Members
  • Posts: 151
Re: W-routings
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2015, 01:26:20 AM »
It would certainly help in Africa. Face it: most African countries don't make sense for HQs under the current rules.

Offline Seven

  • Members
  • Posts: 913

The person who likes this post:
Re: W-routings
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2015, 10:43:15 AM »
Well,you can have 10 bases now,then if you add the W-routes will be spoil the longer games as if you are not entered the game in the first few years then there is practically no more change to grow a medium cq large airline infor  example Europe or Usa,as routes will have more seats available then demand.


L

Offline Captim

  • Members
  • Posts: 1324
Re: W-routings
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2015, 03:39:15 PM »
Having the option for a mini hub might be a solution here.

A very limited option compared to a main hub, say 20 aircraft max. This would of course contribute towards the max a/c limit outside your HQ, but critically it would not incur the fleet commonality penalty.

Or, perhaps a 5% hit...


Offline 11Air

  • Members
  • Posts: 433
Re: W-routings
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2016, 06:34:32 PM »
I suppose the working answer is to have a hub (Reykavick for example) but that doesn't allow your flights to attract the through traffic from Europe to USA.  I don't like not being able to do three or four stop routes but it does mean I get less competition on leaner routes from airlines looking to keep their aircraft occupied.
Sami is right to keep it to simple routes with no passengers lost or gained at re-fuelling stops.
Europe to Australia is the big exception, maybe, where real world lose and gain passengers at stop-overs. Perhaps a 20% limit on non-all-the-way passengers joining or leaving the flight.  More work for Sami so lets hope it's on the to-do-list somewhere.
Certainly the early days transatlantic flights were operating this way until long range jets bridged the pond.  How about a 1930's start date? with Flying boats and bi-plane airliners.

 

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.