South American airports incorrect paxs amount

[Aireos]

Hi:

I see that paxs amount of airports, how example, Bogotá El Dorado (BOG) is incorrect. Is, after the two Sao Paulo airports the third which moves more passengers in South America (and not only now, since its opening in 1958 has been highlighted as one of the airports with more movement in the region. Before 1958 the main aiport of BOG was "Aeropuerto de Techo", demolished in the 50's).

I see wrong airports such as EZE (Buenos Aires), have a greater demand that GRU, CGH and BOG !!!, these airports transported from 30 to 50% more passengers than EZE (GRU in real life in percetaje transports more than 100% of paxs than EZE).

Therefore I find that the demand for BOG should be increased, so the same demand for EZE is incorrect, I think that is necesary to move to 55%-60% and not the actual 76%, is too high for an airport that handle 7.500.000 paxs per year aprox (For example, in 2007 BOG handled 9.000.000 and is expected that this year reach 11-12.000.000 paxs per year. GRU handled in 2007 aprox. 17.000.000. This airports ir real life has a high demand than EZE, but in AirwaySim world has lower paxs demand)

Greetings...

[Aireos]

Sami, did you seen this thread?

I haven't been able to develop my airline so successful (Almavair), because route demands are too low!.

For example, BOG-JFK in AirwaySim only has a demand of 30 passengers per day!. (historically in the 70's and 80's Avianca operated this route 2x daily with 707-320B and 727-200).

This happens to me in most of the routes that I operate, have a very low demand, a opposite situation from the real life.

There are few routes that have an occupancy of more than 60%, or a demand for more than 30 passengers a day. AirwaySim is a little FAR to to recreate the real South American aeronautic commercial market, the same happened with my airline in the first beta, i was a "big" airline, but with a low income, that with payments dissapeared. (I couldn't raise the price of my routes even having a 100 points image, because the occupancy dropped to dramaticaly levels,).

From what I've found if you don't have an airline based in GRU or CGH you will be resigned to an occupation of less than 60-65%, and in very few routes more than 75-80%, something quite different to the reality where the average loadfactor is between 70-85%, today and 40-50 years ago. To keep up with a good average loadfactor and a "moderate" income I will have to conform with no more than 15-20 planes (no new), and flying in only 6 or 7 routes.

Greetings...

[toyotaboy95]

I agree with this guy. It's so unfair, the US has 400+ airports while China only has 74 (out of the hundreds that haven't been added)??
You should hire some volunteers to add/edit airport information in a timely manner. It affects the whole competitive environment.