Multi-Segment flights

[COUGAR]

Can we possibly include the ability to schedule A-B-C-B-A with seat nos allocated for each segment?

For eg a flight scheduled A-B-C with a Boeing 737-200 (119 seats)
A-B -> 80 seats
A-C -> 40 seats
B-C -> 80 seats

and so on. The aircraft returns to base each time.

The route allocation will count towards sector capacity and not the aircraft capacity. So if i have allocated 80 seats and i do a capacity check on the route it should show 80 not 119.

We used to do this kind of round-robin scheduling all the time at our airline and this feature would add more realism to the "game".

[jewiden]

Try searching. Been asked for and discussed numerous times over the years.

[Jps]

Try searching. Been asked for and discussed numerous times over the years.

He's not actually requesting for A-B-C-B-A routes, but that when flying from A to B to C and back, we could also choose to take aboard passengers from A to C, without the need to fly direct from A to C.
This would be very helpful on smaller routes, when you could combine for example two 20 pax routes into one, getting a total of 40 pax. It wasn't uncommon few decades ago to fly routes like that, and some do it even today.

[jewiden]

I know what he asked, and I also know that it's been suggested before.

[COUGAR]

+1 to Jps.

i tried searching for any previous notes on this but failed to find it. What was the verdict then?

[Jps]

I know what he asked, and I also know that it's been suggested before.

I apologize for misunderstanding your post.

However, while there are many topics about transfer pax in general, I haven't found any related to how individual pax or planes should be handled. So, yes, this topic could be included in the transfer pax thread, but then it could be hard to again find all the different features belonging to that category if you had to scroll through all the posts instead of reading the topic headlines...

[ACDennison]

It sounds like an interesting way to do things, but I have to admit I'd rather see  many of the smaller fixes/improvements discussed lately in favour to what would probably be quite a complex addition.

[Jps]

It sounds like an interesting way to do things, but I have to admit I'd rather see  many of the smaller fixes/improvements discussed lately in favour to what would probably be quite a complex addition.

Agreed, and that will probably happen as well, but it's still good to post every new feature we can think of so that when that section of the game is updated, the feature requests are already posted and discussed about.

[JumboShrimp]

It sounds like an interesting way to do things, but I have to admit I'd rather see  many of the smaller fixes/improvements discussed lately in favour to what would probably be quite a complex addition.

I would like to see passenger transfer implemented, so that when you have a base A, and you are flying to B and C, passengers from B to C can go via A.

And rather than having multi-segmented flights, I would prefer more flexibility in basing (without the HUGE overhad based on the size of your HQ).  Basically, ability to have baby-sized bases.

Ryan Air has a bunch of baby-sized bases....

[alexgv1]

Basically, ability to have baby-sized bases.

Yeah more often than not I'd like to have lots of small bases with up to 10 aircraft based there than 4 bases with up to 70 aircraft, especially for LCCs.

[ACDennison]

Yeah more often than not I'd like to have lots of small bases with up to 10 aircraft based there than 4 bases with up to 70 aircraft, especially for LCCs.

Wouldn't that offer a big advantage to more established players? As it is, new players can at least try to find a niche, if all the bigger carriers branched out a lot that would be harder to do - your 'baby' 10 a/c operation is my whole airline! 

Just a thought though, not saying it is a bad idea, but I've seen too many games slowly die out from changes made that are backed by experianced players (and even make good sense), but which hurt the new players needed to sustain a game.

[alexgv1]

Wouldn't that offer a big advantage to more established players? As it is, new players can at least try to find a niche, if all the bigger carriers branched out a lot that would be harder to do - your 'baby' 10 a/c operation is my whole airline! 

Just a thought though, not saying it is a bad idea, but I've seen too many games slowly die out from changes made that are backed by experianced players (and even make good sense), but which hurt the new players needed to sustain a game.

I see what you're saying, but if I was to use this strategy, I would use lots of medium bases with ~50% demand, as I am currently doing in DOTM. But I will never fill these bases with 70a /c and as it stands I am limited to 4 of them. Whereas the big players will be too busy focusing on filling up their large bases up to 70 a/c to be able open lots of other ones. Or at least thats what I would imagine.

[Sami]

ABC routes will most likely return in v.1.3; but only if it's allowed in real life in that area. In other words any domestic sector, or intra-EU after the cabotage was allowed (special cases like Singapore Airlines SIN-MXP-BCN etc.etc. will NOT be coded; see 'rules of air' topic).

[ksliu9]

ABC routes will most likely return in v.1.3; but only if it's allowed in real life in that area. In other words any domestic sector, or intra-EU after the cabotage was allowed (special cases like Singapore Airlines SIN-MXP-BCN etc.etc. will NOT be coded; see 'rules of air' topic).

This is the wonderful news!!! I am waiting for this news since the beginning of v1.2 which blocks the ABC routes.

How about this one:

Case 1: A China-based airline, is it allowed to have PEK-PVG-SYD (the first sector is domestic while the second sector is international)? In the reality, it is allowed.

Case 2: Or how about ABC routes for three difference countries / region? Say,
HKG-BKK-SIN  (one of the current CX routes), will it be allowed? In the reality, this sector (involve 3 different countries/region) is also allowed, while the sector in a different country to the based airline (e.g. Australia-based airline operate PEK-PVG-SYD) is not allowed.


Thanks Sami! 

[Tujue]

Case 2: Or how about ABC routes for three difference countries / region? Say,
HKG-BKK-SIN  (one of the current CX routes), will it be allowed? In the reality, this sector (involve 3 different countries/region) is also allowed, while the sector in a different country to the based airline (e.g. Australia-based airline operate PEK-PVG-SYD) is not allowed.

Please re-read sami's comment:

ABC routes will most likely return in v.1.3; but only if it's allowed in real life in that area. In other words any domestic sector, or intra-EU after the cabotage was allowed (special cases like Singapore Airlines SIN-MXP-BCN etc.etc. will NOT be coded; see 'rules of air' topic).

[lunchbox]

Can we possibly include the ability to schedule A-B-C-B-A with seat nos allocated for each segment?

For eg a flight scheduled A-B-C with a Boeing 737-200 (119 seats)
A-B -> 80 seats
A-C -> 40 seats
B-C -> 80 seats

and so on. The aircraft returns to base each time.

The route allocation will count towards sector capacity and not the aircraft capacity. So if i have allocated 80 seats and i do a capacity check on the route it should show 80 not 119.

We used to do this kind of round-robin scheduling all the time at our airline and this feature would add more realism to the "game".

Not to wake up a really old thread, but this type of scheduling is used quite a bit by mainly LCC's, but also mainline carriers

Southwest for example have many flights like that: HOU-DEN-LAS

[alexgv1]

Southwest for example have many flights like that: HOU-DEN-LAS

Yeah I've heard them do A-B-C-D-E under one flight number before, not all pax going A-E because it's usually out of the way routing but many options like B-D or D-E, etc.

Not sure if they do the return stopping at the same cities or not.

[COUGAR]

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?

[Aoitsuki]

only real benefit you will see is in states(and a small handul of country), then in return we should add a penality bonus for the first leg to destroy it

[Frederik]

Let me again express my support to the (re)introduction of W flights - these are not only realistic (Ryanair, Easyjet and others operate many) but would be very useful in the game.

If limitation there must be the basing limitation suggested would be OK

I would also like to be able to operate and aircraft between two of my bases (A & B) and a third airport (C). This would allow an aircraft type not present in base B to operate a B to C flight.