Wrong Passenger Demand?

[Branmuffin]

We can't define all those reasons and variables just like that, but they're definitely there. And again, they just cannot be coded.  And if they could, we would turn out with an airport system that is at least similar to, if not the same as the system we have now simply due to the way logistics are distributed throughout the world.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just curious - could you elaborate on this?  What exactly are these variables?  
I have a feeling that the random political element (which is present in real life, but often illogical) plays a large part in this discussion.  If this is the case, many of today's hubs may, in part, be products of politically-motivated decisions that are not necessarily in line with the logical, hard numbers that effectively drive player decisions in AWS.

As far as fixed variables are concerned, local population may be one, but then again... (and this is just an example), Atlanta is only the 40th most populous US city at 420,003 (2010 US Census) while Memphis is #20 at 646,889.  Yet somehow, KMEM only boards just 5.5 million passengers annually while its home city has a 154% larger population than that of KATL, which boards 42.2 million pax yearly (FAA CY2009 data).

[GEnx]

Again, you narrow it down to just city based demand. Here, you assume that airport growth is merely based on the people in the area that are willing to fly. Let's put it this way: Amsterdam Schiphol is one of the largest hubs on the planet, yet the entire population of the country of the Netherlands consists of about 16.5 million people. That's less than most large cities on earth. So there must be a different explanation for its current size, which is not because some huge airline uses it as its HQ (KLM isn't exactly the biggest airline out there), nor because it serves a large population.

It remains clear, therefore, that many other factors are involved here, most of which we're probably not able to define.

[Curse]

I still see your point, Nick. And you are right, today in the year 2011 space is extremely limited in Europe and the existing airports are well established. So AWS represents the situation in (which year is sami's data mostly? 2005?) this current era very well.

Again, all I written is only useful in games that will last long enough to establish an airport by a player himself or some airlines at a specific airport. It doesn't make sense to use such a model if the game world lasts 2000-2020 and the creation of another runway would start ~2008 and finished ~2011. This might be helpful for already big airports to make sure there are still slots available, but it isn't something one can count on if he wants to establish a fully new base.

In the 50s and 60s aviation was very small and many completely new airports were built since than and passengers use them. So in the long time scenarios, which sami said they will come (and I'm focussing mostly on that because they seem endless more interesting than scenarios without fleet replacement), you can form an airport. You have time to and passengers in the early days are willing to follow you, because it isn't established this way.

For sure we can count in all the things you said - but only some of them were already a point in the 50s and 60s. We often forget the world is more than the space limited Europe with it's small countrys and the well established US. I named already China, but there are also countrys like India or maybe even the Soviet Union where big chances are possible to make even ourdays. 

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Obviously theres more to it than the population of the city.  But more back to my point... On AWS information page under What is Airwaysim it states:

"The simulation includes over 2500 airports around the world and over 350 different aircraft models - all of them with accurate details and specifications."

All of them with accurate details and specifications, that is not entirely correct as we have already established, I know it looks like I'm being a bit of a jerk, but I want my couple hundred thousands passengers lol  

[Curse]

I read this as it is based on the last part of the sentence - the aircraft thing. 

[Branmuffin]

Again, you narrow it down to just city based demand. Here, you assume that airport growth is merely based on the people in the area that are willing to fly.

No, if you will re-read my post, I use the case of KATL/KMEM specifically to underline the fact that population is not necessarily the main driver behind hub selection by an airline.

It remains clear, therefore, that many other factors are involved here, most of which we're probably not able to define.

Again, I ask - what are these intangible factors?  I am genuinely interested, but you have yet to expound on this statement.  The only thing that comes to mind are political motives, which are not present in AWS, and thus would mean that hub distribution in the game would probably not be the same as in real life (which you assert in previous posts).

All of them with accurate details and specifications, that is not entirely correct as we have already established, I know it looks like I'm being a bit of a jerk, but I want my couple hundred thousands passengers lol 

I understand your frustration, but perhaps the precision & accuracy promised by that statement refers more to the technical specifications of the airports (runway lengths, average seasonal weather, distances from other airports, etc.) and not necessarily the statistical representations of passenger/cargo demand.

[GEnx]

No, if you will re-read my post, I use the case of KATL/KMEM specifically to underline the fact that population is not necessarily the main driver behind hub selection by an airline.

I see, I interpreted it in the wrong way, sorry.

Again, I ask - what are these intangible factors?  I am genuinely interested, but you have yet to expound on this statement.  The only thing that comes to mind are political motives, which are not present in AWS, and thus would mean that hub distribution in the game would probably not be the same as in real life (which you assert in previous posts).

Primarily the infinite amount of local exceptions. I named Groningen Eelde airport before - logistic systems, legal issues (noise, runway limits etc.) and population density, combined with political issues as you pointed out. Not to mention economic value of certain established airports, by which I mean that certain airports serve different economic aspects of regions, countries or even continents. There probably are many more factors such as employment rates, tax benefits, economic stability, political stability, maybe even geographical issues (Osaka Kansai comes to mind) and forces of nature (Sendai airport, for example).. Again, there are just so many variables that it is impossible to determine them all and take them into account at local levels.

[Sami]

All of them with accurate details and specifications, that is not entirely correct as we have already established, I know it looks like I'm being a bit of a jerk, but I want my couple hundred thousands passengers lol

Fine. There are 2500 airports (or more). Meaning that there are at least 6 million different route combinations. Now please find the 'true and 100% accurate demans' for all of these route-pairs.... Get what I'm after?

Once more: We are not going to even try to model all of the routes after real life. Within certain accuracy, yes. But not to the last straw.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Fine. There are 2500 airports (or more). Meaning that there is at least 6 million different route combinations. Now please find the 'true and 100% accurate demans' for all of these route-pairs....

Get what I'm after?

Once more: We are not going to even try to model the routes after real life. Within certain accuracy, yes. But not to the last straw.

LOL yes I understand that but when you say within certain accuracy LPL is within almost no accuracy... I've not gone through every single route but I'd say its around 300,000 Passengers short a year on some routes.

http://www.liverpoolairport.com/assets/_files/documents/sep_08/peel__1221147943_Summer_2008_Timetable_-_low_re.pdf

If you have a look at that link, it'd be impossible to serve those destinations with the AWS passenger demand as it is... Also have a look at the statistics on this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Airport

Each route is about 100,000 passengers missing in AWS... Im not sure whether this is a general problem with every airport or just LPL...I  understand you can't model each route absolutely perfect... but come on this is quite a big difference between RL and AWS

[Sami]

btw. Checked, and Liverpool-Malaga demand (ref. first post of this topic) is based on the very real and actual demand figures of that route (UK CAA). As well as Belfast. (or at least that is what's been marked to database)

The base year for all data is 2006 and it is scaled between years (future and past). So if actual demand in 2009 is something different, then it's because the economy system cannot predict the future and cannot predict and model the changes on economy status of individual airports or routes; and the travel index and factors are the same globally for all routes and airports.

Anyway, the current demand system will not be changed at all. Time will be focused on the research of the new system.

[Branmuffin]

I see, I interpreted it in the wrong way, sorry.

No worries

Again, there are just so many variables that it is impossible to determine them all and take them into account at local levels.

All good points; but I still submit that in some cases an airport truly is only massive primarily because of its airline hub status (thanks to all the connecting traffic that flows through it).  I suppose the big limitation we must recognize is that AWS doesn't understand connecting pax; route demand is only assumed to be O&D.  In this simulation environment it will never be possible to build hubs from the ground up until connections are somehow modeled within the game engine.

In a game like AWS you should be able to make every airport of a bigger city to something like Atlanta. The hub of your airline. A big hub. That growths - or growths not if you want to have a smaller airline.

Hopefully one day it will look like this 

[GEnx]

All good points; but I still submit that in some cases an airport truly is only massive primarily because of its airline hub status (thanks to all the connecting traffic that flows through it). 

Certainly, but like I said, if you want a model that differs from the real world which permits airports to grow to sizes like Atlanta, there are too many local exceptions to take into account. An airport can't just grow because the airline grows, it is bound to an incredible amount of variables.

I suppose the big limitation we must recognize is that AWS doesn't understand connecting pax; route demand is only assumed to be O&D.  In this simulation environment it will never be possible to build hubs from the ground up until connections are somehow modeled within the game engine.

Which is one of those variables, indeed.

[Curse]

All those variables could be ignored in a game like AWS.

Would the goverment of Groningen reject the offer the build the biggest international airport in the 50s? I don't know. But this is a game, so it doesn't care.

It's de facto not possible to model such things, because there is no data. There was never the idea to make every small airport a big one, so all these points can and must be ignored. But, again, Ryan Air shows us how even very small airports in the middle of nowhere can increase in demand and importance, even in 2011.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Ryan Air have a base in LPL.... increase passenger demand  plleeeaasee 

Ugh stupid CAA don't know how to make correct statistics, wikipedia is SOOO much more truthful

[Tiberius]

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/masterplan/Chap2-Forecasts.pdf