Routes with multiple legs

[Zabuti]

How about addressing some of the arguments against?
- 2000 airline HQd in ATL
- obsolescence of extra bases (as a result)
- lack of passenger connectivity (no AC supply met) resulting in no RL equivalent
- ompletely crazy routes  (Example: ORD-JFK-LAX-JFK-ORD)

Yeah... crazy...

But at the very beginning, I truly believed that and ABCA route was carrying passengers from A to BC. At B, passengers disembark and passengers returning to A embark. At C, passengers from A disembark and passengers returning to A embark. No passengers are just taking the BC route.

This is the case with Air Transat flight from Montreal to Cuba via Cancun. They do not offer the Cuba/Cancun route (adding the fact that it is one way only...), but YUL/CUN and YUL/HAV.

I believe we also have strong arguments against that, but I'm sure it would be worth it for smaller sized airports. Moreover, players would stop grumbling everytime they want to join a decent size airport and they can't grow from there because demand is too low on routes to be efficient.

Have a nice game all

[RibeiroR]

Well, crazy, multiple legs are common and made ​​around the world, which makes it possible and realistic, the problem is the ease of creating routes and money in the AWS, overcrowding of major airlines and large aircraft flying multiple SH routes (making profit)  
whatever... there are common routes of ABCBA, and even ABCDEDCBA routes, very dependent on the company, although there are treaties that cannot do multiple routes in several different countries*, at least to enable domestic flights would not be bad idea.

But at the very beginning, I truly believed that and ABCA route was carrying passengers from A to BC. At B, passengers disembark and passengers returning to A embark. At C, passengers from A disembark and passengers returning to A embark. No passengers are just taking the BC route.

This engine would be correct, but appears to be cumbersome to deploy, since it would demand that calculates the two routes being served in a single flight, A to BC, B To C, C To BA, B To A...
A To B = X
A To C = Y / Pax capacity aircraft / dual demand
demand also coming from B to C = Z

Aircraft flying A To B = X+Y Demand (based in all data to C route also...)
Flying B To C = Y+Z (considering landed pax), so... a 100 pax aircraft, carries 43 pax to B and 57 to C (full load), in this route A to B, 43 of 100 pax are show in graphics profits as 43% of LF but the other 57 pax leaves no overloads routes and no bankruptcy.
Well, depends on the route, many flights have almost the maximum load factor...  

[JumboShrimp]

This engine would be correct, but appears to be cumbersome to deploy, since it would demand that calculates the two routes being served in a single flight, A to BC, B To C, C To BA, B To A...
A To B = X
A To C = Y / Pax capacity aircraft / dual demand
demand also coming from B to C = Z

Aircraft flying A To B = X+Y Demand (based in all data to C route also...)
Flying B To C = Y+Z (considering landed pax), so... a 100 pax aircraft, carries 43 pax to B and 57 to C (full load), in this route A to B, 43 of 100 pax are show in graphics profits as 43% of LF but the other 57 pax leaves no overloads routes and no bankruptcy.
Well, depends on the route, many flights have almost the maximum load factor...  

Kind of shows how cumbersome it would be to glue it to the current version of AWS.  And when passenger connectiviy is implemented, it would be a piece of cake to add ABCBA to the system that has all the calculations in place....

Without really taking AC demand into consideration (as has been the case in AWS in the past), an airline from JFK could fly JFK-LAX-LGA-LAX-JFK, basically just stealing demand from LAX and LGA without paing the basing costs.  Of course, there is 0 demand between JFK and LGA, since they are some 10 miles appart...  A route like that would be just fine for a player based in JFK, since he does not care about AC demand in the first place, he cares about stealing BC demand, without paying the basing costs at B or C airports...

[RibeiroR]

Kind of shows how cumbersome it would be to glue it to the current version of AWS.  And when passenger connectiviy is implemented, it would be a piece of cake to add ABCBA to the system that has all the calculations in place....

Without really taking AC demand into consideration (as has been the case in AWS in the past), an airline from JFK could fly JFK-LAX-LGA-LAX-JFK, basically just stealing demand from LAX and LGA without paing the basing costs.  Of course, there is 0 demand between JFK and LGA, since they are some 10 miles appart...  A route like that would be just fine for a player based in JFK, since he does not care about AC demand in the first place, he cares about stealing BC demand, without paying the basing costs at B or C airports...

yeah, really... but JFK-LAX-LGA, A to C  "0" demand is a case to be considered, in this type of route is somewhat pointless, since LGA passengers can catch a flight at JFK, saving up those precious slots (more profitable to open a base when the airports are very close), so does the demand in this case would not put passengers from A to C since there is no demand, you could only accommodate the demand A to B and B to C, as before.

[Danilo .S.]

i dont understand about ABCBA routes are totally crazy in AWS oO
so, open a lot of bases and made a multiple legs routes, it would be a great chance to overload airports and slots  , an airline made a billion dollars under a year is a problem to fix, in real life isnt are deployed situation, i think about possibilites to made it playable, ABCBA routes and multiples bases without crowing everyall

[JumboShrimp]

yeah, really... but JFK-LAX-LGA, A to C  "0" demand is a case to be considered, in this type of route is somewhat pointless, since LGA passengers can catch a flight at JFK, saving up those precious slots (more profitable to open a base when the airports are very close)

Opening a base is never more profitable.  A large airline may have staff costs of $50 mil.  Opening a new base (at LGA for example) would cost the airline $15 to $20 million in additional staff costs.  Flying JFK-LAX-LGA-LAX-JFK lets an airlne at JFK access LGA-LAX demand for free.

, so does the demand in this case would not put passengers from A to C since there is no demand, you could only accommodate the demand A to B and B to C, as before.

Well, that what makes it unlike real life.  The justification for ABCBA routes is that there is some AC demand to fill.  In AWS, the main purpose would be to steal pax demand without paying the basing costs.

[JumboShrimp]

This engine would be correct, but appears to be cumbersome to deploy, since it would demand that calculates the two routes being served in a single flight, A to BC, B To C, C To BA, B To A...
A To B = X
A To C = Y / Pax capacity aircraft / dual demand
demand also coming from B to C = Z

Aircraft flying A To B = X+Y Demand (based in all data to C route also...)
Flying B To C = Y+Z (considering landed pax), so... a 100 pax aircraft, carries 43 pax to B and 57 to C (full load), in this route A to B, 43 of 100 pax are show in graphics profits as 43% of LF but the other 57 pax leaves no overloads routes and no bankruptcy.
Well, depends on the route, many flights have almost the maximum load factor...  

It is not just counting passengers, BTW.  A bigger issue is how to allocate the passengers.

First, there are ticket prices.  Suppose the default prices for nonstops are:
AB: $100
BC: $100
AC: $150

What should the price of AC be in an ABC route?  AB+BC= $200?  Nobody will fly.

[RibeiroR]

It is not just counting passengers, BTW.  A bigger issue is how to allocate the passengers.

First, there are ticket prices.  Suppose the default prices for nonstops are:
AB: $100
BC: $100
AC: $150

What should the price of AC be in an ABC route?  AB+BC= $200?  Nobody will fly.

Exactly, in real life AC route costs 65%~72% of sum total AB+BC route, so...
AB: $100
BC: $100
AC: $130~145 -> calculating percentual change
well, how to allocate the pax ?... very simple, in connecting flights, the airline should put seats available for the route specifies, in 100 pax capacity aircraft, are available 30%* to AC route.
This are a scheduling, isnt to possible change without replacing the route too, 30% are a assumption to avoid overbook

[DarkVenegance]

It is not just counting passengers, BTW.  A bigger issue is how to allocate the passengers.

As long as the goal is maximum revenue, it's not very hard actually.
Allocation quota here means "maximum amount of pax to be carried for either AB, BC or ABC" which would be plane capacity for maximum revenue or 70% percent or whatever for a more "humane" transport

Case 1: revenue/pax ABC > revenue/pax AB+BC

1. Allocate seats to ABC pax until either no pax are left or the allocation quota of ABC is reached.
2. Fill remaining seats with AB and BC pax.

Case 2: revenue/pax ABC < revenue/pax AB+BC

1. Allocate equal seats to AB and BC pax (i.e. seat amount is limited by the lower demand sector) up to the allocation quota of either AB or BC (whichever is lower).
2. If there are seats left open and revenue/pax ABC < revenue/pax higher demand sector (i.e. the one of AB/BC which still has unseated pax) do 2a, otherwise do 2b
2a. Allocate seats to higher demand sector pax up to the allocation quota for the sector. If space is left, fill up with ABC pax.
2b. Allocate seats to ABC pax up to the ABC allocation quota. If space is left, fill up with higher demand sector pax

Obviously, you'd never allocate more seats than present on a plane, which I didn't explicitly mention in each step.

[malus]

How about abcba only via base/nonbase/base and return..

Thats gotta be the way to do it. Like many other things in this game it could be open to abuse (ie: capacity dumping) but it would allow much more efficient use of aircraft

[Monk Xion]

Magic Carpet is the sole reason these are gone. 

We don't see him around much any more.

He'd have a billion dollar airline in under a year by doing the following:

1.  Base out of a major int'l hub
2.  Convert every airplane to F/C only.
3.  Fly them on multi leg flights (LHR-JFK-CDG-JFK-LHR)
4.  Lease/Buy EVERY and I mean EVERY long haul aircraft
4.  Be a multi billion dollar company in under a year.

but you gotta think all the changes did make it harder to make this type of airline BUT it also made it complicated to make a NORMAL airline