I thought the frequency had been tweaked?

[JumboShrimp]

well, you can do a "fine tuning" or you can try to find a complete new solution that solves everything...

True, but (I believe) the next big change will involve dealing with the demand system (if sami follows through with the City Based Demand ideas).  So a completely new solution would need to be incorporated into that...  That is why I mentioned only fine tuning of the current system...

[NorgeFly]

There is no need to have a 737 flying every 30 minutes to X from Y going 300nm... then imagine 3 airlines doing the exact same thing all going after 100% of demand.  NO airport in their right mind would allow that.  They live off of pax fees... and they don't collect unless there are ppl on board.

Why not? I n real life, just like in AWS frequency is hugely important on some short haul routes. Take a look at some real airline schedules and you will discover that this practice is common. Some of the more extreme examples off the top of my head:

• Milan Linate to Rome on Alitalia, 20+ times per day with as little as 15 minutes between some flights
• Barcelona to Madrid on Iberia, 15-20 times per day with as little as 30 minutes between some flights
• Oslo to Bergen on SAS and Norwegian, 30+ times per day combined
• New York LGA to Washington DCA on US Airways, hourly flight from 6am to 9pm

...and there plenty more of examples of routes with frequencies between 5-15 times per day:

• LHR-MAN/EDI/GLA
• MAN-BHD
• LCY-AMS
• LGA-ORD

The fact is that on some important business routes, business men/women expect that they can turn up at the airport at any time of day and not have to wait more than and hour or so for the next flight to their destination. In these case the airline that offers the best schedule wins the business.

However, in AWS I'd like to see price, CI and RI have much more influence on market share rather than frequency alone.

[swiftus27]

Why not? I n real life, just like in AWS frequency is hugely important on some short haul routes. Take a look at some real airline schedules and you will discover that this practice is common. Some of the more extreme examples off the top of my head:

• Milan Linate to Rome on Alitalia, 20+ times per day with as little as 15 minutes between some flights
• Barcelona to Madrid on Iberia, 15-20 times per day with as little as 30 minutes between some flights
• Oslo to Bergen on SAS and Norwegian, 30+ times per day combined
• New York LGA to Washington DCA on US Airways, hourly flight from 6am to 9pm

...and there plenty more of examples of routes with frequencies between 5-15 times per day:

• LHR-MAN/EDI/GLA
• MAN-BHD
• LCY-AMS
• LGA-ORD

The fact is that on some important business routes, business men/women expect that they can turn up at the airport at any time of day and not have to wait more than and hour or so for the next flight to their destination. In these case the airline that offers the best schedule wins the business.

However, in AWS I'd like to see price, CI and RI have much more influence on market share rather than frequency alone.

GREAT, ONE AIRLINE DOES IT.  JUST ONE AIRLINE.  NOT 3.  MEANING THREE SEPARATE AIRLINES. THERE ARE NOT 3 SEPARATE AIRLINES RUNNING 100% OF DEMAND EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES BETWEEN TWO DESTINATIONS.  THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS BASICALLY ONE PLANE EVERY FIVE MINUTES FLYING FROM A TO B.  NO, THERE IS NOWHERE IN REAL LIFE THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR DOES HAPPEN.  I AM SORRY IF I CANT GET MY POINT ACROSS.

[schro]

GREAT, ONE AIRLINE DOES IT.  JUST ONE AIRLINE.  NOT 3.  MEANING THREE SEPARATE AIRLINES. THERE ARE NOT 3 SEPARATE AIRLINES RUNNING 100% OF DEMAND EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES BETWEEN TWO DESTINATIONS.  THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS BASICALLY ONE PLANE EVERY FIVE MINUTES FLYING FROM A TO B.  NO, THERE IS NOWHERE IN REAL LIFE THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR DOES HAPPEN.  I AM SORRY IF I CANT GET MY POINT ACROSS.

It does happen, but it doesn't always last.

A few examples -

JetBlue, AirTran and Southwest were running BWI-BOS for a while, each at about 5x daily. This rationalized a bit since the merger of WN and FL.

Virgin Australia, United, Delta and Qantas were flying at least daily 77W, 744, 77L and 744 respectively on LAX-SYD (with V-Aus and Delta adding service within a month or two of each other). This will rationalize once the V-Aus/Delta anti-trust pact is approved.

LAX-SFO has a half dozen airlines running hourly service each...

[ukatlantic]

The less than 2500nm would need further subdivision.  There are many short-haul routes in Europe which justify more than three flights per day; Dublin - LHR, LHR-CDG, MAN-LHR to name but three off the top of my head.  Probably also the case in the US and Far East as well (not played there).

I get the feeling that some players only want to see people operating 777 or larger on long haul, and do not want anyone with a different ideal to get in their way.  Even IRL, CRJs / A32x / B737 operate into major hubs for connectivity.  Live with it.  I'm not in MT5, but in DotM2 there are still plenty of slots even at the largest airports with the current frequency set up.  Much of the comment on here seems to centre around the why do we have small planes / airports in the game as they don't use them.  Some of us prefer to run a more varied set-up than wide bodies on long haul, and the game is more interesting for it.

MD

Your getting the wrong end of the stick, I have no issue with people serving with CRJ or Q400s to major airports, it happens. What I disagree with is when you have 1500 pax a day on a route and you have some idiot fulfilling demand with ATR or Q400 Aircraft and the frequency is maybe 15+ flights a day each way -which is not realistic at all. They are winning the pax war on frequency alone against a competitor who has realisitically gone for the sensible option of using A320/757 aircraft.

Its no different on a route such as say LHR to JFK - a 757? Really?! Most operators would operate at minimum 767 but more than likely it would be 747/777 or equivalent airbus aircraft on a route which such high potential demand, but in AWS although SAMI has tweaked the frequency, I feel that it has maybe only been tweaked ever so slightly as Frequency is still winning hands down, it's just not realistic and whilst this frequency issue remains it means some players who have a lot of time on their hands can and will continue to go down serving routes with small aircraft to win on the frequency card whilst also holding a high number of potential slots to use later in the game for larger aircraft when slots are all but taken. It also causes other problems in that as slots decrease the costs increases for every slot you buy because of the players insiting on using smaller aircraft and gathering larger quantities of slots so eveyone else is in a position where they are paying morethen they would possibly be if frequency wasnt such a massive winning factor on routes (I await  to be corrected on the slots costs)

[elvis141]

Why not? I n real life, just like in AWS frequency is hugely important on some short haul routes. Take a look at some real airline schedules and you will discover that this practice is common. Some of the more extreme examples off the top of my head:

• Milan Linate to Rome on Alitalia, 20+ times per day with as little as 15 minutes between some flights
• Barcelona to Madrid on Iberia, 15-20 times per day with as little as 30 minutes between some flights
• Oslo to Bergen on SAS and Norwegian, 30+ times per day combined
• New York LGA to Washington DCA on US Airways, hourly flight from 6am to 9pm

...and there plenty more of examples of routes with frequencies between 5-15 times per day:

• LHR-MAN/EDI/GLA
• MAN-BHD
• LCY-AMS
• LGA-ORD

The fact is that on some important business routes, business men/women expect that they can turn up at the airport at any time of day and not have to wait more than and hour or so for the next flight to their destination. In these case the airline that offers the best schedule wins the business.

However, in AWS I'd like to see price, CI and RI have much more influence on market share rather than frequency alone.

Thank you Norgfly for putting that on the table so can have a stop of the bashing of frequency which is apart of real aviation.

[Dave4468]

Thank you Norgfly for putting that on the table so can have a stop of the bashing of frequency which is apart of real aviation.

Well not really, its proved how outlandish it is in AWS. For example;

LGA - Washington DC real life - US Airways, hourly between 6am and 9pm
LGA - Washington DC "AWS" - United, US Airways and American Airlines all flying hourly.

[elvis141]

This is GAME that should be simulation of real life. and by saying that you can't fly more then let say 5 tims aday. That would be a step away from realaty.

[swiftus27]

This is GAME that should be simulation of real life. and by saying that you can't fly more then let say 5 tims aday. That would be a step away from realaty.

Sure, if you are flying 5x to local airports.
No, if you are referring to flying 5 times daily to a destination 3000 nm away

There were only 136 753s ever made.  This should explain enough.

[Dave4468]

This is GAME that should be simulation of real life. and by saying that you can't fly more then let say 5 tims aday. That would be a step away from realaty.

No-one is complaining about flying 5 or more times a day. People are complaining that if you are flying 3x B737 on a route you will be decimated by someone flying 6x ATRs despite them being smaller, louder and slower than the B737.

[MidlandDeltic]

There may be 8 per day TOTAL but not 3 airlines all doing the same thing with A320/737

Re-read the post - BA are providing 8, BMI 7 - a total of 15/day, all A319 or larger.

MD

[NorgeFly]

GREAT, ONE AIRLINE DOES IT.  JUST ONE AIRLINE.  NOT 3.  MEANING THREE SEPARATE AIRLINES. THERE ARE NOT 3 SEPARATE AIRLINES RUNNING 100% OF DEMAND EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES BETWEEN TWO DESTINATIONS.  THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS BASICALLY ONE PLANE EVERY FIVE MINUTES FLYING FROM A TO B.  NO, THERE IS NOWHERE IN REAL LIFE THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR DOES HAPPEN.  I AM SORRY IF I CANT GET MY POINT ACROSS.

Firstly, please don't shout...

Secondly, it does often happen in real life that several airlines fight it out in one market resulting in vast over supply in capacity in frequency. The difference is in real life, airline CEO's are dealing with real money and shareholders so if a route does not perform well enough, it is pulled. In AWS there is a huge lack of business thinking in players approaches. May people want to have 100% of every route from their hub purely for the prestige which is clearly impossible, yet they continue to pour money down the drain.

[MidlandDeltic]

No-one is complaining about flying 5 or more times a day. People are complaining that if you are flying 3x B737 on a route you will be decimated by someone flying 6x ATRs despite them being smaller, louder and slower than the B737.

But frequency sells through convenience.  To look at another mode your username infers you may be familiar with; rail services have become more frequent but with smaller trains, as the customer perceives the benefits of higher frequency.  In an air scenario, for short haul routes with a high level of business travel, this frequency can demand a price premium through the sale of flexible fares.

The only way I see round this issue (in AWS) is to move to slot rental, rather than slot purchase.  That way, you succeed in forcing out small aircraft and high frequency at major airports.  Whether this improves the game is a moot point - I would suggest not, as it will result in the "me too" 777/747/A380 carriers monopolising the main arports and no incentive to look at different ways of doing business, and denying smaller carriers access to the major markets.  IRL, it would also lead to rapidly rising rail use

MD

[Dave4468]

But frequency sells through convenience.  To look at another mode your username infers you may be familiar with; rail services have become more frequent but with smaller trains, as the customer perceives the benefits of higher frequency.  In an air scenario, for short haul routes with a high level of business travel, this frequency can demand a price premium through the sale of flexible fares.

But, going by your username we can continue the rail analogy. Would you rather a service on the railways with a more frequent service of Class 142s or a less frequent service of HSTs? AWS at the moment is like people opting to travel on a 142 for 2 hours when they could travel on an HST for 1 1/2hrs, which is idiotic.

The only way I see round this issue (in AWS) is to move to slot rental, rather than slot purchase.  That way, you succeed in forcing out small aircraft and high frequency at major airports.  Whether this improves the game is a moot point - I would suggest not, as it will result in the "me too" 777/747/A380 carriers monopolising the main arports and no incentive to look at different ways of doing business, and denying smaller carriers access to the major markets.  IRL, it would also lead to rapidly rising rail use

Terrible idea. I direct you back to my point of fixing a different problem to the one that needs fixing. That sort of thing will turn AWS into a long haul simulator. It will kill airlines with each aircraft flying multiple routes every day.

[MidlandDeltic]

But, going by your username we can continue the rail analogy. Would you rather a service on the railways with a more frequent service of Class 142s or a less frequent service of HSTs? AWS at the moment is like people opting to travel on a 142 for 2 hours when they could travel on an HST for 1 1/2hrs, which is idiotic.

A 142, maybe not;  but that is not what I was inferring.  I was thinking more of hourly Norwich - Manchester  as opposed to three trains a day - type of stock doesn't really come in to it.  I stress that I am talking short haul.  IRL, I don't think the jet v turboprop argument per se is an issue otherwise Flybe would not still be buying Q400s.

Terrible idea. I direct you back to my point of fixing a different problem to the one that needs fixing. That sort of thing will turn AWS into a long haul simulator. It will kill airlines with each aircraft flying multiple routes every day.

You note I didn't say it was a good idea!  However, if the desire is to limit frequency on short haul, it is the easiest way to do it.  Others do appear to want AWS to become a long haul simulator, as I alluded earlier with people wanting small aircraft and airports removed from the game as stated in other threads.

IRL, you follow the business model which suits the market you are in.  If the market demands hourly flights, you operate them (a) while it is economic to do so, and (b) with aircraft of an appropriate capacity to fulfill demand.  If the market is less concerned about frequency (and there is a correlation with distance on this), then larger aircraft at lower frequencies will serve.  On short haul / domestic routes, frequency will almost always trump aircraft type (all other things being equal).  A carrier trying to operate two 757s a day LHR - MAN would get slaughtered unless they offered VERY low fares.  The problem in AWS here is that price has very little effect on load factors.

The AWS world is imperfect in many respects, but airlines should (and do) adapt their business model to the world in which they operate - just like real life!

MD

[LemonButt]

In my opinion, the naysayers on frequency are looking at the entire business model of airlines wrong.  In the world of lean business practices and process improvement, you decrease costs and increase customer satisfaction by shattering the old school paradigms you are discussing.

Conventional engineering practices are focused on batch and queue production.  For example, if you are building a soap manufacturing plant, conventional plant design would tell us that we can save time and money by using a batch process where 5,000 gallon batches of soap are made before being molded into bars.  The problem is there is a lot of waiting (waste) until that 5,000 gallon batch of soap is ready and if the soap batch is defective, you have to throw the whole thing away and you've got 0 bars of soap in the end.

Likewise, if you are flying a route with 800pax demand and have 1x daily A380 flying the route, you're using batch and queue methods to serve passengers.  If that A380 has a technical issue, if there is bad weather, or a million other reasons--that flight gets cancelled and you have 800pax who aren't being served and likely the return flight is cancelled as well.

This is where all the old paradigms get shattered.  Instead of batch and queue production where you make 5,000 gallons of soap at a time, what would happen if you mixed up just enough soap to make 1 bar and repeated that process ad infinitum?  Sounds absolutely crazy, doesn't it?  If 5,000 gallons of soap makes 50,000 bars, it should cost much much more to mix 50,000 batches of 1 bar versus 1 batch of 50,000 bars, right?  The answer is no.  By mixing 1 bar at a time, you are reducing waste (time spent waiting) and increasing the number of opportunities, and in turn, reducing the number of defects (waste) per million opportunities (DPMO).  If we are mixing 1 bar of soap at a time and the ratio of ingredients is off, we can throw away 1 bar of soap instead of 50,000.  This type of processing is called "just in time" versus "batch and queue".

In applying just in time processing to the airline business model, airlines fly 10x daily with 80 seaters instead of 1x daily with A380.  By flying 10x daily, the time wasted by pax in waiting is reduced by being able to catch planes on their schedule or having reduced layover times.  As a result, reduced waiting time is a value-added feature of frequency and thus pax are willing to pay a premium to reduce waste (their time).  Furthermore, if there is a technical issue or bad weather for a flight, there are still 9 other flights that day, which means the 10x daily airline will have less DPMO versus the 1x daily A380 airline.  In the real world, the 10x daily airline will have higher levels of customer satisfaction and more pax transported through frequency, which is a value-added feature pax are willing to pay for (conveinence).

The argument for batch and queue versus just in time is the one that you always hear--the European airports are slot constrained.  This may be true, but the fact is frequency still reigns supreme for all of the reasons I outlined.  Just because there aren't enough slots at LHR to run hourly service to CDG in real life doesn't mean running hourly flights in AWS should be penalized.  If we truly want to reduce the "insane" frequencies of some airlines, the solution would be to open the flood gates so airports remain slot constrained.  We should have 1000+ players in each game with 10+ airlines able to base at any/all airports, just like the real world.  I can guarantee you when airports like LHR get slot constrained due to 20 airlines being based there, you'll see frequencies drop dramatically and airlines resorting to the big birds like the A380.

This all goes back to the Boeing/Airbus back and forth.  The A380 is designed for batch and queue flights on dense routes with slot constraints.  The 787 is designed for just in time flights on less dense routes without slot constraints.

Furthermore, once city-based demand is modelled with connecting passengers, it's not going to matter if 3 airlines are taking off at the same time for the same destination.  Tickets are usually sold on a single airline due to the conveinence (value-added) of not having to connect with another airline where you have to check in twice, check your bags twice, etc (non-value added).

In the end, frequency is and should always be king.

[alexgv1]

So to summarise your post LB: frequency adds reliability to service as well as convenience?

[ukatlantic]

Well frequency in this game is totally unrealistic as it still wins the pax, the tweak SAMi did is clearly not enough!  I may as well dump my 747-400D's and use A319s on routes because put quite simply another airline has used smaller A300's to supply a 5000 pax a day route and has flights departing within 5 15 and 20 minutes of each other in some cases and is still dominating the load factor stakes. So to sumarise frequency factor still continues to win the game for players.

[ukatlantic]

A 142, maybe not;  but that is not what I was inferring.  I was thinking more of hourly Norwich - Manchester  as opposed to three trains a day - type of stock doesn't really come in to it.  I stress that I am talking short haul.  IRL, I don't think the jet v turboprop argument per se is an issue otherwise Flybe would not still be buying Q400s.

IRL, you follow the business model which suits the market you are in.  If the market demands hourly flights, you operate them (a) while it is economic to do so, and (b) with aircraft of an appropriate capacity to fulfill demand.  If the market is less concerned about frequency (and there is a correlation with distance on this), then larger aircraft at lower frequencies will serve.  On short haul / domestic routes, frequency will almost always trump aircraft type (all other things being equal).  A carrier trying to operate two 757s a day LHR - MAN would get slaughtered unless they offered VERY low fares.  The problem in AWS here is that price has very little effect on load factors.

The AWS world is imperfect in many respects, but airlines should (and do) adapt their business model to the world in which they operate - just like real life!

MD

Flybe continue to use Q400's because they are extremely fuel efficient, provide almost jetlike speed and have extremely quick turnaround times, they also mainly use them on low thin routes or to airports where anything bigger cannot be used example Guernsey; additionally they can fly with almost no pax (approx 30% fill) and will break even on costs sothat in turn ensure Flybe do not make a loss - that is why they continue to use them!

[JumboShrimp]

But frequency sells through convenience.  To look at another mode your username infers you may be familiar with; rail services have become more frequent but with smaller trains, as the customer perceives the benefits of higher frequency.  In an air scenario, for short haul routes with a high level of business travel, this frequency can demand a price premium through the sale of flexible fares.

The only way I see round this issue (in AWS) is to move to slot rental, rather than slot purchase.  That way, you succeed in forcing out small aircraft and high frequency at major airports.  Whether this improves the game is a moot point - I would suggest not, as it will result in the "me too" 777/747/A380 carriers monopolising the main arports and no incentive to look at different ways of doing business, and denying smaller carriers access to the major markets.  IRL, it would also lead to rapidly rising rail use

MD

I have been advocating slot rental fees for long time.  Sami does not like them because there is no equivalent in RL.  So I would just camouflage the slot rental as landing fee (constant, regardless of the size of the aircraft).

1.3, with the large increase of slot purchase fees makes the high frequency more costly to set up, slowing down the airline, but eventually, the upfront slot fees are recouped...