City based demand

[forsberc]

Dynamic city based demand + connecting pax = ftw

Agreed, but I think we are missing vital and somewhat easy step as well. I am not entire sure if we have discussed including "fantasy" events? I haven't been following the thread for the last couple of months, though I just caught up on this last page.

What if we make the game worlds into a more alternative reality? For example, a war breaks out between 2 previous friendly countries with high pax demand between eachother, thus eliminating demand for those routes. I think there could a canned amount of events that could happen randomly throughout the 30 years of the world. This would change the game from mimicking real routes into a game that could be dynamic enough to provide significant challenges for older, less flexible airlines.

To modify Curse's quote...

Dynamic city based demand + connecting pax + dynamic events= ftw


Some possible events include:
-High Speed Rail opens in California, connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco- LAX-SFO pax demand in half.
-A Tsunami hits a country, drastically affecting flights in the affect region.
-The Vietnam War never happens, or happens at a random time.
-World Economy changes, thus passenger demand goes up and down significantly in a few short months (e.g. our current recession)
-European Union initiation date is random, or potentially nonexistent.
-Any country or region could have a major oil discovery, dramatically improving their economies and passenger demands, along with decreasing the fuel price.
-With any war, there could be an associated rise in fuel prices.
-A Country may gain its independence randomly, if at all.
-Diseases, natural disasters, volcanic eruptions, etc.. The list goes on.

I think you get my point. These could happen once every 10 years, or 2 with in a few months- it would be completely random. I don't mean to include ridiculous, unrealistic events; but having these events affect the game world's alternative reality would drastically improve the excitement and challenge of the game. For some events, (like building the HS rail in California) an announcement could be posted saying that construction has begun on the project and it is expected to be finished in the late part of 1999. This would give airlines notice and they could then adjust to the coming changes. Other events could be completely sudden and unexpected- natural disasters for example.

It would all be random, thus making the game quite dynamic and exciting. And because you couldn't necessarily anticipate things happening, it would be harder to plan farther out into the future. These events would also improve the gameplay for old, established airlines because they could have hard times adjusting to these events, leaving "holes" for new startups or simply bankrupting them completely.

What do you think?


EDIT: I forgot to say fantastic work to Sami and everyone else. This concept sounds like it is quickly becoming more than a concept and I am quite excited to see it in action!

[LemonButt]

I think the only missing piece actually is "airport-based demand" where slots expand based on actual utilization.  Considering city based demand, the passenger demand for Chicago O'Hare and Chicago Midway should be the same, but O'Hare has 4x the slots.  Same goes with LAX, Burbank, Ontario, and Long Beach airports in California.  San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose should have the same demand, but San Francisco I'm guessing will magically get all the international traffic.  Toronto has a similar problem.

So the question is, should smaller airports like Chicago Midway be able to grow to Chicago O'Hare size?  Also, since it's city based demand, if there is a 500pax demand to fly from Chicago to New York and you schedule a flight from Midway to JFK, does that mean the airlines at O'Hare will be a direct competitor on the ORD-JFK route or will there in essence be 1000pax demand from Chicago to New York?

All of this is starting to make my head hurt...

[forsberc]

I think the only missing piece actually is "airport-based demand" where slots expand based on actual utilization.  Considering city based demand, the passenger demand for Chicago O'Hare and Chicago Midway should be the same, but O'Hare has 4x the slots.  Same goes with LAX, Burbank, Ontario, and Long Beach airports in California.  San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose should have the same demand, but San Francisco I'm guessing will magically get all the international traffic.  Toronto has a similar problem.

So the question is, should smaller airports like Chicago Midway be able to grow to Chicago O'Hare size?  Also, since it's city based demand, if there is a 500pax demand to fly from Chicago to New York and you schedule a flight from Midway to JFK, does that mean the airlines at O'Hare will be a direct competitor on the ORD-JFK route or will there in essence be 1000pax demand from Chicago to New York?

All of this is starting to make my head hurt...

The main issue with most of the airports you just mentioned is they simply don't have space to expand. Secondly, they shouldn't have the SAME demand. Because these airports (and passengers) are separated geographically, someone in the southern california, say Long Beach, would want to fly from the closest airports before commuting somewhere else, assuming all other factors are the same (ticket price, route selection, frequency, speed, etc.). Long Beach area residents would want flights in this order:  1. LGB, 2. SNA, 3. LAX, 4. ONT, 5. BUR, 6. SAN, 7. Every other airport would be different as well. It sounds like the grid system will solve these problems.

If we were to change airport size drastically, then that also have the possibility to significantly change population densities in the affected grids and may prove to be a bigger problem than benefit. However, these airports could see a small increase (2+ slots per hour)/ year instead of 1 slot per hour normally- with a certain slot ceiling (10-50, depending on the airport size (small to large). AND, if an airport ISNT being used, I think slots should decrease to a certain "slot floor" (~5 per hour) because the airport management is down sizing to match necessary demand.

[ArcherII]

I would like to add that airport initial facilities shouldn't be ignored.
If a comparable ATB game is opened in the new demand system version, the current airport facilities will restrict the type of airplanes capable of operating in it. For example, if a man who lives in Tokio wants to go to the Los Angeles area, according to the city based demand he can chose at which airport he wants to arrive in LA. But Ontario, or Burbank or any other airport in tha area except LAX don't have the facilities required to receive, say, a B77W. So, there's no other choice than the big LAX, thus making it the most popular international airport in the area.
Sure Ontario could expand (I don't know if it's actually able, don't know the place) in order to be a good international choice. But is impossible to build a big airport overnight, let alone the money needed.
So, in a ATB or MT game, LAX would still be the only Southern California gateaway.   

[BobTheCactus]

I would like to add that airport initial facilities shouldn't be ignored.
If a comparable ATB game is opened in the new demand system version, the current airport facilities will restrict the type of airplanes capable of operating in it. For example, if a man who lives in Tokio wants to go to the Los Angeles area, according to the city based demand he can chose at which airport he wants to arrive in LA. But Ontario, or Burbank or any other airport in tha area except LAX don't have the facilities required to receive, say, a B77W. So, there's no other choice than the big LAX, thus making it the most popular international airport in the area.
Sure Ontario could expand (I don't know if it's actually able, don't know the place) in order to be a good international choice. But is impossible to build a big airport overnight, let alone the money needed.
So, in a ATB or MT game, LAX would still be the only Southern California gateaway.   

Hmm, I don't now if I agree with you - now that we are moving to games that span "The Early Days" to "Modern Times", I think that airports should all start out relatively similar and "build new runways" and "build new terminals", etc. to add slots as service increases.

[ArcherII]

Is it confirmed that that's the way it's gonna be? If so, great!
Nevertheless, the date of airport openings could drive to their greatness or littleness in the game IMHO. Such is the case of Love Field and DFW. If we start at middle 50s and KDAL is the only available airport in Dallas (alongside the former fort Worth one), by 1975 Love Field could be a 6 runway multi-terminal domestic hub ala DFW, and DFW would be opened already as a state of the art airport maybe without the planned business case.
KDAL couldn't expand I think due to lack of space, and surely is hard to implement that kind of code in-game.
Anyway, I'm all for the correlative game worlds!

[Curse]

Hmm, I don't now if I agree with you - now that we are moving to games that span "The Early Days" to "Modern Times", I think that airports should all start out relatively similar and "build new runways" and "build new terminals", etc. to add slots as service increases.

Yep, that would be nice and I requested this earlier, but I think in this topic it has also relevance.

There should be a hard coded maximum expansion for some airports that were
a) restricted in expension even in 1950
b) that are not this important a goverment would do nearly everything to extend this airport
c) the airport is planned as a business airport (Toronto City Centre, London City for example)

If the aviation industries would have developed in another way, it could be possible that Frankfurt for example has in the year 2011 already five or six runways.

So, unlimited expansion for most airports and limits (that could be published) for some others and growth depends on disappearance of slots.

[forsberc]

I think Curse said it quite well. We can call the limits "Local Laws" or something along those lines as that could provide an umbrella for every city and country in the game.

+1

[samomuransky]

What about airports in other country than city? For example, Bratislava is mainly served by Vienna airport - is there any chance passengers from BTS would use VIE airport even though it's in another country?

[alexgv1]

What about airports in other country than city? For example, Bratislava is mainly served by Vienna airport - is there any chance passengers from BTS would use VIE airport even though it's in another country?

Yes if it's in that airport's "catchment zone" I think it should do.

[Curse]

between those cities sami could establish a fictive railway or bus transport system and makes available a defined percentage of demand, for example 80% of people at Bratislava would fly via Vienna or 30% Vienna people would fly via Bratislava. In my dreams this could also be dynamic, so if a huge airline is at Bratislava, maybe 90% out of Vienna would use this and only 10% of people would fly out of Vienna.

[samomuransky]

Yes, I understand that, I just hope borders won't be problem On the other hand, Vienna shouldn't serve Bratislava prior to 1989 (at least for flights to wester hemisphere)...

[alexgv1]

Well the world will be divided up into squares/rectangles to calculate demand so hopefully this means that the national borders will not mean so much.

[JumboShrimp]

between those cities sami could establish a fictive railway or bus transport system and makes available a defined percentage of demand, for example 80% of people at Bratislava would fly via Vienna or 30% Vienna people would fly via Bratislava. In my dreams this could also be dynamic, so if a huge airline is at Bratislava, maybe 90% out of Vienna would use this and only 10% of people would fly out of Vienna.

I think the key will be (or should be) from which airport will the passengers be able to get to his desired destination easier.  Suppose the destination of the passenger is Oslo, and there is a direct flight from Bratislava (BTS) to Oslo, while there is not one from Vienna (VIE), the passenger would more likely chose to fly from BTS.

As far as catchment area, I guess at some point in the game, there may be some airport enhancements such as rails - to potentially increase the catchment area, that is proably way down the road.  It would probably be easiest to start with a constant catchment area around all airports.

With the system Sami is envisioning (the squares etc), it may turn out that VIE and BTS airports and cities will end up in one square and be handled as one big demand square that happens to have 2 airports...  No different than, say LGA and JFK in New York City.

As far as national borders, I hope it will not end up being a show stopper for the entire project.  I would he happy enough ignoring national borders (for the purpose of demand squares) in first iterations.  It could be fine tuned later on in subsequent revisions....

[forsberc]

As far as national borders, I hope it will not end up being a show stopper for the entire project.  I would he happy enough ignoring national borders (for the purpose of demand squares) in first iterations.  It could be fine tuned later on in subsequent revisions....

Agreed.

[Sami]

- Each airport will have a catchment zone based on airport size (and other factors?).

- Each country would (if possible) have preferences if people of neighbouring countries are allowed to travel cross-border to another airport (in catchment zone) and fly from there. This models both geographical constraints like sea and also political boundaries.


ie. people from Estonia don't really take the boat and travel 3 hrs to Helsinki airport, although the distance between two cities is less than 100 km and Tallinn region would definitely be in Helsinki's Intl Airport catchment zone if looking only the distance. And people from East Germany cannot travel cross border to West in 1985 to fly from there.

This requires, yet again, quite a bit of manual work in setting all the country relations, but I feel is a must for it to work properly.

For catchment zone; in reality it is determined by the time required to reach the airport. Longer time, the less people are willing to go to that airport. But since we cannot model areas with poor infra (like deserts, mountains etc) that increase the ground travel time, the catchment zone will be just a fixed sized radius around the airport. Added with the things above.

[Wing Commander Chad Studdington]

What happens where there are going to be a handful of big airports together where I assume their catchments will cross?

Gatwick and Heathrow for example. Will pax prefer Heathrow? New York presents the same question.

[Sami]

I would guess that pax do not prefer any airport; or preference is built by the airport infrastructure size class (= larger = better services?). But basically it should be dictated by the airlines servicing the airports. Pax will pick the most suitable service regardless of airport.

As if I have two airports to choose from, with both being roughly the same distance from my house, and both have flights to same destination I am not choosing the flight by the airport but by the airline service, price, etc.

[Curse]

I would guess that pax do not prefer any airport; or preference is built by the airport infrastructure size class (= larger = better services?).

While smaller airports have shorter taxi times and shorter ways from arriving to the taxi. I think pax should not prefer an airport or maybe it could be some random value (10% of people in NYC prefer JFK, 5% Newark, 5% LaGuardia), but this might be too detailed and unnecessary for most places of the world.

As if I have two airports to choose from, with both being roughly the same distance from my house, and both have flights to same destination I am not choosing the flight by the airport but by the airline service, price, etc.

As long as AWS is an airline simulation and not an airport simulation, I'm fully on your side. Airport is airport for absolutely most pax.

[JumboShrimp]

I would guess that pax do not prefer any airport; or preference is built by the airport infrastructure size class (= larger = better services?). But basically it should be dictated by the airlines servicing the airports. Pax will pick the most suitable service regardless of airport.

As if I have two airports to choose from, with both being roughly the same distance from my house, and both have flights to same destination I am not choosing the flight by the airport but by the airline service, price, etc.

I completely agree.  Pax should not have airport preference - with only variable dictating some preference would be distance from the airport.  As far as distance, I am not sure how you can model that.  You can consider the demand of a square to be at the center of gravity of the squre (I mean rectangle).  And you have the exact location of all the airports already.  So that should really be the distance...

Primary preference should be the "quality" of the flight.  By quality, I mean everything that makes a flight more desirable than other.