Connecting Traffic?

[CLR2LND7L]

Does the game account for connecting traffic?   Would developing a regional feed benefit traffic to larger markets via hub connections?

[CX717]

not yet.

[thedr2]

I think part of the problem with that is it makes big airlines even more powerful and makes it harder for the little guys.

Have to see what Sami thinks though.

[CX717]

not really
more player will willing to run a "small" airlines if there is connecting pax.
they can form a partnership(not alliance,kinda like subsidiary) with the "big" airlines,and feed their route,while the big one feed yours.
I usually not operate the route that less than 50 pax per day,I'm busy enough to manage my existed network.That left some space for the small airlines to run.
Once connecting pax available,it will brought airwaysim realism to a higher level!

[RonWelty]

I wake up this morning thinking: WE NEED SUBSIDIARIES. I need to create regional airlines to my BIG DADDY airline. I NEED IT!

[CLR2LND7L]

If connecting traffic does not play a part in the loads/profit/sucess of a carrier, why is Atlanta such a big market in 1985?   I would think in that time frame markets like DTW, PIT, ect would have  greater amount of traffic?  Also doesn't this lack of connections also limit the number of markets that can be served?

[powi]

If an airfield has connecting traffic in real world it has higher demands in the game for point to point passengers. It doesn't matter if there are connecting flights or not.

[Bryn]

Higher point to point demands is fairly unsophisticated.  Ideally, the game would use a search function to work out available routings for passenger demands between one city and all other cities.  Passenger choice would be a function of price, time, stopovers, airline changes enroute, comfort, service, and so forth.

Airlines would then compete more dynamically and hubs would naturally arise.  The interplay between airlines would also become much more interesting if this was modelled.

Using a simple increase in point to point demand does not enable that sort of dynamic competition.

An example: if I am an airline based in Honiara, and I offer services to Brisbane and Los Angeles, and I am the only airline flying all the way across the pacific, then my demands should be exceedingly high - not just the point to point demands between Honiara and Brisbane and Honiara and LA.

Another example, if I only serve Honiara - Brisbane, but someone elses serves LA Brisbane, and there are no other flights across the pacific, my demand on Honiara - Brisbane should be exceedingly high.

The absence of this dynamic makes the game very one dimensional and a poor reflection of how airline markets actually work (particularly the demand side). I hope this more realistic choice model that I have discussed is included in future versions.

Bryn.

[Scooby]

I agree with CLR2LND.  Connection traffic would be vital and important factor to the game if possible.  Without factoring in connections, it would be advantageous for everyone to fly widebodies everywhere because of the lower CASM.  Also, if connections are not a factor in generating traffic, the advantage of creating an alliance would be very limited.  (i.e. in real life, without alliance connections, LH would not be sending large heavies like 340s into smaller secondary markets such as DEN and CLT) 

I think accounting for connections and frequencies would create a more realistic scenario where planning and routing of your aircraft takes more strategy.  Instead of a rolling hub type operation, you may want to create several banks of arrivals and departures.

[Kontio]

Higher point to point demands is fairly unsophisticated.  Ideally, the game would use a search function to work out available routings for passenger demands between one city and all other cities.  Passenger choice would be a function of price, time, stopovers, airline changes enroute, comfort, service, and so forth.

I totally agree with you, a game like that would be perfect. However, with a couple of hundred airlines and all the airports in the game, I don't think any server could cope with the huge amount of calculations comparing all possible routings, even if considering only direct flights and flights connecting through just one airport. Are there any other online airline management games that actually do this? (Sorry if mentioning other games is forbidden...)

[Scooby]

It may not be feasible to actually calculate all the possible connections, but there should be a way where extra credit for load factors can be given to/from your hub and to/from your alliances' airport.  In reality, feed and connecting traffic is so important to revenue, some flights operate solely for connecting passengers alone.

[flyer123]

maybe the game can calculate arriving passengers for a certain period 3-4 hours or so as potential connecting passengers? there are some markets which are only interesting to serve because of connecting possibilities. I thought connections are somehow calculated into the demand... So I better reroute some of my aircrafts. 

[bryanUC]

Instead of trying to calculate all possible connections, why not calculate available connections?  For example, I offer a flight that is KCMH-KSTL-KMCO.  There is demand on the KCMH-KCMO route, so instead of assuming that all passengers get off at KSTL, could the program calculate/divert part of the KCMH-KMCO demand onto the longer route?  I know that with technical stops this occurs, but why not extend that to routes with stops?  For example, IRL, Southwest operates from Columbus to Las Vegas via STL or MDW + PHX.

I guess the logic I'm thinking of is, instead of calculating every way a passenger can get from A to B, see what one-hop or two-hop routes are possible.  This would make airports like KCMH much more profitable, as you're kind of locked into the 'big' routes right now.  Flying KCMH-KSTL-KMCO would help boost numbers on the KCMH-KSTL route AND satisfy demand on the KCMH-KMCO route.  The current situation is a 50% LF on KCMH-KSTL  and the need for a separate direct KCMH-KMCO route.  I'm sure there's plenty of other examples out there, but this is just one. 

[bryanUC]

Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think my idea really pertains as much to 'Connections' in the traditional sense, but pass-through passengers.  In the route screen, there's an option for 'Refuel only at this airport - do not take new passengers' - why not have an option 'take on new passengers, but don't kick the old ones off'?  Or something similar, to allow people to stay on the plane to its eventual destination for the route.

[bukatino2000]

Simple agree with you all and think it is a fundamental and necessary issue, bringing the game to a higher level.

Sure gonna need a very powerful server to do all the calculation job. Suggest to implement a system where connecting flights, on indoor or on alliance basis could be manually arranged. This may create more realism, strategy and if possible interaction between players. Avoiding for the big guys to become even bigger would make sense since this proposal goes into the direction of giving HUBS a larger operational role.

Other comments?

[Sami]

The number of route pairs goes up more than exponentially by this so before it can be even thought of the calculation system must be tested and partly re-optimized. Not a simple process.  (ie. if we'd have 110 000 route pairs now, with connections automatically this could go to millions, which is way beyond the design limits)

[bluemoon]

I don't think it is an easy task when condering to make connecting traffic closer to real life.

For example, assumed i offer a route: LAX-ORD-JFK

If the system considering the factor of connecting traffic, what should I charge a passenger if his or her distination is JFK.
Should I only charge the price of direct flight LAX-JFK($334) or charge LAX-ORD($251) and ORD-JFK($180)? 
If the system uses the first pricing method, what will be the reference price if I don't have a direct flight?
If the system uses the second one, there will no connecting traffic due to the higher total cost when the total cost acts as a factor.

Second, if other airlines offer ORD-JFK about the same time as mine, how the system to allocate traffic when they offer a very low price on ORD-JFK route?  Will some pessangers change to other airlines due to lower cost?

Third, does the system have to consider LAX-DEN-JFK, LAX-ATL-JFK...... and so many other possibilities?  If no, then to calculate connecting traffic is meaningless.  If yes, how to allocate pessangers to flights on those routes? I also agree with what Kontio mentioned regarding server capacity. It should be a heavy for the server to search all possibilities and then allocate pessengers to different flights.

[Kazari]

In other circumstances I have tried to set up calculations like this -- it can hang a computer very quickly.

Using the aforementioned LAX-ORD-JFK route, would demand also take into account the LAX-DFW-JFK route as part of the passenger demand calculation? And the dozen others that are parallel?

I think an easier way to do it would be to fake it by taking into account the number of connecting airports to a particular airport, the size magnitude of each of them (or the pax count) and then add a percentage load increase at that connecting airport (this could be in the range of 1 percent or something) as the number of connected airports grows. This could be combined with the existing functions that increase load over time and the ones that increase load as fares are lowered; it doesn't have to contradict them in any way. In my opinion, this would be a good quick fix until Sami can approach it more thoroughly.

[bukatino2000]

...I think an easier way to do it would be to fake it by taking into account the number of connecting airports to a particular airport, the size magnitude of each of them (or the pax count) and then add a percentage load increase at that connecting airport (this could be in the range of 1 percent or something) as the number of connected airports grows. ...

everything who are NOT just clicking or automatic increasing of revenues is appreciated. We aren't adding substantial other things to the game in other case lol.

[powi]

In other circumstances I have tried to set up calculations like this -- it can hang a computer very quickly.

Using the aforementioned LAX-ORD-JFK route, would demand also take into account the LAX-DFW-JFK route as part of the passenger demand calculation? And the dozen others that are parallel?

I think an easier way to do it would be to fake it by taking into account the number of connecting airports to a particular airport, the size magnitude of each of them (or the pax count) and then add a percentage load increase at that connecting airport (this could be in the range of 1 percent or something) as the number of connected airports grows. This could be combined with the existing functions that increase load over time and the ones that increase load as fares are lowered; it doesn't have to contradict them in any way. In my opinion, this would be a good quick fix until Sami can approach it more thoroughly.

Connecting traffic is already build into pax demands as it's (partly) based on real figures. Right?