Type of Plane vs Frequency vs Passenger Share

[robmck]

I'm a little confused, about how these three variables interact.

On on particular route I fly there are three airlines running nine flights a day.

Airline A has four flights using turbo props.

Airline B has three flights using older commuter jets

Airline C has two flights using new commuter jets.

Airline A has the largest market share. And the total number of passengers carried is basically split in the same proportion as frequency.

I can understand Airline A will get a bonus for having higher frequency, but if my reading of the way this works, there should be some negative for using older turboprops. Passengers are more likely to pick newer and faster ways of getting from A to B.

May I suggest there is not enough weighting towards newer aircraft against frequency.

Any of you more experience flyers have any answers?

All the best

rob

[LemonButt]

Assuming the flights are spaced out enough, frequency wins.  I don't think the impact of using older aircraft really takes hold unless you're flying 20+ year old metal.  When you book a plane ticket online, you don't get to see how old the aircraft is (although you can make some good guesses if it says the plane is a 737-100 versus an A380).

I don't think passengers care how old the planes are unless your in a 3rd world country.  In the US, the FAA regulates airlines so closely that whether you are flying on a 25 year old MD-81 with Allegiant Air (LCC) versus a brand new Boeing 777 with Delta, the safety standards etc are all the same and there is no real noticeable difference to the non-aviation enthusiast.  When aircraft go through D-checks every ~8 years, all the seats and interiors are replaced, so it's not like they're sitting in 25 years of filth on an old plane.  Furthermore, virtually the entire plane gets dismantled and all the wires, articulating parts, etc. are checked and replaced as needed, so you're essentially flying on a new plane, especially if the engines have been swapped with newer ones.

[[ATA] - lilius]

Lemon Butt

I think we are underestimating the passenger a bit. I completely agree that when you take one occasional trip with a new company the "type of plane to prefer" wont apply as much. However most intelligent passengers I know and in that I count people who are clueless about aircrafts will later prefer a different airline instead of taking the risk of flying an "older" type of aircraft. Passengers experience things such as interiors, noise, colors and other things to build their own opinion without really having a clue about the type of aircraft. So my own conclusion is that in reality you can only fool a passenger once and the next time the passenger will simply try something else.

Same thing applies to safety, most passengers will get the impression of flying safer with a brand new A320 than an old 737-300 if they can find something that can hint the difference in age and wont do a very rational analyze about D-checks even if that is a real fact.

[alexgv1]

People make assumptions like bad interior means an unsafe plane.

[DenisG]

I only book flights with the carrier with the highest frequency on the route. 

Cheers,
Denis

[LemonButt]

Same thing applies to safety, most passengers will get the impression of flying safer with a brand new A320 than an old 737-300 if they can find something that can hint the difference in age and wont do a very rational analyze about D-checks even if that is a real fact.

This is exactly what I'm saying--its nearly impossible to notice age differences on most aircraft due to strict regulations.  I've been on a 25 year old MD-80 with Allegiant before and there was no difference between this and any of the late model aircraft I've been on.  The outside has a fresh coat of paint, the insides have been completely gutted and refurbished, and any noise/rattling/shaking etc. is taken care of in D-checks every few years where everything gets re-assembled.  That 25 year old MD-80 had flat screen TV screens, for example.

[Dasha]

Won't most people book the cheapest flight? When people go on holiday they won't really care how often the plane is going up and down to the destination as long as they get there as cheap as possible. The business traveller might choose frequency but at what cost? If you have expensive turboprops vs cheap 737's? What would you pick?

[Kazari]

I agree that most people would choose the cheapest flight. I think cost is not factored enough in the game and that frequency is factored too much.

In my experience, the casual traveler will lose all kinds of time to save $25.

[alexgv1]

In my experience, the casual traveler will lose all kinds of time to save $25.

Flew LHR to IAD via ORD rather than direct to save £15. Extra 5 hours of travel and hassle of connecting all for that. Only bonus is that I got to fly on a Mad Dog on the connection. Never letting my mum book a flight again. Probably told this story enough times. I bet she wouldn't have even cared if we tech stopped at Gander. I think she just assumed the plane would be safe when she booked it.

[thedr2]

Price is always a huge factor for anyone, but this IS already represented in the game. Other factors are allowed to play AirwaySim too.

To understand this fully, you need to stop thinking so much like yourself (the leisure traveller) and start thinking more like the business traveller. Airline's make their money from these guys, and the rest of you are just seat fillers. 

Frequency: It's about oppurtunity cost. Time is money, and the more time spent faffing around, the greater the cost to the passenger. On a business trip, a passenger will value their time roughly equivailent to their pay (lets assume for simplicity, that they can't work on the aircraft or in the terminal), so someone on $40 an hour will pay roughly $40 per hour of time difference for a more convenient flight.
Increasing the frequency increases the chances of a flight being closer to the passnger's perfect departure time, and therefore the passenger is willing to pay more. (Although it is not simulated in AWS, the usefulness of flexible tickets also plays a part)

[vitongwangki]

Price is always a huge factor for anyone, but this IS already represented in the game. Other factors are allowed to play AirwaySim too.

Would mind explain to me how does the price represented in the game, to influence the competition algorithm?

[robmck]

I started this thread, and would like to thank all those who have contributed.

My original point was how real world is reflected in AWS. I am one of those frequent flyers, who this year has probably made more than thirty flights.

As a business traveller, speed is essential, I want to get from A to B as soon a possible, and I think that goes for all regular passengers.

The age of a plane may not be my first consideration, but they type of plane is often a consideration. I once flew from London to Minneapolis via Chicago rather than direct because I would travel on a 777 rather than an MD-11 (A plane I really hated flying on even though I love flying).

My feeling was that frequency was maybe given too much prominence within AWS, and other factors should be more visible in the way passenger loads are split between competing airlines.

[LemonButt]

Would mind explain to me how does the price represented in the game, to influence the competition algorithm?

What you're asking is how elastic the demand is.  In my experience, demand is relatively inelastic in AWS as large changes in price do not result in large changes in tickets sold.  For example, if you have a ticket price at $100 and sell 100 tickets, the gross revenue is $10,000.  If you lower prices 20% to $80, you would have to sell $10,000 / $80 = 125 tickets to maintain revenues.  The fact is, you will only sell 110-115 tickets (+10-15%) and end up with lower revenues and increased costs (more pax = more pax fees, more fuel consumed, etc).  Therefore, demand is relatively inelastic to price changes since the price change in % is greater than the change in quantity demanded in %.

Similarly, gasoline is inelastic.  Whether the price is $1/gallon or $10/gallon, people don't change their consumption much.  Other items, such as a cup of coffee, are very elastic.  If you raised the price of Starbucks from $3 to $30, no one would buy Starbucks and you'd see a lethargic under-caffeinated mob rebellion

In AWS, your best bet is to keep prices at their default levels unless you are facing fierce competition and need to capture market share.  Since you're presumably not filling every seat currently, a better strategy would be to install less, but better seats and keep prices as high as possible.

[LemonButt]

I started this thread, and would like to thank all those who have contributed.

My original point was how real world is reflected in AWS. I am one of those frequent flyers, who this year has probably made more than thirty flights.

As a business traveller, speed is essential, I want to get from A to B as soon a possible, and I think that goes for all regular passengers.

The age of a plane may not be my first consideration, but they type of plane is often a consideration. I once flew from London to Minneapolis via Chicago rather than direct because I would travel on a 777 rather than an MD-11 (A plane I really hated flying on even though I love flying).

My feeling was that frequency was maybe given too much prominence within AWS, and other factors should be more visible in the way passenger loads are split between competing airlines.

I think there are changes in the works for "passenger pools" where there is separate demand for leisure travelers and business travelers.  Business travelers obviously want frequency/speed and leisure travelers want low prices.

[vitongwangki]

I think there are changes in the works for "passenger pools" where there is separate demand for leisure travelers and business travelers.  Business travelers obviously want frequency/speed and leisure travelers want low prices.

And I guess the passengers would have different behavior between short-haul and long haul routes. But well, in real-life there is a number factor affecting the market share but we can definitely see frequency is the major (or sole) factor, despite some unrealistic factor (tech-stop on long haul using single-aisle 100 seat planes vs direct flight twin-aisle)would contribute nth on the market share. So as a simulation, I urge that there should have some changes on competition model which lead the game to direction of reflecting reality, at least the customer behavior on choosing airlines.

[sergio]

i think it not the passenger who decides, what airline to choose.

I mean: you go to travel agencies, which has got long term contracts, with airlines, hotels, etc. and then i look at the price tag.

I call them, say time when you want to go and return, they do the rest.

When i had to send a seaman home, i used travel agency. also crewing companies mostly use travel agencies: you get one invoice even in case of several aitlines and hotel used.

i am not sure: do the travel agnecies pay back to airlines the "brokerage fee", "gratitude"?
chinese introduced so called "profit share" in turn, even in liner shipping' that means you share brokerage fee, like 80%-20%.