Why not fix this before allowing 2nd tech-stop?

[vitongwangki]

I would like to draw the attention that the algorithm of calculating penalty is a flawed algorithm. Three routes in MT6 explain the situation. They are,
LAX - CPH: 1x 773 daily vs 2x A321 tech-stop daily @ YFB, share ratio: 44.81% vs 55.19%
LAX - SNN: 1x 772 daily vs 1x A321 tech-stop daily @ YYR, share ratio: 54.31% vs 45.69%
LAX - HAJ: 1x 773 daily vs 1x A321 tech-stop daily @ YFB, share ratio: 61.39% vs 38.61%
In those three routes the A321 are full-loaded but my 777 aren't. With same CI and RI, same frequency on HAJ and SNN routes. A321 got 40% of market share means they are full-loaded.

I would like to point out, without frequency bonus (both are daily flight), same CI, same price (assumed) there should be no passengers choose to fly on tech-stopping narrowbody in real-life (consider the ticket is sold leg by leg but not linked to connection etc.).

The algorithm is still a flawed design which put all the direct flight operators in disadvantage since the tech-stop can go everywhere now which those paying higher operational cost to operate direct flights are simply idiots. Sami, take the responsibility and please make more penalty on tech-stop flight. This is to reflect the real-life, going on the right track of a simulation game.

[Sami]

Because the second techstop is needed for early era games.

And main reason above anything: Because making large changes to algorithms in running games is not possible. Think of the whining from you (& everyone) if your ticket sales on some routes would drop to half in the middle of a game world.

[Colsie123]

The load factor on an A321 v 77 would seem better though on the same route as it has fewer seats. F`or instance I operate HS748 and 732 on the same routes to provide maximum passenger numbers. My HS 748 nearly always hits 100% LF where as my 732 hits around 70%. This is due to numerous reaosn high demand less seating ona ircraft, timings of the flights and the mood AI are in that day.

If you wish to make it realistic most airlines will not pay a large penalty for refuel stops as for many airlines they are simply two different flights ie BA to Australia via Hong Kong, Beijing etc or Air New Zealand to NZ from UK via LAX. The airlines sell the segments separately so the original flight is for instance BA001 to wherever followed by another flight BA059 to Sydney. That way they make more money as they sell two flights off the one aircraft.

[vitongwangki]

Because the second techstop is needed for early era games.

And main reason above anything: Because making large changes to algorithms in running games is not possible. Think of the whining from you if your ticket sales on some routes would drop to half in the middle of a game world.

Okay, then would you mind give me a schedule of fixing it. Well, it is important issue to fix it, since you can really see someone abusing tech-stop in 2010 which in real-life you can't see much (means your flawed algorithm allows this).

Well, Sami, I have faced this kind of competition for long (at least 5 game yrs, and well all these happened in MT5). I have raised this issue before.

Whine because of the ticket dropped by half? Do I need to whine because of one or two routes?

[Jona L.]

I guess in my next game I'll use F27 or F50 from LHR via BIKF and BGBW to YYZ just to p*ss off those ***** ******** ***** **** (just put in any bad words preferably in the strength of Vittus) using A321 on these routes.....

In my eyes a flight with a tech stop (let alone 2) should have only 25% of the pax of a nonstop flight...

To clarify let's say:

One airline flies a 738 (+0tn MTOW) on a 3000NM route with a tech stop, and the other flies the high MTOW variant non-stop in same configs, etc. the non-stop airline should have 75% of the marketshare.

Now given that we talk about Longhaul, where it is about 3x A321 with Techstop vs. 1x B773 non-stop with configurations meeting the raised First/Business class demands (A321: 3-20-150; B773: 10-64-340 both in all STD seats) the A321s should only sell 0.75F, 5.3C and 40Y seats per flight while the B773 sells 7.5F, 48C and 215Y seats per flight).
Tech stop routing should always deactivate frequency bonuses and such to make them as useless as possible in order to make airlines use planes designated for longer routes. This would also crush those people (see asterisks above) flying 757s from their hub all over the world frequency f*cking everything away. A tech stop should always be and remain an option for emergencies only (e.g. B747classics from USA to Down Under via Tahiti; early B701s/DC-81/2/3s from Europe to West Coast USA with tech stops at the east coast.

This takes away all reality from the sim and makes it a newbie crap sandbox playground - instead of a game for economically or aviation-wise interested people who try to get a feeling for real life economics. You should stop calling this AirwaySIM start calling it Airwaysgame.....


Damn I am not even back in any real game worlds and this topic is p*ssing me off again already!! Shame it hasn't been solved in half a year!

[Sami]

Whine because of the ticket dropped by half? Do I need to whine because of one or two routes?

Because if I change the one thing, it affects many more things than just the one, possibly screwing up other "normal" routes.

=> All major changes to core algorithms are done only with introduction of a new "version".

[vitongwangki]

Because if I change the one thing, it affects many more things than just the one, possibly screwing up other "normal" routes.

=> All major changes to core algorithms are done only with introduction of a new "version".

I hope I could see this updated in v1.4. It is really disappointed that the frequency keeps be the problem for that long.
I can just say, for a simulation the algorithm should be complicated enough that there could have no way to abuse. Now, frequency is the only determining factor (not exaggerating).

[ACfly]

Because if I change the one thing, it affects many more things than just the one, possibly screwing up other "normal" routes.

=> All major changes to core algorithms are done only with introduction of a new "version".

So in other words, fly A320/738 with tech stop across the pond and you will win.. avoid 773 and widebody... truly unrealistic... but hey, it's a game...just follow the rules... and stop whining

[vitongwangki]

So in other words, fly A320/738 with tech stop across the pond and you will win.. avoid 773 and widebody... truly unrealistic... but hey, it's a game...just follow the rules... and stop whining

If it is not a simulation, would I get all my credit refunded when I quit this game because of this reason?

[Sami]

LAX - CPH: 1x 773 daily vs 2x A321 tech-stop daily @ YFB, share ratio: 44.81% vs 55.19%

Actually your figures are bit incorrect while I checked this out of interest. The market share is currently 55/45% in favor of the B777, and you even have 1 weekly frequency off the routes due maintenance at the moment also lowering your sales (so it's 6 flights vs. 14 flights a week and the larger plane is still getting larger market share).

(You are selling about 240 Y seats on average per flight while competition sells about 110 Y seats per flight, but he has two flights daily at the moment.)

[vitongwangki]

Actually your figures are bit incorrect while I checked this out of interest. The market share is currently 55/45% in favor of the B777, and you even have 1 weekly frequency off the routes due maintenance at the moment also lowering your sales (so it's 6 flights vs. 14 flights a week and the larger plane is still getting larger market share).

(You are selling about 240 Y seats on average per flight while competition sells about 110 Y seats per flight, but he has two flights daily at the moment.)

But the return leg is 46% vs 53%, I can see penalty is there but is way not enough to punish those abusing tech-stop for frequency bonus.

[Zombie Slayer]

So in other words, fly A320/738 with tech stop across the pond and you will win.. avoid 773 and widebody... truly unrealistic... but hey, it's a game...just follow the rules... and stop whining

Just have to get my 2c in on this one....

A tech stop, to the average consumer IRL, would be looked at as a direct flight, of which there are many all over the world. There is a stop, there is not a change of plane, and in the end they end up where they want to go. We all say "this does not happen in the real world" and, TO AN EXTENT, this is correct, however there are exceptions (Sun County takes a 738, at last check, to London via Halifax, IIRC, on scheduled charters, for example).

The reality is that tech stops DO happen in real life. They are called CONNECTING FLIGHTS yet no one ever really complains too much about having to stop and catch another flight. Sure, there is a preference for non stop flights, but the average consumer will shop price 9 times out of 10, and in AWS a tech stop flight fetches a lower fare than a non stop so in that regard Sami has it right.

My take is this. Until we have city based demand and true connection hubs, there is no real reason to change the current set up. In 1.3, they serve a real purpose since we can not route our LAX-LHR bound traffic through JFK. In 1.4 (or beyond), when hubs are coded in, we might be able to send that traffic through JFK and then, if tech stops are still financially viable, you will have a valid point.

So, sit back and enjoy the ride instead of nitpicking about things that are already planned for change/improvement!

Don

[vitongwangki]

Just have to get my 2c in on this one....

A tech stop, to the average consumer IRL, would be looked at as a direct flight, of which there are many all over the world. There is a stop, there is not a change of plane, and in the end they end up where they want to go. We all say "this does not happen in the real world" and, TO AN EXTENT, this is correct, however there are exceptions (Sun County takes a 738, at last check, to London via Halifax, IIRC, on scheduled charters, for example).

The reality is that tech stops DO happen in real life. They are called CONNECTING FLIGHTS yet no one ever really complains too much about having to stop and catch another flight. Sure, there is a preference for non stop flights, but the average consumer will shop price 9 times out of 10, and in AWS a tech stop flight fetches a lower fare than a non stop so in that regard Sami has it right.

My take is this. Until we have city based demand and true connection hubs, there is no real reason to change the current set up. In 1.3, they serve a real purpose since we can not route our LAX-LHR bound traffic through JFK. In 1.4 (or beyond), when hubs are coded in, we might be able to send that traffic through JFK and then, if tech stops are still financially viable, you will have a valid point.

So, sit back and enjoy the ride instead of nitpicking about things that are already planned for change/improvement!

Don

I wish you have a right logic on everything that rare exceptions is rare, it shouldn't used for explaining the major trend
Real-life tech-stop is present, but still in terms of comfort, direct flight is highly-preferred (that's why Aircraft company tried their best to provide longer-range planes, from Connie, DC-8, DC-10 all the way to ultra long range planes like A345, B77L, this is a very obvious trend)

For connection flight, you could see airlines not only relying on inter-hub traffic to serve their passengers. (Just because they aren't allowed to do a 2nd leg) When the demand between two cities is high, direct flight is present in order to draw more passengers between them, it is more efficient to fight with flights with connection with similar ticket price. (Huge discount is made towards those with connection in real-life, like 10-30% off of direct flight fare).

[Zombie Slayer]

I wish you have a right logic on everything that rare exceptions is rare, it shouldn't used for explaining the major trend
Real-life tech-stop is present, but still in terms of comfort, direct flight is highly-preferred (that's why Aircraft company tried their best to provide longer-range planes, from Connie, DC-8, DC-10 all the way to ultra long range planes like A345, B77L, this is a very obvious trend)

Not arguing that point at all. More fuel efficient power has created the ability to produce longer range aircraft and, again, the consumer will pick this option as long as the price is right.

For connection flight, you could see airlines not only relying on inter-hub traffic to serve their passengers. (Just because they aren't allowed to do a 2nd leg) When the demand between two cities is high, direct flight is present in order to draw more passengers between them, it is more efficient to fight with flights with connection with similar ticket price. (Huge discount is made towards those with connection in real-life, like 10-30% off of direct flight fare).

The connecting fare is not always cheaper, in fact I would say it is closer to 50/50. Just a quick check of that LAX-LHR I mentioned above for random dates in May yield the lowest non-stop flight at $897 and the cheapest connecting flight at $891. The most expensive non stop is $1083 while the most expensive connecting flight (in Y) is $1588.

This brings up another point. IRL, services sell tickets as well (IFE, meals, lounges for the elite/premiere FF base, etc) which are not (yet) present in AWS. In a perfect world, these items would be available to offer to our virtual customers to give an additional competitive advantage.

Don

[JumboShrimp]

I would like to draw the attention that the algorithm of calculating penalty is a flawed algorithm. Three routes in MT6 explain the situation. They are,
LAX - CPH: 1x 773 daily vs 2x A321 tech-stop daily @ YFB, share ratio: 44.81% vs 55.19%
LAX - SNN: 1x 772 daily vs 1x A321 tech-stop daily @ YYR, share ratio: 54.31% vs 45.69%
LAX - HAJ: 1x 773 daily vs 1x A321 tech-stop daily @ YFB, share ratio: 61.39% vs 38.61%
In those three routes the A321 are full-loaded but my 777 aren't. With same CI and RI, same frequency on HAJ and SNN routes. A321 got 40% of market share means they are full-loaded.

I would like to point out, without frequency bonus (both are daily flight), same CI, same price (assumed) there should be no passengers choose to fly on tech-stopping narrowbody in real-life (consider the ticket is sold leg by leg but not linked to connection etc.).

The algorithm is still a flawed design which put all the direct flight operators in disadvantage since the tech-stop can go everywhere now which those paying higher operational cost to operate direct flights are simply idiots. Sami, take the responsibility and please make more penalty on tech-stop flight. This is to reflect the real-life, going on the right track of a simulation game.

I made a suggestion here:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,38007.0.html
about how to reduce the benefit of frequency.

If someting like that was implemented, it would not mean that nobody would fly a tech stop route, but if the frequency benefit is reduced, other variables (such as quicker flight by 777 vs. A321 with a tech stop) would become more significant.

[JumboShrimp]

Damn I am not even back in any real game worlds and this topic is p*ssing me off again already!! Shame it hasn't been solved in half a year!

Jona,

You made a great suggestion a while ago on how to deal with frequency on longer flights.  But you never submitted it as a feature request.  It was burried deep in a very long thread.  It was in the middle of MT5.  Maybe if you did, it might have already been implemented.

So rather than just complaining, do a bit of work to improve AWS.  I took your idea and submitted it as a feature request.  Hopefully, it will make it to the next version.

[ACfly]

I made a suggestion here:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,38007.0.html
about how to reduce the benefit of frequency.

If someting like that was implemented, it would not mean that nobody would fly a tech stop route, but if the frequency benefit is reduced, other variables (such as quicker flight by 777 vs. A321 with a tech stop) would become more significant.

So until the feature is ever switched on, we could be gentleman (cough,cough) and play by higher standards and avoid tech stop (hint..hint... my self and your famous alliance included) - a wild solution that might just work

[JumboShrimp]

So until the feature is ever switched on, we could be gentleman (cough,cough) and play by higher standards and avoid tech stop (hint..hint... my self and your famous alliance included) - a wild solution that might just work

I think you had a chance to be gentlemanly, and not buy up all the slots at FRA with small aircraft, but did not take that chance 

[alexgv1]

I miss those days of slot competition and not frequency competition....

[Jona L.]

Considering the new system with randomly added slots it won't keep me up till 4AM to catch yearchanges and get my rare LHR slots, but will rather keep me up 24/7 constantly checking for new slots...
but the 200% really suck... planes smaller than 200 seats in LHR is kindof pervert...