Well, against your couple of 757s you named in the example you have at least 25x as many A33X/34X, B77X, B76X, B74X and A380s crossing the Atlantic every day, carrying a multiple of the passengers each, and those are just the flights to the east-coast cities going to/from Europe. Adding the Middle east and the west American Cities you can easily reach 50-75x as many appropriate planes versus 757...
cheers for not reading my work out on your post....
Jona - I do appreciate your work out and I also appreciate very much that your solution as one way to solve the problem. The argument to me however is not that "the game should be rewarding the player who chooses the most popular aircraft type currently operating a particular route in the real world" but rather "the game should allocate fewer passengers to tech stopping services than direct services, whilever direct services exist."
The whole driving principle of running an airline is about being able to judge the size of equipment to place on a particular route, with the most widely regarded principle being "send the largest piece of equipment you are confident you can fill." It is not "Send the piece of equipment with the lowest seat mile cost" - although this is certainly a factor in achieving the above. It is certainly not "send the piece of equipment that requires two tech stops to make the distance but gives me a frequency benefit over my competition who flies the route non stop."
On some routes, due to very high passenger volume, slot restrictions, or curfew arrangements, this is obviously a 747 or a380 to some airlines. On other routes, and to other airlines, it clearly is not. Your argument above of "may as well send a 777 because it's twice the seats for 50% of the cost" overlooks the fact that if you can't sell those extra seats, you'll lose a lot of money very quickly. Yes, aircraft generally become more efficient the larger they get. But yes, as we all know, if you can't fill them, your losses get larger as well.
The weak link in AWS is that the algorithm does not currently make the fundamental distinguishment that prevents ATRs from tech stopping over the atlantic in real life - and that is that "passengers don't like unnecessary stopovers."
Until such time as the game recognises this principle, particularly with the possibility of a second tech stop now available, airline behaviour is being skewed towards less and less realistic solutions.
I appreciate your input on this thread and I think we both agree with each other, we are just saying the same thing differently.
Incidentally, FWIW, I attach the below link indicating that united-continental operate a significant transatlantic service using 757-200's as well - in fact - they are using them to replace
777s. Why? Because they can't fill the 777 is my guess. And then there's Open Skies .. Wasn't that an airline that operated only
757s on transatlantic routes?http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-to-begin-deploying-757s-on-dulles-transatlantic-routes-353351/
Apologies if I sound like I'm banging the drum but I feel very strongly that this needs to be addressed. I am also appreciative of your input.