Quick beta available

[NorgeFly]

Since the last change, my LF on some routes with no competition and suitable aircraft have dropped to the 50% level. The flights have at least one hour apart so I don't understand why? Any ideas?

Take a look at OSL-BGO https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/ENGM/ENBR/?TB_iframe=true&width=800 it's a high frequency route but the flights are spaced appropriately, but load factors have fallen off a cliff.

[Sami]

Will be adjusted, found an issue there (due to you having 14x flights (or so..) a day).


The random effects on sales are also turned back OFF in this world.

[NorgeFly]

Will be adjusted, found an issue there (due to you having 14x flights (or so..) a day).


The random effects on sales are also turned back OFF in this world.

Back to normal now with LFs of 80%+ again.

[EsquireFlyer]

They _do_ provide a competitive advantage. The problem is that they don't provide a profitable advantage.

A loss-making advantage is, by definition, not a competitive advantage. If the only effect of an option is to kill newbies who don't know better, the option should not be offered.

If the option is offered, it should be something that provides a competitive (profitable) advantage at least under some circumstances, when appropriately used, not something that only newbies fall for and all experienced players avoid like the plague.

If you want to pull the real world card, take a look at American's venture into offering economy+ in the whole cabin....

Interesting example, but you realize that there are at least 10 counterexamples, right? Your own article link cites two of them (United and JetBlue).

Many European and Asian airlines (e.g. British Airways, Virgin, Singapore, Thai, Emirates etc.), routinely charge more than US airlines and lower-cost Asian/European competitors do on the same routes, by offering much better seats (Emirates only in F/C; their Y seats are craptastic). And most of these are the airlines that remained profitable when the entire US airline industry was in bankruptcy status a few years ago. Providing better seats must provide a profitable advantage, when done correctly.

Now, as for American. The key problem was that American did not charge more than its competitors did on the same routes. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as: (1) poor company image, compared to BA, VS, SQ, EK, etc. means less ability to raise prices, and (2) inadequate marketing of the "More Room Throughout Coach" campaign. Anyone can tell you that charging the same price for fewer seats is going to lower your profits. What I am saying is that you should be able, in some cases, to improve profits by charging a higher price for fewer seats.

For example, when United introduced "premium" seats in economy (just more legroom, no more width or any better service) as "Economy Plus," they allocated the seats to pax who would pay more for them (either implicitly, in the form of repeat business on UA to earn elite status, or explicitly, in the form of a small % upcharge to sit in E+, but much less than the price of a cabin upgrade). This model was so successful and profitable that it has been copied by Continental, Delta, and now American as well (doing it the right way this time, even though MRTC was a disaster before).

In effect, the AWS method of modeling seat quality forces players to use the American model if they want to improve seat quality (a losing strategy); I am saying that it should allow for the possibility of using the British Airways or United model, by making pax willing to pay (a little bit) more for better seats.

Or at least more willing to choose the airline with better seats in an oversupply situation. Which is the exact opposite of what happens now, because in an oversupply situation, between premium and standard seating (holding extraneous variables such as price and scheduling constant, for comparison purposes) passengers will flock to the airline offering worse seating because oversell demand is allocated primarily by capacity, and the airline offering crap seating has higher capacity. This is a totally unrealistic result, because there is no reason why passengers would actively prefer the airline that jams more people into smaller seats, for the same ticket price. Why would any passenger do that?

And the above is just about economy. The effect of using premium or luxury seats in C and F in the real world is even more obvious. Singapore and Emirates, for example, make tons of money while doing in C and F exactly what you said not to do in AWS, i.e., "burn half the plane on a lie flat seat rather than 300 sardine tins."

So, from both a realism perspective (pax prefer better seats, especially in F and C, but to a lesser extent in Y) and a user experience perspective (not helpful to have always-losing options that experienced players won't touch and only newbies fall for), passenger preference re: premium and luxury seats should be modeled, at least on long flights. Like the way their preferences re: HD vs. standard seats are currently (and IMO appropriately) modeled.

[EsquireFlyer]

Pls read again what I wrote. It is modelled, and I have not tested it particulaly for this update since it has not changed from the prev version.

The variations in loadfactors is probably also caused by the fact that random daily effects are on there at the moment (by mistake though...).

Thanks, sami! But I did read what you wrote, and what you wrote before (and even what you wrote after) only directly addressed HD vs. standard seats, which I think are modeled well.

My post was specifically about premium and luxury seats, and I was saying that they should be modeled more like the HD/standard seats. I understand that they were not changed in this version, but I was suggesting that they should be changed (if not in this update, then in a future update). For example, maybe on flights longer than 12 hours (or maybe 6-8 hours in F/C), pax preference for premium over standard seats should be as noticeable as pax preference for standard over HD seats at the 2 hour mark.

Or, in an oversupply situation, pax should prefer the airline with better seats (opposite of current model, where more pax actually prefer the airline with worse seats, since that airline has more capacity and pax are allocated based on capacity).

So that premium seats aren't just a guaranteed money loser.

[Sami]

Yea, gotta test the lux seat too when I can.

[EsquireFlyer]

Yea, gotta test the lux seat too when I can.

Thank you very much! Sorry for complaining. 

[begla]

I seem to be getting an un warrented bankruptcy warning, no idea how or why

[Sami]

"final" revision is active, with daily randomization on too (= you may see a small drop in sales).

[schro]

I'm seeing some different results with my TATL flights right now that seem a little odd - just want to make sure that they are consistent with the intended design/behavior.

A day or two ago, I reset pricing to standard, then raised all fares to +20% of standard. RI = 100 and CI = 100.

I'm running a number of A330 planes to Euro destinations that are fairly well matched with daily demand. At the +20% price point, I'm seeing loads in Y of around 50-55% against no competition, and C/F seem to be doing better, some in the 80-90% range, some back down in the 50's. At the same price point, KLAX-RCTP is flying with full planes....

To see if this is a pricing issue, I lowered LAX-ORY down to standard pricing to see if that has any significant impact on loads (but based on the pricing variable discussion, I don't think that I will end up with a significant boost).  I'd like to think that this is related to the 1x day frequency penalty, but I'm also seeing similar things happening to LAX-LEMD that is 2x daily (though, I do have a 5am landing in the mix there). It'll take a bit to see if ORY changes... but something smells funny to me.

[ArcherII]

A question that just crossed my head...How's going to be for the very large demand routes like HND-Sapporo or or any other Japanese route for that matter, with the size of aircrafts? In some instances if you operate 753s over that route you'd eventually hit the maximum frequency and start to lose pax accordingly?

If so, how is it gonna be for a route like Congonhas-Santos Dumont where up to 12,000 pax are willing to cross? Mind that the Dumont's runway is only 1320mts (barely possible for a 700NG, or A319). Would an airline have a "cap" on the amount of flights and therefore not meeting demand?   

[JJRiddle1]

Is the test game going to come back or is it done for good?

[exchlbg]

There´s a regular new world based on the new formulas (MT7), so why should it?

[EsquireFlyer]

UA runs multiple LAX/SFO-ORD/IAH flights leaving from 00:00-2:00 and arriving 4:00-6:00. I think Spirit operates even worse flight times on some of their shorter routes.

Hmm, that didn't sound right, so I just checked UA's LAX and SFO to ORD schedules and found nothing leaving after 00:00 or arriving before 06:00. The "worst" flight time I found was UA828 leaving SFO at 23:59 and arriving in ORD at 06:01.

The CO side, on the other hand, has traditionally had some bad flight times to IAH. From SFO, it's still not bad; the worst is UA480 leaving SFO at 23:59 and arriving IAH at 05:42. From LAX, there is UA1170 leaving LAX at 01:12 and arriving IAH at 06:24. But CO kind of runs like a regional carrier in a global airline's clothing.

However, there is still nothing leaving as late as 2am or arriving as early as 4am between those cities. UA's lounges typically aren't even open that late (or early), so the elite/premium pax would be p***ed.

[JumboShrimp]

"final" revision is active, with daily randomization on too (= you may see a small drop in sales).

I did not get to test the final revision, I just glanced at some of the flights I was monitoring.

One general concern that I have had in < MT7 and the last glance at the test server is 100% LF - or more precisely, rarity of it.  Once all the variables were enabled, I think all of my flights that had 100% LF prior to all the variables being enabled they all dropped below 100%.

In real life, full flights are not that uncommon.  Everytime I hear an announcement asking for volunteers to not fly, I know it is a full flight.  And I hear it quite often.  I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US, overbooking flights is quite common.  Maybe 10-20% of the flights I take.  In AWS, it is a rarity, even when flying a perfect aircraft, perfect time, and the route is undersupplied.

I am not sure where at the allocation process these variable get applied.  But my thinking is that on an undersupplied route of say 200 pax demand, 150 supply, the system should allocate to the only flight serving it, than apply all the things depressing that, resulting in say 165 pax allocated.  Given 150 supply, the LF should be 100% most of the days of the week, if not every day.  So let's say all the variables are great, I should be seeing 100% LF 100% of time.

My experience with routes like this from MT6 is that on a route like this, with perfect supply, I end up with 100% LF maybe 1% of the time...  I think it should be adjusted.