Quick beta available

[JumboShrimp]

I'm not sure the tech-stop penalty is high enough / working as it should. On PVG > DUB I have a 772 and a tech-stopping 737. The 772 is claiming an average of 137 passengers, the 737 gets 107 (for a nice 85%+ load factor). That implies to me (although obviously I can't test this by myself) that if one airline flew a 772 and another 2x 737 with tech stops, the airline flying the 772 would get killed.

There is a penalty for tech stop.  See here A321 vs. A321 with Tech stop that goes along with this post:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,41433.msg223922.html#msg223922

And the penalty is not fully baked in.  It is going increase when flight duration is taken into account.

I think the 737 is getting way too many pax here regardless of the tech stop.  It would be way too many even if 737 was able to fly the route non-stop.

BTW, your test gives you enough info.  You can probably yourself add another 737 without exceeding the oversupply limit.  Testing it yourself removes all the other variables (different RI, different CI) it 2 players are testing.

Speaking of which, I'm a bit concerned that a lot of the things that we want to test here require competition on routes to see how they work properly. But with only 75 airlines in the whole world I'm not sure how much of that we're getting?? If anyone wants to shift over to PVG and run some experiments happy to work with you to see how it turns out.

You can also work with someone at a different airport, where 2 people are flying route between 2 HQs.

[BryanIAH]

Is seat comfort significantly more important in the beta compared to previous versions?

I know the first post says this isn't yet modeled, but will it be changed from MT6/DOTM4/JA6/etc?

[BryanIAH]

ConnectCanada Update

7 day scheduling is complete on 25+ A320/A321s and 14+ A330s. Some of my flight times are unrealistic (departures/arrivals in the middle of the night) since passenger preference for departure/arrival time isn't active yet.

Here's my beta plan going forward:

0-1500nm: A320-200 (10C 138Y 148 total)
1500-2920nm: A321-200 (15 C 168Y 183 total)
2920-5460nm: A330-300 (Factory default)
5460-7210nm: A340-600 (Factory default)
7210-8620nm: A340-500 (Factory default)

YYZ-MEL and YYZ-PER are the only major routes >8620nm but demand is only 150 and 90 pax per day.

Some A320s and A321s might be switched around but I haven't reached that point yet. I also might put an A321 on YYZ-LHR (limited to 144 pax) but I don't have enough aircraft to test that at the moment.

I should be able to fill all demand out of YYZ if the beta runs through 2015.

[schro]

I'm struggling a bit to understand exactly what is going on from a pax distribution perspective. I've read the change logs over and over and they seem to make sense, but I'm find it to be far less forgiving than AWS has been traditionally.  Even with a higher amount of start money, I suspect there will be huge waves of bankruptcy as people figure out all of the changes that have happened the hard way once this is implemented in a full scale game world.

Here's an example that I don't think makes a ton of sense - LAX -> IAH.  Demand is ~2000 and I'm supplying ~1000 seats at 6x daily (30 minute intervals) on 3x A321's.  Two of them are configured 35/138 and the other is at the stock 192Y.  On the C/Y configed planes, I'm selling 81Y seats (for a 55-60% load) versus the all Y plane selling 56 seats (for a 30% load).  RI isn't very high yet (currently at 11), but it is sticking out like a sore thumb - my understanding is that I should be seeing similar loads across all planes of the same type, but it seems that actual seating configuration is having a rather drastic effect.

G4035-G4046 flight numbers. Is this expected?

[ezzeqiel]

but it seems that actual seating configuration is having a rather drastic effect.

apparently seating quality is not modeled yet on this server test... So, I'm having this confusion too, since all my HD flights are having less pax than the STD ones, and I can't figure exactly why...

[JumboShrimp]

Here's an example that I don't think makes a ton of sense - LAX -> IAH.  Demand is ~2000 and I'm supplying ~1000 seats at 6x daily (30 minute intervals) on 3x A321's.

Sami mentioned somewhare that he may be changing the minimum spacing of flights.  While 30 minutes was definitely safe in MT6 for 2000 pax route, who knows if it is still safe.

I would change flights to have 1 hour testing and see if it makes any difference.  Or change at least one flight so that it is not within 1 hour of another flight....

[schro]

Sami mentioned somewhare that he may be changing the minimum spacing of flights.  While 30 minutes was definitely safe in MT6 for 2000 pax route, who knows if it is still safe.

I would change flights to have 1 hour testing and see if it makes any difference.  Or change at least one flight so that it is not within 1 hour of another flight....

Well, he did ask not to monkey with it until thigns like this could be investigated, but its not behaving like a too close interval trap - i.e.

0500 - 81Y sold
0530 - 56Y sold
0600 - 81Y sold

If the spacing was too close, all 3 flights would be nuked - the 81Y sold seems to be consistent with what I've seen on other flights that I've done.

I'm also not liking that routes that used to be able to be used as "fillers" on a schedule aren't working well either. For example, dropping a 192 seat A321 into a 130 demand city that's less than 300 miles away results in about 50 seats getting sold. These additional nuances seems like it is taking scheduling from a livable pain to one that I don't have time to think through and implement in a successful  manner.

[ezzeqiel]

I'm having this problem with HD vs STD...

I have these 4 flights...

In these 2, it's all working good... same pax for the HD and STD configurations.



But, in these 2 other flights I can't figure out what's going on (and why's the difference)... Also, notice the difference between the to and from flights... that should not happen...


(470Y 20C for upper flights)
(628Y for bottom flights)


EDIT: the relation is good for the last 2 flights... the problem seems to be that trip with lower LF -TM564- (can't figure why)

[JumboShrimp]

Well, he did ask not to monkey with it until thigns like this could be investigated, but its not behaving like a too close interval trap - i.e.

0500 - 81Y sold
0530 - 56Y sold
0600 - 81Y sold

If the spacing was too close, all 3 flights would be nuked - the 81Y sold seems to be consistent with what I've seen on other flights that I've done.

I'm also not liking that routes that used to be able to be used as "fillers" on a schedule aren't working well either. For example, dropping a 192 seat A321 into a 130 demand city that's less than 300 miles away results in about 50 seats getting sold. These additional nuances seems like it is taking scheduling from a livable pain to one that I don't have time to think through and implement in a successful  manner.

These are only start-up issues, not long term issues.  When starting up, supplying small percentage of demand will result in higher LF.  192 pax aircraft on 130 pax route is definitely not a good idea when you start.

When you airline is up and running (and solidly profitable), these issues of low LF on low RI routes will be just noise...

Look for Sami's post on low RI:
"Route Image is a factor of people who know your route, and with RI 0 this is about 25-35% of the potential demand."

So on 2000 pax route, your potential market starts between 500 and 700 pax...

[AndiD]

Some (potentially) weird issues on my CYVR-CYZF routes:

100% of C seats filled on the way to YZF and 0% C seat demand (and 0% seats filled) on the return route.

[Sami]

100% of C seats filled on the way to YZF and 0% C seat demand (and 0% seats filled) on the return route.

Did not quite understand this? Is there C demand both ways?



And for info to everyone; there will be some minor changes to the systems later tonight.

[Sami]

Well, he did ask not to monkey with it until thigns like this could be investigated, but its not behaving like a too close interval trap - i.e.

0500 - 81Y sold
0530 - 56Y sold
0600 - 81Y sold

If the spacing was too close, all 3 flights would be nuked - the 81Y sold seems to be consistent with what I've seen on other flights that I've done.

This does not appear to work properly, I have seen same with my ATR airline on one route. It reduces only the other route of the two overlapping.

[ezzeqiel]

Did not quite understand this? Is there C demand both ways?

I have a similar problem...

35.4% in the way RJFF and 69.6% in the return flight...

[AndiD]

Did not quite understand this? Is there C demand both ways?

No, only on the route from the larger airport to the smaller one.

[meiru]

You have a bunch of them departing at the same time, which is going to screw things up....
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/KSFO/KEWR

ok, statistics again... I fly all planes at the same time (+- 5 mins because I don't have enough slots) ... that's what I get:

M80/90 -> 37  (all get exactly the same amount!)
744, 772, 343 -> 46 (all get exactly the same amount!)
737 -> 54

... sorry, but it can't be correct like that...

[tjo099]

Suddenly no demand between ZBAA - VTBD (Beijing to Bangkok)
Don't know if this is a bug or not.

T

[Sami]

No Demand or just no seats sold?

[Sami]

ok, statistics again... I fly all planes at the same time (+- 5 mins because I don't have enough slots) ... that's what I get:

M80/90 -> 37  (all get exactly the same amount!)
744, 772, 343 -> 46 (all get exactly the same amount!)
737 -> 54

... sorry, but it can't be correct like that...

This is not a valid test at all in the first place as you have overlapping flights.

And as I did post already earlier today, the overlapping thingy is not working properly now.

[Sami]

No, only on the route from the larger airport to the smaller one.

That's how it is then. Demand is not the same on all routes... (should be in the same ballpark but differences are possible)

[michael]

Used market coughed up 9 new aircraft in the last day - any chance to increase that with those sitting in storage?