Quick beta available

[markj23]

Ouch. My A321's on KLAX-EGLL got nerfed with that change.  I was varying between ~80% loads and 100% loads before the change, now I'm seeing 50-60% loads.  Pricing is about 25% above standard and I haven't tweaked it yet.  Demand is right around being met...

I cant notice any change in my 340s & 380s flying that route - but then again my scheduling on that route is just crazy so it would be hard to find anyway

[Mr. Pete]

Sami,

Could you check my 2 routes?

RED EYE AIRLINE - https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/52/#AirlineInfo

Boston Logan - Guayaquil - RI 100, DEMAND ~160 - A321 - LF ~13%

Boston Logan - Quito Mariscal Sucre - RI 100, DEMAND ~ 150 - A320 - LF ~15%

Both routes 1 flight per day, normal time, no competition at all, default prices.

[Sami]

I cant notice any change in my 340s & 380s flying that route - but then again my scheduling on that route is just crazy so it would be hard to find anyway

You shouldn't. 340 or 380 ... Makes no difference.

[Sami]

Could you check my 2 routes?

~3000 nm routes (= international longhaul) flown with a narrowbody plane is the main reason.

If the airlines are offering a "poor" product some passengers will elect not to fly at all, so you are not reaching the full demand despite of RI100.

[chiveicrook]

That doesn't sound right, out of 160 people only ~25 decide to fly and 135 prefer to stay home? Just because this guy is flying A321?

[Sami]

The "true demand" set by the calculation module on that route is 95 (of 165), so about 60 decide not to go because of this. I'm checking where the rest have gone.

The passenger demand is not a line of passengers waiting at the airport. It's a number of maximum potential passengers.

[Glob-Al]

The "true demand" set by the calculation module on that route is 95 (of 165), so about 60 decide not to go because of this. I'm checking where the rest have gone.

Sami, I wonder if the issue of your missing passengers is also affecting routes where there is competition. Since the last round of changes my PVG > DUB route has experienced a surprising trend:

- When there was 1x777 and 2x737s per day the total number of passengers flying was about 160 + 25 + 25 = 210.
- Now there is only 1x777 flying (I cancelled the 737s) the total number of passengers flying is about 245, despite the fact I also raised prices about 20% (to just below the default).

It sort of seems like before there were some passengers who were choosing not to fly the 737 because it would be inconvenient, but didn't "see" the 777 as an alternative option.

[meiru]

I still don't think this leads to a good end with the pax distribution...

Anyway... I wanted to ask something else: MD-80 has a cabin crew of 3, the MD-90 of 4 ... why? Don't they have the same capacity?

[Sami]

MD-80 has a cabin crew of 3, the MD-90 of 4 ... why? Don't they have the same capacity?

There's no "MD-80" .. pls define the variant, since they are rather different sized machines (87 vs 83 for example).

May be a bug too though.


Edit: Confirmed to be an error. Fixed!  (since MD-83 for example can seat max 172, so that needs 4 Ca's ... )

[schro]

I still don't think this leads to a good end with the pax distribution...

Anyway... I wanted to ask something else: MD-80 has a cabin crew of 3, the MD-90 of 4 ... why? Don't they have the same capacity?

The M90 is a bigger plane than the M81/82/83/88 (all 4 are the same size with avionics differences) and is usually configured with 150-160 seats in the real world, even though it shares the same max certified 172 pax load as its smaller predecessors. In AWS, the max certified drives the number of seats available, so the M80's and M90's have the same capacity.  If the M90's had a proper capacity that reflects them being longer, then the 4th FA would be needed, however, due to how the seat config work, we're not going to get the M90 capacity buffed.. therefore... it seems to make sense to have 3 FA's on the 90 until then..

edit: and sami updated it to my suggestion before I could even post it.

[meiru]

There's no "MD-80" .. pls define the variant, since they are rather different sized machines (87 vs 83 for example).

When I'm comparing an MD-80 family member to the MD-90, it should be logical that I'm not talking about the MD-87... by the way, there's also an other bug, since it was possible to buy the MD-88 with the additional fuel tanks the MD-83 had. This variant has a higher takeoff weight (same as 83) but the other advantages of the 88... nobody ever ordered it, but it was offered. Just to mention that too...

[meiru]

... and about fuel consumption. I always hear/read/calculate, that A320's (not the neo) burn more fuel than in your game... so, my information show's this for a the same flight -> 738 100%, M90 102.75%, A320 106.02% ... in your game the A320 is the most fuel efficient aircraft.
I even found statement's of airlines, that they decided for the A320 alltough they have a little bit a disadvantage in fuel consumption against competitors but it's bether for other reasons... of course, it's always difficult to find out, if this information is correct. But to me it seems that it's most likely correct.
To give an example: the A320 with V2527 is heavier and faster than the MD-90. Experts say, the A320 fueselage has an aerodynamical disadvantage over the MD90 (because it's wider) and the MD-90 has with it's V2525 an engine that's 2 years younger and producing less thrust... so... there's not a single point that point's towards the fact, that the A320 could have a lower fuel consumption than the MD90.

By the way... I completely agree with the MD-11 consumption... but the MD-80's are way too high... take the 727 with 3 engines (old JT8D's) and compare it to the MD-88 ... there's at least 13 years between those engines and the MD-88's engines consume now 10% more than the old ones? ... it was almost a redesigned engine! That can't be correct... sorry...

[Sami]

The fuel usages of most modern planes in database are from reliable sources. For older models there is some 'artistic freedom' involved due to lack of full data. So if there is something wrong, some really hard facts are needed (= numbers, not just airline or plane manufacturer press release "lies").

(and not relative to this topic; so goes to bugs then)

[meiru]

ok, fine...

by the way, I didn't give you the exact numbers you should use, but I pointed out, that your number's can't be true, since it's impossible that a JT8D-200 series engine used MORE fuel than a JT8D-15 and that's what your game says... (the same for the MD-90s, I simply showed, why it can't be true)

that's no "lies" or press releases... I mean, why did MDD use the JT8D-200 series in the MD-80's and not the 17R, if the 17R was bether? and why did MDD and Boeing talk about a 15% more fuel efficient airplane (the MD-90 over the MD-80) and not about 20% like we see in your game? ... do you think their marketing guys were that stupid? ... but I see, you know it bether... like always ...

[Sami]

Read what I wrote previously and please do not argue yet again. If you have better facts available than the current data, then submit a bug report and I shall correct the data based on that. But, like on every other data correction, MUST have some facts on it to which I can base the corrections.

[swiftus27]

ok, fine...

by the way, I didn't give you the exact numbers you should use, but I pointed out, that your number's can't be true, since it's impossible that a JT8D-200 series engine used MORE fuel than a JT8D-15 and that's what your game says... (the same for the MD-90s, I simply showed, why it can't be true)

that's no "lies" or press releases... I mean, why did MDD use the JT8D-200 series in the MD-80's and not the 17R, if the 17R was bether? and why did MDD and Boeing talk about a 15% more fuel efficient airplane (the MD-90 over the MD-80) and not about 20% like we see in your game? ... do you think their marketing guys were that stupid? ... but I see, you know it bether... like always ...

Bro, you're being borderline douchetastic.  Tone it down a notch.  There's been a long standing rule in the sim that you need concrete data to change anything (from seat max, fuel consumption and more). 

[meiru]

There's been a long standing rule in the sim that you need concrete data to change anything (from seat max, fuel consumption and more). 

of course... but he can use the 'artistic freedom' because he didn't find data...

[Sami]

of course... but he can use the 'artistic freedom' because he didn't find data...

Well, since you still keep arguing and deliberately(?) misunderstanding everything I say:

Tell me for example the fuel consumption of a Baade 152 East German jet, or perhaps Vickers VC10 as that was bit more common. And to make it "easier" (= data what AWS requires, but makes it accurate in calculations once data is accurate), tell that plane's fuel consumption for climb between GND-FL100, FL100-FL240, and FL240->, and then cruise fuel usage at max cruise FL, and same step plan data for descent too. Cannot find it? Okay, that is what I thought too. And that is what I meant there by needing some freedoms to derive the data when no data is available.

It's easy to throw these comments since you do know what kind of data is even needed, and how impossible it is to find it to any historical aircraft. The fuel usage data for example most certainly is not just "500 kg / hour" type of thing like you could imagine but uses a more realistic approach into the calculations.

Any more messages of this issue in this topic will be removed, since it's now fully off-topic.

[swiftus27]

AWS isn't a democracy.   I probably have 20 idea suggestions with [-] next to them. 

[meiru]

I found some data... but it was too much to review it that quickly... I'll post the info in some days... I found very detailed information from different sources like ICAO...