Quick beta available

[Pukeko]

OK, just  few observations. I'm not sure if any of these are implicitly due to the changes (I've come across similar before in other games worlds), but I'd thought I list them as I've gone from making $25 million a week to loosing $25 million a week. Of course this seems to correspond directly to the fuel surge, however the results still seem a bit strange to me.

I operate Big Dipper Air https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/65/#AirlineInfo out of New York. I've concentrated on a fleet of long haul - A340 and A380s with 737-900 serving the domestic market. I run all the long hauls on 7 day schedules and have consistently seen LF's in their 90s (many at 100) since I started (avg all up is 87%). All schedules are jam packed with optimal turn around (ie. 1% chance of delay) giving a fleet utilization of 18.7 hrs per 24.

I've mucked around with prices a bit, however have been running default prices for game year or so. With the recent surge in fuel, it appears the long haul planes have to be flying to 5 destinations a week to earn a profit, I have planes with 95% LF flying to 4 destinations (with a completely full schedule) and they are loosing money.

Now I know running Long Haul is difficult (in the real world and the game world), but it does look like plane ownership is the only way when fuel prices rise above $1000. However, I'm sticking to the leasing model to see if I can turn it around by increasing prices on routes with 100% LF - I have managed in this game world to increase prices to 160% of default with no detrimental effect on LF, passengers were not too keen on 180% though. Decreasing prices on competitive routes seem to have little effect on LF.

[Dasha]

Here is some data for me, proving to me that it does really work the new system.

I'm based in Newcastle in the UK. There is 120 demand to Chicago and JFK and it's within 3400 nm. So I leased two 737-700 and fly there. Not only do I get the message that the airplane type is too small, load factors are only around 10% max.

So this feature of the new things really work. I really think this is a good thing.

[Zombie Slayer]

Here is some data for me, proving to me that it does really work the new system.

I'm based in Newcastle in the UK. There is 120 demand to Chicago and JFK and it's within 3400 nm. So I leased two 737-700 and fly there. Not only do I get the message that the airplane type is too small, load factors are only around 10% max.

So this feature of the new things really work. I really think this is a good thing.

Agreed, however this also limits the viability of smaller airports like NCL as bases. With the fix now working like it should and a warning alerting the user to the fact that a plane may not pull a full load due to its size, can there be an exception where as long as an airline is the ONLY airline flying the route a full load is still possible? I am thinking of my MT6 airline out of JNB, for example. I had a fleet of over 100 737NG's. ~63 of them were -900ER's or -700's. The -900ER flights -could- have supported "proper" widebody equipment-the loads would have been lower, but probably still profitable. But, the 7 -700's and 63 -700ER flights I operated were using that equipment ONLY because a larger aircraft would not have been supported. I am talking routes like JNB-CAG and other small international airports in Europe, Western Asia, and a couple in Eastern Argentina and Brazil. The loss of ability to fly these routes would not adversely affect the playability of a city like JNB (may make it less interesting, but not ruin the city) but a city like NCL will benefit from the ability to fly these long, thin routes.

Don

[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.

Found the missing passengers. 

In other words, you can fly the long routes with smaller planes too provided there is no competition. However as mentioned some people will choose not to fly in that case, hence "true demand" is less what the graphs show. (and again, if you provide extra low prices you can attract more than the graphs show..)

[Sami]

INFO:

I'm slowly adding now also the effects of other variables into the calculations, so you will notice some changes.

Flight departure and arrival times, and penalty for too small frequency (ie. running a domestic destination like only once a week) are added now.

[JumboShrimp]

I'm slowly adding now also the effects of other variables into the calculations, so you will notice some changes.

is there such a thing as frequency too high?  Let's say I have 20xATR per day on a 1000 pax route ~ 300 nm and my competitor has 5xA320.

The old way would result in each aircraft getting 40 pax, with ATR winning by having ~66% LF, A320 in 25% range.

The above scenario is as much or more of a problem as frequency exploit on LH routes.  It leads to slot hogging and number of small aircraft that is 5x higher in MT games than in real world...

[Sami]

is there such a thing as frequency too high?  Let's say I have 20xATR per day on a 1000 pax route ~ 300 nm and my competitor has 5xA320.

Yes, it's been modelled already.

For let's say 1500 / day demand, more than 7 daily flights is not optimal anymore.

[schro]

So, it seems that the penalty for running 1x daily on a 120-140 passenger route is about 40-50%.. seems pretty significant.

[type45]

Yes, it's been modelled already.

For let's say 1500 / day demand, more than 7 daily flights is not optimal anymore.

I'm not in beta, but I am wondering what will happen on routes like HND-ITM/CTS/FUK or HKG-TPE, having more than 10000 demand and 20+ daily in real life......

[Sami]

So, it seems that the penalty for running 1x daily on a 120-140 passenger route is about 40-50%.. seems pretty significant.

Pls be more specific so I can check.

[schro]

Pls be more specific so I can check.

Here's one of routes - I was selling 116/day and it has dropped to 56/day after the change.  VGT and SCK have seen similar drops after the change. 

[BryanIAH]

I'm worried about a few 2000-2500nm routes, specifically those from the northeast US/Canada to northern South America. In real life, many of these routes are operated by small AC (A320 and B737 families) but in AWS they receive the "Too small AC" warning.

I'm not in JFK/EWR, so I can't see if these routes have the same warning.



Take YYZ-BOG as an example. In real life, Air Canada uses a 767 for this route and AWS has a penalty to use an A320. That seems somewhat reasonable, given that a smaller AWS 767 would fill the 230 seats.

Then look at YYZ-CCS. In real life, Air Canada uses an A319 for this route but AWS has a penalty to use an A320. Since AWS demand is 360, it is reasonable to expect us to use a widebody.

I know it is impossible for Sami to compare every route to real life.

This new small AC penalty starts to fall apart with smaller routes. YYZ-GYE demand is only 160/day, but there is a penalty if I want to use an A320. This isn't a problem for me (the YYZ-based airline), but an airline based in GYE would need to operate this route with an A320 since their options are more limited in a smaller airport.

YYZ-POS is longer than YYZ-CCS but it doesn't have an A320 penalty even though YYZ-CCS does. In real life, B737s and B767s are used on YYZ-POS and AWS allows me to use an A320 without penalty. POS and CCS are both listed under AWS' South America category, so I don't understand exactly what is going on here.

AWS also penalizes A320s on YYZ-CLO, a route with only 100 demand/day. This would also harm smaller airlines in CLO if they wanted to operate longer routes with A320s or 737s.

[JumboShrimp]

I'm not in beta, but I am wondering what will happen on routes like HND-ITM/CTS/FUK or HKG-TPE, having more than 10000 demand and 20+ daily in real life......

My guess is that you will get credit for any capacity you put on the route.  But you will not get extra LF boosting credit for more than 7 flights per day  The extra flights will be just capacity.

Well, at least that's my interpretation.  I am not sure how Sami implements that...

[Sami]

Here's one of routes - I was selling 116/day and it has dropped to 56/day after the change.  VGT and SCK have seen similar drops after the change. 

Try dep at 0700 instead?

[stevecree]

Couple of observations today...

Red eye departures are now not viable....LF's of 10% and less....some even 0% with a 0115 departure.

ATL - DUB demand is around 170, a perfect 757 route IMO. With a RI of 100 LF is hovering around 45% and with no competition.  I do not have enough fingers and toes to count how many 757's cross the pond daily in real life, MAN alone gets 2 or 3.  Continental's (United)  european network is full of 757's.  There is no reason 757's in AWS should suffer as noted.  There is a big difference between a direct 757 and a tech-stopping 321.

[ArcherII]

Is there any disadvantage at scheduling a LH / ULH flight at 1-2am as it is in the current version? I'd love to enter the testing game...

[schro]

Try dep at 0700 instead?

Drop of 133 to 72 on the VGT route which is at 9:30 on the same frame. SCK dropped from 96 to 54 with a 13:25 departure.

[stevecree]

Just tried to open ATL-GLA, again with a 757 which is a perfectly reasonable a/c type choice, and get a "too small a/c" warning.  That's just daft !!

Just checked UA's real life schedule an there are at least 4 x 757's in LHR daily, 1 in BHX, 2 in MAN etc etc.   They go as far as Stuttgart and Hamburg from EWR, both around 4000nm.

757's are without doubt long haul a/c for thinner routes, if you call EWR-LHR a thinner route !   Or does frequency in real life really count....and 4 x 757's is better for the CUSTOMER than 1 daily 380, but not better for the players that insists 777's etc should rule the skies ?

[Sami]

Drop of 133 to 72 on the VGT route which is at 9:30 on the same frame. SCK dropped from 96 to 54 with a 13:25 departure.

Okay, what's the route demand and are you flying 1x daily or more?

[schro]

Okay, what's the route demand and are you flying 1x daily or more?

VGT has 160 demand. Flying 1x daily. SCK is 110 demand, also 1x daily.

A route that I'm flying 3x daily (ELP) but overloaded in a similar manner exhibited no substantial load change when you added in the 1x daily nerf.... The main point is that the 1x daily penalty seems a bit high....