Quick beta available

[Sami]

Should we go set an agreed machanism first? Or we should stick to bug findings?

This game world is about testing, the features and settings are not decided by forum "voting" or such.

But it is good that people point out potential issues with the routes, and I can then take a look of the results if they make any sense in regards to what is planned.

[stevecree]

Red eye flights still getting hammered....

[NorgeFly]

Red eye flights still getting hammered....

Do these type of flights actually exist? Departing at 1am for a domestic flight of a few hours does not seem like a flight anyone would choose to fly on?

I totally understand a departure from US west coast at 10pm for an arrival on the East coast at 6am. But a 1am departure and 4am arrival... Who would fly that?

[BryanIAH]

Do these type of flights actually exist? Departing at 1am for a domestic flight of a few hours does not seem like a flight anyone would choose to fly on?

I totally understand a departure from US west coast at 10pm for an arrival on the East coast at 6am. But a 1am departure and 4am arrival... Who would fly that?

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.

[NorgeFly]

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.

Wow, I find that very surprising. It doesn't really happen in Europe with the exception of some charter airlines which run to typical holiday destinations at weird times. But scheduled carriers don't really operate shorthaul flights between 2330-0530. Maybe RyanAir and Easyjet have some after midnight arrivals but that's about it.

Hence why flights in AWS that depart after around 2300 or arrive before 0500 have always attracted a penalty.

[OldPilot]

I'm curious to the LH routes with no competition.

I fly a 737ER from TXL to ATL and suffer heavy loss.

I think that the way you solved for NB was not proper. Just because it is a smaller aircraft doesn't mean people won't fly it! It's the only direct flight and has no stop overs.

I (an avid flyer) would rather fly a 737 direct than have any stop over.

It's not a time difference either. The difference with a 767 is only 15 minutes. also The same penalty applies to the 757s

[stevecree]

Hence why flights in AWS that depart after around 2300 or arrive before 0500 have always attracted a penalty.

True, they have NorgeFly, and I avoid 0000-0500 if at all possible, but as games progress inevitably flights start creeping past mid-night as the best slots dry up, flight spacing kicks in or just simply getting more flying hours from your fleet....LF's have always been a minimum of 40% and much more on many flights....but never seen a 0% before on AWS.

These flights in Europe are rare, for scheduled airlines....fly with the charter boys over at Thomas Cook or Thomsonfly etc and then 0230 departures are more common.   Red eye flights are much more common in the US, but as Old Pilot points out most are west > east coast cross country.

[swiftus27]

Red eye flights still getting hammered....

I think this is great.  It will prevent flooding a route and force people to have realistic schedules...

[lunchbox]

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.

Also, I remember when Continited ran a LAS-IAH leaving at 0135 and arriving at 0635.  It usually was at least half full  on either a MD80 series or 733/735

[Zombie Slayer]

Also, I remember when Continited ran a LAS-IAH leaving at 0135 and arriving at 0635.  It usually was at least half full  on either a MD80 series or 733/735

Took that flight a few times as a non rev. Each time it was tight so near full.  As a passenger I love flights like this add it gets me a full day before I depart.

Don

[BryanIAH]

Also, I remember when Continited ran a LAS-IAH leaving at 0135 and arriving at 0635.  It usually was at least half full  on either a MD80 series or 733/735

UA still runs LAS-IAH (737) from 1:16 to 6:09.

LAS-ORD is another route with a similar schedule. AA's flight is 12:50-6:10 (737) and NK's is 1:00-6:26 (A320).

I've been on most of UA's late night/early morning flights and most of them are 60%+ full.

[NorgeFly]

UA still runs LAS-IAH (737) from 1:16 to 6:09.

LAS-ORD is another route with a similar schedule. AA's flight is 12:50-6:10 (737) and NK's is 1:00-6:26 (A320).

I've been on most of UA's late night/early morning flights and most of them are 60%+ full.

I think I'd rather stick pins in my eyes haha! Guess I'm one of those passengers Sami says would opt not to fly

[Kazari]

I have just flooded the EDDF-LFPG route (Frankfurt-Charles de Gaulle) with my mauraduing horde of Dash 8s. I am flying every half-hour.

I believe the frequency issue has been addressed pretty well, but would still love to see it closer to reality. I don't think I should be doing as well as I am.

[Sami]

Pls keep the routes, I can check the specs on monday. (you may add more or change prices but if you leave them scheduled anyway makes my work faster)

[Kazari]

No problem. Glad to be of help.

[meiru]

I believe the frequency issue has been addressed pretty well, but would still love to see it closer to reality. I don't think I should be doing as well as I am.

Well, you know, frequency is not bad... but it should be possible to offer smaller prices with larger and faster aircrafts and get the same chance on the market. But if someone flyes 8 x 736 he should of course get more pax than somebody flying 2 * 739. ... for the 10 * ATR vs. 2 * 739 it simply should be that people still select the 739 because of the shorter flight time and because of the smaller prices that could be offered... if the 10 ATR guy want's to sell it's ticket at the same price... well, that's pretty risky and maybe impossible, because fuel is not the only factor... (normally it only makes about a third of the costs as far as I saw now)
... so ... those penalties... also for longer flights... I don't think it's a good thing... it's better to allow competition over the price and quality (so, instead of adding penalties, bether add seat quality -> service could also be "intetrated" in seat quality so that you don't have to model it twice).

[Sami]

Pls keep the routes, I can check the specs on monday. (you may add more or change prices but if you leave them scheduled anyway makes my work faster)

This seems to be working just fine. But "test" is still incomplete. Since the competition does not supply the full demand, so the marketshare graph is not 'accurate' in that sense. You have 2500 seats, competition about 1200, and you have 54% marketshare now, when you provide 67% of the seats. Loadfactors on your flights are also 5-45% region, so it does not encourage to such frequency rape. (actually even a bit too high effect in my mind ..?  ..but all the variables are not factored in yet though)

If competition would up their flights to meet the demand the market share would be more to their favor even more. Maybe jumboshrimp could add some 737-sized equipment to that route to meet the demand on his side.

[JumboShrimp]

Interesting claim, I gathered some data for some popular AC from MT6 and wikipedia (of course you can say, that MT6 numbers are -2019 and we are still living in 2012 but there are couple of interesting facts nevertheless).

You can clearly see AC types and how similar their AWS/RL ratio is.
Small AC (Q400, ATR, S2000) have it highest: 7.42-35.71.
Then there are big airplanes (A330, A340, B757, B767, B777) with medium ratio 3.50-5.55.
Then narrowbody jets (A320 & B737) with lowest ratio 2.41-2.55.
And then B747, which simply sucks in AWS
Did you notice that "insta-win" 757 has lower ratio (3.5) than "100% BK" 777 (4.25)?
Only problem that I see is really big numbers of big props, narrowbodies dont need any nerf against WB-s IMO...

Some of the big LH jets were bought only for tax reasons, not for flying.  I suspect more of the big LH jets in MT7 will be used for flying.

But, as you pointed out (in a PM) there is no advantage profit-wise in flying full larger aircraft vs. flying full smaller aircraft.  Larger aircraft ges hit by higher pilot salary, and a higher multiple of staffing.

The changes put in place so far will have no influence on Small AC (Q400, ATR, S2000) that ended up with 7.42-35.71 x real life.

I see a guy flying 14x Q400 between LHR and CDG.  The route has ~110% supply.  If the Q400 has the same return on investment flying full planes as the guy flying 737, there will just be more Q400.  That's because Q400 is just completely competition proof, while 737/A200 is vulnerable to smaller aircraft.

In real life, I see only A320 class aircraft on the LHR-CDG route.  There is something about operating small aircraft that AWS is not capturing correctly.

My observation is that the smaller aircraft is generally on thinner routes with higher prices (per mile).  Larger aircraft (A320, 737) tend to be on higher density routes, with more competition, with lower ticket price per mile.  That to me means that a full A320 / 737 has much lower operating cost vs. smaller jets and props.  That's probably what we are missing in AWS.

If nothing is done that works against proliferation of Q400, ATR, S2000, they will just continue to proliferate...

High landing fees that are aircraft size independent is the only thing I can think of at this point...

[swiftus27]

High landing fees that are aircraft size independent is the only thing I can think of at this point...

find a formula to limit the number of slots you can buy at the 'out' airport.  that will solve so much.

[NorgeFly]

The ability to set fares significantly above default on routes without any/much competition is working well and a welcome change. I'm now charging default +15% on all routes (most if which have no competition) and there appears to be little or any impact in LF. I plan on nudging this up toward +20% to see how much I can squeeze out of my pax.

As I don't have any serious competition, I don't know how well the lowering if fares is helping attract pax on competitive routes.... Anyone have any comments on how it's working as a tactic?

Edit: if someone at LHR cares to experiment, we can coordinate a test by adding similar aircraft to the route between LHR and OSL and then when your reach CI of 100 coordinate prices to see what affect it has?