Quick beta available

[Sami]

His sales have dropped somewhat, but it's a bit hard to judge as he has so many routes and planes in C checks etc. (and there's no overall indicator of this)

But on 0830 dep route at least had LF dropping from 45-50% to 25-35% over last 5 game days. And similar on another 1630 dep route.

[JumboShrimp]

His sales have dropped somewhat, but it's a bit hard to judge as he has so many routes and planes in C checks etc. (and there's no overall indicator of this)

But on 0830 dep route at least had LF dropping from 45-50% to 25-35% over last 5 game days. And similar on another 1630 dep route.

All I can say, interesting results.  Overall it looks great, but I see a slight problem.

I have ~40% capacity and I am allocated as of now, 50% of pax at LF of ~70%.  So I am supplying 35% of demand.  The slight problem is that it appears that all pax demanding to fly are not flying, but Kazari's flying is still affecting my LFs and your LFs.  (I am not sure if I am explaining it clearly, and if it is worth addressing).

[Jona L.]

We are keeping it on the test game.  There is an airline hapily flying 14x Q400 between LHR and CDG.  He could easily add another 14x.

(he is NOT doing that great on those routes I believe, if you see my post about KazAir's data, so the problem you are disucssing is pretty much solved already according to that .. But needs further testing still)

Can agree to sami I fly 5 or 6x A306 and 1x 773, all having 100% C LFs and 60%+ Y LFs, all making a lot of cash...
In fact the A306 that flies 3 x daily (06, 12 and 18) makes over 500k/week

P.S. Route is LHR-CDG against Cream's tons of DHC8

[Kazari]

As requested, one screen of July 25.

I could try frequenting another large airport with my fleet if anyone wants to test another aspect of this. Maybe I'll fly only every 45 minutes?

Open to it. Got plenty of planes.

[JumboShrimp]

Can agree to sami I fly 5 or 6x A306 and 1x 773, all having 100% C LFs and 60%+ Y LFs, all making a lot of cash...
In fact the A306 that flies 3 x daily (06, 12 and 18) makes over 500k/week

P.S. Route is LHR-CDG against Cream's tons of DHC8

That route is not heavily over supplied.  I may put some A320s there to see what happens when there is some oversupply, who I would be taking pax from the most.  I am thinking you and Cream, less from London Jet.

[ARASKA]

That route is not heavily over supplied.  I may put some A320s there to see what happens when there is some oversupply, who I would be taking pax from the most.  I am thinking you and Cream, less from London Jet.

i will add more 737s to oversupply if you wish...

[JumboShrimp]

i will add more 737s to oversupply if you wish...

That would be cool.  But don't go overboard.  I don't know where the limit is, but maybe 15x per day might be ok.

[JumboShrimp]

Just trying to see where the limits are.  10 x ATR-72 = 640 pax on 720 pax route = no problem.  Slight fall off between 0500-0600 and 2300-0000 but everything else fully loaded.

10 x daily on 720 pax route seems to leave a plenty of room for frequency abuse, and only a small percentage routes (> 1000 pax) where high frequency with small aircraft would be penalized.
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/LFPG/EBBR

I wonder if the limit should not be lowered somewhat on a route like this.  Very shot distance (136 nm) is one thing making multiple ATR a little more tolerable on this route...  But I suspect the limit would not change a lot if the route was 300nm, making 10 x ATR more iffy.

In real life, there are 2xA320.  So real life demand is much loser than AWS, probably depressed due to a good rail connection.

[ezzeqiel]

As many (and I) sayed, I think it comes down to 2 issues... passenger aircraft preference and flight costs...

As a passenger I'll always prefer to take a 2hs jet trip than a 4hs turboprop trip... The longest turboprop scheduled commercial flight I ever took was a 45mins one (about 100nm) and only because there was a very very low demand route with only one airline operating it 3 times a week...

And, it's more profitable to take 200 pax on one A321 than 200 on 4 Q400... same with A320 compared to widebodies..

turboprops only flights on routes that won't fill any larger plane... A320s only flights on routes that won't fill any larger plane, and so on...

[Boot]

Wow, all I can say Impressive!

Recap:
Kazari: 37xQ400
Sami: 5xATR72
Jumbo: 8xA320

Supply = 150% Demand

Here are LFs of 8xA320.  Maybe Kazari can post his screen shot (maybe on 18th, to get full 7 days of me flying).

Do I get it right, that E-170 for example would get the same kind of low LF-s as ATR & Q400? Because it's roughly the same size?
I can imagine many real-life people thinking "I dont want to fly a turbo-prop so I'll just wait 3 hours for that A320", but I'm having really-really hard time imagining the situation "I have to be at CDG 0800, but i'll still wait for Jumbos A320, because it's the right size for this route. And this capitalist pig E-170 owner is really oversupplying this route, that's a bad thing too, suffer biaatch!!!"

[JumboShrimp]

Do I get it right, that E-170 for example would get the same kind of low LF-s as ATR & Q400? Because it's roughly the same size?
I can imagine many real-life people thinking "I dont want to fly a turbo-prop so I'll just wait 3 hours for that A320", but I'm having really-really hard time imagining the situation "I have to be at CDG 0800, but i'll still wait for Jumbos A320, because it's the right size for this route. And this capitalist pig E-170 owner is really oversupplying this route, that's a bad thing too, suffer biaatch!!!"

First, do you think it is a problem when airline flies a turbo prop 37x per day between 2 slot constrained airports?  If you agree that this is a problem (and I think it is seriously affecting AWS, as it became single dimensional, with players just stretching the frequency benefit further and further beyond reasonable limit).  Any way, if you agree that this is a problem some mechanism needs to be there to work against it, to limit how much frequency will help you gain higher LFs.

Second, I don't think in this case it is the size of the aircraft but number of times you fly.  37x daily is just too many.

I don't know where that limit is.  But I don't think it is really not that limiting.  10x day flights on a 720 pax route is not a problem, as I tested on CDG-BRU route ...

And since 10 x ATR not a problem on a 720 pax route,  this whole change will affect maybe 1% of all of the viable routes, so it will probably have extremely small overall effect.

Well, Sami is dead set against considering LF.  Yet, the algorithms increase the LFs of a seat way too much with frequency, then there are penalties that decrease the LFs (some probably too much).  I think a simple cap on LF would solve the frequency abuse both LH and SH.  A very simple proposition: If you fly small aircraft, smaller than some reasonable limit, you will not get any LF boost if you decrease the size of your aircraft below this limit.  So no harsh penalties just limiting the LF boost due to smallness of aircraft...

[meiru]

you're all still trying to solve the problem with penalties... why?

I remember when I flew (years ago) from Washington to New York, I used the shuttle of... was it Delta or United? ... anyway, we only got a ticket like a but-ticket, no time, nothing... and the flights went every 40 minutes... so, of course that is cool... and if this is economically possible... why not offering it? why adding a penalty? ... I will never understand that...

[Boot]

First, do you think it is a problem when airline flies a turbo prop 37x per day between 2 slot constrained airports?  If you agree that this is a problem (and I think it is seriously affecting AWS, as it became single dimensional, with players just stretching the frequency benefit further and further beyond reasonable limit).  Any way, if you agree that this is a problem some mechanism needs to be there to work against it, to limit how much frequency will help you gain higher LFs.
Second, I don't think in this case it is the size of the aircraft but number of times you fly.  37x daily is just too many.
I don't know where that limit is.  But I don't think it is really not that limiting.  10x day flights on a 720 pax route is not a problem, as I tested on CDG-BRU route ...

Well, I've lived 12 years in a country where Communist Party said what the limit is and what to produce etc... And of course you needed to keep your mouth shut... Currently it's starting to feel a bit same.
Yes, I think that flying 37x small planes between 2 slot constrained airports is a problem. But it's airport's problem, not passenger's problem. Current solution seems to make it passenger's problem (I haven't heard any good explanation from Sami why should passengers prefer A320 over E170).

Well, Sami is dead set against considering LF.  Yet, the algorithms increase the LFs of a seat way too much with frequency, then there are penalties that decrease the LFs (some probably too much).  I think a simple cap on LF would solve the frequency abuse both LH and SH.  A very simple proposition: If you fly small aircraft, smaller than some reasonable limit, you will not get any LF boost if you decrease the size of your aircraft below this limit.  So no harsh penalties just limiting the LF boost due to smallness of aircraft...

You are talking about LF but LF is simple a statistic, system does not use LF in any meaningful way (said by Sami), sold seats is what counts... Capping LF is 100% artificial.

[ArcherII]

Aviation is one of the riskiest businesses in the world. Margins are so tight that even a single 100lb bag added to every flight during a year may produce operating losses to the airline. For the contrary, AWS airlines showcase profit margins that are more suitable to oil sheiks.
If AWS economics where much more tight, then we wouldn't be dealing with this problem, as every airline will be running for every penny out there. There's a reason airlines try to avoid tech-stops, they're not that good economically. You'll have two takeoffs and climbs instead of one, thus adding to the fuel expense and engine wear, which is the main expense nowadays.
Someone previously said that is is better to run a single A321 than 4 Q400. And that's where I'm driving, currently airlines are swimming in dollar-filled pools and don't care if they run hundreds of turboprops instead of tens of jets because they can bear the economics of it, why? profit margins.
I don't actually know where's the difference in economics between a RL airline and an AWS's, but certainly must be there somewhere.

[JumboShrimp]

Well, I've lived 12 years in a country where Communist Party said what the limit is and what to produce etc... And of course you needed to keep your mouth shut... Currently it's starting to feel a bit same.
Yes, I think that flying 37x small planes between 2 slot constrained airports is a problem. But it's airport's problem, not passenger's problem. Current solution seems to make it passenger's problem (I haven't heard any good explanation from Sami why should passengers prefer A320 over E170).You are talking about LF but LF is simple a statistic, system does not use LF in any meaningful way (said by Sami), sold seats is what counts... Capping LF is 100% artificial.

You are assuming that the passenger is currently perfectly modeled in AWS.  Which it is not, it is a work in progress.  The allocation model is not even passenger centric, rather flight centric.

Currently, in AWS as it was in MT6, the system would allocate > 75% of demand to those 37x daily Q400 flights.   Just because frequency is modeled to have an overwhelming effect.  Disregarding all the other variables, it is a tradeoff between:
a) capacity
b) capacity turbocharged by smallness of aircraft and frequency

We are all the way the side of b).
The only way to turn it down, we need to move to a)
That's how you offset the strong influence of b).  By letting capacity to be a stronger factor, frequency weaker factor.

Sami can't seem to be able smoothly turn the dial from b) to a).  Instead, a series of limits and penalties were introduced.  I may like the end result, but I don't necessarily like the way it is done.

The more the system moves from b) to a), the more the LFs between larger and smaller aircraft will converge.  Everyone seems to have extremely violent reaction against that, without really thinking it through...

[stevecree]

But real life running airline is no fun as you rightly say...infact its nearly impossible to make a profit these days.    

....but is important we remember that AWS is a game, and it needs to be fun in some way.

I just hope these changes don't make the game sterile by not being able to meaningfully effect competing airlines...because the challenge of eliminating (or trying to (legally)) competitors is personally one of my main areas of fun...things that are not fun people don't do    

Making the game so you cannot meaningfully effect other airlines, which these changes seem to be doing, removes much of the fun / thrill AWS gives me.   Playing a game where all 500 airlines are able to happily survive until the end flying around full 777's with not a worry in the world sounds soooooo boring to me TBH.   People won't agree with that, but I am allowed my opinion.   Maybe AWS isn't the right place for me and I should start up AirforceSim so I can really have some fun with my planes ....I'll get me coat on the way out.

[JumboShrimp]

But real life running airline is no fun as you rightly say...infact its nearly impossible to make a profit these days.    

....but is important we remember that AWS is a game, and it needs to be fun in some way.

I just hope these changes don't make the game sterile by not being able to meaningfully effect competing airlines...because the challenge of eliminating (or trying to (legally)) competitors is personally my main area of fun...things that are not fun people don't do    

Making the game so you cannot meaningfully effect other airlines, which these changes seem to be doing, removes much of the fun / thrill AWS gives me.   Playing a game where all 500 airlines are able to happily survive until the end flying around full 777's with not a worry in the world sounds soooooo boring to me TBH.   People won't agree with that, but I am allowed my opinion.   Maybe AWS isn't the right place for me and I should start up AirforceSim so I can really have some fun with my planes ....I'll get me coat on the way out.

It is the absence of price competition that moved all the competition to frequency.

I have not tested the price changes, but it is the price that is the driving factor to consumer preference and lack of profitability of RL airlines.  Competition will still be there, even more so, but there will just be another way to go about it in MT7

[ezzeqiel]

You are assuming that the passenger is currently perfectly modeled in AWS.  Which it is not, it is a work in progress.  The allocation model is not even passenger centric, rather flight centric.

Then why are we wasting time on this "tweaks" instead of fixing the main system ??


I've tested price a little... on a 90% supplied route, a 50% LF plane went to 60% LF with 40% price reduction... so 10% LF = 40% price reduction with demand not 100% met. (It was a 747 on a 400nm route).

[Sami]

Then why are we wasting time on this "tweaks" instead of fixing the main system

Sorry, but please read the first message of this topic again. Since you seem to have missed what this testing is all about. If I would be only making some tweaks, then a test world would not be running.

And yet again I have to also notify generally. This topic is only for discussion about the test world and matters related to it. Anything else is just unnecessary glogging of the topic...

[JumboShrimp]

Then why are we wasting time on this "tweaks" instead of fixing the main system ??

I am sure there will be further changes when City Based Demand and passenger connectivity is introduced.  But since that may be a while, some tweaks are being done now...

I've tested price a little... on a 90% supplied route, a 50% LF plane went to 60% LF with 40% price reduction... so 10% LF = 40% price reduction with demand not 100% met. (It was a 747 on a 400nm route).

The question is what the RI is.  If it is less than 100, that's just a temporay phenmenon, just live with it.

The bigger question is tha if you have a simple case.  Let's say 200 demand and 2 airlines supplying 150 pax with everything being identical.  So 100 pax each to each airline.  Now suppose one airline lowers the price to 90% of default ticket price what will be the pax breakdown?

In MT6, you might get 1 extra pax for 101 total and 9% revenue loss.  In real life, you might get extra 15 pax and higher revenue...  I have not tested how this works on test server...