Online Airline Management Simulation

My Account
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

### Author Topic: CI requirement to fly passengers  (Read 851 times)

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6486

The person who likes this post:
##### CI requirement to fly passengers
« on: March 13, 2013, 01:20:19 AM »
In order to close the LH loophole in early stages of games, that throws game completely out of balance, where an airline can make incredible amount of money flying high demand routes, with cheap aircraft and cheap fuel price, (See these posts for details):

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,46125.msg254283.html#msg254283
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,46125.msg254328.html#msg254328
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,46125.msg255008.html#msg255008

I propose something that would close this loophole.  My proposal would greatly delay the time when these routes can be flown, bringing the system back into balance.  Meaning, all the airlines will be forced to go through the slow start, the growth turbocharged by the highly profitable LH routes will be delayed 2+ game years (by which time the fuel prices may be higher than very low starting fuel prices).

The CI would have one additional meaning, ability to fly passengers.  It would create a fraction by which the passenger would be allocated (in addition to normal pax allocation calculation).

These might be good threshold ranges.

Domestic and International SH:
Y pax: CI range of -100 to 0
C pax: CI range of 0 to 50
F pax: CI range of 25 to 75

International LH:
Y pax: 40 to 80
C pax: 60 to 90
F pax: 80 to 100

This is how it would work:
- CI level is below the range, zero pax would be allocated.  Fractional multiplier = 0.
- CI within the range, a the pax would be reduced by the fraction of the range.  Fractional multiplier = (CI - low) / (high - low)
- CI above the range, same as current allocation.  Fractional multiplier = 1

Here is the formula to cover all 3 possibilities:
=+MIN(MAX((CI-low), 0) / (high-low), 1)

Here is an example.  Player has a CI of 50.  He can fly:
100% of SH Y
100% of SH C
50% of SH F

25% of LH Y
0% of LH C
0% of LH F

I would also change the speed at which CI grows.  Currently, CI can grow from 5 to 75 in one year.  Meaning at max rate of increase, it can grow 70 points in 1 year.

I would reduce the rate of growth in half.  35 points per year.  So the CI could grow to 40 in first year.  In this first year, no airline could fly LH, because you would need 40 to get the first passenger.

Flying LH would become viable only in 2nd half of 2nd year, and it would really not be that profitable until the third year, when some C passengers can be flown (above CI of 60).

If this is implemented, all airlines will have to start small, and wait a while before they can become premier international LH airlines.  The growth rate of all airlines would be back in balance.

I think this could be implemented even in current game worlds, by phasing in these thresholds.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 05:39:56 AM by JumboShrimp »

#### Mr.HP

• Members
• Posts: 2730
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2013, 04:16:57 AM »
I'd like to add that we need a clear definition of which are considered as short, medium and long haul.

Also, is the threshold to be absolute or not, in term of: say 2500 nm cross continent is the threshold of LH international, then at 2499 nm we still get pax, and at 2500 nm we have 0 pax?

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6486
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2013, 05:26:08 AM »
I'd like to add that we need a clear definition of which are considered as short, medium and long haul.

Also, is the threshold to be absolute or not, in term of: say 2500 nm cross continent is the threshold of LH international, then at 2499 nm we still get pax, and at 2500 nm we have 0 pax?

The system already has a definition of International LH.  The system has "Route Type", that is displayed on the demand screen.  I would just use that for simplicity, rather than invent new definitions.

#### Sanabas

• Members
• Posts: 2161
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2013, 06:37:19 AM »
I'd like to add that we need a clear definition of which are considered as short, medium and long haul.

Also, is the threshold to be absolute or not, in term of: say 2500 nm cross continent is the threshold of LH international, then at 2499 nm we still get pax, and at 2500 nm we have 0 pax?

We have a clear definition.

domestic = within the same country, regardless of length.

Int Longhaul = 2400+ NM to a different continent, or 3400+ NM to the same continent.

International = anything not covered in the above two categories.

And yes, the threshold is absolute. You can find various examples of that, where an airport has a 2390 NM route and a 2410 NM route to two very similar airports, but the pax numbers are very, very different, because one flight is shorthaul, one is longhaul.

#### brique

• Former member
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2013, 05:18:23 PM »
I like this proposal a lot : most elegant indeed : it resolves a troublesome issue and also tilts the game balance back to what I feel is a more realistic and organic growth pattern for our airlines.

I also reckon the point when decisions would have to be made : stay SH/Dom or switch routes to LH, or try to add LH to your existing schedules, is going to create some interesting possibilities for new strategies.

#### Mr.HP

• Members
• Posts: 2730
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2013, 05:53:14 AM »
We have a clear definition.

domestic = within the same country, regardless of length.

Int Longhaul = 2400+ NM to a different continent, or 3400+ NM to the same continent.

International = anything not covered in the above two categories.

And yes, the threshold is absolute. You can find various examples of that, where an airport has a 2390 NM route and a 2410 NM route to two very similar airports, but the pax numbers are very, very different, because one flight is shorthaul, one is longhaul.

I meant the number has to be publicly known (i.e. it has to be in the Manual) if the feature is putting into implementation

And absolute threshold is just insane

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6486
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2013, 06:06:46 AM »
I meant the number has to be publicly known (i.e. it has to be in the Manual) if the feature is putting into implementation

And absolute threshold is just insane

Even if you don't know the number, the route type is displayed on the demand screen (accessible from Open Route).

Joe

#### ReedME

• Former member

The person who likes this post:
##### Re: CI requirement to fly passengers
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2013, 03:13:12 PM »
I'm not a fan of this entirely. I believe airlines should have the right to be primarily a long-haul carrier if they choose. I'm not a fan personally of the short hops in 737's and feel that maybe the 25% of LH could apply to a company image of 25 rather than a CI of 50 as proposed. This would make the system fairer without completely throttling long haul carriers.

Growth of a route needs to be more directly related to route image and more LOOSELY related to company image. As it stands I don't need to worry about route image because with a decent CI I will get that 40-50% off any flight I start right off the bat.

With a RI of 0 you should expect virtually no PAX. Nobody knows you fly there. Nobody knows the route exists. Sure they know the company exists but how the hell do they know you fly to their destination. They might because they call your company and ask.

CI is too closely linked in my opinion. Route image should be the main governing factor here. If I want to fly EGLL->KATL day one. I should have to throw marketing into the route image to get the flight from say 5% LF @ 0 RI to a loose 80-100% at 100 RI which can then be governed by CI.

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.