Started by JumboShrimp, July 20, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: LemonButt on July 21, 2014, 09:42:51 PMThe problem with this is that having spare aircraft flying no routes and on standby to fill in the gaps is actually less efficient than having a 24/7 schedule for those spare aircraft. The net result wouldn't be any different because the opportunity cost of having spare aircraft is flying additional routes.
Quote from: LemonButt on July 21, 2014, 09:42:51 PMI don't see this every being implemented because no matter how you crunch the numbers, they possible benefit is very marginal.
Quote from: LemonButt on July 21, 2014, 09:42:51 PMHowever, an easier to implement and more realistic system would be to simply have a setting where the game automatically recognizes aircraft with no scheduled flights and cycles them in to replace aircraft in maintenance or technical cancellations.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 22, 2014, 08:26:34 PMSuppose you have 100 aircraft, 5 in middle of checks, 100 schedules from the best #1 to worst #1001. You may be flying your worst schedule (#100) while not flying your best schedule (#1)2. You are employing staff for 100 aircraft, while flying only 95 schedulesSuppose I have 100 aircraft, 5 in middle of checks, I have only 95 best schedules, not flying the marginal 96-1001. I am always flying my best schedules (1-95), never the worst (potential 96-100)2. I am employing staff for only 95 aircraft, instead of 100 aircraft
Quote from: LemonButt on July 22, 2014, 08:35:57 PMYou are employing staff for 100 and flying 95--I believe the downtime is factored in for vacation etc. when it comes to staffing, so if you are flying every route all the time your staff would go up, no stay constant. I could be wrong on this, but would make sense since everyone gets vacation time, right?
Quote from: LemonButt on July 22, 2014, 08:35:57 PMSo if you have schedules ranked 1-100 and want #1 to be flown all the time and #100 flown only if the first 99 are flown, what then? First, how would the data be represented to other players on the demand graphs? You would show up as flying the route everyday even though you don't. Also, slots would end up expiring because you aren't using them. Second, would be that you would end up creating a feedback loop--schedule #100 would ALWAYS be schedule #100 because RI would never be 100, you would be penalized for not flying daily, etc. Thus, #100 could actually be #1 but due to "rules" you would set, it would never be able to realize its actual potential.
Quote from: LemonButt on July 22, 2014, 08:35:57 PMI'm not saying this is a bad idea--I'd love to have spare aircraft automatically covering routes because it does make sense in some cases, but from a logistics standpoint and building on the existing infrastructure of the game it creates more problems than it solves IMO.
Quote from: weasel on August 01, 2014, 01:34:10 PM. So yes, it would be good to have an option to use spare planes in an automated manner, especially for the more casual players who can login to the sim once a day.
Quote from: bdnascar3 on August 01, 2014, 07:03:33 PMI guess maybe I did miss the point- because the op was saying that if you had a group of 37 acrft flying 35 routes you could set it so the C checks were done automatically. To me this is the point - having automatic C checks and automatic A/C swaps. Doing it manually is very time consuming and very hard for those of us who can't check AWS every 2-3 hours.
Quote from: LemonButt on August 01, 2014, 07:19:21 PMThus (in theory), having 37 aircraft fly 37 schedules with maintenance gaps would be just as profitable/efficient as 37 aircraft flying 35 schedules with no maintenance gaps.
Quote from: bdnascar3 on August 01, 2014, 07:48:32 PMIn theory - yes - but I guess if I'm trying to treat this as a airline business sim then I would like to be able to reflect RL and have maintenance gaps covered. Also - I would guess that if I was in head to head with you I would have the advantage early on, as those weeks your AC in check I would be making extra money on those weeks. Later when both were mega airlines, maybe not.
Quote from: LemonButt on August 01, 2014, 08:02:20 PMLOL You would *think* you had the advantage, but in reality you would need to be doing maintenance before you had to (higher costs) in order to achieve the perfectly staggered schedule required to cover all those gaps without your spare aircraft sitting on the ground for inordinate periods of time.