AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Serving long, thin route with less than daily frequency  (Read 424 times)

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738

The person who likes this post:
Serving long, thin route with less than daily frequency
« on: November 18, 2016, 12:03:49 AM »
If I understand correctly, if a route demand is about 50 pax/day, and you fly a 772 on the route once a week, you can't really attract passengers from other days onto your plane? Or will travellers actually change their schedule to fit onto your plane

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The person who likes this post:
Re: Serving long, thin route with less than daily frequency
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2016, 02:44:04 AM »
They won't change their day, so you will have a very empty 772 and a bankrupt airline a bit later on.

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: Serving long, thin route with less than daily frequency
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2016, 03:15:52 AM »
They won't change their day, so you will have a very empty 772 and a bankrupt airline a bit later on.
So if a route demand is like 150 pax / day over a distance of 6000nm it would be better to serve the route via 737 with technical stop?

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The person who likes this post:
Re: Serving long, thin route with less than daily frequency
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2016, 03:46:19 AM »
So if a route demand is like 150 pax / day over a distance of 6000nm it would be better to serve the route via 737 with technical stop?

Short answer:
It'd be more advisable to find a better route to fly.

Long answer:
1. Tech stop significantly reduce the amount of demand you can actually sell, so that 150 turns into more like 75-100.
2. "Long and thin" routes are very difficult to make a profit on simply because the cost per seat mile to operate it is higher than any possible revenue per seat mile for it.
3. Of note, while costs tend to increase on a linear basis with distance, revenue does not.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4238
Re: Serving long, thin route with less than daily frequency
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2016, 08:04:39 AM »
Costs increase more than linearly, at least for fuel. When I toyed with 777-200LR between Glasgow and Australia, I had the bad surprise so see far higher costs on 10000NM lines than on 9000NM lines. Or, in the same game, A148B still making profits(not huge, but enough to pay personal & marketing and still stay in the green) on 1800NM lines, but A148E far in the red in seemingly similar lines at 2000NM. Replaced by 737-700, made immediate profits, even if not full. While replacement on 1800NM lines was not really worth it.

Usually, pushing planes at their range limit is a very bad idea. I still do it routinely, because I'm stubborn, and like to maximize destinations, but 3800NM MAX7 flights are not really profitable. I'm not really losing money here, but profit is not worth the hassle. The worse I've done in a previous game was a Nice-Bobo Dioulasso in SW3 with a tech stop in the algerian desert. Just for the fun. Economical nonsense; of course. Even if the plane was 75% full.

The advantage of planes with a correct range for their category(S2000, ATR, J728, A320, B767) is that you are not tempted to try stupid things on insane routes. Longer range planes are a trap, usually(ERJ145-XR, A148E, 737-700LR, 777-200LR). Use them at best when you are bored and have nothing else to do, and be sure to babysit their ticket prices. You can make good money on normal ranges with company-wide pricings. Not on extreme range lines where only fine-tuning can avoid heavy losses.

 

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

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.