Tech Stopovers - can you program in more than two on each 'Leg' of a trip

[2pax]

I want to re-create the kangaroo route from Sydney to London - or at least do something similar. It appears I con only program in x2 stopovers in each direction. Is that the case? Is there any way around this?

[Sami]

No, it's currently limited to two per sector. (though technically it should work with higher number but has not been tested)

[2pax]

Thanks, Sami - if it is technically possible - can it be enabled? Presently, the option of a tech stopover disappears after two have been selected. I need 5, I think.

[Amelie090904]

The question is if it makes sense in the end. Currently there is a 50% penalty or so for a simple tech stop. That means if the demand is 100, only 50 passengers are willing to take the flight with a tech stop. Well, at least that's what I have in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now that is just 1 tech stop, now imagine 5. Barely anyone would want to fly that route. It must be a massive demand so that the remaining few percent still fill the aircraft...

[2pax]

Thanks Andre, I didn't realise that.

I was merely going for historical accuracy - where from 1947 'til the late 60's, early 70's, a flight with more than 2 'tech' stops between Sydney and London was the only way to fly the route. Obviously, this reduced when the Jumbo came on line, and further reduced with the more contemporary aircraft.

[tdf42]

I tried to do a tech stop on a 4000 mile route with a 739 MAX with 350 demand and it only allowed me 98 PAX..did I do something wrong?

[schro]

I tried to do a tech stop on a 4000 mile route with a 739 MAX with 350 demand and it only allowed me 98 PAX..did I do something wrong?

One leg might be the limiting factor, also could be a runway issue at one of the airports.

[Amelie090904]

You mean while opening the route it showed that the aircraft could handle only 98 passengers? Are you sure you added the tech-stop for BOTH legs? It sometimes happened to me that I just added it for the first flight, but not for the flight back. That may be your problem. If "A" is your base, "B" your tech-stop and "C" your destination, it should look like A-B-C-B-A. You probably did A-B-C-A.

But also note that you may get 2 penalties at the same time. One for flying a tech stop (50%) and another for flying a too small aircraft (this one is dynamic). So from the 350 pax, you may just have around 100 or so that would fly with you. 150 demand (out of 350 potential demand) with a tech-stop, then maybe take away another 50 out of those 150 for the "too small aircraft".

EDIT: Schro was faster, albeit not so detailed. 

[paddk989]

In the case of a 737-800 or 737-900, flying a route distance of between a 1.000nm or 2.000nm for example, at what sort figure of passenger demand, is using a wide body airplane preferable.

[freshmore]

Generally I think you are fine, you'll see the warning anyway. Although you might see it you are flying E-Jet's to max range.

The warning and penalty is a combination of high demand and long routes. It's always hard to say, but a route at 4000nm with 250 demand will likely give you a warning if you try a B737-700ER. In my limited experience of the 2000-3000nm range, you might expect to see a warning from the 300 demand mark. I may have seen it at the 200 mark when trying E-Jets.

Therefore I wouldn't expect to see it in the 1000 to 2000nm ranges, although some routes that have incredibly high demand might trigger the warning or might even be well served by widebodies anyway if you have them already, especially if you need to fill a gap in a long haul schedule. These are Domestic or International routes and largely don't trigger the warning if flying larger narrowbody families, A320 family or B737 family for example. You could find issues with E-Jets and other regional jets in these ranges though.

Best way is to look and experiment with it.

[tdf42]

So I did do it wrong but corrected with a MAX9 it only allowed 103 PAX. Why the penalty? A stopover could be akin to a connecting flight (two different things I know)which would not be uncommon on a 4000 mile trip. I just dont want to add a 5th fleet.

[gazzz0x2z]

Well, the idea is to prevent players from covering all niches, which allows other players to play in other niches and survive. Said otherwise : the game is designed to make it very costly to cover ALL the demand in an airport, you'll always have holes.

The "too small penalty", to my experience, is dependent on two factors, each one has its own threshold. The penalty kicks in when you go beyond both thresholds. Here are my values for the 21st century. Note that it's radically in the 1950s, when the penalty is nearly non existant.
_Range - Around 2100NM for the 737NG family for international flights. Around 2600NM for domestic flights. 280NM for metros in international flights. Around 350NM for metros in domestic flights(which sucks when playing in Visby, Northern Sweden is too far IIRC)
_Demand - around 230 for 737NG family. Around 30 for metros.

Each tech stop divides your demand by nearly a factor two(that's an approximate). I made a crazy 2-tech-stops with IL12 in current GW2, and Load Factor behaves effectively as if demand was less than 30% of what it is. I'll have to find a longer-legged plane soon. One single tech-stop can work in early eras