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: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)  (Read 1341 times)

Offline mrh777

  • Members
  • Posts: 64
[-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« on: October 04, 2017, 04:00:09 PM »
Hello,

I think that the too small of an aircraft for a route should be eliminated, it basically makes it impossible to operate narrow-bodies to the max range. In real life plenty of operators fly the 757 transatlantic, and many have plans to use NEO/MAX frames transatlantic as well. I think the game should reflect this reality by deleting/altering the pax variability towards larger aircraft, in order to use narrow-bodies effectively. Reality is people choose price/comfort/convenience of airplane types (aviation enthusiasts aside). If a "small" aircraft in configured properly for long haul routes it should have no preference to other "sized" aircraft.

I also think that the fuel stop is overly-skewed to the negative, this would also be a nice adjustment.

Would like to hear other's thoughts on this and hopefully we can improve the game.

Thanks
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 05:08:21 PM by Sami »

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758

The person who likes this post:
Re: Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2017, 04:27:42 PM »
I disagree. In real life airlines are using B757's on thinnest of long haul routes, where the NEO and Max will also basically operate. It's same in AWS, a B757 on athin 200pax route should be fine, but a 300 pax route would be widebody territory and would attract the penalty. An airline would only operate the smaller type where they can't justify and widebody.

Fuel stop's only become hugely skewed when one airline has them and the other does not. In the 60's and 70's it's less of an issue because everyone has to fuel stop, however in the modern era it becomes an issue, because most flights are direct and don't need a fuel stop causing a penalty. It makes sense too when you think about it, passengers don't expect and don't want to stop halfway to their destination if they can avoid it.

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738

The person who likes this post:
Re: Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2017, 04:50:24 PM »
In my opinion, in real life, 757s aren't spammed onto longer range thicker routes are just because of the range of 757s after couonting in wind, reserve, and other factors being insufficient. In many cases, operators even went into operating premium narrow body services crossing a huge span of distance like India-Japan, India-Europe, Europe-US and make them work. The situation is comparable how widebodies was the norm on US Transcon routes, until narrowbody aircrafts are grown to given enough range. Also see US west coast-Hawaii market.
In 1960s and 1970s, when jets are coming, usually routes over the distance of US west coast - Europe are under competition between non stop prop services and one stop jet service. In real life passengers would prefer one stop jet service. However it is the reverse in AWS.
And, although one or even two stops would naturally make the option less attractive, but when for example you are the only airline providing such option, I don't think it would make sense for as much as 50% passengers to choose not flying to their destination instead.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 04:52:50 PM by qunow »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16943
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The person who likes this post:
Re: Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2017, 05:07:59 PM »
The game mechanic was changed for a good reason (to discourage people from flying 737s across Atlantic etc), and I do not see that it should be changed back.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4461
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2017, 06:53:57 PM »
As a former TATL 757 spammer, the reason for doing it prior to the plane is too small penalty is simple economics. Compare the staff costs and fuel burn between the 757 and ANY 1980s+ widebody and you'll see exactly where the game mechanic issues were.

Of course, it did result in the 757 becoming a completely nerfed and unusable fleet type as a result, and many tears have been shed for it.

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2017, 08:06:56 PM »
The game mechanic was changed for a good reason (to discourage people from flying 737s across Atlantic etc), and I do not see that it should be changed back.
A better way to discourage people from flying 737 across Atlantic, in my opinion, would be calculate payload restriction after taken into account headwind, so that older 737s cannot really be used on TATL hops, which is more realistic, as with the introduction of 737MAX/320neo airlines are going to be guaranteed to spam them onto TATL
As a former TATL 757 spammer, the reason for doing it prior to the plane is too small penalty is simple economics. Compare the staff costs and fuel burn between the 757 and ANY 1980s+ widebody and you'll see exactly where the game mechanic issues were.

Of course, it did result in the 757 becoming a completely nerfed and unusable fleet type as a result, and many tears have been shed for it.
In my understanding, another reason behind the predominant use of widebodies on TATL, other than the limited narrowbody aircraft capability at the time (iirc 757 initially does not have the range it currently have either?), is the regulation on frequency being put in place by bilaterals. It wasn't until late 2000s when the EU-US open sky was signed and iirc that was already after 757 already become old and its production were already ceased. As AWS is a completely deregulated world, I don't think we need to cater for this.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4217
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2017, 08:20:53 PM »
You don't get it. The too small penalty adds a strategical layer to the game. You can't spam 737s everywhere in their range. Would make the game too easy.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1122
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2017, 09:06:03 PM »
You don't get it. The too small penalty adds a strategical layer to the game. You can't spam 737s everywhere in their range. Would make the game too easy.

Gods knows we've tried over the years.


Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2017, 12:01:43 AM »
You don't get it. The too small penalty adds a strategical layer to the game. You can't spam 737s everywhere in their range. Would make the game too easy.

What's wrong with that? :)

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2017, 05:35:42 AM »
You don't get it. The too small penalty adds a strategical layer to the game. You can't spam 737s everywhere in their range. Would make the game too easy.
- There are always routes that would be beyond the reach of 737
- 737 can still be nerfed by considering wind and such as oppose to still air range

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758

The person who likes this post:
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2017, 08:30:28 AM »
Taking into account winds but not having a too small penalty would start up everyone flying narrowbody flights on anything within range. So all those routes that would be better filled by widebodies, everyone would be flying a Max or NEO or something similar. Widebodies have the advantage in that they make a better use of slots, given there is generally way more slots and demand in game than in real life, putting a too small aircraft rule in is Sami's way to making us use our slots efficiently. If the game were to go on a "winds only" approach to nerfing the TATL range of narrowbodies, cutting slots would be the logical way to force people into using widebodies and making more efficient use of their limited slots. But no one wants that, so too small penalty it is.

The B757 is an annoying aircraft in game, as only having 3 fleets to play and lack of commonality with the B767 means it's not an easy aircraft to fit into a fleet plan. If you could fly them mixed fleet, it would be a different proposition. It's not until the NEO and Max come along, that we have a set of narrowbodies that are capable of filling out the long thin routes without needing an extra fleet.

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738

The person who likes this post:
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2017, 02:13:14 PM »
Taking into account winds but not having a too small penalty would start up everyone flying narrowbody flights on anything within range. So all those routes that would be better filled by widebodies, everyone would be flying a Max or NEO or something similar.
Which is what airlines in real world are doing.
Quote
Widebodies have the advantage in that they make a better use of slots, given there is generally way more slots and demand in game than in real life, putting a too small aircraft rule in is Sami's way to making us use our slots efficiently.
There are probably more slots in game than real life, but the increased demand in AWS mean the advantage of additional slot is cancelled by needing more capacity to match the demand.
Quote
If the game were to go on a "winds only" approach to nerfing the TATL range of narrowbodies, cutting slots would be the logical way to force people into using widebodies and making more efficient use of their limited slots. But no one wants that, so too small penalty it is.
But why we need to force people into using widebodies? In real life airlines do deploy narrow bodies onto TATL routes.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4461

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2017, 02:54:10 PM »
But why we need to force people into using widebodies? In real life airlines do deploy narrow bodies onto TATL routes.

It's a game balance thing.

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2017, 03:20:40 PM »
It's a game balance thing.
What does it balance against, other than preventing narrowbody-only carriers from competing on long distance trunk route?
And I personally think AWS would be more attractive if it is positioned more as a simulation and less as a game that need to be balanced

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2017, 03:49:06 PM »
I could live more with this "too small" penalty if we were allowed one more fleet type without severe penalty. (4 vs 3)

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2017, 04:13:45 PM »
Which is what airlines in real world are doing.

Well, my point being if we didn't have some kind of balance, we'd all use narrowbodies on the highest demand routes. IRL and in AWS this is really where we should be using widebodies. In both cases, using smaller aircraft would result in less available slots. It's a game balance thing, but it's also encourages us to think about capacity in a way where we maximise the revenue gained per slot on long haul routes. Something that has to be thought about in real life because of the very limited slot exchanges that happen. In AWS, slot growth is often such, that later in the game, even the busiest airports have plenty of slots to fly with, so nerfing narrowbodies on high demand routes is way of making us use our slots more effectively.

There are probably more slots in game than real life, but the increased demand in AWS mean the advantage of additional slot is cancelled by needing more capacity to match the demand.

Well sort of, I refer to the above observation that late game in AWS is such there is normally some spare slots at all but the busiest airports, meaning using narrow bodies hugely is an effective strategy if it wasn't nerfed. What this does is encourages the use of narrowbodies on thinner routes, as in real life and widebodies on higher demand routes. It also makes sure that when the player count drops, there is plenty of slots for new airlines to come in and use.

But why we need to force people into using widebodies? In real life airlines do deploy narrow bodies onto TATL routes.

In AWS you can, the penalty doesn't affect all routes. They are there to use on thinner routes as in real life. I'm not quite sure, but also, isn't the penalty incremental. That is for the highest demand routes big and for the smaller routes that attract the penalty less.

What does it balance against, other than preventing narrowbody-only carriers from competing on long distance trunk route?
And I personally think AWS would be more attractive if it is positioned more as a simulation and less as a game that need to be balanced

Mostly it balances against people taking up huge amounts of slots to fly narrowbody aircraft on the highest demand routes Long haul. It is, to an extent. But AWS has to balance simulation against being user friendly and commercial. There have to be some compromises along the way, this is just one of them.

I could live more with this "too small" penalty if we were allowed one more fleet type without severe penalty. (4 vs 3)

I think some sort of new commonality system is on the agenda to do at some point. But this is where NEO's and Max's are useful, they fit into already existing types.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 04:15:55 PM by freshmore »

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2017, 09:05:51 PM »
Well, my point being if we didn't have some kind of balance, we'd all use narrowbodies on the highest demand routes. IRL and in AWS this is really where we should be using widebodies. In both cases, using smaller aircraft would result in less available slots. It's a game balance thing, but it's also encourages us to think about capacity in a way where we maximise the revenue gained per slot on long haul routes. Something that has to be thought about in real life because of the very limited slot exchanges that happen. In AWS, slot growth is often such, that later in the game, even the busiest airports have plenty of slots to fly with, so nerfing narrowbodies on high demand routes is way of making us use our slots more effectively.

Well sort of, I refer to the above observation that late game in AWS is such there is normally some spare slots at all but the busiest airports, meaning using narrow bodies hugely is an effective strategy if it wasn't nerfed. What this does is encourages the use of narrowbodies on thinner routes, as in real life and widebodies on higher demand routes. It also makes sure that when the player count drops, there is plenty of slots for new airlines to come in and use.

In AWS you can, the penalty doesn't affect all routes. They are there to use on thinner routes as in real life. I'm not quite sure, but also, isn't the penalty incremental. That is for the highest demand routes big and for the smaller routes that attract the penalty less.
- IRL it is not like 757s aren't used by carriers like La Compagnies on routes like CDG-EWR. LCCs also use their 737 to fly between some of the most busiest airport pairs in the world.
- As for slots, my understanding on the real world situation is that, after a period of time in previous decades when many European/American airport are very slot contrained, currently most airports have expanded and provide sufficient amount of slot to users, such that now there are I think only less than a hundred airports all around the world is currently totally slot constrained in real life.
- If the slot coordinationh and utilization is the most concerning factor of flying small aircrafts on thick route, then I think a way to handle it would be display "too small warning" only when the airport become slot constrained. I think it would make sense in this way, as in real life slot coordication would actually consider the aircraft size being used by carrier as one of the factor. As such, the "too small warning" can be twisted to say it is a warning by airport authority to change the gauge if airlines want to keep their slot, instead of saying customers aren't happy about it. This way, slots can also be more actively recycled when airlines aren't flying apporipate aircrafts.
Quote
Mostly it balances against people taking up huge amounts of slots to fly narrowbody aircraft on the highest demand routes Long haul. It is, to an extent. But AWS has to balance simulation against being user friendly and commercial. There have to be some compromises along the way, this is just one of them.
An warning by airport authority could make more sense than a message saying passengers aren't happy
Quote
I think some sort of new commonality system is on the agenda to do at some point. But this is where NEO's and Max's are useful, they fit into already existing types.
When last time I wrote a feature request about commonality, sami redirected me to a thread about a thread regarding to a point-based system, but if I recall correctly, that is just a user suggestion. I personally don't particularly like that suggestion as that seems like it would further gamify the simulation and bring it further away from reality.

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758

The person who likes this post:
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2017, 10:39:32 PM »
-La Compangie is a terrible example, because it is a Premium business carrier and operates a much lower than standard total configuration. It is a specialist carrier operating long haul premium only. American major carriers tend to operate it on thinner routes where the capacity of a widebody is not needed. B737's are starting to be used transatlantic by Norwegian but are operating out of smaller major European airports, Edinburgh, for example to less well known airports in US. E.g. New York is Stewart International.

-That is still a lot less slot availability than we generally have late in game. A reduction in player numbers leads to lots of space in the game later on and along with growth and game settings leads to an excess of slots.

-That would be too late to see the warning, it's better to put the warning as early as possible for the aircraft being to small for a particular route. That would also involved the airline in question still getting a large number of slots, which would defeat the idea of reducing the amount of slots people having by using wide bodies on the larger long routes. It's important to at the earliest opportunity that is practical to reduce the demand for slots to keep them available for competition from airlines already in the game, or to allow new airlines to come in.

-Passenger comfort is a big thing. Always being squeezed in a smaller narrowbody aircraft with nearly 200 other passengers will always psychologically feel more cramped and less comfortable than a wider aircraft. Passenger expectations are such that a widebody will give a better experience. Therefore where there is demand, passengers want the bigger better aircraft. Narrowbody isn't necessarily bad, it's just that wider cabins will give a better feeling of space and comfort.

-Well, it would be a better solution that the current huge 3rd fleet penalty. A points based system would be a good model for a more complex commonality system. A points based system could account for the similarities in operating B757 and B767 and keep them as the separate fleets than they are now. At the moment with 3 fleets, operating both is stupid because it uses up 2 or your available fleets. It could also take into account the that A330/A340 and A350 are somewhat easier to operate costs wise because training across types is simpler than A330 and B787. A more complex model of commonality would contribute to a more realistic system, yet it still has to take into account that this is an Online Simulation Game, compromise have to be made in the interests of game balance and feasibility of building the system.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 10:44:54 PM by freshmore »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2017, 11:27:55 PM »
How about removing the too small penalty if you go all premium seating?

In any other case then relaxation of the 3 fleet glass ceiling to 4 would be an equitable compromise.

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2017, 11:42:14 PM »
-La Compangie is a terrible example, because it is a Premium business carrier and operates a much lower than standard total configuration. It is a specialist carrier operating long haul premium only. American major carriers tend to operate it on thinner routes where the capacity of a widebody is not needed. B737's are starting to be used transatlantic by Norwegian but are operating out of smaller major European airports, Edinburgh, for example to less well known airports in US. E.g. New York is Stewart International.
- In AWS, despite restrictions on overly premium configuration, it's still possible to configure half their 757 with premium cabin and fly on routes they desired. And they will nevertheless face the same "aircraft too small warning" warning.
- "American major carriers tend to operate it on thinner routes where the capacity of a widebody is not needed" Because their 757s are going to retirement and they don't have more 757 so their deployment of 757 would be where the aircraft is best suitable for.
-"B737's are starting to be used transatlantic by Norwegian but are operating out of smaller major European airports, Edinburgh, for example to less well known airports in US. E.g. New York is Stewart International" Despite the use of secondary airports, they are still tapping into the larger market of Edinburgh - New York. I believe the use of secondary airport is more related to their business model than commerical reason. the EDI-NYC route also have four other daily flights by UA, AA and DL, and all of them are run by 757.

Quote
-That is still a lot less slot availability than we generally have late in game. A reduction in player numbers leads to lots of space in the game later on and along with growth and game settings leads to an excess of slots.
In the previous GW2 I started playing in a French airport in last few years in the game, and if I recalled correctly, there are still some airports I cannot fly in freely due to slot condition.
Quote
-That would be too late to see the warning, it's better to put the warning as early as possible for the aircraft being to small for a particular route. That would also involved the airline in question still getting a large number of slots, which would defeat the idea of reducing the amount of slots people having by using wide bodies on the larger long routes. It's important to at the earliest opportunity that is practical to reduce the demand for slots to keep them available for competition from airlines already in the game, or to allow new airlines to come in.
- Even if a warning system is changed to by airport authority, warning can still be setup in route creation stage.
- "That would also involved the airline in question still getting a large number of slots, which would defeat the idea of reducing the amount of slots people having by using wide bodies on the larger long routes." How? There are still the "oversupply rule", and if the airlines really want to keep their slot, in current game setup they can still upgauge their aircrafts on those routes affected by the warning.
- Warn players in route creationg stage or once routes are created like oversupply warning, are more effective in asking them to hand out their slots, and also at the earliest time, than simply cut their demand.
Quote
-Passenger comfort is a big thing. Always being squeezed in a smaller narrowbody aircraft with nearly 200 other passengers will always psychologically feel more cramped and less comfortable than a wider aircraft. Passenger expectations are such that a widebody will give a better experience. Therefore where there is demand, passengers want the bigger better aircraft. Narrowbody isn't necessarily bad, it's just that wider cabins will give a better feeling of space and comfort.
I am not sure how many people will actually book a ticket based on that psychology. People used to said "4 engines are necessary for long haul flights" but then you see where A340 and superjumbos are going to in real life. Icelandair and WOW also attracted quite a bit of Trans-Atlantic traffics with their mostly narrowbody aircrafts.
Quote
-Well, it would be a better solution that the current huge 3rd fleet penalty. A points based system would be a good model for a more complex commonality system. A points based system could account for the similarities in operating B757 and B767 and keep them as the separate fleets than they are now. At the moment with 3 fleets, operating both is stupid because it uses up 2 or your available fleets. It could also take into account the that A330/A340 and A350 are somewhat easier to operate costs wise because training across types is simpler than A330 and B787. A more complex model of commonality would contribute to a more realistic system, yet it still has to take into account that this is an Online Simulation Game, compromise have to be made in the interests of game balance and feasibility of building the system.
"Point-based system" is already overly, unnecessarily complicated in my opinion (the system proposed is based on more at trying to create a fictional system to balance between game and real life, instead of trying to use real life element to balance the game), a simpler way would be make super-family commonality, as in create new commmonality group for aircrafts just like how engine commonalities are treated.

 

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.