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 1340 times)

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2017, 12:35:38 AM »
- "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.
That's exactly the point of the penalty to an extent to make us put our narrowbody capacity on the thinner routes long distance.

Quote
-"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.

That is true, but given population centres and infrastructure in the UK, a Edinburgh - New York market is still smaller than a London Gatwick - New York Market. That is what the Max and NEO do so well, lower operating costs to open up routes such as this to be more economically viable than before. All these airlines know they probably could never fill a B767/B787 etc on such a route so it makes no sense to increase ASM on a route where they won't sell it.

Quote
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.

True, it's never perfect but it's a lot less competitive when there are 200-300 airlines as opposed to 400-500.

Quote
- 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.

The oversupply rule is there to stop airlines dumping capacity on a route to drown out a competitor. Take a 600 demand route, you could take 3 200 seat narrowbodies or two 300 seat widebodies. The narrowbodies use 50% more slots. So it's better to get the system to effectively say "Hey, use those slots more effectively for this high demand route," than wait for all the slots to be used up to then realise one or more airlines is effectively "hogging" them by flying narrowbodies on high demand long haul routes where using less widebodies would be better. The current system is more preventative, doing it after the slots become constrained is too late.

Quote
- 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.

There is a warning at route creation, a once created warning would be useful though. I see you've put in a request for that. Handing out slots after the fact is too late and would be very unpopular and potentially unfair. It is better to encourage people at an early stage to use their slots effectively for Long haul routes.

Quote
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.

Some will and some won't, but there is definitely something to be said for a widebody and it's perception on a longer flight though, that is not to say narrowbody is bad or anything. However width of the cabin does give a perception difference.

Quote
"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.

Trying to create a fictional system to balance between and game and real life is exactly the aim. We need realism in the system, but we also need to balance our need for realism to make a fair game that people want to play. I would suspect there would still need to be a penalty to stop people operating  a huge variety of aircraft and clogging production as a result but points should allow more flexibility that just "3 fleets 4th massive penalty system"that is going now. It's an interesting discussion to have on how to build a system that allows a little bit more flexibility, while keeping a certain amount of strategy to the decisions in game and balance the game out as well.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2017, 12:54:25 AM »
It's pretty obvious that the three fleet system is needlessly punitive. For one, say you are a responsible airline who has their niche figured out...You have two types that are aging and direct replacements are difficult to come by (production line has closed, prohibitively expensive, rarety due to popularity, etc.) To try to replace both at the same time you are forced to incur a most severe penalty during this time you operate four types.

OTOH, How can you truly cover as much demand as possible out of one's HQ, or bases when effectively forced to only two permanent types? An easement to 4 active types at any given time (for fleet renewal purposes) would help here, a lot; especially with the "too small" issue. I'm sure some would gladly run 767/330 over 757/321 if it was less punitive to do this than to just run the narrowbodies.

Now, the guys out there running 6, 9, 20 fleet types. I have no mercy for them.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 12:56:52 AM by Zobelle »

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2017, 01:13:33 AM »
I agree. Although you can run 3 fleets, but that relies on timing each replacement so they don't happen at the same time and also getting enough aircraft in the shortest space of time possible and then swapping one fleet for the other so you either run and 4 fleets for minimum time or for no time at all.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1122
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2017, 05:12:31 AM »
I'm seeing the discussion about slots, which is valid on a couple of levels. However the small penalty also gave leverage to players who use WB on LH routes. The aircraft size penalty was rolled out mainly because the Pax calculation heavily favored frequency back during this time. It was meant to prevent spamming 727/737/757s on normally WB routes (JFK-LHR)

- Things have changed since and the calculation is more elastic. That said, if the size penalty is removed, you'll see the player base revert back to frequency dumping. No one wants to go through that again.

-- If you want to improve upon the aircraft size penalty, you can put in a request for a change in how its applied. Specifically, it could be relaxed on LH routes with less then 165 pax daily. These types of routes where a 762/310 would just be out of reach economically, but be just right for the 737/320 family or 757.

---- As far as Fleet Common, that's another discussion for another thread...


Talentz



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

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2017, 09:12:29 AM »
That's exactly the point of the penalty to an extent to make us put our narrowbody capacity on the thinner routes long distance.
My pov is that the real life situation is partially caused by global economic enviroment, timing of dereguolation and aircraft production timing and such, which aren't related to AWS especially as AWS do not have airline regulations, and thus real life phenomenon caused by regulations and deregulations shouldn't applies to AWS.
Quote
That is true, but given population centres and infrastructure in the UK, a Edinburgh - New York market is still smaller than a London Gatwick - New York Market. That is what the Max and NEO do so well, lower operating costs to open up routes such as this to be more economically viable than before. All these airlines know they probably could never fill a B767/B787 etc on such a route so it makes no sense to increase ASM on a route where they won't sell it.
- Lower operating cost would still apply regardless of demand.
- LGW is slot constrained irl
- Certain carrier operate 2x 757 daily on the route which is more capacity than a 767.

Quote
True, it's never perfect but it's a lot less competitive when there are 200-300 airlines as opposed to 400-500.
A lot less competitive does not speak for the slot availability.

Quote
The oversupply rule is there to stop airlines dumping capacity on a route to drown out a competitor. Take a 600 demand route, you could take 3 200 seat narrowbodies or two 300 seat widebodies. The narrowbodies use 50% more slots. So it's better to get the system to effectively say "Hey, use those slots more effectively for this high demand route," than wait for all the slots to be used up to then realise one or more airlines is effectively "hogging" them by flying narrowbodies on high demand long haul routes where using less widebodies would be better. The current system is more preventative, doing it after the slots become constrained is too late.
- I don't think you would actually put 300 seats on e.g. 332 in most TATL route in AWS in most case.
- I don't see aproblem of wait for when slot become constrained before giving out such warning; currently in the system, if you flown the route from the very beginning, the system is already suddenly giving warning to you during the progress of era, and that's even without anny warning letter or message or whatsoever

Quote
There is a warning at route creation, a once created warning would be useful though. I see you've put in a request for that. Handing out slots after the fact is too late and would be very unpopular and potentially unfair. It is better to encourage people at an early stage to use their slots effectively for Long haul routes.
The current system is no difference from this, as airlinees would still need to move up their aircraft size, and then they would also need to consider the total supply situation after moving up, so they would otherwise need to drop or reuse those slots anyway.
Quote
Some will and some won't, but there is definitely something to be said for a widebody and it's perception on a longer flight though, that is not to say narrowbody is bad or anything. However width of the cabin does give a perception difference.
Yes, 4 engines : safer is also a perception.
Quote
Trying to create a fictional system to balance between and game and real life is exactly the aim. We need realism in the system, but we also need to balance our need for realism to make a fair game that people want to play. I would suspect there would still need to be a penalty to stop people operating  a huge variety of aircraft and clogging production as a result but points should allow more flexibility that just "3 fleets 4th massive penalty system"that is going now. It's an interesting discussion to have on how to build a system that allows a little bit more flexibility, while keeping a certain amount of strategy to the decisions in game and balance the game out as well.

Offline Oscjo290

  • Members
  • Posts: 369
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2017, 10:16:14 AM »
I think that it should vary, having 3 fleet groups is fine, but adding number 4 with a small plane gives alittle penalty a medium fleet as 4th a little more, and so on

Offline freshmore

  • Members
  • Posts: 758
Re: [-] Aircraft too small for route (causing loss of pax)
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2017, 02:17:59 PM »
My pov is that the real life situation is partially caused by global economic enviroment, timing of dereguolation and aircraft production timing and such, which aren't related to AWS especially as AWS do not have airline regulations, and thus real life phenomenon caused by regulations and deregulations shouldn't applies to AWS.

You have a point, it's also a revenue issue. Bigger aircraft = bigger revenue and more efficient use of sometimes limited slots. Lower operating costs do apply elsewhere of course, however in real life and in AWS, using slots effectively is important. It's a balance of economics and total revenue. As Talentz quite right points out and something I failed to mention, is the game did and still does favour frequency in assigning passengers. Therefore flying a fat route with lots of narrow bodies was a far too effective way of competing against another airline using higher capacity widebodies. So it was done to stop this happening quite so widely while, it also means those that did fly B757's like that will now fly less flights on those fatter routes, thus reducing their need for slots and making more available to others. Imagine LHR with all the east coasts routes being flown by smaller narrow bodies, that would use a hell of lot more slots and put greater total demand for slots there compared to total supply.

Quote
- Lower operating cost would still apply regardless of demand.
- LGW is slot constrained irl
- Certain carrier operate 2x 757 daily on the route which is more capacity than a 767.

Yes, true. However, because of how effective frequency was at increase pax, too much and to reduce the need for slots in game, it's important for the high demand routes to encourage widebody usage. Gatwick is slot constrained, but that doesn't take away from the fact it's in an area of heavy population, near London and most infrastructure in the UK directs everyone towards London. Therefore demand will naturally be better towards the South of the country. Filling a B787 is possible, in Edinburgh, while there is obviously demand filling a B787 on that route to a Secondary airport isn't going to be easy.

Quote
A lot less competitive does not speak for the slot availability.
- I don't think you would actually put 300 seats on e.g. 332 in most TATL route in AWS in most case.
- I don't see aproblem of wait for when slot become constrained before giving out such warning; currently in the system, if you flown the route from the very beginning, the system is already suddenly giving warning to you during the progress of era, and that's even without anny warning letter or message or whatsoever

It does and it doesn't. On some airports, there is still lack of slots, but for a lot of other large airports there are more available slots in percentage terms than there was earlier in the game. It varies from GW to GW and from Airport to Airport, but in general slots are easier to get on average.

As for 300 seats, possibly not, A333 would possibly a bit much, something smaller A332 and B764 for around 250 seats would make more sense. Also not forgetting the B763. On that, it would depend on competition on the route. 300 seater could work in certain conditions.

It would be less consistent, rather than watching the demand on the route to see if there is potential for a small aircraft warning, what you have to watch is the capacity used at the airport. It's far easier to make it demand, because then you can easily make a note to come back to the route in a few years to see how it's grown and whether it affects it's too small status. It's easier to anticipate over time and plus it reduces the demand for slots at an early stage.

Quote
The current system is no difference from this, as airlinees would still need to move up their aircraft size, and then they would also need to consider the total supply situation after moving up, so they would otherwise need to drop or reuse those slots anyway.Yes, 4 engines : safer is also a perception.

Well, it is. The current system warns them as soon as demand and route length hit a point where it attracts the penalty. Doing it based on capacity used would mean a route that might attract the penalty under the current system would not initially attract the penalty. If, 5 years later, capacity used is such that the airport has limited slots available, it would only then start giving you the penalty. Then it's your choice how to use or loose that slot. My point is, it's better to have that warning at an early stage because it's linked to demand and route length, the airline in question uses less slots initially and leaves the other slots for others to use, increasing competition and overall availability of slots. When it comes to adjustment of a route later, then it's obviously their choice what to do with the extra slot.

True on that, of course that perception would be highest in the 80's when twinjets start arriving with TATL ranges and gradually reduce to now, where there really isn't much of a perception difference.

 

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.