Aircraft too small - filter & information & maybe change of parameters

[Tha_Ape]

Fleet choices should take into effect geographical location, among other things.

Another thing about that:
Moscow is ideally located for early LH, for example, as with 4500 you'll reach both the US East Coast and good part of South East Asia. It's northern position also allows shorter polar routes.

For MH, it's also ideally located, allowing full red eye flights both East (domestic) and West (intl).

But for SH and MH... Gee, range is the key. There's almost nothing below 500nm. Kiev, St Pete, Helsinki and a few "thick" (soviet version) routes.

[schro]

I know. And that's the reason why the "too small" can become a problem.

In GW#2 I'm HQed in Moscow. And Moscow is (amongst LH-worthy airport) a small-timer: most routes have around 130-150 demand. And the game suggests that I should fly a plane with 250 or 300 seats and will give me a penalty for not doing so?
This is pure nonsense, as the DC-8 is old but still ok, and perfectly suited for those routes. I don't try to spam frequency: got 2 or 3 destinations with 3 flights/day, and around 8 or 9 with 2 flights a day. The rest is one flight only.
And I already have difficulties filling in some planes on routes I'm the only one to fly.

Again, not complaining about the existence of the "too small" system, just about some of its applications.

(got the feeling I'm repeating stuff I already said and that everybody understood )

A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.

[Tha_Ape]

A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.

Well, my situation is actually not the worse one, by far. But others got it as well, and what was said about such planes is still of interest, I think.

And about the DC-10, I know. But should I change fleet just for that? Hell no, this would be even costlier, unfortunately.

[Luperco]

A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.

I don't agree. In GW2, I'm in Sydney and most of the LH routes requires stopover in 1980.
There many routes to Europe and North America from Sydney and Melbourne with a demand of about 300 pax per day.
With a stopover you can get only half of the demand. So a DC-8-62 seems a perfect aircraft. But the route is still considered 300 pax and the DC-8 get the penalty for being too small.

I cannot understand the reasons behind it. Why it should be better to send an half empty DC10?

So routes like that is too big for a DC8 and too small for a DC10. Why are there in the first place if there are no aircrafts that can fly them?

My opinion is that this too short warning is the wrong solution to the LHR-JFK spammed with 757 problem. Or, at least, it has too much unwanted side effects.

[schro]

I don't agree. In GW2, I'm in Sydney and most of the LH routes requires stopover in 1980.
There many routes to Europe and North America from Sydney and Melbourne with a demand of about 300 pax per day.
With a stopover you can get only half of the demand. So a DC-8-62 seems a perfect aircraft. But the route is still considered 300 pax and the DC-8 get the penalty for being too small.

I cannot understand the reasons behind it. Why it should be better to send an half empty DC10?

So routes like that is too big for a DC8 and too small for a DC10. Why are there in the first place if there are no aircrafts that can fly them?

My opinion is that this too short warning is the wrong solution to the LHR-JFK spammed with 757 problem. Or, at least, it has too much unwanted side effects.

Compare the operating costs of each plane, specifically focusing on fuel consumption. What you'll find is that your total trip cost for any given flight will be higher on the DC8. Load factors do not matter, cost per trip does.

[Zobelle]

A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.

Unfortunately, widebodies do cost more than narrowbodies on average.

[Luperco]

Compare the operating costs of each plane, specifically focusing on fuel consumption. What you'll find is that your total trip cost for any given flight will be higher on the DC8. Load factors do not matter, cost per trip does.

I agree on that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But I'm speaking about the opportunity of the too small penalty on aircraft that was designed for routes and the epoch in which they get the penalty.

I know that the DC10 is more efficient. But there are a lot of good reason to use the DC8 during the eighties.
One of them is that there was no alternative to DC8 or 707 for LH in seventies. And change aircrafts often before the first D-check is antieconomic. Using a less efficient aircraft in eighties is sufficient in my opinion without the need of further penalty.

[Tha_Ape]

Shrimp's post on another thread about frequency made me think of the application of the too small penalty relatively to frequency.

The problem where the starting point of the allocation is.  The main unit a flight.  As in 1 flight, 2 flight, N flights.

While the excesses were curbed in the corner cases (small aircraft flying very long distances), the center of distribution, where there are most flights (0nm - 1500nm) is unaffected.

A route with 150 demand flown by
- Airline A with 75 pax aircraft
- Airline B with 150 pax aircraft

The system will alocate 75 pax to each.  That is where the center of gravity is.  All the variables that the system has have such a miniscule effect that they just can't materially change the distribution to be 75 pax to each flight.

The result is
- Airine A has 100% LF, half the costs, and is printing money
- Airline B has 50% LF, double costs, and is losing monehy.

The system strongly favors flying smaller aircraft.

What needs to happen is that this center of gravity needs to move from 1 flight = 1 flight to 1 seat = 1 seat, which would result in:
- Airline A with 50 pax, 67% LF
- Airline B with 100 pax, 67% LF

In this case, the system is neutral, as far as size of aircraft.

From this starting point, where the seat is the main unit of distribution, other variable can have their proper effect (price, seating quality, flight duration etc.)

While I agree on the analysis, I don't agree on the proposal.

Taking that example, if airline A leaves at 0700 and airline B at 1700, why should one have more pax than the other?
And if they leave at the same time, again, why, if not for pricing or service (CI/RI), age of the bird, etc.?

As Cactus said, the "too small" nerf is not working properly, and another system has to be found but spreading the LF evenly is not a solution.
Caricature: a CRJ and a 747 on the same route. So the CRJ gets 8 pax because the 747 took 95?
Cactus' post: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75679.msg444075.html#msg444075

Some airlines are flying small birds for good reasons (the majority of their routes are thin). Should they be globally penalized because of this necessity? Obviously no.

However, if you're flying a smaller bird for good reasons and suddenly fly a thick route, it's obvious that you're not flying your basic target market (or with the wrong bird). Then a penalty could apply.

So what I can say is that theoretically the "too small" warning was a good idea. But (and again), as Cactus said, it's sometimes applying in an improper way.

There needs to be a relationship between the plane and the route: is that plane made for that kind of route, yes or no? Then a penalty would apply.
But there needs to be some margins too, and if both aircrafts are considered perfectly suited for that route, then there's no reason (apart the above-mentioned ones) to allocate more pax to one or the other.

Currently, we're limited to flying 200% of the demand. Don't you think that's a bit too much when economically the best thing would be 90% if flown all alone? Blocking seat on 50% of our routes would become painful, but 130 or 150% would already be effective without being a pain.

Going further and applying common sense: was the 757 intended for LHR-JFK? No. Should I get penalized if I fly this route with a 757 20 times a day? Sure. Should I get penalized if I fly it once a day? Maybe not, because I'm "stealing" so few pax compared to the overall demand that is doesn't matter much.

So what I would find even better is a relationship between the frequency and the size. On your example, a 150 demand route is equally made for a 75 pax or 150 pax plane. No reason the 150 pax plane gets more pax. However spamming CRJs on a CDG-FRA is not ok, and would trigger a penalty if flown more than once (even if the distance is short).

What would be penalized is not the size relatively to the length and the thickness, but rather the size of the aircraft related to the frequency related to the thickness of the route.
And should I get a "too small" penalty if I'm all alone ? No, because I'm the only solution (just like for tech-stops).
(and if you're flying a 150 pax route with a 150 pax bird and somebody comes in with a 75 pax plane, it's normal that you cry, as it would happen the same exact way IRL).