Demand systems, warnings and potential changes to gameplay

[yearofthecactus]

In reference to the debates being had on the general forum, I'd like to briefly post what I'd like people to discuss and my ideas for the too small warning and demand allocation in general, having played the game for a relatively long time now! Here they are.

1. Removal of too small for all Very Large Aircraft, it's not  required in the main.

1.5 - Potentially re designating the 767 from very large, to large in the later game (around 2015 to game end), to make it's relative small size to the growing size market, it's powerfulness from the 80s to game end less of an advantage and an encouragement to move to newer aircraft and technology to reflect that. (The Embraers and later medium jets currently remaining medium whilst similar planes from the 60s like the BAC and DC-9 being large being entirely reflective of this switch.

2. A new demand allocation system for encouraging more diverse use of the larger (and commerically successful) planes IRL, which do not currently work in game. Forget talk about frequency, that is a red herring merely a side effect of using smaller planes in the first place. Perhaps not a massive change, but something that noticably means that flying 777s doesn't not mean a fast track to bankruptcy. Making the 777, 747 and A380 slight more attractive to using and having fun with, whilst keeping prospect of 767 and 330 strong and effective (as IRL as well).

3. Too big warnings. Effectively flying any Very large aircraft below 1500m, would be nerfed, and result in a very large aircraft getting a similar warning to the too small message. There would be crossover and choice between 1500nm and 2000nm, at which point the too small warning kicks in on most large planes.

3.5  A too big warning on large planes below 500nm, where the benefits of props, and medium jets to a point lose their competitive advantage. A crossover point between 500nm and 1000nm allows for choice and a good range of choices and airline philosophy. Too big and small warnings would, as currently is the case with too small warning, not be cliff edges, but slopes that increase as distances increase/decrease (and such slopes, as currently, not noticable).

Please note these are just suggestions, and I'm delighted to be shot down across the board, or have other suggestions thrown around and critiqued. These are just my ramblings for making things more interesting, more inclusive and solve many of the issues, and monotonous game play elements as I see them, and a desire to actually post things outside of the main forum as well, which lets be honest has resulted in a hijacked thread or two!

Being ripped by fellow members, or Sami himself is absolutely fine. Also, if this thread does garner any interest, positive or negative I'll just read, and not reply or add new anything new. Hopefully that's what this thread will develop into, but it doesn't need more input from it's rambling author!

[Zobelle]

I agree with the first three. (1, 1.5, 2)

Consider the Japanese domestic market for the rest. But if all were implemented then we should be allow a 4th fleet type without ridiculous penalty.

[forex]

If I understand the discussions correctly, we are looking for a way to resolve the equal distribution of passengers between a smaller and a larger airplane, which leads to a player sentiment of "use smallest viable equipment".

My guess is, the problem can't be solved with the current demand system.

If we look at the passengers in AWS, they get on a flight to go from A to B. That's it. In each game world routes are naturally oversupplied so it makes sense to run a smaller and cheaper aircraft because chances are, a bigger one will get the same seats allocated. Airlines like Norwegian are not going to fly an A380 for the same reasons we don't do that in the game right now.

Now imagine the game with the option to build a hub.
Suddenly, the passengers don't just go from point A to B but they will choose Airline A over B because they need to get on a connecting flight. If airline A has it's timetable worked out well he can fly A380s, 747s fully loaded across the pond because passengers get distributed not by a "A-to-B-logic" but based on their itinerary.
When this happens, every player will choose a fleet that makes sense for their network. This may be a 767 at first but once the network gets large enough the player may choose a 747 or even A380.

Clearly, there will still be point-2-point traffic that get distributed in a similar fashion as it is now but will be complemented by connecting traffic.

I may be overestimating the whole connections and hub thing but these are the main differences I see between game and the real world.

[JumboShrimp]

BTW, "Too Big" is never a thing, so you can completely disregard it.  One can never be guilty of some devilish strategy to hurt the competition by flying aircraft that is too big, because it is a self inflicted wound, not a something that would hurt the competitor.

You have to consider an effective speed of an aircraft on the route, to complete the route.  Effective speed of a 747 on a 100nm route is slower then a DC-3 from the point of view of an airline.

Compare the 2 flying a 100nm route:
747: 50 minutes flying/taxiing + 180 minutes Turn Around time = 230 minutes
DC3: 120 ,omits flying/taxiing + 40 minutes Turn Around time - 160 minutes
DC9: 55 minutes + 60 minutes = 115 minutes

So the slowest aircraft in AWS is nearly 2x fast as 747.  DC-9 can make 2 round trips in the time it takes 747 to make one round trip.