Cargo CBD - advanced questioning

[Tha_Ape]

Hi,

got some rather precise concern on CBD / cargo.
in GW#2, on the Moscow - London route, there is currently:
- one pure cargo flight on DME-LGW
- two pure cargo flights on SVO-LHR
- seven pax flights on SVO-LHR carrying belly cargo
- four pax flights on SVO-LGW
(no pax routes from DME - USSR is still closed pax-wise).

All routes are flying for quite a while already (almost when cargo was introduced in 81, we're now in 84) and demand had plenty of time to shift.

DME-LGW got an strong advantage (flying in the middle of the night, thus offering a very different timing compared to the SVO-LHR route), but it's still a single lone flight.
On the other hand, on SVO-LHR, the demand would obviously be divided quite a lot more and there's a big hole due to LHR's curfew, but the options for departure time are plenty, which is not the case on the other route.

However, while there has been plenty of time for demand to shift toward where the better supply is (and it's obviously SVO-LHR, due to frequency), the current demand is still higher on DME-LGW where the supply is a very well scheduled but lone flight.

I really don't understand why. Could somebody please clarify it? Sami?

Thanks.

[Talentz]

Hi,

got some rather precise concern on CBD / cargo.
in GW#2, on the Moscow - London route, there is currently:
- one pure cargo flight on DME-LGW
- two pure cargo flights on SVO-LHR
- seven pax flights on SVO-LHR carrying belly cargo
- four pax flights on SVO-LGW
(no pax routes from DME - USSR is still closed pax-wise).

All routes are flying for quite a while already (almost when cargo was introduced in 81, we're now in 84) and demand had plenty of time to shift.

DME-LGW got an strong advantage (flying in the middle of the night, thus offering a very different timing compared to the SVO-LHR route), but it's still a single lone flight.
On the other hand, on SVO-LHR, the demand would obviously be divided quite a lot more and there's a big hole due to LHR's curfew, but the options for departure time are plenty, which is not the case on the other route.

However, while there has been plenty of time for demand to shift toward where the better supply is (and it's obviously SVO-LHR, due to frequency), the current demand is still higher on DME-LGW where the supply is a very well scheduled but lone flight.

I really don't understand why. Could somebody please clarify it? Sami?

Thanks.

Your asking why LGW can muster more actual demand over LHR? Probably because LGW has no competing airports to the south of it's circle radius.

- While both airports are 6 Infa/10 traffic and very close to each other, there not exactly on top of one another. There 41km apart. Which means south of LGW there's 41km of unhindered "potential demand" that LHR can't reach and thus, can't grab/fight for.

- There are three airports too the south and south-east: Shoreham (EGKA / ESH), London-Ashford (EGMD / LYX) and London-Briggin Hill (EGKB / BQH). These airports are all 1/1 Infa/Traffic which translates to virtually zero competition towards LGW to the deep south. So whatever demand is in LGW circle radius near them, goes to LGW.

This is why there's more actual demand in LGW over LHR. London-Luton competes with LHR to the north and LGW competes with LHR to the south. Which leaves LHR free to grab whatever is east/west (that's outside of LTN and LGW's circle).


Talentz

[Tha_Ape]

Thanks for that reply, Talentz. I think that's part of the problem, but I have difficulties in accepting this as the only or main reason.

Because yes, there are additional flights between Moscow region and London region: to Southend and Luton. Fine. But both routes are not really in capacity to compete (supply-wise, mostly).
To Luton, there is only belly cargo (and much less than to LHR or LGW - only 2 flights), and the supply is way lower than the (current) demand.
To Southend, it's even worse. Only a Viscount on the route. And the distance to LHR and LGW is the same.

So in my mind everything available (and caught by various radiuses) should shift where there is more supply than demand. Not completely, but mostly. Unflown potential routes shouldn't matter. And flown routes (Luton and Southend) can't really matter much as the supply there is way lower than the current demand.

[MikeS]

Speculation (not very helpful, I know): Maybe  "Current Demand" won't shift to another airport as long as it is serviced ? So one could only soup up all un-serviced demand from near-by airports? London is complex as the radius probably goes all the way up to Birmingham

[Tha_Ape]

I think Mike's speculations are quite right. I was getting to the same idea while looking at all the routes between Moscow area and southern/mid UK in general.

Moscow - Manchester and Moscow - Birmingham actual demand levels are really really far from their potential while they are served for a long time already. They probably compete a little with each other, but not completely and looking at demand and distances, I don't think potential overlapping is the problem (plus, they would be at the end of their respective radiuses, thus having a much lower attraction efficiency).

I think that even a ridiculously low supply to any nearby airport is enough to prevent a lot of cargo from shifting. Way more than the current supply. So my low supply to Liverpool prevents a real nice part of Liverpool's demand from shifting to Manchester even if there is not enough supply to fly all of it.

Would that be the explanation?

[Talentz]

Thanks for that reply, Talentz. I think that's part of the problem, but I have difficulties in accepting this as the only or main reason.

Because yes, there are additional flights between Moscow region and London region: to Southend and Luton. Fine. But both routes are not really in capacity to compete (supply-wise, mostly).
To Luton, there is only belly cargo (and much less than to LHR or LGW - only 2 flights), and the supply is way lower than the (current) demand.
To Southend, it's even worse. Only a Viscount on the route. And the distance to LHR and LGW is the same.

So in my mind everything available (and caught by various radiuses) should shift where there is more supply than demand. Not completely, but mostly. Unflown potential routes shouldn't matter. And flown routes (Luton and Southend) can't really matter much as the supply there is way lower than the current demand.

That's true but your missing the X factor. Which is the demand inside of the "squares" that the airport's circle catch. Not all squares provide the same demand. Their all different and what they are and what they produce/provide is information that is not and probably won't be provided to us.

So in this instance, the demand that LGW catches to the south, unhindered by LHR's circle, provides alot of cargo demand. Could be a number of things, but that's most likely the reason.


Talentz

ps:

Speculation (not very helpful, I know): Maybe  "Current Demand" won't shift to another airport as long as it is serviced ? So one could only soup up all un-serviced demand from near-by airports? London is complex as the radius probably goes all the way up to Birmingham

Probably. We haven't figured out that part yet.

[Tha_Ape]

London is complex as the radius probably goes all the way up to Birmingham

US East coast is a mess as well. Every city's radius overlaps with the next one. Those Americans, why can't they spread their cities to match AWS's system? Damn!

[JumboShrimp]

Speculation (not very helpful, I know): Maybe  "Current Demand" won't shift to another airport as long as it is serviced ? So one could only soup up all un-serviced demand from near-by airports? London is complex as the radius probably goes all the way up to Birmingham

Yes, if the demand is not served by other airports, it shifts a lot more readily than when it is being served.

[Talentz]

US East coast is a mess as well. Every city's radius overlaps with the next one. Those Americans, why can't they spread their cities to match AWS's system? Damn!

Yeah, the max radius in the manual is listed as 200km which is about 108nm. So any airport within 108nm of your HQ is a potential problem.


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

Yeah, the max radius in the manual is listed as 200km which is about 108nm. So any airport within 108nm of your HQ is a potential problem.

But for now, the Infrastructure 6-10 is not implemented yet, so 200km is not an issue yet.  Maybe up to 150km?

Maybe we could get the Catchment Area radius with the new maps...

[NorgeFly]

But for now, the Infrastructure 6-10 is not implemented yet, so 200km is not an issue yet.  Maybe up to 150km?

Maybe we could get the Catchment Area radius with the new maps...

This would be very helpful. I have three potential cargo routes to relatively small airports that are quite close to each other. But I have no idea how much their radii overlap and therefore it is difficult to form a plan. Can I supply the middle airport and catch all the demand? Supply all three airports because they each have their own demand? Or should I ignore the middle airport and serve those either side and catch the demand from the middle airport that way?

Fact is, it is impossible to know which option is best until I can see the catchment areas on a map