CBD: Aggregate vs. Scatter

[JumboShrimp]

(Broad point, not specific)

There are forces that contribute to scattering of demand to a smallest unit (in AWS, such as always heavily favoring the smallest aircraft, heavily favoring the closest airport to the demand) and there are forces to aggregate demand (transfer of pax and cargo, certain facilities available at only some airports, large catchment ares for certain services - LH, cargo).  AWS has none of these forces.

For example, trying to send some cargo
- from ISP (Central Islip, Long Island, New York, US)
- to Karlsruhe, Germany

If asked any cargo operator if they operate this route, in Real Life, they would refer you to closest mental health facility.
In AWS?  Sure.  Schedule a tech stopped 737, and it is going to be one of the most profitable routes.

The question is: Have AWS gone too far in scattering of demand and should steps be taken to bring it closer to reality?

[Tha_Ape]

I'm not an adept of that "smallest always win" theory, but nonetheless agrees that under certain circumstances scattering demand might cause some issues, linked to CBD, as I stated here:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75950.msg447340.html#msg447340

Internationally, CBD could in some cases be a problem for areas with low population density like in USSR:
demand is low already, and would be spread over such a large area that the catchment radius of the biggest airport wouldn't reach the population squares necessary to fill a plane.
-> only bottleneck effects through connections could satisfy this demand that otherwise would remain endlessly unfulfilled because not drained (or rather drained through so many small pipes too far away one from another).

It is obvious that we lack experience on that matter, as it was only recently introduced for cargo and not yet for pax, but I believe it could nonetheless prove problematical.

[JumboShrimp]

All the symptoms of CBD for Cargo will make it to Pax.

Example:  Your next flight from Tokyo to New York City?  It will be a tech stopped 737 to Tweed-New Haven (KHVN / HVN), unless something is done.

I think the steps to be taken, before CBD is introduced to pax, to curtail the excesses of driving all the demand to ever smaller granule:
1. pax / cargo connections
(so that part of the demand is captive not subject frequency rape.  In real life, there are 772s flying US domestic)

2. The affinity of demand squares to airport should not be strictly route based, partially it should be airport based too.
(this way, if majority of international demand of a square has affinity to, say JFK, it will be twice as hard to move actual demand for 1 single international flight to something like such as NRT-HVN (Tweed-New Haven)

3. weaken attraction of a demand square to nearest airport for LH and Cargo.  Only SH pax should have strong attraction to nearest airport.
(Meaning, the entire catchment area of an airport should have nearly identical attraction to the central airport as the closest squares for purposes of Cargo and LH).

4. in cargo, allocate demand by capacity and price, not by number of flights.  I really don't care have a preference that my package is 3 times as likely to get to my destination by 3x 757s vs. 1x 747.  But I would care if it can get there cheaper on a more efficient 747F.

I think any 3 of the 4 would do it.  Meaning, would prevent AWS from spinning out of control when CBD is introduced to pax.

[Tha_Ape]

About your points:

1°) Half agreed. Point-to-point fights with hub/spoke, and differently in different areas of the world. This fight and its diversity is probably impossible to recreate, total captivity is not a good thing and total freedom ain't either. But taking advantage of the hub system is nice, and when somebody comes in and flies point-to-point (yes, point-to-point have its advantage), it forces us to adapt and that's also a good thing. And makes the game more dynamic.

2°) Agreed. So main airports are almost certain to stay large, but are still somewhat vulnerable to smaller airports nearby (like it happens for example with Beauvais or Ciampino). A bonus could be applied according to tiers.
However I think that bonus should be function of the facilities (pax-specialized airport, cargo-specialized, both, etc.)

3°) Agreed for pax. Tends to recreate hubs, and while point-to-point hurt hubs on SH/MH, LH has an enormous catchment radius. I live in Paris, and once went to Bruxelles by car to catch a plane to Mexico because it was so much cheaper than from CDG.

4°) Half agreed. Cargo (just like humans) doesn't like to wait. So more choice in the departure times is an advantage. Price is another one. Sometimes I privilege price over time, sometimes time over prices, depends on the circumstances. Frequency shouldn't attract all the demand, but neither should prices.

Sami talked some months ago of the possibility for the player to influence the airport infrastructure. That would be really nice and would give each airport different and dynamic specialties/specs. And while the airline funding those improvements would be the one to get more advantage of this, it would profit the airport as a whole, and potentially also other airlines based there.
Could influence its catchment radius in a specific manner, on a very specialized segment.
Then, if an airlines based there BKs / leaves, unused facility would remain, making it easier for another one to take them over.
But time would be a factor as well. A terminal built in 1956 wouldn't be fit for ops in 2012. Renovation? Destruction/rebuild?

A lot of options indeed. Some are "dangerous", but also very rich of great features.