Hub boost

[NovemberCharlie]

Hi all,

Currently I am flying from Cairo, Sharm el Sheikh and Hurghada. Demand between either of these airports is 140 pax per day.
Though connecting flights are not a thing yet, I would like to propose a bit of an intermediate step.
Hub-to-Hub flying. Demand between your own hubs would receive an increase in demand based on how many passengers you are flying to/from these airports.
This demand would not be the same back and forth (in my example demand to CAI will always be greater than demand to HRG/SSH)

This would also work for flights between alliance bases, however in a smaller capacity.

[George Bush]

Id be for it... With city based demand coming for passengers maybe its a speed boost of sorts for demand to catch up to potential demand for hubs or alliance hub spoke. Advantage yes but only slightly.

[JumboShrimp]

I posted something I called "Fake passenger connections" awhile ago:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25004.msg126089.html#msg126089

[gazzz0x2z]

Not sure it fits the current data model - that takes real world connections into account, i.e. Atlanta. And we all know the current model won't be amended, just replaced once city-based demand is refined enough(with cargo).

Once city-based demand is applied, though, such a system could be nice. But one should be careful with unexpected effects. it's the kind of gameplay element that is wonderful to have, but very hard to properly balance. And, to take an example with my Algerian strong company in GW3, I would attract more pax in ALG... But not steal them from the french companies linking with equatorial africa, despite offering a comprehensive hub in Algiers.

A pax flying from Nantes to Abidjan has currently no direct flight, in GW3. so he would either connect in Marseille, or in Algiers(other possible connections : Cairo - not likely, Casablanca, Hurghada - not likely, Madrid, Marrakech, Mohamed Boudiaf, Oran, Oued Irara, Sharm el Sheik - not likely). No parisian airport, surprisingly.

The 3 egyptian connections are not likely because it's not at all on the way. Still, they would get a bonus as well as real connection possible airports. And the effect would be in Madrid, as well as in Oued Irara. Does it make sense to transform Oued Irara into a hub, when it's just linked with a handful of A148s? I honestly don't know.

And in real life, this pax would travel through Algiers, Marseille or Madrid. Not all 3. If I'm suddenly adding strong capacity on both Algiers-Nantes and Algiers-Abidjan, demand should be reduced for Marseille and Madrid. But it won't. Which would be a counter intuitive move, as well.

I don't say it's a bad idea, I say it can quickly lead to a great amount of misunderstanding. The rule shall be absolutely clear.

[jetbirdceo]

A pax flying from Nantes to Abidjan has currently no direct flight, in GW3. so he would either connect in Marseille, or in Algiers...

Are connecting passengers currently modeled? For example, does the system model passengers who want to fly from Nantes to Abidjan and just put them on other flights currently? Or would this be the feature that is added? My understanding was that flights are only filled with passengers traveling between the two cities on the route based on the demand between those two cities.

[Tha_Ape]

Are connecting passengers currently modeled? For example, does the system model passengers who want to fly from Nantes to Abidjan and just put them on other flights currently? Or would this be the feature that is added? My understanding was that flights are only filled with passengers traveling between the two cities on the route based on the demand between those two cities.

Current demand system is static. You have the shown demand and that's all.

The new dynamic system (City Based Demand, CBD) has been implemented for cargo but not yet for pax, as the cargo experiment is used to refine the system so when it gets implemented for pax it won't be a buggy thing.

Transfers are another thing, but it's on the to do list as well, and possibly implemented at the same time than CBD for pax (would be great).