Unusual routs?

[mizuki]

So if the game allowed the more unusual routs which ones would you plan and fly in your airline we are talking about flights like Westray to Papa Westray, Scotland or Hobart, Australia to Wilkins Runway, Antarctica or any flight into VNLK Nepal

[Tha_Ape]

Currently flying a Vladivostok-Philadelphia w/ 733F and double tech-stop

[gazzz0x2z]

had a Nice - Bobo Dioulasso flight in Metro, with a tech stop in the Algerian desert. More than 11 hours of travel in a 19 seater.

[[SC] - King Kong]

had a Nice - Bobo Dioulasso flight in Metro, with a tech stop in the Algerian desert. More than 11 hours of travel in a 19 seater.

love it

[gazzz0x2z]

love it

wasn't profitable. Tried all seating options, all kinds of pricing, never made any money. And never sole more than 9 seats despite 20ish demand. Those tech stops are killers.

[Zombie Slayer]

had a Nice - Bobo Dioulasso flight in Metro, with a tech stop in the Algerian desert. More than 11 hours of travel in a 19 seater.

The torture chamber! 11 hours with no bathroom!

[Amelie090904]

The torture chamber! 11 hours with no bathroom!

But free plastic water bottles!

[Tha_Ape]

But free plastic water bottles!

Or maybe turned it into some propellant

[Tha_Ape]

Ah, for my next renewal, I might add a route to Baykonur

[JumboShrimp]

Ah, for my next renewal, I might add a route to Baykonur

Baykonur is a fine place to tech stop...

[MikeS]

For the largest assortment of unusual flights, just check out JumboShrimp's Airline time table in GW1

e.g.:
Hong Kong to Kirkwall (a town on an island off Scotland) daily with a 757PF or
Hong Kong to Lugano daily with a 757PF (it has a runway of 1350x30m!!)

It's also a good preview of whats to come with passenger city based demand!
There will be a lot of scattered demand, requiring huge fleets and lot's of slots.
Very Large Aircraft will have an even harder time. Will be interesting.

Cheers!
Mike

[JumboShrimp]

For the largest assortment of unusual flights, just check out JumboShrimp's Airline time table in GW1

e.g.:
Hong Kong to Kirkwall (a town on an island off Scotland) daily with a 757PF or
Hong Kong to Lugano daily with a 757PF (it has a runway of 1350x30m!!)

It's also a good preview of whats to come with passenger city based demand!
There will be a lot of scattered demand, requiring huge fleets and lot's of slots.
Very Large Aircraft will have an even harder time. Will be interesting.

Cheers!
Mike

I have been warning about it in number of posts (that were mostly related to my GW3 JFK airline).

[wilian.souza2]

It's also a good preview of whats to come with passenger city based demand!
There will be a lot of scattered demand, requiring huge fleets and lot's of slots.
Very Large Aircraft will have an even harder time. Will be interesting.

I don't think so. I think it will be possible to compete against your rivals on routes between the same cities without necessarily linking the same airports, but on the other hand will allow us to concentrate demand and thus make the use of very larges more viable.

[MikeS]

I don't think so. I think it will be possible to compete against your rivals on routes between the same cities without necessarily linking the same airports, but on the other hand will allow us to concentrate demand and thus make the use of very larges more viable.

If the total amount of passengers in CBD stays the same but gets scattered to all surrounding airports as is the case now with cargo then a  player won't be able to concentrate demand. So if we take AMS as an example. It's demand will be scattered to Rotterdam, Maastricht, Eindhoven etc. Very Large Aircraft out of AMS will be harder to fill and you'll see many 757/767 from the surrounding airports taking part of the demand. It  will be interesting for sure but quite messy in the sense that it will be very unrealistic.

[Tha_Ape]

If the total amount of passengers in CBD stays the same but gets scattered to all surrounding airports as is the case now with cargo then a  player won't be able to concentrate demand. So if we take AMS as an example. It's demand will be scattered to Rotterdam, Maastricht, Eindhoven etc. Very Large Aircraft out of AMS will be harder to fill and you'll see many 757/767 from the surrounding airports taking part of the demand. It  will be interesting for sure but quite messy in the sense that it will be very unrealistic.

It depends.
I think you must see the CBD as something still in progress, with the refinements not yet implemented.
If, as Sami suggested some day, the players are able to influence not only the traffic of an airport but also its infrastructure, then large airports will necessarily have a big initial advantage (both in terms of initial demand and initial infrastructure to attract more demand that you wouldn't have to build).
In such a case, turning a RL secondary airport into an AWS 1st tier airport will still be possible, but it would be a task that would take decades (yes, I imagine you don't have to grow big, you also have to stay big, improve, modernize, etc.).
Plus, there could even be some more specialization from airport to airport.
Indeed, the list of what can still be done from the basis Sami implemented just a few months ago is pretty long, and I like to see it in its childhood.

[JumboShrimp]

I don't think so. I think it will be possible to compete against your rivals on routes between the same cities without necessarily linking the same airports, but on the other hand will allow us to concentrate demand and thus make the use of very larges more viable.

If you played AWS as a solitaire, this would be true.

In reality, the opposite will happen.  The opposite of concentrating demand.  Demand will splinter to the smallest possible fragment and will be flown by smallest possible aircraft.

The demand from routes such as JFK-LHR will shift to HPN-LTN (Westchester County - London Lutton)

Most of the competition will be indirect.  While we have some idea how the system allocates passengers between the flights on the same route, the shifts of actual demand between different overlapping and competing airport pairs is still a mystery.

But once this mysterious demand shifting algorithm shifts the demand to your HPN-LTN route, you will likely fly it (direct) competition free, probably in something like A321, 739er, 757.

So on the subject of unusual routes, as MikeS hints, you have seen nothing yet, as far as what will happen with pax CBD.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,76281.msg447725.html#msg447725

and the third post in the subject are some ideas to avoid the fragmentation (and save the larger aircraft)
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,76281.msg447752.html#msg447752

[gazzz0x2z]

Depends on how it's done, and depends on how the players are going to react. After all, peppering out your cargo is already a sound strategy, but it's still limited in use and impact.

If it takes 10 years to make BVA-HPN viable in MAX7(time to expand demand area), not many players are gonna try. If it takes 6 months, it will indeed end up as the standard.

[JumboShrimp]

Depends on how it's done, and depends on how the players are going to react. After all, peppering out your cargo is already a sound strategy, but it's still limited in use and impact.

There are no forces / tools in AWS to concentrate the demand.  The only thing you can hope for is that no one else flies from airports with overlapping catchment areas.

Once someone starts flying route between the competing airport pairs, all you can hope for is that the mysterious actual demand shifting algorithm will not shift too much demand away from your own airport pair.

I don't know how much (or any) experimentation has been done by others, trying to influence the actual demand shift.  My limited experimentation basically resulted in no effect.  Lower prices, higher frequency etc. all amounted to no effect.

So as far as tools, there is only "offense" - starting to fly between different airport pairs, resulting in demand fragmentation.  There is no "defense" against this fragmentation.

If it takes 10 years to make BVA-HPN viable in MAX7(time to expand demand area), not many players are gonna try. If it takes 6 months, it will indeed end up as the standard.

Some of the demand is there nearly instantly.  But, as we discussed in another thread, BVA seems to be in a uniquely bad spot, having hard time shifting demand toward BVA.  If BVA-HPN potential is about 25% of JFK-CDG, and of that potential, no more than 25%-33% can become actual, you can end up with 5%-8% of JFK-CDG demand shifting toward HPN-BVA.

As far as growing the airport by serving it well, yeah, that will take some time, but if there is enough demand to fly routes such as:
BVA-HPN
BVA-LGA
BVA-ISP
ORY-HPN
ORY-LGA
ORY-ISP
CDG-HPN
CDG-LGA
CDG-ISP
ORY-HPN
ORY-LGA
ORY-ISP

That's a lot of demand that the main routes can lose.  Main routes being:
CDG-JFK
CDG-EWR
ORY-JFK
ORY-EWR

[wilian.souza2]

I have an eye on the possibilities of CBD, but after playing with it for a while, I haven't seen anything impressive yet. Demand shifts have been unnoticeable for me - for example, cargo demand have increased in Brazil in GW2 but I can't tell if it's reflex of the global increase of demand over years or the effect of demand shifting. Another thing that makes me concerned about CBD is the asymmetrical demand - I don't understand how demand can be so different in different legs of the same route, even in potential demand figures, and I won't create routes where I will ferry my aircraft on one of the legs. So far my cargo strategy has been creating routes where cargo demand is already high and I've been fine with it.

[JumboShrimp]

I have an eye on the possibilities of CBD, but after playing with it for a while, I haven't seen anything impressive yet. Demand shifts have been unnoticeable for me - for example, cargo demand have increased in Brazil in GW2 but I can't tell if it's reflex of the global increase of demand over years or the effect of demand shifting. Another thing that makes me concerned about CBD is the asymmetrical demand - I don't understand how demand can be so different in different legs of the same route, even in potential demand figures, and I won't create routes where I will ferry my aircraft on one of the legs. So far my cargo strategy has been creating routes where cargo demand is already high and I've been fine with it.

I am not sure Brazil is a good place to see the full effects of cargo.  One reason is that the demand is generally low, which means a good percentage of the existing cargo demand can be carried using belly cargo, and not dedicated cargo aircraft.