Some cargo (experiment) thoughts

[yearofthecactus]

In gw2, I'm about to kill my 100+ 757 operation out of GYY. It's not worth the income in brings in after HQ costs factored given my OOB requirement is needed elsewhere (and no word on this increasing). It was only ever an experiment, and I'd say it was successful in learning about the mechanics of cargo.

In the main I'm happy with how the demand system works, and the ability of GYY to syphon off demand from MDW and ORD means it can be successful.

When GYY was opened, it was a 2 infra, 1 trafflic level airport. Now, with 112 in operation aircraft, 1800 slots/ flights, it has increased to 2 infra, 6 traffic, and at the time of writing, Gary is the 29th busiest cargo airport in the world, and carries as much cargo as London Heathrow.

Every-time the traffic level increased, it did seem there was a bump in lf, and potential demand. One thing I would like to see if infra level being able to be moved. One of the problems with being stuck at level 2 infra, is that aspect of increasing demand ever is stuck. Given that 1800 cargo flights operate their, one would imagine the infrastructure level would increase too. Level 2 means only 1 fuel supplier contract is available, and it has never been above 5.5%, and on 2 occasions I have seen the mythical 1% discount! Pretty awesome, there is a screenshot knocking about I'll share if I find.

How traffic level increases is a matter for you Sami. I'm not judging it positively or negatively, I'm just giving the facts that 1800 flights, all cargo and basically no other airlines in sight except for a couple of 20 seaters doing local pax traffic, carrying 2 232 004 tn per year gives a level of 6 for traffic. It seems reasonable, but if that's too high or too low, adjust as necessary.

The big thing I would like to see in future is the ability to open cargo only bases, with reduced costs. The reason I'm going to close GYY I admit is mainly I want to operate more Pax flights from tight bases, but the clincher for me is the 80m per month staff costs at hq at this stage of the game for my airline size. IRL, whatever the figure of staff needed for a base, it would be much lower than a pax or pax and cargo operation. Indeed, I'd like to see the ability to choose to have pax only bases (with belly cargo obviously allowed), freighter only bases or both, and associated costs depending on the choice. The other thing is, there is no cost difference to me opening JFK or GYY. Right now, that cost is 78m per month for either.

Further to that, as some people have suggested it would be good to see the OOB allowance changed, but however that is done, there being a system that understood it was multi channel would be cool. If there could be a coded system that knew the difference between freighter flights and pax flights, and they had their own allowance (and staff cost at hq as mentioned above), then great.

So, overall the experiment has been a positive experience. The truth is, such a move is limited by the system at this time, and will rely on the full CBD system, the proposed ability to increase infra levels over time (if they aren't going to increase on their own), and some kind of segregation between pax and cargo ops at a base and a financial level.

I'm not closing GYY for a couple of days, so Sami, if you want to have a peak at it before that happens, feel free to take a look and see if there's anything you can gain from looking at the system you invented! I remember you encouraged this experiment in the first place.

[CU]

After reading through this and making my own experiences with cargo in GW1 out of China I have to say that I don't like how CBD works.

The 757PF is currently the only plane that I can use to make any money out of cargo and I am forced to click through various layers of maps and airport lists in order to find places like Rotterdam, Ontario, Burbank, Luton, Westchester，Nantong, etc.

Sure, this gives me an edge vs. someone flying 767F to JFK, LAX, PVG, etc. but it doesn't add anything to the game experience. I think CBD cargo currently adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game and I am not sure if it is the right way forward.

My recommendation would be to simplify the experience and to introduce some measures that help larger planes.

[JumboShrimp]

After reading through this and making my own experiences with cargo in GW1 out of China I have to say that I don't like how CBD works.

The 757PF is currently the only plane that I can use to make any money out of cargo and I am forced to click through various layers of maps and airport lists in order to find places like Rotterdam, Ontario, Burbank, Luton, Westchester，Nantong, etc.

Sure, this gives me an edge vs. someone flying 767F to JFK, LAX, PVG, etc. but it doesn't add anything to the game experience. I think CBD cargo currently adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game and I am not sure if it is the right way forward.

My recommendation would be to simplify the experience and to introduce some measures that help larger planes.

There should be more differentiation between the largest airports, such as LAX and much smaller ones, such as SNA, ONT, LGB, BUR.

Right now, the difference between 5/10 LAX and 5/7 BUR is tiny, and the airports are almost on par.  So the demand gets fragmented, and Very Large Aircraft (767 and up) become nearly obsolete.

[Silentlysailing]

There should be more differentiation between the largest airports, such as LAX and much smaller ones, such as SNA, ONT, LGB, BUR.

Right now, the difference between 5/10 LAX and 5/7 BUR is tiny, and the airports are almost on par.  So the demand gets fragmented, and Very Large Aircraft (767 and up) become nearly obsolete.

Ontario is rather large for cargo still as a UPS hub. They get UPS 747's from anchorage(international freight) even as well as both UPS and Fedex md11's and is kind of a focus airport for FedEx. For recent times Amazon flies freight into ontario as well. It's not as big but it's not tiny by any means. Cargo in the game isn't like real life. Memphis and Louisville are not huge.

[JumboShrimp]

Ontario is rather large for cargo still as a UPS hub. They get UPS 747's from anchorage(international freight) even as well as both UPS and Fedex md11's and is kind of a focus airport for FedEx. For recent times Amazon flies freight into ontario as well. It's not as big but it's not tiny by any means. Cargo in the game isn't like real life. Memphis and Louisville are not huge.

CBD will not have this info on RW cargo operations of ONT.  But hopefully, if a player based there starts substantial cargo operations at ONT, ONT should serve as a magnet for other cargo demand, taking it away from SNA, BUR, LGB, even LAX.

[Talentz]

Um. Yeah, I do take away all the cargo from the LA area airports. (As it should be; As I have a far larger cargo operation then any of the LA area airlines). Doesn't matter if those airlines have larger total OPS when PAX is included. It should only matter as it relates to cargo (and from what I can tell, large pax ops doesn't shift cargo from one airport to another more then using a freighter)

Sami can weight in on this observation, but I'm positive having a freighter on a route causes more cargo to shift from other regional airports that share POT/ACT cargo demand as opposed to just flying pax/belly cargo only. 

I'm pretty sure this is inline with the spirit of CBD that Sami envisioned.


Talentz

[LAS]

Dont know what happened about the cargo demand system, but i know that it is not ok that these changes affecting current gw.

my cargo demand is getting down in nearly every base.

it might be ok, that lager airport should have more demand then smaller ones...but is "here" rly all we are doeing like in rl?

its not ok in my sight of view cause:
- i made a decission taking my homebase and new bases "on the old demand" - and i am not able to change this homebase!
- i made decissions buying ac and make conversions "based on old demand"

but ok, if it will be again in future that only big airports will also have a chance to stay on topin cargo demand...dont know if this is good.

so, i will do my best to think about a new strategy for my airline.