Possible new cargo alocation method.

[JumboShrimp]

Allocation to be changed from frequency to capacity, range (number of tech stops).  Each tech stop would reduce capacity (used for calculation) by 25% (or some other number).

Comparison of 752F, 763F and 777F (using round numbers)

752F max capacity 38k at range of 2500nm
763F max capacity 55k at range of 3300nm
777F max capacity 102k at range of 4900nm

Demand 100k

Techstop would reduce capacity used for allocation in my scenario by 25%, 75% remaining

Allocated capacity = Capacity at distance * power (0.75, techstops)

Techstops in the scenario are placed exactly at the ideal place, 1/2 or 1/3 way between the airports.

The allocation would come out as follows:

Under current allocation, the system would allocate approx. 33% to each aircraft of these different aircraft (+/- some infinitesimal number).

I am not saying the system should be changed to this tomorrow.  I am just putting it out there, just to see what would be a good outcome from cargo allocation, which outcome would encourage players to play in a way that mimics the real world closest.

[schro]

So... You're saying that cargo should prefer to for nonstop?

[DanDan]

somebody stated (correctly, in my opinion), that cargo doesnt require frequency, except for parcels.

since this proposed method of calculation would especially wound the "belly cargo" on regular planes, i would propose, that:

Light Cargo - as before - get allocated by frequency
Heavy Cargo gets allocated by this new capacity method
Standard Cargo gets a mix of the two - partially by frequency, partially by capacity

regarding the techstop penalties: for light cargo, the penalty should be higher (express parcels), for heavy cargo, it should be lower (since if frequency doesnt matter (so the cargo does not care if it takes off in the morning or the evening), the speed should not matter so much either).

[wilian.souza2]

Each tech stop would reduce capacity (used for calculation) by 25% (or some other number).

I give a sound NO for this.

In the 80s challenge I've got a bunch of 742Fs going to Europe from HK. Each aircraft has 140k payload, which is more or less than the exact demand on the routes I use them. Because 742Fs can carry maximum payload only through 2500 NM (not all my aircraft are maximum MTOW), I need to techstop my flights midway so I can carry all of the demand in a single flight.

The same goes for Tristar 200Fs. All cargo routes made with this aircraft need techtops if route distances are over 4100 NM.

Thin cargo routes require smaller aircraft, which in turn have even smaller range at maximum payload.

Let's say techstop penalty is 50% for cargo. Should I meet 140K demand of a techstopped route with 2 747 flights instead on one, even though a single 747 flight can carry 140K payload?

And I'll be coherent with my positioning against all kinds of techstop penalties. Reducing payload in function of techstops can actually hurt profitability of cargo transportation, even when there's no competition, and even kill viability of cargo transport wherever cargo transport is rather small.

[JumboShrimp]

Let's say techstop penalty is 50% for cargo. Should I meet 140K demand of a techstopped route with 2 747 flights instead on one, even though a single 747 flight can carry 140K payload?

And I'll be coherent with my positioning against all kinds of techstop penalties. Reducing payload in function of techstops can actually hurt profitability of cargo transportation, even when there's no competition, and even kill viability of cargo transport wherever cargo transport is rather small.

This is not a tech stop penalty, per se.  If everyone is tech stopping, then everyone is on the same level playing field.  If one flight is direct, it will just get slightly higher proportion of demand allocated.

Much better way to describe this would be to call it (more) direct flight bonus.

[DanDan]

well, where i agree with wilian: techstop penalties for cargo should be no higher than "low speed" penalties for airplanes flying at the lower speed.

so if you are flying
A) a plane that takes 10h for a route, or
B) a plane that takes 8h but requires a techstop of two hours, so in fact the same 10h as the first one
the attractiveness should be the same.

for passenger ops, i can understand a slight techstop-penalty, but currently the penalties are really ridiculous as in aws passengers prefer 10h flights in props to 6h with techstop in jets.

[MikeS]

The "Tech Stop" component could be addressed with cost.
If we give a tech stop a (high?) fixed cost component plus a variable one according to aircraft type, then the
smaller the aircraft flying a long distance tech stop route the less efficient.

[JumboShrimp]

I think the part you are missing is that this is not really about penalizing tech stops.

If the allocation is capacity based, and capacity is based on distance (for cargo), the way to normalize the capacity to distance that is achieved through tech stops is to discount that capacity - but only for the purpose of allocation..

752F will still have the full capacity, and can still fly full 38k of cargo 7500nm with 2 tech stops if the route is not fully supplied.

Another way to look at it keeping in mind that capacity is the driving factor.
777F can get to 7500nm 2 ways:
- one stop at 102k capacity
- non stop at 63k capacity.

If they fly against each other, and allocation is capacity driven (route is oversupplied) should the tech stopped flight get 40% more?  The answer is no.  The tech stopped capacity gets discounted for the purpose of allocation of cargo by the tech stop factor.  I used 25% discount (75% remaining).  Maybe the discount should be a little higher, 40% (60% remaining).

[schro]

The "Tech Stop" component could be addressed with cost.
If we give a tech stop a (high?) fixed cost component plus a variable one according to aircraft type, then the
smaller the aircraft flying a long distance tech stop route the less efficient.

There are costs associated with a tech stop such as landing fees.

[MikeS]

There are costs associated with a tech stop such as landing fees.

Yes, but if tweaked (increased), they could help with the balance.
Not entirely unrealistic either since there is cost involved in maintaining operations at an airport, even for tech stops.

[JumboShrimp]

Yes, but if tweaked (increased), they could help with the balance.
Not entirely unrealistic either since there is cost involved in maintaining operations at an airport, even for tech stops.

There are normal costs when aircraft is not flying (salaries, leases, depreciation), but it is not the subject of this thread.  This thread is just an idea of doing allocation differently, not by frequency, which is not the most appropriate for some types of cargo.

[wilian.souza2]

I think the part you are missing is that this is not really about penalizing tech stops.

If the allocation is capacity based, and capacity is based on distance (for cargo), the way to normalize the capacity to distance that is achieved through tech stops is to discount that capacity - but only for the purpose of allocation..

752F will still have the full capacity, and can still fly full 38k of cargo 7500nm with 2 tech stops if the route is not fully supplied.

Another way to look at it keeping in mind that capacity is the driving factor.
777F can get to 7500nm 2 ways:
- one stop at 102k capacity
- non stop at 63k capacity.

If they fly against each other, and allocation is capacity driven (route is oversupplied) should the tech stopped flight get 40% more?  The answer is no.

I can't see how a techstopped 757 could get 40% more allocation in the example above, considering an oversupply.

If the demand on that route is 30K, ideally both flights would carry 15k of cargo (50/50),  whether the 777 is making a techstopped flight or not (so the techstopped route doesn't get 40% more);

If the demand is 76K, both flights would carry 38k of cargo (50/50), although the techstopped 757 would be flying at its highest capacity while the 777 wouldn't. There's no 40% more allocation to the techstopped 757 either.

It seems you're trying to make simple things complicated. Sami was correct by not making techstop penalties because the aim of a cargo flight is not necessarily to make the fastest delivery (air transport is already the fastest way to move cargo, whether it's techstopped or not), but to try to carry the maximum payload possible over the distance you wish to cover in the minimum number of flights!

[Tha_Ape]

It seems you're trying to make simple things complicated. Sami was correct by not making techstop penalties because the aim of a cargo flight is not necessarily to make the fastest delivery (air transport is already the fastest way to move cargo, whether it's techstopped or not), but to try to carry the maximum payload possible over the distance you wish to cover in the minimum number of flights!

Yes and no.

to try to carry the maximum payload possible over the distance you wish to cover in the minimum number of flights!

JS is spamming the world with 757 from HKG, which p***es off his competitors on one side, but ain't very lucrative for him either. The proposal (and I'm not judging its pertinence here) is only to make larger plane more relevant, as they would IRL from HKG.
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78686.0.html
So yes, cargo sure doesn't need absolute speed, and JS's proposal is not meant to be realistic per se. Only to have effect that would improve the realism of the game (more big, less small-spam).

[JumboShrimp]

I can't see how a techstopped 757 could get 40% more allocation in the example above, considering an oversupply.

40% figure was related to a 7500nm direct 777F flight at 63k capacity vs. 777F tech stopped at 102k capacity.
If the new (proposed) allocation is by capacity (rather than current allocation by frequency), the tech stopped flight would actually have advantage, because it has higher capacity.

But since the higher capacity was achieved by tech stop, the tech stop discount ("Tech Stop reduced capacity" column in the spreadsheet) should bring them roughly to parity.

If the demand on that route is 30K, ideally both flights would carry 15k of cargo (50/50),  whether the 777 is making a techstopped flight or not (so the techstopped route doesn't get 40% more);

50/50 allocation between 777F and 752F is the problem this proposal wants to address (fix).  The 50/50 allocation between 777 and 757 is what makes Very Large cargo aircraft obsolete in AWS.

The reason for this is that the 752F player can just keep adding flights to the point where 777F is unprofitable, while smaller is still very profitable.

Suppose breakeven cargo at certain distance is:
- 10k of cargo for 757F
- 20k of cargo for 777F

Suppose demand is 45k, and each have a single flight with 22k cargo between them.  Both profitable.
Now 752F player adds a flight.  2x 752F are still nicely profitable at 15k but 777F is losing money with 15k of cargo.

This is the bases of the frequency rape strategy, which in my opinion, should at some point be addressed.

If the demand is 76K, both flights would carry 38k of cargo (50/50), although the techstopped 757 would be flying at its highest capacity while the 777 wouldn't.

Again this is the problem this feature request is trying to address.

Suppose a short 2500nm route (no tech stops) with 76k demand.
Current allocation gives 38k to each.
My proposed allocation would give 20k to 752F and 55k to 777F (based on the allocation by capacity

It seems you're trying to make simple things complicated. Sami was correct by not making techstop penalties because the aim of a cargo flight is not necessarily to make the fastest delivery (air transport is already the fastest way to move cargo, whether it's techstopped or not), but to try to carry the maximum payload possible over the distance you wish to cover in the minimum number of flights!

Again this is not about tech stop penalties.  It is about normalizing capacity boosted by tech stop..  What tech stop gives you as a boost in capacity, the "Techstop reduced capacity" would take away so that the tech stop and direct flights would be at rough parity. 

See again the 2 examples of 2 777Fs to 7500nm, one direct one tech stopped.

Tech stop give 777F boost from 63k capacity to full 102 capacity.  This "normalization" would seek it to bring it back to ~63k so that the flights are equivalent in this new Capacity based allocation.

[Tha_Ape]

Suppose a short 2500nm route (no tech stops) with 76k demand.
Current allocation gives 38k to each.
My proposed allocation would give 20k to 752F and 55k to 777F (based on the allocation by capacity

Seems a bit drastic to me, and a little too biased towards the large.
Maybe it's a proposal I shouldn't mention (as I consider it badly advertised/informed about for pax), but what about a "too small" for cargo? Where you spam, you'd be toasted, where it's fair, no problem (total demand on both legs/3=max capacity of the plane, maybe?).
And wouldn't be linked to age of the model (contrary to pax ops).
It sure would require a x2 math for the server (because of asymmetrical demand), but seems pretty balanced to me in this very case.

[wilian.souza2]

40% figure was related to a 7500nm direct 777F flight at 63k capacity vs. 777F tech stopped at 102k capacity.
If the new (proposed) allocation is by capacity (rather than current allocation by frequency), the tech stopped flight would actually have advantage, because it has higher capacity.

But since the higher capacity was achieved by tech stop, the tech stop discount ("Tech Stop reduced capacity" column in the spreadsheet) should bring them roughly to parity.

50/50 allocation between 777F and 752F is the problem this proposal wants to address (fix).  The 50/50 allocation between 777 and 757 is what makes Very Large cargo aircraft obsolete in AWS.

The reason for this is that the 752F player can just keep adding flights to the point where 777F is unprofitable, while smaller is still very profitable.

Suppose breakeven cargo at certain distance is:
- 10k of cargo for 757F
- 20k of cargo for 777F

Suppose demand is 45k, and each have a single flight with 22k cargo between them.  Both profitable.
Now 752F player adds a flight.  2x 752F are still nicely profitable at 15k but 777F is losing money with 15k of cargo.

This is the bases of the frequency rape strategy, which in my opinion, should at some point be addressed.

I understand your point - basically we're down to the same problem it happens with pax flights.

But I don't think this should be the solution.

The reason this strategy can be so effective is because costs related to aircraft and routing are too cheap. There's evidence of it everywhere - too low office rent, free parking (de facto), 20%-40% extra labor costs being not too much (in some countries it goes above 100%), equal landing fees everywhere because it only depends on the airport's structure level (I think), unlimited supply of cheap slots in later stages of the game and even earlier generation aircraft with maintenance costs cheaper than newer genaration ones (747-400 vs 747-8i for example in GW2). And recently, I've realized that the nature of demand itself (constant throughout the whole year with a somewhat steady growth over time, which is unlike RL) can give a great help to keep route spammers profitable.

So instead of seeking ways to neutralize the airlines supply strategy, we should address what makes "frequency rape" viable.

[DanDan]

So instead of seeking ways to neutralize the airlines supply strategy, we should address what makes "frequency rape" viable.

ehmm... price insensitive customers? i mean:

because thats the point where economies of scale are working usually:
the bigger you produce, the cheaper you produce (usually) - meaning you can be cheaper than the competition while you are profitable and take the bigger market share.
seat-production costs are mostly irrelevant in this game, its only about the trip costs for the plane, so the rule of thumb is, to keep those low; so the way to win is to use the smallest, longest ranged planes possible.
who cares if the 767-400ER can produce a seat at 70% of the price of the 200ER, when the customers dont care if they pay 70% or a 100%!?

[wilian.souza2]

ehmm... price insensitive customers? i mean:

because thats the point where economies of scale are working usually:
the bigger you produce, the cheaper you produce (usually) - meaning you can be cheaper than the competition while you are profitable and take the bigger market share.
seat-production costs are mostly irrelevant in this game, its only about the trip costs for the plane, so the rule of thumb is, to keep those low; so the way to win is to use the smallest, longest ranged planes possible.
who cares if the 767-400ER can produce a seat at 70% of the price of the 200ER, when the customers dont care if they pay 70% or a 100%!?

Another point you've nailed well!

But price sensitivity shouldn't be adjusted before adjusting some of the things I mentioned above, because the strategy for those who want to own the market will shift to offer free flights on shorter/smaller routes to prevent newcomers while earning money in established longhaus + plane trading...

[Talentz]

I've been thinking... wouldn't an easier solution be to just increase the requirements for HC? Triple the space required per m3 and maybe even put a min weight restriction per m3 used. That would hurt the the 757PF the most because you wouldn't be able too load as much HC and thus reduce their worth flying VLH routes that would generally be suited to VLG aircraft.

Also, I think Med aircraft should be able to carry HC - if we apply the above restrictions. You could fly a very limited amount of HC due to space/weight requirements.


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

I've been thinking... wouldn't an easier solution be to just increase the requirements for HC? Triple the space required per m3 and maybe even put a min weight restriction per m3 used. That would hurt the the 757PF the most because you wouldn't be able too load as much HC and thus reduce their worth flying VLH routes that would generally be suited to VLG aircraft.

Also, I think Med aircraft should be able to carry HC - if we apply the above restrictions. You could fly a very limited amount of HC due to space/weight requirements.


Talentz

But that would also limit the effectiveness for 757 where it is a good solution - say route with demand between 30-40k.

I think the problem (that I was looking to solve) was 757F being 3x as effective on route with 100k routes than 777F or 747F.  If 3x 757F were only 1x as effective (not 3x as effective) as those larger aircraft, then the very large aircraft would be fine.