Partial removal of tech stop LF penalty

[Zobelle]

I think I speak for everyone here lacking masochistic tendencies when I respectfully request that the tech stop load factor penalty be removed for period correct and sized aircraft.

The purpose and necessity for this request stems from the new winds aloft and range endurance models (AKA, ESAD) that have made tech stops necessary on significantly more routes than ever before.

Examples:
Large, Very Large Game Start-1960. (For early worlds)
Very Large aircraft 1960-1990

Perhaps it could be tied to “Too small” triggers as well to give it *some* additional flexibility.
Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcomed as usual!

[dmoose42]

I would be onboard with this if the travel time component was enhanced as well. Specifically, if you are tech-stopping a DC-6B and a 707 5000NM, they both shouldn’t get similar levels of PAX considering the 707 travel time is roughly 40% less. For similar fares who wouldn’t pick the jet?!??

[groundbum2]

I kinda like the way it is now, it adds more challenge. Of course it helped I didn't buy the base level jets.. The winds eastbound seem to take at least 30% off the useful range..

Simon

[Zobelle]

I kinda like the way it is now, it adds more challenge. Of course it helped I didn't buy the base level jets.. The winds eastbound seem to take at least 30% off the useful range..

Simon

It's already hard enough flying a 300 demand route with tech stop on a 160 pax configured jet. You add competitors to that and you're toast.

The object here is that the game changed in a heavily negative way that demanded that even relatively "simple" 3,000nm routes (most TATL) are either severely payload limited or require tech stop due to a combination of airways routing and winds aloft, and while this is representative of real life to this day in aviation; the current tech stop penalties as codified are and were NOT. Tech stops were very much considered accepted practice and didn't really begin to detract from desirability until a much later era.

[dmoose42]

I agree with what your saying around tech stops but also that it should be coupled with a commensurate increase in the desirability for jets that can get you there in a fraction of the time.

[Zobelle]

I can totally agree with that, but consider that if the model for "too small" was coupled with it, then those still using props or smaller jet types (LR Comets) at the time would also get the tech stop LF hit on top of it which is pretty fair as an alternative to a desirability buff for jets.

[Cedric3108]

I would go even further and say the tech-stop penalty should be removed all together. It makes routes with rather good demand completely unsustainable in the game. For example I was based in CCS in GW4 before I quit due to real-life time constrains. Any routes from CCS to East Asia were completely unprofitable, even though they often had 300-400 pax demand. I was the only one flying CCS-HND(NRT) for example and still my loads were bad. That is - I think - total non-sense. If you are the only one offering a direct service from A to B you should be able to get all the pax, no matter if you stop or not. Now I know, nobody wants to see one-stopped B737s across the Atlantic and stuff, but we have the "too small" penalty for that. Also there should be a penalty as soon as somebody else enters the route non-stop. But only if the non-stop is faster than the one-stop flight. Right now a one-stopped DC-8 gets a penalty while a non-stop Starliner does not, even though the stopped DC-8 is still faster at the destination. This doesn't make any sense from a potential customers point of view... As long as I get there faster, I don't really care if my plane had to stop somewhere.

I think there should be two penalties:
1) "too small penalty", it would apply just as it does today
2) "speed penalty", only applies if there are multiple airlines serving the route, favoring the faster connection, no matter the number of stops

I think that way it would be easy to understand and fair. If you're the only one flying a specific route and you're not trying to multiple stop your B737 half way across the globe, you are fine. But as soon as somebody turns up with a non-stop B777LR for example, his flight would be full and your stopped A330 would only get the leftovers.
As a side-effect it might make supersonic travel more appealing in the game

Cheers,
Cedric

[slickwillbo]

I agree with Cedric's post. I think the penalty should be relative to what others are doing on the same route, not some absolute penalty in the game.

If you're the only one supplying demand and you have a tech stop, the passengers would fly it anyway. If a competitor comes in with a non-stop, then you should be penalized. But I'd base it on flight time, not plane size. In real life, I certainly take flight time into account when purchasing a flight. This would also reward better scheduling of tech stops on similar aircraft.

[Cedric3108]

Slickwillbo, I initially thought the same, but then people might start 12-stopping their Fokker from Chile to Singapore Which would never happen in the real world because people then would just take the connecting flight instead... So we need the "too small" penalty too keep people making reasonable fleet choices, since we don't have connections modeled

[Zobelle]

Well of course this is why the proposal is for a partial removal. Tech stops did eventually fall out of favor as longer ranged transports became available, hence the proposed timelines and parameters.

The presence of competition shouldn’t itself re-introduce an aversion to a stopover, but it should implement rational real life choices such as price, trip length, aircraft size, CI, RI, etc.

[slickwillbo]

Well, I assume the 12 stop on a Fokker would take much longer than a 1- or 2-stop on something bigger, so the time element would work.

If you go with the OP's suggestion verbatim (penalize large but not very large aircraft after 1960), it should be done on later worlds, not ones in progress. It would screw those of us over who have intentionally decided to hold off on jets until something with much longer range comes on the market.

[Zobelle]

Well, I assume the 12 stop on a Fokker would take much longer than a 1- or 2-stop on something bigger, so the time element would work.

If you go with the OP's suggestion verbatim (penalize large but not very large aircraft after 1960), it should be done on later worlds, not ones in progress. It would screw those of us over who have intentionally decided to hold off on jets until something with much longer range comes on the market.

Notice i did make the suggestion to tie it into "too small" as well, if this were followed then those not in 707/DC8/VC10/etc would not be in danger just yet.

[slickwillbo]

Notice i did make the suggestion to tie it into "too small" as well, if this were followed then those not in 707/DC8/VC10/etc would not be in danger just yet.

But fleet decisions are made a long time in advance. I intentionally made the decision to keep flying Connies and not to jump into currently available DC-8s because the DC-8s that are currently available are payload limited nonstop on critical routes from AMS (to ATL, JFK, ORD, etc.).

If in the middle of the game you add a buff to very large jets and a nerf to large turboprops, you've completely changed game balance. I'm not saying it's a bad suggestion for a later game world, but it has the potential to really upset the apple cart from the rules that were known to everyone in the beginning.

[Infinity]

Best way imho would be to keep penalties as are but only apply them if a competitor flies directly or better sized aircraft.

[Zobelle]

But fleet decisions are made a long time in advance. I intentionally made the decision to keep flying Connies and not to jump into currently available DC-8s because the DC-8s that are currently available are payload limited nonstop on critical routes from AMS (to ATL, JFK, ORD, etc.).

If in the middle of the game you add a buff to very large jets and a nerf to large turboprops, you've completely changed game balance. I'm not saying it's a bad suggestion for a later game world, but it has the potential to really upset the apple cart from the rules that were known to everyone in the beginning.

It's not so much a buff nor a nerf as much as it is an adjustment to reflect reality. Also, new changes inside an active GW tend to have a gradual effect as to not overly upset balance (too small, for example isnt immediately a death sentence but acts as a warning to consider a change in operations.)

Tech stop LF penalty was originally conceived to prevent use of improper aircraft for a given mission and for all intents and purposes the inception of ESAD has rendered it obsolete in both theory and applied practice, Now it just impedes otherwise perfectly acceptable operations Constellation (Yes, even the Starliners!), DC6/7, Early DC8, 707) all required tech stops even in TATL service.

[Talentz]

With a high enough CI, the tech stop variable in the Pax Cal can largely be minimized. Alot of what players experience with tech stopping is the effect CI (or lack thereof) in the Pax Cal. High CI 90+ is considered "brand airlines". Low CI, 50ish, amounts to third rate OPS in the Pax Cal. If your flying normal domestic routes with little competition, you'll never noticed the difference.

However, once you go up against competition and more variables come into play, the results can be rather surprising on your end. Putting aside you shouldn't be chasing 150 daily pax LH with tech stopped jets to begin with**, CI governs how much of the daily pax your staff estimates, you can actually get. So without a high CI, you wont be getting all of what you think you should get. Add in the other variables and we get this impression that tech stop penalty  inflects more harm then it actually does.

Also, again, EASD adds a variable to one leg of a route, but thats not really what the real problem is. Its the fuel burn based off weight in a jet that kills any chance long, thin routes being profitable. Ever again.


Talentz

[Tauge]

I think the biggest problem with the tech stop penalty is that essentially passengers would rather not travel or take a ship/train than take a tech stopped flight. I've got flights at 100 RI with no competition and a large plane where a single leg is tech stopped, I'll see LF that is nearly half, and sometimes lower, that of the non-stop leg. As has been said, tech stops were a fact of life for airlines at least into the 60s and for some routes, even the 80s or later. I mean there is a reason Gander and Shannon were as big as they are...

Honestly, I think the penalties in general shouldn't come into play if you are the only show in town. Maybe the size penalty, I can see where everyone is coming from as far as a 12 stopped F27, but honestly...I didn't make sense to me that someone would rather not fly than take the only available flight.

[MikeS]

I'm still a bit puzzled by the mechanics behind the tech-stop calculations:

In a previous GW, I flew TPE-LAX with Tristars with a tech-stop while my competitors (4 or so) flew non-stop with B747s and MD-11s.
The route was a bit over-supplied and I applied a 10% discount to account for the stop. Result: ~90% load factor and good profits.
My CI was high and the ac type in general acceptable by PAX, so it worked. (Basically confirms what Talentz mentioned above)

In another GW, I tried: BOG-CDG with TU204 with one tech-stop and the result was very bad. My CI was about 80, the ac type a narrowbody
and russian on top of that (they get an extra hit) so it didn't work t all - and it shouldn't, to be realistic (I had no competition)

As I said, I'm not sure how it is coded: It most likely penalizes aircraft class "Large" and below while "Very Large" take less of a hit. Combined with "too small" factor and "CI" it gets complex and interesting.
It probably only needs more fine tuning for the early era and for ultra long haul where no alternative exists (to be fair, also in real life it's hard to
make money on ultra long haul routes, except with a very high ratio of premium passengers)

...just realized, I haven't added anything new or useful to this discussion haha.. but in essence I agree some fine tuning is needed 

Cheers!
Mike

[JumboShrimp]

I think I speak for everyone here lacking masochistic tendencies when I respectfully request that the tech stop load factor penalty be removed for period correct and sized aircraft.

The purpose and necessity for this request stems from the new winds aloft and range endurance models (AKA, ESAD) that have made tech stops necessary on significantly more routes than ever before.

Examples:
Large, Very Large Game Start-1960. (For early worlds)
Very Large aircraft 1960-1990

Perhaps it could be tied to “Too small” triggers as well to give it *some* additional flexibility.
Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcomed as usual!

Also (regardless of year and aircraft flown), it should be 100% relative (to competing aircraft on the route), 0% absolute.

Meaning, the question for the algorithm should NOT be: "Is the aircraft flying with a tech top?"
It SHOULD be: "How many more tech stop is the plane flying relative to the best flight with fewest tech stops?"

If the answer is zero, meaning your flight does not have any more tech stop than any other aircraft, then tech stops, any code pertaining to tech stops should be completely bypassed, and not be a factor.

[Mort]

Also (regardless of year and aircraft flown), it should be 100% relative (to competing aircraft on the route), 0% absolute.

Meaning, the question for the algorithm should NOT be: "Is the aircraft flying with a tech top?"
It SHOULD be: "How many more tech stop is the plane flying relative to the best flight with fewest tech stops?"

If the answer is zero, meaning your flight does not have any more tech stop than any other aircraft, then tech stops, any code pertaining to tech stops should be completely bypassed, and not be a factor.

100% agreed here.

Until the game engine has connecting traffic built in, it is entirely reasonable to expect a flight with tech stop(s) to be full if the demand allows for it, and once RI/CI has built up.