Rework the RI penalty during heavy checks

[Tha_Ape]

Hi,

I just experienced a set of heavy checks on my A321F, and the RI dropped to ~75, as it's intended per game mechanics (all D-checks happened at once).
The problem lies in the fact that cargo LF stays dramatically low until RI reaches ~90. So even after your checks are complete, it takes around 2 months to get your LF back to previous levels.

And I feel this is not normal. Which dumb employee from a shipping company or post office would not send his parcels for 2 months whereas the cargo airline that service would resume after the check??

So I suggest either:
 - to rework the RI penalty during heavy checks
 - to exclude cargo flights from this penalty (because after all they're professional who keep records, not a tourist that completely ignores what heavy checks are)
 - to lower the RI level necessary to trigger high LFs on cargo

Thank you.

[JumboShrimp]

I think the system works as it should.  Not flying a route should incur penalty.

As a workaround now, you can 7 day schedule you cargo, and feature like this would help with that greatly:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78385.0.html

Another useful feature would be implementing aircraft pools so that the system would automatically substitute idle aircraft for one in maintenance:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,54631.0.html

[schro]

7 day scheduling the cargo isn't a great way to solve this as the natural thing to do is to schedule planes in chunks of 7 on say, new planes, so virtually all planes will end up D checking at the same time.

Aircraft pools is the solution, but I'm guessing that's not coming along very swimmingly....

However, I would say that the way that cargo and RI interact is quite harsh - a non-100 RI will tigger profits as only a tigger can do on that route. So, either cargo routes should go longer than passenger before dropping RI or fix the curve...

[Tha_Ape]

I think the system works as it should.  Not flying a route should incur penalty.

Hi Joe,

I agree on that, but what I just pointed out is a double-sentence.

While the 1st one is fair, the 2nd isn't: the 2 factors described above (high RI needed for cargo + decreasing RI during heavy checks), when paired together create a 2nd-degree effect, ie, the need to rebuild the RI.

So my 8 years old routes that were just interrupted for 60 days for their D-check and that were at 90-95% LF before the check are at 30% after the check. This is not 10-15% that I need to get back, it's 2/3 of the demand.

And about 7 day schedule... please try to remember, from thread to thread, that I actually do know what 7 day scheduling is. I use it on all my planes 1400 a/c in Russia, previously, and now 900 in SIN, all on 7-D. In this very case, the simultaneous D-check on 80% of my A321F is due to the fact that all were converted at once when the conversion was made available.

[JumboShrimp]

I agree, but we rarely get a brand new feature.  So if we get one, I would rather have one that enhances the game play (such as automatic swapping of aircraft or making 7 day schedules easier) than one that breaks existing features to hide symptoms that results in lack of functionality (above).

[Talentz]

7 day scheduling the cargo isn't a great way to solve this as the natural thing to do is to schedule planes in chunks of 7 on say, new planes, so virtually all planes will end up D checking at the same time.

Aircraft pools is the solution, but I'm guessing that's not coming along very swimmingly....

However, I would say that the way that cargo and RI interact is quite harsh - a non-100 RI will tigger profits as only a tigger can do on that route. So, either cargo routes should go longer than passenger before dropping RI or fix the curve...

Harsh yes, but in my mind, necessary. Cargo has a higher potential for income over pax.  So while a pax-only route my turn a route profit earlier, a cargo-only route would likely turn a greater profit later. (provided with enough HC)

I tend to agree with Shrimpy's point of view.


Talentz

[Tha_Ape]

Harsh yes, but in my mind, necessary. Cargo has a higher potential for income over pax.  So while a pax-only route my turn a route profit earlier, a cargo-only route would likely turn a greater profit later. (provided with enough HC)

I tend to agree with Shrimpy's point of view.


Talentz

Hi Albert,

well, I agree too on the penalty, but not on the way it applies and mixes with a previous feature, that's all.

If I have 7 VL having their D-check at the same time*, RI will probably drop to 50 or so, meaning I'll lose 6 months of LF.
Another and equally strong penalty might be right, but this one just doesn't makes sense.

I work on a boat, and sometimes the boat needs a refit. But fortunately for us our (professional) customers don't forget about us during the refit. Indeed, they continue to make reservations for when the boat will be out of the shipyard.

* because of the conversion that tend to happen on the same date, at least when the plane becomes available