Aircraft type - effect on demand

[stevesb52]

Hi all, how much of an impact does aircraft type have on route demand? And is there a way to predict it?

I ask because I have a (relatively long) F27 route. A competitor has dropped a 737 on there, so I'm now competing for market share. All being equal, as a passenger I would always go for the faster comfier jet - is this reflected in the game and how significant is it?

Of course, things aren't equal and my primitive strategy is to use the F27's lower fuel cost to offer cheaper tickets, but it would be useful to know how to plan for this.

[Tha_Ape]

First thing, "cheap" doesn't exist in AWS. Setting your tickets below recommended price will only get you less money (and that's what matters, right?).

Then, in this configuration, the way you can use the F.27 against a 732 is through frequency spamming. Given the route is not too long (below 1000nm), al things being equal, if the demand is 150 and you have 2 F.27 and one 732, then the result is that each plane will get ~50 pax. Thus you'll have a LF close to 100%, while he'll only get 45%.

However, there is a factor of attractiveness, which evolves gradually. On a 200nm route, a F.27 or a 732 won't make any difference, or so thin you won't notice it. At 1000, it can become more visible. On a 2000nm route (given you add tech-stops), the difference will be huge. Because while the 737 is still roughly within its intended role, the F.27 is operating way beyond what it's made for.

Also, to factor in, seating quality. HD seats don't have a noticeable penalty under 500-1000nm. Beyond, much more (but otoh premium seats have almost no use).

Same thing if you use a 737-700ER on a transat route like JFK-LHR. It can surely do it, but the route is thick, it's meant for WB. Thus a 737-700ER will get a "too small" penalty, and you won't get the LF math would suppose you'd get. This was made in order to limit frequency spamming: you can use it, but only until a certain point. Beyond that, it's considered an exploit, and barriers have been put in place.

[Tha_Ape]

Also, the "right" plane depends on your competition.

You're all alone? Fly that 200nm 250 demand route with 2x737 and you're better off this way.

You're 5 people competing on this very same route? Better get some props if you don't wanna get ripped (at least if you're not in a dominant position with loads of cash in the bank).

As you can see, everything is relative.

[stevesb52]

Thanks for the in-depth response there, lots of useful info. I've been running with the assumption that low cost is a factor in competition, I guess it's not so that the big guns can't just operate routes at a loss and edge out newbies?

I've played about with frequency a bit, and one of the interesting things about the game for me is planning frequency v capacity v cost. Useful info about size limitations too - explains how I've got aircraft size messages on certain routes and not others!

But yeah, great response. It's my first 'serious' attempt at playing the game so I'm keen to learn!

[Tha_Ape]

I've been running with the assumption that low cost is a factor in competition

Low cost airlines are almost impossible to run in this game. I actually don't remember precisely, but I think Sami (the developper) has some plans for it. Might be wrong, though.

I guess it's not so that the big guns can't just operate routes at a loss and edge out newbies?

They can, but only until a certain point. Just look at it the other way around: a big boy, well established, having monopoly, running 2x737 on 250 pax routes, as in the example above. Then, a new entrant comes in, plays the frequency spam and drops 3 or 4 F.27 on this route. 737 will fly at a loss. But the big boy probably won't bother, because it's only a small part of his operations, the wound is ridiculous to him. Comes in a second ankle bitter, and the situation only gets worse. But still, he doesn't move, because he can afford, and he's maintaining his position.

And while a generalized spam might hurt him, he probably has other bases, and the spam only works on short routes, all his 1000nm+ routes are safe, etc. At this point, he might even add a 3rd 737 to the route, just to give the F.27 something to chew, because at this point the F.27 won't be as profitable as they were before, they are now 3x737 and 6-8 F.27 all fighting for 250 pax, that's only 25-30 pax per flight. And if this is a 800-900nm route, then the 737 in itself has a small edge. If there is a decent amount of SC (standard cargo), he also has something that only him can carry. It helps. And it's a kind of stalemate. Increasing the spam won't do much more to the big boy at this point, while the ankle bitters would start losing money.

[MikeS]

Low cost does work in AWS, just not in the same intensity as in real world.

e.g.: Take any 737 and put in HD seating and drop route prices by 10%
How it works: HD seating: you get more seats to sell, but passengers don't like HD seating, so you drop the price a bit and then it
becomes acceptable and you will have load factors accordingly.
Financially, the end result is probably the same as flying a 737 in normal configuration, but you will have a higher market share and higher overall passenger numbers and thus some points advantage.

I like to use HD seating minus 1 row which puts the comfort in"fair" instead of"poor".

Mike

[stealy]

Low cost does work in AWS, just not in the same intensity as in real world.

e.g.: Take any 737 and put in HD seating and drop route prices by 10%
How it works: HD seating: you get more seats to sell, but passengers don't like HD seating, so you drop the price a bit and then it
becomes acceptable and you will have load factors accordingly.
Financially, the end result is probably the same as flying a 737 in normal configuration, but you will have a higher market share and higher overall passenger numbers and thus some points advantage.

I like to use HD seating minus 1 row which puts the comfort in"fair" instead of"poor".

Mike

Just to reiterate, HD seats have little to no penalty on routes under 1000nm regardless of pricing. Suggested price +5% works perfectly fine, so there is absolutely no reason to discount your tickets unless you want less revenue, profit, and profit margin.

On routes over 1000nm, however, there is no point in using HD seats and discounting your tickets because the end result, as you mentioned, is similar to standard seating and standard pricing. "Higher market share and higher overall passenger numbers" are only possible under little to no competitions, which is unlikely the case in a long GW.

Low-cost airlines model really doesn't work in AWS. I wish it did... that would make the game more fun, but it doesn't.



Speaking of which (and I am going a little off topic here...), wouldn't it be fun to have the option to offer different levels of in-flight entertainment, meals, drinks, snacks, amenity kits, baggage allowance, etc? And different combinations would generate different "preferability score." First and Business class passengers would weight these extra goodies heavier, while economy class passengers would weight pricing heavier. This would pave way to a low-cost carrier model that prioritize pricing over these extra stuff.

I know, I know... it's complicated and likely isn't going to happen, but one can dream...

[Talentz]

Speaking of which (and I am going a little off topic here...), wouldn't it be fun to have the option to offer different levels of in-flight entertainment, meals, drinks, snacks, amenity kits, baggage allowance, etc? And different combinations would generate different "preferability score." First and Business class passengers would weight these extra goodies heavier, while economy class passengers would weight pricing heavier. This would pave way to a low-cost carrier model that prioritize pricing over these extra stuff.

I know, I know... it's complicated and likely isn't going to happen, but one can dream...

Except it is in the cards for the future; Sami has stated as much without detail or timeline (of course).

The new (up coming) seat config system is part of the new AWS pax experience. All in prep for CBD-Pax which is going to be different on a couple of levels from our current system.


Talentz

[sanabas]

Just to reiterate, HD seats have little to no penalty on routes under 1000nm regardless of pricing.

Depends how fast the plane is. My rule of thumb is the AWS pax are willing to sit in a HD seat for 3 hours at a time only. There is an appreciable difference on a 600NM route which is 3:20 flight time on a 240kt turboprop between 40 std seats and 48 HD seats. Even under 3 hours, there looks to be some difference, but it's small enough to be somewhat lost in the random fluctuations.

I simply don't bother with HD seats in most circumstances, simply for convenience purposes, makes it easy to move schedules between planes when needed.

[stealy]

Depends how fast the plane is. My rule of thumb is the AWS pax are willing to sit in a HD seat for 3 hours at a time only. There is an appreciable difference on a 600NM route which is 3:20 flight time on a 240kt turboprop between 40 std seats and 48 HD seats. Even under 3 hours, there looks to be some difference, but it's small enough to be somewhat lost in the random fluctuations.

I simply don't bother with HD seats in most circumstances, simply for convenience purposes, makes it easy to move schedules between planes when needed.

I think you are right about the time part. When I said under 1000nm, I probably should have mentioned it was presumptively flown with a Jet, which is roughly less than 3 hours in flight time for routes under 1000nm. Turboprops would certainly take a bit longer at longer distances (but still under 1000nm), which would exceed 3 hours in flight time. However, turboprops probably shouldn't be flown that far anyway.

HD seats seem to be a good idea if your entire fleet type (let's say F28, for example) is dedicated to flying under 1000nm. This way, you aren't purposely installing HD seats only on some planes for particular flights under 1000nm, but rather have them installed across all planes of this particular fleet type. In the end, you can still switch schedules between planes with ease.

Otherwise, I agree that HD seats may not be worth it due to its limitations. I would never install HD seats on Large or VL aircraft for this reason.

[stealy]

Except it is in the cards for the future; Sami has stated as much without detail or timeline (of course).

The new (up coming) seat config system is part of the new AWS pax experience. All in prep for CBD-Pax which is going to be different on a couple of levels from our current system.


Talentz

Well that's great news. Unfortunately, I haven't been following any potential updates. Where is the best place look for such information?

[MikeS]

I played a "low cost" style airline a while back out of Bogota using B737-300 in 144Y configuration. I had two other competitors in Colombia and it worked pretty good. HD configured 737-300 flew all over latin america Short to medium range) with a good profit margin.
A normal 737-300 has 126Y. If you go max HD seating you would get 149 but with "Poor" comfort, so reducing to 144 gives you "Fair".
144 over 126 is +14% capacity, so one can lower prices a bit to stay competitive.

I feel the effect of frequency has been tuned down a bit, so if that were true, then higher capacity aircraft get more interesting again.
I'd like to do the experiment again and do some comparison on different route pairs...

Mike