AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm  (Read 366 times)

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1565

The 4 people who like this post:
No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« on: September 17, 2020, 02:44:18 PM »
It has always perplexed me as to why penalty exists on Pax. flights which are deemed fairly LH or definitely LH,  even on all the early aircraft up to the 1980's.  In RL, I spent my life as a child and youngster flying between South Africa and Europe, Australia and Europe, etc.  and we ALWAYS had fuel stops.  It beggars belief that anyone back then who wanted to go from London to JNB wouldn't fly just because the route had a fuel stop.  I think it was SAA who were the first to have non-stop JNB to Europe flights with their 747SPs ....   so why the heck do we have such penalties on the LF of any pax flight right throughout the games from start to finish?

Surely at very least, lets not have penalties on LF if a flight is 4000nm or more?

(I know... I'm probably just wasting my time as always making any suggestions at all for this game)  :,(

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 2222

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2020, 03:17:21 PM »
There are 757 variants that can go 4000nm--that means you could have 8000nm range on a 757 with a single tech stop.  That is the exact reason these penalties exist because IRL no one is flying these routes.  I don't know how the code calculates it now, but I do think that it needs to provide a penalty IF there is competition.  However, with city-based demand for pax coming at some point, being able to enforce this "if there is competition" is going to be opaque.

Similar to what you stated, the longest flight I've ever been on was a 16.5 hour flight from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Dulles/Washington DC on a 767 that included a tech stop in Rome.  I think the penalty needs to exist, but perhaps it's based on MTOW to make sure that an aircraft is "sufficiently large" for long haul?  So a tech stopped 747 won't be penalized for a tech stop, but a tech stopped 757 will?

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8145

The 8 people who like this post:
Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2020, 12:01:33 AM »
The penalty should only be there if someone else is flying non-stop.  If there is only one option, with tech stop, there should not be any penalty - IMO.

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1565

The person who likes this post:
Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2020, 09:12:38 AM »
I'd agree we don't want competitors with little "mosquito-type" aircraft creating tech-stop routes against a carrier with a sensible plane flying the same route without needing tech stop.  But again, the rules of this game means the "tail is wagging the dog" on this subject too.  But why are talking about 757s here?  I specifically mentioned the RL situations before the '80s and in the days when in RL, 1 or more tech-stops were normal and necessary.

If we just cannot find some ways to spice up and liven up this game... my goodness it really needs some fresh life breathing into it, then we'll continue to see our friends drifting away from the game in complete boredom.  I too am there ... there's just nothing I haven't really tried and done one way or another.  It's so frustrating to hear the same old rhetoric in defence of not changing.... "thats not what would happen in RL"

This is meant to be a GAME and by that definition we are seeking some fun here.  It is not fun to go around the same old thing over and over and over ad-infinitum.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2020, 09:16:21 AM by Cornishman »

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1565

The person who likes this post:
Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2020, 09:18:04 AM »
The penalty should only be there if someone else is flying non-stop.  If there is only one option, with tech stop, there should not be any penalty - IMO.

100%  agree !

Offline tungstennedge

  • Members
  • Posts: 341

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2020, 10:29:57 AM »
There are 757 variants that can go 4000nm--that means you could have 8000nm range on a 757 with a single tech stop.  That is the exact reason these penalties exist because IRL no one is flying these routes.  I don't know how the code calculates it now, but I do think that it needs to provide a penalty IF there is competition.  However, with city-based demand for pax coming at some point, being able to enforce this "if there is competition" is going to be opaque.

Similar to what you stated, the longest flight I've ever been on was a 16.5 hour flight from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Dulles/Washington DC on a 767 that included a tech stop in Rome.  I think the penalty needs to exist, but perhaps it's based on MTOW to make sure that an aircraft is "sufficiently large" for long haul?  So a tech stopped 747 won't be penalized for a tech stop, but a tech stopped 757 will?

The problem here is not tech stops, but the way demand splits based almost purely on frequency. If this were not the case, we wouldn't worry about people techstopping 757's everywhere since the economics would be s*** versus fly a single larger plane. Demand should be split based on a mix of frequency, and seats provided, this way rules like a reduced tech stop penalty for long range routes. I personally agree with jumbo where there should only be a penalty if the route has competition.

Also, additionally, I feel like the even bigger factor here should be flight time. I don't think anyone IRL really cares much if a slight has a stop if the arrival is faster anyway.

Offline RALLX

  • Members
  • Posts: 352

The person who likes this post:
Re: No penalty on PAX flights over 4000nm
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2021, 03:27:14 AM »
In my opinion, the penalty should be to the "attractiveness" of the flight, and not by capping the pax demand.

1. If there is no competition, all the passengers will still fly even if the flight has tech stop. In reality, people would not not fly just because the flight has tech stop.
2. If there is competition between non-stop flights and flights with tech stop, non-stop flights would be preferred by the passengers. All things being equal (CI, price, plane size, etc), most passengers would choose the direct flights (perhaps a small number would still prefer their national carrier or other reasons). The leftover demand would then be fully served by the flights with tech stop.

I read somewhere that flying non-stop is economically less profitable than flying with tech stops beyond certain distance as more fuels carried means less passengers onboard. However in this game, the maximum passengers remains the same even if the plane is flying shorter. Well, technically you can increase the seats by having high density seats but this will affect the route attractiveness. The ability to adjust seat pitch without tying it to the seat configuration would help. With more passengers, the flight can then be made cheaper, which would be an incentive for flying with tech stops.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.