Problems with demands on a300

[Theemr7677]

Hi

Now this could obvious mistake but my problem is my airline based in Bangkok in Dawn of Millennium (1980). So I use the a300 on the most crowded routes and I also have a set of smaller tridents who fly some of the same routes. The thing I dont understand is how the a300 usually gets about 30-40% LF and some as low as 20%, while my tridents are up at 80% LF. How so?

I can't seem to figure out why, the flights aren't between 00:00 and 05:00, i have 100 route image and good CI. I Cant seem too figure out why. I know the routes might be a litlle overcrowded but why are the tridents doing so well, is the a300 too big??

Does anybody know what could be the reason behind this?

Thanks

[Sami]

Why are you looking at the load factor to compare them?  It does not tell you anything in this case since the aircraft are not the same sized. You need to compare on how many seats are being sold.

Example, VTBD - VHHK:
TH183, H121, dep. 05.00, last 7 day averge 86 Y seats sold, LF 68%
TH249, A300, dep. 06.00, last 7 day averge 108 Y seats sold, LF 43%

So actually your A300 is selling better (though in this comparison much is probably due to the 0500 dep time of the TH183) and ticket revenue in total is about $4000 more.


Load Factor is just a statistical metric of capacity offered vs capacity sold (to simplify a bit).

[DanDan]

... is the a300 too big?? ...

simple answer: yes, it is too big. in aws, there is a golden rule: "frequency wins".

if someone flies with amazing seat-costs? no probleme, just fly a plane half the size and win by using superior trip-costs. and dont worry: passengers in aws are not price sensitive. so if you lower the price to 50% on the flights with better seat-costs, that wont impact the distribution of passengers much.
so when in real life it is the 777-300ER, airlines in aws prefer two B767-200ER instead. small plans win.

[Theemr7677]

Ohh ok I see, didn't look at it that way, thanks for clarifying it for me 

[Amelie090904]

Now that may have been a bit oversimplified. Yes, frequency wins in many cases, but can have its own dangers. The more planes you fly, the more you pay in staff, fuel, maintenance, airport fees etc. So while you can get a better market share on a given route, it also comes at a cost.

I once flew the route San Diego - Oakland which had a demand of 600. I flew 12x NAMC (50 seats) while a competitor flew 2x 727s with 150 seats each. My competitor got about 50% of all the market share with just 2 daily flights (probably the same plane) where I needed 12 flights and probably 6 planes if I remember correctly. Now, in the US staff was rather expensive. As was fuel for 6 planes (that fly slower, too) vs 1 jet.

In other words: A higher frequency is preferred, but there is a point when there can be a "too high frequency" and bigger jets actually are more efficient.

[DanDan]

In other words: A higher frequency is preferred, but there is a point when there can be a "too high frequency" and bigger jets actually are more efficient.

yes, it is certainly oversimplified. thats why i stated 2x 767 compared to 1x 777 as an example. certainly crew demands have to be considered and may be lower with bigger planes. it also seems there is a minimum that each company gets somehow as a market share as well: i know i had about 18 flights a day, all nicely staggered on a certain route, hour by hour - the competitor had one flight a day and got a ridiculously high market share.

on the contrary, i once tried to undercut a competitor, offering seats at 1$ for a route (yes, there is a way to reduce prices that low - not sure if it still is) - it basically didnt change anything in the market share. to sum it up: the passengers in AWS are not really thinking very much like real life passengers. they dont care about prices, they dont care about flight options, they dont care all that much about timing - what they do care about is, that every company on the route is able to survive.

[gazzz0x2z]

There is also a tipping point. Once, flying MPL-ORY (600 demand around the year 2000) with S2000s, my total seats sold actually went down when adding flights 9 & 10, and opposition's 733s were suddenly full.

[MikeS]

There is also a tipping point. Once, flying MPL-ORY (600 demand around the year 2000) with S2000s, my total seats sold actually went down when adding flights 9 & 10, and opposition's 733s were suddenly full.

I hope that was just a glitch as it makes no sense and is impossible for a player to take into account.

Mike

[schro]

I hope that was just a glitch as it makes no sense and is impossible for a player to take into account.

Mike

It is intentional, otherwise prop spamming would be a plague.

[DanDan]

It is intentional, otherwise prop spamming would be a plague.

it already is a plague - and it wouldnt be a plague, if there would be real competition via prices as irl

[Amelie090904]

it already is a plague - and it wouldnt be a plague, if there would be real competition via prices as irl

It would not work out, trust me. As soon as an airline swims in money, they would just use dumping prices and dominate the market. You'd end up having a few big airlines enforcing their monopolies while the majority of the players have no chance whatsoever.