Route Image + Aircraft Size & Load Factor

[sirvalkyerie]

As best I can tell it seems that your aircraft size/pax capacity is filled at a % via the route image/company image.

In other words when a route has high image the plane fills at a high percentage. When at a low image it fills a low percentage. But these are percentages it seems. Not raw number. I think for the most part this is fine. But there's a problem on the edges. Planes with higher capacities can turn a profit faster simply as a matter of scale.

Here are two examples:
I'm flying Dassault Mercures in Dawn of the Millennium. My flights out of Moscow (DME) and St. Petersburg (LED) generate profits almost instantly from the first flight. If they don't, it takes a route image of ~20 before they're at least breaking even. By a route image of 50 they're generating actual profits. This is even with LF of 50%. The plane is efficient and even at ~65 of 135 seats there is enough to make a profit on that amount of traffic. The Mercure is an efficient plane with a relatively high passenger capacity for a Large class plane. Of course the drawback being how far it can go.

However in Age of Flight I'm flying Pilatus PC-12s out of Orcas Island (ESD). And 4 passengers on a 9 passenger plane can't make a cent. As a function of scale in general this is probably fine. From what I can make out by buying Mercures in one game world and Pilatus in another game world at around the same time and giving them the same time to fly their routes, they gain image at the same rate. Ergo, they gain PLF% at roughly the same rate. The issue is that an 11% PLF increase on the Mercure is nearly a 13 seat gain while the Pilatus gains 1 passenger with an 11% increase in PLF. Naturally as a function of scale the Mercure sees greater revenues from an 11% PLF gain than the Pilatus. And the Mercure can achieve profitability much, much quicker.

The issue here is that the PC12 is going to have to fly for ~10 months at a significant loss relative to its size because it gains seats at the same relative rate as any larger plane. But because these are percentage scales, it takes the PC12 ~10 months or more to gain 8 seats. This compounds the problems with flying 'very small' planes. <15 seats becomes a perilous waiting game that I'm not sure most planes can afford to wait out.

Even flying a Heron 2, like I fly in History & Future, is a substantially better proposition than the PC12. At 16 seats the Heron 2 is very nearly double the PC12 capacity size. So a 10% increase in PLF for the Heron 2 is about 2 passengers (rounded up) while a 10% increase in the PC12 is only 1 passenger. Just that little change is enough for the Heron 2 to keep pace with cost and turn profitable. Again I have routes that are ~50% capacity on the Heron 2s that eek out profits. Because it is nearly twice as large as the PC12. It seems to me that 15 seats is about the bare minimum to fly as a backbone of your fleet and turn a profit.

There's a number of propositions I can think of, maybe others have better ideas. I'm still new to the game. It does seem flying very small aircraft, Cessna/Pilatus, is an impossibility. It could work if you subsidize them by flying bigger birds so you can wait out the length of time it takes the very small aircraft to be profitable. But it seems no one can fly these very small aircraft and make money. Which isn't inherently reflective of real life as there are several small airliners that handle both scheduled commercial and air taxi/charter service using only these small planes. Kenmore Air, San Juan Airlines, Tradewinds Aviation etc.

Suggestions:
1. Simply remove them. If it's not possible for these to actually be usable then I don't see the point of them being in the game. As many users point out there are still much larger aircraft that flew with real airlines that have not yet been included in the game, it seems silly to keep these very small aircraft in. No one flies them, they don't make money, it encourages people to mess about with aircraft that just can't be used. While I haven't tried, I think the Baade 152 might actually have a shot at making more cash long term than any of these very small aircraft.

2. Change the scaling for how very small aircraft gain passengers. A Pilatus that fills every seat or near every seat should be able to make money even if they only manage two routes a day. Not only can they make a profit in real life doing this, but even by AWS standards it seems like they can make money if they have the load factors. I'm flying an older Cessna with higher maintenance cost and even it can turn a profit as long as it gets 7 of 9 seats filled on at least two daily flights. It'll make ~$28,000 a week in profit at that rate. Which given its other costs should be profitable for each plane over the length of a year given I fly enough Cessnas that all get at least 7 of 9 seats filled on at least 2 daily routes. After all, at some level it should be easier to get 7 people on a plane than it is to get 110 people on another plane over the same time.

3. Allow smaller planes to charge much higher ticket prices. I'm not expecting AWS to implement charters/air taxis. But in real life these kinds of planes often command much higher ticket prices. The planes tend to be roomier/more luxurious than bigger flights. More legroom, bigger seats. The flights are also generally pure flights of convenience. Instead of driving an hour to the airport they fly out of a very tiny commercial airport in their area and pay a premium to do so. While some scheduled flights like Orcas Island to Bellingham or Orcas Island to Seattle have prices that are similar in AWS and real life, services from Orcas Island to say, Las Vegas, would almost undoubtedly cost a lot more money in real life. Hence why the demand is also so low. People would rather save the cash and drive to Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane. If you could get regular flights from ESD to LAS for $50 cheaper than Seattle, of course people would fly out of ESD and then you'd have bigger planes. But demand isn't dynamic in this way in AWS.

For instance just an example, San Juan Airlines will charge you $120 one way / $240 total for a flight from Bellingham to Orcas Island. That is in a 4 seat Cessna Skyhawk C172. Check pictures for yourself but it is hardly comparable to the Pilatus or even the Cessna 208 Caravan. The C172 is a real life ~$300 flight in one of the highest density seating arrangements you could imagine.

4. Less a suggestion about plane size and more a suggestion of hub-spoke arrangements. I know that A-B-C-C-B-A flights are a very common request, but that sort of model would make it easier to fly to these smaller airports. It would both eliminate the need for such small planes or could potentially make such small planes feasible. If you could essentially collect demand from multiple other airports you may be able to fly a full 30 seater to an airport like ESD if it's the collective demand of several other destinations. Likewise, such small airports could also collect traffic from other airports in the area making it feasible to fly a number of 30 seaters which could subsidize a few <15 seat planes for the length of time necessary for them to become profitable. With pax cbd Orcas Island could grab the surrounding airports in its catchment zone including the larger Bellingham International (BLI). If there are novel flights originating from ESD that BLI doesn't have, ESD would gain that traffic. Allowing bigger flights from ESD and subsidizing smaller flights from ESD outwards. A great real life example of this is Delta Airlines across the Midwest with flights to Yosemite and International Falls and Chippewa County. Or American Airlines with countless flights to tiny Texas airports.

It'd also allow airlines to become craftier with where they place their hubs so it likely would clog some airports far less. American Airlines using Philly as their big east coast international hub instead of say LGA or JFK as would be used in AWS. A regional airliner could use something like Bellingham as a West Coast international hub for flights to Asia and Western Canada even. They'd still see themselves at a disadvantage from someone using SEA, PDX or LAX as a west coast hub since BLI generated less natural demand. Several real life airlines have attempted hubs at BLI and airports like it.


I think the simplest and cleanest solution is changing the scaling for pax gain for very small aircraft. It's not like it will upset the balance of anything. You won't suddenly see the gameworld fill with people buying 9-seat aircraft to make money. It'll still be smaller total profits regardless of the margins they manage to accomplish. Changing over the fleet with age will still be arduous given the small raw dollars versus cost of new planes. No one is going to try and clog 1000 slots out of LAX with Cessnas.

[schro]

So... your post tells me that you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of how ticket sales occur in the game, so let me lay this out a bit for you....

1. The calculation to determine number of seats sold does NOT have anything to do with the load factor or number of seats offered (unless, it tries to sell more seats than there are seats offered). Load factor percentage is a simple math equation that divides the number of seats sold by the number of seats available. Once you start viewing it as "seats sold" then the rest of it comes together a lot easier.

2. Generally speaking at 0 RI, you will be able to sell tickets to about 20-30% of the demand on that route. If you put a 9 seater on a route with 30 demand, you're likely going to sell all the seats to start. If you put a 9 seater on a route with 30 demand, you'll sell 2-3 seats to start.

3. Over time, as RI increases, the amount of tickets you can sell increases relative to demand until you reach 100.

4. Sanabas did some testing with small airlines some 5-6 years ago, but I can't find his threads where he wrote about it. Basically, it's tough, but doable - not a beginner sort of feat. Here's him summarizing it - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,86130.msg507628.html#msg507628

5. You can certainly fetch a pricing premium above and beyond standard pricing on any flights. I've run prices as high as 40-50% above defaults - it's just the appropriate conditions must exist (specifically, when undersupplying demand).

6. As a result of the testing done for #4, there were a number of small plane balancing changes made that made them much more viable. One of the biggest things was the reduction in staff costs.

7. It is normal for routes to be loss making as RI increases from 0 to 100. That should be expected and planned for.

Anyhow, I'm also not entirely sure what feature you're requesting after responding to all that..

[sirvalkyerie]

1. I understand how load factor is calculated. That's obvious and easy. I can do simple division.

2. This is the problem. The % of demand with smaller aircraft is brutal. Flying a 9 seater to a route with 15 or less demand is very tough. You'd be better off flying a 30 seater as it would make more money at 50% PLF. The PC12 is going to struggle to make money at 50% in a way larger aircraft simply don't. But they scale at the same rate when it comes to gaining passengers with RI.

3. Yes. I understand this.

4. It seems to be very, very tough. This is a good read.

5. Of course. I know this as well. It is very hard to do this flying small planes on small demand routes because they remain less profitable than bigger planes for far longer. Because of the rate at which demand is gained.

6. I believe this isn't in effect yet for Age of Flight? Weren't these changes made for the latest game worlds and game worlds going forward? If I remember the patch notes. If that is the case I'll have to experiment when these game worlds get later.

7. Yes. I understand that. I think it is very hard for these very small planes to turn a profit until their route image turns as high as 80%. It's not as-if there are better and worse options for planes this small. They'll all face this exact sort of problem. It's not like choosing a highly fuel inefficient plane because that is what is available, fighting for production lines etc. It's a problem with the entire size class.


I think that the way in which seats are gained as a function of RI should be less linear. I think it should be easier to say, start at 5 seats so long as demand and lack of competition allow for such. The time for a very small plane on a route with 11 demand to get to 11 seats probably shouldn't be directly comparable to the time it takes a route with 100 demand to get to 100 seats. It seems to me to not be as reasonable of a proposition.

It doesn't appear to me that even in the US a very small plane is going to be impossible to profit with. It just takes a very long time to reach its meager profitability because %s don't work at such small numbers.

[gazzz0x2z]

It seems to me that point 2 has an additional caveat : at 0 RI, you're capped at 50% LF. This cap goes up quickly, as RI rises. But the first time I flew a S2000(in 50 seats config) from MPL to ORY (500 demand at the start of the game, no opposition yet), LF was only 50% first week. It quickly went up afterwards.

The thing is, you can be profitable with very small aircraft, but you've got to pile up a lot of daily short flights. I did play metros intensively in Europe, once, and while I had fun pushing them to their range limits, the ones doing good money were the ones flying 4, 5, or even 6 times a day. The way pricing is done means that longer flights make less money per hour flown. And I'm not even sure it's unrealistic. Each flight group has tis sweet spot in terms of range, and for small, it's very, very short.

I'd add to it that un current History and the Future game, a company has set up more than 200 doves (10 seats) in the USA before upgrading to accountants (28 seats). It's hard, it requires a lot of knowledge of the game, but it's definitively possible. real life companies don't do that - there is probably a good reason. Which makes me thing it's realistic that it's hard.

[Sami]

As best I can tell it seems that your aircraft size/pax capacity is filled at a % via the route image/company image.

No, this is an incorrect assumption. A low Route Image simply cuts the demand what can be "seen" by your passengers (or potential passengers), and once it grows to 100 the full demand is "available". Since it models the people's knowledge of your operations. (And the sales of the seats itself are not calculated in percentages of anything, like schro mentioned.)