Major PAX Issue

[Lord Branson]

I'd like to bring to airlines attention that the game is massively flawed and you don't even realise it.

If you are flying stopover routes you have no idea of knowing how many PAX you can fly, ignore the Warnings and Limitations they are often incorrect.

Sami knows about this issue but doesn't think it a priority to highlight it or fix it.  "It will be fixed in Route Editor 2.0"

To give you some idea of the issue KJFK - RJTT as an example 707-120 states 83 PAX / 101 PAX

In reality once in the air it flies 56 PAX / 1 PAX

This happens on multiple stopover routes, in reality you have no idea of knowing how many PAX the route can fly.

So you think the route is 101 PAX but it's flying 1 PAX.

Airlines don't realise this they fly based on what the "Warnings and Limitations" states.  BIG MISTAKE!!

I don't care what's causing the issue, (it's runway length) it's an issue FIX IT.

This issue is replicated with most aircraft types, DC6B, 707s, L1049s it's a big issue and I am certain airlines don't know anything about it, because I know they are flying 1 PAX routes without even knowing this.

[Hillians]

This is linked: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,93960.0.html

I would echo that it's not just linked to techstops, it can also apply to any flights with pax restrictions.

[Lord Branson]

You've got to read the bug report to know how to play the game.

Good to see the bug reported stated "This bug is really game breaking. I have made several 7days schedules before I noticed the bug, impossible to add a tech stop afterwards without revising the whole schedule."

6 months ago it was reported and remains an issue.

This has been a known bug to management for 6 months.  I wasn't aware other airlines aren't aware.

Airlines don't know about this, they are flying routes with 1 PAX without knowing it's 1 PAX.  Thinking the route allows 101 PAX.  It's a big issue reported 6 months ago.  And you haven't fixed it to date, airlines are obliviously flying the routes and losing money.

You're being very unfair with your paying players here Sami, I find it incredible.

6 months, I assume it's not a priority!

[Lord Branson]

Established route 100 RI

[Sami]

The reported bug concerns only some very limited route combinations with single or multiple techstops, not "normal" routes flying without additional stops, so not a very major issue in the big picture, but ought to be fixed anyway of course.

The scheduling page applies the correct limitations so to my understanding it's a display issue in the Route Editor, which is easiest fixed with the full v.2.0 update, as already planned.


(Also, I have no understading how the picture if the previous message is related to any of this?)

[Hillians]

Hi Sami,

there are plenty examples.

Here's another one.. I fly from LHR to Durban on a L1049E connie with a tech stop.
according to route creation, it shows I can take 80 pax, reality is 64 pax.


I've also got an example without a tech stop.
LHR to KWI.
Route  creation shows 98 pax, reality shows 88 pax.

This is very misleading. I know it may take a while to fix but a temporary solution would be to reduce the runway requirement of aircrafts by like 10-15%.
That would likely avoid a lot of these issues. It's not feasible to check every route, many people tend to create 7d schedules, then schedule them and then find out there is an issue which means the whole schedule is inefficient.

Hope the screenshots below help.

I'm sure there are many more examples I can share as well but it's a pretty big problem as people likely don't realise it.

[b757capt]

The reported bug concerns only some very limited route combinations with single or multiple techstops, not "normal" routes flying without additional stops, so not a very major issue in the big picture, but ought to be fixed anyway of course.

The scheduling page applies the correct limitations so to my understanding it's a display issue in the Route Editor, which is easiest fixed with the full v.2.0 update, as already planned.


(Also, I have no understading how the picture if the previous message is related to any of this?)

Sami, Who determines if it's a Major issue or not? In my opinion, it's a major issue. The behavior of the game is not as marketed or described.

Do you happen to have an advisory panel of customers to give you input? In my opinion, this needs to be fixed and the game halted until its corrected.

[Lord Branson]

The picture of route KJFK to RJTT was a demonstration that the 707-120 is only flying 1 Pax on the return leg and subsequently that route is losing $2,587 per flight.  When in reality it should be +$30,000 per route.

It may be a minor issue, but if you add up multiple affected routes it makes a massive difference to an airlines profitability.  The airlines don't know it's an issue they are all in the dark as I was until I spotted this.

I investigated why is KJFK-RJTT losing money?

States 101 PAX on return leg but in reality flies 1 PAX to me that's a big issue, correct me if I'm wrong.

I shouldn't have had to investigate this and be directed to the previously reported bug 6 months ago.

If airlines think they are flying one thing when in reality they are flying much lower numbers that's something major not to be brushed under the carpet.

It didn't used to be an issue however so some "update" caused this.

[edvonbrock]

I am having the same problems in Airline Generations from MUC to North American airports. My airline is not doing great so I wonder if this is contributing to my losses. (I think it is) So, please Sami, effect the fix. I appreciate bugs shoot out when you upgrade or move to new software. Thanks.

[groundbum2]

these messages are guidance, as a lot depends on the exact equipment put on the route.

For a lot of stuff where range is marginal I'd be tempted to create a single flight on my preferred aircraft, say 707-120, then look at the route and see in reality how many seats are actually being flown. That's the only number that can be relied on.

[knobbygb]

these messages are guidance, as a lot depends on the exact equipment put on the route.

For a lot of stuff where range is marginal I'd be tempted to create a single flight on my preferred aircraft, say 707-120, then look at the route and see in reality how many seats are actually being flown. That's the only number that can be relied on.

Just what I've been doing for literally YEARS. This situation isn't new and I also take it as an advisory.  Do people really not CHECK after scheduling the route and notice they're only getting one pax?

In a way it's adding realism. When real airlines begin marginal flights they never really know how performance will be in the real world until they try.

[RileyGood]

As the warning message says, the actual payload depends on the aircraft you schedule. What the message tells you isn't reflective of the actual aircraft you schedule the route to.