Route using A318/9/0/1 aircraft - aircraft warning

[Mika875]

Is this game being made deliberately difficult for players? Why is it that when you put an aircraft on a route say 2300 miles  you get a warning saying you won't get the full demand because it's too small, yet its perfectly capable of flying that route and some? As an example Im flying a route 2300 miles or so with an A319 with a 3090 NM range and get this warning yet in real life that same aircraft fleet type is being used on routes way over 2300 miles (eg LHR - LCA)that.  I thought this simulation was supposed to as far as practicable (whilst allowing players to enjoy the game) model real world dynamics. Interested in views on this and also why this warning comes up making it difficult to fly routes when the warning is telling you that the demand won't be fulfilled.

[groundbum2]

the tone of the question doesn't inspire confidence in writing a nice reply, but I'll do my best.

The game tries to be realistic, and "too small" is realistic. Passengers given a choice of, say, a wide-body and an A321XLR on the same very long route will always plump for the wide-body all else being equal. Also, passengers going say 900nm on either an ATR or regional jet will plump for the regional jet at half the travel time and 1/4 as noisy every time. The warning reflects this.

be aware "too small" is not a guillotine, getting the warning does not mean zero passengers, It's merely a warning you're not going to wow passengers.

Sunny chill skies fellow player!

Simon

[Mika875]

it's not realistic though (my opinion), passengers fly usually by reputation of the airline (and comfort of seat) not by what aircraft they fly on a route.  This used to be a really awesome game and things that were frustrating have been improved massively (I won't say fixed as things can always be better!) but it's not realistic to put a parameter in the game to dissuade people to fly routes, the whole purpose of aircraft like the 321XLR are to fly long thin routes not for an airline to plunk a A330 on it and only fill it to 50% capacity. I say this with the greatest respect but when I'm trying to operate routes to tie me into very large aircraft (which are ultimately loss making for 2 years+ now in this game), on routes that I can make it's not sustainable especially when ideally I'd like to sue A320s etc on routes 1500nm or less when from the base airport there is literally no demand f0r most airports within 2000NM

[schro]

This is more a game balance mechanism - if 321's were doing TATL on the huge routes, the widebody operators would have no chance at making money because they'd get papercut to death by the smaller/less efficient competition.

Also note that the warning is a percentage based - even if the plane is 95% "appropriate" (which would have virtually no penalty applied after all dice were rolled), the warning will still appear in the UI.

The warning is also based 1. Type of route (domestic vs short/long international). 2. Amount of demand 3. Average seat count averaged across all variants of a fleet type 4. Length of route.

So, a 3000nm domestic route may not show the warning where a 2000nm international route would.

In general, the 321's you'll not get the warning on TATL flights where demand is up to 200-250 or so. Once you hit 300-400, it will start to show.

[Mika875]

Thanks Schro, that makes sense and was helpful.

[Kadachiman]

The game tries to be realistic, and "too small" is realistic. Passengers given a choice of, say, a wide-body and an A321XLR on the same very long route will always plump for the wide-body all else being equal


IMO its a false realism.
I doubt the majority of pax would even know what type of plane they are flying in - unless they read the safety card.
The decision to fly in a B777 or a A320 flying the same route would very rarely be made.
my bet is that 99.9% of pax would look at the cost and/or the Alliance to make their choice and would pay little to no regard to the type of plane.

However Schro's explanation is valid as this is a game balance mechanism rather than a real life representation.
IRL Budget airlines are putting 321's against widebodies on many routes to grab the cost based customer, with great success.....as it would be in this game, but at what cost to the game if precautions were not put in place.

[groundbum2]

I respectfully disagree. In real life I would suggest 80% of passengers are "regulars" on that route, eg London-Dublin or New York-Delhi etc, travelling say once a year to see family or do business. Once they've done a very uncomfortable journey they'll say never again and be sure to avoid either the airline or the equipment. So they do do research when booking a trip. People specifically head for the A380 as they know it's comfortable and quiet. All the internet forums have travellers disecting their latest flight and swapping tips. So this does reflect real life.