Is it possible to create routes with multiple legs as apposed to direct flights? Second question, where is the livery visible once it is created and uploaded?
Quote from: bluemax on July 08, 2011, 02:26:21 AM
Is it possible to create routes with multiple legs as apposed to direct flights? Second question, where is the livery visible once it is created and uploaded?
1. No. This was removed in 1.2 in exchange for the "base" feature.
2. Your airline's info page.
will it be brought back? within the new version of play....
maybe... in future versions...(i hope so)... it will be more realistic
With the current slots issue, I don't think adding multiple legs with bases is a good idea...
Magic Carpet is the sole reason these are gone.
We don't see him around much any more.
He'd have a billion dollar airline in under a year by doing the following:
1. Base out of a major int'l hub
2. Convert every airplane to F/C only.
3. Fly them on multi leg flights (LHR-JFK-CDG-JFK-LHR)
4. Lease/Buy EVERY and I mean EVERY long haul aircraft
4. Be a multi billion dollar company in under a year.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 09, 2011, 01:53:29 PM
Magic Carpet is the sole reason these are gone.
We don't see him around much any more.
He'd have a billion dollar airline in under a year by doing the following:
1. Base out of a major int'l hub
2. Convert every airplane to F/C only.
3. Fly them on multi leg flights (LHR-JFK-CDG-JFK-LHR)
4. Lease/Buy EVERY and I mean EVERY long haul aircraft
4. Be a multi billion dollar company in under a year.
Is that not a good thing?
It made the game unplayable.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 09, 2011, 01:53:29 PM
Magic Carpet is the sole reason these are gone.
We don't see him around much any more.
He'd have a billion dollar airline in under a year by doing the following:
1. Base out of a major int'l hub
2. Convert every airplane to F/C only.
3. Fly them on multi leg flights (LHR-JFK-CDG-JFK-LHR)
4. Lease/Buy EVERY and I mean EVERY long haul aircraft
4. Be a multi billion dollar company in under a year.
6. The old production queues were first come first served.....Magic Carpet practically blocked them out making it even harder to get hold of aircraft.
Quote from: oggie84 on July 09, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
6. The old production queues were first come first served.....Magic Carpet practically blocked them out making it even harder to get hold of aircraft.
I forgot about that...
Magic Carpet has ordered 50 747-400s..... and it was like the first game year.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 09, 2011, 07:28:19 PM
I forgot about that...
Magic Carpet has ordered 50 747-400s..... and it was like the first game year.
I remember that. It was forever ago tho....
ABCBA routing is more realistic, but there needs to be some sort of limits placed on it in the game to make it usable. In a previous Modern Times, I had the largest airline in the game (and I started late) by basing in Atlanta and running every single route ATL-B-ORD-B-ATL. I had the #1 marketshare at the 2 largest airports in the world at a time when airlines could only have 1 base. Furthermore, considering the costs associated with opening new bases, it would be much more profitable to run ABCBA routes in this same manner to avoid the huge costs associated with additional bases. I think we're going to have to wait for business plans to go into effect with focus cities in order to open ABCBA routes again.
Quote from: LemonButt on July 09, 2011, 10:40:31 PM
ABCBA routing is more realistic, but there needs to be some sort of limits placed on it in the game to make it usable. In a previous Modern Times, I had the largest airline in the game (and I started late) by basing in Atlanta and running every single route ATL-B-ORD-B-ATL. I had the #1 marketshare at the 2 largest airports in the world at a time when airlines could only have 1 base. Furthermore, considering the costs associated with opening new bases, it would be much more profitable to run ABCBA routes in this same manner to avoid the huge costs associated with additional bases. I think we're going to have to wait for business plans to go into effect with focus cities in order to open ABCBA routes again.
Well, you pretty much explained the reason why ABCBA is not such a good idea. You are potentially doubling the size of demand of every airport. And the airlines that are the most capable of taking advantage of this opportunity are airlines HQd in those largest airports, because they are most likely going to be the strongest...
The extra basis have tremendous overhead associated with them (especially in high wage countries), and the aircraft limit makes it very hard to make up this overhead (and tuen profit from the base). While you would think that extra basis level the playing field (as far as offering ability for expansion for those who started at smaller airports), they really don't. Since the bases are not really financially attractive, the incentive is still there to
start at a very large airport, and not open extra bases. That's the path to highest profitability....
Starting at mid sized airport and moving up to a busier airport (when the airline is financially strong) isn't really an attractive strategy either. The 70 (or 100) aircraft limit right away limits you in what you can achieve at the new base....
How about abcba only via base/nonbase/base and return.. this way, you can connect one airport via one aircraft to both bases with a thru flight.....this would allow airlines to not need as many aircraft in order to connect out cities to several base airports... thus, would lower production demands since you are now allowing an airline with two or more bases to fly via an out station and service two base airports with one aircraft versus two aircraft...
Just an idea for the powers that be to take a look and consider the options of this... it, in my opinion makes since, with the above issue at hand.. would reduce the amount of aircraft an airline needs to sevice one station for multiple bases...
Tony R.
Hello
Sorry, there's still one thing I don't get here...
If I want to plan a route from A to B and from A to C, but I do not have enough demand to break even on A-B-A or A-C-A, I can still create a route A-B-C-A, right ? (at least, the game allows that).
But then, does Pax gets in/out ? If my understanding is correct, I'd say no, your stop at B is only for refuelling... so what is the point of doing A-B-C-A ?
I'm thinking about doing some trigular routes on LH flights, but if this does not work with pax in/out, there is little interest in doing so...
Thanks for the answer
Flobacca
Your understanding is correct, all you're doing is flying a route from A to C. The only reason to stop at B on the way is because you can't make it in one hop.
Quote from: Sanabas on August 16, 2011, 12:47:53 PM
Your understanding is correct, all you're doing is flying a route from A to C. The only reason to stop at B on the way is because you can't make it in one hop.
OK, but then what's the point of doing A-B-C-A, since you need a tech stop on the return trip as well then...
I doubt sami implemented a feature doing A-B-C-A with no reason...
(sry for stupid question :) )
Mostly there's no point. I've come across one airport where it would be useful though. SABE/AEP has decent LH demand, but only a 2100 nm runway. If you want to fly a big plane, it can't take off with a full fuel load. But if you fly 120 nm to SUMU/MVD, you have a proper runway, and can fill up and take off. Coming home, the plane's fuel tanks are empty, so you can land without the tech stop. So you'd want to set it up for A-B-C-A. I actually discovered that one while based in JFK. I wanted to fly A-C-B-A, with the tech stop on the return flight, but that one's not available.
I'm pretty sure the ABCA option is just a carryover from when those routes were allowed, and hasn't been coded out because those routes will possibly be allowed again at some point, and if you accidentally leave out the tech stop on the return leg when setting up the route, you won't be able to set it up anyway. So leaving it in causes no problems.
Simply put, ABCBA needs to brought back period.
Quote from: L1011fan on August 17, 2011, 09:28:14 PM
Simply put, ABCBA needs to brought back period.
How about addressing some of the arguments against?
- 2000 airline HQd in ATL
- obsolescence of extra bases (as a result)
- lack of passenger connectivity (no AC supply met) resulting in no RL equivalent
- ompletely crazy routes (Example: ORD-JFK-LAX-JFK-ORD)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on August 18, 2011, 11:53:27 PM
How about addressing some of the arguments against?
- 2000 airline HQd in ATL
- obsolescence of extra bases (as a result)
- lack of passenger connectivity (no AC supply met) resulting in no RL equivalent
- ompletely crazy routes (Example: ORD-JFK-LAX-JFK-ORD)
Yeah... crazy...
But at the very beginning, I truly believed that and ABCA route was carrying passengers from A to BC. At B, passengers disembark and passengers returning to A embark. At C, passengers from A disembark and passengers returning to A embark. No passengers are just taking the BC route.
This is the case with Air Transat flight from Montreal to Cuba via Cancun. They do not offer the Cuba/Cancun route (adding the fact that it is one way only...), but YUL/CUN and YUL/HAV.
I believe we also have strong arguments against that, but I'm sure it would be worth it for smaller sized airports. Moreover, players would stop grumbling everytime they want to join a decent size airport and they can't grow from there because demand is too low on routes to be efficient.
Have a nice game all
Well, crazy, multiple legs are common and made around the world, which makes it possible and realistic, the problem is the ease of creating routes and money in the AWS, overcrowding of major airlines and large aircraft flying multiple SH routes (making profit) :P
whatever... there are common routes of ABCBA, and even ABCDEDCBA routes, very dependent on the company, although there are treaties that cannot do multiple routes in several different countries*, at least to enable domestic flights would not be bad idea.
QuoteBut at the very beginning, I truly believed that and ABCA route was carrying passengers from A to BC. At B, passengers disembark and passengers returning to A embark. At C, passengers from A disembark and passengers returning to A embark. No passengers are just taking the BC route.
This engine would be correct, but appears to be cumbersome to deploy, since it would demand that calculates the two routes being served in a single flight, A to BC, B To C, C To BA, B To A...
A To B = X
A To C = Y / Pax capacity aircraft / dual demand
demand also coming from B to C = Z
Aircraft flying A To B = X+Y Demand (based in all data to C route also...)
Flying B To C = Y+Z (considering landed pax), so... a 100 pax aircraft, carries 43 pax to B and 57 to C (full load), in this route A to B, 43 of 100 pax are show in graphics profits as 43% of LF but the other 57 pax leaves no overloads routes and no bankruptcy.
Well, depends on the route, many flights have almost the maximum load factor... :P
Quote from: RibeiroR on August 27, 2011, 03:14:16 AM
This engine would be correct, but appears to be cumbersome to deploy, since it would demand that calculates the two routes being served in a single flight, A to BC, B To C, C To BA, B To A...
A To B = X
A To C = Y / Pax capacity aircraft / dual demand
demand also coming from B to C = Z
Aircraft flying A To B = X+Y Demand (based in all data to C route also...)
Flying B To C = Y+Z (considering landed pax), so... a 100 pax aircraft, carries 43 pax to B and 57 to C (full load), in this route A to B, 43 of 100 pax are show in graphics profits as 43% of LF but the other 57 pax leaves no overloads routes and no bankruptcy.
Well, depends on the route, many flights have almost the maximum load factor... :P
Kind of shows how cumbersome it would be to glue it to the current version of AWS. And when passenger connectiviy is implemented, it would be a piece of cake to add ABCBA to the system that has all the calculations in place....
Without really taking AC demand into consideration (as has been the case in AWS in the past), an airline from JFK could fly JFK-LAX-LGA-LAX-JFK, basically just stealing demand from LAX and LGA without paing the basing costs. Of course, there is 0 demand between JFK and LGA, since they are some 10 miles appart... A route like that would be just fine for a player based in JFK, since he does not care about AC demand in the first place, he cares about stealing BC demand, without paying the basing costs at B or C airports...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on August 27, 2011, 03:54:26 AM
Kind of shows how cumbersome it would be to glue it to the current version of AWS. And when passenger connectiviy is implemented, it would be a piece of cake to add ABCBA to the system that has all the calculations in place....
Without really taking AC demand into consideration (as has been the case in AWS in the past), an airline from JFK could fly JFK-LAX-LGA-LAX-JFK, basically just stealing demand from LAX and LGA without paing the basing costs. Of course, there is 0 demand between JFK and LGA, since they are some 10 miles appart... A route like that would be just fine for a player based in JFK, since he does not care about AC demand in the first place, he cares about stealing BC demand, without paying the basing costs at B or C airports...
yeah, really... but JFK-LAX-LGA, A to C "0" demand is a case to be considered, in this type of route is somewhat pointless, since LGA passengers can catch a flight at JFK, saving up those precious slots (more profitable to open a base when the airports are very close), so does the demand in this case would not put passengers from A to C since there is no demand, :P you could only accommodate the demand A to B and B to C, as before.
i dont understand about ABCBA routes are totally crazy in AWS oO
so, open a lot of bases and made a multiple legs routes, it would be a great chance to overload airports and slots :o, an airline made a billion dollars under a year is a problem to fix, in real life isnt are deployed situation, i think about possibilites to made it playable, ABCBA routes and multiples bases without crowing everyall
Quote from: RibeiroR on August 27, 2011, 04:46:09 AM
yeah, really... but JFK-LAX-LGA, A to C "0" demand is a case to be considered, in this type of route is somewhat pointless, since LGA passengers can catch a flight at JFK, saving up those precious slots (more profitable to open a base when the airports are very close)
Opening a base is never more profitable. A large airline may have staff costs of $50 mil. Opening a new base (at LGA for example) would cost the airline $15 to $20 million in additional staff costs. Flying JFK-LAX-LGA-LAX-JFK lets an airlne at JFK access LGA-LAX demand for free.
Quote from: RibeiroR on August 27, 2011, 04:46:09 AM
, so does the demand in this case would not put passengers from A to C since there is no demand, :P you could only accommodate the demand A to B and B to C, as before.
Well, that what makes it unlike real life. The justification for ABCBA routes is that there is some AC demand to fill. In AWS, the main purpose would be to steal pax demand without paying the basing costs.
Quote from: RibeiroR on August 27, 2011, 03:14:16 AM
This engine would be correct, but appears to be cumbersome to deploy, since it would demand that calculates the two routes being served in a single flight, A to BC, B To C, C To BA, B To A...
A To B = X
A To C = Y / Pax capacity aircraft / dual demand
demand also coming from B to C = Z
Aircraft flying A To B = X+Y Demand (based in all data to C route also...)
Flying B To C = Y+Z (considering landed pax), so... a 100 pax aircraft, carries 43 pax to B and 57 to C (full load), in this route A to B, 43 of 100 pax are show in graphics profits as 43% of LF but the other 57 pax leaves no overloads routes and no bankruptcy.
Well, depends on the route, many flights have almost the maximum load factor... :P
It is not just counting passengers, BTW. A bigger issue is how to allocate the passengers.
First, there are ticket prices. Suppose the default prices for nonstops are:
AB: $100
BC: $100
AC: $150
What should the price of AC be in an ABC route? AB+BC= $200? Nobody will fly.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on August 27, 2011, 03:35:24 PM
It is not just counting passengers, BTW. A bigger issue is how to allocate the passengers.
First, there are ticket prices. Suppose the default prices for nonstops are:
AB: $100
BC: $100
AC: $150
What should the price of AC be in an ABC route? AB+BC= $200? Nobody will fly.
Exactly, in real life
AC route costs 65%~72% of sum total
AB+BC route, so...
AB: $100
BC: $100
AC: $130~145 -> calculating percentual change
well, how to allocate the pax ?... very simple, in connecting flights, the airline should put seats available for the route specifies, in 100 pax capacity aircraft, are available 30%* to AC route.
This are a scheduling, isnt to possible change without replacing the route too, 30% are a assumption to avoid overbook
Quote from: JumboShrimp on August 27, 2011, 03:35:24 PM
It is not just counting passengers, BTW. A bigger issue is how to allocate the passengers.
As long as the goal is maximum revenue, it's not very hard actually.
Allocation quota here means "maximum amount of pax to be carried for either AB, BC or ABC" which would be plane capacity for maximum revenue or 70% percent or whatever for a more "humane" transport :)
Case 1: revenue/pax ABC > revenue/pax AB+BC
1. Allocate seats to ABC pax until either no pax are left or the allocation quota of ABC is reached.
2. Fill remaining seats with AB and BC pax.
Case 2: revenue/pax ABC < revenue/pax AB+BC
1. Allocate equal seats to AB and BC pax (i.e. seat amount is limited by the lower demand sector) up to the allocation quota of either AB or BC (whichever is lower).
2. If there are seats left open and revenue/pax ABC < revenue/pax higher demand sector (i.e. the one of AB/BC which still has unseated pax) do 2a, otherwise do 2b
2a. Allocate seats to higher demand sector pax up to the allocation quota for the sector. If space is left, fill up with ABC pax.
2b. Allocate seats to ABC pax up to the ABC allocation quota. If space is left, fill up with higher demand sector pax
Obviously, you'd never allocate more seats than present on a plane, which I didn't explicitly mention in each step.
Quote from: FAA-man on August 13, 2011, 04:28:19 AM
How about abcba only via base/nonbase/base and return..
Thats gotta be the way to do it. Like many other things in this game it could be open to abuse (ie: capacity dumping) but it would allow much more efficient use of aircraft
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 09, 2011, 01:53:29 PM
Magic Carpet is the sole reason these are gone.
We don't see him around much any more.
He'd have a billion dollar airline in under a year by doing the following:
1. Base out of a major int'l hub
2. Convert every airplane to F/C only.
3. Fly them on multi leg flights (LHR-JFK-CDG-JFK-LHR)
4. Lease/Buy EVERY and I mean EVERY long haul aircraft
4. Be a multi billion dollar company in under a year.
but you gotta think all the changes did make it harder to make this type of airline BUT it also made it complicated to make a NORMAL airline :'(