OK, I thought it had been mentioned that frequency had been tweaked so you DID NOT get the advantage by flying smaller aircraft more often against larger types with V1.3. Yet I still see frequency winning over capacity. An example there is one route with an average demand of approx 1300 pax per day, I am flying A319/20/21s and my competitor has gone for several more ATR 72's and has the better deamnd. IMO the frequency still needs some tweaking as is it stands fequency can still dominate not to the degree is ws, but its not that much better.
I agree with you 100%.
I re evaluated my situation and it is still much much much better to use 753s on everything that goes from EWR to Western Europe. And because you only need 3-4 max (except for LHR or CDG), you never get penalized.
I am calling the current state of this change the "Japan Rule". No longer can one person fly 737s every 5 minutes to the same place. Other than that, there are very few other places that have enough demand where this rule will actually have an impact.
You both have been around AWS long enough to know that there are more than one variable that will effect any one thing, you say he is flying several more ATR's than you do A's, who provides more seats? ATR's are generally standard seating so you should be equal there. Who has the greater CI? I would guess that his RI is greater, unless you are at 100, as more flights will bring it up faster. More peak hour flights could be helping his LF"s. On the good side for you more flights need more slots and the increased cost will likely slow his growth somewhat and he will need another fleet group to compete with your Airbusses on the longer and more plentiful routes. Also if the route is less than 600 nm he is using ATR's where they should be used and this has aways been one of the keys to a successful airline in AWS and I would suspect in RL.
Patience with the new version will show best strategies on ac choice and route deployment.
PSW231
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 04:08:15 PM
I am calling the current state of this change the "Japan Rule". No longer can one person fly 737s every 5 minutes to the same place. Other than that, there are very few other places that have enough demand where this rule will actually have an impact.
Nail, the head, you hit it.
I think the frequecny card is still playing far too much in game, I for one do not think it has been tweaked enough. As Swiftus has pointed out it is still better to use many 757's on routes from EWR to Europe than say using one or two 767/777/747 and because of the frequency the 757's are still winning, so either slot prices have to be increased significantly and the route fees also say by another 100 -300% ontop of the current prices or the frequency model is still tweaked further to give a better model so the frequency card cannot always win.
Quote from: ukatlantic on July 18, 2011, 06:32:54 PM
I think the frequecny card is still playing far too much in game, I for one do not think it has been tweaked enough. As Swiftus has pointed out it is still better to use many 757's on routes from EWR to Europe than say using one or two 767/777/747 and because of the frequency the 757's are still winning, so either slot prices have to be increased significantly and the route fees also say by another 100 -300% ontop of the current prices or the frequency model is still tweaked further to give a better model so the frequency card cannot always win.
The problem with hiking up the slots costs more is that some players are going to get shafted, especially those in Europe. Where in Europe you can get routes with demands of several thousand people a day that are maybe only 200NM a plane can easily have 4,5 maybe 6 flights a day and that will be looking into several million to schedule just one plane. Which is too much.
I think the frequency model is the issue and trying to "fix" anything that isn't the frequency model is just avoiding the elephant in the room.
Although I have had an idea that may help the LH frequency and the use of B757s. Maybe pax could prefer widebody jets over 3000NM? Or if in a future build on board aircraft things are added maybe widebodies can be fitted out with better on board facilities like better at seat entertainment; bigger better galleys, the shower's and bars that some A380s have.
Raising slots costs further would cripple chances of success for small, regional and domestic carriers, as they will be the ones to pay the price for this, and not the 747 flying longhauls.
I think that the solution is to add something, as Dave4468 suggested, that triggers a preference in pax for larger aircraft after a certain distance.
If you really want to fiddle with slots costs, why not base them on destination?
Domestic - 50% discount from current rates
SH int'l - current rates
LH int'l - 50% increase from current rates.
This would allow us to protect the smaller carriers, the domestic ones, newcomers to game worlds, and the smaller micro-planes whilst resolving the frequency problems with bigger a/c
Quote from: Dave4468 on July 18, 2011, 06:43:26 PM
The problem with hiking up the slots costs more is that some players are going to get shafted, especially those in Europe. Where in Europe you can get routes with demands of several thousand people a day that are maybe only 200NM a plane can easily have 4,5 maybe 6 flights a day and that will be looking into several million to schedule just one plane. Which is too much.
I think the frequency model is the issue and trying to "fix" anything that isn't the frequency model is just avoiding the elephant in the room.
Although I have had an idea that may help the LH frequency and the use of B757s. Maybe pax could prefer widebody jets over 3000NM? Or if in a future build on board aircraft things are added maybe widebodies can be fitted out with better on board facilities like better at seat entertainment; bigger better galleys, the shower's and bars that some A380s have.
I agree with you 100% Frequency is the issue which still needs 'tweaking' rather than increasing slot costs expodentially, and whislt some 757's are used from the US to Europe, it is very limited 'thin' routes or routes where its a mainly business class demand :-\
The simplest approach would be for the frequency bonus to completely disappear after 3rd flight < 2500nm.
after 2nd flight > 2500nm
and disappear completely after 5000nm
(just an idea)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 18, 2011, 07:09:27 PM
The simplest approach would be for the frequency bonus to completely disappear after 3rd flight < 2500nm.
after 2nd flight > 2500nm
and disappear completely after 5000nm
(just an idea)
I guess it would also need to be dependant on pax demand also, as some short routes have high pax demand too; for example if a route is say 600NM and pax demand is 1500 a day then if you use ATR72's to fulfill that demand then after your 5th daily flight you lose the frequency bonus in total. So if Airline A uses ATR 72's and Airline B uses 737-800's then Airline B isnt penalised for having less flights but is fulfilling more of the capcity.
Quote from: ukatlantic on July 18, 2011, 07:17:32 PM
I guess it would also need to be dependant on pax demand also, as some short routes have high pax demand too; for example if a route is say 600NM and pax demand is 1500 a day then if you use ATR72's to fulfill that demand then after your 5th daily flight you lose the frequency bonus in total. So if Airline A uses ATR 72's and Airline B uses 737-800's then Airline B isnt penalised for having less flights but is fulfilling more of the capcity.
Yeah, or just from the practical point of view, flying short distance (< 2500nm), morning, afternoon evening is enough of a choice for vast majority.
For transatlantic flights, (2500nm to 5000nm) afternoon or evening departure from the US (or early morning and mid-day from Europe) are more than good anough as far as choices.
For longer flights (> 5000nm) I am not sure there should even be a frequency benefit....
sami... I've the solution for this problem... 8)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 18, 2011, 07:45:26 PM
Yeah, or just from the practical point of view, flying short distance (< 2500nm), morning, afternoon evening is enough of a choice for vast majority.
For transatlantic flights, (2500nm to 5000nm) afternoon or evening departure from the US (or early morning and mid-day from Europe) are more than good anough as far as choices.
For longer flights (> 5000nm) I am not sure there should even be a frequency benefit....
The less than 2500nm would need further subdivision. There are many short-haul routes in Europe which justify more than three flights per day; Dublin - LHR, LHR-CDG, MAN-LHR to name but three off the top of my head. Probably also the case in the US and Far East as well (not played there).
I get the feeling that some players only want to see people operating 777 or larger on long haul, and do not want anyone with a different ideal to get in their way. Even IRL, CRJs / A32x / B737 operate into major hubs for connectivity. Live with it. I'm not in MT5, but in DotM2 there are still plenty of slots even at the largest airports with the current frequency set up. Much of the comment on here seems to centre around the why do we have small planes / airports in the game as they don't use them. Some of us prefer to run a more varied set-up than wide bodies on long haul, and the game is more interesting for it.
MD
There is no need to have a 737 flying every 30 minutes to X from Y going 300nm... then imagine 3 airlines doing the exact same thing all going after 100% of demand. NO airport in their right mind would allow that. They live off of pax fees... and they don't collect unless there are ppl on board.
Quote from: meiru on July 18, 2011, 07:48:12 PM
sami... I've the solution for this problem... 8)
I don't think there really is a "problem", just some potential fine tuning.
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 18, 2011, 08:22:38 PM
I get the feeling that some players only want to see people operating 777 or larger on long haul...
Well, this is a simulation and lets be honest, IRL B777 and bigger makes up the vast majority of long haul so people who want a realistic game want to only see B777 and bigger properly succeeding on LH. Yes, there are some places where B757s and B767s run long haul. And I think I'm right in saying BMI did/do fly an A321 from Heathrow to Freetown.
In the same way I cannot understand why a competitor of mine in MT5 is managing to survive while operating B763s and B744s on short haul domestic and don't think its all that realistic.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 08:35:52 PM
There is no need to have a 737 flying every 30 minutes to X from Y going 300nm... then imagine 3 airlines doing the exact same thing all going after 100% of demand. NO airport in their right mind would allow that. They live off of pax fees... and they don't collect unless there are ppl on board.
I didn't suggest that - I did say that three/day was too restrictive. IRL, there are 8 BA and 7 BMI flights on the 170nm Manchester - LHR route, all A32x sized aircraft. Presumably both MAN and particularly LHR are happy with that level of service which equates to slightly less than 60 minutes headway.
Airports live on a variety of charges; slots, pax, ancillary spending, car parking etc, not all modelled directly in AWS I agree. If the planes are empty, the airlines soon cut back - or go bust. In AWS, if there are sufficient slots, what is the problem?
MD
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 18, 2011, 09:37:47 PM
I didn't suggest that - I did say that three/day was too restrictive. IRL, there are 8 BA and 7 BMI flights on the 170nm Manchester - LHR route, all A32x sized aircraft. Presumably both MAN and particularly LHR are happy with that level of service which equates to slightly less than 60 minutes headway.
Airports live on a variety of charges; slots, pax, ancillary spending, car parking etc, not all modelled directly in AWS I agree. If the planes are empty, the airlines soon cut back - or go bust. In AWS, if there are sufficient slots, what is the problem?
MD
There may be 8 per day TOTAL but not 3 airlines all doing the same thing with A320/737
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 18, 2011, 08:45:32 PM
I don't think there really is a "problem", just some potential fine tuning.
well, you can do a "fine tuning" or you can try to find a complete new solution that solves everything... depending on what I see it's difficult to do it with the current solution, since there are too many special cases... e.g. what if you have a 1000 pax/day route and only two 100pax planes are flying at exactely the same time? should they get a smaller amount of pax? how much smaller? ... my solution was always to learn from what we have and then try to solve the problem again ("problem" in a mathematical sense) ... might be, that this is also not perfect... might also be that the fine tuning could produce a good solution as well... but, I wouldn't recommend to do it that way
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 10:32:13 PM
There may be 8 per day TOTAL but not 3 airlines all doing the same thing with A320/737
Eventually, even in AWS, there will not be 3 airlines all doing the same in the end. 2 out of 3 of the airlines will probably go under...
Another way to fine tune the system would be for every additional flight to add less benefit...
But anyway, I don't feel strongly about making wholesale changes, just turning down the frequency benefits (if anything).
Quote from: meiru on July 18, 2011, 10:49:38 PM
well, you can do a "fine tuning" or you can try to find a complete new solution that solves everything...
True, but (I believe) the next big change will involve dealing with the demand system (if sami follows through with the City Based Demand ideas). So a completely new solution would need to be incorporated into that... That is why I mentioned only fine tuning of the current system...
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 08:35:52 PM
There is no need to have a 737 flying every 30 minutes to X from Y going 300nm... then imagine 3 airlines doing the exact same thing all going after 100% of demand. NO airport in their right mind would allow that. They live off of pax fees... and they don't collect unless there are ppl on board.
Why not? I n real life, just like in AWS frequency is hugely important on some short haul routes. Take a look at some real airline schedules and you will discover that this practice is common. Some of the more extreme examples off the top of my head:
- Milan Linate to Rome on Alitalia, 20+ times per day with as little as 15 minutes between some flights
- Barcelona to Madrid on Iberia, 15-20 times per day with as little as 30 minutes between some flights
- Oslo to Bergen on SAS and Norwegian, 30+ times per day combined
- New York LGA to Washington DCA on US Airways, hourly flight from 6am to 9pm
...and there plenty more of examples of routes with frequencies between 5-15 times per day:
- LHR-MAN/EDI/GLA
- MAN-BHD
- LCY-AMS
- LGA-ORD
The fact is that on some important business routes, business men/women expect that they can turn up at the airport at any time of day and not have to wait more than and hour or so for the next flight to their destination. In these case the airline that offers the best schedule wins the business.
However, in AWS I'd like to see price, CI and RI have much more influence on market share rather than frequency alone.
Quote from: NorgeFly on July 19, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
Why not? I n real life, just like in AWS frequency is hugely important on some short haul routes. Take a look at some real airline schedules and you will discover that this practice is common. Some of the more extreme examples off the top of my head:
- Milan Linate to Rome on Alitalia, 20+ times per day with as little as 15 minutes between some flights
- Barcelona to Madrid on Iberia, 15-20 times per day with as little as 30 minutes between some flights
- Oslo to Bergen on SAS and Norwegian, 30+ times per day combined
- New York LGA to Washington DCA on US Airways, hourly flight from 6am to 9pm
...and there plenty more of examples of routes with frequencies between 5-15 times per day:
- LHR-MAN/EDI/GLA
- MAN-BHD
- LCY-AMS
- LGA-ORD
The fact is that on some important business routes, business men/women expect that they can turn up at the airport at any time of day and not have to wait more than and hour or so for the next flight to their destination. In these case the airline that offers the best schedule wins the business.
However, in AWS I'd like to see price, CI and RI have much more influence on market share rather than frequency alone.
GREAT, ONE AIRLINE DOES IT. JUST ONE AIRLINE. NOT 3. MEANING THREE SEPARATE AIRLINES. THERE ARE NOT 3 SEPARATE AIRLINES RUNNING 100% OF DEMAND EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES BETWEEN TWO DESTINATIONS. THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS BASICALLY ONE PLANE EVERY FIVE MINUTES FLYING FROM A TO B. NO, THERE IS NOWHERE IN REAL LIFE THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR DOES HAPPEN. I AM SORRY IF I CANT GET MY POINT ACROSS.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 19, 2011, 01:50:57 AM
GREAT, ONE AIRLINE DOES IT. JUST ONE AIRLINE. NOT 3. MEANING THREE SEPARATE AIRLINES. THERE ARE NOT 3 SEPARATE AIRLINES RUNNING 100% OF DEMAND EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES BETWEEN TWO DESTINATIONS. THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS BASICALLY ONE PLANE EVERY FIVE MINUTES FLYING FROM A TO B. NO, THERE IS NOWHERE IN REAL LIFE THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR DOES HAPPEN. I AM SORRY IF I CANT GET MY POINT ACROSS.
It does happen, but it doesn't always last.
A few examples -
JetBlue, AirTran and Southwest were running BWI-BOS for a while, each at about 5x daily. This rationalized a bit since the merger of WN and FL.
Virgin Australia, United, Delta and Qantas were flying at least daily 77W, 744, 77L and 744 respectively on LAX-SYD (with V-Aus and Delta adding service within a month or two of each other). This will rationalize once the V-Aus/Delta anti-trust pact is approved.
LAX-SFO has a half dozen airlines running hourly service each...
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 18, 2011, 08:22:38 PM
The less than 2500nm would need further subdivision. There are many short-haul routes in Europe which justify more than three flights per day; Dublin - LHR, LHR-CDG, MAN-LHR to name but three off the top of my head. Probably also the case in the US and Far East as well (not played there).
I get the feeling that some players only want to see people operating 777 or larger on long haul, and do not want anyone with a different ideal to get in their way. Even IRL, CRJs / A32x / B737 operate into major hubs for connectivity. Live with it. I'm not in MT5, but in DotM2 there are still plenty of slots even at the largest airports with the current frequency set up. Much of the comment on here seems to centre around the why do we have small planes / airports in the game as they don't use them. Some of us prefer to run a more varied set-up than wide bodies on long haul, and the game is more interesting for it.
MD
Your getting the wrong end of the stick, I have no issue with people serving with CRJ or Q400s to major airports, it happens. What I disagree with is when you have 1500 pax a day on a route and you have some idiot fulfilling demand with ATR or Q400 Aircraft and the frequency is maybe 15+ flights a day each way -which is not realistic at all. They are winning the pax war on frequency alone against a competitor who has realisitically gone for the sensible option of using A320/757 aircraft.
Its no different on a route such as say LHR to JFK - a 757? Really?! Most operators would operate at minimum 767 but more than likely it would be 747/777 or equivalent airbus aircraft on a route which such high potential demand, but in AWS although SAMI has tweaked the frequency, I feel that it has maybe only been tweaked ever so slightly as Frequency is still winning hands down, it's just not realistic and whilst this frequency issue remains it means some players who have a lot of time on their hands can and will continue to go down serving routes with small aircraft to win on the frequency card whilst also holding a high number of potential slots to use later in the game for larger aircraft when slots are all but taken. It also causes other problems in that as slots decrease the costs increases for every slot you buy because of the players insiting on using smaller aircraft and gathering larger quantities of slots so eveyone else is in a position where they are paying morethen they would possibly be if frequency wasnt such a massive winning factor on routes (I await to be corrected on the slots costs)
Quote from: NorgeFly on July 19, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
Why not? I n real life, just like in AWS frequency is hugely important on some short haul routes. Take a look at some real airline schedules and you will discover that this practice is common. Some of the more extreme examples off the top of my head:
- Milan Linate to Rome on Alitalia, 20+ times per day with as little as 15 minutes between some flights
- Barcelona to Madrid on Iberia, 15-20 times per day with as little as 30 minutes between some flights
- Oslo to Bergen on SAS and Norwegian, 30+ times per day combined
- New York LGA to Washington DCA on US Airways, hourly flight from 6am to 9pm
...and there plenty more of examples of routes with frequencies between 5-15 times per day:
- LHR-MAN/EDI/GLA
- MAN-BHD
- LCY-AMS
- LGA-ORD
The fact is that on some important business routes, business men/women expect that they can turn up at the airport at any time of day and not have to wait more than and hour or so for the next flight to their destination. In these case the airline that offers the best schedule wins the business.
However, in AWS I'd like to see price, CI and RI have much more influence on market share rather than frequency alone.
Thank you Norgfly for putting that on the table so can have a stop of the bashing of frequency which is apart of real aviation.
Quote from: elvis141 on July 19, 2011, 08:41:56 AM
Thank you Norgfly for putting that on the table so can have a stop of the bashing of frequency which is apart of real aviation.
Well not really, its proved how outlandish it is in AWS. For example;
LGA - Washington DC real life - US Airways, hourly between 6am and 9pm
LGA - Washington DC "AWS" - United, US Airways and American Airlines all flying hourly.
This is GAME that should be simulation of real life. and by saying that you can't fly more then let say 5 tims aday. That would be a step away from realaty.
Quote from: elvis141 on July 19, 2011, 11:10:00 AM
This is GAME that should be simulation of real life. and by saying that you can't fly more then let say 5 tims aday. That would be a step away from realaty.
Sure, if you are flying 5x to local airports.
No, if you are referring to flying 5 times daily to a destination 3000 nm away
There were only 136 753s ever made. This should explain enough.
Quote from: elvis141 on July 19, 2011, 11:10:00 AM
This is GAME that should be simulation of real life. and by saying that you can't fly more then let say 5 tims aday. That would be a step away from realaty.
No-one is complaining about flying 5 or more times a day. People are complaining that if you are flying 3x B737 on a route you will be decimated by someone flying 6x ATRs despite them being smaller, louder and slower than the B737.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 10:32:13 PM
There may be 8 per day TOTAL but not 3 airlines all doing the same thing with A320/737
Re-read the post - BA are providing 8, BMI 7 - a total of 15/day, all A319 or larger.
MD
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 19, 2011, 01:50:57 AM
GREAT, ONE AIRLINE DOES IT. JUST ONE AIRLINE. NOT 3. MEANING THREE SEPARATE AIRLINES. THERE ARE NOT 3 SEPARATE AIRLINES RUNNING 100% OF DEMAND EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES BETWEEN TWO DESTINATIONS. THAT WOULD MEAN THERE IS BASICALLY ONE PLANE EVERY FIVE MINUTES FLYING FROM A TO B. NO, THERE IS NOWHERE IN REAL LIFE THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR DOES HAPPEN. I AM SORRY IF I CANT GET MY POINT ACROSS.
Firstly, please don't shout...
Secondly, it does often happen in real life that several airlines fight it out in one market resulting in vast over supply in capacity in frequency. The difference is in real life, airline CEO's are dealing with real money and shareholders so if a route does not perform well enough, it is pulled. In AWS there is a huge lack of business thinking in players approaches. May people want to have 100% of every route from their hub purely for the prestige which is clearly impossible, yet they continue to pour money down the drain.
Quote from: Dave4468 on July 19, 2011, 11:43:36 AM
No-one is complaining about flying 5 or more times a day. People are complaining that if you are flying 3x B737 on a route you will be decimated by someone flying 6x ATRs despite them being smaller, louder and slower than the B737.
But frequency sells through convenience. To look at another mode your username infers you may be familiar with; rail services have become more frequent but with smaller trains, as the customer perceives the benefits of higher frequency. In an air scenario, for short haul routes with a high level of business travel, this frequency can demand a price premium through the sale of flexible fares.
The only way I see round this issue (in AWS) is to move to slot rental, rather than slot purchase. That way, you succeed in forcing out small aircraft and high frequency at major airports. Whether this improves the game is a moot point - I would suggest not, as it will result in the "me too" 777/747/A380 carriers monopolising the main arports and no incentive to look at different ways of doing business, and denying smaller carriers access to the major markets. IRL, it would also lead to rapidly rising rail use :)
MD
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 19, 2011, 11:59:46 AM
But frequency sells through convenience. To look at another mode your username infers you may be familiar with; rail services have become more frequent but with smaller trains, as the customer perceives the benefits of higher frequency. In an air scenario, for short haul routes with a high level of business travel, this frequency can demand a price premium through the sale of flexible fares.
But, going by your username we can continue the rail analogy. Would you rather a service on the railways with a more frequent service of Class 142s or a less frequent service of HSTs? AWS at the moment is like people opting to travel on a 142 for 2 hours when they could travel on an HST for 1 1/2hrs, which is idiotic.
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 19, 2011, 11:59:46 AMThe only way I see round this issue (in AWS) is to move to slot rental, rather than slot purchase. That way, you succeed in forcing out small aircraft and high frequency at major airports. Whether this improves the game is a moot point - I would suggest not, as it will result in the "me too" 777/747/A380 carriers monopolising the main arports and no incentive to look at different ways of doing business, and denying smaller carriers access to the major markets. IRL, it would also lead to rapidly rising rail use :)
Terrible idea. I direct you back to my point of fixing a different problem to the one that needs fixing. That sort of thing will turn AWS into a long haul simulator. It will kill airlines with each aircraft flying multiple routes every day.
Quote from: Dave4468 on July 19, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
But, going by your username we can continue the rail analogy. Would you rather a service on the railways with a more frequent service of Class 142s or a less frequent service of HSTs? AWS at the moment is like people opting to travel on a 142 for 2 hours when they could travel on an HST for 1 1/2hrs, which is idiotic.
A 142, maybe not; but that is not what I was inferring. I was thinking more of hourly Norwich - Manchester as opposed to three trains a day - type of stock doesn't really come in to it. I stress that I am talking short haul. IRL, I don't think the jet v turboprop argument per se is an issue otherwise Flybe would not still be buying Q400s.
Quote from: Dave4468 on July 19, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
Terrible idea. I direct you back to my point of fixing a different problem to the one that needs fixing. That sort of thing will turn AWS into a long haul simulator. It will kill airlines with each aircraft flying multiple routes every day.
You note I didn't say it was a good idea! However, if the desire is to limit frequency on short haul, it is the easiest way to do it. Others do appear to want AWS to become a long haul simulator, as I alluded earlier with people wanting small aircraft and airports removed from the game as stated in other threads.
IRL, you follow the business model which suits the market you are in. If the market demands hourly flights, you operate them (a) while it is economic to do so, and (b) with aircraft of an appropriate capacity to fulfill demand. If the market is less concerned about frequency (and there is a correlation with distance on this), then larger aircraft at lower frequencies will serve. On short haul / domestic routes, frequency will almost always trump aircraft type (all other things being equal). A carrier trying to operate two 757s a day LHR - MAN would get slaughtered unless they offered VERY low fares. The problem in AWS here is that price has very little effect on load factors.
The AWS world is imperfect in many respects, but airlines should (and do) adapt their business model to the world in which they operate - just like real life!
MD
In my opinion, the naysayers on frequency are looking at the entire business model of airlines wrong. In the world of lean business practices and process improvement, you decrease costs and increase customer satisfaction by shattering the old school paradigms you are discussing.
Conventional engineering practices are focused on batch and queue production. For example, if you are building a soap manufacturing plant, conventional plant design would tell us that we can save time and money by using a batch process where 5,000 gallon batches of soap are made before being molded into bars. The problem is there is a lot of waiting (waste) until that 5,000 gallon batch of soap is ready and if the soap batch is defective, you have to throw the whole thing away and you've got 0 bars of soap in the end.
Likewise, if you are flying a route with 800pax demand and have 1x daily A380 flying the route, you're using batch and queue methods to serve passengers. If that A380 has a technical issue, if there is bad weather, or a million other reasons--that flight gets cancelled and you have 800pax who aren't being served and likely the return flight is cancelled as well.
This is where all the old paradigms get shattered. Instead of batch and queue production where you make 5,000 gallons of soap at a time, what would happen if you mixed up just enough soap to make 1 bar and repeated that process ad infinitum? Sounds absolutely crazy, doesn't it? If 5,000 gallons of soap makes 50,000 bars, it should cost much much more to mix 50,000 batches of 1 bar versus 1 batch of 50,000 bars, right? The answer is no. By mixing 1 bar at a time, you are reducing waste (time spent waiting) and increasing the number of opportunities, and in turn, reducing the number of defects (waste) per million opportunities (DPMO). If we are mixing 1 bar of soap at a time and the ratio of ingredients is off, we can throw away 1 bar of soap instead of 50,000. This type of processing is called "just in time" versus "batch and queue".
In applying just in time processing to the airline business model, airlines fly 10x daily with 80 seaters instead of 1x daily with A380. By flying 10x daily, the time wasted by pax in waiting is reduced by being able to catch planes on their schedule or having reduced layover times. As a result, reduced waiting time is a value-added feature of frequency and thus pax are willing to pay a premium to reduce waste (their time). Furthermore, if there is a technical issue or bad weather for a flight, there are still 9 other flights that day, which means the 10x daily airline will have less DPMO versus the 1x daily A380 airline. In the real world, the 10x daily airline will have higher levels of customer satisfaction and more pax transported through frequency, which is a value-added feature pax are willing to pay for (conveinence).
The argument for batch and queue versus just in time is the one that you always hear--the European airports are slot constrained. This may be true, but the fact is frequency still reigns supreme for all of the reasons I outlined. Just because there aren't enough slots at LHR to run hourly service to CDG in real life doesn't mean running hourly flights in AWS should be penalized. If we truly want to reduce the "insane" frequencies of some airlines, the solution would be to open the flood gates so airports remain slot constrained. We should have 1000+ players in each game with 10+ airlines able to base at any/all airports, just like the real world. I can guarantee you when airports like LHR get slot constrained due to 20 airlines being based there, you'll see frequencies drop dramatically and airlines resorting to the big birds like the A380.
This all goes back to the Boeing/Airbus back and forth. The A380 is designed for batch and queue flights on dense routes with slot constraints. The 787 is designed for just in time flights on less dense routes without slot constraints.
Furthermore, once city-based demand is modelled with connecting passengers, it's not going to matter if 3 airlines are taking off at the same time for the same destination. Tickets are usually sold on a single airline due to the conveinence (value-added) of not having to connect with another airline where you have to check in twice, check your bags twice, etc (non-value added).
In the end, frequency is and should always be king.
So to summarise your post LB: frequency adds reliability to service as well as convenience?
Well frequency in this game is totally unrealistic as it still wins the pax, the tweak SAMi did is clearly not enough! I may as well dump my 747-400D's and use A319s on routes because put quite simply another airline has used smaller A300's to supply a 5000 pax a day route and has flights departing within 5 15 and 20 minutes of each other in some cases and is still dominating the load factor stakes. So to sumarise frequency factor still continues to win the game for players.
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 19, 2011, 12:58:17 PM
A 142, maybe not; but that is not what I was inferring. I was thinking more of hourly Norwich - Manchester as opposed to three trains a day - type of stock doesn't really come in to it. I stress that I am talking short haul. IRL, I don't think the jet v turboprop argument per se is an issue otherwise Flybe would not still be buying Q400s.
IRL, you follow the business model which suits the market you are in. If the market demands hourly flights, you operate them (a) while it is economic to do so, and (b) with aircraft of an appropriate capacity to fulfill demand. If the market is less concerned about frequency (and there is a correlation with distance on this), then larger aircraft at lower frequencies will serve. On short haul / domestic routes, frequency will almost always trump aircraft type (all other things being equal). A carrier trying to operate two 757s a day LHR - MAN would get slaughtered unless they offered VERY low fares. The problem in AWS here is that price has very little effect on load factors.
The AWS world is imperfect in many respects, but airlines should (and do) adapt their business model to the world in which they operate - just like real life!
MD
Flybe continue to use Q400's because they are extremely fuel efficient, provide almost jetlike speed and have extremely quick turnaround times, they also mainly use them on low thin routes or to airports where anything bigger cannot be used example Guernsey; additionally they can fly with almost no pax (approx 30% fill) and will break even on costs sothat in turn ensure Flybe do not make a loss - that is why they continue to use them!
Quote from: MidlandDeltic on July 19, 2011, 11:59:46 AM
But frequency sells through convenience. To look at another mode your username infers you may be familiar with; rail services have become more frequent but with smaller trains, as the customer perceives the benefits of higher frequency. In an air scenario, for short haul routes with a high level of business travel, this frequency can demand a price premium through the sale of flexible fares.
The only way I see round this issue (in AWS) is to move to slot rental, rather than slot purchase. That way, you succeed in forcing out small aircraft and high frequency at major airports. Whether this improves the game is a moot point - I would suggest not, as it will result in the "me too" 777/747/A380 carriers monopolising the main arports and no incentive to look at different ways of doing business, and denying smaller carriers access to the major markets. IRL, it would also lead to rapidly rising rail use :)
MD
I have been advocating slot rental fees for long time. Sami does not like them because there is no equivalent in RL. So I would just camouflage the slot rental as landing fee (constant, regardless of the size of the aircraft).
1.3, with the large increase of slot purchase fees makes the high frequency more costly to set up, slowing down the airline, but eventually, the upfront slot fees are recouped...
How about the introduction of an airport tax duty on a per plane basis (not per passenger) for every landing made at an airport.
Tax duty would have to vary according to the size of the plane but larger planes could have a cheaper tax per passenger.
Taxes could also vary according to airport so larger airports command a higher tax, this could deter everyone from starting to fly to LHR as it would penalise them in the beginning.
This would also deter people from using the "wrong/small" aircrafts on high demand routes as they would have to pay more airport tax.
it would make people think twice about loading routes with small aircrafts as the tax duty would have an impact on their profits.
In my opinion I believe this would be the best way to tackle the frequency issue as people would have to make the correct aircraft choice for each route.
look forward to people's thoughts on this..
apologies if someone already suggested this in another thread...
:)
Fred
Since we are basing on reality, there will not be any made up charges or such.
And airports already charge for each landing based on MTOW. Same for navigation fees, and partly for handling too (plane size..).
And each pax has a fixed fee based on airport size.
Quote from: fredericimpens on July 19, 2011, 09:41:52 PM
How about the introduction of an airport tax duty on a per plane basis (not per passenger) for every landing made at an airport.
Tax duty would have to vary according to the size of the plane but larger planes could have a cheaper tax per passenger.
Taxes could also vary according to airport so larger airports command a higher tax, this could deter everyone from starting to fly to LHR as it would penalise them in the beginning.
This would also deter people from using the "wrong/small" aircrafts on high demand routes as they would have to pay more airport tax.
it would make people think twice about loading routes with small aircrafts as the tax duty would have an impact on their profits.
In my opinion I believe this would be the best way to tackle the frequency issue as people would have to make the correct aircraft choice for each route.
look forward to people's thoughts on this..
apologies if someone already suggested this in another thread...
:)
Fred
Permit me to comment.
Still fixing something that doesn't need fixing and missing the main issue. Adding airport costs is just going to cause more problems. What needs to be deterred is not flying to LHR, JFK or CDG, it's flying routes that in real life are flown by B737, B757 or A320s are being flown by large numbers of ATRs and Dash 8s because frequency always wins. BA fly from Heathrow to Scotland in A320s, not ATRs as it always seems to be in AWS. Surely heavier aircraft should have to pay more?
This will again kill totally legit airlines in Europe especially where a A320 sized plane can be flying 6 times a day perfectly realistically with ridiculously high costs for doing so. And you don't want to deter people flying to LHR, I know from experience that getting the flights to Heathrow can make or break an airline, thats from an airline based in Jo'burg.
Quote from: sami on July 19, 2011, 09:53:26 PM
Since we are basing on reality, there will not be any made up charges or such.
And airports already charge for each landing based on MTOW. Same for navigation fees, and partly for handling too (plane size..).
And each pax has a fixed fee based on airport size.
I'm not getting the point here... are we being charged properly for these? or are you saying that these variables are not fully accurate?
There could be a much simpler answer than a player trying to capture frequency....ATR's are affordable to new or smaller players...I would buy an A380 but the bank wont lend me the money...too high risk apparently.
So lets price the small planes out of the game and then even more people will have to become F5 clones to get the 'correct aircraft'.
BTW - what actually is the correct aircraft for this game? I would assume that if the answer is so simple then we would all be flying them...even though we may have to wait until 2 years from the end of the game to score one :-)
As a newbie I am still to work out many aspects of this game...but to date the 'big planes' send me broke and the small planes give me the opportunity to play the game and learn.
I'm one of those who fly ATRs with high frequency. It's not because I want to hodge slots (there are PLENTY of them in my base), but simply because it's way how to survive at smaller airports, plus it's standard in RW that by offering more flights you get more passengers. I can't see why this should be wrong.
Yes, I agree with Samo, I usually fly smaller aircraft with frequency, this is my first time using long haul and I much prefer making a decent regional airline. Frequency IS used IRL and it should be used in AWS.
Quote from: J. Oates on July 20, 2011, 02:07:26 PM
Yes, I agree with Samo, I usually fly smaller aircraft with frequency, this is my first time using long haul and I much prefer making a decent regional airline. Frequency IS used IRL and it should be used in AWS.
Yes, it should to a point. And in the right places, but not to its current extent. Pax should prefer faster and quieter jets over slower and louder props by a certain point. I like to base in BRS, I will normally use ATRs on most short domestic routes but on higher demand routes such as to Scotland, Paris and the like I like to use small Airbuses.
Think back to our competition between LHR and GLA (I think it was) in DotM. When I was using B727s and B737s against your BAC-1-11s we were as equal as possible (ignoring your advantage from CI and RI) but as soon as you started to put on a large amount of props I was decimated on that route. That shouldn't happen.
As I've said many times using small aircraft is not the issue, its letting airlines use ATRs and Dash8s where IRL airlines are using B737/757 or A32x's and get away with it and beating an opponent using the Boeings & Airbuses because frequency wins. I wouldn't mind losing market share where I was flying A320s again someone using E-195s AND frequency, it's believable (fast jet and frequency), losing it to someone using ATRs is not (frequency over all).
Quote from: Dave4468 on July 20, 2011, 02:50:54 PM
Yes, it should to a point. And in the right places, but not to its current extent. Pax should prefer faster and quieter jets over slower and louder props by a certain point. I like to base in BRS, I will normally use ATRs on most short domestic routes but on higher demand routes such as to Scotland, Paris and the like I like to use small Airbuses.
Think back to our competition between LHR and GLA (I think it was) in DotM. When I was using B727s and B737s against your BAC-1-11s we were as equal as possible (ignoring your advantage from CI and RI) but as soon as you started to put on a large amount of props I was decimated on that route. That shouldn't happen.
As I've said many times using small aircraft is not the issue, its letting airlines use ATRs and Dash8s where IRL airlines are using B737/757 or A32x's and get away with it and beating an opponent using the Boeings & Airbuses because frequency wins. I wouldn't mind losing market share where I was flying A320s again someone using E-195s AND frequency, it's believable (fast jet and frequency), losing it to someone using ATRs is not (frequency over all).
Yes perhaps it is over the top that frequency wins in every scenario, however I disagree with pax preferring faster and quieter jets to louder props. First of all it does depend on the type of prop, for example, the Dash 8-Q400 engines are noise certified to chapter 4, the Q in Q400 stands for quiet. In all fairness having flown on the Q400 and MANY other commercial aircraft (mostly jets) I can say that the Q400 is a TINY bit louder than them, and I mean TINY. And on a route less than 500NM the speed difference is not factor. So in reference to our battle of Glasgow and Heathrow passengers would choose to fly on the turbo prop as they could choose when and the prices (should) were lower.
Because of fuel consumption the Q400 ticket prices should be lower than if someone was flying on a Embraer 195 or similar. So you have a passenger deciding between two airlines flying from A-B that is 400 NM apart. Airline 1 is using a Dash 8-Q400 flying 5 times a day and the ticket price is 10% cheaper than Airline 2 that is using an airbus 319-100 and only flying 3 times a day. I know which one I would pick.
The same goes for the ATRs, I don't know what the noise levels are like but I believe they are Chapter 4 on noise as well. Fly Be are ordering Q400s like no tomorrow. Manchester Airport is RIDDLED with them, they are probably the most common aircraft at EGCC.
Quote from: J. Oates on July 20, 2011, 03:04:26 PM
Fly Be are ordering Q400s like no tomorrow. Manchester Airport is RIDDLED with them, they are probably the most common aircraft at EGCC.
Not technically correct... Flybe have very few Q400's on order and in fact will be removing some from the fleet in the coming months/years as they replace them with new E-jets.
The Q400 is great for domestic routes, but it is not popular on the slightly longer international routes (CDG, FRA, DUS etc).
Quote from: NorgeFly on July 20, 2011, 03:39:33 PM
Not technically correct... Flybe have very few Q400's on order and in fact will be removing some from the fleet in the coming months/years as they replace them with new E-jets.
The Q400 is great for domestic routes, but it is not popular on the slightly longer international routes (CDG, FRA, DUS etc).
Sorry ordered was the wrong word, using would be more correct, as their fleet of Q400s is 57 with 3 remaining from their last order of 15.
Quote from: J. Oates on July 20, 2011, 03:47:28 PM
Sorry ordered was the wrong word, using would be more correct, as their fleet of Q400s is 57 with 3 remaining from their last order of 15.
You're right though, they are everywhere... it doesn't matter where you go in the UK you're almost certain to bump into one of their Q400s! Chances are though over the next 5 years they will gradually get less and less and be replaced by shiny new E175s.
Anyway, kinda off topic now.
Your absolutely right about bumping into their Q400's they are everywhee but were mainly purchased for route outof Exeter, Southampton and Guernsey and maybe a few more airportsto boot, although they are removing some Q400s from the GCI-LGW route to replace it with their smaller e-jets.
Quote from: Dave4468 on July 20, 2011, 02:50:54 PM
Pax should prefer faster and quieter jets over slower and louder props by a certain point. I like to base in BRS, I will normally use ATRs on most short domestic routes but on higher demand routes such as to Scotland, Paris and the like I like to use small Airbuses.
Why would someone prefer Airbus flying once a day over my ATR flying every two hours on one-hour long route from FLL to NAS?
By the way - in RL I prefer always smaller aircrafts. You always get window or aisle seat and you travel with less people what somewhat helps atmosphere :)
I think the modeling and abstraction level is correct. What is incorrect is that the people play this game and real life company CEOs are different people and do this job for different reasons.
The game world starts at some certain date (let's say 1990 for just argument's sake). At that moment there are NO airline companies in a world with quite a lot demand to fulfill. Suddenly, hundreds of airline companies are summoned and they start with the SAME amount of money and luck.
Moreover, there are never enough number of airline companies like real life. To add insult to injury, people here are playing a game and not trying to make real life money so decisions are far far more rash or irrational than real life. For example just for kicks and laughs I can start a company that only operates VSTOL aircraft out of LHR. What is more interesting is, I can really be successful with this idiotic idea just because there is no BA or other company to crush me like a bug. Every player can dare to do crazy stuff, and some of the crazy ideas which nobody would dare to implement in real life might turn out to be good ideas. And as I said, quite a few bad ideas would still be successful because the opponents are just people playing a game. What is even weirder is that, you cannot see a huge airline company to go bankrupt just because the CEO had too much to do in real life. I recently closed my company in DOTM2 which was printing money like a bank, flew to every destination from 50 nm to 7000 nm from Zurich even if there is 30 pax daily demand because I had real life issues and did not have enough time to take care of the company. You would not see swissair close the company just because the CEO was too busy otherwise.
I can say a few more paragraphs about the variations that exist because of this being a game people play with certain rules and the difference of this (very core difference) from real life business but I do not want to get boring. So I will give an example.
Think of a game world that starts in early 1900s, or at least just after WWII (~1945). Let's say this is not advertised anywhere and it is forbidden to talk about this in the internet so nobody starts playing on the first game day. And let's say the pax in this game have contacts in real life so that when there is unmet demand somewhere they would start complaining to people and eventually someone with money (game credits for this purpose) hears about this and starts a company there. Like this, slowly, imagine that around 1000 players start playing the game but nobody has real life issues and stuff so every player treats this game very seriously and devotes a lot of time.
Under those conditions, even though nobody is making real money out of it, so even though people still try crazy (let's say courageous) ideas, when it is 2011 in game time there would be dynamics quite close today's real life. Of course a lot of stuff will still be different because of the following reasons:
1- This is a system which is "sensitive to initial conditions" in chaos theory lingo which means there are butterfly effects that changes the outcome.
2- This is a game so there are abstractions and lack of information and formulations which do not exactly match the real life because you cannot simulate the whole universe with 100% precision.
3- People who are playing this "know the future". I mean, playing in 1950s I know for sure that someday props will rule over piston powered aircraft and jets will rule over props and fuel prices will go up and European Union will get formed so I can base my planes in other countries and Soviet Union will get dissolved etc etc etc. People in real life are never sure about what is going to happen in the future.
There may be more reasons added to those but even though those exist, if there is an imaginary game world like I suggested above, the planes used in 2011 and the frequency and stuff will closely resemble what happens in real life today. Since it is practically impossible to create such a game world (just motivating ~1000 players to play the game seriously makes it impossible enough), we have to assume this is a game and play accordingly.
What I do is this: I know this is a game and for various reasons (some listed in my post) it is not possible for people to behave like this is real life. So I take this as a game that is slightly different than real world and play by its rules. If I do some calculations and find out somehow using 707s in year 2010 on routes over 10.000 nm make a lot of money, I would not care that makes no sense in real life and I'd go for it.
So maybe except for wanting some stuff fine tuned (which I also think probably is needed), wanting restrictions to be put so that everybody has to play just like real life airline companies do limits the game and takes out a lot of fun. Games with certain recipes to win so that whoever applies that recipe better becomes more successful always become boring very quickly. Games where every tactic has its counter and no certain ways to be successful are always fun. Think about the first serious MP RTS games. Westwood had the market first with C&C and Red Alert, but Starcraft just beat the hell out of them because there were many ways to beat your opponent and every way to do so had its counter-tactic whereas in other games there were always one or few "recipes" to win and who did those best always won.
This is my 2 cents
My 2 cents.
Quote from: Samo on July 21, 2011, 11:25:24 AM
Why would someone prefer Airbus flying once a day over my ATR flying every two hours on one-hour long route from FLL to NAS?
If you're a frequent flier that gets free upgrades to F, there is a very strong motivation to take the A319 as the ATR won't have a big recliner and free booze...
Quote from: diskoerekto on July 21, 2011, 11:27:37 AM
I think the modeling and abstraction level is correct. What is incorrect is that the people play this game and real life company CEOs are different people and do this job for different reasons.
The game world starts at some certain date (let's say 1990 for just argument's sake). At that moment there are NO airline companies in a world with quite a lot demand to fulfill. Suddenly, hundreds of airline companies are summoned and they start with the SAME amount of money and luck.
Moreover, there are never enough number of airline companies like real life. To add insult to injury, people here are playing a game and not trying to make real life money so decisions are far far more rash or irrational than real life. For example just for kicks and laughs I can start a company that only operates VSTOL aircraft out of LHR. What is more interesting is, I can really be successful with this idiotic idea just because there is no BA or other company to crush me like a bug. Every player can dare to do crazy stuff, and some of the crazy ideas which nobody would dare to implement in real life might turn out to be good ideas. And as I said, quite a few bad ideas would still be successful because the opponents are just people playing a game. What is even weirder is that, you cannot see a huge airline company to go bankrupt just because the CEO had too much to do in real life. I recently closed my company in DOTM2 which was printing money like a bank, flew to every destination from 50 nm to 7000 nm from Zurich even if there is 30 pax daily demand because I had real life issues and did not have enough time to take care of the company. You would not see swissair close the company just because the CEO was too busy otherwise.
I can say a few more paragraphs about the variations that exist because of this being a game people play with certain rules and the difference of this (very core difference) from real life business but I do not want to get boring. So I will give an example.
Think of a game world that starts in early 1900s, or at least just after WWII (~1945). Let's say this is not advertised anywhere and it is forbidden to talk about this in the internet so nobody starts playing on the first game day. And let's say the pax in this game have contacts in real life so that when there is unmet demand somewhere they would start complaining to people and eventually someone with money (game credits for this purpose) hears about this and starts a company there. Like this, slowly, imagine that around 1000 players start playing the game but nobody has real life issues and stuff so every player treats this game very seriously and devotes a lot of time.
Under those conditions, even though nobody is making real money out of it, so even though people still try crazy (let's say courageous) ideas, when it is 2011 in game time there would be dynamics quite close today's real life. Of course a lot of stuff will still be different because of the following reasons:
1- This is a system which is "sensitive to initial conditions" in chaos theory lingo which means there are butterfly effects that changes the outcome.
2- This is a game so there are abstractions and lack of information and formulations which do not exactly match the real life because you cannot simulate the whole universe with 100% precision.
3- People who are playing this "know the future". I mean, playing in 1950s I know for sure that someday props will rule over piston powered aircraft and jets will rule over props and fuel prices will go up and European Union will get formed so I can base my planes in other countries and Soviet Union will get dissolved etc etc etc. People in real life are never sure about what is going to happen in the future.
There may be more reasons added to those but even though those exist, if there is an imaginary game world like I suggested above, the planes used in 2011 and the frequency and stuff will closely resemble what happens in real life today. Since it is practically impossible to create such a game world (just motivating ~1000 players to play the game seriously makes it impossible enough), we have to assume this is a game and play accordingly.
What I do is this: I know this is a game and for various reasons (some listed in my post) it is not possible for people to behave like this is real life. So I take this as a game that is slightly different than real world and play by its rules. If I do some calculations and find out somehow using 707s in year 2010 on routes over 10.000 nm make a lot of money, I would not care that makes no sense in real life and I'd go for it.
So maybe except for wanting some stuff fine tuned (which I also think probably is needed), wanting restrictions to be put so that everybody has to play just like real life airline companies do limits the game and takes out a lot of fun. Games with certain recipes to win so that whoever applies that recipe better becomes more successful always become boring very quickly. Games where every tactic has its counter and no certain ways to be successful are always fun. Think about the first serious MP RTS games. Westwood had the market first with C&C and Red Alert, but Starcraft just beat the hell out of them because there were many ways to beat your opponent and every way to do so had its counter-tactic whereas in other games there were always one or few "recipes" to win and who did those best always won.
This is my 2 cents
My 2 cents.
This was well written Emrah. I agree with all of it I think :)
Quote from: schro on July 21, 2011, 01:35:40 PM
If you're a frequent flier that gets free upgrades to F, there is a very strong motivation to take the A319 as the ATR won't have a big recliner and free booze...
There are no free upgrades at most European airlines, except op-up.
Quote from: Samo on July 22, 2011, 06:32:47 AM
There are no free upgrades at most European airlines, except op-up.
If you are a frequent flyer and the airline has a loyalty scheme then you are more likely to get upgraded free if the aircraft is oversubscribed in your class and they have available space upfront. I have been upgraded for free on a Long Haul flights before. ;)
Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 21, 2011, 10:11:44 PM
This was well written Emrah. I agree with all of it I think :)
Good to know at least one person read it :)
Quote from: Samo on July 22, 2011, 06:32:47 AM
There are no free upgrades at most European airlines, except op-up.
In the US, domestic upgrades are the most common perk to the FF programs. They also have a truely upgraded seat compared to the European model of just not putting anyone in the middle of a Y seat.
When I was platinum with Delta, I was virtually guaranteed to sit in F with the purchase of any Y class fare to anywhere in the US. That is a pretty good reason to take the A319. :-).
Of course, long haul differs significantly...
Quote from: schro on July 22, 2011, 01:09:14 PM
In the US, domestic upgrades are the most common perk to the FF programs. They also have a truely upgraded seat compared to the European model of just not putting anyone in the middle of a Y seat.
When I was platinum with Delta, I was virtually guaranteed to sit in F with the purchase of any Y class fare to anywhere in the US. That is a pretty good reason to take the A319. :-).
Of course, long haul differs significantly...
I used to fly for free on Delta when my stepfather worked for Comair. Since we flew standby, we always had to dress for first/business class (yes, there is a dress code) because they'd rather put standby passengers in first class than upgrade coach tickets for free--it sets a bad precedent like you just described :)
Quote from: LemonButt on July 22, 2011, 01:40:44 PM
I used to fly for free on Delta when my stepfather worked for Comair. Since we flew standby, we always had to dress for first/business class (yes, there is a dress code) because they'd rather put standby passengers in first class than upgrade coach tickets for free--it sets a bad precedent like you just described :)
The dress code was to make sure you didn't put the airline in a bad light, and since the price was right, they could make you jump through as many hoops as they wanted.
I'm not necessarily sure its a _bad_ thing to set that precedant. The folks that fly often enough to earn status levels are usually buying more expensive Y class tickets than those who do not, so keeping their attention with the upgrade reward is a good way to ensure that they don't stray for a lower price (especially if they are allowed to spend more via a corporate policy, as they're often geared towards saving maximum time and convinience of doing business).
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 04:08:15 PM
I agree with you 100%.
I re evaluated my situation and it is still much much much better to use 753s on everything that goes from EWR to Western Europe. And because you only need 3-4 max (except for LHR or CDG), you never get penalized.
I am calling the current state of this change the "Japan Rule". No longer can one person fly 737s every 5 minutes to the same place. Other than that, there are very few other places that have enough demand where this rule will actually have an impact.
Well said!!!! Bravo!!!! This has happened all too often for so long!!!
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 18, 2011, 04:08:15 PM
I agree with you 100%.
I re evaluated my situation and it is still much much much better to use 753s on everything that goes from EWR to Western Europe. And because you only need 3-4 max (except for LHR or CDG), you never get penalized.
I am calling the current state of this change the "Japan Rule". No longer can one person fly 737s every 5 minutes to the same place. Other than that, there are very few other places that have enough demand where this rule will actually have an impact.
Quote from: L1011fan on July 28, 2011, 06:42:25 PM
Well said!!!! Bravo!!!! This has happened all too often for so long!!!
This leads to the one question: When will we come to the point, that only number of seats is relevant?! Because IRL no one would prefer a smaller plane flying 3x daily...
a) I just need one plane anyways
b) The bigger plane is (usually - exceptions as DC-10 always occur) safer in the air and less susceptible for wind and turbulence
c) Bigger planes make more of an interest for the standard traveler... excepting us aircraft "freaks" preferring the one or the other type
Just my 2 cents on this....
Cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on July 30, 2011, 04:38:14 PM
This leads to the one question: When will we come to the point, that only number of seats is relevant?! Because IRL no one would prefer a smaller plane flying 3x daily...
a) I just need one plane anyways
b) The bigger plane is (usually - exceptions as DC-10 always occur) safer in the air and less susceptible for wind and turbulence
c) Bigger planes make more of an interest for the standard traveler... excepting us aircraft "freaks" preferring the one or the other type
Just my 2 cents on this....
Cheers,
Jona L.
On a high frequency route, more flights is better as it gives the traveller a large choice of times they can arrive. Eg., I'm in SYD and need to get to MEL for lunchtime for a business meeting and be back for my dinner with wife and kids or I need to be in MEL for 7am for a long work day and back the following morning at my regular office for 7am. A large selection of flights means I can do that, rather than having two flights a day, one in the morning that gets me there too early for my meeting and one in the evening that gets me back home when my kids are in bed.
Move your meetings, mmcg ;D
Sure, but that's op-up. It's not like in the US where they upgrade FF on regular basis and it's published benefit.