Based on an assumption of 100% route image & equal fares & equal airline image:
I assume that 1)the length of flight 2)age of aircraft 3)condition of aircraft 4)type of seating 5)size of aircraft all have an effect of passenger choice of flight. And that 1 thru 5 have unequal effect on choice.
My questions are:
A)how much does 1 thru 5 effect choice?
B)how are 1 thru 5 ranked [most effect to least effect]?
I did a quick forum search; but couldn't find an answer.
I would appreciate any replies or link to forum answer.
Thanks
You forgot the frequency of flights..
There are about 10-15 variables that affect the pax's choice.
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Open/#Basic
When you mention choice, I assume passenger choice, meaning more passengers choose your flight. To look things up, look for Load Factor or LF.
Top variables are: frequency, RI, CI, and time of day.
Aircraft age and condition are near the bottom of relevance, as far as LF, but they (especially condition) can cause delays and cancellations, which in turn will affact CI, and that in turn will affect how much you have to spend on marketing to maintain desired CI.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 13, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
When you mention choice, I assume passenger choice, meaning more passengers choose your flight. To look things up, look for Load Factor or LF.
Top variables are: frequency, RI, CI, and time of day.
Aircraft age and condition are near the bottom of relevance, as far as LF, but they (especially condition) can cause delays and cancellations, which in turn will affact CI, and that in turn will affect how much you have to spend on marketing to maintain desired CI.
Thanks JumboShrimp. The ranking of the passenger choice variables was what I wanted to learn.
And thanks Sami for the manual link for the listing of all the passenger choice variables.
Type or Aircraft has far too little influence, and that is an understatement.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 10:39:01 AM
Type or Aircraft has far too little influence, and that is an understatement.
Why would a passenger prefer an Airbus A320 over McDonnell Douglas MD-80 for example? A regular passenger has absolutely no difference in the model - in actual flight experience the plane's general condition and appearance have way more effect on what they think is "safe".
Quote from: sami on April 15, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
Why would a passenger prefer an Airbus A320 over McDonnell Douglas MD-80 for example? A regular passenger has absolutely no difference in the model - in actual flight experience the plane's general condition and appearance have way more effect on what they think is "safe".
Yes or no...
Usually people (especially Asian) think jet is safer than turboprop. So it still give a bit of preferences for the type of aircraft.
But as majority of people when purchasing ticket, they won't be able to check the condition, they won't be able to check the appearance. For people buying ticket either from the travel agency or internet (RI), they may ask for specific airliner (CI), cheaper price ($), and flight time (which is the time and thus frequency).
Frankly aircraft type/condition/age won't really be a factor unless it's aviation fan of which they must fly A380/787 for whatever price. But that's probably less than 1% of population.
But Onboard service and comfort should be more important and should affect CI and should not be on specific route, and it is a HUGE factor for company image for first/business class people. Even for economic class if the price is the same then it is a huge factor as well.
In this day in age $$$ is the overall factor, let's be honest with each other. As long as the general population can get the cheapest deal on a ticket, the rest is gravey. I'm no travel expert but I do travel moderately by air. As I write this from my hotel in Phoenix. Where I flew in on "America's only ULCC" Spirit air - as they claim. I can tell you price and convenience are the determining factor.
For me as an example, I'm simple folk. I flew SpiritAir out of convenince, I flew into the tiny airport Phoenix/Mesa gateway because it let me avoid the hassle of flying into PHX. If I can avoid a major airport I will. Just so happened to be that spirit services this airport at a great deal of a price.
Quote from: sami on April 15, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
Why would a passenger prefer an Airbus A320 over McDonnell Douglas MD-80 for example? A regular passenger has absolutely no difference in the model - in actual flight experience the plane's general condition and appearance have way more effect on what they think is "safe".
Passengers will always prefer a jet over a turboprop, they will always prefer a widebody over a narrow body (at least on long hauls) and they even show preference booking towards the A380 when they got the choice between that and another widebody.
Not every passenger knows what he's going to be flying on beforehand, but it is a fact that this preferential behavior exists in far more passengers than was estimated even by real world airlines before the A380 came around.
You know I'm referring to the unbearable fact that, in this game, a tech-stopping narrow body beats a direct widebody flight on long hauls, a thing among others that makes long haul flying totally unattractive in the game and yet you don't seem to see the importance of the matter regarding the playability of the game. This needs to be changed before the next MT starts or a lot of players will not return for it.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
yet you don't seem to see the importance of the matter regarding the playability of the game.
Do not put words/thoughts to my mouth, please. I know exactly well that this has been discussed for a time now.
But a change is not a just a "flick of a switch" or changing a few variables, but requires more work. And I especially do not wish to change one thing and then rewrite it soon again when other changes are due with the planned other updates of the demand system.
(And also as a fact, a narrowbody+techstop is NOT better than a flight without a techstop, with other variables remaining the same.)
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
Passengers will always prefer a jet over a turboprop, they will always prefer a widebody over a narrow body (at least on long hauls) and they even show preference booking towards the A380 when they got the choice between that and another widebody.
I could see turbo-prop over jet, but others, I disagree. Widebody vs. narrowbody? I prefer narrowbody. Of the 6 seats across, only 2 are non-isle, non-window, and they are still close to the window... The central section of seats in the widebody are not exactly desirable seats...
380 vs. other widebodies? Been there, done that. I picked an A380 over other widebodies. After flying 380 once, and curiosity factor gone, there is zero difference for a passenger vs. 777. In fact, brand spanking new Lufthansa A380 had passenger electronics as unresponsive as was the standard in 1990s... That might have been just a poor choice by Lufthansa, but it certainly left a sour feeling about the whole A380 experience... So for this passenger, an A380 is a "don't care".
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
Not every passenger knows what he's going to be flying on beforehand, but it is a fact that this preferential behavior exists in far more passengers than was estimated even by real world airlines before the A380 came around.
You know I'm referring to the unbearable fact that, in this game, a tech-stopping narrow body beats a direct widebody flight on long hauls, a thing among others that makes long haul flying totally unattractive in the game and yet you don't seem to see the importance of the matter regarding the playability of the game. This needs to be changed before the next MT starts or a lot of players will not return for it.
There is no preference for tech stopping narrow body (or shorter range wide body) vs. non-techstop widebody. There is a preference for
frequency, whichever way it is achieved. A tech stop is a negative, since it increases time of flight. Frequency is a positive. The positive effect of frequency is larger than negative effect of increased flight time...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 15, 2012, 05:39:30 PM
There is no preference for tech stopping narrow body (or shorter range wide body) vs. non-techstop widebody. There is a preference for frequency, whichever way it is achieved. A tech stop is a negative, since it increases time of flight. Frequency is a positive. The positive effect of frequency is larger than negative effect of increased flight time...
Which boils down to the same.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 15, 2012, 05:39:30 PM
I could see turbo-prop over jet, but others, I disagree. Widebody vs. narrowbody? I prefer narrowbody. Of the 6 seats across, only 2 are non-isle, non-window, and they are still close to the window... The central section of seats in the widebody are not exactly desirable seats...
380 vs. other widebodies? Been there, done that. I picked an A380 over other widebodies. After flying 380 once, and curiosity factor gone, there is zero difference for a passenger vs. 777. In fact, brand spanking new Lufthansa A380 had passenger electronics as unresponsive as was the standard in 1990s... That might have been just a poor choice by Lufthansa, but it certainly left a sour feeling about the whole A380 experience... So for this passenger, an A380 is a "don't care".
That may be true for you, it most definitely isn't for most people. I consult a multitude of airlines on customer dialogue and social media issues, an A380 operator among them, and I assure you the A380 is a draw even for people that can't name a single other aircraft type, and it also has people coming back for more. The product offered on board is almost irrelevant for that matter, they keep coming back because the A380 offers a superior flying experience in itself.
If any of my clients would start flying narrowbodies with tech stops for more frequency, there would be a hailstorm of complaints and a massively evasive behavior towards those flights. The client in question would go from one of the worlds most profitable carriers to a bankruptcy candidate.
This games model on this matter is shockingly inaccurate and needs to be revised next thing on the agenda.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 05:59:48 PM
That may be true for you, it most definitely isn't for most people. I consult a multitude of airlines on customer dialogue and social media issues, an A380 operator among them, and I assure you the A380 is a draw even for people that can't name a single other aircraft type, and it also has people coming back for more. The product offered on board is almost irrelevant for that matter, they keep coming back because the A380 offers a superior flying experience in itself.
There is a physical characteristic of larger and heavier aircraft being affected by turbulance less than a lighter aircraft. I doubt if it is linear though, making the difference between A380 and other widebodies small to insignificant.
I think this supposed "superior flying experience" is, as far as I can tell, the 21st century version of blue crystals marketing. Most people are too young, or too ignorant to know what "blue crystals" mean, so they are a good target for this sort of marketing push. But there is a risk. It may backfire...
I don't mean to say that A380 is a bad aircraft. It is a fine aircraft. It is just no different for a passenger than other widebodies, namely 777. No difference other than the blue crystals of the A380, of course ;)
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 05:59:48 PM
If any of my clients would start flying narrowbodies with tech stops for more frequency, there would be a hailstorm of complaints and a massively evasive behavior towards those flights. The client in question would go from one of the worlds most profitable carriers to a bankruptcy candidate.
This games model on this matter is shockingly inaccurate and needs to be revised next thing on the agenda.
The AWS model keeps evolving. There is a fairly big revision in the works. Changes to passenger allocation may come after (or as part of) that.
And I would not call it "shockingly inacurate". Many people would pick 1 stop flight vs. non-stop flight to save $50. And back in the early years of aviation, refueling stops were routine...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 15, 2012, 06:42:59 PMMany people would pick 1 stop flight vs. non-stop flight to save $50.
Probably not as many as you might think. While price has definitely become the most important factor for airline choice, there is still a very large amount of people with Pteromerhanophobia who are willing to pay a premium to minimize takeoff and landings on their trip.
This is a huge problem for Air Berlin right now as they keep rebooking passengers from direct flights to 1-stop flights via the new Berlin airport as they restructure their network. The amount of complaints referring to Pteromerhanophobia is unbelievable.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 15, 2012, 06:42:59 PMrcraft. It is just no different for a passenger than other widebodies, namely 777. No difference other than the blue crystals of the A380, of course ;)
The A380 offers a more spacious feel of the cabin, partly due to the practically non existent curvature of the hull on the main deck. It is also way more quiet than a 777, a fact that influences passenger comfort significantly.
In the end, some of the A380 hype may be due to clever marketing and the awe the passenger has for the aircraft, but that is exactly what counts. How the passenger perceives the aircraft.
A passenger will always prefer a widebody over a narrow body because he will find it more comfortable, and not without reason i might add. You are a rare exception to this rule.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
The A380 offers a more spacious feel of the cabin, partly due to the practically non existent curvature of the hull on the main deck. It is also way more quiet than a 777, a fact that influences passenger comfort significantly.
I thought it was the opposite. The curvature can add to the "spaciousness", not subtract. But the airlines basically trade off that possible feeling of spaciousness, filling up some of the space by the overhead compartment, and just sealing off the rest of the space as dead space.
I remember flying L1011 that did not have the overhead storage in the center, and that really added to spaciousness.
To me, spaciousness is leg room (I am taller than average guy). I can deal with isle and window seats, but non-isle/window seats are a pure torture for me.
On a widebody, probability of a "bad" seat in 3-4-3 configuration is 40%, in a narrowbody in 3-3 configuration, it is 33%... So my odds are better in a narrowbody...
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
In the end, some of the A380 hype may be due to clever marketing and the awe the passenger has for the aircraft, but that is exactly what counts. How the passenger perceives the aircraft.
A passenger will always prefer a widebody over a narrow body because he will find it more comfortable, and not without reason i might add. You are a rare exception to this rule.
You may have a point there. Clever marketing count for the operator. Not exactly for a passenger. But there is a known placebo effect, so it may work for some passengers (especially those who are more foolish than others). You may be forming a blood clot, but feeling good about the experience because you were told by marketing that you are in a spacious aircraft....
Who am I to argue? It saved Apple computer, before the iPods, iPads, iPhone etc. Apple was selling computers (Macs) that were total crap. But Apple marketing was able to persuade the fools buying these computers that they were actually smart, smarter than the guy who bought a PC. That core loyalty of the most foolish of consumers helped Apple survive...
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
Probably not as many as you might think. While price has definitely become the most important factor for airline choice, there is still a very large amount of people with Pteromerhanophobia who are willing to pay a premium to minimize takeoff and landings on their trip.
This is a huge problem for Air Berlin right now as they keep rebooking passengers from direct flights to 1-stop flights via the new Berlin airport as they restructure their network. The amount of complaints referring to Pteromerhanophobia is unbelievable.
My experiences told me otherwise. The price differences from eastern north america to south east asia (which is ULH) between direct flight and 1-stop is usually about 10%. You'd be amazed how many people go to 1-stop flight just to save about $100~$150. I went to 2-stop and it saved me $300. The differences between direct flight (which is 16 hours or so) and 2 stop (about 22 hours) is not that great. But I get to stretch a bit in the airport which is very useful.
I'm telling you my friend, unless I'm taking Business class next time, I'm still taking 2-stop route. You can have better food at the airport than on economic cabin, and you can stretch your leg within 12 hours. The differences between 12 hours and 16 hours in an economic cabin is way longer than 4 hours difference, and you can save yourself $300, which is about 25%.
JumboShrimp - Your attitude towards other people and their opinions seems a 'tad' arrogant to me.
Someone is not a fool because he has an opinion different from yours, your opinion is not the gospel.
I am a marketing professional, and I can exclusively reveal the following fact to you:
Good marketing can not make a bad product the most successful on the market. Apple products are no doubt successful due to perfect marketing, but they are also because they are good products and not some crap. There is a reason the other companies are copying Apple.
Good marketing can make the difference between a fair market share and market leadership, it cannot turn crap into gold.
Some of this can be projected into the airline industry. Have you never noticed airline ads almost always showing widebody aircraft even if they are only a very small fraction of the fleet? The newest Delta ad is an example for that, showing a 747. The newest Lufthansa ad is showing an A380. I could go on forever. This is all due to the customer preferring a widebody over a narrowbody, for whatever reason.
Some of this is irrational, some is not.
No center bins are something that add to a more lofty feeling, that is why premium cabins often don't have them. In economy you just can't do that. Also leg room can't just be upgauged, so aircraft manufacturers must find other ways to increase passenger comfort. There probably is no cabin part that manages to create a better feel than the nose section of the 747, but that is my personal feeling towards it.
All I can say is that from the data my clients have collected it is more than clear that widebodies generate a more positive customer feedback if placed on the same route as a narrowbody, an example for this is the Europe to Cairo run which has had a switch from widebody to narrowbody, I think I can spare us the details, the feedback was disastrous. Given the outdated seating product on the replaced widebody, this was most definitely not due to the lack of seatback IFE or the likes. It was simply due to the much narrower cabin and claustrophobic feel that such a long flight created for some passengers in the long and narrow cabin of the A321.
Some US-Airlines have entered a viscious circle by adding 757 to long haul routes, they scare the passengers off and now can't be easily replaced because the customer base has scattered towards foreign carriers offering a more comfortable experience on the same route.
Quote from: snowmen10 on April 15, 2012, 07:44:18 PMYou'd be amazed how many people go to 1-stop flight just to save about $100~$150.
No need to be amazed, I know that already and have professional data on it. What you are saying is true, and if you had read carfully you would have noticed that I have already acknowledged that price is the single most important factor in passenger choice, the problem for this game is that a one-stop has the exact same suggested price as a direct flight, a case in which in reality nobody would even bother with the one-stop flight.
I am aware that yield management in reality is far too complex to model in a game, but if we say it's mean values it still is totally unrealistic.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
The newest Delta ad is an example for that, showing a 747. The newest Lufthansa ad is showing an A380. I could go on forever. This is all due to the customer preferring a widebody over a narrowbody, for whatever reason.
If you have a Honda Accord and a Zonda R, which one do you bring to a party to show off? This is the reason they use 747/A380 in the ads. They just use the most expensive one in their fleet! Just like long ago BA used Concorde. It's not a widebody.
Yet I don't agree with you on customer preferring a widebody over a narrowbody, but I do agree that a lot of customers prefer 4 engines over 2 engines... especially on long haul flight. The reason yet again is safety. Nobody really complain the differences between 737NG and 777, but some of them did complain about the differences between 777 and 747.
How you can disagree with me on this when I am a professional in that field and got tens of thousands of passenger feedbacks analyzed and evaluated is beyond me.
You guys are silly, passengers don't care. Nobody spends all night on travel websites being nitpicky because their flight is on an Airbus or Boeing. Nobody cares, after about 10 flights flying is a miserable chore that you have to do for whatever reason. Price, price, price...... The end, can we close this topic already? 90% of the people at an airport don't even know what a A380 is let alone care.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:28:01 PM
How you can disagree with me on this when I am a professional in that field and got tens of thousands of passenger feedbacks analyzed and evaluated is beyond me.
And you believe these tens of thousands of passengers know the differences between a widebody and narrowbody...
In the present time, do you know how many passengers prefer to take new narrowbody 737-900 than old widebody A310? Do passengers really say no to narrowbody 757-300 than widebody A300? Come on... how many travellers do you expect them to tell the differences between 757 and A300 or 737-900 and A310?
Another example is, do people prefer siting upper deck 747 in economic (which is narrowbody because it's 3-3) than main deck 3-4-3? I believe you can answer this one. Personally I choose upper deck 747 ANYTIME, wether in business class or economic class. But I also believe nobody even ask when they order tickets.
I don't want to be sound like disrespectful to your profession or something. If indeed these tens of thousands of passengers in your studied know the differences between widebody and narrowbody, and will indeed choose old A310 over new 737-900, A300 over 757-300, lower 747 over upper 747 on any range/flight time (even less than 3 hours flight) when they purchase tickets. Then I own you an apology.
Quote from: snowmen10 on April 15, 2012, 09:15:48 PM
And you believe these tens of thousands of passengers know the differences between a widebody and narrowbody...
Well when a customer writes how much better he liked the cairo run on the 747 compared to the A321, I frankly don't know if he knows the 747 is called a widebody, but I know and that is sufficient for that matter.
I know they prefer certain aircraft and they are all widebodies.
Passengers do care for the equipment they fly on way more than you think. Not only aircraft freaks but especially first time fliers are very aware of which aircraft they fly on, the safety record its got and some other stuff.
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 09:57:40 PM
Well when a customer writes how much better he liked the cairo run on the 747 compared to the A321, I frankly don't know if he knows the 747 is called a widebody, but I know and that is sufficient for that matter.
So you mean if the same run is flight by a widebody DC-10 compared to a new A321, he will still choose DC-10... ? (Sorry that I have to pick one of the most hateful plane by traveler back in the day by 2-5-2)
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
JumboShrimp - Your attitude towards other people and their opinions seems a 'tad' arrogant to me.
Someone is not a fool because he has an opinion different from yours, your opinion is not the gospel.
It may be an old fashioned way to call a person fooled by marketing a "fool". The new fashion pushed by various consumer advocates is to call the person a "victim".
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
I am a marketing professional, and I can exclusively reveal the following fact to you:
Like nuclear weapons, marketing is an evil that was innevitably going to happen. Maybe I should just make peace with this fact....
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
Good marketing can not make a bad product the most successful on the market. Apple products are no doubt successful due to perfect marketing, but they are also because they are good products and not some crap. There is a reason the other companies are copying Apple.
There are certain quantities that can be measured objectively. When it comes to performance of computer hardware and software, there is wide suite of tests. There was a point in time in Apple's lifetime (before Macs became PCs with Apple OS) when Macs were just a complete garbage. Not just edged, but leapfrogged by PCs in every category. At this low point of existance, the cult of Mac fools that Apple marketing has cultivated for decades is what helped Apple survive and be able to fund its future.
Apple products today are fine, some great, I am not speaking of present. I am speaking of Apple's fruity past, when Apple was selling a different fruit: lemons... Marketing saved Apple, but it did so by selling consumers lemons, while charging them premium price....
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
Good marketing can make the difference between a fair market share and market leadership, it cannot turn crap into gold.
Some of this can be projected into the airline industry. Have you never noticed airline ads almost always showing widebody aircraft even if they are only a very small fraction of the fleet? The newest Delta ad is an example for that, showing a 747. The newest Lufthansa ad is showing an A380. I could go on forever. This is all due to the customer preferring a widebody over a narrowbody, for whatever reason.
Some of this is irrational, some is not.
No center bins are something that add to a more lofty feeling, that is why premium cabins often don't have them. In economy you just can't do that. Also leg room can't just be upgauged, so aircraft manufacturers must find other ways to increase passenger comfort. There probably is no cabin part that manages to create a better feel than the nose section of the 747, but that is my personal feeling towards it.
All I can say is that from the data my clients have collected it is more than clear that widebodies generate a more positive customer feedback if placed on the same route as a narrowbody, an example for this is the Europe to Cairo run which has had a switch from widebody to narrowbody, I think I can spare us the details, the feedback was disastrous. Given the outdated seating product on the replaced widebody, this was most definitely not due to the lack of seatback IFE or the likes. It was simply due to the much narrower cabin and claustrophobic feel that such a long flight created for some passengers in the long and narrow cabin of the A321.
Some US-Airlines have entered a viscious circle by adding 757 to long haul routes, they scare the passengers off and now can't be easily replaced because the customer base has scattered towards foreign carriers offering a more comfortable experience on the same route.
As far as my own preference for narrowbodies, I hope I made it clear that it was my own personal preference, supported by my knowledge that is superior to an average airline customer, and by the fact that I am taller than an average customer.
As far as claustrophobic feel, using some common sense, rather than marketing BS, can an A321 really make you calustrophobic? The cabin area is larger than most people's apartment - and I mean 1 or 2 bedrooms, living room kitchen, 1 or 2 bathrooms all combined. Is it rational to feel claustrophobic in this sized space? It is really the size of your own personal space that makes people claustrophobic (including me to some extend). Window and isle seats can partially relief this feeling. And, as I said before, your chances of getting an isle or window are lower on a widebody than narrowbody. So a rational person (myself) prefers a narrowbody.
If you survey 100 people and majority will say that 2 + 2 is something other than 4, you have to cater to these customers, even promoting more myths, if that's what works.... I am just going to continue to be appalled by all this (if it is ok with you ;) )
Quote from: saftfrucht on April 15, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
No need to be amazed, I know that already and have professional data on it. What you are saying is true, and if you had read carfully you would have noticed that I have already acknowledged that price is the single most important factor in passenger choice, the problem for this game is that a one-stop has the exact same suggested price as a direct flight, a case in which in reality nobody would even bother with the one-stop flight.
I am aware that yield management in reality is far too complex to model in a game, but if we say it's mean values it still is totally unrealistic.
In AWS 1.3, nobody transfers flights. The next version will have passenger connectivity. So it may be a good idea to re-evaluate this then.
As far as where the "problem" is, I just want to re-iterate that it the fact that frequency outweighs all the other variables in passenger preferences in current version of AWS. Lots of threads get started and can go for a while discussing various symptoms (narrow body vs. wide body, tech stop vs direct, lack of price elasticity, premium seating quality that makes too little difference etc.) These are all symptoms...
Like I have said elsewhere, when and if the system is changed, there is still no way to please everyone. Some "professional" says this, some "layman" says that, and some aviation enthusiast says the third thing is right. Oh well. But since the discussion is obviously going nowhere, thread is locked until further. Any comments and actual suggestions to the feature rq forum.