so I have created a one-stop route to fly between NRT and GIG with a 737-700ER, which the system think the aircraft is too small. The current estimated demand from NRT to GIG is ~320/day while the return is ~200/day. The scheduled time is like this:
\ | Departure | Arrivial |
NRT-GIG | 08:00 | 21:35 |
GIG-NRT | 22:40 | 13:40(+2) |
Why I can only get about 17 passengers in the NRT-GIG direction whereas I can get 41 passengers in GIG-NRT direction which have a lower forecasted demand?
Edit: the reason why I picked 737 to fly the route is because at that distance only 777-200LR can do the route and I don't want to introduce 777 just for the route, and at one stop you can't capture all the traffic so something less than 200 seat capacity would be needed, but I don't get why it show the aircraft too small warning.
Btw, why it cost extra 20M USD just for an extra fuel tank on 777-200LR?
1. for LH flights you need very large AC
2. tech-stop provide around 50% penalty to pax
In addition to MuzhikRB's excellent answer, I'd like to say that this game is about choices. You have to choose carefully the kind of lines you want to cover, and choose a fleet group accordingly. You can make excellent games with just single-aisle aircraft(especially with bases well suited for them, as Atlanta). But you can't cover too long distances.
A 737 will typically set up the "too small" penalty above 2000NM of distance and 200 demand. Distance is increased for domestic flights, but still, when it says "your airplane is too small", it means people don't want to stay that long in such a small airplane. It's uncomfortable. They'll do the sacrifice if it's a very small route, but not when it's a major route.
The reason why you have less demand in the leg with the more demand is that the penalty is progressive : the more the demand, the bigger the passengers assume the route is, and the more comfort they'll ask for. I had 737 flying nice flights to the USA from Scotland with 150 demand in 2000, and in 2015, their profitability went down, in the red. It's normal. The line is bigger, passengers don't accept smaller planes any more. You need very large planes for that kind of lines.
Ah, and 737-700ER is a trap. There is no way to make good money with them on really long routes they are designed for. I always am weak and set up a few lines with them, to reach always the same conclusion : it's not worth it. Stick to lines under 2500NM, and you'll have a good profitability. For longer lines, aim for 767 or bigger.
Flying the 73W is very tough to be profitable. The range looks nice, bit it is indeed a trap for most. The leases are sky high for its size and its profit potential is rather low, all things considered. The economics don't scale well with the 73W. If you wish to make this work, here are some tips:
Never have the 73W as your core business. It is a niche aircraft at best. Fly only if you have all demand met at your HQ and bases... and you really have nothing better to do with your time.
Never lease the 73W. Own it outright. If you can't afford that, then don't bother with it.
Always maximize your efficiency. Keep that aircraft in the air as much as possible.
Also, you shouldn't tech stop a narrowbody further then 4500nm. The system gives you a harsh penalty that makes the route almost useless.
Further I want to say: Just because there is demand, doesn't always mean there's a profitable way to serve that route. One of the main keys to running a highly profitable airline is to know when to stop and continue else where. If you see low hanging fruit, its low hanging for a reason.
Finally, NRT-GIG is a 10000nm route. Why your flying a 10k ULH route with a 73G boggles the mind. Even an owned 77L with a high efficiency routing schedule would be hard pressed to be profitable. There are far more profitable routes to fly out of NRT.
Talentz
Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 29, 2016, 09:22:25 PM
1. for LH flights you need very large AC
2. tech-stop provide around 50% penalty to pax
so even if the demand is like 30 people, and i send in a 30-seat aircraft, if the route is ling enough, there will still be some passengers unwilling to board the plane?
And i have taken in the tech stop into account and such i know i wouldn't be able to fill an A330, and that's why I send in the 737 in the first place...
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 29, 2016, 09:58:17 PM
In addition to MuzhikRB's excellent answer, I'd like to say that this game is about choices. You have to choose carefully the kind of lines you want to cover, and choose a fleet group accordingly. You can make excellent games with just single-aisle aircraft(especially with bases well suited for them, as Atlanta). But you can't cover too long distances.
A 737 will typically set up the "too small" penalty above 2000NM of distance and 200 demand. Distance is increased for domestic flights, but still, when it says "your airplane is too small", it means people don't want to stay that long in such a small airplane. It's uncomfortable. They'll do the sacrifice if it's a very small route, but not when it's a major route.
The reason why you have less demand in the leg with the more demand is that the penalty is progressive : the more the demand, the bigger the passengers assume the route is, and the more comfort they'll ask for. I had 737 flying nice flights to the USA from Scotland with 150 demand in 2000, and in 2015, their profitability went down, in the red. It's normal. The line is bigger, passengers don't accept smaller planes any more. You need very large planes for that kind of lines.
Ah, and 737-700ER is a trap. There is no way to make good money with them on really long routes they are designed for. I always am weak and set up a few lines with them, to reach always the same conclusion : it's not worth it. Stick to lines under 2500NM, and you'll have a good profitability. For longer lines, aim for 767 or bigger.
Why wouod 737 be too small when flying merely 2000+nm... that is not even 4000km....
In reality the plane is used for business heavy or business only configuration might be that can work? but not in the current airwaysim system
Quote from: Talentz on December 30, 2016, 06:38:04 AM
Flying the 73W is very tough to be profitable. The range looks nice, bit it is indeed a trap for most. The leases are sky high for its size and its profit potential is rather low, all things considered. The economics don't scale well with the 73W. If you wish to make this work, here are some tips:
Never have the 73W as your core business. It is a niche aircraft at best. Fly only if you have all demand met at your HQ and bases... and you really have nothing better to do with your time.
Never lease the 73W. Own it outright. If you can't afford that, then don't bother with it.
Always maximize your efficiency. Keep that aircraft in the air as much as possible.
Also, you shouldn't tech stop a narrowbody further then 4500nm. The system gives you a harsh penalty that makes the route almost useless.
Further I want to say: Just because there is demand, doesn't always mean there's a profitable way to serve that route. One of the main keys to running a highly profitable airline is to know when to stop and continue else where. If you see low hanging fruit, its low hanging for a reason.
Finally, NRT-GIG is a 10000nm route. Why your flying a 10k ULH route with a 73G boggles the mind. Even an owned 77L with a high efficiency routing schedule would be hard pressed to be profitable. There are far more profitable routes to fly out of NRT.
Talentz
yes, my aim in the route is not for profit and never a main part of my airline
Quote from: qunow on December 30, 2016, 08:43:05 PM(.../...)
And i have taken in the tech stop into account and such i know i wouldn't be able to fill an A330, and that's why I send in the 737 in the first place...Why would 737 be too small when flying merely 2000+nm... that is not even 4000km....(.../...)
That's a game balancing mechanism, and it's also realistic. It prevents spamming 737 on transatlantic routes to over-pace opponents in 777. IRL, I crossed the atlantic last summer(MPL-FCO-BOS-JFK-AMS-MPL). I was very happy not to be in a small aircraft for the long legs(777 & 330). But for the shorter routes, smaller birds(320, 319 & E190) were more than enough.
The nerf exists because, given how offering a higher frequency magically boosts the load factor of all of your flights, a choice was made between the alternative:
1. Allow the 737 which will use higher frequency and cause suffering to people who want to use big jets on those routes.
2. Disallow the 737 and suffer the crying of people who want to fly the 737 on those routes.
Why not simply remove the magical boost due to multiple frequency? I don't know.
Split demand by number of airlines serving a route, and if an airline has multiple frequencies split her demand by the number of her flights for her. Would this break the game? I don't know. The other factors still apply (company image, seating type, departure/arrival hours, price difference).