I have a lot of annoyance with the "aircraft too small" information on routes i fly. Apparently, it depends on a) demand b) aircraft size used c) distance d) in-game-year
Now first of all, I think it should be not depending on aircraft size, but possibly on fuselage diameter (no difference between a 737-600 and -900 really in the passenger experience - except maybe that it takes longer to get to the toilet...). As well, range shouldnt be the issue, but the flight time (maybe including 50% of min turnarroundtime to account for time spent in the plane while on the ground) [maybe it already is based on time, but thats very difficult to distinguish, and i couldnt find info in the manual]. Demand there should be a minimum threshold for demand somehow as well maybe [again, dont know if there currently isnt already].
Second problem: How do I know if my route is affected? It would be nice, if there would be a filter in the "Manage routes" to show all affected routes (like there already is for blocked seats or payload limitations).
Third thing: As i read in the forums, it apparently is not a 0%/100% thing, but a gradual thing, so that one plane works 70% for passengers, another plane works 85% for passengers and big ones work 100% for passengers [the forum information seems to be some years old in most cases]. Now it would be great, if the infolog would show this information. Cmon! 10% of my people work in Customer Services, I have a lot of people in Quality and Route Strategies... they could really figure this out!
Fourth thing: the whole thing shouldnt make all that much of an influence as it currently does. It sounds like a bit of "oh, sorry, we are overbooked, you cant be cramped in on economy anymore on this 747, but we could get you a great seat on a private jet"... "no way, that plane is too small". Who really cares about the cabin size if the seats are comfy and one can stretch their legs?
Currently, on some route the DC-8 has a warning, but not the 707 (GW#2, 1980).
But what DC-8 and what 707?
The DC-8-10 has max 164 seats, while the 63 has 259. This is not the same plane, and there's no way to know if all the family is impacted or only a few variants.
----------
As I understand this feature was implemented:
- to force people to move to newer models
- more precisely to avoid frequency spamming with older smaller planes
So for a DC-8-10 that was introduced in 59, being flown in 80 is sure a bit strange (apart from the fuel burn). But a Super Sixties or Super Seventies? Too old in 1980 while the Super 70s is not even out? ???
Again, there's no way to know this precisely. And if in the current version the whole family is impacted, this is absolutely not fair.
Look, a DC-8-63 from 66 got a "too small" warning in 80 (14 years) while a 787-8 introduced in 2010 can fly all the way up to 2035 (25 years) without a problem? That would be pretty weird.
----------
So yes, a few explanations on the matter would be much welcome in order to:
- know how it works
- not complain about the whole thing uselessly as we would know that maybe only one aspect got to be revamped.
- maybe not even revamped but just announced in the warning (maybe is everything all right, maybe the DC-8-63 hasn't a "too small" warning in 1980, but there's no way we can know it).
Thanks
Yes this is really obscure and would be useful to have more information.
Why the warning happen on DC-8 but not on 707? The smaller 707 (the 720) has 114 default seats while the smaller DC-8 (the -10) has 138 seats. And the bigger 797-420 has a maximum of 210 seats while the bigger DC-8-63 has a maximum of 259.
They are both very large and single aisle.
Maybe that the introduction of cargo version creates the problem? There is a -55 Combi with only 70 seats. Is it based on the number of seats of the smaller version in the family?
Quote from: dandan on February 08, 2018, 03:57:28 PM
Fourth thing: the whole thing shouldnt make all that much of an influence as it currently does. It sounds like a bit of "oh, sorry, we are overbooked, you cant be cramped in on economy anymore on this 747, but we could get you a great seat on a private jet"... "no way, that plane is too small". Who really cares about the cabin size if the seats are comfy and one can stretch their legs?
Just my input: At the airline I worked with, aircraft size mattered a lot to customers, so I can totally appreciate this element of the game and find it gives the necessary
realism. Otherwise we could fly with Viscounts till the end of the game.... A better visualization of the effect would be great though, and I agree there is some inconsistency in it's application. But this might be simply due to any one of the parameters: So actually when you see the warning, the effect doesn't have to be strong yet
until you are way off ... again, som e kind of visualization would be nice....
Cheers!
Mike
To the OP's first point, the system already works in groups and not in individual planes. A 737-600 has the same "too small" threshold as a 737-900.
To the 707 vs DC8 point, typically they both start receiving the warning DURING the year 1980. There have been some changes to calculations made that may slighly impact the exact date (plus, the wildcard of whether the freighers and combi's are included in the calculation), but I would expect both to be receiving too small warnings by the end of 1980.
To the OP's fourth point - This is a game feature introduced to properly level the playing field. Back in the day, I was that guy that techstopped 757s everywhere and owned wherever I went simply because the economics of the 757 is far superior to that of the 767 (it's not even fair to compare a 762 and 752). That was the jet that was targeted the most with this change - the DC8 and 707 weren't targeted as bad as they become economically obsolete in the 1980's regardless. The 757 is economically superior to all widebodies....
I completely understand your point, Schro, but make the Super Sixties "too small" while they're not even 20 years old and the Super Seventies is not out yet is really strange.
As I pointed out, I would be ok for a DC-8-10 to be penalized, but a (relatively) recent plane with major upgrade coming soon?
Not trying to say the DC-8 in general is not getting old, not particularly defending the DC-8 for itself, just trying to point out something rather illogical that involves the DC-8.
That nerf to avoid frequency spam with the 757 has its own flaws, and I think that's one.
I think the root of the problem is that the system allocates to flights (frequency), not to seats. This lead to frequency wars with ever smaller aircraft, slot locking of airports. This was fixed with a series of band aids, penalties, one of which is "too small" penalty.
Since the system does not (yet) have ability to allocate demand by time of flights, say morning, mid day evening flight, only count of flights, it does not make a lot of sense. You could see a player flying at 0500, 0600, 0700 and it counts as 3 flights, but is very much like a single flight.
I think allocation where frequency is so dominant that everything else is noise should just be scrapped for now, until we get to past AWS 3.0 (City based demand, passenger transfers) to something like AWS 4.0 that would have time based accumulation of pax.
The allocation should just go by seats (capacity) their quality, desirability, with Frequency being either completely dropped, or made into a small add-on in grand scheme of things, rather than The One Variable to Rule them All.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 08, 2018, 09:37:16 PM
I think the root of the problem is that the system allocates to flights (frequency), not to seats. This lead to frequency wars with ever smaller aircraft, slot locking of airports. This was fixed with a series of band aids, penalties, one of which is "too small" penalty.
Since the system does not (yet) have ability to allocate demand by time of flights, say morning, mid day evening flight, only count of flights, it does not make a lot of sense. You could see a player flying at 0500, 0600, 0700 and it counts as 3 flights, but is very much like a single flight.
I think allocation where frequency is so dominant that everything else is noise should just be scrapped for now, until we get to past AWS 3.0 (City based demand, passenger transfers) to something like AWS 4.0 that would have time based accumulation of pax.
The allocation should just go by seats (capacity) their quality, desirability, with Frequency being either completely dropped, or made into a small add-on in grand scheme of things, rather than The One Variable to Rule them All.
I completely and totally agree with this.
I've tended to play regional airlines but the few times I have played larger I've wanted to use larger aircraft like widebodies only to be killed by players spamming NBs or turboprops everywhere. The A300 and 767 suffer in particular there where a bunch of their real world applications is on routes within an NBs capabilities.
On the other end of town, frequency is also where VLAs like the 747 and A380 struggle in AWS. They need to be full to take advantage of their low cost per seat, but when a player can fly 2-3x a day with his 767 or A330 and leave your daily VLA flying empty, then there's an issue.
I know on a personal level, I always pick the bigger plane when booking. I've flown on countless jumbos specifically because I'd rather fly them than any twin, especially over the ocean.
On that note, maybe we need something like ETOPS to make some aircraft more competitive? That kinda feels like it would tie in with the Too Small system.
It happened to me to kill a Q400 pure player spamming him with 737-800, but it was a special case(basically, he had stuffed the 12 best lines out of ORY, and that's all. I stuffed them too, and didn't even have to price war him). So frequency is not the ultimate winner. Still, on longer lines, it shouldn't count as much. On short lines, OTOH, it seems very relevant to me. HOP! has pushed his frequency on ORY-MPL(315 NM) to 4 flights a day specifically to say "we also have a regular service as the high speed train does". High speed train runs every hour between Paris and Montpellier, for reference.
But on longer routes? I mean, when, a few years ago, I made my 3 daily 777-8X flights on the GLA-SYD line, I had to make each one hour from another. like 0540, 0640, 0740 or something like that. What sense does it make?
I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, but the current frequency system, while rather realistic IMHO on short lines, loses is relevence as distances increase. flying ORY-MPL at 0540 or 0640 makes a lot of difference for the businessman('got a few collegues on this route on a regular basis) who plans his workday. For my other colleague going to SYD(from BIQ, so no direct flight, of course), honestly, she would not care at all, for a 30-hours marathon.
Adding "too small penalty" had a very positive effect (well, I was one of the people who strongly advocated it). It helped align AWS with real world, at the point when players learned to fully exploit the frequency based allocation (flying 20-30x A321 flights from LHR to LAX).
As much as it helped, I don't think it is a perfect solution. We have 2 forces
Force 1: (Frequency based allocation): Overwhelmingly force, strongly favors flying smaller aircraft over large aircraft
Force 2: (Too Small penalty): Works against Force 1 in limited, most egregious cases.
Good question to ask is why not scrap them all, and demote frequency from One Variable to Rule them All, to just one of many variables. At least until AWS does not have a concept of time based demand, pent up demand etc.
BTW, I am seeing some signs that Frequency is negatively affecting Cargo as well.
"Too small" is just a little too restrictive. If a narrow body has the range and requires no tech stop, then that penalty shouldn't apply. Instead the pax should "favor" a VL Aircraft when it is available to fly on. Give those running widebody a further incentive past "My junk is bigger than yours"
Maybe too small warnings could be totally removed for "Very Large Aircraft".
I can't really see any negatives to it really... the 707 and DC-8 aircraft won't suddenly become useless in 1980, but it won't at the same time be over-powered because they are getting old and expensive to run compared to the new planes.
Quote from: yearofthecactus on February 10, 2018, 04:27:23 AM
Maybe too small warnings could be totally removed for "Very Large Aircraft".
I can't really see any negatives to it really... the 707 and DC-8 aircraft won't suddenly become useless in 1980, but it won't at the same time be over-powered because they are getting old and expensive to run compared to the new planes.
That would be a good, quick fix as the issue is discussed more.
Talentz
Quote from: yearofthecactus on February 10, 2018, 04:27:23 AM
Maybe too small warnings could be totally removed for "Very Large Aircraft".
Well, it depends, the 767 is often used extensively until game end. Sure, because of its cheap price compared to more recent stuff, but also because it has the smallest fuselage of all VL/WB. It's still used as a (less efficient than the 757) frequency spammer. At least the 200ER.
However, one could complain that the smaller LH airports can't fit in A330/340 or 777 or else because:
- the demand is thin
- this thin demand if often divided by the other airlines flying into that airport
Quote from: yearofthecactus on February 10, 2018, 04:27:23 AM
I can't really see any negatives to it really... the 707 and DC-8 aircraft won't suddenly become useless in 1980, but it won't at the same time be over-powered because they are getting old and expensive to run compared to the new planes.
Absolutely, they already have their own drawbacks (mainly fuel). So for those 2 examples, there is no need for such an extra penalty.
Even the Super Seventies: as fuel as been changed as little as possible while still within documented limits, it still burns quite a lot.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on February 10, 2018, 06:38:24 AM
Well, it depends, the 767 is often used extensively until game end. Sure, because of its cheap price compared to more recent stuff, but also because it has the smallest fuselage of all VL/WB. It's still used as a (less efficient than the 757) frequency spammer. At least the 200ER.
However, one could complain that the smaller LH airports can't fit in A330/340 or 777 or else because:
- the demand is thin
- this thin demand if often divided by the other airlines flying into that airport
Yes, that might have been the old AWS thinking... However, we have cargo now. Total payload is more important then just flying self loading freight. The equation has changed.
If your thinking a 752 @ 3600nm will win against a 762ER base at the same range... your doing it wrong...
Same goes for the 767 vs 777 example. The 777 will out gross a 767 @ 4000nm. Even if it flies have full.
Cargo changes LH by rewarding players who use bigger aircraft that can carry more total payload. Its less about racing to the bottom and more about who can fill the top and bottom of an aircraft.
So in that regards, the too small penalty is getting long in the tooth. But it's not totally useless. It just becomes a moot point for VLG aircraft.
Talentz
Well, as I haven't played cargo yet I can't tell you.
But what happens to a LH route without that much cargo? The race is still only to fill the cabin.
Might be completely finished the day the pax system is changed, but this not real soon.
And in the meanwhile?
(not ironical - maybe you can see I'm still new around and didn't followed AWS for years)
Thanks
I understand the rationale behind the too small warning and I accept it.
Anyway a better report should be mandatory. If I receive it only for the -55AF, I should know someway.
For example in having (or not having) the warning in the route information page when it has been scheduled with the actual aircraft.
Quote from: Luperco on February 10, 2018, 08:41:59 AM
I understand the rationale behind the too small warning and I accept it.
Anyway a better report should be mandatory. If I receive it only for the -55AF, I should know someway.
For example in having (or not having) the warning in the route information page when it has been scheduled with the actual aircraft.
You probably mean the -55CF (AF is pure cargo).
But yes, better info along with differentiation (by variants) would be great.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on February 10, 2018, 08:29:51 AM
Well, as I haven't played cargo yet I can't tell you.
But what happens to a LH route without that much cargo? The race is still only to fill the cabin.
Might be completely finished the day the pax system is changed, but this not real soon.
And in the meanwhile?
(not ironical - maybe you can see I'm still new around and didn't followed AWS for years)
Thanks
Your longevity in AWS was never the subject, just the rational used ;D. Fleet choices should take into effect geographical location, among other things.
You hit it on the head when you mentioned CBD-Pax. That is the future, which will make penalty less relevant.
In the meantime, a slight change to the application of the penalty, namely, to drop VLG aircraft from it's effects will suffice. Giving the 707/DC8 users relief and buying more time as we wait for CBD-Pax to roll out.
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on February 10, 2018, 06:42:43 PM
Fleet choices should take into effect geographical location, among other things.
I know. And that's the reason why the "too small" can become a problem.
In GW#2 I'm HQed in Moscow. And Moscow is (amongst LH-worthy airport) a small-timer: most routes have around 130-150 demand. And the game suggests that I should fly a plane with 250 or 300 seats and will give me a penalty for not doing so?
This is pure nonsense, as the DC-8 is old but still ok, and perfectly suited for those routes. I don't try to spam frequency: got 2 or 3 destinations with 3 flights/day, and around 8 or 9 with 2 flights a day. The rest is one flight only.
And I already have difficulties filling in some planes on routes I'm the only one to fly.
Again, not complaining about the existence of the "too small" system, just about some of its applications.
(got the feeling I'm repeating stuff I already said and that everybody understood :-[ :laugh:)
Quote from: Talentz on February 10, 2018, 06:42:43 PM
Fleet choices should take into effect geographical location, among other things.
Another thing about that:
Moscow is ideally located for early LH, for example, as with 4500 you'll reach both the US East Coast and good part of South East Asia. It's northern position also allows shorter polar routes.
For MH, it's also ideally located, allowing full red eye flights both East (domestic) and West (intl).
But for SH and MH... Gee, range is the key. There's almost nothing below 500nm. Kiev, St Pete, Helsinki and a few "thick" (soviet version) routes.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on February 10, 2018, 07:02:11 PM
I know. And that's the reason why the "too small" can become a problem.
In GW#2 I'm HQed in Moscow. And Moscow is (amongst LH-worthy airport) a small-timer: most routes have around 130-150 demand. And the game suggests that I should fly a plane with 250 or 300 seats and will give me a penalty for not doing so?
This is pure nonsense, as the DC-8 is old but still ok, and perfectly suited for those routes. I don't try to spam frequency: got 2 or 3 destinations with 3 flights/day, and around 8 or 9 with 2 flights a day. The rest is one flight only.
And I already have difficulties filling in some planes on routes I'm the only one to fly.
Again, not complaining about the existence of the "too small" system, just about some of its applications.
(got the feeling I'm repeating stuff I already said and that everybody understood :-[ :laugh:)
A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.
Quote from: schro on February 10, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.
Well, my situation is actually not the worse one, by far. But others got it as well, and what was said about such planes is still of interest, I think.
And about the DC-10, I know. But should I change fleet just for that? Hell no, this would be even costlier, unfortunately.
Quote from: schro on February 10, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.
I don't agree. In GW2, I'm in Sydney and most of the LH routes requires stopover in 1980.
There many routes to Europe and North America from Sydney and Melbourne with a demand of about 300 pax per day.
With a stopover you can get only half of the demand. So a DC-8-62 seems a perfect aircraft. But the route is still considered 300 pax and the DC-8 get the penalty for being too small.
I cannot understand the reasons behind it. Why it should be better to send an half empty DC10?
So routes like that is too big for a DC8 and too small for a DC10. Why are there in the first place if there are no aircrafts that can fly them?
My opinion is that this too short warning is the wrong solution to the LHR-JFK spammed with 757 problem. Or, at least, it has too much unwanted side effects.
Quote from: Luperco on February 10, 2018, 11:09:06 PM
I don't agree. In GW2, I'm in Sydney and most of the LH routes requires stopover in 1980.
There many routes to Europe and North America from Sydney and Melbourne with a demand of about 300 pax per day.
With a stopover you can get only half of the demand. So a DC-8-62 seems a perfect aircraft. But the route is still considered 300 pax and the DC-8 get the penalty for being too small.
I cannot understand the reasons behind it. Why it should be better to send an half empty DC10?
So routes like that is too big for a DC8 and too small for a DC10. Why are there in the first place if there are no aircrafts that can fly them?
My opinion is that this too short warning is the wrong solution to the LHR-JFK spammed with 757 problem. Or, at least, it has too much unwanted side effects.
Compare the operating costs of each plane, specifically focusing on fuel consumption. What you'll find is that your total trip cost for any given flight will be higher on the DC8. Load factors do not matter, cost per trip does.
Quote from: schro on February 10, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
A DC-8 or 707 will not get too small on a 150 passenger route for a very long time. It's 250 and up where they get too small, so it's a bit moot to argue that point. The other thing of note is that the 250-300 pax wide bodies are economically superior to the 707 and dc8, meaning you'll make more money flying a half full dc10 than you will a full dc8.
Unfortunately, widebodies do cost more than narrowbodies on average.
Quote from: schro on February 10, 2018, 11:57:23 PM
Compare the operating costs of each plane, specifically focusing on fuel consumption. What you'll find is that your total trip cost for any given flight will be higher on the DC8. Load factors do not matter, cost per trip does.
I agree on that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But I'm speaking about the opportunity of the too small penalty on aircraft that was designed for routes and the epoch in which they get the penalty.
I know that the DC10 is more efficient. But there are a lot of good reason to use the DC8 during the eighties.
One of them is that there was no alternative to DC8 or 707 for LH in seventies. And change aircrafts often before the first D-check is antieconomic. Using a less efficient aircraft in eighties is sufficient in my opinion without the need of further penalty.
Shrimp's post on another thread about frequency made me think of the application of the too small penalty relatively to frequency.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 15, 2018, 03:24:53 PM
The problem where the starting point of the allocation is. The main unit a flight. As in 1 flight, 2 flight, N flights.
While the excesses were curbed in the corner cases (small aircraft flying very long distances), the center of distribution, where there are most flights (0nm - 1500nm) is unaffected.
A route with 150 demand flown by
- Airline A with 75 pax aircraft
- Airline B with 150 pax aircraft
The system will alocate 75 pax to each. That is where the center of gravity is. All the variables that the system has have such a miniscule effect that they just can't materially change the distribution to be 75 pax to each flight.
The result is
- Airine A has 100% LF, half the costs, and is printing money
- Airline B has 50% LF, double costs, and is losing monehy.
The system strongly favors flying smaller aircraft.
What needs to happen is that this center of gravity needs to move from 1 flight = 1 flight to 1 seat = 1 seat, which would result in:
- Airline A with 50 pax, 67% LF
- Airline B with 100 pax, 67% LF
In this case, the system is neutral, as far as size of aircraft.
From this starting point, where the seat is the main unit of distribution, other variable can have their proper effect (price, seating quality, flight duration etc.)
While I agree on the analysis, I don't agree on the proposal.
Taking that example, if airline A leaves at 0700 and airline B at 1700, why should one have more pax than the other?
And if they leave at the same time, again, why, if not for pricing or service (CI/RI), age of the bird, etc.?
As Cactus said, the "too small" nerf is not working properly, and another system has to be found but spreading the LF evenly is not a solution.
Caricature: a CRJ and a 747 on the same route. So the CRJ gets 8 pax because the 747 took 95?
Cactus' post: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75679.msg444075.html#msg444075 (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75679.msg444075.html#msg444075)
Some airlines are flying small birds for good reasons (the majority of their routes are thin). Should they be globally penalized because of this necessity? Obviously no.
However, if you're flying a smaller bird for good reasons and suddenly fly a thick route, it's obvious that you're not flying your basic target market (or with the wrong bird). Then a penalty could apply.
So what I can say is that
theoretically the "too small" warning was a good idea. But (and again), as Cactus said, it's sometimes applying in an improper way.
There needs to be a relationship between the plane and the route: is that plane made for that kind of route, yes or no? Then a penalty would apply.
But there needs to be some margins too, and if both aircrafts are considered perfectly suited for that route, then there's no reason (
apart the above-mentioned ones) to allocate more pax to one or the other.
Currently, we're limited to flying 200% of the demand. Don't you think that's a bit too much when economically the best thing would be 90% if flown all alone? Blocking seat on 50% of our routes would become painful, but 130 or 150% would already be effective without being a pain.
Going further and applying common sense: was the 757 intended for LHR-JFK? No. Should I get penalized if I fly this route with a 757 20 times a day? Sure. Should I get penalized if I fly it once a day? Maybe not, because I'm "stealing" so few pax compared to the overall demand that is doesn't matter much.
So what I would find even better is a relationship between the frequency and the size. On your example, a 150 demand route is equally made for a 75 pax or 150 pax plane. No reason the 150 pax plane gets more pax. However spamming CRJs on a CDG-FRA is not ok, and would trigger a penalty if flown more than once (even if the distance is short).
What would be penalized is not the size relatively to the length and the thickness, but rather the size of the aircraft related to the frequency related to the thickness of the route.And should I get a "too small" penalty if I'm all alone ? No, because I'm the only solution (just like for tech-stops).
(and if you're flying a 150 pax route with a 150 pax bird and somebody comes in with a 75 pax plane, it's normal that you cry, as it would happen the same exact way IRL).