The Commuter Model

[DenisG]

Yep, with regard to the 'big' aircrafts, I also see the problem. From my observations this may be due to the fact that we have 'too' many aircrafts available on the used market, leading to high growth rates, which leads to much higher competition than historically or today. However, this appears necessary to nivelate the advantage of countries with large airports to small ones.

Cheers,
Denis

[thedr2]

It's not my wish to make the business model of using endless small aircraft not working anymore. But I don't see a point why pax should prefer an airline, that flies 40 times a day with F27 to a destination over an airline that flies 5 times a day with B734 for example.

Of course, If I were a passenger I would prefer an airline flying 40 times a day to one flying 5 times a day, assuming all other factors were equal. But the costs will catch up with that airline (i.e. Crew, slots, maintenance) and the B734 operator will have a much lower break even point. There's nothing wrong with AWS there. As far as I know, the system replicates that pretty accurately.

[Curse]

Why? Most passengers I met don't even know with what airline they fly, neither what aircraft this airline uses or how often they fly.

Don't think the average AWS guy that is total into aircraft and airlines is the standard passenger that generates money.

It's like all the guys in the computer forums that are not understanding most people don't buy some hardcore gaming machine from hell. :>


And nope. 10 flights F27 versus 2 flights B734 makes 10 2/3 full F27 that generate money and two nearly empty B734 losing lots of money. The overhead costs can be payed without problems due to this system.


It's not like I don't run a small fleet type (NAMC, Fokker50, Q400) in most games besides my bigger ones to keep competition off the routes or just make people cry with their B737/A320.

[thedr2]

Some passengers are ignorant, most are not. Especially regular business travellers, to whom scheduling and frequency of service are paramount above price and quality.

When you book online, and even before that when you used to book over the phone, you can see what the flight times are and compare that to other airlines on the route. For instance, say our business traveller wants to travel at 1700, and like most on business has a tight schedule. If airline A offers flights at 1400 and 1930. Neither of these are very good for our passenger, but he'll take them if thats the only option he has. Like any good passenger though, he knows about Airline B, and finds they have flights at 1630 and 1730. He can book one of these flights and still make his meeting at the destination. Airline A can offer half the price of airline B, and still our passenger will choose B, because it meets his needs. Of course he doesn't know what the aircraft type is, he doesn't care. But he does care about scheduling.

And of course, there are leisure pax who are more price concious (those ones who don't know what airline they're flying), but I think you'd be surprised at the proportions on the average short haul flight, it's mostly business related, and they do care.

It's just cost restraints that stop an airline operating 50 times a day. If they could do it for the same cost, believe me they would.

[Soultiger]

But if a commuter is 9 out of 10 times not reliable why are the small planes up to 50 seats in the game anyway if you can't make a profit with them anyway.

I am quite new on the forum, so if this has been answered before let me know.

Grtzzz

[DenisG]

Hi Soultiger.

Perhaps I did not understand your question right; being profitable with 50 seaters is no problem at all and has never been a problem in aws, this should also be the essence of the postings in this thread. I did not understand your reference to the 9 out of 10 times not reliable.

Cheers,
Denis

[Soultiger]

I mean for example planes with less than 50 seats (DHC 6) just to name one..... why are they in the game at all while you can't make a profit with them.

Maybe I should move this question into a new thread? 

Grtz

[Curse]

This was already answered endless times... however, at first they can make profit, although it is not easy. Second it is possible to use them as a fleet group to support other fleets or just because you like to use them, so you know you will lose money but your 737 etc. make enough money to cover this. And third sami (maybe) will change the system some day in the future.

[DenisG]

Quote from https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31675.0.html

If you search the forum, you will find many of these threads discussing progress and possibilities.

@Curse: I guess we will need a keyboard-shortcut for these texts...

As Curse has already pointed out, there have been a number of threads on the issue, with swiftus, Rushmore, and myself regularly testing the adjusted game engines on its impact on the 'regional', more specififc 'commuter' model.

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31286.0.html

Currently, every regional business model with economic aircrafts with more than 35 seats works perfectly fine in aws. Below that pax size, there are still enormous difficulties to tackle.

Let us know which airline you fly, which routes and with what aircrafts, and we will quickly be able to tell you more details.

Cheers,
Denis

With the development of aws, the main rush of interest has always been the creation of medium and big airlines. The problems resulting from this, e.g. routing (ABCBA vs. AB), bases, slot availability, used market availability, etc., have been the main focus of Sami's efforts during the past years. The regional model has worked well with those mentioned aircrafts and there have been a lot of people dedicated to this. The smaller airports below 20 pax demand have not been profitable so far with any aircraft available. As scenarios usually cover a long time-span over 15-20 years, demand grows. And there will be airports with little or no demand at the beginning of the 1980s that will grow into very attractive routes over the game years (China, India, Arabia, etc.). Therefore, these airports are available and will be flown sooner or later. Those airports that remain below the critical mark are usually not flown and many aws-users are hoping to make them profitable with changes on the upcoming game engine or so.

The main problem with making small routes with small aircrafts profitable from a system's point of view is that you need to tackle the underlying economic model of aws and there are many ways to do that, which will again result in different user behaviour. I think most of us have been very satisfied with the modification of slot availability and one challenge will be to keep slot hoggers from utilizing small aircrafts only to secure a market share at LHR.

Cheers,
Denis

[Zabuti]

hello all

Sorry for the stupid question, but... in order to make regional carriers more likely to succeed, would it be possible to change the price of slots according to plane size ?

in real airports, you will pay far different prices if you land with a cessna 172, a learjet 45, an A321 or a b777 right ? Actually, this is what I learnt in my piloting courses...

Therefore, if we adapt this model in the game, sbdy looking forward being a regional airline would see its costs reduce significantly.

i don't know if this is feasable, and I understand the risk of increasing slot hogging. But I consider this feature as a strong improvement anyway.

Food for thought

Flobacca

[alexgv1]

hello all

Sorry for the stupid question, but... in order to make regional carriers more likely to succeed, would it be possible to change the price of slots according to plane size ?

in real airports, you will pay far different prices if you land with a cessna 172, a learjet 45, an A321 or a b777 right ? Actually, this is what I learnt in my piloting courses...

Therefore, if we adapt this model in the game, sbdy looking forward being a regional airline would see its costs reduce significantly.

i don't know if this is feasable, and I understand the risk of increasing slot hogging. But I consider this feature as a strong improvement anyway.

Food for thought

Flobacca

I believe slot costs, or if not certainly landing fees (see view aircraft or income statement pages) are based on MTOW already in AWS.

[Sami]

Slot cost is, and will be, always the same regardless of plane size. All other costs are already based on plane size (mtow).

[DenisG]

Well, we have been down that road and we know that in order to make commuters work, sami will need to make adjustments on the cost basis. There are many ways to do that and it will mainly depend on the aws system-view, not what appears most logic or desired. Since we are not too familiar with that one, let's just trust in the almighty sami.

Cheers,
Denis

[Zabuti]

Well, we have been down that road and we know that in order to make commuters work, sami will need to make adjustments on the cost basis. There are many ways to do that and it will mainly depend on the aws system-view, not what appears most logic or desired. Since we are not too familiar with that one, let's just trust in the almighty sami.

Cheers,
Denis

no pb... I was just asking the stupid question... ;-)

[ekaneti]

You can make a regional airline work in AWS, even a 19 seater.

1. The earlier the time period the easier it is. Operating a Metro or EMB-110 airline in the early 1970s is easier than in 2010 due to fuel
2. Fly short flights multiple times per day (Raises your LF quicker and short flight have high yields), dont fly a 19 seater 500 NMs. Keep it to less than 200-250 NM
3. Operate in Asia, South America is easier than in Europe or North America (wages and benefits costs)
4. Limit advertising to the Modern Age to internet and in other ages limit to newspapers in your community

In Modern Times the SAAB-2000 is the best plane along with ATR-72 and DASH 8-400. The best middle sized plane is the EMB-120.

I had an airline in Modern Times with SAAB-2000s and EMB-120 and was highly profitable

[thedr2]

4. Limit advertising to the Modern Age to internet and in other ages limit to newspapers in your community

Location of advertising is irrelevant. The only variable that counts is the total expenditure. 

[alexgv1]

Location of advertising is irrelevant. The only variable that counts is the total expenditure. 

What he is saying is use the bare minimum (if any) advertising, because local with newspaper/internet is the cheapest option

[ekaneti]

Location of advertising is irrelevant. The only variable that counts is the total expenditure. 

What I am saying is you should only advertise via the Internet. No newspapers and no billboards. Internet alone will give your airline an eventual CI of around 25-30 with good ontime service

[DenisG]

Yep, and don't forget that your airline will crawl to 20 CI without any marketing over approx. 2 game years.

Cheers,
Denis

[Curse]

Yep, and don't forget that your airline will crawl to 20 CI without any marketing over approx. 2 game years.

Hm... my experience is airlines without any marketing lose CI and go into negative CI very soon...