Quick beta available

[Jona L.]

Used market coughed up 9 new aircraft in the last day - any chance to increase that with those sitting in storage?

I guess sami wants us to use other a/c types as well

[Jona L.]

I don't know if this is thanks to the new system, or thanks to my competitors not supplying C/F seats on the route, but:

My gap filler flight LHR-CDG flying once daily (vs. >15 daily flights by either of my competitors) has a 100% LF in C-class Y is, despite massively lowered fares crap, and F is not available within Europe anymore apparently :/

cheers,
Jona L.

[tjo099]

No Demand or just no seats sold?

No demand. Even got an over supply warning.

Thomas

[Pukeko]

Got some pretty amazing LFs going on! All these flights have no competition and Im currently under supplying. Have just increased prices by 20% to see effect

[freshmore]

Well i've got a route of 350,000 a day on 772 to KMIA and the aircraft isn't making any profit even though it predicts in should be making around 500,000 per week. It is actually earning more per day by over 100,000 than my most profitable 772 which is raking it in. Got the same problem with some of my 762's, they are predicted to make profits but are not making them! Just seems that this isn't making sense! Can you take a look please!

[Dasha]

I agree with Pukeko.

In previous games I never had 100% loadfactors and now I have, even with default prices and most important.... oversupply.

One flight is on 100% while the other one is 74%

Although this makes sense on itself I guess I'm baffled that the small plane is obviously the most popular as that is sold out and the airbus is not.

Here are some screenshots...





Can somebody explain why people rather fly a small regional jet halfway the day over a comfortable baby bus early in the morning.

[Sami]

I bet that if you look at the actual number of seats sold, the A320 sells more, or as many as the E170.

= stop staring at the loadfactor people....  . You cannot judge anything from the route sales by looking at load factor, it tells nothing by itself.


And, checked, and correct. The small plane is NOT more popular. Airbus has sold more seats (partly mainly because the embraer is full, but they are both fully suitable planes to this route and should get exactly same sales if they would have capacity available)

And also. Read the initial post's information (too many times now when I have to remind of this ...  ). All randomization is off, and so is the flight time of day checking. (means that you will get constant 100% lf, which in reality indeed very rarely happens all the time, and flight dep time does not matter ..yet)

[swiftus27]

I just don't get how an airplane that shows 100% in every flight can average 75% LFs... 

Okay sure... I understand that this doesn't test functionality between plane types.... I am just asking how that math adds up.

[Dasha]

I bet that if you look at the actual number of seats sold, the A320 sells more, or as many as the E170.

= stop staring at the loadfactor people....  . You cannot judge anything from the route sales by looking at load factor, it tells nothing by itself.


And, checked, and correct. The small plane is NOT more popular. Airbus has sold more seats (partly mainly because the embraer is full, but they are both fully suitable planes to this route and should get exactly same sales if they would have capacity available)

And also. Read the initial post's information (too many times now when I have to remind of this ...  ). All randomization is off, and so is the flight time of day checking. (means that you will get constant 100% lf, which in reality indeed very rarely happens all the time, and flight dep time does not matter ..yet)

I didn't say that anything was wrong with it I'm fully confident of your capabilities and my own incapabilities Sami

Was just wondering why the Airbus is empty and the Embraer is fully loaded.

[Sami]

I just don't get how an airplane that shows 100% in every flight can average 75% LFs... 

Umm.. Huh?

[schro]

This does not appear to work properly, I have seen same with my ATR airline on one route. It reduces only the other route of the two overlapping.

Ok. I've changed the interval to 1 hour to see how that impacts it.

[meiru]

This is not a valid test at all in the first place as you have overlapping flights.

And as I did post already earlier today, the overlapping thingy is not working properly now.

... well, I don't comment the first one, but you're right. The overlapping-problem is messing up everything. If I distribute the flights over the day uniformly it works as expected.

[Sami]

Some changes have been made:

- overlapping flights checker is disabled until the issue is fixed.

- the math behind the "passenger's desired aircraft size for a route" has been adjusted a bit. It takes now into account long domestic flights (like intra-USA) and allows smaller equipment there. On the other hand intercontl. flight requirements have been increased (= penalty for 737 sized jets over atlantic or such). Also calculation is changed so that pax see the whole fleet of planes as similar, in other words the A318 and A321 would look the same to them.


MONEY IS ALSO RESET.

[Pukeko]

Got some pretty amazing LFs going on! All these flights have no competition and Im currently under supplying. Have just increased prices by 20% to see effect

Still getting 100% on these flights with the 20% increase. I guess this makes sense, if there is a big demand and the route is undersupplied by a monopoly (as well as no randomisation as Sami sayss), passengers will be willing to pay more. Going to increase prices by 20% again... and again and again to see the breaking point.

[Sami]

Yes, that's the whole point really. If there is undersupply and you have RI100 ("everyone" knows you fly), you can increase the prices.. But increasing prices makes people more unwilling to fly with you, and you may hike them up until you reach the sweet spot where you have planes full enough and get max profit still. With oversupply it's opposite then.

But this may not be so easy then anymore to see or use when all the other factors are added in.


I am also considering of making the demand grow gradually after game start, like slots. So there would not be tons of unfilled demand to begin with. But may be a tad difficult.

[ARASKA]

I am also considering of making the demand grow gradually after game start, like slots. So there would not be tons of unfilled demand to begin with. But may be a tad difficult.

That would make getting good enough LF's to profit from a small airport even harder.

[Sami]

That would make getting good enough LF's to profit from a small airport even harder.

Obviously I would not slash 80% off a route that has 70pax demand. Wouldn't make any sense.. But makes more sense on the big routes.

[Dasha]

Sami I've just been checking the demand from Moscow Sheremetyevo. I know most domestic flights are from Domodedovo but the 80 and 70 passengers to cities as Sochi and Perm and Tyumen seems a bit low.

Got no real information about this but I know Aeroflot flies those routes daily with at least a 737 or A320.

Just saying it, as I don't know how to get to the correct numbers, sorry.

[swiftus27]

My a/c screen:  I looked at one of my planes that showed an avg lf of 74%.

Clicking on that plane, it showed 100% lfs on every route. 

How is plane avg 74% lfs when every route is 100%

[meiru]

I don't like this penalty idea that you use to solve the frequency abuse problem... now I don't get pax on SFO-FLL (M90 and 320) but I saw, that it's flown with 319's in real world. So... I think, making the "overlap-area" wider for longer flights makes it more interesting to use larger aircrafts on those flights, because it simply is less expensive to operate... (in my solution you could use an other curve type or an other mixture of types).

Solving problems of unrealism with other non realistic ideas is like trying to push a light switch with a 4m bamboo cane. It's easier to try to move closer to the switch than trying to "improve" your tool.