Quick beta available

[libertyairlines]

Many of my long haul flights that leave early in the morning and almost any flight for me that leaves at 22:00 - 5:00, were hit really hard, even though most long haul flights can be ran that way.

[BryanIAH]

Many of my long haul flights that leave early in the morning and almost any flight for me that leaves at 22:00 - 5:00, were hit really hard, even though most long haul flights can be ran that way.

+1 Same here. It's really hard to operate 6000nm+ flights this way.

[Sami]

VGT has 160 demand. Flying 1x daily. SCK is 110 demand, also 1x daily.

Cannot test any closer now, but I disabled one part of the settings, any changes?  (after next day change)

Many of my long haul flights that leave early in the morning and almost any flight for me that leaves at 22:00 - 5:00, were hit really hard, even though most long haul flights can be ran that way.

The "normal" dep.time rules (night departures = bad, night arrivals = quite bad) were activated. = Normal settings.

[swiftus27]

ATL - DUB demand is around 170, a perfect 757 route IMO. With a RI of 100 LF is hovering around 45% and with no competition.  I do not have enough fingers and toes to count how many 757's cross the pond daily in real life, MAN alone gets 2 or 3.  Continental's (United)  european network is full of 757's.  There is no reason 757's in AWS should suffer as noted.  There is a big difference between a direct 757 and a tech-stopping 321.

I am sorry.  I can not agree with this.  The 757 is not and was not made for this type of travel.  Sure, airlines are using these planes now.  Airlines, like Continited, had 57s in their fleet but since replaced them with 739s (which, is the plane that made Boeing quit making the 757).  They retasked these planes to fly some unique routes that fit inside its ETOPS rating.  So, yes, you have flights to Manchester.  You'll see them in Barcelona.  Now, Boeing makes a plane called the Dreamliner that is essentially designed to go to those markets.  

No major airport, up to its gills in planes and lack of slots, would allow an airline to swamp the taramac with these things.  These airports are designed to have people AND cargo delivered.   You are doing LHR/EWR/JFK/DUB a disservice by burdening it with a 57.

[schro]

Cannot test any closer now, but I disabled one part of the settings, any changes?  (after next day change)

Yes - They bounced back to the pre-1x daily nerf levels.

VGT - 137 sold
SCK - 96 sold

[stevecree]

Fair enough with JFK/EWR-LHR cannot argue with that and I was surprised to even see that UA has so many 757s in Heathrow, but what would you fly EWR-DUB/HAM/BHX etc with less than 200 demand....767/787's are too big are they not ?  739ER's won't make it without a tech stop...which is seen as an AWS no no.   If that is the case then these routes will become unflyable when 757's retire.

It is also important to note that 787's are only just coming online now in 2012.....MT games only have 7 years to play....but for the 10/15 years prior to that 757's did I as said very very regularly.   

[ArcherII]

The "normal" dep.time rules (night departures = bad, night arrivals = quite bad) were activated. = Normal settings.

But what about after midnight departures on long haul routes? IRL passengers don't seem to care to depart at 1am if a flight will last 10-12hrs, or am I wrong? Look at Emirates timetables for instance.

On a side note, does the 757 (or any "too small" airplane) on a given route have a poor LF despite being the only plane doing the route (I'm talking about a route with good demand - say 1000pax a day)?

[Sami]

Yes - They bounced back to the pre-1x daily nerf levels.

Okay, bug then. Will see to that later.

Also for the 757 discussion. You should be able to run 757's cross the pond with no problems if there is no competition. Given that the route demand is large enough (let's say 1.5x size the plane's seats). But narrowbodies have disadvantage over widebodies on longhaul routes.

[stevecree]

Also for the 757 discussion. You should be able to run 757's cross the pond with no problems if there is no competition. Given that the route demand is large enough (let's say 1.5x size the plane's seats). But narrowbodies have disadvantage over widebodies on longhaul routes.

So if a MT game starts in 1995 what AWS a/c would we use to fly say EWR-BHX which is 3800nm and a 150 demand for example (not sure if figure accurate, but you know what I mean...these routes exsist   )?    

A 767 would be the best option I think, but is far far too big for numerous routes across the pond.  East Coast USA to 2nd tier European airports would not be worth bothering with, yet there are dozens and dozens of these routes in RL....none really suitable for 767's.

My ATL-DUB route has no competition and a 45% LF.  I offer about the same seats as the shown demand.


Update :-

Something just changed again...LF up from 48% to 66% which is a little better....maybe still a little low though considering the lack of competition and maximum RI. 

[Zombie Slayer]

So if a MT game starts in 1995 what AWS a/c would we use to fly say EWR-BHX which is 3800nm and a 150 demand for example (not sure if figure accurate, but you know what I mean...these routes exsist  )?    

A 767 would be the best option I think, but is far far too big for numerous routes across the pond.  East Coast USA to 2nd tier European airports would not be worth bothering with, yet there are dozens and dozens of these routes in RL....none really suitable for 767's.

My ATL-DUB route has no competition and a 45% LF.  I offer about the same seats as the shown demand.

I posted a question like this about a page back...

Basically, I propose that any route served non-stop by a "unsuitable" aircraft gets NO penalty if the route is flown competition free, or as long as there is no competition from a "suitable" aircraft.

In its current form, it would seem that a LOT of "thin" routes are going to be rendered unservable thus removing a significant amount of entertainment from AWS.

Don

[Sami]

Basically, I propose that any route served non-stop by a "unsuitable" aircraft gets NO penalty if the route is flown competition free, or as long as there is no competition from a "suitable" aircraft.

This is how it basically works already. Some of the pax still choose not to fly there, but 757 is not "so bad" compared to a 737 on similar route for example.

But have to see what it counts for that atlanta-dublin route for example to see if the settings are ok or need tuning.

[Boot]

The above scenario is as much or more of a problem as frequency exploit on LH routes.  It leads to slot hogging and number of small aircraft that is 5x higher in MT games than in real world...

Interesting claim, I gathered some data for some popular AC from MT6 and wikipedia (of course you can say, that MT6 numbers are -2019 and we are still living in 2012 but there are couple of interesting facts nevertheless).

You can clearly see AC types and how similar their AWS/RL ratio is.
Small AC (Q400, ATR, S2000) have it highest: 7.42-35.71.
Then there are big airplanes (A330, A340, B757, B767, B777) with medium ratio 3.50-5.55.
Then narrowbody jets (A320 & B737) with lowest ratio 2.41-2.55.
And then B747, which simply sucks in AWS
Did you notice that "insta-win" 757 has lower ratio (3.5) than "100% BK" 777 (4.25)?
Only problem that I see is really big numbers of big props, narrowbodies dont need any nerf against WB-s IMO...

[Zombie Slayer]

This is how it basically works already. Some of the pax still choose not to fly there, but 757 is not "so bad" compared to a 737 on similar route for example.

But have to see what it counts for that atlanta-dublin route for example to see if the settings are ok or need tuning.

If the route is gathering a 45% load factor with a RI over 75, then it is bad.

From what I can see, as the final tweaks go in, there is far more good than bad with the new system, but in the end a few exceptions need to be programmed in to preserve playability. I understand people may not like to take a 737-700ER from JNB-GYD (a route I flew in MT6 at ~4200nm, IIRC) but in real life, if the alternate is double connecting through CAI and DXB they will take the non stop flight every time as long as the price is acceptable (read: average fare). All I am asking for is for the penalty to be completely turned off provided there is a) no competition or no competition from a "suitable" aircraft and b) the flight is flown non-stop. In other words, if another airline started that JNB-GYD route with another 73G, we would split the passengers 50/50. If they threw a 767-200 on the route, a "suitable" plane, I would lose my arse.

Don

[JumboShrimp]

Many of my long haul flights that leave early in the morning and almost any flight for me that leaves at 22:00 - 5:00, were hit really hard, even though most long haul flights can be ran that way.

I noticed this flight last time I was at JFK Terminal 1:

Departure: 0050 JFK
Arrival: 0400 ICN (Seoul Korea)
Duration: 14h:20m
Aircraft: 777-300ER

I think the LFs of a flight like this should be lower, but if the demand exceeds supply, and the daytime flight is fully booked, what can I do?  I would take the flight.

I think this nightime limitation should only kick in if there are alternatives.  If there are no alternatives, the reduction of LFs should be small.  No matter how bad unsuitable) the aircraft is, no matter how bad the time of day is...

Joe

[JonesyUK]

Maybe just no penalty for an airlines first aircraft on a route? If they add a second, then it kicks in,regardless of competition?

[NorgeFly]

I noticed this flight last time I was at JFK Terminal 1:

Departure: 0050 JFK
Arrival: 0400 ICN (Seoul Korea)
Duration: 14h:20m
Aircraft: 777-300ER

I think the LFs of a flight like this should be lower, but if the demand exceeds supply, and the daytime flight is fully booked, what can I do?  I would take the flight.

I think this nightime limitation should only kick in if there are alternatives.  If there are no alternatives, the reduction of LFs should be small.  No matter how bad unsuitable) the aircraft is, no matter how bad the time of day is...

Joe

That truly is an awful flight timing! And I guess that's where Sami is coming from when he says that if we use the wrong/inappropriate aircraft or the schedule is poor, some people will opt not to travel at all resulting in lower than expected loads, regardless of competition.

I can safely say that if I didn't need to travel on the above flight (I.e. essential business) or there was no suitable alternative, then I wouldn't travel at all or I'd choose a different holiday destination  

[brique]

I am sorry.  I can not agree with this.  The 757 is not and was not made for this type of travel.  Sure, airlines are using these planes now.  Airlines, like Continited, had 57s in their fleet but since replaced them with 739s (which, is the plane that made Boeing quit making the 757).  They retasked these planes to fly some unique routes that fit inside its ETOPS rating.  So, yes, you have flights to Manchester.  You'll see them in Barcelona.  Now, Boeing makes a plane called the Dreamliner that is essentially designed to go to those markets.  

No major airport, up to its gills in planes and lack of slots, would allow an airline to swamp the taramac with these things.  These airports are designed to have people AND cargo delivered.   You are doing LHR/EWR/JFK/DUB a disservice by burdening it with a 57.

Its the dis-connect between the ideal, as wished for by a/c designers/builders and airport operators on one side, and the airlines on the other : Not all airlines run big cargo sides, they may opt for fast turnaround of walk-on cargo instead with maybe some containers of high-value express freight, with others, the cargo can be as valuable as the passengers on the plane.

Why do some RL airlines fly one-type regardless, and take the knock when it is not the ideal for a specific route? Because bottom-line is that they save more overall than they lose in those cases : sure, ask them and they would love a fleet of Dreamliners, each specifically configged to max-out each specific route arriving at its pre-planned jet-way specifically designed for it : but that's fantasy-land.

The B757 was, and is, a good plane : Boeing replaced it, yes, but airlines still own them and I doubt they will scrap them/sell them off and buy a new fleet, just cos Boeing reckon their new bird is better. I read where an airline ordered new Boeings but the deal also included 10 re-furbished B757's : so they are still popular with airlines, are still keeping their resale value on the used markets : in short, the customer likes them, which may upset the planners but that happens in RL.

Not designed for how they are used, maybe : not optimal, sure : but Viagra was designed for treating heart problems, tho I doubt more than 1 in 10 patients ever use it for its 'designed' purpose...

[Jona L.]

with others, the cargo can be as valuable as the passengers on the plane.

Usually the cargo is far more valuable than the PAX... Recently -working as Ramp Agent- a Pilot asked me how much the to be carried cargo (2tn of Copper Wire) would bring as income. I couldn't answer it, as I don't know that special airlines' cargo payment rates, but he asked me to keep 5 PAX (and their baggage) at DUS airport, and instead carry the 2tn cargo from DUS to LPA on the 753 (enough hint to find the airline ). In the end it was his decision, thus "had" to be followed. My boss eventually asked me if that guy was completely sane, I just shrugged

Thus I had figured: Cargo > PAX as per financial outcome (only if PAX is Y, I assume...)

The Emirates B773, or the Etihad A333 both usually carry 15-30tn of Cargo into DUS, and outgoing. Probably enough to pay for the fuel and staff, while the PAX pay for the income of the airline, or for the lease fees.

Viagra was designed for treating heart problems, tho I doubt more than 1 in 10 patients ever use it for its 'designed' purpose...

Nice Comparison, mate, pretty much hit the spot

[yyebo]

First of all, I have missed the opportunity to join the test, but I kept my eyes close on it,

One thing I feel is that the intention of Sami to have this test to see if the machanism is implemented corrttly, and I see more and more posts are talking about the machanism rather than finding bugs.

Then my question is:
Should we go set an agreed machanism first? Or we should stick to bug findings?

Pai

[stevecree]

ATL - DUB  update...

Still no competition and now creating a disappointing 61% LF.  I would expect 80-90% TBH, so the route is still suffering by maybe 20% less loads just because it is a narrow body, on a route that these a/c have flown for years, and years to come.

Also just launched ATL-GLA with another 757, but the route has slightly more demand than ATL-DUB.  Obviously RI is terrible, but as time passes it is another route to monitor.