Quick beta available

[JumboShrimp]

find a formula to limit the number of slots you can buy at the 'out' airport.  that will solve so much.

I don't think it will solve the problem.  Suppose a airline based at CDG gets 10 slot allocation at LHR.  And suppose the route CDG-LHR has 1500 pax demand and is already has 200% supply.

I can fly it with 10xA320, bringing supply to 300%, of which I have 33% and my LF is 33% and losing money.

Or suppose I fly 10x E-Jet or 10xQ400.  I supply only 50% of demand, bringing the supply from 200% to 250%.

But I will capture the same number of pax with 10x / day flights, resulting in 66% LF.  So while the 2 other guys with 737s and A320 are losing money with 33% LF, I am making money with E-Jet or Q400 with 66% LF.

Maybe there should be 2nd way to come up with "ideal" aircraft.
1. we already have the route length
2. ideal aircraft for route demand.

So suppose you determine that an ideal aircraft for 1500 pax per day route is 150 pax aircraft, the only way you can prevent a 75 pax aircraft from outcompeting everyone through frequency is if an aircraft smaller than 150 pax cannot be awarded LF larger than a 150 pax aircraft.

So you either deny a win to small aircraft by
- limiting its LF at routes where it is inappropriate
- increase the landing fees so that the aircraft too small for the route just does not make money
- or make other adjusments so that larger aircraft has some economies of scale.  Right now, the economies of scale are too insignificant to matter

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Some of the big LH jets were bought only for tax reasons, not for flying.  I suspect more of the big LH jets in MT7 will be used for flying.

But, as you pointed out (in a PM) there is no advantage profit-wise in flying full larger aircraft vs. flying full smaller aircraft.  Larger aircraft ges hit by higher pilot salary, and a higher multiple of staffing.

The changes put in place so far will have no influence on Small AC (Q400, ATR, S2000) that ended up with 7.42-35.71 x real life.

I see a guy flying 14x Q400 between LHR and CDG.  The route has ~110% supply.  If the Q400 has the same return on investment flying full planes as the guy flying 737, there will just be more Q400.  That's because Q400 is just completely competition proof, while 737/A200 is vulnerable to smaller aircraft.

In real life, I see only A320 class aircraft on the LHR-CDG route.  There is something about operating small aircraft that AWS is not capturing correctly.

My observation is that the smaller aircraft is generally on thinner routes with higher prices (per mile).  Larger aircraft (A320, 737) tend to be on higher density routes, with more competition, with lower ticket price per mile.  That to me means that a full A320 / 737 has much lower operating cost vs. smaller jets and props.  That's probably what we are missing in AWS.

If nothing is done that works against proliferation of Q400, ATR, S2000, they will just continue to proliferate...

High landing fees that are aircraft size independent is the only thing I can think of at this point...

Although what you say about the LHR-CDG route is true (being served by A320 sized aircraft) this is not the same for MAN-CDG.  This IS served by Q400s as well as A320 sized a/c (along with E195s FYI).  So you cannot use a blanket rule on small a/c for all routes as it is just NOT the case.  If there was an "ideal" aircraft, then there would only be a very limited amount of aircraft sold, when truth is there are MANY aircraft types sold for different kinds of routings.  You cannot limit the type of aircraft just because of it's size.  The only thing you can/should do is adjust the passengers preference to price, timing, and comfortability of the flight. 

[meiru]

the "ideal" aircraft is the one that allows you to operate the route with the smallest cost per seat... and if passengers select the flight according to values we understand (price, quality, flight length, departure-preference) and so on, everything will work automatically and then the game is a real game... so, someone could fly 380, an otherone 733 on the same route... if the passenger is happy... it works... and you'll get rid of all your pax-distribution problems... but as long as you try to add unrealistic things like penalties for "non ideal aircrafts", it would never work properly... so, why investing so much in the "ideal-aircraft"-machanism and not into quality-simulation? ... that would solve it in a highly realistic way...

[swiftus27]

I don't think it will solve the problem.  Suppose a airline based at CDG gets 10 slot allocation at LHR.  And suppose the route CDG-LHR has 1500 pax demand and is already has 200% supply.

I can fly it with 10xA320, bringing supply to 300%, of which I have 33% and my LF is 33% and losing money.

Or suppose I fly 10x E-Jet or 10xQ400.  I supply only 50% of demand, bringing the supply from 200% to 250%.

But I will capture the same number of pax with 10x / day flights, resulting in 66% LF.  So while the 2 other guys with 737s and A320 are losing money with 33% LF, I am making money with E-Jet or Q400 with 66% LF.

Maybe there should be 2nd way to come up with "ideal" aircraft.
1. we already have the route length
2. ideal aircraft for route demand.

So suppose you determine that an ideal aircraft for 1500 pax per day route is 150 pax aircraft, the only way you can prevent a 75 pax aircraft from outcompeting everyone through frequency is if an aircraft smaller than 150 pax cannot be awarded LF larger than a 150 pax aircraft.

So you either deny a win to small aircraft by
- limiting its LF at routes where it is inappropriate
- increase the landing fees so that the aircraft too small for the route just does not make money
- or make other adjusments so that larger aircraft has some economies of scale.  Right now, the economies of scale are too insignificant to matter

Too many suppositions in here.  Not a fair way to disagree.   It all comes down to figuring out the correct algorythm

[Boot]

Some of the big LH jets were bought only for tax reasons, not for flying.  I suspect more of the big LH jets in MT7 will be used for flying.

There were all types of AC bought only for tax reasons... American Southern in MT6 had more than 1000 planes listed for sale....153x 737, 120x 757, 80x 777, 151 Embraers, 78x MD90, 99x Mitsubishi RJ-s etc...

But, as you pointed out (in a PM) there is no advantage profit-wise in flying full larger aircraft vs. flying full smaller aircraft.  Larger aircraft ges hit by higher pilot salary, and a higher multiple of staffing.
In real life, I see only A320 class aircraft on the LHR-CDG route.  There is something about operating small aircraft that AWS is not capturing correctly.

I think that "congestion charge" has been mentioned already couple of times but it hasn't really picked Sami's interest... This could be dependent on airport size and it's used slots per hour. No real reason to implement it for size 1-3 airports, but certainly for 5 and maybe also 4. If you have to pay 10k per landing at size 5 airport because it's slots are 95% full, then you'll think twice before scheduling a Q400 there...
I think that IRL you don't see Q400-s or E-jets flying LHR-CDG not because of their LF-s would be low, people would love 30 min interval flights... You don't see them because it's not economically not feasible...

[NorgeFly]

I don't think it will solve the problem.  Suppose a airline based at CDG gets 10 slot allocation at LHR.  And suppose the route CDG-LHR has 1500 pax demand and is already has 200% supply.

I can fly it with 10xA320, bringing supply to 300%, of which I have 33% and my LF is 33% and losing money.

Or suppose I fly 10x E-Jet or 10xQ400.  I supply only 50% of demand, bringing the supply from 200% to 250%.

But I will capture the same number of pax with 10x / day flights, resulting in 66% LF.  So while the 2 other guys with 737s and A320 are losing money with 33% LF, I am making money with E-Jet or Q400 with 66% LF.

Maybe there should be 2nd way to come up with "ideal" aircraft.
1. we already have the route length
2. ideal aircraft for route demand.

So suppose you determine that an ideal aircraft for 1500 pax per day route is 150 pax aircraft, the only way you can prevent a 75 pax aircraft from outcompeting everyone through frequency is if an aircraft smaller than 150 pax cannot be awarded LF larger than a 150 pax aircraft.

So you either deny a win to small aircraft by
- limiting its LF at routes where it is inappropriate
- increase the landing fees so that the aircraft too small for the route just does not make money
- or make other adjusments so that larger aircraft has some economies of scale.  Right now, the economies of scale are too insignificant to matter

But this may well happen in real life in which case you can't penalise the new competitor for using aircraft that are perfectly appropriate for the situation. If in the real world if an airline identifies that a route may be profitable with a regional jet but not with an A320, what will they use? The incumbent airlines on the route then have to respond accordingly, by either reducing fares (which should now have an impact whereas it didnt use to in AWS), reducing frequency or reducing aircraft size to maintain frequency. Or they maintain the status quo and haemorrige cash. This is how it works in the real world and how it should work in AWS.

The problem is that most players do not behave appropriately like a real business. Many insist on serving 100% or more of demand regardless of the level of competition and refuse to scale back when they face competition. Real airlines downsize or reduce capacity rather than point and cry about their competitor getting a better load factor on their Ejet.

I do however agree that landing fees and slot fees could be used more effectively to prevent regional aircraft being used at airports where slots are desperately short. Perhaps at hand picked airports which are problematic (LHR etc) should have much higher slot fees and landing fees right from the start. At the moment, the slot prices don't increase prohibitively until its really too late... I.e. most if the slots are already gone.

Artificially capping load factors is a really bad idea in my mind as it is so unrealistic.

[JumboShrimp]

Although what you say about the LHR-CDG route is true (being served by A320 sized aircraft) this is not the same for MAN-CDG.  This IS served by Q400s as well as A320 sized a/c (along with E195s FYI).  So you cannot use a blanket rule on small a/c for all routes as it is just NOT the case.  If there was an "ideal" aircraft, then there would only be a very limited amount of aircraft sold, when truth is there are MANY aircraft types sold for different kinds of routings.  You cannot limit the type of aircraft just because of it's size.  The only thing you can/should do is adjust the passengers preference to price, timing, and comfortability of the flight. 

Good points.  The one variable that changes between your and my examples is MAN vs. LHR.  And it could very will be that LHR airport authority just does not want to waste a slot on Q400 whereas MAN does not care.

Not sure how to model this in AWS other than through higher landing fees at high demand airports at high demand time slots...

[meiru]

... You don't see them because it's not economically not feasible...

Yes! Let the economy decide! That's what I say all the time... just buying other aircraft because you like them or because the have a nice shape doesn't make sense! And it shouldn't be the idea of this game. I really love the MD-11... but hey... I can't build an all MD-11 fleet here, simply because it's not profitable! And that's what should be improved/tuned. The economical factors!

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Good points.  The one variable that changes between your and my examples is MAN vs. LHR.  And it could very will be that LHR airport authority just does not want to waste a slot on Q400 whereas MAN does not care.

Not sure how to model this in AWS other than through higher landing fees at high demand airports at high demand time slots...

Yes, higher slot costs and landing fees at high demand slots would be the way to do it.  But it should be by weight, so it would affect larger aircraft as much.  So were kind of going around in circles 

[JumboShrimp]

the "ideal" aircraft is the one that allows you to operate the route with the smallest cost per seat... and if passengers select the flight according to values we understand (price, quality, flight length, departure-preference) and so on, everything will work automatically and then the game is a real game... so, someone could fly 380, an otherone 733 on the same route... if the passenger is happy... it works... and you'll get rid of all your pax-distribution problems... but as long as you try to add unrealistic things like penalties for "non ideal aircrafts", it would never work properly... so, why investing so much in the "ideal-aircraft"-machanism and not into quality-simulation? ... that would solve it in a highly realistic way...

Well, it is all about improving the simulatin to better represent the real life, and fixing things that takes AWS far away from real life.
- One thing was excessive use of narrow bodies flying very long distance outcompeting widebodies.
- The second thing is small and medium aircraft outcompeting A320/737 sized aircraft, again through frequency.

I could not agree more with this statement:

the "ideal" aircraft is the one that allows you to operate the route with the smallest cost per seat

It may just be that AWS does not capture this correctly.  A full 737 should be a far more profitable in AWS than a full Q400 at the same ticket prices.  That is the case in real life.  There is a reason we far more 737/A320s produced than E-Jets, ATR, Q400, Saabs.  Refer to post by Boot who summarized MT6 vs. real life.

And just because 737/A320 is more profitable than the smaller aircraft, it allows the operators to lower the prices on the busy routes served by 737/A320 and still maintain profitability.

Maybe the same issue was causing the LH problems.  Maybe the widebodies are just far more profitable in real life per passenger mile than narrowbodies (on same routes with same LF).  Otherwise, why would the airlines bother to buy anything other than 757?  (well, cargo change thngs somewhat here)

[NorgeFly]

Yes, higher slot costs and landing fees at high demand slots would be the way to do it.  But it should be by weight, so it would affect larger aircraft as much.  So were kind of going around in circles 

This doesn't necessarily need to be the case. London Gatwick airport recently increased fees disproptionately for small aircraft to discourage the use of such aircraft at peak times. Flybe then got upset (understandably) as they saw it as an assault in them and challenged the decision with the authorities (CAA I think). The challenge was rejected as the CAA believed that there was a a valid business case for LGW to encourage the use of larger aircraft at peak times and the fees wereincreased, resulting in Flybe scrapping two marginal routes which became unprofitable (LBA and DUS).

However, this should only be allowed at airports where there is a real problem with lack of slots, eg. LHR, LGW, FRA etc.

[JumboShrimp]

But this may well happen in real life in which case you can't penalise the new competitor for using aircraft that are perfectly appropriate for the situation. If in the real world if an airline identifies that a route may be profitable with a regional jet but not with an A320, what will they use?

Certainly true for many routes.  But it seems that when an airlines has a choice, and can fill up an A320, than A320 is used.  Why?  because it is more profitable than 2 flights smaller aircraft.  

The incumbent airlines on the route then have to respond accordingly, by either reducing fares (which should now have an impact whereas it didnt use to in AWS), reducing frequency or reducing aircraft size to maintain frequency. Or they maintain the status quo and haemorrige cash. This is how it works in the real world and how it should work in AWS.

The problem is that most players do not behave appropriately like a real business. Many insist on serving 100% or more of demand regardless of the level of competition and refuse to scale back when they face competition. Real airlines downsize or reduce capacity rather than point and cry about their competitor getting a better load factor on their Ejet.

I do however agree that landing fees and slot fees could be used more effectively to prevent regional aircraft being used at airports where slots are desperately short. Perhaps at hand picked airports which are problematic (LHR etc) should have much higher slot fees and landing fees right from the start. At the moment, the slot prices don't increase prohibitively until its really too late... I.e. most if the slots are already gone.

Artificially capping load factors is a really bad idea in my mind as it is so unrealistic.

I agree that far higher landing fees would be preferable way to limit the 14x day Q400 flight between CDG and LHR than artificiall limiting LFs.  I was just brainstorming...

But I would not limit it to LHR.  Any airport slot that is "green" should be normal rate, "orange" should be say 2x, "red" shold be something like 4x (or whatever it would take to make small aircraft unprofitable in that time slot).

[JumboShrimp]

Yes, higher slot costs and landing fees at high demand slots would be the way to do it.  But it should be by weight, so it would affect larger aircraft as much.  So were kind of going around in circles 

For game playability, it should not be linearly by weight.  Especially before we have cargo modeled.

Something like c + weight * rate
where "c" is significant.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

This doesn't necessarily need to be the case. London Gatwick airport recently increased fees disproptionately for small aircraft to discourage the use of such aircraft at peak times. Flybe then got upset (understandably) as they saw it as an assault in them and challenged the decision with the authorities (CAA I think). The challenge was rejected as the CAA believed that there was a a valid business case for LGW to encourage the use of larger aircraft at peak times and the fees wereincreased, resulting in Flybe scrapping two marginal routes which became unprofitable (LBA and DUS).

However, this should only be allowed at airports where there is a real problem with lack of slots, eg. LHR, LGW, FRA etc.

Really   surely this is against the law as unfair competition rules.  Gatwick like many UK airports are owned independently (i.e. not owned by the government).  This case if it's true would be against the law (in the UK) by giving handicaps to operators operating smaller aircraft.  In fact I'm surprised that the government would allow that considering the CAA along with many other government organisations are calling for more fuel efficient aircraft.  - Off topic tho  


The ONLY real way to stop frequency is to have price, CI, RI, Comfortability and timing be higher ranked in the customers mind than frequency.  

 

[meiru]

The ONLY real way to stop frequency is to have price, CI, RI, Comfortability and timing be higher ranked in the customers mind than frequency.  

yup

[Pilot Oatmeal]

For game playability, it should not be linearly by weight.  Especially before we have cargo modeled.

Something like c + weight * rate
where "c" is significant.

Landing fees (in the UK) are charged by the weight of the aircraft, and then there are handling charges by the size of the aircraft.  I'm not sure on how to calculate this in AWS, we would need to find the most used calculation in most countries and use that.  It's the only way to really average it out.  

[JumboShrimp]

This doesn't necessarily need to be the case. London Gatwick airport recently increased fees disproptionately for small aircraft to discourage the use of such aircraft at peak times. Flybe then got upset (understandably) as they saw it as an assault in them and challenged the decision with the authorities (CAA I think). The challenge was rejected as the CAA believed that there was a a valid business case for LGW to encourage the use of larger aircraft at peak times and the fees wereincreased, resulting in Flybe scrapping two marginal routes which became unprofitable (LBA and DUS).

Good point, maybe it will convince Sami.  Sami's point about slot maintenance fees aka. increased landing fees is that it does not happen in real life.

However, this should only be allowed at airports where there is a real problem with lack of slots, eg. LHR, LGW, FRA etc.

There are far more airports that those 3.  There is JFK, and many asian airports that are slot limited.

In AWS, we manage to make many more airports slot constrained, by flying aircraft that is too small.  So I would make it a general formula based on existing color coding of take off slots.

This would mean that there is no problem what at all using small aircraft during "green" hours, the fees should be increased during "orange" hours, and should be cost prohibitive for small aircraft in "red" hours.

And still, the fee should really have really tiny impact on a full 777 taking off during the red time slot.

[JumboShrimp]

The ONLY real way to stop frequency is to have price, CI, RI, Comfortability and timing be higher ranked in the customers mind than frequency.  

But you can achieve the same CI, same RI, same comfort level on small aircraft as on larger aircraft.  So then everything is equal except frequency and we are back where we started.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

But you can achieve the same CI, same RI, same comfort level on small aircraft as on larger aircraft.  So then everything is equal except frequency and we are back where we started.

So we should have more variables added

[Sami]

Artificially capping load factors is a really bad idea in my mind as it is so unrealistic.

(Will not happen, ever.)


Anyway. Focus on this test game world, and pls keep this topic for only those matters.