Growing Advise

[chwatuva]

And in most cases, all things being equal, the two 767-200s will pick up more passengers than the single 747-400. 

My question is reasonably simple; what is the benefit to buying a 747-400.

In real life, the 777 IS the most popular widebody on the market, and the 747-400 was the most successful variant of the series.

I think these are really interesting and valuable points/questions. 

I think the problem is that people are conflating the reality of the world too much with the game.  Consider the following: within this game we are all flying what are, for all practical purposes, point to point airlines (as opposed to hub and spoke).  In the real world, point to point airlines want to fly the smallest airplanes that make sense for their route structure.  Southwest, Porter, Ryan, etc., all opt for (relatively speaking) smaller airplanes with higher route frequency.  Consider also newer "disruptive" operators in the LH market like Norwegian--they are operating a lot of point-to-point flights and are doing so using ships like the 787 that are certainly a step down from the 777/747/A380s--its the nature of point-to-point flying.

So, why do the A380 and the 747 not work, except in certain circumstances?  Well, here the real world is actually an excellent analog.  A380 and 747 work well for cities (New York, London, Paris) where--despite being hub-and-spoke hubs, the cities themselves draw HUGE numbers of passengers and which send out huge numbers of passengers.  They also work in the Middle Eastern hubs.  The problem for us in AWS is that the game does not model the hub-and-spoke system of the Middle Eastern 3.  Dubai doesn't receive that many travelers for whom the Middle East is their ultimate destination, but it is a great stopover when flying between North/South America and India.

I would also point to history.  I am an American and am most familiar with American aviation history, so that is what I will use as my example.  Before deregulation of the aviation industry, when point-to-point flying was very common for the big domestic operators, smaller aircraft used to prevail.  The ending of regulation allowed for the advent of a handful of mega hubs.  It was really only then that the largest aircraft really started to make great financial sense.  Just look at the order history for the 747.  83 orders in 1966, the launch year, then 43 or less until 1977.  Then, 50, 60, 70, or more orders became the norm with the peak in 1990 (120+ orders) at a time when hub consolidation and industry consolidation made the very large aircraft make tremendous sense.

So, how can we "fix" AWS?  Well, short of having a functional system that will allow for passenger transfers in hub cities OR dramatically reducing the number of airlines, you can't.  There are presently 4 truly large airlines in the United States (6, if you include UPS and FedEx).  How many large airlines are there in a typical AWS game in the US in the 2000s? 

Ultimately, you can have reality or you can have a fun game that allows many people to play and enjoy at least a modicum of success.  You can't have both.

[Talentz]

I mentioned this in another thread:

The difference between two 767s vs one 747 is now cargo. A 747 (400) @ 5000nm will take much more cargo then 2 767s. Thus the total gross of the 747 will outweigh the gross of 66/33 pax split.

This is totally observable in MT3 were we can see 777s out gross smaller wide-bodies that would of been considered a mistake to go up against.

True, for the past 9 years, this was not the case, but AWS has started changing and alot of our understanding will be challenged over the coming months. At the end of this all, our overall thinking is going to be noticeably different from 6 months ago.


Talentz

[Amelie090904]

A 747 (400) @ 5000nm will take much more cargo then 2 767s.

If you have demand that is! 

[Talentz]

If you have demand that is! 

True that... but then again, why use a 744 on a route were you couldn't make the use of its full potential? 


Talentz

[gazzz0x2z]

Well, maybe we are all wrong from the beginning, and the real issue is that lowering prices does not bring the rewards it should? ' cause honestly, price wars don't work well. You can have a minor advantage against your opponent by lowering prices, in terms of market share, but the loss in revenue more than offsets this. That's why I always apply an insanely high pricing strategy. Which, at least for Y seats, should not work THAT well.

[SP7]

I moved into Atlanta late, when the two big boys had the place sewn up and all routes 150% supplied with A320s/737s. Now I make loads of money.

The way I did it was use smaller planes, 50 seaters, against their 180 seaters, and with double their frequency. All the airwaysim computer does is look at how many passengers fly the route that day, say, 2000, divide by the number of flights that day, say 10, so all flights get 200 passengers. If I have smaller planes and double the frequency then my LF% are 90% and the bigger planes will be 50% or so, even when the route is 150% or 200% supplied. I suppose there is logic to allocate, say, 80% of passengers to the 6am-9pm prime slot, and the other 20% to the rest of the day but I don't think the logic goes much beyond what I've described.

The only downside of the above is slot costs at Atlanta and other large airports are really expensive, and small planes carry a small amount of light cargo and zero standard cargo so that lucrative cashcow is denied me. I wish there was a small regional jet that carried some standard cargo...

Hope this helps, Simon

surely in real life the bigger plane has a cost advantage? The whole point of an A380 is it's one set of airport slots, 3 flight deck crew, one load of avgas so surely lower price tickets can be offered, compared to smaller planes that cost more per revenue seat mile to run? I would think this would be modelled in AWS?

What breaks the above is the lease/purchase cost of bigger planes is sky high compared to smaller planes. I can buy the 50 seat Embrear for $12M in GW3 whilst 180 seat A320s are $85M, so cost per seat is twice as much for the bigger plane.

Simon

You're not factoring in fuel, staff, landing fees, etc. The initial cost of the plane by itself is much less, but you would need to buy 2 additional sets of slots to make up for the passenger volume. In Atlanta that's going to set you back $2M per slot set. 3 E145s will also consume 50% more fuel than a 737NG or A320, require far more staff and maybe most importantly they count 3x towards your outside HQ operation.

I would point out that if you had invested the same resources into an empty airport like Milwaukee you'd probably be doing much better. The cost differential between operating a level 2 vs level 4 base alone would be enough to buy a E-145 every 2 weeks.

[SP7]

The issues raised really pose problems higher up the food chain. Frequency spamming is probably the wrong phrase for it, because operating 2 or 3 flights isn't spamming. But the reality is this - buying 2 767-200s is cheaper than 1 747-400. Operating 2 767-200s on a 3500nm will cost less (fuel, staff etc combined) than 1 747-400. And in most cases, all things being equal, the two 767-200s will pick up more passengers than the single 747-400.  I can't speak for anyone else, but this is what I mean by small and frequent over size,  not talking about irrelevant oversupplying on small regional routes - I apologise for not making that clear.

My question is reasonably simple; what is the benefit to buying a 747-400. Now I do understand there has to be a benefit to frequency, because pax like frequency (If by using the word frequency I'm mistunderstanding the system, again sorry, but the point is about because the two 767s carry more passengers, it's hard to nail down a better word). But there is an argument it's too primitive. And the planes people are interested in buying, long haul are very  narrow. Basically, everyone wants B767s and A330s, because the 777, the 747 and the MD11 are considered too big, and they bankrupt airlines. This isn't conjecture, it's a fact of gameplay

In real life, the 777 IS the most popular widebody on the market, and the 747-400 was the most successful variant of the series. They don't really work in game, except for a few select airports. This is a shame I think, and hopefully cargo will address this (although I don't think so, as the same game play rules apply for cargo, and the 767 and 330f also look hard to beat).

In real life, the 777 is not too big to be economically run. In real life, the 747 has had its day a viable pax plane because of the 777 really, but it had 40 years as a lynchpin of the skies. In game, they're very difficult to make work anywhere. It's a shame they're too big. Perhaps using the word frequency muddies the water, but if there's any competition, you have to go small and more frequent (or not).

The economy of the game is far larger and more generous than in real life. Because of that, it will always favor the smallest plausible aircraft for a given route. Imagine what the current industry would look like if the economy supported 15 US carriers instead of the 4 main ones in real life. Combine this with LH production lines that operate 3-4x faster than they do in real life and the outcome in game is inevitable.

[yearofthecactus]

Yeh, that may be so.

I don't really have any answers to the questions I raise in all honesty. It's a difficult one and even more difficult to write a code for, and then please anyone.

I am steadfast in my belief that the too small warning on the DC-8 and 707 in the 1980s, (however small to start) is unjustified, because they aren't too small aircraft and they don't provide a big advantage over going with the newer jets. Too small was designed and enforced to solve a different problem, and with experience of the gameworlds, the early 1980s cull where airlines go bankrupt en mass, as is beginning to happen in 2 right now, is disappointing and can be reversed, without upsetting anyway.

As for using bigger planes that have more competitiveness, maybe it's a problem that can't be solved. It is just frustrating as a managing member of 2 alliances, that I'm constantly advising people to either go 767 or A330, and sometimes get the response... can't I use 777, I'm bored of that routine. A world where the most popular and successful wide body airline in the world is actually usable/not a fast track to bankruptcy, I dunno that just appeals to me is all - call me a maverick!

But if such a system is impossible without harming the other end of the market, or is too difficult to write, well I guess that's fair enough.

[JumboShrimp]

As for using bigger planes that have more competitiveness, maybe it's a problem that can't be solved. It is just frustrating as a managing member of 2 alliances, that I'm constantly advising people to either go 767 or A330, and sometimes get the response... can't I use 777, I'm bored of that routine. A world where the most popular and successful wide body airline in the world is actually usable/not a fast track to bankruptcy, I dunno that just appeals to me is all - call me a maverick!

But if such a system is impossible without harming the other end of the market, or is too difficult to write, well I guess that's fair enough.

It can surely be solved.  All it needs is that the starting point of passenger (and cargo allocation) is:

Allocation = Demand / Capacity (in pax or ko of cargo)

instead of

Allocation = Demand / Number of Flights

[dmoose42]

IDK - I think setting allocation to equal the demand/capacity has huge unintended (or maybe intended) consequences. For starters...

1. It would incentive players to a plane on a route that is equal to 200% of demand. Since it doesn't matter how many flights go to a destination, just how many seats you serve, then you would get 747's flying from DC to NYC all the time. Certainly not very realistic.

2. It further penalizes small aircraft operators. If you have a 100 seat route and you put a 50 seat plane on it, and your friend puts a 767 on it, you will likely get a 40% load factor, which given the staffing and other fixed costs, would be challenging to the viability of those airlines.

I much prefer a more dynamic pricing mechanism that allows airlines who choose to fly larger planes with presumably a lower cost per seat be able to offer a lower price and get a lower margin per seat, but potentially greater overall profits because more passengers move to that airline. The challenge now is that the pricing model isn't very sensitive so there's really no benefit to lowering prices.

[chwatuva]

It can surely be solved.  All it needs is that the starting point of passenger (and cargo allocation) is:

Allocation = Demand / Capacity (in pax or ko of cargo)

instead of

Allocation = Demand / Number of Flights

That would fix the current "problem," but would create a new one that would make this game far LESS like the real world.  I live in a spoke city in the United States that probably sends 300-400 passengers per day each to large hubs like Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Houston with smaller loads to other hubs.  My city is served by RJs and the occasional A319/737 and some large props.  In AWS, this is EXACTLY what you would expect for such a city.  Under your proposal, rather than flying 3x 737-500/A318/etc., it would make sense to fly 1x 757-300.  Rather than having a race to the bottom for smaller ships, this would create a race to the top for larger aircraft.

What you propose makes some sense for International LH where some (but certainly not all) passengers prefer to fly on larger ships.  For domestic and SH, people seem much more interested in frequency and availability of connecting flights.

[JumboShrimp]

IDK - I think setting allocation to equal the demand/capacity has huge unintended (or maybe intended) consequences. For starters...

1. It would incentive players to a plane on a route that is equal to 200% of demand. Since it doesn't matter how many flights go to a destination, just how many seats you serve, then you would get 747's flying from DC to NYC all the time. Certainly not very realistic.

You don't want to fly with 50% LF now, why would you want to fly with 50% LF under this hypothetical new scenario?

The difference is that both the small and big plane would have 50% LF.  So this scenario is neutral
Currently only big aircraft has 50% LF, smaller aircraft has 100% LF.  Current allocation is lopsidedly favoring smaller aircraft.

2. It further penalizes small aircraft operators. If you have a 100 seat route and you put a 50 seat plane on it, and your friend puts a 767 on it, you will likely get a 40% load factor, which given the staffing and other fixed costs, would be challenging to the viability of those airlines.

I think you need much better examples.  This one, again, makes absolutely no sense.  767 makes absolutely no sense on a 100 pax route.

As far as cost of staffing, staffing a Very Large aircraft is far higher than staffing medium aircraft.  VL aircraft allocate a lot more staff per position, and in case of pilots, a more expensive pilot.  767 cost is probably 6x cost of Medium aircraft it terms of pilots.

I much prefer a more dynamic pricing mechanism that allows airlines who choose to fly larger planes with presumably a lower cost per seat be able to offer a lower price and get a lower margin per seat, but potentially greater overall profits because more passengers move to that airline. The challenge now is that the pricing model isn't very sensitive so there's really no benefit to lowering prices.

Sami just has not been able to make any other variable matter, at all, including the pricing.  Everything except frequency is noise.  Nothing makes any difference.  10% discount?  Nothing.  Better seating?  Nothing.  Faster aircraft?  Nothing

There is nothing you can do to attract more passengers other than flying 2 flights instead of 1.

[JumboShrimp]

That would fix the current "problem," but would create a new one that would make this game far LESS like the real world.  I live in a spoke city in the United States that probably sends 300-400 passengers per day each to large hubs like Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Houston with smaller loads to other hubs.  My city is served by RJs and the occasional A319/737 and some large props.  In AWS, this is EXACTLY what you would expect for such a city.  Under your proposal, rather than flying 3x 737-500/A318/etc., it would make sense to fly 1x 757-300.  Rather than having a race to the bottom for smaller ships, this would create a race to the top for larger aircraft.

What you propose makes some sense for International LH where some (but certainly not all) passengers prefer to fly on larger ships.  For domestic and SH, people seem much more interested in frequency and availability of connecting flights.

I imagine it would be possible to give a specific bonus to higher frequency under the capacity allocation, rather than AWS having only one variable that matters - frequency

[Luperco]

After read all your comments, including the Sami answer, I don't see this system so bad.

It is natural that the passengers are equally divided per number of aircrafts as a base.
Provided, of course, that there are other factors that bias the people toward one flight rather than another.

In AWS there are such factors. For example the starting and arrival time, or the ticket prices, or the company/route image.

The  problem in my opinion is that some factors doesn't have the right weight. For example the ticket prices or the confort abroad (seats configuration).

Furthermore there are factors that are not considered at all.

The more important is the length of the trip. Instead of put an artificial penalty to the route with tech stop for example, in case of competition on a route, the shorter flight time should bring more passengers. This, if well balanced, would solve the prop vs jet problem and the tech stop itself.

Another factor could be the design age of the aircraft used on the route.

Everything should be balanced so that players can choose different strategies to success. Actually, always in my opinion, they are rather limited.

[Luperco]

Speaking about the "too short penalty" the problem is not in the penalty itself. But in the lack of information.

I cannot tell if my flight is suffering from the penalty or not. And cannot search for all the flights with the penalty and, eventually, fix them moving on another plane (or accept it).

I think a small message on the route information page (those with sold tickets and expenses) and a filter on the route list page, would help on that matter.

[JumboShrimp]

It is natural that the passengers are equally divided per number of aircrafts as a base.

Is it?  Why would 1 passenger get on a 750nm Turbo Prop flight, in HD seating if there is a standard seat jet for the same price?

In AWS, the pax will cram into those HD seats, up to full 100% LF, get blood clots, all while leaving half of the jet seats empty.  And at the same price (since price makes pretty much no difference).

Provided, of course, that there are other factors that bias the people toward one flight rather than another.

With frequency being the untamed and untamable beast, all those other factors don't really matter.

The more important is the length of the trip. Instead of put an artificial penalty to the route with tech stop for example, in case of competition on a route, the shorter flight time should bring more passengers. This, if well balanced, would solve the prop vs jet problem and the tech stop itself.

Yes, very true.  But we get the tech stop penalty (on top of the too small penalty) because otherwise, the system would give the small, tech stop flight 100% LF, while leaving non-stop wide-body half empty

So we get 2 medicines to fight the symptoms rather than looking at the cause of the disease (frequency).

[Tha_Ape]

I posted yesterday in the ongoing "too small" thread in "feature request". Was about the "too small", but also about "frequency". And I can't say I agree on your vision, JS. Got the feeling your focusing on only one idea while forgetting the rest of the picture, if I may.
It was initially written for this thread but then moved on, I was uncertain about duplicating it.
But here it is.

--------

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

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).

[schro]

You guys are scaring the OP who is new to the game and looking for some basic advice. If there are proposed changes to be made to the game, I suspect they will be far more effective to be debated in the Feature Request forum rather than this thread...

[yearofthecactus]

At The_Ape...

Just briefly, I want to say my suggestion of wish for a more proportionate way of making bigger aircraft like the 777, and the 747 more viable would involve making sure apples are matched with apples. The CRJ is a medium size plane. Medium size planes are best used up to 1000 miles only. You shouldn't be flying a 777 on such a route, and if you do, you get rightly penalised under the current system. That's because the of the current way of allocating demand, and this is the prime example of how it does work. So lets be honest, I'm not saying it's a wrecked system for everything. I'm purely compentmartmentalising small vs small, medium vs medium, large vs large and v large vs v large, and my hope is making these match ups more equal.

Anyway, anything between 1000nm and 2000nm is best for a large plane (2000-2500nm being the extra useful range of a 757). Anything above 2000nm you need a wide body or you get small warnings.

How to you solve this in a new system? Nerf very large aircraft under 2000nm would be one. Then nerf sub-500-600nm routes for large aircraft (the point at which props lose their competitive edge IRL, although not making those props unusable upto 900-1000nm so there is a crossover and choice to be made. A so called "too big warning". Passengers don't want it to take 1 hour to board a 300 mile flight from Montreal to Toronto, take longer to take off, land and actually be in the air. A prop ore regional jet to 300nm is the way to fly 300nm, quick to load, quick to maintain/clean/turnaround and quick up and down).

Lets be honest, such a system is unlikely to come to fruition, and Sami doesn't see it as an important part of his vision and that's fine, because this is his baby and his vision has created a great game/simulation that is getting better. But it is still important to put these proposals forward and at least have dialogue as to how such things might work. And being aprehensive and offering counter arguments is fundamental to that debate.

My personal longing is just to make more use of the available planes, and not be limited by a race to the bottom, being limited to one or two choices, and having game mechanics life physical nerfings having unintended consequences, such as the 757 range nerf that affects far more than its intended remit for example. And any suggestions that rectify the various alledged problems would need equally robust testing, consultation and understanding of their potential consequences.

[Tha_Ape]

@ Cactus

the 747/CRJ was just a caricature. Only used to highlight the flaws of Shrimp's thought (in my opinion).
On that 150 pax route he's speaking about, if it's 900 nm, both a 737 and a CRJ would be suitable planes according to real life practices. 737 until monopoly, but serving this route well would mean 2 flights per day and here comes the CRJ. So there's no reason the CRJ should get penalized in this case.

Hence, a "small" plane (not the category) would get penalized only if used to spam, but not on its target market like Shrimp's example would suggest. If he thinks he should get 67% LF on this route, I think it's neither realistic nor desirable. Putting a 737/A320 on such a route is exposing ourselves to concurrence, both IRL and in the game.

Because small vs small, medium vs medium, etc. ok, that's fine, but at some point these aircrafts' target market meet each other and this has to be dealt with too.

(sorry for the OP)

Edit: actually I think we globally agree. I'm just a little more conscious of the use of small planes now that I play in a country where distances are huge and demand thin (plenty of routes, but all very thin). So I try to see how things could apply in a context that's a bit different from JFK, LHR or NRT.