Growing Advise

[wilian.souza2]

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...

Well, at least he will now the road to success in AWS is FREQUENCY! 

[schro]

Well, at least he will now the road to success in AWS is FREQUENCY! 

But it's not....

[yearofthecactus]

If you have a 3000 demand route, supply is 6300, and  3 airlines are all flying 300 pax per flight 7 time daily on the same type of plane and you are one of those airlines.

You reduce your frequency from 7 to 6 flights per day, your supply falls from 2100 to 1800, and overall supply from 6300 to 6000.

Who wins? Or should I say, whose costs are lower overall, and likely to make the most money for their outgoings, or in tough times, make the least loss? The answer, as far as I understand it is the airline flying 6 times a day. All things being equal, the 6 flights will improve their load factors more than the 7 flights will. I know David will talk about overall trip cost being the key factor, but they are linked. Anyway, this alone defeats the idea of frequency being king. So I do agree with Sami that we talk too much about it.

I reiterate my apology with regards to bringing frequency into the equation. The problem is, we (and me for sure) use the wrong word to describe a different issue.

[JumboShrimp]

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.?

This is a very good example.  And because it is so good, I will answer it in 4 ways: 

1. Your proposition lead to extinction of 747, 777, A380 from AWS.  A330 and 767 were the next ones to go, as more players took the frequency rape even further.  So if your proposition that a flight is a flight can completely upend VL aircraft flying, perhaps there is more to this that is not being captured from the Real World that AWS allocation of passengers proportionately by # of flights is not recognizing.

2. When United flies 772 between JFK and LAX  in RL, they fully anticipate that 200 of the 350 seats would be empty, because why would there ever be more passengers flying on this flight than on all the other 150 seaters?

3. Proportional allocation of passengers by number of flights is the basic building block of frequency rape strategy.  The rest of the frequency rape strategy rests on this basic building block.  All it takes is slightly re-shaping this basic building block, and the frequency is defeated universally

When LH became unplayable with LH aircraft, Sami applied several bandaids (too small, tech stop, # of flights) that masked some of the symptoms in LH but it was by no means fixed universally.  It got fixed because there was a lot of squealing.

Playing AWS by frequency rape is extremely effective, but ultimately the most boring way to play.  Which is why this weapon is not being wielded by those most capable of wielding it.  Just imagine the amount of squealing if top 20-30 players employed this strategy and BKd every player flying A320, 737, MD-80/90...

The way you destroy this building block of the frequency rape by not subtracting every passenger from oversupplied route from the biggest aircraft, you subtract the passengers more proportionately.  And suddenly, the system is aircraft size agnostic, instead of always favoring small aircraft over bigger aircraft.  Suddenly, all aircraft, including A380, 747, 777 are safe to fly.

4. There are RL situations that reward flight being flown at a particular time.  And maybe 2nd flight at another time and even 3rd flight at yet another time.  Maybe AM, PM.  Perhaps for better passenger connections.  AWS does not have any of this built in.  There is no granularity of demand by hour.  It is by day, that's the smallest granule.  Passenger connections are not implemented.

So when player has flights taking off at 0500, 0600, 0700, it is not for anything useful related to RL or AWS.  It is purely for frequency rape.  It is purely to get 3x passengers vs. flying 1 flight with bigger aircraft.

When AWS implements these features (demand granular by hours, passenger connectivity), there will be real need for more flight.
But now, players are not serving a need, they are exploiting the algorithm that fills up small planes and empties out big planes.

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

There is zero overlap between 747 and CRJ, because there is no overlap on the routes.  It is always between one size smaller.  767 can BK 747.  CRJ, E-Jet can BK A321

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.

Not at all penalized.  They would just not get an unfair advantage against bigger aircraft.  Removing unfair advantage does not equal penalized.

Smaller aircraft would continue flying as they did before.  The only difference is that the small aircraft operators would also feel the pain of the route being oversupplied.

Small aircraft operator can theoretically keep adding fights to an oversupplied route and keep getting 100% LF, be completely unaffected by the route being oversupplied, putting all the pain on large aircraft operator.

So who, again is penalized and who is advantaged here?

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.

This was already tried and it destroyed LH.  And that was just shortly before players deployed the real terminator of LH: A321 / 739ER.  Those 2 just nuked everything.

"Too small" penalty is a bandaid that fixed / covered up many symptoms.  The real problem is that 757 suffered zero consequences of oversupplied route.  All of the pain of the oversupplied route was allocated by the systems exclusively to larger aircraft, such as 747, 777, A380, making them go extinct in AWS.

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.

So when the route becomes oversupplied, you allocate 100% of the pain to the larger aircraft.  That is the very basis of frequency rape strategy.

I hope you understand and agree with this point.

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).

Can you explain?

[vandeventer09]

Started this thread not to long ago, just looking for a couple tips..........damn, you guys got deep. Love it! 

[Talentz]

lol, uncle Owl is right, were going off the deep end here 


Taletz

[chwatuva]

So, it seems that the various ideas/arguments would invariably serve to favor either the largest or smallest aircraft within a size group--race to the bottom or race to the top.  Not sure how workable this would be, but I have been kicking around the following in my head for a while:

Suppose each route had an ideal airplane which would service it, ideal in terms of size (default capacity).  If you fly the ideal aircraft people will naturally flock to your airline/aircraft.  As your aircraft diverges more and more from the ideal standard (larger or smaller), fewer and fewer people would naturally want to fly (most people don't want to fly 747 between London and Paris, after all).  Distribution of passengers would then theoretically be even amongst all the aircraft equal or greater in size to the ideal, but of course divergence from the ideal would reduce the actual allocation for sub-optimal types and re-allocate those displaced passengers toward types more ideal/optimal.  Of course, the divergence factor would have to be expressed as a ratio/percentage which would be carried to aircraft smaller than the optimal and applied relative to the aircraft's maximum capacity (so, if the ideal aircraft size is 200 and you are flying a ship with 150, you might have a 20% divergence factor, such that the most the aircraft could carry if demand is more than fully met and the 150 ship opposed would be 120) otherwise you are right back to the race to the bottom.

Commuter routes would naturally place a premium on smaller (relative to demand) aircraft, allowing for more flights per day.  In marked contrast, LH and VLH would naturally place a premium on larger (relative to demand) aircraft, expecting fewer flights per day.  Tech stopping would, of course, also lead to introduction of a divergence from ideal factor.

Such a system would serve to make a lot of long, thin routes viable that really aren't viable now by returning the rangiest 737s and A32x's to the game.  You would no longer need a 767 to fly 120 passengers per day between Kansas City and Madrid.  At the same time, the ideal aircraft for Chicago-Madrid would likely be something more like an A330, so flying that rangy 737 would hit you with a substantial penalty.  747s and A380s would be more viable than at present flying between Chicago and Madrid and still would certainly be more viable than the rangy 737, but, because they are not ideal, would not fly full or close to it.

I suppose this is, in a way, a refinement of the too small penalty with addition of a comprehensive too large penalty.  It would also apply throughout the game, not just on longer routes and would vary in what aircraft would be considered too large/small relative to range and passenger demand.

[MikeS]

As Jumboshrimp pointed out, the effectiveness of tools we have to differentiate our flight offerings are very modest. The strongest RL tool, price, is very underrated here.
But to be honest, if it were made stronger, then big cash rich airlines could torture any opponent that tries to take a piece of the cake. Balance is key and really hard to  implement to perfection.
Frequency should be rewarded as it totally reflects RL, even on simple point to point traffic.
As players figure out the mechanics, the game becomes more predictable and to a degree boring as we repeat the same strategies.
What the game mechanics don't really help replicate, is the ability to play very different airline strategies:
- Leisure/holiday airline (low frequency+low price+ 2class HD seating)
- Low cost airline (high frequency, low price, 1class HD seating), 
- Mainline carrier (three class service, high frequency, high price & cost)
That being said, the game is already very mature, well balanced and new features (cargo, CBD) being added all the time.

A new approach could be to use a weekly demand concept instead of the current daily demand one. So demand from A to B could be 700 per week instead of 100 per day.
This way leisure airlines could fly twice weekly to a sunny island and fully meet demand. Africa would get into the game as well as many other low demand areas.

...it's getting late and I'm veering off topic... this has been one of the more interesting threads ... night

[gazzz0x2z]

And there is also a matter of opposition. This is a multiplayer game, after all, and opposition is tough to predict. Which means if you are alone on the Beauvais-Prestwick line, for example(a likely scenario, it's not common for both airports to be played) where demand is around 300, well, a 777 flight is the less costly option.

Until an opponent appears and spams you with 4 daily A148 flights.

Thise game is a dynamic game, and each situation is different because of that. All the scenario shown are nice, but they are just possible examples. And depending on opponent's strategy, frequency can be the best choice...or not. if opposition is non existant, capacity is the way to go, as it reduces cost per seat. Things become complex when there is opposition, and sometimes, frequency wins. Sometimes not.

[Tha_Ape]

WOW! Talking about "rape" now?

Well, just a side note before I start answering: I haven't been here for long (just a year), so if things have been tried in the past, I much probably just don't know about them. Sorry if I repeat old ideas/mechanism, then.

I won't reply directly to the 1st part of Shrimp's last post as I think he misunderstood my proposal. I'm not trying to make the smaller planes (on a said route) king of the game, not at all. Only that it shouldn't get penalized in some situations.

And a second side note: I think you're (Shrimp) focusing always more on frequency-frenquency-frequency. Be careful, it becomes frenzy

Explain my proposal a tad more (the last point you ask me about) could probably clarify things. But first I need to explain the background of my thinking.

--------

You're complaining about airlines spamming smaller planes and getting an unfair advantage, right?

PART ONE - CASE STUDY

Let's check certain situations first without their consequences in AWS, but just relatively to RL.

Examples

Example one
Let's take a relatively short and thin route like AMS-BOD (498 nm, 140 demand in GW#2)

Is one airline using a 70 seater targeting the right market compared to the plane? Yes, absolutely. And one using a 120 seater? Economically, offering one flight a day with no competition is the best solution, but as a matter of fact the 120 seater is ok but not perfect, as it's just choosing 1) to be vulnerable to concurrence, and 2) offering a poor service (because of only one flight a day - yes, frequency IS - in certain cases - a service, and not only because of connecting flights).

Example two
Same distance, but with a 650 demand.

The airline using a 70 seater is now out of its market, even though the distance is relatively short, because the demand is much thicker.
So the 120 seater is perfect here, while the 70 seater is ok but not perfect.
However, would a 70 seater get less pax IRL? Not sure, because it's still a short flight.

Example 3
650 demand and 1500 nm

Now the 70 seater is clearly out of its market, while the 120 seater is in its kingdom.

Application to current AWS

Example one
The 120 seater is penalized because it is not the best plane for the route (system works perfectly).

So when the route becomes oversupplied, you allocate 100% of the pain to the larger aircraft.

Yes. Because the 120 seater is OK but not perfect. And its user couldn't ignore it in the first place.

That is the very basis of frequency rape strategy.

No, because at a 1 flight vs 1 flight, you just can't talk of spamming or "frequency rape strategy". This is just wrong.

Example two
The 70 seater don't get any penalty because it's still a short hop. You could complain but at the same time one could argue the opposite and he wouldn't be completely wrong. Borderline case.

Example three
Currently the "too small" penalty applies to the 70 seater.

Conclusion
I'm not trying to privilege the 70 seater (or the "smaller plane" in general), but just to give him what is due to him. He has a target market on which he should reign an this is plain normal. If you're flying bigger on that same market, it's normal that you get a lower LF, because you're flying the "wrong" bird.
While one could always complain, the system is relatively balanced.

And I think you should define more precisely what you call spamming.

More examples

Now, let's consider cases in which spamming really occurs.
Example four
SVO-LED in GW#2 is 323 nm and has ~ 1350 demand, 2600 supply.
Currently flown by Metroliners, F.27, Viscounts, F.28, Tu-134, Il-18, Caravelles and 732. None gets the "too small" penalty because of the short length of the route.
Should the smaller ones get a little penalty? Probably, but also depending on the size:
- a large prop or RJ on that route is not completely unusual but not frequent.
- a Metroliner is completely out of its sector.
And who gets penalized? Everybody, because the route is so oversupplied that everybody suffers. The Metroliner user has sure a high LF, but the cost of slots was probably so high that it compensates.
And for that reason it would be better for everyone if we all flew 100/120 seaters. But the race to the bottom occurs, yes, definitely.

Example five
SVO-AMS in GW#2, 1157 nm, ~ 550 demand, 1630 supply.
The bulk of the supply are 732 and DC-9, but there are also 2 Tu-134 and 2 Caravelles, total 19 flights per day.
It's so heavily oversupplied that the effect of the smaller Tu-134 or Caravelle is quite marginal. Moreover, they represent "only" 22% of the flights and around 17-18% of the supply.
Again, the bulk of the problem is not the smaller birds but the heavy, global oversupply.

Example six
Lets consider the same SVO-AMS (same demand, same supply) but with much more props/RJs.
In this case, yes, the DC-9 / 737 users would suffer quite a bit.

Conclusion
Oversupply (with the "right" bird) is basically more a problem than smaller birds, even though in some cases a limitation would be welcome.
I hope those 6 examples helped us have some info about frequent situations.

PART TWO - THINKING

I think we all agree that:
- each plane category has its own target market and shouldn't be penalized by flying it
- categories / target markets have to meet at some point
However we don't agree about the repartition of pax when 2 types of planes meet on a single route:
- you state that they should have the same LF
- I think there is no reason if they both suit the route that one get more pax than the other, at least until it's not spamming.

Why do I think that?

To start with, a little reductio ad absurdum...
The 737 MAX-7 has 126 seats and the A321 NEO has 200, they're both in the same category, still the 737 has 32% less seats. On a CDG-LHR I'll win with my Boeing against your Airbus.
Same with 767-200ER vs 767-400ER, or 747 SP vs 747-300, that are within the same family. This is a never-ending story.

However let's focus on the idea of target market: there is always a part of the market where your plane will rule, and another part where it won't be so good. Where two categories of planes meet, there are usually drawbacks for both categories and this is normal:
- larger will have lower operational costs but less pax
- smaller will have more pax but more operational costs (+ slots)

The heart of the problem (apart from global oversupply) lies where RJs are used extensively against 737/A320, or 767 vs 777/A350, etc.
And I agree that there needs to be some kind of limitation, but only when spamming occurs. When the use is actually extensive. Not where this is marginal.

PART THREE - PROPOSALS

One single flight is not spamming. Thus I don't think one flight should be penalized.
But more flights, yes. And the thicker the route, the more flights with "smaller" plane there are (ie, getting always more in the definition of spamming), the bigger the penalty should be.

If I fly once with a CRJ on that perfect for 737/A320 route only once, the penalty won't apply as I'm causing no harm and not trying to siphon the demand. If I fly 10 times, yes, I'll be penalized.

But "10 times" is just an example. And penalty could apply right at the 2nd bird or 3rd, depending on the width and length of the route, and also the type of route (for LH, you wont have 10 daily flights from CDG to JNB, at least not in 1981). More flights, bigger penalty.

So this is actually a factor of:
type of plane (more or less in line with the route) + length of the route + width of the route + number of flights
About "type of plane", max seating of the variant would be more accurate, though. Some almost double between the smallest and largest variant and their intended use is not the same.

The calculation would then be a bit like for the actual "too small", but inserting the frequency factor. So what is penalized is not the use but the abuse, the excess.

Effects

1°) Regional airlines don't get penalized for flying to some large cities as long as they don't spam.
2°) Same for LH with thinner birds. If you use a smaller bird because your demand is thin you don't want to get penalized on your few thick routes (that's what is currently happening to me).
3°) People would be unable to use the CRJ or E-Jet or else to spam between main cities (and proportionally on different markets).
4°) Larger birds are safe as no one will be able to really contest their ruling without having penalties (spamming 767* in LHR in 2020 would be very costly if flown to large cities, but having a 767 on LHR-Guatemala City or LHR-Ahmadabad will not be a problem).

* if Cactus proposal to have a dynamic sizing of aircraft is approved, or if it is the max seating that is taken into account.

----------

I'm sorry this post is so long, but as it didn't seem that you got my idea, I thought a detailed explanation was welcome.
I'm not asking you to agree (even though I'd like it, as I think it would solve "your" problem without hitting the smaller bird just because he's smaller), but if you could understand what I mean it could be already great.

Thanks.

[JumboShrimp]

WOW! Talking about "rape" now?

It's a gamer term where someone is utterly destroyed by a player or by some strategy.

[groundbum2]

there's also a factor we're not taking into account.

Small planes are good for frequency spamming, but as we see in GW3 small planes carry next to no cargo, my E175s carry 350kg light cargo max, no standard. Whereas the 737s/320s carry loadsa light and standard cargo and make loads of money. So, unintentionally, this is a tilt to favour large planes over small planes as cargo is a mini gold mine.

I still like the game as is and wouldn't want to see it changed.

Simon

[wilian.souza2]

there's also a factor we're not taking into account.

Small planes are good for frequency spamming, but as we see in GW3 small planes carry next to no cargo, my E175s carry 350kg light cargo max, no standard. Whereas the 737s/320s carry loadsa light and standard cargo and make loads of money.

Medium aircraft can carry standard  cargo if they are dedicated freighters, and you can use large aircraft to frequency spam busy routes, too. Remember too that cargo is sensitive to flight frequency, so the problem will still persist