One stop jet vs non stop prop

[yevgeniy]

Hi All,

Based on people's past experience and all else being equal (price, CI, RI, type of seating etc...), what would win, a one stop jet route or a non stop prop. Note the one stop jet would be also faster.

[schro]

Win with respect to what metric? 

How many seats would demand equal and how many seats offered on the prop vs jet?

[deovrat]

What's your definition of a 'win'?

If it means allocating more pax, then between those two, a non-stop plane would get more pax than a one-stop plane (be it prop or jet) *as long as the non-stop aircraft is not hit with a too small penalty*.

[yevgeniy]

Win in terms of getting the most market share.
To make it easy assume 100 seats demand, and there are two players on the route, one running a a non stop prop (DC6/DC7/IL18), the other a one stop jet (Tu-104B, Convair 990, Comet 4).

[yevgeniy]

So the fact that the one stop jet is actually faster would not help?

[deovrat]

Yes, all other factors being equal and no 'too small penalty', I've found that the speed does not matter as such for pax share on that particular sector.

Of course in the overall scheme of things, a jet can complete more flights during the same time; so an efficient jet could still earn you more than a prop even without the load factors.

[Luperco]

The tech stop flights got only half of the possible demand.

So a 100 seaters need 200 demand route to be filled.

With the competition, the situation is more obscure.

For example two 100 seaters with tech stop compete for different half of the demand so both get 100%LF.

If a third competitor arrives with no tech stop, the thing is more difficult to understand. He takes demand from both the tech stop flights but I'm not sure by how much. In this simple case, you'll find the two tech stop with 50%LF and the direct flight with 100% more or less.

Unfortunately the flight time has no observable impact on passengers choices.

[Sami]

So the fact that the one stop jet is actually faster would not help?

Yes it does, noticeably. However there is a year-factor built in so in the 1960s and 1970s the effect is still small. So in 1960 in GW#4 it practically makes rather little difference (it is there, and can be seen, but smallish). But try to fly a 1000 nm sector with a prop taking 6 hrs vs. jet taking 3 hrs in 1985 for example, and it's entirely different story.

[deovrat]

But try to fly a 1000 nm sector with a prop taking 6 hrs vs. jet taking 3 hrs in 1985 for example, and it's entirely different story.

Just out of curiosity, which prop in 1985 will not be classified as 'too small' on a 1500 nm* mission against a jet?

Because if a prop gets that penalty, this experiment will not be valid as the penalty will overshadow the speed factor.


* - (typical prop speed = 250 kt x 6 hours = 1500 nm)

[Sami]

Those were just randomish example figures. However I did test it rather extensively the last time it was updated (I think in autumn -17, mentioned in changelog), but don't have the exact figures here on laptop at this moment.

[Tha_Ape]

Just out of curiosity, which prop in 1985 will not be classified as 'too small' on a 1500 nm* mission against a jet?

Because if a prop gets that penalty, this experiment will not be valid as the penalty will overshadow the speed factor.


* - (typical prop speed = 250 kt x 6 hours = 1500 nm)

One of our Sky members in GW#2 used Britannias until 1984. As it's not that small (120 seats) and as long as you don't fly thick routes (>200 pax), it was completely fine.
Don't know the exact figures, but it was something like this. However on LH routes she had some trouble, even on thin ones.
Obviously I'm skipping the economic part here, only talking about "too small".

[deovrat]

One of our Sky members in GW#2 used Britannias until 1984. As it's not that small (120 seats) and as long as you don't fly thick routes (>200 pax), it was completely fine.

Interesting.. wonder if I should keep a DC6B (102 seats) in storage and repeat the experiment to find out the lower end of seat count the penalty applies for

[Zobelle]

For this calculation, is the TU114 treated as a jet as it's speed is far beyond that of any propliner but only marginally slower than most jets?

[gazzz0x2z]

For this calculation, is the TU114 treated as a jet as it's speed is far beyond that of any propliner but only marginally slower than most jets?

Excellent question : is the behaviour based upon the engine type, speed, or a mix?

[schro]

Excellent question : is the behaviour based upon the engine type, speed, or a mix?

Should be based upon total transit time, but I can let the wizard clarify...

It is interesting that passengers would generally prefer a 1 day trip on a prop that's nonstop compared to a half day trip in a jet with a tech stop. That's a head scratcher during ANY era/year to me...

[deovrat]

It is interesting that passengers would generally prefer a 1 day trip on a prop that's nonstop compared to a half day trip in a jet with a tech stop. That's a head scratcher during ANY era/year to me...

Kinda agree with this. If pax favoured speed across all game years instead of only 80s onwards, then early era (read: inefficient) jets would become much more feasible than contemporary props.

Edit: In above example, to prevent inefficient early jets from suddenly being a runaway success, an element can be introduced whereby one-stop jets get penalized if their tech stop falls between unfavourable night hours.

[Amelie090904]

One of our Sky members in GW#2 used Britannias until 1984. As it's not that small (120 seats) and as long as you don't fly thick routes (>200 pax), it was completely fine.
Don't know the exact figures, but it was something like this. However on LH routes she had some trouble, even on thin ones.
Obviously I'm skipping the economic part here, only talking about "too small".

Same. I replaced Britannias with VC10 in the 80's. Worked fine. And replaced VC10 with 767 in the 90's. Also no big deal.

[Talentz]

Should be based upon total transit time, but I can let the wizard clarify...

It is interesting that passengers would generally prefer a 1 day trip on a prop that's nonstop compared to a half day trip in a jet with a tech stop. That's a head scratcher during ANY era/year to me...

Different perspective for a different era I guess. Some AWS pax must really like the good' lo days 



Talentz

[knobbygb]

Edit: In above example, to prevent inefficient early jets from suddenly being a runaway success, an element can be introduced whereby one-stop jets get penalized if their tech stop falls between unfavourable night hours.

I know it's been said (I can't remember where) that the timing of tech-stops doesn't matter, but I have found it most certainly does! I avoid the usual taboo departure times as much as possible. The 'hit' doesn't seem as bad as with the actual departure and final arrival times, but it is there.

[Karl]

I was recently the first airline to introduce a B707 on a premier, high demand route between the USA and the UK.  I was the sole jet operator for a long time.  The jet did not give me much more market share than the prop that it replaced - and the jet cost more to lease and to operate!

True, I was able to do a daily round trip instead of just three weekly round trips, but for the cost I currently do not see much advantage. 

Long live the slow but steady props, I suppose!