AWS v.1.1 talk

[marjo]

Personally I like the changes and it is a must for the game.

The problem for me now is: are we going from one opposite to another opposite?

I think the logic is good when there are 2 airlines competing with each others AND the demand is smaller than the supply.

Think about a route with 1000 pax demand and there is only ONE airline offering the services. A 40% LF means only 100 pax (take a 200 pax A/C as an example). I understand that we are a new airline and the market has no confidence for us, but I still cannot convince myself for such a low LF. For me, it is contradicting between the LF and the demand.

If there is a demand and there is only one route, how many customer will care about the CI and RI and seat type? I doubt about it. The reason we have cheaper flight, better seat config, better CI and RI are because of the competition. When there is no competition (specially in the very beginning of the game), are those pax calculation formule really concern a pax ?

[Sami]

Think about a route with 1000 pax demand and there is only ONE airline offering the services. A 40% LF means only 100 pax (take a 200 pax A/C as an example). I understand that we are a new airline and the market has no confidence for us, but I still cannot convince myself for such a low LF. For me, it is contradicting between the LF and the demand.

Simply because the public does not know about your service yet - that is the "route image".

Company image measures also the same thing companywide, but it may also have negative effect (ie. "I know that firm but don't want to fly them"). Route image measures only how known the route is.

[Sami]

Added some info to the manual:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Aircraft/Config

[Sigma]

If there is a demand and there is only one route, how many customer will care about the CI and RI and seat type? I doubt about it. The reason we have cheaper flight, better seat config, better CI and RI are because of the competition. When there is no competition (specially in the very beginning of the game), are those pax calculation formule really concern a pax ?

You can't think about it as  1000 people that are lined up at the airport waiting for someone to show up in a plane.   What you really have is 1000 people that your Route Strategy people tell you would be willing to go somewhere IF they knew about an airline that would take them.  If they don't know about that new airline they're either going to drive or they're simply not going to go.   The pax figure is not an actual figure, it's a guesstimate provided by your Route Strategy department (it even says so at the bottom of the graph), and is a potential of traffic, not necessarily what you're going to see.

It takes time for all those people that want to go to know about your airline flying that route (Route Image).  And then, separately, takes them a little while to trust your airline as not some fly-by-night hackjob airline (Company Image).

[DenisG]

Nice description from Sigma.

In addition to that, let's say you have 1,000 effective pax a day on a heavy business route. If you have those pax flying the route on average twice a months, you will have carried 15,000 different people in those four weeks. Assuming both destinations to be located in very urbanized areas, with a high percentage of 5% of population regularly traveling by plane, you would have to spread your offer on average over a population of 500,000 in order to reach these 15,000 pax.

Denis

[toyotaboy95]

regarding the seat config change, can i ask if the formula (pax preference) is based on pax comfort of just type of seating? Cause passengers can also feel "FAIR/GOOD" when you're using High Density.

[DenisG]

Guys, you sound like McKinsey consultants asking the CEO of a company about his demand formula... Please... Stop it! My stomach gets sick from this logic.

Denis

[Sami]

Cause passengers can also feel "FAIR/GOOD" when you're using High Density.

You are right as if you put in only 20 HD seats in a plane that can take 400 seats you will get the "good" comfort mark. But that's something I have to think for future releases perhaps, by introducing seat pitch values to config screen .. may go overly complicated though.

But in reality that won't be a problem ever in my mind. As you wouldn't leave a plane that empty and in other (majority) cases are with small planes that can only take HD seats which means they are small and you only fly short routes .. or if you wanna fly a 4 hour route with B1900 ... be my guest and try it. At least I wouldn't want to travel on such flight

[Sigma]

Sami,
        As noted above, I support the changes to the demand model of the game, but I believe I have found one fairly significant fault... It seems that you're bound to start off with similarly-low LF whether you're running a plane with 65 seats, or a plane with 200 seats.

         Long and short of it -- the new model of low-LF on route establishment seems to give just about every plane a roughly equal start in LF.  We all seem to start at 50% at default pricing (or whatever it is, the point is everyone's roughly the same).  That's not realistic.  If an airline flying a 200-pax jet into an airport is running identical marketing programs to mine, he should be gaining just as many new customers as I am.  If he's managing to fill his plane up to 50% with 100 people a day, then I should be able to completely fill by 65-pax plane up with no problem because my marketing should be equally effective.  But, it's not.  My plane, like his, is running 50% at default.  I'm only getting 35 new passengers for the same marketing dollars spent.  In effect, he's actually getting more "Bang for his Buck", because he's spending the same on Marketing, but getting a much larger result.  Not only does he have the previously-identified problems of significantly lower overhead costs because he's flying a larger plane (as the problems with regional jet expenses in this game has been oft-mentioned), but he actually gets significantly more revenue as a result of his Marketing as well.

          In the end, from what I can see from looking at my own numbers very extensively the past 2 days as well as what I can see from the Stats, it appears to be extremely difficult, if not very near impossible, to yield an appreciable net profit using anything much smaller than about 100 pax.  Those of us who flew them in previous games were always behind the others, but we could make do and made plenty.  Now, however, I can't see a way to get my 65-75 pax planes to earn enough revenue to cover the overhead costs associated with them because they simply cannot enough people onboard paying a good fare to meet the critical mass necessary to overcome the overhead expenditures to operate that flight.  I've played extensively with my pricing, and I can do little to change my overall revenues, I just get more or less people paying enough in fares to add up to roughly the same dollars in the end; none of which is close enough to cover the overhead.  Just as an example, to market myself on 3 routes and do minimal CI marketing, I was spending 50% of my revenue on Marketing alone.  If the little planes can't get full at decent pricing, you simply can't cover the overhead.

EDIT:  I thought of a more concise way to explain this -- it seems from what I've gathered without the benefit of being to utilize a beta world and try numerous things much quicker, that what is happening is that your RI and CI are affecting your Load Factor, when what they should be effecting is the total percentage of the route demand that wants to fly on you.  Your LF is a factor of the Pax that know about you, and the equipment that you choose to service them with, it should have absolutely nothing at all to do with your RI or CI.  

If the demand for a route is 1000/day, and a CI & RI of 0 means that 100 of them a day would be willing to fly on me, then if I service that route with a plane that seats 75 people it should be somewhat close to full (removing time of day, frequency of flight, etc from the equation).  If I fly it with a plane that seats 400 it should be pretty close to empty.  That doesn't seem to be the case now.  It appears the plane will fly (roughly) half-full no matter what equipment it is.  If I'm flying a 150-pax plane on a route that's flying half-full, so I decide to swap it with something with 75 seats, suddenly the 75-seat plane flies half-full too which doesn't make sense.

[Talentz]

Sami,
         As noted above, I support the changes to the demand model of the game, but I believe I have found one fairly significant fault... It seems that you're bound to start off with similarly-low LF whether you're running a plane with 65 seats, or a plane with 200 seats.

          Long and short of it -- the new model of low-LF on route establishment seems to give just about every plane a roughly equal start in LF.  We all seem to start at 50% at default pricing (or whatever it is, the point is everyone's roughly the same).  That's not realistic.  If an airline flying a 200-pax jet into an airport is running identical marketing programs to mine, he should be gaining just as many new customers as I am.  If he's managing to fill his plane up to 50% with 100 people a day, then I should be able to completely fill by 65-pax plane up with no problem because my marketing should be equally effective.  But, it's not.  My plane, like his, is running 50% at default.  I'm only getting 35 new passengers for the same marketing dollars spent.  In effect, he's actually getting more "Bang for his Buck", because he's spending the same on Marketing, but getting a much larger result.  Not only does he have the previously-identified problems of significantly lower overhead costs because he's flying a larger plane (as the problems with regional jet expenses in this game has been oft-mentioned), but he actually gets significantly more revenue as a result of his Marketing as well.

           In the end, from what I can see from looking at my own numbers very extensively the past 2 days as well as what I can see from the Stats, it appears to be extremely difficult, if not very near impossible, to yield an appreciable net profit using anything much smaller than about 100 pax.  Those of us who flew them in previous games were always behind the others, but we could make do and made plenty.  Now, however, I can't see a way to get my 65-75 pax planes to earn enough revenue to cover the overhead costs associated with them because they simply cannot enough people onboard paying a good fare to meet the critical mass necessary to overcome the overhead expenditures to operate that flight.  I've played extensively with my pricing, and I can do little to change my overall revenues, I just get more or less people paying enough in fares to add up to roughly the same dollars in the end; none of which is close enough to cover the overhead.  Just as an example, to market myself on 3 routes and do minimal CI marketing, I was spending 50% of my revenue on Marketing alone.  If the little planes can't get full at decent pricing, you simply can't cover the overhead.

That actually as been a problem with the RI coding changes since beta2. It was adjusted at the launch of public. Its been like that ever since. This is probably one of more important things to be worked on. Now that the new aircraft system will keep the masses happy...


But yes, Its been noted.


Talentz

[Sigma]

That actually as been a problem with the RI coding changes since beta2. It was adjusted at the launch of public. Its been like that ever since. This is probably one of more important things to be worked on. Now that the new aircraft system will keep the masses happy...


But yes, Its been noted.


Talentz

I know that there have been problems for some time with the operation of smaller jets.  I've run a regional airline to become the largest airline in its game, so I'm fairly familiar with the problems that they have in the game and, clearly, have modified my strategy to suit.  But getting passengers to fly on them was never a problem.  In fact, it's actually been the polar opposite, with passengers greatly preferring them to the point of absurdity.  But that's not my point.  My point is that with the new changes in demand, that problems on the expense side that smaller jets have has been greatly exacerbated, to the point where they simply do not work anymore.  At least not to start.  Once your RI is up, it'll be same as before.  But getting there is extremely difficult.

[DenisG]

Hmm, I have started as usually with my regional route model and accordingly with my regional props. In fact it is hard to get income up. Currently, I am running at barely break even on total costs. Still, I find this ok, considering that the game has just been running two game months. Which new airlines manage to break even within the first 6 months in reality? I do not know many.

I find this nice because as usual many people will be surprised, once the lease rates kick in and they have no big cash reserves. I will stick to my strategy and work it out somehow. Although, I would add that my LF was at 38% as I flew default prices. Due to price reductions and image rise, I now get to 55% roughly. However, this means a lot of upside potential, once we get going. The goal must simply be to get image and LF up during the first four months, so you can break even on total cost basis. I think I am on track to meet that quite nicely.

Denis

[Sami]

Sigma, thanks for the info. As the combination of routes and competition are endless I cannot extensively test all these .. And like Talentz said that's a problem we've had in the past too but seems that fixing one thing will lead to issues somewhere else. But to add .. the system is not counting the Load Factor (so it does not just calculate 100 LF minus company image effct and you will have 60% LF .. it calculates how many seats you can sell with the prices and other specs you have) ..

Like said I'm planning to take a closer look to the system to next versions perhaps.


Oh yes.. and was there a thread somewhere on how to improve the regional's status?

[TFC1]

On another note, the production of the Airbus A340-300 had ended in ATB2. Now that is obviously a side-effect of the new ordering system, as no-one had the cash to order a new A340 when the game started. I think there should be an initial time-period of say a year after a game has started before production lines are shut down due to no orders, as it does take time to make enough cash to order new large aircraft. 

[Sigma]

Hmm, I have started as usually with my regional route model and accordingly with my regional props. In fact it is hard to get income up. Currently, I am running at barely break even on total costs. Still, I find this ok, considering that the game has just been running two game months. Which new airlines manage to break even within the first 6 months in reality? I do not know many.

I find this nice because as usual many people will be surprised, once the lease rates kick in and they have no big cash reserves. I will stick to my strategy and work it out somehow. Although, I would add that my LF was at 38% as I flew default prices. Due to price reductions and image rise, I now get to 55% roughly. However, this means a lot of upside potential, once we get going. The goal must simply be to get image and LF up during the first four months, so you can break even on total cost basis. I think I am on track to meet that quite nicely.

Denis

I'm fairly sure that I'll be able to pull my regional out as well, but it'll be by the skin of my teeth, whereas operators of larger equipment were making net profits from Day One, just like under the older model.  It's not so much that I think the smaller model is unrealistic, it's that it's not on a level playing field.  If anything, the margins (or lack thereof) of regionals in this game is far more realistic of the airline industry in general.  But few people would want to play a game where they had to wait 2-3 years to afford their next aircraft.

Oh yes.. and was there a thread somewhere on how to improve the regional's status?

You know, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any consolidated thread that deals directly with that, no.

[swiftus27]

I see this change positively.

I don't have the problems with it that you all do.

I don't like people all starting off with 100% LF.  That ruined the need for marketing and route image.

OMG, so there's a challenge in this game now? WOW!  People, this shouldnt be a cake walk.

[Sami]

On another note, the production of the Airbus A340-300 had ended in ATB2. Now that is obviously a side-effect of the new ordering system, as no-one had the cash to order a new A340 when the game started. I think there should be an initial time-period of say a year after a game has started before production lines are shut down due to no orders, as it does take time to make enough cash to order new large aircraft.

There is. But the line closure was decided before the game time even started based on the date when it ended in real world.

[TFC1]

There is. But the line closure was decided before the game time even started based on the date when it ended in real world.

Ahh...ok, I understand. 

[comet3506]

Hmm, I have started as usually with my regional route model and accordingly with my regional props. In fact it is hard to get income up. Currently, I am running at barely break even on total costs. Still, I find this ok, considering that the game has just been running two game months. Which new airlines manage to break even within the first 6 months in reality? I do not know many.

I find this nice because as usual many people will be surprised, once the lease rates kick in and they have no big cash reserves. I will stick to my strategy and work it out somehow. Although, I would add that my LF was at 38% as I flew default prices. Due to price reductions and image rise, I now get to 55% roughly. However, this means a lot of upside potential, once we get going. The goal must simply be to get image and LF up during the first four months, so you can break even on total cost basis. I think I am on track to meet that quite nicely.

Denis

Heres the problem no ones monthly leases have kicked in yet, you prepay the first 4 months. If you are barely breaking even now there is no way you can make it once leases kick in about 2 months from now. I have a 737 fleet and I calculated that I will barely make it once I start having to pay my monthly leases.

[Sigma]

Heres the problem no ones monthly leases have kicked in yet, you prepay the first 4 months. If you are barely breaking even now there is no way you can make it once leases kick in about 2 months from now. I have a 737 fleet and I calculated that I will barely make it once I start having to pay my monthly leases.

Just remember that, if all goes well, your LF will be higher by then too.  And, once you hit break-even, even pax over that on your LF is mostly going straight to the bottom-line.