I think there's a huge perception bias in this site. Most of us are, if not involved in aviation directly, at the very least general airplane entusiasts, so people tend to assume everyone else is, which is far from reality.
More than 99% of passengers, having just booked a flight, have no idea what plane they've just booked into. Yes, the information on the plane is there, but to the huge majority "A320" or "737" are just random alpha-numeric codes with no actual meaning - they heard these numbers before and know "it's an airplane of some kind", but that's pretty much it. The idea, claimed here over and over again, that passengers would choose flight A over flight B based on what airplane was flying the route is just ludicrous. All people care about a flight is that it's cheap, fast, and provided by an airline with a good reputation for service (although if the success of Ryanair is anything to judge by, even the impact of reputation is overrated). They have no idea what plane they will be flying in, nor do they care.
The reason you don't see airlines flying props and small jets between major airports IRL is not because "passengers don't like those planes" but because they are financially unprofitable. IRL, unlike in AS, an airline will carry just as many passengers in an A320 as in 2 CR7s flying close together in time, but the single A320 will save them fuel costs, maintenance costs and staff salaries compared to 2 different planes.
So I stand by my original claim: make these small planes financially unprofitable on large airports and people will stop using them - and if they keep using unprofitable planes, that then qualifies as slot-blocking rather than simply using the most profitable strategy as it is now.
The game is fundamentally flawed because it relies too much on connecting passengers and to a lesser degree to P2P traffic. Because of this, the higher frequencies someone has, it is more successful. I had like 30 connections using B737's between two cities evenly spaced out throughout the day. All my flights were full but i was slot restricted (no more slots). I replaced the 30 or so flights with 737's to about 15 flights with A330's with double the capacity. Plane rating the same, service the same, everything the same. Guess what happened ? My passenger numbers fell by 50% on that route. So i've put back the 737's and whenever i found some empty slots i've added even more.
This example is valid for smaller planes as well for smaller city pairs. You'll do better with 50 Q400's on a route then with 15 A320 or B737. All this happens because of connecting passengers and flights. More often they're able to connect the more successful you'll be.
There's no way of fixing this "slot blocking" except fixing the underlying cause which is too much reliance on connections. If ad absurdum this were changed as you say I'll bet half of the companies will go belly up because of too few passengers.
I think people do care about the model of aircraft if the plane is having accidents frequently, like te early years of DC10s. But it's more like a "like" or "dislike" condition, 0 or 1. AS makes it way too much detail than reality. people are not going to make a list and say 737 over CRJ over MD80s because most likely they only know planes made by Boeing and Airbus, maybe even just peopular models, e.g. 737, 777, 320, 330... they have no idea what is a CRJ and Embraer RJ.
I think the answer for p2p is if it is applied, people will know the routes, and there is no fun of the game. It makes the game unrealistic, but that is what it is.
Though the CRJ is quite noisy in the back and it is a bit vibrating also. First time I flew a CRJ 900 when I was 8 years old with my dad (neither of us had any airplane interest or knew anything about aircraft) he actually pointed out that it was a strange aircraft we would fly as he had never seen that aircraft code before. When I flew the same route with my mom a year later she did not want to get into the aircraft as it looked small and she thought that small planes are not safe.
i think your mom's belief is quite common in the public, though there isn't too much evidence to support that. I feel the CRJ is quieter plane than DC9s, but my last time with DC9 was many years ago, not sure whether my memory is right, and i never got seats at the back of both planes. having engines right on your sides must be painful. However, you will have a great feeling if you sit in the front for those rear engines jets.
Personally i don't feel too much difference taking those planes than others as far as the airline has a good seat layout.
There's no way of fixing this "slot blocking" except fixing the underlying cause which is too much reliance on connections. If ad absurdum this were changed as you say I'll bet half of the companies will go belly up because of too few passengers.
The problem isn't so much a reliance on connections as the fact that all flights operated by the same airline are counted individually when allocating passengers. Therefore, on competitive routes, 2 small airplanes flying 30 minutes apart will get twice as many passengers as just one airplane with twice the capacity. IRL, passengers choose between airlines, not between individual flights, and the 2 small planes or the 1 big plane would get exactly the same number of passengers, but the bigger plane would cost less.
But then you suggest would create winner-takes-all situation and it would be even worse for the small airlines.
Right now, ORS takes into account connections AND ratings when allocating passengers. Remove connections and what is left is only ratings. It would lead to people fighting for top ORS 99/100 rating. Right now, it is very well possible to have MANY connection passengers with direct ORS rating in low-90's (thanks to the connection factor). If you remove the connection factor, what is left is the ORS factor, so a 99/100 would get most pax regardless of connection network (connection multiplier factor). So I put a 789/A359 on a route and smaller competitor will not get any passengers because my 789 would get 100 ORS and his A320 would get "only" 99. Because there is no connection factor and only ORS factor, I win, and you a startup airline lose. I will get all the passengers and you will get none (or very few, the overflow). And if you start up iwth Q400 or ATR, don't even dream of having any passengers, because maximum ORS for props is 92. Good luck with that, if you do not have a "conenction factor" in the calculations.
The reason you don't see airlines flying props and small jets between major airports IRL is not because "passengers don't like those planes" but because they are financially unprofitable. IRL, unlike in AS, an airline will carry just as many passengers in an A320 as in 2 CR7s flying close together in time, but the single A320 will save them fuel costs, maintenance costs and staff salaries compared to 2 different planes.
Many airlines do fly small jets between large airports in real life.
Delta flys E175s between ORD and LGA.
Both Delta and United fly E175s between LAX and SFO
American flys E175s from LGA and ATL
American flys E175s from PHL to IAH
United flys E175s from LAX to MSP
United flys E175s form SFO to MSP
Delta flys CR9s from IAH to MSP and United flys both E175 and CR7s on the same route.
I am sure there are many more examples of this. It is very realistic for RJ's to fly between large airports.
Many airlines do fly small jets between large airports in real life.
Delta flys E175s between ORD and LGA.
Both Delta and United fly E175s between LAX and SFO
American flys E175s from LGA and ATL
American flys E175s from PHL to IAH
United flys E175s from LAX to MSP
United flys E175s form SFO to MSP
Delta flys CR9s from IAH to MSP and United flys both E175 and CR7s on the same route.
I am sure there are many more examples of this. It is very realistic for RJ's to fly between large airports.
Yes, but those are adjusted to demand, so it's the most financially viable solution. You wouldn't see them using two EMBs departing close together if they could get those passengers into one 737. Two fuel tanks to fill, two airplanes to maintain, two sets of crew to pay salaries to would just be stupid if they could fill demand with just one. Because the exact same number of passengers would choose to fly with that airline in a 737 or in two EMBs leaving together, whereas in AS they are counted as two separate airlines which means double passenger demand in competitive routes.
There are plenty of routes that have hourly service using 737/A320 sized equipment. Using your argument, airlines would be using widebodies such as a 767 every 2 hours. There are places where frequency wins.
I think the argument bobb has was there shouldn't be a half hour RJ services better than an hourly 737/320 service. not really hourly jet services to jumbos in every two hours.
People like frequent flights, but shuttle per half an hour won't be better than an hourly shuttle. I don't see ANA and JAL flying 737 every half hour between Toyo and Osaka, they have 767s and 777s for hourly services. They also won't make it become 380/747 per two hours. just make it as frequent as possible, but not too much
Bobb is correct when he says that the ORS looks at flights, not at airlines. And it does make a big difference, regardless of connections.
Let's say that passenger demand is 500 on a given route, and that 10 planes fly that route. If all planes have the same rating, each plane will get 50 passengers. If Bobb operates five Embraers on that route, and I operate five 73G's, Bobb will get rich and I shall go bankrupt. Simple as that.
Connections are not the issue. If Bobb and I spread out our five flights during the day, our flights will offer the same connections. At least, if we have similar networks.
The problem of slot blocking is not caused by a few daily flights to different airports, it is caused by too frequent flights using small planes. And the game actually encourages the use of small planes.
One solution would be to divide passengers on a route between airlines, according to their average rating on that route. Another solution would be to give each planes on a route a percentage of its capacity, according to the rating of each flight. But that would need a completely rewritten ORS.
So I guess the best solution is to further increase the difference in landing rights for smaller planes on big airports.
Anyway, this topic is about slot blocking... the rules of the game say that you don't block slots if there are a lot of slots available. So a few guys start on new game servers with loads of small planes. Later on in the game - when they have the money - they replace the small planes with bigger ones. It is a smart way of making sure you have enough slots for later expansion. After all, slots are the only limited resource in the game. I can only suggest that everybody uses the same strategy. It works and it is legal.
Why not just increasing the airport fees by 10% a week the minute there are under 5% of the slots available. Every week 10% up. If there are between 5 and 10% it stays equal and when there are more then 10% slots are available it drops 10% a week until its back to the standard price. Everybody can use the plane whatever he wants. Then it would be finally possible to price some ******* out who just block slots.
Just lock at Riem to PEK. The guy just blocks everything since month. Luckily I got at least some slots.
Another problem is that for short haul flights there is no "really" profitable big airplane available. I always use 737-900er bgw for that, but for flights between DEL - BOM they are way to small. I have already 52 daily flights between those citys and have only 50% marketshare. To switch to 787, 747 just doesnt give you an even close as good margin so I wont switch.
Why not just increasing the airport fees by 10% a week the minute there are under 5% of the slots available. Every week 10% up. If there are between 5 and 10% it stays equal and when there are more then 10% slots are available it drops 10% a week until its back to the standard price. Everybody can use the plane whatever he wants. Then it would be finally possible to price some ******* out who just block slots.
Just lock at Riem to PEK. The guy just blocks everything since month. Luckily I got at least some slots.
Another problem is that for short haul flights there is no "really" profitable big airplane available. I always use 737-900er bgw for that, but for flights between DEL - BOM they are way to small. I have already 52 daily flights between those citys and have only 50% marketshare. To switch to 787, 747 just doesnt give you an even close as good margin so I wont switch.
This type of deal would be perhaps too intrusive. But I do agree that pricing should scale to some degree based on how many slots remain. The fewer slots remaining the more expensive the airport should be. So at server start all airports should be cheap but gradually as the slots fill the costs rise to make using small planes unaffordable in big airports to other big airports. Rubio is right that flying from a bigger airport to smaller airports should still be able to break even in instances where flying there makes the most sense.
So in my mind some kind of sliding scale should be used based on slot availability. Make it expensive enough that flying small planes between these slot blocked airports would be unprofitable. It should only pay to use Let's (ect) in airports that have almost no demand from airlines.
Why not just increasing the airport fees by 10% a week the minute there are under 5% of the slots available. Every week 10% up. If there are between 5 and 10% it stays equal and when there are more then 10% slots are available it drops 10% a week until its back to the standard price. Everybody can use the plane whatever he wants. Then it would be finally possible to price some ******* out who just block slots.
Just lock at Riem to PEK. The guy just blocks everything since month. Luckily I got at least some slots.
Another problem is that for short haul flights there is no "really" profitable big airplane available. I always use 737-900er bgw for that, but for flights between DEL - BOM they are way to small. I have already 52 daily flights between those citys and have only 50% marketshare. To switch to 787, 747 just doesnt give you an even close as good margin so I wont switch.
Soon the A330-300 regional comes. That is promised to have better economics than an A321 on short routes.
Soon the A330-300 regional comes. That is promised to have better economics than an A321 on short routes.
That would be just awesome. I´m waiting for a long time to get my hand on this. The only problem could be that the turnaround times could be to long. Which is another problem if then the plane doesnt fit in the slots anymore. I think an A330 should have the same times as an A321 since u have two aisles.
That would be just awesome. I´m waiting for a long time to get my hand on this. The only problem could be that the turnaround times could be to long. Which is another problem if then the plane doesnt fit in the slots anymore. I think an A330 should have the same times as an A321 since u have two aisles.
The plane was launched at the 2015 paris air show but announced in 2013. I personally saw the launch live broadcasted but I can not find it now. Saudi will launch it with an order of 20. They will enter service in early 2017 at least that is the expected date. The plane should have similar economics per seat as the A320 on routes up to 3000 nm and it will seat 400 passengers maximum.