Seats and In-Flight-Services - Some issues

Lately something really bugs me, and this time it is not the "clusterfuck" approach that so many people take to flight planning - usually paired with the good old "interlining with everyone" policy which enhances the impression of randomness thus created. But alas, changing the way others approach the game is not on my list of things to "fix". But Seats and In-Flight-Services are a different matter.

I think that the options that one needs to pick in order to get a 5 star In-Flight-Service are not just unclear, but actually counter-intuitive and downright silly. If I choose "Large Warm Economy Meal" in coach, I will only get a 4 star rating on flights up to 800 kilometer distance - provided the rest of the service is decent; but if I pick "Small Warm Economy Meal" and "Additional Cold Meal", I get a 5 star rating on all flights up until 6800 kilometer distance. That is just insane. I assume that the additional meal here means "additional" meal, served some hours after the first. But then how is this affecting short haul flights, those that only travel for about an hour, maybe two? How is it even possible to serve two meals in one hour? Are we to assume that the average passenger wants to be stuffed full of food, feeling left out and disappointed if he leaves the plane not feeling like throwing-up? Up until now I plainly refused to play along with this nonsense, but with competition mounting (I am playing on quimby), there is nothing I can do but to break immersion and to just pick the "5star option".

Thus, I really think that the way In-Flight-Service is set up and rated needs to be changed. Some ideas to that end:

- More options, and most importantly, making it clear what option effects what.

- It is a good idea to restrict some options, but the restriction should be tied to travel time, not to distance. A turbo-prob plane is much slower, so sure you got more time to serve food and the like.

- Especially on short haul flights, the service level should be capped much earlier. Like in my example above, I think it is ridiculous to serve a second course on flights with a flight time of about an hour. Sure it's nice to have food available to you, but that should be handled via a "snack on demand" option or something similar. A second course should not be necessary to achieve a 5star rating on any flight up to 4 hour flight time (arguably). Then again, I would like to have the option to serve three or even four meals on long and extreme long haul flights.

- Alternatively: Just select an option between 1 and 5 star service, letting the system determine the cost based on the distance (or time) traveled automatically for each flight; of course making the option available on each flight separately. That way the pleasant micro-managing aspect is gone, but I think the system would be much clearer that way.

A second problem are seats. I think here the same applies as for service; it should be capped differently - meaning differently than it is working now - for short haul flights. If I fly for only an hour, I would honestly not care for the difference between "comfort" and "leisure plus". Since I operate my regional fleet with leisure plus seats quite effectively, I feel that this is done in a way, but the problem starts once you move just a tiny bit further. The system is set up in a way,  that you effectively have to pick "recliner short-haul" for coach on all planes that operate routes with more than 1200 kilometer flight distance. It scales better than "comfort plus", making it the clearly better option in most cases, and it is just plain better than comfort. But this is the problem. I still use comfort seats, if only because if I would use "recliner short-haul" for coach, I would only manage to get about 120 people into an A321. 120! That is insane! No airline in this world merely gets 120 passengers into an A321, voluntarily that is. The current system is thus absolutely unrealistic. It should be changed in a way that caps the quality rating for seating on short-haul flights, at least for coach. Business is a different matter. But I am referring to coach here and I do not think that the system is even half that bad for business.

Taken together the current system is exacerbating the biggest problem plaguing the game at the moment: Airlines blocking all the slots with small aircraft. If I only carry 110 passengers with an A321, I will surely use more than one. Hell, I might just go and lease a lot of CRJs or Embraers, all seated with the "top of the line" 45 seat arrangement and fly the same route six times. This in turn favors people doing so, because the booking system allocates passengers to each and every flight according to flight ranking. Operating two smaller planes is better than one bigger one - it should be reverse for most cases.

As for seats, I outright refuse to use "recliner short-haul" for coach on my A321 fleet, because only having a capacity of around 120 pax on such a machine is ridiculous. I will lower prices if I have to - hoping that the system at least offsets some of its shortcomings through the pricing mechanism - and my flight plan is good enough to make all my flights viable and profitable as they are, but I feel that airlinesim should make a denser seating (we are talking 150 passengers on an A321. More than spacious enough) not just viable, but the common standard.

What do others thing? I can not believe that nobody in a community of airline and airplane enthusiasts finds the idea of a 120 pax A321 cringe worthy.

The ticket price should absolutely not be able to scale with the seat type in the way you can do it now. There needs to be a cut-off. The configurations some players have installed are just plain ridiculous.

"interlining with everyone"

I also think interlining needs to be either limited on a per continent base or heavily expensive. Interlining the way most people do just creates way too many connections. Since this is the essence of the game it basically becomes a cheat.

I do not agree with Forexlive. Having said that, it was mentioned there was a new demand system being under development by AS that will be implemented in the future, where most likely different sets of passengers would be introduced to the sim (from price sensitive to luxury oriented, so anybody could run a type of airline he prefers). I would assume the service factors will be taking  into consideration in a different way for ratings, depending on a passenger type (a price oriented ULCC-type of passenger would not accept a premium seat at 30% surcharge, while a luxury-oriented passenger will do that without a blink of an eye). But this is a future, not present...

Also, you can offer an LCC style service at maybe 70% of the default price with very little service, but then you need full planes to make profit (same as ULCCS need to... they need to max is as many pax as possible so they can run the flight profitably at the deep discounted prices). Also U/LCCs do not run flights of over 2 hours usually so the leisure plus/recliner shorthaul /slimline seat difference would not play role to them as they simply do not fly that far. The average stage length for ULCCs in Europe and SE Asia is quite low. I do not have statistics but the median flight time is about 90 minutes, which would be around 1000 km. So all you talk about is actually realized in Airlinesim right now. You can run (by your own words) leisure plus seats profitably on 1000 km flights - same as any airline would. And if you go to slimline HD and go down with price, you could possibly break even and make some little profit.

Now the problem is not the seat types or profiles being unrealistic to be able to run LCC type of airline - the problem is that there are no ancillary revenues in Airlinesim to supplement your revenue, which is a (real world) prerequisite to successfully run ULCC model with maybe 50% rates, no onboard service offered whatsoever... remember than ancillary fees are basically what makes profit for ULCCs in real life, it's not the fares, it's the fees. A real life ULCC would hardly break even with a 100% load factor with slimline HD seats on an Airbus with even additional exit doors placed by the manufacturer to be able to increase max seat count ... they need the ancillary revenues, period.

So if you think of it, in the future Airlinesim, not even a new type of "price sensitive passenger" will make you huge profit even if they can fill all your slimline HD seats with no problems ... unless ancillary fees and revenues are implemented. Maybe they could (and should) go along with different passenger types ... the fees would fit perfectly for ULCC type passenger and would not affect rating, while for a premium airline they would be a no-go (luxury passengers paying fare premium would never pay for a checked bag or buy-on-board, for example).

As for the additional meal options you mention - you cannot offer a second meal on a flight with less than 1 hour duration. Second meal is not available on flights shorter than 800 km, an some other additional meals are not available on flights under 1500 km. Which makes sense.

Also the second meal may bring up your 5 start rating for flights until 6000 km, but that meal is simply not assignable to flights under 1500 km, for example, so the "effect" it has on 799 or 1499 km long flights, is zero. Moreover, should you assign such service profile to a shorter flight, it would not be accepted, and that flight would run with no service profile at all.

I hope this helps to clarify certain things.

The system is set up in a way,  that you effectively have to pick "recliner short-haul" for coach on all planes that operate routes with more than 1200 kilometer flight distance.

Huh?

Well, I am not struggling to break even. I got a 38% margin on most of my regional flights, with planes mostly over 90% booked. So I am doing very fine (by airlinesim standards; we do not have to go into this being unrealistic, as I prefer the game not to take years until I can lease a new plane). I also do not want to set up a low-cost, low-service airline. I am utilizing a hub and spoke system were every connection I have got an equally valid return connection. I transported nearly 2 million passengers since the start of quimby. So I am operating a real carrier airline.

And that's the point. Real carrier airlines do not use the equivalent of recliner short haul seats in coach on short haul flights (I mean flights between 1200 and 2500 kilometer flight distance). Do they? But airlinesim practically forces you to do that and that is what bugs me. Maybe I did not make this clear. I do not have a problem with flights up to 800 kilometer distance. I got a problem with the distance just beyond. And when I say I got a problem, I do not mean that I struggle. I mean that I do not agree with the way the game handles these distances.

As for the meal options: read my example again. You can offer two meals on flights up to 1500 kilometers, you just have to select the "cold" option. I personally do not think that a second meal should be necessary before 3000 kilometers (4 hours flight time) to achieve a high star rating. So, contrary to what you said, the second meal IS assignable to flights under 1500 kilometers, but not just that, it is even necessary to assign it, because you simply do NOT get a 5star rating, even on flights up to 800 kilometers, if you do not. Try it out. And THAT is the problem.

I play this game on and off since Kaitak, so I know the basics.

Huh?

Maybe I did not word this correctly either. The game makes it necessary to pick "recliner short-haul" seats for the economy class to operate flights over 1200 kilometers flight distance effectively. For example. I am flying from Eastern China (my hub is HGH to avoid being slot blocked too early in PVG) to NRT with comfort seats in economy. However, that flight is not booked very well, mostly because the rating is too low to have any "good" (50plus) connections, even though my flight schedule makes it possible to connect to EVERY other airport I fly to with a transfer time of under 2 hours. My competition is using "recliner short-haul" seats (as I can tell from the ORS rating) and is probably doing better. They got a ton of connections rated 50plus, even though they are more expensive and take longer. My entire point is: People should not care that much about the seats for short haul flights (I think 2000 kilometer is still short-haul), at least not in economy. Let me stress, they should care somewhat. But it should not be necessary to use a completely oversized seat in a completely underutilized plane just to be competitive.

Now, as hopefully has become apparent, I am not seeking advice of how to get the my flight ratings up (lower prices, use "recliner short-haul" seats too). I am saying that it is just stupid, that the general airline in this game only has a capacity of 120 passengers for their A321 equivalent planes. That's when you see something is wrong.

Again, agree with blackthorne.

would not accept a premium seat at 30% surcharge, while a luxury-oriented passenger will do that without a blink of an eye

Hmm... I was not talking about LCC or anything but as far as I can tell there is no "luxury oriented airline" even out there. For example Lufthansa will place you on the same seat as a coach passenger in their business class within Europe and just block the middle seat. If you get unlucky and the flight is very full they will even unblock that middle seat.

Additionally, a luxury oriented passenger will not fly economy class but business / first class or private jet. I don't see any indication in real life that there is a significant amount of luxury oriented economy passengers as proven by the seat configurations of real world airlines. The way I see it for economy class, there are price sensitive people who choose to go for LCC and less price sensitive people who go for legacy carriers (maybe also because of connections/destination choices etc,etc) but I really cant see anyone going for a kind of airline we mostly have in the game. Again, only within economy class as everybody else will just go for a better class.

Forexlive got my point. The same goes for longer haul flights too actually. As far as I can tell, even Emirates is using Leisure Plus seats in their wide-bodies in economy, not to mention Lufthansa. Or do I misunderstand the seat description? Thus, using comfort seats for the short to short-medium haul A321 should net you a 5ish star rating on those flights. Alright, if my competitor is using an A380 with better seats, I could understand the better rating. But the way it is now, I compete with Regional Jets using extremely ludicrous seat setups. So why not cap the seat rating?

Again, I am an on-and-off player playing on quimby. I never had an airline running for more than a year, so I cannot tell you if the system gets better results in late-game when airlines actually own their aircraft and can reduce prices accordingly. But still, at the moment you can just randomly fly to wherever, send out a ton of interlining requests to every other airline operating there and you will get your recliner short-haul economy filled for sure. I do not really agree with forexfire's proposal too limit interlining, I would rather like to see changes in the way seats and services are rated, thus making a not well thought-out partnership less effective.

A new demand system with different sets of passengers is a good step, but just one among many. And as forexfire said, people there should not be many "luxury oriented economy passengers" out there. For reference, my business class is doing better than my competitors, as I usually got the highest rating in ORS. But I don't think that airlinesim is making a very good distinction between business and economy at the moment. They are too alike.

I see this topic exactly as Blackthorne. I do not like that you have to work unrealstic to succeed here. I know that there are fans of the concept "Airline Sim is a business simulation in its own world not connected to the real world", but I do not count me in.

Maybe I did not word this correctly either. The game makes it necessary to pick "recliner short-haul" seats for the economy class to operate flights over 1200 kilometers flight distance effectively.

Er... no it doesn't.

Er... no it doesn't.

It seems like reasoning and argumentation is your forte. Thus, I will not even try to convince you by arguing against your view, which you made so very concisely.

What Bobb wants to say that you can use leisure or even standard seats on even 3000+ km route, you just have to price it right, and you can get very decent (almost excellent) rating. But you would need to find out correct pricing yourself by trial and error and testing.

George is definitely right. When i bought in two airlines from other two players, both of them were using this strategy. They use bad seats with a lower price, and PAX still love it and the booking was pretty well. But one thing needs to concern for this method is when the economy goes down, you get fewer PAX, which means the plane will not fill in and you won't make profit. but if the team is considering the PAX related to LCC or even ULCC, this problem should be resolved.

Hi,

in theory the game is balanced concerning the seats. If you use a seat twice the size, you carry half the number of passengers but you can ask twice the price. Should be perfectly balanced. In practice the game gives an advantage to airlines that use big seats, because of the way the ORS books seats. If two planes fly a route, and they have the same rating, they will get the same number of passengers. If the two airlines get 100 passengers each, one 739 (with big seats) will be fully booked, the other 739 will be half empty. That doesn't matter as long as there are 500 passengers flying that route, but as soon as competition kicks in, the guy with bigger seats will have a higher seat load.

Of course it is possible to manage a profitable airline with standard seats. But it will be harder. If I see it correctly, the point of this discussion is not to prove that it is possible or impossible to run an airline with certain seats. The point of the discussion is to think what can be done to improve game quality. And I say game quality because I don't like the realism discussion either. Make a perfect airline simulation and it will not be playable.

So for me the question is: can you change the rating of seats in such a way that the use of big seats is less awarded without destroying the balance ? If the answer is yes, I shall support the idea. It will make the game better.

Cheers,

Jan

Of course it is possible to manage a profitable airline with standard seats. But it will be harder.

I agree with you. It´s probably one of the factors to generate the "fun"-experience or "playability" for the majority of players. It has very little to do with realistic calculation concerning the urge to generate enough money with attractive seat-mile costs etc. but 70-seat A320s. 

It´s OK for me (and my Sparrow Air) to be less successful/popular due to more realistic configurations. I am aware of the fact that 190 seats in an A321 is unpopular among AS-passengers. The unpopularity of my flights would even increase with adaption of real scenarios, including 220 seats on an A321 (with a "Business Class"), 128 seats (including a First Class!) in a Boeing 717 or 149-seat MD-88s with three classes of service.

One of my many experiments is currently a Boeing 717 configured for 110 seats "like Delta": F12, C15 (like Economy Plus bla bla) and Y83. This configuration works on shorter routes but not on many others. This configuration generates a very attractive cost-structure but AS-passengers are simply too aware of the fact that this Boeing 717 is not configured as a 40-seater. In reality, airlines with 50 seat A320s or 80-seat A321s would experience huge financial problems. There are reasons that Lufthansa is not scheduling 120-seat A321s between Frankfurt and Hamburg. The financial numbers won´t please the accounting.

Regards :blush:  ;)

120-seats (actually less than that) A-321 does exist in the Real World. AA operates 102 (!) seats A-321 between JFK and SFO/LAX.

Granted they are premium routes and therefore the high-end model works. This should not be true for the most part of the world. One would not expect a 120-seat A-321 or 80-seat 717 running between ATL and somewhere else in the US. If AS is indeed working on a new demand model whereby Y passengers are sorted from those who demands ULCC to those who demands Full Service Carriers, then I think a solution is underway for the complaint that you have.

I however do not think that C and F passengers should be sorted in the new fashion because they are not really price-sensitive passengers in the first place. I think the biggest problem of over-emphasising seat and services quality only exists in Y really. I would even venture to say that the current model of C is underrating the importance of a good seat and F seemed to be the most balanced class atm in terms of seats (apart from a bit harsh on the LH side considering that a full rating is impossible above 8000km(?) even with Luxury Suite. 

120-seats (actually less than that) A-321 does exist in the Real World. AA operates 102 (!) seats A-321 between JFK and SFO/LAX. 

That´s correct.

Granted they are premium routes and therefore the high-end model works. This should not be true for the most part of the world.

The majority of airlines even changed their business approaches during the last 15 years and answer the demands with higher-density aircraft. The possibility in AS to generate high profits with very low-density configured aircraft dictates the financial success and not the lowest cost-structure. There is IMO no real need to evaluate the detailed costs of a modern aircraft. The more important thing is to configure aircraft correctly to hit the nail of the needs of the AS-passengers.

So, it´s sometimes wise to configure a Q400 with less than 50 seats or a Dash 8-300/CRJ100/200with little more than 30 seats and this is (compared to the real world) unrealistic. Even a 50-seat CRJ100 is a "problematic aircraft in real world and produces higher costs per seat compared to a less-modern 150-seater. In AS, it is sometimes wise to put less than 50 seats into a CRJ700 and this clearly shows, how the AS-passenger loves the way of seat-supply. A 50-seat CRJ100 would be less attractive for the AS-passenger due to too less comfort.

I think that the scenario won´t change and it is part of the game/"game fun". It´s possibly more important to separate the real world from AS. A Boeing 737-600 with less than 70 seats installed might be highly successful in AS but a money-burner in real world.

Regards

I think that is exactly opposite to what Thread Opener is asking for. He is asking for remodelling AS passenger such that they are no longer service-sensitive, but price sensitive.

What i think is that there is no single model that will reflect the entirety of passengers that travels on planes nowadays, thus a more diversified approach (the one that Rubio mentioned) would be more appropriate than simply changing all passengers and make it more price-sensitive.

However, it is obvious that modelling under this approach will be a daunting task and it is unlikely that it will be done until quite some time later.

What I would also like to add is that C is not demanding enough while F passengers is too demanding in terms of service.

If the OP wants a model that is exclusively price-sensitive (instead of diverse range of passenger types and booking classes that will reflect that), then there is another game called AE that is strictly based on price sensitiveness of passengers. Believe me, with no capacity controls by airlines as happens in real life, it quickly becomes a race to the bottom (as was the case in real life several years ago, before airlines hit high profitability with self-imposed capacity controls).

Granted they are premium routes and therefore the high-end model works. This should not be true for the most part of the world. One would not expect a 120-seat A-321 or 80-seat 717 running between ATL and somewhere else in the US. If AS is indeed working on a new demand model whereby Y passengers are sorted from those who demands ULCC to those who demands Full Service Carriers, then I think a solution is underway for the complaint that you have.

Even those who choose Full Service Carriers would not be willing to pay more for a Recliner seat than for a Confort Plus seat - certainly not for routes under 3 hours. That's the main issue here: there should be a maximum price that an economy passenger is willing to pay no matter how good the seat is, and right now there is no such cap. You can charge a lot of money by making your seat ridiculously awesome, thus generating a good profit even with a very low densit configuration.

there should be a maximum price that an economy passenger is willing to pay no matter how good the seat is, and right now there is no such cap.

There is a cap.

That cap is 200%.

You can put a full bed in economy and still charge a maximum of 200% of default price, even though by the linear relationship you should be able to sell it to value oriented passengers for 300% of the default.

Or you can put lie flat 160 or full bed, or luxury suite in business, yet still charge only the same 200% on all of them.

So the cap exists and is set.