load factor and multiple planes

Can anyone explane this to me:

I am the only one flying a certain route. The route is too long to fly multiple times with a single aircraft, so I tried putting more than one (of the same type) on this route.

With only one plane, I can get 100% load factor, depending on the ticket price. The price could drop further, but of course that would not increase the load factor. So, I try two planes.

With two planes, I cannot get any passengers. Load factor stays 0%, even with a ticket price of zero.

I would expect that I could get at least the same amount of passengers (divided over both planes), and probably more, but obviously this is not the case. How come?

On another route, I find a high roller flying a similar route with two A380 aircraft, and a ticket price of (if I recall correctly) 4200.00 for both. Why would that work?

The only way it should work is because of the size of that persons hub. The hub increases demand for your airline out of your hub cities. The larger the hub, or the more pax you fly, the greater demand. At least that is how it has been working.

When you place multiple aircraft on the same route, you are basically hedging each aircraft against each other. It's just like jumping on a route where other airlines are at. Each aircraft is fighting for the limited number of passengers that fly between those cities.

I can fill an airplane 100%. When I fly two of these airplanes on the same route, wouldn't I be able to fill each one at least 50% ? This is how I interpret your response, and this is also what I had in mind (actually: I want more than 50% in each plane).

As I said: both aircraft had zero passengers. These were the only aircraft on that route.

Using another type of plane, I can fly oneway trips using two aircraft. Now I can move more passengers in total.

planes are the same (type,engines,age). Ticketprice is the same. Load factor is the same.
Here's the weird part: profit is not the same

There are no other operators on this route. There are no differences, except for the profits. How can it be that all things being equal, including loadfactor times ticketprice !!! the profit is different?

Using another type of plane, I can fly oneway trips using two aircraft. Now I can move more passengers in total.

planes are the same (type,engines,age). Ticketprice is the same. Load factor is the same.
Here's the weird part: profit is not the same

There are no other operators on this route. There are no differences, except for the profits. How can it be that all things being equal, including loadfactor times ticketprice !!! the profit is different?

In real life that would be true due to prevailing winds, but I doubt the game emulates that.

In real life that would be true due to prevailing winds, but I doubt the game emulates that.

Even this should average out, if implemented at all.

No, there's something wrong for sure. It's quite disturbing to see other people flying two A380 at prices sky high. But perhaps that's the infamous load factor bug being abused.

I just try to fly more passengers, which seems to be fair play, and cannot do so. I can easily move 500+ people on this route, so demand is there. But as soon as I try to do this with more than one A333 it's bad news.

One A333, load factor 100% which means 358 people are flying. Plenty of room to lower the ticket price even further, so I want to sell more seats. Same plane cannot fly another time on this route, so I need another plane. Makes sense, no?

Two A333, load factor 0% for both, even if tickets are for free. Where did those 500 PAX go?

Even this should average out, if implemented at all.

No, there's something wrong for sure. It's quite disturbing to see other people flying two A380 at prices sky high. But perhaps that's the infamous load factor bug being abused.

Dissagree 100% in that statement, as you must take into account the player who have this SKY-High price set on 2 or more AC on the route, the actual HUB / Terminal % they hold. If the location is of reasonable PAX number and a player holds 50 / 60 or more % of that location you can fly ONE jet at more than double the ticket price of any other player. Thus they can add another jet and still charge more than any other player, This is how the game is designed to make a HUB and build on it.

How about letting us readers of your post know the locations you are flying? That way we may be able to give you a valid reason for your original post?

Even this should average out, if implemented at all.

True if you're flying directly N to S, but the upper level winds always blow the same direction depending on your latitude. For example, flying east to west will cause you to burn more fuel in the US than flying west to east everyday.

With only one plane, I can get 100% load factor, depending on the ticket price.

With two planes, I cannot get any passengers. Load factor stays 0%, even with a ticket price of zero.

I don't know the equations with this game but a old DOS game called transport tycoon had similar problems to what you mentioned. The equation for figuring out the % of goods loaded was determined only by the average popularity of all stations and then divided by the number of stations around the source. I thought well that's stupid, because someone else comes on the train line and the total number of goods disbursed actually decreased. A better system would have been to add the %'s together and divide those among the stations only until the source became saturated, at that point switch to a secondary equation that divided 100% of whatever goods can be disbursed between the stations.

How about letting us readers of your post know the locations you are flying? That way we may be able to give you a valid reason for your original post?

Do you really need that?

-1- I am flying alone on this route, no competition (and want to keep it that way)
-2- I have 500 passengers, if I fly using one jet
-3- I have 0 passengers, if I fly using two smaller jets.
-4- I still have 0 passengers, if I give my tickets away for free on those two jets.

I don't see how this would be location dependent. Where did those 500 PAX go?

Do you really need that?

-1- I am flying alone on this route, no competition (and want to keep it that way)
-2- I have 500 passengers, if I fly using one jet
-3- I have 0 passengers, if I fly using two smaller jets.
-4- I still have 0 passengers, if I give my tickets away for free on those two jets.

I don't see how this would be location dependent. Where did those 500 PAX go?

OK, but this round is nearing the end, but I feel you are missing the point.

or if I can give you an example:

If I set up op's in say EWR and gain 50+ % of the market share of this location I can place a good 2 Jets and still make more than another player who is only on 2% of the EWR market.

but

If I was to change my location to say RSW or FLL or even MIA then I am pushed to get one Jet with a good return with the same 50+ % of the market.

What I am asking now is:

Is your departing or arriving location a good PAX location? and what market share do you hold at either location? as this will tell the facts of what you will and not get from your arrival or departing city.

OK, but this round is nearing the end, but I feel you are missing the point.

Same here. The demand is there, or else I cannot get 500 passengers. Why would 500 passengers suddenly disappear ?

Is your departing or arriving location a good PAX location? and what market share do you hold at either location? as this will tell the facts of what you will and not get from your arrival or departing city.

Yes, over 20%

Maybe it is me missing the point. Please be patient and explain:

There are 500 people that want to be moved from A to B and back. I know this for sure, as I have been doing so. This is not a bug, it is just a result of setting the right price.

I can't fit more people in one jet, so even if I lower my price, I still cannot get more passengers.

Next try: fly the same route with two jets. I don't expect both jets to be filled completely. But I do expect to be able to get 500 passengers (the same as I had before) and probably more than 500.

I understand that demand and supply play an important role. Can you explain why I get zero passengers, not 500 or more? Why would demand drop from 500 to zero ?

Same here. The demand is there, or else I cannot get 500 passengers. Why would 500 passengers suddenly disappear ?

Yes, over 20%

Maybe it is me missing the point. Please be patient and explain:

There are 500 people that want to be moved from A to B and back. I know this for sure, as I have been doing so. This is not a bug, it is just a result of setting the right price.

I can't fit more people in one jet, so even if I lower my price, I still cannot get more passengers.

Next try: fly the same route with two jets. I don't expect both jets to be filled completely. But I do expect to be able to get 500 passengers (the same as I had before) and probably more than 500.

I understand that demand and supply play an important role. Can you explain why I get zero passengers, not 500 or more? Why would demand drop from 500 to zero ?

OK, well I can only say this, that may be the problem:

The game we set up on Location verses PAX numbers from departing location / to arriving location and again the location = PAX numbers. Depending on the strength of any location will give you larger aircraft = resulting in higher DOP as the PAX numbers grow within any HUB established.

From my own past attempts to place larger Aircraft on a route, I was also confused of why can I place an A319 x 5 times at a ticket price of $200 and my LF % was below 60% the DOP was only $70k

Take the same route but reduce the aircraft to a SAAB 2000 or Q-400 and I would obtain 90% LF and a DOP of $160k

Now the confusing part, I could (Once I have a good market share of my departing location) place 2 x SAAB's on this route and gain a total DOP for both of $320k, but to remove them and place a single Airbus A330-300 x ONE single route I was not even getting $70k DOP and a very low LF factor %.

The PAX numbers for the SAAB total x 5 times X 55 = 275 / Twice as I could get this DOP on both SAAB's on the route = 550 PAX = DOP $320k

The Single A330-300 = 358 PAX :puzzled: :puzzled: and the return was $70k

What happened to the 550 PAX that I have with the lower grade AC :puzzled:

I did once read that Miller has limited the size of Aircraft that is best from some locations, but I have tried to locate this post without luck.

From my own past attempts to place larger Aircraft on a route, I was also confused of why can I place an A319 x 5 times at a ticket price of $200 and my LF % was below 60% the DOP was only $70k

To build on your example: one A319 works, and can be filled 100%
Add a second A319 a/c (so: not the same a/c a 2nd time) and both planes get zero ... I would expect both A319 would be filled at least 50%


I do see what you mean by saying that another aircraft type may get another penalty and thus less passengers. Still, that's not real. If 500 people want to fly, then 500 people want to fly. According to the documentation they don't care if they are transported in a Beech or in an A380.

Of course the operator does care, because of the costs involved. Not just cost per hour, but also time on the ground.

Flying an A380 on a 100 mile route should be too expensive because of the turn around time, not because of some magic voodoo in a script too complicated to understand for anyone, including the author (hence the bugs).

Hopefully they'll have this better written in V3...

New test; two planes flying one route. Together they have a hard time to get more than 100% (divided over the two) and I need to drop prices quite a lot.

The A319 example continued (still using fictious numbers):

say 100% at $200 a ticket on one plane, then you won't get 2 times 50% at $200 in two planes.

So, 121 people are willing to pay $200 to fly this route, but not if they have a choice of which aircraft they get on. When they have a choice, they are only willing to pay much less... weird.

Well I think Miller did mention that the LF script has been re-written, and not 100% sure on this, but I think it was going to go into beta next round...