Jump to content

Photo

Itineraries, Flights, and Routes (and Real Connecting Pax)

* * * * * 4 votes AE 4.0

  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

#1
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,261 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200
For AE 4:

I'm thinking we should separate the concept of ticket sales and actual flights operated. Say if an airline operates ORD-LAX, ORD-JFK, and ORD-SFO, he can choose which tickets to sell (LAX-JFK via ORD, SFO-JFK via ORD, etc). Passengers wanting to fly LAX-JFK would choose among all possible itineraries (LAX-JFK nonstop, LAX-ORD-JFK, etc) instead of actual flights.

This system has several advantages:

1) It easily facilitates a realistic connecting passenger model. Currently all demand is O&D, and connecting pax are generated based on hub traffic. Under the proposed system, the connecting pax would be real pax taking costs and flight times into account. Airlines flying LAX-DFW-JFK would compete for LAX-JFK passengers as well.

2) It allows for more flexible routings and stopovers. For example, if an aircraft doesn't have enough range to fly DFW-PVG, you can fly DFW-NRT and NRT-PVG and only sell tickets on DFW-PVG.

This sounds like a lot more micromanagement, but you would be able to choose default "rules" for new routes - sell tickets corresponding to flights only (no connecting pax), sell tickets on all possible itineraries (within timetable constraints), etc.

Comments, suggestions? :P

#2
Moldova96

Moldova96

    AE Winner

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 2,012 posts
  • Website:http://www.eurovoix.com
It does sound complicated however I see an issue, how is this possible without the possibility of stopovers in game currently. However this would definetly make more sense regarding routes, however direct flights should probablly still get more demand, people prefer convenience over having to be routed via another city unless it saves $100s.

eu30cUI.png


#3
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,261 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

It does sound complicated however I see an issue, how is this possible without the possibility of stopovers in game currently. However this would definetly make more sense regarding routes, however direct flights should probablly still get more demand, people prefer convenience over having to be routed via another city unless it saves $100s.


Right, pax on LAX-JFK would decide to take a connecting route only if the price is low enough to compensate for the extra duration (and inconvenience). Direct flights should have an advantage.

As for stopovers, this system would allow for it naturally without feeling it's hacked on and duct taped together. :P

#4
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        
To prevent people offering ridiculous options in the hope of gaining one extra passenger (i.e. JFK-LAX-BOS), there could be a small ongoing cost in offering a connecting flight.

Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u


#5
txaggie

txaggie

    AE Know It All

  • Member
  • 157 posts
Yes please.

Might I suggest that with this, AE go with smaller, but more, worlds? There is already incredible competition in certain markets, adding a whole slew of connecting competitors might just be too much- and since so many routes are saturated with airlines flying them directly, wouldn't implementing connections almost be a waste of time, it might just be too difficult to take passengers away from those flying routes directly.

#6
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,261 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

To prevent people offering ridiculous options in the hope of gaining one extra passenger (i.e. JFK-LAX-BOS), there could be a small ongoing cost in offering a connecting flight.


In the JFK-LAX-BOS case, perhaps passengers wouldn't take a connecting trip if the distance is more than twice the end-to-end distance? Things like that to avoid sending pax on ridiculous routings (then again there are always a few real-life pax going on mileage runs looking for the longest possible trip) :P

#7
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,261 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

Yes please.

Might I suggest that with this, AE go with smaller, but more, worlds? There is already incredible competition in certain markets, adding a whole slew of connecting competitors might just be too much- and since so many routes are saturated with airlines flying them directly, wouldn't implementing connections almost be a waste of time, it might just be too difficult to take passengers away from those flying routes directly.


Since connecting itenarary prices over 2 or more flights have to be cheaper than the direct option, maybe this will actually lower ticket prices across the board. Lower profit margins = slower expansion. Just a thought - I haven't analyzed this enough to say that will be the case. :P

#8
Moldova96

Moldova96

    AE Winner

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 2,012 posts
  • Website:http://www.eurovoix.com
I would agree at the current rate, it is the direct routes that suffer from the highest competition, indirect routes would have to be very low on both routes meaning that we may see the introduction of the ULCC into the game. This begs the question when will you be able to add additional fees, eg booking fees, baggage fees, fees for the sake of fees etc.

eu30cUI.png


#9
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,261 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

This begs the question when will you be able to add additional fees, eg booking fees, baggage fees, fees for the sake of fees etc.


Yes :burglar:

#10
ccvl

ccvl

    AE Know It All

  • Member
  • 105 posts

I would agree at the current rate, it is the direct routes that suffer from the highest competition, indirect routes would have to be very low on both routes meaning that we may see the introduction of the ULCC into the game. This begs the question when will you be able to add additional fees, eg booking fees, baggage fees, fees for the sake of fees etc.

Yes :burglar:

Finally! :awesome: Now i can scam Benefit my passengers even more!


I agree that this is important if we want to REALLY allow lcc's. I also think on long haul, much less cost/reputation is necessary to get pax to connect. This would also allow true EK style Megahubs
FLY ORANGE AE7

#11
craigdwatson

craigdwatson

    AE Know It All

  • Validating
  • 112 posts

User's Awards

5   

.



#12
berubium

berubium

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 327 posts

User's Awards

     
Brilliant idea Yuxi! I'm really looking forward to seeing how this will be implemented. I also really like the idea not only for long routes, but also for routes connecting small local markets (very common up until the 1980s).

One question though. If this occurs, will we still be able to get connecting pax at hubs and does that mean we can have 5th freedom routes? For example, if we used your DFW-NRT-PVG example, could I do that if my airline was based in DFW and could other pax from connecting cities to my DFW hub still take that flight, or would I have to set up a ticket for each connection (example a separate ticket for LBB-DFW-NRT-PVG and a separate ticket for CRP-DFW-NRT-PVG)?

6b666ded-5961-48f2-87f7-179923375b14.png


#13
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts

As for stopovers, this system would allow for it naturally without feeling it's hacked on and duct taped together. :P

:rofl:

Having worlds with less airlines in is too easy if im honest, the worlds we have are pretty realistic competition wise, the competition in AE is as horrendous as it is in real life, those LCC's really bugger you up, reminds me of Ryanair.

Also, I believe that I read somewhere on these forums that more worlds requires more computing power, which the servers that AE currently run on cannot keep up with. :/

16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#14
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,261 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

Also, I believe that I read somewhere on these forums that more worlds requires more computing power, which the servers that AE currently run on cannot keep up with. :/


While "more worlds = more server resources" is true, we do have spare capacity. Anyway, that's basically having the same number of players and aircraft spread out among more, smaller worlds instead of fewer, bigger worlds. From a technical perspective it doesn't make a big difference. :P

#15
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts

While "more worlds = more server resources" is true, we do have spare capacity. Anyway, that's basically having the same number of players and aircraft spread out among more, smaller worlds instead of fewer, bigger worlds. From a technical perspective it doesn't make a big difference. :P


My bad.

16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#16
Delta787

Delta787

    Delta787

  • Member
  • 92 posts
Okay, here is my two-cents. :trumpet: For most airlines, especially the larger ones, a flight with a stopover or layover, however you want to put it, they are generally higher than a direct flight. Now for instance, if flying to HNL from ATL on Delta Air Lines, you would Have a layover in LAX, change planes and then continue on to HNL. The same going to SYD (Sydney, Australia), you leave ATL to LAX, have a layover in LAX, then continue on to SYD. Overall, this would be a great idea to add to the game because in real-life, some airlines coming from Asia stopover in Alaska, which are could technical stops, to refuel and then continue on to the destination in the U.S. I know the Cargo aspect has not been added, yet, but this is especially true for Cargo airlines. As for the passenger airlines, if you have a hub in one city, and you have passengers that want to go to another city in Asia or Europe or wherever, this would play an important aspect into the game. I just can't wait to have this in the game. XD Please put it in, please? :thumbsup:

Kelvie Smith
A&P Mechanic
Flight Sim Enthusiast

Posted ImagePosted Image


#17
BritAbroad

BritAbroad

    Moderator and Data Collector

  • Data Manager
  • 1,677 posts
Interesting idea.

Regarding realistic worlds and stopovers - I think we'd have to look at differing rights for foreign airlines in various countries, but also I think it would be good to offer LHR-SYD tickets, for example, but not selling the SIN-SYD leg.



Something worth considering: Perhaps we could tie time taken in here? For example, people wanting to fly LHR-JFK aren't going to pay much for LHR-MAN-DUB-KEF-YHZ-YYZ-ORD-BOS-JFK, but in a similar vein, they may want to pay a premium for LHR-JFK direct in say, three hours? (Hint, hint :P )


sagsmall.png


#18
St. Agre

St. Agre

    I think you'll like them!

  • Member
  • 1,751 posts
  • Website:https://my.flightradar24.com/agremeister
That's a good idea, perhaps base it on overall time instead of distance (not that it makes much difference from a connection standpoint)

But perhaps a flight with an hour layover would be ideal (because it leaves reasonable time for baggage, perhaps offering a shorter layover lowers on time performance?). Shorter or longer would have to cost more, and there would have to a minimum layover time to account for baggage, walking time, and such.

UbxSbIt.png


#19
craigdwatson

craigdwatson

    AE Know It All

  • Validating
  • 112 posts

User's Awards

5   
I think the best way for this to be managed with regards to competition.....

Stop over should not specifically kill your reputation, but instead the actual reputation of the 2 legs (or however many stop overs are permitted).

I agree that the attractive option will always be the least stop overs, maybe flight time could be a new factor to the overall route reputation, where your flight time is ranked up against your competitors, if there is no competitors than you get the full "Flight Time Reputation" factor, if a competitor then serves the route quicker, then your "Flight Time Reputation" is lowered. Maybe could go by a percentage of how much extra minutes are used?

I'm very exciting to see what path this feature will take, how we set up and finance stop over flights, how we control connections through Hubs (If possible in next version) and many other thoughts ;) but I'm sure Yuxi and the staff will once again set up a great feature :rofl2:

#20
n.x.w.m

n.x.w.m

    Your Dear, Beloved, Leading Asian of AE.

  • Data Collector
  • 2,055 posts
  • Website:http://instagram.com/chicagospotter

In the JFK-LAX-BOS case, perhaps passengers wouldn't take a connecting trip if the distance is more than twice the end-to-end distance? Things like that to avoid sending pax on ridiculous routings (then again there are always a few real-life pax going on mileage runs looking for the longest possible trip) :P


LHR-KUL-LGW :P

vStB2mq.png






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: AE 4.0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users