#1
Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:26 PM
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?
#2
Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:36 PM
#3
Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:39 PM
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.
#4
Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:43 PM
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#5
Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:03 PM
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
Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:03 PM
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)
#7
Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:07 PM
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.
#8
Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:47 PM
#9
Posted 05 January 2012 - 09:52 PM
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
#10
Posted 06 January 2012 - 12:12 AM
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
Finally! Now i can
scamBenefit 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
#11
Posted 06 January 2012 - 12:17 AM
#12
Posted 06 January 2012 - 05:29 PM
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)?
#13
Posted 06 January 2012 - 09:23 PM
As for stopovers, this system would allow for it naturally without feeling it's hacked on and duct taped together.
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.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.
It's really me, now. #backtoAE
#14
Posted 06 January 2012 - 09:27 PM
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.
#15
Posted 06 January 2012 - 09:38 PM
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.
My bad.
It's really me, now. #backtoAE
#16
Posted 06 January 2012 - 11:27 PM
Kelvie Smith
A&P Mechanic
Flight Sim Enthusiast
#17
Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:00 AM
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 )
#18
Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:58 AM
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.
#19
Posted 08 January 2012 - 06:43 PM
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
#20
Posted 08 January 2012 - 07:52 PM
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)
LHR-KUL-LGW
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: AE 4.0
Airline Empires →
Suggestions and Feature Requests →
New featuresStarted by Okwhattttttttttttt, 27 May 2022 AE 4.0 |
|
|||
Airline Empires →
Suggestions and Feature Requests →
PartsStarted by DC Pilot, 22 May 2022 AE 4.0 |
|
|||
Airline Empires →
Suggestions and Feature Requests →
Older World Starting DatesStarted by DC Pilot, 02 May 2022 AE 4.0 |
|
|||
Airline Empires →
Suggestions and Feature Requests →
Alliance-based gate leasing/ownership*^ (For AE 3.1 or 4.0, idc)Started by WashiestTulip37, 09 Sep 2020 AE 3.1, AE 4.0 |
|
|||
Airline Empires →
Suggestions and Feature Requests →
ContractsStarted by raafusaf, 13 Oct 2019 AE 4.0 |
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users