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

#21
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

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 )


CONCORDE! :D I think that what Brit is saying is true, people won't pay much for a 30 stop flight, but they will pay more for a direct flight. This also reminds me of inflation.....

vStB2mq.png


#22
sviridovt

sviridovt

    AE King

  • Member
  • 1,510 posts
  • Skype Name:tim.sviridov
  • Website:http://www.tech-central.org
I think that you should be able to pickup/drop off passengers in certain cases. For example, I once fly MIA-DFW-SEA with MIA-DFW segment being on Korean Airlines 747 (yes, I am that weird to want to stay at an airport for 5 hours just so I could fly on a 747). but I think the way it should work (to disallow abuse) is this:

If a plane departs from country A (say Miami, USA) then if it stops over in the same country A (say LAX, USA) then it could drop/pickup passengers in LAX and continue on to say Manila (country B )
However, If a plane departs from country A (again, say Miami) and stops over in country C (say Tokyo, Japan) then it wont pickup or drop off any passengers because its going to country B

#23
St. Agre

St. Agre

    I think you'll like them!

  • Member
  • 1,751 posts
  • Website:https://my.flightradar24.com/agremeister
I think the plane can drop off passengers in country C, in your example, but it can't pick up any.

UbxSbIt.png


#24
M.F. Ensembleson

M.F. Ensembleson

    N717YX

  • Member
  • 1,100 posts

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


I know, me too! I love scamming benefiting my passengers too!

"We do what we must, because we can."

Ensemble%20Holdings.png

Reintroducing Ensemble Holdings, commencing operations Summer 2014.


#25
craigdwatson

craigdwatson

    AE Know It All

  • Validating
  • 112 posts

User's Awards

5   

I think that you should be able to pickup/drop off passengers in certain cases. For example, I once fly MIA-DFW-SEA with MIA-DFW segment being on Korean Airlines 747 (yes, I am that weird to want to stay at an airport for 5 hours just so I could fly on a 747). but I think the way it should work (to disallow abuse) is this:

If a plane departs from country A (say Miami, USA) then if it stops over in the same country A (say LAX, USA) then it could drop/pickup passengers in LAX and continue on to say Manila (country B )
However, If a plane departs from country A (again, say Miami) and stops over in country C (say Tokyo, Japan) then it wont pickup or drop off any passengers because its going to country B


Totally agree with this, realistic but quite simple idea, makes good sense ^_^

#26
St. Agre

St. Agre

    I think you'll like them!

  • Member
  • 1,751 posts
  • Website:https://my.flightradar24.com/agremeister
Perhaps this could alos play into the airport reputation idea? IRL for instance, I would much rather connect through O'hare than Detroit, or Amsterdam than Philadelphia on an international flight.

UbxSbIt.png


#27
ArthurB

ArthurB

    Retired member

  • Member
  • 426 posts
Fully concour :awesome: !!!!!

I wait for this all my AE life, thats amazing (but complicated for programmers :whistling: )! All the times I want to fly from Brasil to Japan I need to fly in Open world, so I can do the LAX stopover :/ .

sgmsig.png
772TAB(2).jpg
 


#28
Brando

Brando

    The Airbus freak

  • Member
  • 494 posts
I know i mentioned baggage fees, can we charge again for part 2 of the flight :P , and id like to have pax get off and on at a fuel stop, maybe :P

#29
BritAbroad

BritAbroad

    Moderator and Data Collector

  • Data Manager
  • 1,677 posts

I know i mentioned baggage fees, can we charge again for part 2 of the flight :P , and id like to have pax get off and on at a fuel stop, maybe :P


The latter would have to be looked at in great detail. There are all sorts of legalities: some countries allow foreign (or certain nationalities') airlines the ability to operate legs to and from their territory. I think most allow disembarkation, but not so sure about boarding.


sagsmall.png


#30
ichristo

ichristo

    New Member

  • Member
  • 7 posts
It's not unusual for airlines to offers cheaper flights into their hub to make the overall cost competitive. In AE now the connecting hub passengers pay a lower ticket price and this would need to continue in some way. For example, a flights from AMS to JFK may be 500, a flight from LHR to AMS 200 but the combined flight should only be 550 otherwise the airline won't encourage people to travel via AMS rather than take LHR to JFK direct. But you don't want to lower the price on both routes individually. Maybe you should be able to define a secondary price for the connecting segment when setting up the route.

#31
Superman

Superman

    Data Collector

  • Data Collector
  • 1,506 posts

User's Awards

2      
I WANT IT!!!! :D :P

#32
Conor

Conor

    Angry Irishman

  • AE Moderator
  • 1,404 posts
I say dock 20% of the ticket price for every stopover.

#33
ArthurB

ArthurB

    Retired member

  • Member
  • 426 posts
I think an airline with main hub in AMS will have connections like JFK-DME, JFK-FRA and other cites "after" AMS, not "before", like LHR and LIS. For Exemple, I think no one flies between JFK and CMN with connection in AMS, but in MAD.

Can you understand my horrible english?

sgmsig.png
772TAB(2).jpg
 


#34
craigdwatson

craigdwatson

    AE Know It All

  • Validating
  • 112 posts

User's Awards

5   
Overall I think it's a great idea, as few have already said, the way to beat your competitors should depend quite a lot on the shortest time taken as it does in the real world and that way everyone is clear on why they can or can't attract demand to their flights. In the real world, an airline such as BA doesn't limit X amount of seats on a long haul flight for Heathrow will have 2-3 seats restricted only for passengers originating from EDI or GLA.... instead a proportion of the capacity on long haul flights will be intended for connections in a flexible way to keep up with changes in demand. Allocating 2 seats for only NCL-LHR-JFK passengers on a LHR-JFK isn't how it works, in reality its a much more flexible system.

I'm just interested to see how it'll be managed...

MAD-JFK
MAD-DXB
Could I offer JFK-MAD-DXB? I'm aware that political policies come into play here.
MAD-LPA-GIG (Rio-De-Janerio)
BCN-LPA
would passengers be able to fly BCN-LPA-GIG? swapping aircraft at LPA?
MAD-DXB-DEL
BCN-DXB
Would passengers be able to swap aircraft outside of home country to fly BCN-DXB-DEL?

As i mentioned earlier in a post, giving routes a personalised status then by bulk create default rules to manage this on mass might be an option? e.g. rule 1 - "Allow XX% of FlightsA to connect with FlightsB via CityA" (Allow 20% of USARoutes to connect with MIddleEastRoutes via MAD) The user would decide just how in depth they want to utilize this feature... maybe just Domestic, Short Haul and Long haul. They may wish to divide up their domestic services into separate groups, everyone to there own.


Any Thoughts?

#35
ccvl

ccvl

    AE Know It All

  • Member
  • 105 posts
What is the timing looking like for this feature
FLY ORANGE AE7

#36
jakelewisf1

jakelewisf1

    New Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

User's Awards

2   
i like the idea,, also another idea is deciding where the aircraft goes on its delivery flight, its something i saw on another airline game, basically you send it to the hub it will be based at

#37
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     
bring on the 5th freedoms :D

#38
Harshil

Harshil

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 12 posts
The Idea does sound amazing, that is the ability to change flights at hubs for example in R1 there are no planes that could fly from JFK to SYD so a stopover at LAX and a change of flights would be useful, also it would increase PAX on the existing network for the airline. Like in the real world passengers from BOM to JFK have the options to take Emirates and change flights at DXB, or British Airways and change at LHR or LGW or take Qatar Airways and change at Doha.

#39
M.F. Ensembleson

M.F. Ensembleson

    N717YX

  • Member
  • 1,100 posts
Exactly Harshil, and I think that subsidaries should be incorporated with this. If we have a big airline, XYZ Airlines, we should be able to have XYZ Express, and then people can connect for smaller distances while using smaller aircraft.

"We do what we must, because we can."

Ensemble%20Holdings.png

Reintroducing Ensemble Holdings, commencing operations Summer 2014.


#40
Randallator

Randallator

    Train Fan

  • Member
  • 336 posts

User's Awards

      2   

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

I think that would be best for routes like if I wanted to fly from Waterford Ireland to JFK I would have to fly to Shannon or Dublin first on a smaller aircraft cause a bigger 747-400 would not be able to takeoff from Waterford with out crashing into trees

2rLn142.pngmsg-26818-0-86969200-1392319731.png

EIN0037.png
 
#aerlingus&ryanairworldbestairline






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