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

#41
Randallator

Randallator

    Train Fan

  • Member
  • 336 posts

User's Awards

      2   

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

I think the plane can drop off passengers in country C, in your example, but it can't pick up any.

I thin your right and wrong at the same time it think you should.be able to use both connection flights as both a connecting flights and normal flights at once and drop off and pick up pax at connection airport

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

EIN0037.png
 
#aerlingus&ryanairworldbestairline


#42
Randallator

Randallator

    Train Fan

  • Member
  • 336 posts

User's Awards

      2   

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

I think the plane can drop off passengers in country C, in your example, but it can't pick up any.

I think your right and wrong at the same time it think you should.be able to use both connection flights as both a connecting flights and normal flights at once and drop off and pick up pax at connection airport

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

EIN0037.png
 
#aerlingus&ryanairworldbestairline


#43
Obelix

Obelix

    Fetch me a Wild Boar Dogmatix

  • Member
  • 385 posts
This would make the BA0001 - BA0002 routes between LCY and JFK with an A318 possible too

Posted Image
Not a real 737NG cockpit, only a SIM cockpit Posted Image


#44
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

This would make the BA0001 - BA0002 routes between LCY and JFK with an A318 possible too


And that means another over-saturated market! :P

vStB2mq.png


#45
Obelix

Obelix

    Fetch me a Wild Boar Dogmatix

  • Member
  • 385 posts

And that means another over-saturated market! :P

Maybe but not unrealistic. BA flies that route today just like Air France flew the Concorde in the CCS - CDG route with a stopover at SMA back in the 70's.

Posted Image
Not a real 737NG cockpit, only a SIM cockpit Posted Image


#46
Shaq

Shaq

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 97 posts

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 agree with this idea, specially with the default rules!

#47
Viking Air

Viking Air

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 27 posts

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


Sorry for the late comment but I would like to leave my comment too ^_^

The idea is pretty good, but:

HUBs: connecting passengers will be allowed on "hubs only" I suppose, right?

STOPOVERS: this could be a good stopover solution, but what about right traffics.... you need to fix them as well... if you want to run a LHR-SIN-SYD and you are based in UK you would need to step up a hub in SIN and have traffic rights for opening the SIN-SYD leg (even if not selling the tkts...) that is not possible with actual system :ermm:

... but of course you can fix it all, boss :woot:

So if route AAA-BBB has a daily demand of 100 pax and BBB-CCC has 100 as well, if you set up a AAA-CCC fare for which there is demand of 50 (and you get them all, without competitors) your routes AAA-BBB and BBB-CCC should step up at 150 each. this means that as you offer more and more destinations your "already existing flights" needs to be increased in frequency as well, that is of course more realistic. :thumbsup:


Now let's see the hard side.... I guess it could be complicated to build up the tkt fares on a big network....

Let's make an example:
You have 100 routes and you add 1 more you could be willing to add... let's say, realisically .... 60 fares....
if you put in line a new plane and open 6 new routes you need to add 6*60= 360 fares... tha't quite a job :sly:

But definitively is a great idea, and we could say a more real route developement in AE, less point to point and more hub. But we need to increase costs somewere to balance this...

Regarding the comments on more small words I would say that dimensions of 300 airlines (as R5) are good...

#48
Moldova96

Moldova96

    AE Winner

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 2,012 posts
  • Website:http://www.eurovoix.com
I think first we would need to implement the stop-over option, thsi would be easy to tell how the other system will be used by players. I also think that there should be a limit on the number of stop overs people can operate from one airport. Becuase otherwise we will see mega airlines flying from major airports across the world to small destinations operating more or less a minature hub in that city. This would cause huge issues for smaller carriers who would see "spam" airlines competing with them.

eu30cUI.png


#49
blumage

blumage

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 97 posts

User's Awards

2   
will this feature come up with aircraft time table? coz if it's coming with that we should also take into consideration layover time. Because waiting 4 hrs or 12 hrs makes a big difference. Also realistic stopover time. You can't possibly connect through LHR in less than an 1hr. I managed a 20 min connection in ZRH but i was running like crazy and ended up loosing my luggage, i only had 20 mins because the first flight was delayed and i did not want to hop on a late night flight. Had also a stopover at LHR first flight arriving at 5.30 am with connecting time of 1.30 hrs and also barely made it but also got my luggage misplaced. Although i still <3 stopovers.
<a href="http://s237.photobuc...=asianNOIG.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i237.photobuc.../asianNOIG.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
And If we like to over do things, just imagine what is like to be our guest!

#50
Nick of DC Airways

Nick of DC Airways

    DC Airways CEO

  • Member
  • 187 posts
I want

Avant Member | Aspire Member

 

Sig.png


#51
St. Agre

St. Agre

    I think you'll like them!

  • Member
  • 1,744 posts
  • Website:https://my.flightmemory.com/agremeister
Not sure if I am an idiot for just realizing this, and everyone has known it all along, but:

Many people who have posted seem to be thinking "why would I offer a stopover if flying direct is cheaper and I could charge more by doing so?"

Well the point of offering it is not to do instead of flying direct, but it is another way to fill spare seats on the plane that are not already filled. In AE you tend to make more money when you charge enough to fill about 85-90% of the seats on the plane vs. charging less and filling all of them. What this would do is allow you to make the money from charging to the 80-90% level, and then make even more by filling the last 10-15% with passengers who are connecting.

UbxSbIt.png


#52
dhon

dhon

    Smile Group

  • Member
  • 40 posts
although it is more realistic, will it be causing too much loading on the server? it is talking about numerous variation.
I can still remember the previous ver. which allow player to "add/minus 5/10/15%" of the ticket price when the occupancy is "higher/low 100%/95%/80%" and it finally getting the servere extremely slow~ :(
Smile Pacific / Air Smile
Members of Smile Group (Previously as Air Developing)

#53
brandon97

brandon97

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 12 posts
We might need a minimum price for a ticket so someone doesn't go rediculously low and conquer all possible routes.

#54
KJS607

KJS607

    Absolutely Fabulous

  • Member
  • 3,678 posts

User's Awards

3      

We might need a minimum price for a ticket so someone doesn't gorediculously low and conquer all possible routes.


My technique :P think this topic is pretty dead now :/

2m5cohz.png


#55
charles66

charles66

    New Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts
Half of that i did not understand, yet i really want to have stop-overs etc. in the game.

#56
KJS607

KJS607

    Absolutely Fabulous

  • Member
  • 3,678 posts

User's Awards

3      

Half of that i did not understand, yet i really want to have stop-overs etc. in the game.


ignore the stuff that you do not understand, just concentrate on what you do as a goal :P

2m5cohz.png


#57
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,251 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200
Decoupling flights/physical seats from itineraries/tickets is a great technical solution to allow all the flexibility people want, but it would also complicate the route creation process. This system would introduce two concepts:

flights - individual segments scheduled on various aircraft or automatically distributed across fleets
itineraries - tickets you sell and manage prices for, comprise an arbitrary number of flights

Do you create flights first and sell an arbitrary combination of tickets across the network, or do you create itineraries first and start flights as needed?

Given a flight (say DFW-JFK) with multiple itineraries being sold (LAX-DFW, DFW-JFK-LHR, etc), how would you distribute the seats across the different itineraries being sold? First-come, first-serve or do you manually reserve pools of seats on each flight for different itineraries (which could get extremely complicated)? The profitability of first-come, first-serve would rely heavily on the order in which the algorithm books passengers, while the latter option would give you more control (and micromanagement work).

Based on AE's "optional micromanagement" philosophy, if we go down this road there will need to be as much automation as possible. In AE 4 one should not need to spend hours working in revenue management for his airline to survive.

Discuss :P

#58
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts
Perhaps if we have passengers who book connecting flights pay the full cost for each leg (less 10-25% discount) that would be a good system. As for reserving seats, first come first serve sounds good with the exception of ensuring that all direct flight passengers (e.g. flying the DFW-HNL leg of OKC-DFW-HNL) have a seat.

16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#59
BBT

BBT

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 80 posts
I love this idea to improve AE, i was thinking about that kind of conecting PAX in the past, because sometimes due to competition with other airlines, my airline can propose cheaper conecting flights via HUB than direct flight, it happens very often, so i think its a great idea. And if they will watch flight times it would be even better !!! That means that there would be scheduling and we could make better conecting flights etc. Just cant wait! Scheduling, planing, competition, strategy.. AE comes very realistic airline management game!!! Thank you and hope that this will come soon!

#60
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,251 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

Perhaps if we have passengers who book connecting flights pay the full cost for each leg (less 10-25% discount) that would be a good system. As for reserving seats, first come first serve sounds good with the exception of ensuring that all direct flight passengers (e.g. flying the DFW-HNL leg of OKC-DFW-HNL) have a seat.


The point of this system is that tickets and prices are done at the itinerary layer, not flight segments. So you can set LAX-DFW-JFK at its own price without anything to do with LAX-DFW or DFW-JFK. That way you'd be able to compete for LAX-JFK passengers with your connecting itinerary. :P





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