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

#61
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts

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


That seems like it's more complicated :/

16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#62
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,260 posts
  • WLM ID:yuxi@live.com
  • AIM Screen Name:yuxi3200

That seems like it's more complicated :/


That's why I listed several options for handling the complexity without making route creation more complicated (unless you want to micromanage it) :P

#63
LLC

LLC

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 461 posts
Will there be "minimum connecting times" like there is published in OAG flight guides

ie in RDU-MCI-LAX & IAD-MCI-SEA
(to allow for RDU-LAX, RDU-SEA, IAD-LAX, IAD-SEA passengers)
how long will the 2 aircraft have to sit at MCI to allow for connecting passengers,
and would this time be adjustable ?

http://flyerguide.co...ting_Times_(AA)
http://flyerguide.co...ting_Times_(UA)

For the AI Passengers:

Do you have a tight connection, and is it legal? You need to make sure of the minimum connection times allotted at the airport you are traveling through. If it is less time than the minimum, it is considered an illegal or hot connection (essentially, the airline doesn't owe you anything if you miss your connecting flight)



#64
AirbusJunky

AirbusJunky

    Global Connection Holdings Co-CEO

  • Member
  • 56 posts
This is a great idea because then we can fly UK to Australia via Asia.
Airbus is the best, way better than Boeing!

#65
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        

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


Perhaps pax offering the highest yield could fill the plane first, based on the amount they pay per mile?

Say pax A is competing with pax B for a seat on AAA-BBB.
Pax A is flying CCC-AAA-BBB, a total distance of 300 miles, and has paid $300 for the privilege. Thus, Pax A is paying $1 per mile.
Pax B is flying DDD-AAA-BBB, a total distance of 600 miles, and has also paid $300 for this. Thus, pax B is paying 50c per mile.
Pax A would have priority, as pax A is paying more per mile. PAX B would presumably have to find another airline.


Alternatively, to simulate the somewhat unpredictable nature of pax, priority could be completely randomized.

Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

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


#66
KennyOMG

KennyOMG

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 11 posts
I think there are quite a few different concepts mixing here.

First thing that is sorely lacking in AE, especially in worlds starting before the '80s is second freedom (stop in a foreign country for refuel and/or to unload pax, aka "direct flights"). This would tremendously help early on in those worlds, would allow a relatively painless (eg non-game breaking) introduction of the whole itinerary concept, would allow plenty of space for fine tune and general feedback whether the players like it or not. Making pax decisions whether to take a non-stop or a direct flight is an easy flight time vs price equation. IF there is competition. A good second freedom example is QF SYD-LAX-JFK (dropping off pax in both LAX and JFK but no LAX-JFK service).


Fifth freedom (flight originating in own country, landing in country A and then country B while transporting pax A- B) should NOT be made available because it's impossible to make it fair to everyone. There simply is no system that could make fair. An example would be LH FRA-BKK-KUL where you can buy tickets for BKK-KUL alone.

As for sixth freedom (transport pax between countries A and C via own country B, aka hub networks) also opens a whole can of worms. Pax decision to take a route should be based on both total time, price and IFS (especially premium classes) but for time you need scheduling, for that you need slot realistic management, and that won't happen without an economy overhaul. Price is also a problem because so many people dumping capacity mindlessly on routes (also there are lots of "life support airlines" operating at zero profit or less); excess demand generation is favoring the dumping airline; and in general the numbers are waaaay off (Bristol-Sana'a 2F 18C 99Y daily? Seriously?).

My take is second definitely, fifth no, sixth maybe if there are underlying changes so it makes sense. :)

#67
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

I think there are quite a few different concepts mixing here.

First thing that is sorely lacking in AE, especially in worlds starting before the '80s is second freedom (stop in a foreign country for refuel and/or to unload pax, aka "direct flights"). This would tremendously help early on in those worlds, would allow a relatively painless (eg non-game breaking) introduction of the whole itinerary concept, would allow plenty of space for fine tune and general feedback whether the players like it or not. Making pax decisions whether to take a non-stop or a direct flight is an easy flight time vs price equation. IF there is competition. A good second freedom example is QF SYD-LAX-JFK (dropping off pax in both LAX and JFK but no LAX-JFK service).


Sorry to nitpick but it's a BNE-LAX-JFK route :P but because BNE-LAX is 6x weekly, SYD picks up the Monday flight. Also, it would require a huuuge amount of data collecting to implement 2nd freedom flights, and i get a feeling some countries, you won't be ablt o find such old documents. Also i think Yuxi doesn't want to like say in a world going from 1960-2010. countries will eventually not renew 2nd freedom flights to particular airlines, so he'd have to change the political restrictions for every country countless times over the course of 1 world. Also, say i'm running a route that goes from Country A - Country B - Country C - Country D. it is now 1980, and country B doesn't let me fly from B-C anymore. so then you'd have to reroute the aircraft again. Basically, 2nd freedoms would be a pain in the back to implement. Alternative is O worlds ;) ;) ;) ;)


Fifth freedom (flight originating in own country, landing in country A and then country B while transporting pax A- B) should NOT be made available because it's impossible to make it fair to everyone. There simply is no system that could make fair. An example would be LH FRA-BKK-KUL where you can buy tickets for BKK-KUL alone.


Again, pain in the back. Requires lots of data collecting, and runs into the same problems as before if a country doesn't allow 5th freedoms.

As for sixth freedom (transport pax between countries A and C via own country B, aka hub networks) also opens a whole can of worms. Pax decision to take a route should be based on both total time, price and IFS (especially premium classes) but for time you need scheduling, for that you need slot realistic management, and that won't happen without an economy overhaul. Price is also a problem because so many people dumping capacity mindlessly on routes (also there are lots of "life support airlines" operating at zero profit or less); excess demand generation is favoring the dumping airline; and in general the numbers are waaaay off (Bristol-Sana'a 2F 18C 99Y daily? Seriously?).


The configuration problem has been raised '000s of times. the only way to rectify this would be increase min. pitch for F and J/C.

#68
KennyOMG

KennyOMG

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 11 posts
I don't think that even in the real world there was any limitation on second freedom rights besides the limitations we have in the game right now (eg no Israel-Iran hops). Remember that with second freedom you still only transport pax from your own country to a third country, only farther - or in the case of triangle routings, more - than you would be able to otherwise. So, just let players do whichever 2nd freedom routes they want, it would be the perfect platform to test connecting pax mechanics and code.

I never raised configuration problem but if you want to go there then you must talk about real world ticket prices where 70-80% of economy tickets are loss leaders and barely (IF!) able to cover the carrier's own costs. What we have now are full price tickets only and as long as this is the case there's no reason to talk about seat pitches and such for C and F class.

#69
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     
2nd freedoms = more data collecting. eg. USA - East Asia, means no stopping in Europe prior to whenever. Also, flights between Europe and South Africa often stopped at Sal Island, due to many African nations refusing to allow South African flights to overfly their territory during the Apartheid regime.

#70
KennyOMG

KennyOMG

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 11 posts
Again, my suggestion wasn't to compile and maintain a realistic list of second freedoms - but rather "free for all". You want to open an A-( B)-C route, please go ahead. This is not the same as Open Worlds as you can still only fly between your home country an a third country, not your "jump off point" and your final destination. Again, not based on real world second freedoms granted.

Also what you're talking about are true political restrictions, like Israeli overflight rights. I don't think it's practical to sink time into that one. I was NOT talking about restrictions like this.

I don't know how to say it any more clear. Not a realistic list of second freedoms, not overfly rights (1st freedom btw) but available for anyone anywhere (or maybe based on some criteria, whatever).

#71
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        
In my opinion...

On a route such as SEA-NRT-HKG or KIX, by a US based airline, NRT-HKG/KIX should be saleable to any passengers who arrived in NRT from the USA on the carrier's flights, say, for example, JFK-NRT.

This could then create a scissor hub looking something like
SEA-NRT
JFK-NRT
SEA-NRT-HKG
SEA-NRT-KIX
JFK-NRT-HKG
JFK-NRT-KIX.

Now, by not having saleable traffic on NRT-KIX/HKG, this will therefore not affect the local market at all. This is the problem that will occur if full fifth freedoms are implemented.
This means that American Airlines can't have an extensive point to point China > South East Asia network, at least for the purposes of carrying passengers.
Furthermore, second freedom rights are generally far easier to acquire than fifth freedoms, and will be allowed most of the time.
This is the best way to implement international stopovers without allowing a US based megaairline to totally kill a poor little Peruvian airline. JFK-NRT-KIX would effectively by JFK-KIX with a technical stop in NRT, as far as passenger rights are concerned.
It also saves on data collection, and what's more, even if realistic fifth freedoms were implemented, I am almost completely sure they would be abused.

Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

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


#72
LLC

LLC

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 461 posts

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


could this also take into consideration connection time (or for a passener staying on the same aircraft how long the total flight time is)

ie if MHT - DEN - LGB takes less time than BOS - LAX due to origin & destination delays ?

#73
stevenab87

stevenab87

    New Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

In reality, tickets sold on connecting routes have to be priced quite a bit below tickets that are non-stop in order to garner traffic. Would passengers be able to differentiate between a non-stop and connect carrier for a specific O&D and take price into consideration when deciding which carrier to fly with? For this to work, non-stop carriers would have to be allowed to take a price-premium against connect carriers and not lose all market share.

 

Source: This is what I do for a living.  :lol:



#74
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts

In reality, tickets sold on connecting routes have to be priced quite a bit below tickets that are non-stop in order to garner traffic. Would passengers be able to differentiate between a non-stop and connect carrier for a specific O&D and take price into consideration when deciding which carrier to fly with? For this to work, non-stop carriers would have to be allowed to take a price-premium against connect carriers and not lose all market share.

 

Source: This is what I do for a living.  :lol:

Connecting passengers currently garner half the price of the connecting route. E.G. A-B $150 and B-C is $275, the passenger pays $287.50. That's most likely not too realistic :P


16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#75
LLC

LLC

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 461 posts


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


Would this result in less flights (as LAX-JFK demand could be filled with a LAX-DFW-JFK 1 stop flight) ?

And would this allow for connecting passengers in the 'middle' airport (DEN) ?:

SEA-DEN-MIA
LAX-DEN-JFK
PDX-DEN-BOS
SFO-DEN-IAD
SAN-DEN-ATL

So basically it would work as following:

1) Non-Stop Flights - LAX-JFK


2) One-Stop Flights - LAX-DEN-JFK


Passengers* who fly on One-Stop Flight(s) (LAX-DEN-JFK) do not have to change planes at DEN (one-stop passengers stay on-board the aircraft)

so a One-Stop Flight (LAX-DEN-JFK) should have a premium over a set of a set of Connecting Flights (LAX-DEN & DEN-JFK)

3) Connecting Flights -  LAX-DEN & DEN-JFK

* Based on real life



#76
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        

I agree there should be a differentiation between a connection and a one stop flight.


Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

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


#77
LLC

LLC

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 461 posts

I agree there should be a differentiation between a connection and a one stop flight.


So the way I see this going if (one / two / three etc) stop flights are implemented is that all flights through a hub will be one (or more) stop flights
(as in real life - for example if you look at Southwest's flights they are mostly 1, 2, & 3 stop flights )

 

 

2 stop flight: SEA-DEN-MCO-MIA
1 stop flight: LAX-DEN-JFK
1 stop flight: PDX-DEN-BOS
3 stop flight: SFO-DEN-IAD-JFK-BOS
1 stop flight: SAN-DEN-ATL



#78
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        

I don't think that all flights through hubs should be one (or more) stop(s).

Flights actually tend to terminate at hubs. SWA may be an exception.

But hubs tend to have a lot of maintenancey things there.

Furthermore, there's a lot of 'One stop through hub' flights that wouldn't see any continuing passengers anyway, e.g. MIA-SFO-JFK.

One/Two stop flights should be more regarded as a thing for long distance flights (e.g. SYD-SIN-LHR) or regional flights with little demand, e.g. LAX-[Regional]-[Regional]. 

Also AE4 needs the ability to triangle routes, imo. (E.g. CDG-BZV-FIH-CDG)


Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

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


#79
txaggie

txaggie

    AE Know It All

  • Member
  • 157 posts


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

 

What about us nuts who look to stop in every airport possible on our trips between Point A and Point B? 

 

:rofl2:



#80
LLC

LLC

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 461 posts

I don't think that all flights through hubs should be one (or more) stop(s).
Flights actually tend to terminate at hubs. SWA may be an exception.
But hubs tend to have a lot of maintenancey things there.
Furthermore, there's a lot of 'One stop through hub' flights that wouldn't see any continuing passengers anyway, e.g. MIA-SFO-JFK.
One/Two stop flights should be more regarded as a thing for long distance flights (e.g. SYD-SIN-LHR) or regional flights with little demand, e.g. LAX-[Regional]-[Regional]. 
Also AE4 needs the ability to triangle routes, imo. (E.g. CDG-BZV-FIH-CDG)

 
What I mean is an Airline structures the flights trough the hubs as at a minimum of "1 stop flights"
If lots of people connect is immaterial if the flight(s) are full - it is an aircraft scheduling thing

also what appears to be flights ending at a hub is in reality a 1 stop flight with each leg having different flight numbers
as they fly from point A to the Hub then to point B just sometimes both legs do not have the same flight number

Also note that I like to set up my flights like how SWA does in real life (thus not requiring hubs)

LAX-DEN-JFK  (1 stop LAX-JFK)
JFK-DEN-LAX  (1 stop JFK-LAX)
SFO-DEN-IAD-JFK-BOS (1 stop SFO-IAD, DEN-JFK, IAD-BOS ; 2 stop SFO-JFK, DEN-BOS ; 3 stop SFO-BOS)
BOS-JFK-IAD-DEN-SFO (1 stop IAD-SFO, JFK-DEN, IAD-BOS ; 2 stop JFK-SFO, BOS-DEN ; 3 stop BOS-SFO)

 

setting the flights up this way provides more options for passengers without requiring a hub at any airport

 

 

I agree there should be a differentiation between a connection and a one stop flight.

So the way I see this going if (one / two / three etc) stop flights are implemented is that all flights through a hub will be one (or more) stop flights
(as in real life - for example if you look at Southwest's flights they are mostly 1, 2, & 3 stop flights )






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