D: But, but,
#101
Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:48 AM
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#102
Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:58 AM
This is too much US advertising.
#103
Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:34 AM
I would love to make my own schedules. It would help make the aircrasft utilization a bit more realistic and give me more of an idea of what I actually fly.
#104
Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:26 AM
Timetabling is a very good idea.
We wouldn't have to make one flt to connect with another.
Just, is JFK-CDG arrives at CDG at 9AM, pax in that flight could take any other that is departing in 60-90min
I say 60-90min so pax can pass through immigration.
#105
Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:27 AM
Too lazy to read this all So forgive me if this was already suggested...
One simple rule suggestion for R worlds: If i fly GRU-LAX-HND, i will fly to HND only because it's a foreign destination from LAX. This would render GRU-LAX-JFK impossible, for exemple. Basically, if you are to have a hub abroad, you can only set flights back to your country or to another country. For short, domestic flights in foreign countries are forbidden, and that would maintain realistic worlds different from open worlds . There could also be a limit for flights from a foreign hub.
#106
Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:34 AM
#107
Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:35 AM
#108
Guest_TargusLogic_*
Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:05 PM
Love to see this
#109
Posted 31 August 2013 - 12:04 PM
with this stopover thing, could I fly from SYD-JFK, refueling in LAX?
#110
Posted 02 September 2013 - 08:47 AM
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.
Looks like you can.
#111
Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:40 PM
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?
Yeah. I agree on this suggestion. This enables my medium-haul planes to fly long-haul routes such as the Boeing 777-300ER and the Airbus A340-300. I had been waiting for so long the feature of connecting flights in this simulation.
#112
Posted 05 October 2013 - 07:41 PM
Why not go for services that have bot One Stop Destinations and Hub Spoke.Airline connections as follows:
Town A-City A- City B- Town B (Change of flights)
Town A-Town B- Town C (No Change)
This could add alliance partnerships as well. Say
Airline A from Town A- City A (Hub of Airline A or Alliance Partner )-Town B
Revenue could be shared on basis of miles or tickets sold.
Small airliners can get increased wealth and major Airlines get more PAX on hyper competitive routes.
#113
Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:51 AM
That's the general idea, but the problem at hand is how to enable that level of control without overwhelming the player with micromanagement.
Scheduling a fleet of 50 is rather manageable, but 500 would be insanity. So it still boils down to curbing expansion.
Using constraints to remove non-sensical connections based on timing and travel preferences (no connections longer than X hours, total travel distance cannot be longer than some multiple of the direct origin->destination distance, ...) may whittle down the number of itineraries to a more manageable number...
I would prefer a simple rule and let the game mechanics discourage odd scenarios. For example, wait time and trip time based demand.
#114
Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:37 PM
One comment - is there a way to calculate that a connecting hub geographically makes sense? Right now one "advantageous" (i.e. "unrealistic cheat") use for hubs is to put them at your farthest terminus (e.g. HNL) so your HNL-JFK and HNL-SFO flights are full...but no real airline or PAX would ever make a JFK-HNL-SFO connecting flight so this flightpath should have no impact on demand.
Expanding....JFK-STL-SFO would have a significant demand, CLE-JFK-SFO would see less but some, and STL-JFK-SFO would see none.
#115
Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:19 PM
Scheduling a fleet of 50 is rather manageable, but 500 would be insanity. So it still boils down to curbing expansion.
Since fleet sizes up to 1000 are well within the realistic range, I don't see curbing expansion that far as a positive. In any case, growth should be limited by economics, not players' patience for tedious scheduling.
One comment - is there a way to calculate that a connecting hub geographically makes sense? Right now one "advantageous" (i.e. "unrealistic cheat") use for hubs is to put them at your farthest terminus (e.g. HNL) so your HNL-JFK and HNL-SFO flights are full...but no real airline or PAX would ever make a JFK-HNL-SFO connecting flight so this flightpath should have no impact on demand.
Expanding....JFK-STL-SFO would have a significant demand, CLE-JFK-SFO would see less but some, and STL-JFK-SFO would see none.
Yes, travel time considerations should minimize those nonsensical routings. The ones that inevitably slip through can then be considered mileage runners.
#116
Posted 13 November 2013 - 12:39 PM
In any case, growth should be limited by economics, not players' patience for tedious scheduling.
Agree. But in real world, biggest airlines are not necessary the most profitable ones either. No need to put a hard limit on fleet size, but an airline with fleet size 100 should be equally profitable compared to one with 1000 (both normalized to the same single aircraft type).
#117
Posted 17 February 2014 - 10:41 PM
A little airline lesson from a former airline employee (and I know there are many of us out there).
JFK-ORD-LAX = DIRECT FLIGHT
JFK-LAX = NON STOP FLIGHT
JFK-ORD
ORD-LAX = CONNECTING FLIGHT
YVR-YYZ-LHR = DIRECT FLIGHT
YVR-LHR = NON STOP FLIGHT
YVR-YYZ
YYZ-LHR = CONNECTING FLIGHT
My apologies. It has always been a pet peeve of mine how people get it wrong.
#118
Posted 18 February 2014 - 03:27 AM
A little airline lesson from a former airline employee (and I know there are many of us out there).
JFK-ORD-LAX = DIRECT FLIGHT
JFK-LAX = NON STOP FLIGHT
JFK-ORD
ORD-LAX = CONNECTING FLIGHT
YVR-YYZ-LHR = DIRECT FLIGHT
YVR-LHR = NON STOP FLIGHT
YVR-YYZ
YYZ-LHR = CONNECTING FLIGHT
My apologies. It has always been a pet peeve of mine how people get it wrong.
Yep, the general public tends to use "direct" and "nonstop" interchangeably. To make things even more confusing, some airlines use the same flight number on two segments and market it as a direct flight, when it in fact involves an aircraft change. The resulting FF mileage is the as if the flight was nonstop between the origin and the destination. Apparently in cases like these, the second flight would not be held if the inbound flight is delayed (correct me if that's not the case).
One example:
Screenshot 2014-02-17 22.23.51.png 77.39KB 2 downloads
Before the merger, CO did the same with IAH-EWR-PEK, which was a "direct flight" for flight number and mileage purposes but was really a 738 connecting to a 772.
#119
Posted 19 February 2014 - 08:37 AM
As far as I'm concerned-
This is amazing and it should be a thing!
One thing I would say though:
Using your example of LAX-NRT-PVG then I think that the route should be assigned on the LAX-PVG screen and NRT is chosen as a stopover on yet another dropdown box. I do not think the routes should be assigned LAX-NRT-PVG as this could end up being very confusing!
Stopovers should NOT allow passengers to get on and off, and so routes with stopovers should be done from the overall route.
Stopovers should not be allowed to exchange passengers because using them would:
1) allow people to cheat political restrictions and fly within other countries as long as that plane had come from their home country
2) Make flight capacity difficult to manage as how do you get people to get off/ get on independently when you can only change overall route price as some want to go LAX-NRT, some LAX-PVG, some NRT-PVG. How would all these three be allowed in one ticket price? LAX-NRT and NRT-PVG pax would be paying trans-pacific fees for potentially a few hundred miles
3) Your above example highlights why stopovers should be just that: an hour or more's inconvenience (and this should be reflected in pax's attitude towards them!) that extends the range of an aircraft
Basically:
1) Passengers should not be able to exchange at stopovers
2) LAX-NRT-PVG should be managed on the LAX-PVG screen with a dropdown box allowing you to select a stopover point.
That's just my opinion!
#120
Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:26 PM
I love this idea. As was pointed out, no one can beat political restrictions. Just another thing, there should be stopover gates, a fraction of the cost of an actual gate, just to account for use of an Apron and other airport resources.I have taken over research for fuel/tech stops.
A rough proposal that I am trying to finalize:
One or two tech stops will be allowed. The stop over time will range from 1 hour- 2 hours. No pax will be taken on, only fuel.
In terms of stopovers to receive/discharge pax, this is a tricky area. USA doesnt allow them, but they are common place throughout the rest of the world.
Just some rough things being floated around.
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