Sign In
Create Account
Today I was looking at some Irish and airports when I saw this. I'll give you an example: Airport 'A' gate cost: $2,630. Airport 'B' gate cost: $2,980. Airport 'C' gate cost: $99,194. Seat demand from airport 'C' to 'A': 33 seat demand. Airport 'C' to 'B': 22 seat demand. So there is a higher seat demand at the lower gate rental,why?
Uneven seat demand
Started by Hake., Apr 07 2012 04:06 PM
#1
Posted 07 April 2012 - 04:06 PM
Hake.
-
- Member
-
- 4,295 posts
Too Old For All This Jazz
- Skype Name:billfoster123
- Website:http://willsweg.com
Back to top
#2
Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:42 PM
NilsOlavThePenguin
-
- Member
-
- 673 posts
Penguin
Well, I belive that the demand is calculated with some fancy equation that bases itself at the number of yearly pax at that airport.
#3
Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:23 PM
Hake.
-
- Member
-
- 4,295 posts
Too Old For All This Jazz
- Skype Name:billfoster123
- Website:http://willsweg.com
Really? That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't it be based on amount of pax?
#4
Posted 08 April 2012 - 07:51 AM
FlyingDutchman7
-
- Member
-
- 39 posts
AE Player
Why not basing the amount of pax on the amount of people living in that city/county/province? That would be more realistic as right now the top airports are the ones that serve as huge hubs (ATL for example), while if they weren't a hub, they wouldn't have had so many pax. I think this would also address the problem of exponential growth as the amount of global demand will be downsized by 33 percent (assuming that 2/3 of world pax travel with one layover). With the new system of layovers this could work.
#5
Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:14 PM
QK Flight Industries
-
- Member
-
- 2,135 posts
a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond
These ideas you are mentioning would require huge amounts of data input that I don't think Brit would stand for... perhaps in AE4, but there is only so many volunteer hours and server space available for this type of thing. Inserting X amount of passengers through the airport annually is simpler because it is one number for that airport. Inserting X number of citizens in a city would result in a need to say how many would fly, what they would fly, where they would fly (example, for SoCal region, they can choose between LAX, LGB, and SNA, which are all relatively close to eachother), and so on and so forth...
It's really me, now. #backtoAE
#6
Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:35 PM
Hake.
-
- Member
-
- 4,295 posts
Too Old For All This Jazz
- Skype Name:billfoster123
- Website:http://willsweg.com
I think this would work too: If airports that are close to big cities ie. Newark, London Luton/ Southend, that they have higher PAX demandWhy not basing the amount of pax on the amount of people living in that city/county/province? That would be more realistic as right now the top airports are the ones that serve as huge hubs (ATL for example), while if they weren't a hub, they wouldn't have had so many pax. I think this would also address the problem of exponential growth as the amount of global demand will be downsized by 33 percent (assuming that 2/3 of world pax travel with one layover). With the new system of layovers this could work.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
