Jump to content

Photo

Congestion Penalty.

- - - - - R6

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
RobertS

RobertS

    New Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts
I know that the development of a game of this magnitude is no easy task, but there is an item in the worlds that is not being put into practice: Congestion Penalty!
cannot accept that certain routes have absurd offers seating for passengers day.
Example in R6: ATL x ORD x ATL

Pax demand: Economy: 3595 > seats offered: 12000

This is just an example of how the R6 is working completely out of reality. Any airport in the world could manage a route with more than 400% of seats for passengers everyday.

I think it's time to penalize those who are swelling the routes and ending with slots (which in my opinion should be sold rather than united way Gates, because at least here in Brazil companies vying for the slots and gates not slots).

Robert.

Attached Files



#2
M4matthew

M4matthew

    M4Matthew

  • Member
  • 673 posts
Firstly, I think this is something for the 'suggestions' forum.

I semi agree with you but I am currently one of those people who saturates the market. You see, my Japanese airline's main hub is on the island of Okinawa - about 600 miles south of the Japanese mainland. In the name of realism, I offer a 16x daily service (or one departure an hour from 06:00-22:00) to HND as a primary link to the Japanese mainland. The route costs me an arm and a leg to run, and the seats on the market grossly outweigh the demand - yet that's the price you pay for an outer-city hub.

#3
Tintinfan

Tintinfan

    AE's No.1 Trainfan!

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 1,249 posts
  • Website:http://tinworkx.com/
Moved.

AE Moderator | Globe Alliance Admin | AE's No.1 Railway Enthusiast


675143919b.jpg


#4
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,363 posts
Flooding routes to that degree is not realistic, but the root cause is that large AE airlines are wealthy enough to do that and bleed cash on a route indefinitely, and many are willing to do so to get competitors off certain routes. This fundamental problem is something we're aiming to fix in AE 4 :P

#5
pseudoswede

pseudoswede

    Play to win.

  • Member
  • 402 posts

User's Awards

3    4      

I think it's time to penalize those who are swelling the routes and ending with slots (which in my opinion should be sold rather than united way Gates, because at least here in Brazil companies vying for the slots and gates not slots).


I have no idea of the market share breakdown, but there are 11 airlines on that route. That means each airline has an average of 1,100 Y seats on that route, which is well below market demand. Who would you penalize in that situation? What if no airline actually exceeds (or exceeds by only 10%) the overall market demand?

#6
Delta787

Delta787

    Delta787

  • Member
  • 92 posts

Flooding routes to that degree is not realistic, but the root cause is that large AE airlines are wealthy enough to do that and bleed cash on a route indefinitely, and many are willing to do so to get competitors off certain routes. This fundamental problem is something we're aiming to fix in AE 4 :P


Yes! An end coming to airlines that flood the major airports with 112x weekly flights. (I think I saw that for an airline somewhere in AE, but can't remember where.)

Kelvie Smith
A&P Mechanic
Flight Sim Enthusiast

Posted ImagePosted Image


#7
Yuxi

Yuxi

    AE Developer

  • AE Developer
  • 4,363 posts

Yes! An end coming to airlines that flood the major airports with 112x weekly flights. (I think I saw that for an airline somewhere in AE, but can't remember where.)


Keep in mind that 112x weekly is not at all unusual on some large city pairs in real life - look at Japan, HOU-DAL (25-30x daily 737s last time I checked), etc.

#8
M4matthew

M4matthew

    M4Matthew

  • Member
  • 673 posts

Yes! An end coming to airlines that flood the major airports with 112x weekly flights. (I think I saw that for an airline somewhere in AE, but can't remember where.)


Are you sure you don't mean 112x daily? :eyebrow: ...I have 112x weeklys... :whistling:

#9
Alfrenzo

Alfrenzo

    Probably retired

  • Member
  • 861 posts

User's Awards

2       6    3   

Are you sure you don't mean 112x daily? :eyebrow: ...I have 112x weeklys... :whistling:


I think I do 112x dailies, but hey, its an ATR on something like LHR-CDG! :whistling:

noelair%20banner.png


#10
bolli

bolli

    ae4ever

  • Member
  • 1,201 posts

Flooding routes to that degree is not realistic.


Really? http://en.wikipedia....r_Air#Price_war

Porn in spoiler:

Spoiler


#11
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        
2-3x over demand is perfectly realistic.
I'd also not want to lose pax after a certain point, as I'd like to be able to dump a huge number of seats on a route in the name of realism when the AE demand, is, as it often is, f***ed up.

Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

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


#12
FlyingDutchman7

FlyingDutchman7

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 39 posts
^^But with low prices, their planes didn't fill up. When we lower our prices, the planes do get filled up to 100%.
On top of that, there is often only one carrier flying one route. But you can also fly with another carrier, but have a stop over. So, when only one carrier is flying a route, that doesn't mean there's no concurrention with any other carrier. AE doesn't show as if this is concurrention: it doesn't go in the pax demand/seat fill rate.

#13
Alfrenzo

Alfrenzo

    Probably retired

  • Member
  • 861 posts

User's Awards

2       6    3   
Hmm, price war... Actually AE's strategy works well...

But, eh? There's no brand loyalty at all? Not acceptable. :nono:

noelair%20banner.png






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: R6

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users