9 replies to this topic

[w007dchuck]

The title is pretty self-explanatory. I think that pax should choose the airline who has better legroom on a route, especially if the prices are very similar or exactly the same. Seriously, who would rather fly Ryanair than BA if they had the exact same price on a route? It's kind of ridiculous. This may have been suggested before, but people who run their airlines realistically should get more pax. It's plain and simple. 

[Will101]

people who run their airlines realistically should get more pax. It's plain and simple. 

So if I were to run a perfectly accurate Ryanair to the frequency and utilization of the actual airline, that is realism (or not having a life). But somebody could create an airline called 'British Airways' have a ridiculous config, 20 hours utilization, but offer slightly better IFS and frequency gaining a slightly better reputation. Who would get the extra pax then? Not so plain and simple.

[w007dchuck]

So if I were to run a perfectly accurate Ryanair to the frequency and utilization of the actual airline, that is realism (or not having a life). But somebody could create an airline called 'British Airways' have a ridiculous config, 20 hours utilization, but offer slightly better IFS and frequency gaining a slightly better reputation. Who would get the extra pax then? Not so plain and simple.

Realistically as in not having planes running 20 hours a day at full capacity. Reputation would probably have to change so that legroom would be a slightly larger factor than it is right now. 

[w007dchuck]

Sorry for posting the same thing three times... is there a way to delete posts?

[Airwave]

Sorry for posting the same thing three times... is there a way to delete posts?

That's what I'm here for. Done.

[Sheepy]

There should be a small premium attached to higher legroom, etc.

The issue with the current system is that pax seem basically oblivious to crap service.

I also think that LCCs should generate passengers moreso than full service/realistic airlines.

The reality is that LCCs  and full service target somewhat different markets. Although price is a factor, the idea that loadfactor would drop to 20% from 100% because a competitor is $20 cheaper, is simply plain wrong.

Frequent fliers do exist, and their loyalty is expensive for an LCC to purchase.

There's also time sensitive passengers who do not wish to be delayed, so will choose a full service carrier due to being more reliable, or able to recover from difficulties better. (Whether this is  true is in doubt, however)

[mxax-ai]

And most people flying business would not accept a low-cost-carrier, but would especially care about the offered service. In AE biz class is also full with scam ifs and tight seats.

[the DOC]

So if I were to run a perfectly accurate Ryanair to the frequency and utilization of the actual airline, that is realism (or not having a life). But somebody could create an airline called 'British Airways' have a ridiculous config, 20 hours utilization, but offer slightly better IFS and frequency gaining a slightly better reputation. Who would get the extra pax then? Not so plain and simple.

Check out my R6 airline. Notice anything?

[SIALimited]

Pato approves the leg room idea, Sheepy's thoughts and anything to slow down unrealistic expansion. 

[Nick94094]

i like realism and follow realistic config in all my airlines...however,i face tough competition from other scam airlines as they have more seats in plane .I would like if pax calculation depends also on legroom ,ifs , ife etc...not only price.