Jump to content

Photo

Realistic/Harsh demand worlds


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
Whirligig

Whirligig

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 93 posts

User's Awards

2      

Right now, all route demand is in relation to the proportional size of departing and arriving airports. For an example: 

LHR-ATL would have high demand, similar to the real world.

LHR-MKE would have 200-400 daily pax demand.

LHR-MSN would have like 50-100 daily pax demand. 

 

in reality:

LHR-ATL would perhaps have a boosted demand due to connections

LHR-MKE would have ~50 daily pax, not worth a once weekly flight

LHR-MSN would have no demand

 

What's happening here is that connections are more prominent, meaning that Passengers wanting to go LHR-MSN for an example, would simply connect through ATL, meaning more demand (or at least more blue pax). Then however, regional flights from Large-Small (and vice versa) would have more pax. Regional flights from Small to Small would have no pax.

Here is my suggestion:

 

Large-Large: more pax

Large-Medium: less pax (but not none)

Large-Small: No pax

 

Medium-Medium: Slightly less (more if there is a hub)

Medium-Small: Less pax (but not none)

 

Small-Small: No pax

 

Regional Routes would gain demand,

Long haul routes would gain demand (only between larger airports)

All other routes would get less/no demand.

 

All in all, this would obviously control airlines from crazy senseless expansion, and would prompt airlines to be more realistic. To add to realism:

 

-All services/qualities of your airline would have much larger influence on popularity and prices.

-Operating costs should be cranked up (maintenance, fuel, management...)

-Terminals should be more controlled

-Aircraft get delivered in a backlog

-Blue pax to be more from larger airports (less from smaller ones)

-Shared Gates

 

 

I'm well aware that this has close to no influence on the future of this game, but I'm just adding my opinions to the pool.

 



#2
Capt.L1011

Capt.L1011

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 16 posts

User's Awards

     

Just.saw.this.and.they.are.excellent.suggestions.so.I.thought.your.post.deserved.a."bump". 

 

......and.it.appears.my.spacebar.randomly.stopped.working.in.this.forum...notsurewhatsupwiththatbutitsnotthefirsttime....



#3
Stevphfeniey

Stevphfeniey

    Bad m*****f*****

  • Member
  • 4,249 posts
  • Website:http://stevphfeniey.tumblr.com/

If I can set up a huge hub in a place then demand is irrelevant 


please don't kill us we're just the aquabats

 

The Best Discord Server


#4
Capt.L1011

Capt.L1011

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 16 posts

User's Awards

     

If.demand.was.realistic.then.demand.is.not.irrelevant.

That's.the.whole.point.of.the.post.



#5
Jamesthomeson

Jamesthomeson

    Desperate to Fly

  • Member
  • 451 posts
I think that if the supply is there the demand will follow. For example CLT handles around 40,000,000+ passenger traffic. Around 80% of these passengers are using the airport to connect. The demand for direct flights to Charlotte is very low but because American Airlines offers so many flights to and from Charlotte it brings in more connecting pax making Charlotte a large airport.

The amount of blue pax shouldn't be determined by how big the airport is but by how big the airlines' hub operation is because the amount of passengers an airport handles is dependent on the number of flights and destinations offered by the airlines that fly there.

Also large to small routes having no pax is unrealistic because these routes actually do have more traffic in reality. For example, Alaska's Seattle hub is the largest gateway to Alaska for the US with about 14 daily frequencies to ANC. SEA to GEG (Spokane, WA) is also one of the busiest routes from SEA condsidering GEG only handles around 3,000,000 pax per year.

Most domestic routes in smaller countries have a heavy demand. I.E. Manila-Cebu, Bangkok-Chiang Mai, Jakarta-Yogyakarta, Johannesburg-Cape Town etc.
t4lPIvQ.jpgUjfJ0sC.png

#6
Marb1

Marb1

    Transport and aviation fan

  • Member
  • 1,782 posts

Right now, all route demand is in relation to the proportional size of departing and arriving airports. For an example: 

LHR-ATL would have high demand, similar to the real world.

LHR-MKE would have 200-400 daily pax demand.

LHR-MSN would have like 50-100 daily pax demand. 

 

in reality:

LHR-ATL would perhaps have a boosted demand due to connections

LHR-MKE would have ~50 daily pax, not worth a once weekly flight

LHR-MSN would have no demand

 

What's happening here is that connections are more prominent, meaning that Passengers wanting to go LHR-MSN for an example, would simply connect through ATL, meaning more demand (or at least more blue pax). Then however, regional flights from Large-Small (and vice versa) would have more pax. Regional flights from Small to Small would have no pax.

Here is my suggestion:

 

Large-Large: more pax

Large-Medium: less pax (but not none)

Large-Small: No pax

 

Medium-Medium: Slightly less (more if there is a hub)

Medium-Small: Less pax (but not none)

 

Small-Small: No pax

 

Regional Routes would gain demand,

Long haul routes would gain demand (only between larger airports)

All other routes would get less/no demand.

 

All in all, this would obviously control airlines from crazy senseless expansion, and would prompt airlines to be more realistic. To add to realism:

 

-All services/qualities of your airline would have much larger influence on popularity and prices.

-Operating costs should be cranked up (maintenance, fuel, management...)

-Terminals should be more controlled

-Aircraft get delivered in a backlog

-Blue pax to be more from larger airports (less from smaller ones)

-Shared Gates

 

 

I'm well aware that this has close to no influence on the future of this game, but I'm just adding my opinions to the pool.

Agreed: JFK-HKG has only like 400 demand?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users