10 replies to this topic

[Crazy764]

Non-mainstream airports (especially those outside the US) are unrealistically horrible in this game. Let's take a look at YVR for example.

In real life, Air Canada operates 20x daily non-stop flights between YVR and YYZ using 320/330/340 and 767 equipment. In addition, Westjet and (I believe) Canjet operate on this route too with 737's. In this game, the route can hardly sustain 2 daily flights.

Air Canada also serves a plethora of East Asian destinations from Vancouver, but most of those are ridiculously unprofitable in this game (PEK, SHA, KIX, SEL, etc.).

Now I'm only using YVR as an example. Many other non-US airports in this game are under"valued" too. This leads to a lot of airlines trying to operate from a select few high-profit airports in the US (LAX, ORD come to mind), which in turn leads to a shortage of gates.

Perhaps with the next version, less well-known airports should reflect their real-life profitability a little better.


[Edited on 7/25/2005 by Crazy764]

[Sunshine Airways CEO]

you still can't get as many seats on LAX-ATL in the game as in real life.

[doug_Or]

Keep in mind, if you are covering depreciation and gate leasing costs with your routes, you are probably doing better than Air Canada does on average. AC also operates a hub @ YVR, so they do have feed for those routes.

[deltafan]

If someone did establish a hub there, would it really make much of a difference? I don't think that hubs would give that much of a passenger feed.

[galapagapop]

Also the game is based on City Size and population, not O&D between certain cities and destinations.

[Crazy764]

If this game is based purely on city size and population, then why is Hong Kong more profitable than Shanghai or Seoul?

Hong Kong's population is around 7 million, Shanghai's is over 13 million and Seoul's is over 22 million.

[Edited on 7/25/2005 by Crazy764]

[ziliu]

I believe its based on the airports' passenger figures.

[Crazy764]

Originally posted by ziliu
I believe its based on the airports' passenger figures.

Okay that would explain why ATL and ORD are so profitable in this game. Atlanta's population is only 5 mil and Chicago's is 9 mil. But both airports have such high passenger numbers in real life because a major airline operates a hub there, so a large chunk of the traffic is connecting passengers.

Now if that's the case, why isn't YVR better in this game then? Air Canada has a hub there and it can sustain a lot more flights in real life, albeit not O&D, than in this game.

Basically I find it a bit silly that I can make more money operating out of LAX, even though most of the top airlines in the game also have their hubs there and I face multiple widebody competition on all routes, than I can out of SEA or YVR, even though most int'l routes have absolutely no competition from those airports.

[Edited on 7/25/2005 by Crazy764]

[Edited on 7/25/2005 by Crazy764]

[doug_Or]

It is in fact based off TOTAL O&D (according to Miller).

Route demand is based off of the O&D of the two cities. This favors American cities and puts African destinations at a disadvantage. Here's why:

Given no competition, and cities of equal size, it is more profitable to serve the closer city. When ther is no competition, LAX-LAS can support fares in the $800-$1000 range, while LAX-HKG cann't even double that. Because LAX-LAS is so close, the cost of operating the flight is much lower per passenger and therefore the routes is more profitable.

Now, when demand is calculated on a given route the ONLY things that matter are the o&d number for the two airports (which can be affected by te presence of a hub). It does not matter how many cities are already served from that airport, nor does it matter how many passenger are already using it. A city in the US or Europe is close to many other cities. As established earliar, nearby cities hold more profit potenital than distant ones. This means there are more potentaily viable routes in Europe or America than there would be in Africa, and this is where we get our bias.

Airports of equal size in Africa will most likely have more long haul flights as a percent of total, do to the relative lack of demand for intracontinental services. From these airports a very large percent of total travel will be international, to hub cities in Europe. These routes are viable beacsue they allow travel between Africa and almost anywhere else in the world.

Lets take an example:

Lets say that in the real world PDX and NBO both have an A340 flight to FRA. Both are equaly profitable with similar load factors. They both have similar real world demand to FRA and the points beyond that are accesable through the hub. Now, PDX supports manline flights to 20+ cities in the US, some with over 12 frequencies a day. NBO on the other hand, may have 15 mainline destinations (I'm making stuff up here, cut me some slack), at much lower frequecnies. The end result is the total o&d for the airport is much lower.

When the AE demand calculator then goes and check what you can charge on your FRA-NBO and FRA-PDX flights, all it sees is the total O&D numbers, not the real world demand.


This is one of many weaknesses in te way AE calculates demand, but it is neccesated by the complexity of doinganything else. Remember, even with this simplified demand calculation we are at near max bandwidth. It is most probably the best compromise, and not really sometihng to lambast as "unrealistic". Instead, understand the system and work within it.
Make route and expansion plans based on how te game works, not how you wish it did.

On a side note, waht do you mean by:

"Air Canada also serves a plethora of East Asian destinations from Vancouver, but most of those are ridiculously unprofitable in this game (PEK, SHA, KIX, SEL, etc.)."

Are they actauly in the red?

If you are making over $50,000 a day on any of those routes you shoudl be gald AE is so genorous.

[Crazy764]

doug_Or,

Thanks for explaining the demand calculator in so much detail. Before, any time I asked such a question, I was always told it was based on city size (which we can see now is obviously not true). I was left in the dark experimenting with routes I imagined may be popular, leasing and returning a huge number of gates, trying out different prices, only to find many routes are unprofitable. Now I finally know how the system works and how to form my future routes.

As for the unprofitable Asian routes I was talking about, some of those did make just over or around $50,000. One of the ones I tried (can't remember which one, but it may have been SIN) made even less than that. I found that pretty pathetic given the investment of a A330 or A340. Especially since at one time in the game, a Beech could make over $150,000.

But like I said earlier, now that I understand how the game works, I can better predict the profitability of a route. So, once again, thanks!

[doug_Or]

I'm glad it made some sense.

RE: SIN Singapore isn't a very big city, Singapore Airlines isso succesful becasue of the connections and qaulity of service they provide.

As far as the Asian routes, I agree that $50,000 is pretty low at this stage in the game, but remember 48% profit margins are increadibly high for real life (yet common in the game). While these routes are not the best allocation of resouces at this time, that doesn't mean they're unreasonably poor for real life. I'm sure Air Canada would be happy if those routes were making $50,000 profit each way on O&D traffic alone (assuming you do'nt have a hub @ either end).