I'm here for quite a few years, but obviously there's always something new to discover... maybe someone can tell me what I've missed.
Country A has quite some domestic demand between its bigger airports AA and AB, that's proven from other airlines in the past. Now country A does not have any airline at all, so the ORS shows no connection at all (not even ground network) between AA and AB.
Now I offer a flight from AA to my hub XX in another country and perfectly timed connections from XX to destination AB, total travel time is about 2.5 times longer than a direct flight. People would think that because there is no alternative at all, domestic passengers from AA to AB now will fly from AA via XX to AB.
Not the case. 0 passengers.
Why? Is there somewhere a function that domestic passenger do not fly via a hub in another country?
NB.
- Traffic rights are available from AA to XX and from AB to XX (and vice versa)
- Connections are timed with some minutes extra (so my grandmum can reach the plane in her wheelchair as well...)
- Connections are not with the same aircraft, but that shouldn't make a difference
- All flights have a green rating and comparable routings have green ratings also for the whole connection.
There is a point of flight time where passengers stop using via-connections. There is something like twice the direct connection time in my mind, but I am not sure, whether that's the right value. So this might be an explanation.
This rule generally makes sense to limit the number of unrealistic via-connections. Anyway, as a kind of tradeoff, this limitation effects some connections that still might make sense.
I too have 2x the direct time in mind which would explain it.
BUT: if there’s no (direct) connection in ORS, how could the system determine voeni’s takes too long?
Should say: for reasons FlyHigher stated, ORS should cut off longer connections, but instead of relative to shortest theoretical, it short cut off everything that’s >2x the shortest offer. Voeni’s would be the shortest so - until someone offers the direct.
I thought about the same and came up with the same question marks :) .. so getting back to my reasoning, I thought of a standard duration per distance (i.e. standard speed for max(time)), so that the comparison is not the best available, but the best theoretical flight. (But no idea how it actually is figured out.)
Basically I guess using the best available connection would be more appropriate, while using a theoretical is saving some performance.
I have heard the limit for connections is 2 x distance of a direct connection
so it would not be the time, but the distance.
If it was the time, we could not get the 8-hour connection windows, right? In 8 hours you could get halfway around the world, so if it was 2x direct fliht time, there could be very few connections made. It's 2x direct distance, beinga limit for connections. So if a direct one (A-B ) is 800 km, connections must be less than 1600 km (A-X, X-B, or A-X, X-Y, Y-B )
I have heard the limit for connections is 2 x distance of a direct connection
so it would not be the time, but the distance.
If it was the time, we could not get the 8-hour connection windows, right? In 8 hours you could get halfway around the world, so if it was 2x direct fliht time, there could be very few connections made. It's 2x direct distance, beinga limit for connections. So if a direct one (A-B ) is 800 km, connections must be less than 1600 km (A-X, X-B, or A-X, X-Y, Y-B )
Sure that. Distance of course.
Still, if there's NO offer on the ORS for a certain route A-B (distance 1000km), but someone is offering a 3000km trip via his hub, then this should be considered as shortest offer instead of cutting it off.
After all, if I need to go from A to B, I really can't care whether it takes me 1.000km or even 10.000km to get there. Though I understand it's better for the system if such pax better stay where they are.. ^_^
>if there's NO offer on the ORS for a certain route A-B (distance 1000km), but someone is offering a 3000km trip via his hub, then this should be considered as shortest offer instead of cutting it off.
I think AS do this for performance reason. I have been playing for some time and I know one of the previous ORS versions do take consideration of these route, for example, in your case 3000km route. But then some time, AS moved to newer version of ORS and cut off these possibilities. I did't read the detail for why, but seems performance related.
Thanks guys! I’ve never heard about that but it honestly hasn’t beeb a point of interest to me so far… I agree it does make sense to somehow cut off connections which are too long, however, if there’s no alternative?
I think the lack of traffic rights prevents you from selling a ticket from AA to AB, even though it is via XX since the ORS considers it to be a single ticket.
Unlike the real world, AS consumers don't seem to be smart enough to book the two legs independently to get around ticket restrictions :)
I think the lack of traffic rights prevents you from selling a ticket from AA to AB, even though it is via XX since the ORS considers it to be a single ticket.
Unlike the real world, AS consumers don't seem to be smart enough to book the two legs independently to get around ticket restrictions :)
That is not correct. A lot of Canada-based airlines in AS carry USA-USA traffic via YYZ/YUL hub.
That is not correct. A lot of Canada-based airlines in AS carry USA-USA traffic via YYZ/YUL hub.
In the real world, they would too as Canada has pre-clearance. It would be more realistic if minimum connection time for USA-CAN-USA flights had an extra 30 minutes as I believe you clear customs both ways.
While AC or Westjet is not usually the cheapest option say from SEA-YYZ-BOS vs SEA-ORD-BOS or SEA-BOS (if there is one), I would take an AC flight over an AA flight due to *A mileage...
In the real world, they would too as Canada has pre-clearance. It would be more realistic if minimum connection time for USA-CAN-USA flights had an extra 30 minutes as I believe you clear customs both ways.
While AC or Westjet is not usually the cheapest option say from SEA-YYZ-BOS vs SEA-ORD-BOS or SEA-BOS (if there is one), I would take an AC flight over an AA flight due to *A mileage...
They shouldn't be selling that as a connection, or have the cabotage rules changed recently? No Canadian airline should be selling SEA-YYZ-BOS, just as a US airline can't sell me YVR-ORD-YHZ. (but no matter whom you fly, on whatever routing, the onboard service will be equally shitty and the seats comparably uncomfortable.)
I think the lack of traffic rights prevents you from selling a ticket from AA to AB, even though it is via XX since the ORS considers it to be a single ticket.
Unlike the real world, AS consumers don't seem to be smart enough to book the two legs independently to get around ticket restrictions :)
I think in AS as long as you have traffic rights for both leg, domestic flights through foreign connection is valid and can be booked.
They shouldn't be selling that as a connection, or have the cabotage rules changed recently? No Canadian airline should be selling SEA-YYZ-BOS, just as a US airline can't sell me YVR-ORD-YHZ. (but no matter whom you fly, on whatever routing, the onboard service will be equally shitty and the seats comparably uncomfortable.)
It can be booked in AS, because passengers buy individual segments, and pay full price for each individual segment.
I think in AS as long as you have traffic rights for both leg, domestic flights through foreign connection is valid and can be booked.
Yep, but there is a limit of 2,5x the direct distance between the origin and destination airport which will be booked for connection flights. Meaning if the direct distance A-C is 500 km, no conection will be booked which has a distance A-B-C of more than 1250km.
Yep, but there is a limit of 2,5x the direct distance between the origin and destination airport which will be booked for connection flights. Meaning if the direct distance A-C is 500 km, no conection will be booked which has a distance A-B-C of more than 1250km.