Ever since someone had a support question about a seemingly illegal connection that showed up in ORS, I can’t get this topic out of my head. So this thread is primarily for me to dump this from my brain. But I’d love to hear others’ take on this.
So here’s what this is about: At the moment, if two flights are operated by the same aircraft, minimum connection times do not apply because “passengers can just stay in their seat”. This exception has been in the game forever and I suspect it exists to avoid issues with multi-segment flight numbers. For such cases, it would indeed make sense to allow pax to stay on board (or at least be able to “transfer” in a much shorter time), although frankly, I have no actual knowledge about how this works in reality[1].
All I know is that the current rule needs to be adjusted, if not removed, eventually. Once Auto-Ops comes around, you won’t be able to tell at the time of booking whether all segments of a flight are actually going to be operated by the same aircraft, unless we make that a rule for multi-segment flights. That on the other hand would not reflect reality, I think. Southwest is known for having flight numbers with many segments which almost certainly aren’t all flown by the same aircraft.
Now I am pondering whether I can or even should just remove the rule. Or should it be changed such that it only applies to the same flight number, irrespective of aircraft? I lean towards the latter as it would a.) remove unrealistic cases where arbitrary flights connect because they happen to be operated by the same plane, b.) leave the via-flight cases alone and c.) the “there might be many flights under a single code operated by different aircraft someday” is a hypothetical.
What do you think?
Many years ago, when I flew from BRE to FCO via MUC on two separate flights, I had to take the bus to the terminal, rush to another gate and take another bus back to the same aircraft. Almost missed the connection, too. We basically got our own bus because the first one(s) had already left ↩︎
I could be wrong, but i think Southwest actually does use the same aircraft for the same flight number, even though it has a ridiculous amount of stops
I think you should have no minimum transfer only if it’s both the same aircraft and flight number, that’s my understanding of how it works for Southwest, also. I think the real answer is you shouldn’t have auto-ops switch planes for the same flight number as the current scheduling setup (or if AS ever starts differentiating between just using the same flight number vs via flight, in that case, only via flight has no min transfer time).
NWA RJAA hub used to have a lot of flights with the same flight numbers, and they are scheduled to switch planes, e.g., KDTW to RJAA on a 747, but the same number continues to RCTP on a 777. For this case, you should always apply min transfer time even for the same number.
I think it will be a terrible idea to allow the same flight number but different planes to have zero min transfer, especially when the switch of plane is caused by auto-op detecting a delay in the previous flight. The passenger can’t sit on the same plane if the first flight is significantly delayed and the second flight with a different plane takes off before the first flight lands…
From my own experience pax only remain onboard during a few specific cases. TUI Netherlands for example operate a few triangle flights like AMS-KGS-BJV-AMS. Or in remote locations they operate so called milk runs. Here pax often stay onboard as well. Another situation were pax stay onboard is during 5th freedom flights like ADD-ARN-OSL-ARN-ADD with Ethiopian airlines.
Since airlinesim doesn’t offer 5th freedom flights the only case were this will happen is in domestic milk runs. From my own experience I don’t see it happening that often.
I thought Auto-Ops was just going to be an alternative option and players are still able to do detailed scheduling of every aircraft… That way one would know in advance if a connection would be operated by the same aircraft, provided this connection doesn’t involve Auto-Ops.
I think it’s best to introduce Auto-Ops as an alternative to lighten the players’ workload, but I would strongly prefer detailed scheduling be kept available.
It can work like this: players are still able to schedule manually, but they can also put aircrafts of same type into a sub-fleet (a feature already in the game), and they can set Auto-Ops to designate this sub-fleet as the pool, instead of the entire fleet of the company. They can also create multiple sub-fleets for different Auto-Ops groups but still retain firm control over whichever aircraft they like by not placing those aircrafts inside sub-fleets designated as the pool for Auto-Ops.
Actually at Southwest it works regardless of flight number, as long as you’re not staying on the aircraft over night . Last summer I flew WN1615 LAX-DAL and WN888 DAL-ATL both operated by N8603F, and I WAS able to stay on board at Dallas.
So to clarify, what I was suggesting is that: for all flights operated by Auto-Ops fleets, minimum transfer time must be respected, but for aircrafts with detailed schedules, all goes as before: on the same aircraft, passengers can stay on board during turnaround. This does not involve anything related to whether or not the flights use the same flight number.
@Cool-Superman I don’t want this to be a discussion about Auto-Ops. Auto-Ops is just one reason why the topic came up.
So for the “staying on board between two unrelated flights”: How does that work? I thought that for each and every flight someone goes on, a proper check-in has to happen. At least in “traditional” setups. How did that work for you on Southwest? Did they check you in at the original origin for all segments? Just wondering
That said, I still lean towards decoupling this from concrete aircraft and base it on flight numbers alone because I am concerned about the distribution aspect, not so much the operational one. Meaning: If I book a flight today, nobody knows which aircraft are going to operate those exact flights in a few months time. So the reservation systems can’t and won’t make such assumptions and neither should the ORS/DS. But yes, that means that for the moment, Auto-Ops or not, flights with the same flight number should always be operated by the same aircraft.
Southwest asks continuing passengers to stay onboard while everyone else deplanes. Flight attendants will then get a headcount. If everything’s good, you get a few minutes to stretch before new passengers board the plane.
I was being a bit off topic here… Just a bit interested in & simultaneously worried about this new feature
At Southwest it works like this: during taxi after landing, before reaching the gate, flight attendants would ask continuing passengers to stay on board, and after everyone else has disembarked the flight attendants would check if headcount matches what their system says and they do a quick check on the boarding pass for the next flight.
A few small points: first, if the aircraft has to change crew as I recall it it’s usually done by the crew for the next flight; second, as I have mentioned, it works (at least at Southwest) totally independent from flight numbers: as long as you have the next leg of the same aircraft booked, you can stay on board (overnight excluded).
But this probably means you are checked in for all legs before you board the first flight and then you are, in fact, obliged to stay on board? Right?
There is no concept for Auto-Ops yet, but in theory, the system could switch the plane between legs of a single flight number for various reasons, for example because of an AOC situation, regular maintenance rotations, crew base locations and whatever else we’ll come up with in the future
I actually don’t know when I was checked in for the second leg… perhaps before the first leg, but during the turnaround when they checked my boarding pass is also a possibility. I personally haven’t tried leaving the aircraft though, but I did see other people leaving and re-boarding (with a load of snacks and drinks ) so I’d guess that’s feasible.
↩︎
. Last summer I flew WN1615 LAX-DAL and WN888 DAL-ATL both operated by N8603F, and I WAS able to stay on board at Dallas.