Now what happens when you start say modestly with 1 flight per day is that each PAX still considers all the other 270 working connections, so even if your route is 5 times more attractive in the weight for the PAX choice your single flights will only get 10 bookings anyways.
I pretty much thought this too and see this as the reason why point-2-point does not work. It also explains why it works for the guy Rubio has mentioned in the other thread on Ellinikon. There are not as many connections from other airlines yet, hence my post above they will drain his routes as soon as the networks are established.
A CRJ1000 with standard seating
As far as point-2-point is concerned I also tried "recliner shorthaul" for Economy with a 30% price cut from standard. As you can imagine it didnt do anything either because of the effect you described above. The rating may have gone from 98 to 100 but it's still not enough to cut out all those other connections which is beyond me.
I do not think the demand is area based, I am servicing two same-city airports and I see different demands/flight fillings to the destinations.
Unless AS officially confirms demand is area based (which my empirical observation confirms that it is not) it is irresponsible to say and imply that it is.
It is not, it is airport based but (except Devau) there is public transportation between the airports within an "area". The absolute traffic numbers of all US airport are currently under revision. But this may take some time. So far we have updated 30 regions (28 to come) which will be rolled out with the next data patch. Further details will follow. But due to the economic slow-down in the US in the past years the result may not be satisfying to all regions/airlines ;)
Then I need to go back and re-read the email I have as this is how it was explained to me when I provided the traffic figures for the whole US.
The way I understand it is that it is a hybrid system (one part is direct demand and the other part is region demand, i.e. California to Alberta, Canada) such that routes that do not exist in real life can still exist in AS. Is that correct?
Not that way ... we do have airport to airport demand in AirlineSim. But the calculation of the demand of each airport pair is done by a system that distributes the passenger to destinations where no real life flights are offered at the moment. Frankfurt, Dubai, London, Singapore etc. are nice cities, but there are not so many passenger travelling there because it's the origin and destination of the journey in real life. And we try to take care of this.
It is not, it is airport based but (except Devau) there is public transportation between the airports within an "area". The absolute traffic numbers of all US airport are currently under revision. But this may take some time. So far we have updated 30 regions (28 to come) which will be rolled out with the next data patch. Further details will follow. But due to the economic slow-down in the US in the past years the result may not be satisfying to all regions/airlines ;)
What US economic slowdown, SK? You mean the one in Europe? ;)
In all seriousness, unless your traffic data is generally inflated I cannot see how US demand is not higher than pre-recession levels. I do see the need to close down Donetsk airport (note: this would hurt me alot, since I fly about 100 times/week to Donetsk).
Furthermore, I feel that the AGEX should be regional and tied to GDP growth (or lack there-of). I expect a hit on Russia soon too!
It is not, it is airport based but (except Devau) there is public transportation between the airports within an "area". The absolute traffic numbers of all US airport are currently under revision. But this may take some time. So far we have updated 30 regions (28 to come) which will be rolled out with the next data patch. Further details will follow. But due to the economic slow-down in the US in the past years the result may not be satisfying to all regions/airlines ;)
I see DOT statistics shows rising passenger enplaments by year, as well as total RPM, year-over-year.
The numbers we had had been announces by the FAA and were published in 2013 - based on 2012 passenger/freight. There are newer values available which we received a few days ago by another player and we will use them now.
The numbers we had had been announces by the FAA and were published in 2013 - based on 2012 passenger/freight. There are newer values available which we received a few days ago by another player and we will use them now.
So just to be correct, you guys are using the FAA figures and not the DOT figures? I know last year I had provided you guys with the PDEW (Passengers Daily Each Way) for every route in the US (direct or not) in which there were at least 10 passengers each day.
I just want to add some experiences to your discussion.
A detailed analysis of the booking behaviour of “my passengers” showed me, that there exist passengers who always will be travelling NOT direct, even though there are possibilities to do so.
To make it clear: there are passengers who want to travel from A to C. They definitely split up in direct A-C and indirect A-B-C pax.
I just want to add some experiences to your discussion.
A detailed analysis of the booking behaviour of “my passengers” showed me, that there exist passengers who always will be travelling NOT direct, even though there are possibilities to do so.
To make it clear: there are passengers who want to travel from A to C. They definitely split up in direct A-C and indirect A-B-C pax.
Do I get this right? You are saying there are passengers A-C that won’t travel directly but only use an indirect connection? That sounds weird.
That is a misconception. Even if you have 99 ORS rating for the O/D flight, you will only get a portion of the passengers. The passengers are divided among all the available connections, direct and connecting flights, but the proportional ratio each connection (flight) gets will depend on its overall ORS rating, so a 99 ORS direct flight will get proportionally more passengers than a connecting flight with 45 ORS. But the direct 99 ORS flight will never get all the passengers just for itself.
That is a misconception. Even if you have 99 ORS rating for the O/D flight, you will only get a portion of the passengers. The passengers are divided among all the available connections, direct and connecting flights, but the proportional ratio each connection (flight) gets will depend on its overall ORS rating, so a 99 ORS direct flight will get proportionally more passengers than a connecting flight with 45 ORS. But the direct 99 ORS flight will never get all the passengers just for itself.
This is consistent with my analysis, but furthermore I got the notion that a few routes ,where I had enough direct and indirect traveling possiblities, had more or less the same ratio direct vs. indirect (via two or three other airports). But well, this is guessing, I'm not sure, and it's hard to proove because of other impacts.
Your misconception is believing that there are passengers that will rather take indirect vs direct route. The less connections there are (A-X-C), the bigger ratio of bookings your direct flights (A-C) will get. The more A-X-C connections there are, the lower your ratio of passengers flying A-C will be.
This has noting to do with whether the passengers only take direct or indirect flight and all to do with demand calculation and asisgnment to connections based on an undisclosed formula.
Your misconception is believing that there are passengers that will rather take indirect vs direct route. The less connections there are (A-X-C), the bigger ratio of bookings your direct flights (A-C) will get. The more A-X-C connections there are, the lower your ratio of passengers flying A-C will be.
This has noting to do with whether the passengers only take direct or indirect flight and all to do with demand calculation and asisgnemnt to connections based on an undisclosed formula.
rubiohiguey2000's description is spot-on. Nothing to add really.
Thanks for your comments, which explain my data/observations.
I want to add that the undisclosed formula for assigning demand to connections results in some funny bookings. "AS-real" example:
I have a big airline based in Turkey (Kaitak) and no competitor. Main Hub is IST, of course. Now considering PAX for IST-TZX. There are more than 15% chosing IST-AYT-TZX, another 10% IST-ESB-TZX.
Thanks for your comments, which explain my data/observations.
I want to add that the undisclosed formula for assigning demand to connections results in some funny bookings. "AS-real" example:
I have a big airline based in Turkey (Kaitak) and no competitor. Main Hub is IST, of course. Now considering PAX for IST-TZX. There are more than 15% chosing IST-AYT-TZX, another 10% IST-ESB-TZX.
Comparable seating and flight rating (not connection rating) for the direct and indirect connections?
Comparable seating and flight rating (not connection rating) for the direct and indirect connections?
Yes, all single flights have the same rating. For me it's clear that all connections are getting booked, because of the assignment by overall rating. That's due to the formula and "rule", that any possible connections gets a piece. I just wanted to say, that these rule results in unrealistic bookings (as long as unrealistic connections are available).
Which is true for my observation as well. The question was more in regard to the fact, that I've got sometimes the impression that connection that offer a high first leg rating are preferred and that flight ratings still have some influence beside the overall connection rating. Which doesn't sound very sensible, but better describe some bookings I actually see.
In terms of unrealistic bookings, I've seen passengers flying 90 min to the opposite directions to finally fly back 90 +40 min to the right direction and even pay more for that experience. What I haven't seen so far, but wonder whether it is possible, is passengers flying A-X-A-C.
