Transit Differences

English Boards Suggestions and Ideas
1

I've been checking out the ORS and I found some unusual connections.

When look for connections between Kaohsiung to San Francisco, the second best route is KHH-CTU-SFO, via Chengdu, China.

If someone wants travel like this, he would alse need visa to China beforehand, which could be an extra trouble. But if you take the third route, that is, KHH-NGO-SFO, via Nagoya, Japan. Then you would receive a transit vias upon arrival at Nagoya. Isn't it much more convenient? According to the ORS, KHH-NGO-SFO and KHH-CTU-SFO have the same overall rate.

Same stories could be found like BKK-CTU-JFK beats BKK-ICN-JFK by one point. It's not realistic at all, and many connecting airports don't even have a international transit lounge in the real world!

I suggest that the game should bring "trasit complexity" into consideration, evaluating it by countries. As wriiten above, in real world, passengers from BKK surely prefer fly to JFK via Japan or Korea than China because it saves paperwork.

There is one thing else that the game may weigh more in ORS rating, which is transfer time.

According to ORS, KHH-TPE-DEN has multiple connections and the TPE-DEN segment is the same, by the same carrier of course.

DX414-DX63 takes 15h28min and gets 71 points

DX412-DX63 takes 19h11min and gets 70 points

So almost 4 more hours waiting but  hardly affects the ORS rating, the difference should be enlarged.

thanks for reading =)

2

The problem is that you'd then also need to consider all bi-lateral immigration agreements and conflicts. So for instance a european citizen would have no problem transiting the US on his/her way to Costa Rica, as he/she may participate in the Visa Waiver Program. Someone from lets say Saudi Arabia, would maybe require a transit visa and therefor avoid a connection through the States.

By ignoring immigration procedures the game simply creates a fair balance for all players, which is why I believe it should stay that way...

3

The problem is that you'd then also need to consider all bi-lateral immigration agreements and conflicts. So for instance a european citizen would have no problem transiting the US on his/her way to Costa Rica, as he/she may participate in the Visa Waiver Program. Someone from lets say Saudi Arabia, would maybe require a transit visa and therefor avoid a connection through the States.

By ignoring immigration procedures the game simply creates a fair balance for all players, which is why I believe it should stay that way...

The game still could be fair with those immigration policies. Carriers in countries with better policies will certainly face more competition. 

4

The reason is the amount of data and studies required to set it to the game. It would require constant adjustments for each change in bilateral and immigration agreements.

It’s already a difficult to update airports data.