Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => Suggestions => [-] Suggestions => Topic started by: homsar on January 06, 2011, 02:38:31 pm
-
Just thought of this idea when considering the drawbacks to my last suggestion (and many others), which are usually something along the lines of "it helps big airlines and hurts small airlines."
You have two tiers of games: One tier would be similar to now, with certain "realism" features turned off (thereby making it easier for smaller airlines to get started), and another tier would be more of an expert mode, where players are expected to fend for themselves in an environment with more realistic passenger preferences and flight economics, meaning the airline that buys a 747 and flies it NY-Tokyo can make tons of money, while the airline that tries competing JFK-SFO with an ATR42 vs. other airlines' jets gets its butt kicked?
The tiers would be set at the start of the world, and shown in the world description, so that players would know what they're getting into before joining. Those that just want to play a leisurely game can join the easier world, and those that want to be extra competitive and risk bankruptcy if they can't compete could join the tougher world.
-
I like the idea, but still disagree with the small vs. big aircraft thing. You obviously haven't paid much attention to civil aviation outside the US :roll: Turboprops are very popular in Europe and Africa, also among passengers. Not to mention in New Zealand, where passengers don't need to go through security if they are on a prop. Come to think of it, on domestic flights here in Denmark, an ATR will often get to the destination before the 737 because they board, take off, climb and land faster. How do you feel about implementing that advantage?
But i would like a realistic world that has taxes, political restrictions (example: no flights to North Korea from SK, Japan, US, no flights from Cuba to US etc.) and bases limited to home country or within countries with open skies agreements. Maybe even with restrictions on aircraft, such as McDonnell Douglas shutting down in 2001, runway lengths and cargo. And routes that can't be set to 100% load factor, but swing around +/- 10%.
-
I'm willing to concede the passenger preference for aircraft size/engine type deal, but my point with the above is that an ATR flying a 2000-mile route would not be competitive vs. faster aircraft which could cut a couple of hours off the flight time, yet AM allows the plane to command a price premium seemingly just because the plane has fewer seats.
The advantage of smaller planes on shorter flights is already in AM through quicker turn times. If the one-way block time (which includes travel time plus turn time) becomes the measure for passenger preference, that would be most logical.
-
I'm willing to concede the passenger preference for aircraft size/engine type deal, but my point with the above is that an ATR flying a 2000-mile route would not be competitive vs. faster aircraft which could cut a couple of hours off the flight time, yet AM allows the plane to command a price premium seemingly just because the plane has fewer seats.
True, but now you are talking flight costs, not passenger preferences. I already suggested that costs are made more realistic some time ago, but nothing happened :(
-
I think that many of the realism suggestions here would be just as welcome to leisure players - like more profitable long haul. I tend to think that separate a separate leisure game type is probably not necessary yet, as most of the features currently in the game would also be welcome for leisure players, but with more complex features like multi-class seating, cargo, taxes or less generous earnings, leisure worlds may be useful. If there were to be leisure worlds, I think they should probably be able to earn large amounts of money (i.e. higher fares and/or lower costs) - so that one can run an airline at any size/location they like profitably, and probably have lesser LF changes due to competition - to minimise time spent changing routes.
-
I'm willing to concede the passenger preference for aircraft size/engine type deal, but my point with the above is that an ATR flying a 2000-mile route would not be competitive vs. faster aircraft which could cut a couple of hours off the flight time, yet AM allows the plane to command a price premium seemingly just because the plane has fewer seats.
True, but now you are talking flight costs, not passenger preferences. I already suggested that costs are made more realistic some time ago, but nothing happened :(
I am talking about passenger preferences. A plane that flies from NY to LA in 5 hours is going to be more appealing to a passenger than one that flies there in 10. As far as I can tell, that does not factor into the equation in AM right now. On short routes, smaller planes with faster turn times can make the route quicker than larger planes, even if the larger plane is faster. That would be the benefit similar to your note about ATRs getting you to your destination faster than 737s on short hops.
-
I'm willing to concede the passenger preference for aircraft size/engine type deal, but my point with the above is that an ATR flying a 2000-mile route would not be competitive vs. faster aircraft which could cut a couple of hours off the flight time, yet AM allows the plane to command a price premium seemingly just because the plane has fewer seats.
True, but now you are talking flight costs, not passenger preferences. I already suggested that costs are made more realistic some time ago, but nothing happened :(
I am talking about passenger preferences. A plane that flies from NY to LA in 5 hours is going to be more appealing to a passenger than one that flies there in 10. As far as I can tell, that does not factor into the equation in AM right now. On short routes, smaller planes with faster turn times can make the route quicker than larger planes, even if the larger plane is faster. That would be the benefit similar to your note about ATRs getting you to your destination faster than 737s on short hops.
That equation is already there. Try flying a 50 seat ERJ on the same route as a 50 seat ATR ;) The ERJ will will allow you to set higher prices.
The problem should be solved by making costs of flying the ATR too high over a certain distance, just like in the real world. Passenger preference cannot be measured, standardised etc. and as such is not really a valid way to justify if a certain plane is competitive or not.
Besides that, flying an ATR trans-continental will make you spend all the 24 available hours on 1 flight. Use a jet (737) and you can do maybe 2 or more flights, shovelling in even more money.