Airline Mogul Forum

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - im359

Pages: 1
1
[+] Suggestions / Suggest a new operation method : Charter Service
« on: June 20, 2010, 11:19:34 am »
I have checked that there was no similar suggestion before ;)

Well, now the only way for us to play with AM is operate the routes and set the price for tickers.
However I discovered that so many users claimed that they operate charter airlines (or services),
but AM do not support this, it seems that charter services are so attractive to users.
Also, after some times the market will become saturated (also happen in private worlds, 4 players blood-bath in TATL :-\)
the original way to play AM is not enough for a little bit longer game (let say, 4~5 years)

So, my suggestion is to add charter services in AM, by the combination of aircrft lease and normal route features.
1. in the AM upper bar, add a new button like "Create Charter"

2. in this part the procedures are just like creating a normal route, choose base and destination, select aircraft...

3. in the page of the price, the user can still determine the price and frequency (0.5 or 1 or 1.5....sth like that)
BUT in charter services, the price that determined is actually the "service charge"
which is the money that "the secret agent" willing to pay to you for your charter service
and there is no longer a "load factor", but the "deal or no deal" decision
Users need to determine the highest price that the "agent" will make a deal with you, just like getting 100% load
IN ADDITION, there is a selection of "period" in terms of months and I would explain it later

4. after the user finally the creation, the route will start operate
however the route will collect the revenue ONCE at the beginning of each month (or immediately after the route is being created)
just like leasing the plane to the others

Also, in the background operation there are some differences with the normal service
1. ONLY ONE charter service is allowed for one route, but there is no limit for normal service

2. in the pricing section the factors affect the price are as follow:
==> Size of airport - it is obvious than the airport have more people the price can be higher, like the normal service
However the demand of the small airport may need to be increased by the formula
==> Distance, frequency, aircraft size - again, like the normal service
==> Competitors for the route - again, like the normal service
BUT the impact of the competitors is much larger and will strongly push your price down
reason is simple: the needs of charter services is reduced if there is normal services
==> The number of routes in airports - again, if the airports have more routes
the passengers may choose normal services by interchange of routes, making the demand of charter lower
but the impact is much weaker, and only one airport with less routes will be considered
so if one of the airport has no route at all, this factor will have no impact to the pricing
==>"Period" - the longer the period, the lower the price, but the impact is not so strong

3. The "period" set during the route creation will act as a protection to the service provider
The theory is: when you set up a charter service, you will have the contract with the "agent"
within that period no one can cancel the route and change the price
so, although new user may put you into competiton, in the period you can also get the revenue as stated
it is different to normal one that a new competitor will immediately drive down your loadfactor and profit
When the period is ended, the service will be continue normal if there is no competition
but there will be no protection at all
Once there is a normal service compete with you, your charter service will be automatically cancelled
Of course after the period has ended you can extend the contract and set another new period (like edit route)

The above is the details of my suggestion, which is how a charter service function can be implemented
The advantages of this suggestion is:
1. there is no need for the staff to collect additional datas, like cargo or multi-class aircraft, things can be done by programming
2. the "value" of the small airports can be increased
since the large airports with many routes may not give you a good condition in charter services
3. Charter market is hardly saturated, although only one charter is allowed for a pair of airports, there are so many small airports that is suitable for charter services

Hope the staff can think about this suggestion :lol:

2
General Chat / Re: Daily maintenance shot up to 50m, from 21m!!
« on: October 01, 2009, 06:06:40 am »
Something might have got messed up with the exclusion of the brokers from rankings. I'll take a look into that issue.
why the plane not just simply destory, if there is not broker in the world?
Or, if the world has no broker, the maint of those planes will be paid by players??? :-\

3
General Chat / Re: Daily maintenance shot up to 50m, from 21m!!
« on: September 19, 2009, 05:18:53 pm »
1/6/2005 Monthly Maintenance Fees €0 €1,228,527,972
1/7/2005 Monthly Maintenance Fees €0 €460,898,270

That's what really happen in my private world (with ATE24 and kcclieou actually 8)).
I just kept on replacing my old planes, but suddenly the value dropped like London Bridge.

4
Game News / Re: Game is down (Aug 22, 09)
« on: August 22, 2009, 11:26:42 am »
From our past experience, the game would not proceed since the server would not be running. It should be the same this time. If not, we will takes a look at the situation and decide on an appropriate action.

Once again, sorry for the inconveniences caused. :(
On July 2009, the server had also malfunctioned, making a delay of game clock for 2 hours.
My concern is that will the delay happen this time.
And if yes, then is there any method to eliminate the delay, maybe for all worlds, or for the private worlds on request.

5
Game News / Re: Game is down (Aug 22, 09)
« on: August 22, 2009, 10:43:49 am »
Will this time of server malfunction affect the time clock??
If yes, then it is a disaster in my own private world :-\
Is there any method to change the starting time for a particular world? :roll:

6
Game Strategy / Re: B767-200ER versus A330-200?
« on: July 28, 2009, 06:29:51 am »
In my opinion, with only 3 more seats, their price and revenue are roughly the same
However, as A332 burn more fuel, its cost is also higher, leading to a lower profit for A332, and it is very normal

7
General Chat / Re: The corrupted wish game.
« on: July 22, 2009, 09:43:59 am »
The school finds a nice place, they demolish the building it was on, which was your house.

I wish I had a Concorde.
Wish granted, you are now having a 1:500 Concorde model on your desk.

I wish I can charge extra fees on TATL routes in AM game, due to their long distance.

8
General Chat / Re: The corrupted wish game.
« on: July 15, 2009, 09:58:58 am »
Wish granted, but you got shot there.

I wish I owned an airline company that didn't go bankrupt.
Wish granted, but the Great Depression occur worldwide, the bank that cooperate with you go bankrupt, which force your company to shut down.

I wish I can buy B737-900ER in 2000. 8)

9
General Chat / Re: Question about frequencies...
« on: June 27, 2009, 08:35:43 am »
I was just wondering why it is less profitable to have a 2-frequency route to somewhere rather than 1 frequency... I mean... in real life, don't airlines fly to places 7-8 times a day? Is there a way we could do that in the game? Sorry if this has been asked before.. DX
The way AM determine the loadfactor of a route is by the no. of seats provided.
In theory, on the same route, the fare of 2-fre A320-100 can be similar to 1-fre B753
as the no. of seats provided is similar to each other.
However, don't forget the cost of 2-fre A320-100 is higher than B753, as the distance travelled is doubled.
similar fare, similar revenue, but higher cost => lower profit

10
Game Data / Re: Are boeing aircrafts datas really WRONG???
« on: May 24, 2009, 04:55:43 pm »
Theoratically, yes, you can fill an ATR with 100 seats. Same goes for Boeing's page.
Theoratically, yes, 189 person is allowed to get into 737-800, as FAA exit limit is, in fact, 189
But the seats may be 24", or even worse. I don't think people will even think of travelling inside such a cramped seat for hours and hours. The result would be something like Ryanair - very cheap price to attract people to take your flight.
AM does not care about the comfort of the passengers, that's why we are using max pax capacity.
If you do care their comfort, the thing admins need to do is to allow players to set their own capacity,
2-class or 1-class, the no. of seats... Of course in a fixed range of no. of seats.

11
Game Data / Are boeing aircrafts datas really WRONG???
« on: May 24, 2009, 08:41:36 am »
Recently, one of the boardmate, Cheung Airlines, suggested that some of the aircraft datas of boeing was wrong,
including B707, B720, B727, B737, B757, DC-8, DC-8.
At the same time, Cheung had also provided the sources he found.
This became the hot issue (or argument) in the last few days.

I don't want to attack anyone, but now I must ask some questions:
Are the datas really wrong?? Or is the "correct data" suggested by Cheung wrong??

DC-10
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10121.0
In this topic, Cheung suggested that the pax data of DC-10 is 399. However,
in another boeing page, it suggested that the max pax for all DC-10 is only 380.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/dc-10/tech.html

B727
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10120.0
In this topic, Cheung suggested that the pax data of B722Adv. is 155. However,
in another boeing page, it suggested that the max pax for B722Adv. is 189. That means the current data is correct.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/product.html

B757
http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=10124.0
In this topic, Cheung suggested that the pax data of B757-300 is 279. However,
in another boeing page, it suggested that the max pax for B757-300. is 280.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/product.html

Out of these three types of aircrafts, I had also found other datas from the similar sources:
DC9
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/dc9sec2.pdf
This source is coming from in the way Cheung found it.
From here, the pax data is correct in AM database now. 80 / 90 / 115 / 125
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/dc-9/specs.html
But from here, the max pax data of DC-9 are all 90. :o

B737
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec2.pdf
This source is suggested by Cheung.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_600tech.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_700tech.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_800tech.html
These sources are found by me, also in boeing homepage. The results are:
B736: 130 VS 132
B737: 148 VS 149
B738: 184 VS 189

========

The sources suggested by the boardmate and me are all coming from Boeing, but why they are different?
Is there anything that we all don't know??
From the above, at least we can know that there are also differences among Boeing itself.
So, is there any method to prove that the datas provided by Cheung must be correct, and should be followed??
I have no answer at all.
The thing I want to figure out is no one should treat the sources as bible, neither Cheung's nor mine.
When anyone tried to find out the data bugs, it is better to find out more first.

12
Bugs / Re: Boeing 737-200 Adv. name changed?
« on: May 22, 2009, 05:57:58 am »
Thats what palyers are asking for: A correct type of aircraft as well as the one with incorrect data. There should be a difference in price tags between them.
The one that is more expensive is the corrected one while the cheaper one is incorrected.

Till the change of B737, no old data is kept. So this is not the reason.
Maybe when the admins update the data, they add the full stop.

13
Bugs / Re: Bug @ create route
« on: March 25, 2009, 01:43:40 am »
Will look into how this happened, for now, 0 frequency routes eliminated from that world.
After you eliminated 0 frequency route, the php warning disappear :o
And it seems that this error affect the caluculation between fare and loadfactor
as now I could increase the fare of the route 8)

14
Bugs / Bug @ create route
« on: March 24, 2009, 04:29:33 pm »
ID: 11194 (Route)
Type: php warning / error
Description: when I tried different fares for the route, php warning occur on the page
Code: [Select]
Warning: Division by zero in /var/www/vhosts/airlinemogul.com/httpdocs/airlinemogul/includes/cr_functions.php on line 1036

Warning: Division by zero in /var/www/vhosts/airlinemogul.com/httpdocs/airlinemogul/includes/cr_functions.php on line 623

Warning: Division by zero in /var/www/vhosts/airlinemogul.com/httpdocs/airlinemogul/includes/cr_functions.php on line 1137
I don't know whether this error will affect the route creation,
but I found that the highest fare I can set with 100% loadfactor is lower than my friend
when both routes have similar condition of potential passengers
(Mine is $920, while his is $1283, and I'm not consider the profit, but the fare or revenue)

Additional Information: The route which the error occured has a competitor: Bordertown International - ID 22925
But the route operated by him has ZERO frequency and NO plane flies.
Actually that company is very strange: Firstly, no gate at all(How come?! When we create our base we will automatically rent gate!! :o)
Secondly, he can create a route with the plane that does not have enough range...
(If we don't have suitable plane for the route, normally we cannot set the fare and frequency of the route... ???)
However, this competitor can only be seen in "research route" page and "view route" page
The competitor cannot be seen in "edit route" page


Airline Details: Tseung Kwan O Airways - ID 22853 [World #461]

Pages: 1
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk