No coherence

[Tracker801]

apdhillo wrote:
I would like to start with referring to this previsous discussion :
http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/showth...4#pid67314

I agree with many of the posts, and think that the range limitation is a serious drawback in FSPX. Once you fly over about 1300NM you
start loosing money. This makes flying long range aircraft useless, in the sense that there is no need for flying them long range. I would
like to get some heads together to solve this "long range hating" algorithm that calculates ticket income over distance flown. This would
surely please me and many other FSPX flyers using long range aircraft like the 777, 747, A340, A380 and so on.

Please, please, please help me! Any suggestion would be much appreciated (but i dont mean insurance rates, ticket price, or service
price and so on). I want to start making money flying long range!

[Leftcoaster]

Just $0.02, but...

FsP only models a very small portion of airline operations and so any talk of 'realism' is both relative and misplaced. Besides, in any
simulation, most so-called realism derives from user input more than what the programmer hands the user on a silver platter.

Long-haul flights are usually less profitable than short/medium hauls and always have been. Until the introduction of the B-747, they
were exceptional and used mostly for airline or national image rather than as revenue generators.

Before the jet age, a West Coast of N.A. - Europe flight would be over the Arctic with planned technical stops in nice resort destinations
like Frobisher Bay (now Iqaluit, Canada), Sondre Stromfjiord (now Kangerlussuaq, Greenland) or Prestwick, Scotland. Unlike the 1950's
reality, FsP's economic model will treat each segment like a seperate flight and so these trip are profitable even in lumbering propliners.

The Lockheed L-1649A Starliner and Bristol Britannia allowed non-stop 5000+ nautical mile service in ideal weather but in FsP the profits
fall off to almost nothing and the 5,468 nm Los Angeles-London trip can net you a mere $80 net income for 19:14 hours flying time. In the
real world, neither aircraft lasted too long in its designed role.

5000 mile non-stops were not very profitable in reality either and when jets came on the scene, the polar routes moved somewhat farther
south (causing increase in distance) but the technical stops remained at places like Gander, Goose Bay, Shannon and Reykjavik. Once
again the FsP economic model inflates the revenues from this type of trip in a manner that does not accurately reflect real airline
practices of the day.

The B-747 changed the long haul picture totally because it could fly the 5000 mile non-stops (KLAX-EGLL) carrying some 3-times as
many pax as a Britannia (more than 5-times the capacity of the Starliner) and do the trip in half the time or less.

But one 12-hour trip in a B-747 generates far less revenue than does two 6-hour trips at the same load factors and this IS well
represented by the FsP economic model. You might want to look at the FsP long-range model as limited by airframe utilization rather
than just based on simple point to point mileage. In any event, it is what it is and has been discussed here almost since Day-1. Airline
CEO's in the 'real world' cannot necessarily choose the economic environment that they operate in and the FsP reality is that medium
length trips generate revenue better than long-haul trips.

Like in the real world your FsP options to increase long-haul revenue include

1. Greater load factors (increased reputation and repeated trips);

2. Increase seating capacity (A-380) or decreased fuel costs (B-787, A-350WXB);

3. You can also accept it for what it is; or

4. You can take your ball and go home.

It's all up to you.

[Valoran]

No one has yet mentioned it so I will add...

The income of your flight is multiplied by 50 after all expenses including fuel usage. You used a lot more fuel on the longer
flight and so the proft margin was much lower, plus all the stuff the other guys talked about.... Mid range flights tend to be the most
profitable, as in real-life.

Cheers.

[SkyAirWorld]

Try something like AYPY to YSSY

or YSSY to YPPH

Anything like that is technically not really a "long haul" but racks up some optimum income

[apdhillo]

yeah thanks for the tips guys. But me being hardheaded as i am, there surely must be a way to lift this 1322NM limit of income? I would
like to increase this limit to about 3000NM at least.. I really hope there is a way to do that, and i hope to find a solution to this..

[Paddy]

Sorry, but isn´t there a solution to this Problem?

Maybe two shorter legs are more profitable than one. I agree to it. But my passengers do pay the same price for a flight of 1762NM as for a flight of
4006NM! That is not nearly realistic. I just wanna fly from Vienna to Victoria Falls in Africa. But with this limit I just get half the total income
I´m earning when I do ONE flight from Vienna to Madeira. That´s not realistic too.
So please any ideas to correct this limitation?


Greets from Germany,

Pat.