Client 5.0 serious problem

Please report Bugs and Problems here

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Ionathan
Captain
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Ionathan » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:58 am

Even though, if we consider a cargo price of 0.02 and 22813Kg of left capacity for cargo we would have:

0.02*6015*22813 = 2744403 income for cargo (before applying the multiplier) while the same income for passengers (416) would be 257000. It seems heavy unbalanced yet. I am not familiar with real life balance between passengers and cargo income but I guess it is still in favour of cargo. Is it realistic?

I mean applying even the above changes a cargo flight is much more profitable than a mixed one.
CEO
Ionathan Airlines

Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:55 pm

Cargo is the most profitable source of income for an airline per pound by far. I don't know the exact numbers, but if we look at the numbers for a company like FedEx, a shipment of 1 pound from Dallas to Heathrow costs me $52.00. That works out to about $0.02/km compared to $0.04/km for a shipment of 1 pound from Dallas to Denver.

So, the problem we need to figure out is how do you scale the price to work properly?

But more importantly, we're missing 3 factors -

1) Max ZFW.
2) True Baggage loading. 15kg/passenger is a bit light for an international flight. Longer flights tend to have heavier baggage (and more baggage) per person. More like 25kg or 30kg/passenger.
3) Weight Limiting. The number of passengers and amount of cargo carried doesn't work 100% in its current configuration because of weight limiting. Just because MZFW is a certain weight doesn't mean that they can carry that much. Depending on runway length and temperature, the plane may not be able to carry more than 75% of its maximum payload and still have enough fuel to make its destination. Thus you get weight limited to a certain point to allow enough fuel and not have the MTOW in excess of what's allowed for the runway and temperature.
Image

Konny
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:40 am
Location: Munich, Germany
Contact:

Post by Konny » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:30 pm

Hm,
I don't think that the problem can be solved if an airplane would just take about 75% of the possible cargo. The current profit is more than 10 times too high. The Dollar-per-mile factor needs to be adjusted.

The MZFW maybe would be a nice addition, but is it really worth the effort? 100% or 95% doesn't make a big difference I think.
Konrad - FSAirlines Developer
Image

Ionathan
Captain
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Ionathan » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:45 pm

This is what I was thinking about. If the price for cargo was set to 0.004 or something close to that would be an easy and adequate solution. Of course the aircrafts database must also be updated for the mixed passengers and cargo aircrafts as well. From a quick preview I had I noticed most passengers aircrafts are configured to max freighter cargo as well.
CEO
Ionathan Airlines

Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:29 pm

Konny wrote:Hm,
I don't think that the problem can be solved if an airplane would just take about 75% of the possible cargo. The current profit is more than 10 times too high. The Dollar-per-mile factor needs to be adjusted.

The MZFW maybe would be a nice addition, but is it really worth the effort? 100% or 95% doesn't make a big difference I think.
Actually Konny, if you notice, for the 747, if you're carrying a full load of pax with the current 15kg / pax, you can at MAXIMUM carry 50% of available cargo. That goes down further if you're operating off a short runway because you need the fuel over the cargo, pax, and baggage.

MZFW is an essential addition to ensure that the amount of cargo carried does not exceed the structural limitations of the aircraft. But then again, in reality, fuel should also be entered prior to final cargo load being calculated.
Image

Ionathan
Captain
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Ionathan » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:32 pm

Are you aware of a site where someone could find the cargo capacity in Kilos? So far all sites I have visited have this information but in volume units.
CEO
Ionathan Airlines

Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:45 pm

There's about 6 different sites I use. Boeing, Embraer, and Airbus at least do give the caracteristics in pounds and kilos in their Detailed Technical Specifications sections for their aircraft, others can show up on the aircraft's Type Certificate Data Sheet available from the FAA's website.

There are a few other sites, but the best way to find it if you can't find it off the major resources is just to google the name of the aircraft and "maximum cargo capacity" or "cargo capacity"
Image

User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Post by cmdrnmartin » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:12 pm

http://flynet.en-studios.de/index.php?l ... db&id=1841

There seems to be a little issue when calculating profit, and applying it... Now to be fair, I flew a plane with 150 tons of Cargo, so the profit I expected to be quite large, but 3 billion? A bit excessive. As well, my airline finance report shows a net loss of 600 million on the flight, the Pirep say 3 billion profit, and the Overview page for Wardair says 200 million profit. There's a disconnect between the program, the database, and the interface... possibly an overflow?
Image
Image

BigQ

Post by BigQ » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:45 pm

and even your plane has been carrying 88 passengers... maybe that should be changed as well to 5-10 maximum...

User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Post by cmdrnmartin » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:51 pm

Well, the Antonov can carry the 88 passengers no problem in the 'cabin' above the cargo compartment. Not sure how many paying passengers would want that, but anyways, it doesnt really affect the profit (without the cargo, this plane would bleed any airline dry if it relied only on its passenger carrying capacity). But yeah, at the moment I'm concerned about the profit situation, as there is obvously a disconnect in the system somewhere.
Image
Image

Locked