FSAirlines

I am wondering how the new airport population feature might affect a particular method of operation that is possibly not very common.

The airline that our VA emulates flies some routes that are "Public Service Operations" (PSO) where the airline has a contract with the government to operate what amounts to frequent daily "bus routes" via some remote municipal airports. In the real world this means that passengers at one airport will stay on the aircraft for several legs of a route. In FSAirlines each leg is a separate flight of course so each time an aircraft flies a leg via a municipal airport all the passengers on the flight are deducted from that airport's population and there can be five flights a day through some of these municipal airports. So far we have not experienced much of a problem but if the VA becomes more active then there might be situations when we have to complete a flight with no pax and so take a loss.

Is it possible that we can raise the municipal population or is there another suggestion that comes to mind?

I think there is already a system where a proportion of the passengers that you fly in to an airport, stay there (as transit passengers).
I don't know what that proportion is (maybe it can be increased at some airports) but the point is that some PAX stay in the system and can be used again. They are not all lost.

But I may well be wrong

EDIT: Looks like it might be 30%
I just delivered 394 passengers to EGCN and the pool increased from 49995 to 50113, a gain of 118.

G

Malcom -- Graham is spot on

we operate several similar flights in the pacific to Places like Barking Sands Missile range, Antiweok.Marshall Island and
Bradshaw AAF base we have also noticed a "transit load"


Leif

That is correct. We put in a system that on any flight a portion will remain. This was done not only to ensure that we're not depleting the population too fast but to allow for operations like you comment on where you are flying a "linear" route structure instead of a "hub-and-spoke".

Thanks for the replies. I am glad that it seems that my (slight) misgivings were totally unfounded.