Welcome to the Forum for The Airline Project

Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Use of through flights
#1
Hi

I have started implementing the use of through flights (via flights) meaning that it is possible to create a route like:
ATH->EDI Via CGN where all legs are flown by the same aircraft.

My question is what you think about this and if you have any inputs? And for now I will only start with one through/via airport
Reply
#2
Good idea. Then you can fly from FRA via SIN to SYD or FRA via JFK to HNL.

I missed this option.
Reply
#3
It should only be possible if you apply for special permissions, with each country have a certain % chance of acceptance for the requested flight as IRL unless it's part of an open skies agreement it requires consent from all three governmental bodies before being able to be implemented. Countries/airports with a large amount of 5th freedom traffic like SIN, HKG, NRT would have a higher % than others like canada or the US, which historically have been more restrictive in allowing fifth freedom flights to be operated into the country. This would make the coding more complex though.
Reply
#4
I say yes fkr this but can also base it on law and rights. Such as US bans non US airlines from doing domestoc flights unless the passengers are going to or coming from the main destination

Brazil is more relaxed as Royal Air Maroc makes a CMN - Sao Paulo - Rio - CMN flight ehoch RAM can pick up passengers fron Sao Paulo and drop them off in Rio. Applying the US law would then mean RAM would be breaking the law
Reply
#5
I feel like we should be given an option:
on route A-B-C

Either the B-airport is a full stop, where passengers can get on or off board.
This increases demand on the route (and thus allows to fly to smaller airports with higher frequency).
The demand from A-B and B-C is the same as a direct flight, as it appears to be a direct flight for the passengers.
The demand from A-C drops if there is a direct flight between them, if the direct flight is not much more expensive.

The downside of this is that the boarding process takes a while.


Or the B-airport is solely a technical stop.
Passengers can not board at B, thus demand stays the same. (unless there is a direct flight)

The upside of this is that a technical stop doesn't take as long as a full stop.
This refuling stop allows to fly smaller aircraft much further. (like the London City - JFK connection via Ireland on an A319 we had a while ago)


Of course, a full stop requires permission due to aviation law, as mentioned before.
A technical stop doesn't.
Reply
#6
Thanks for all your input and it seems like I should just go ahead and implement it :-)
Reply
#7
(04-05-2018, 02:09 AM)pjank42 Wrote: Thanks for all your input and it seems like I should just go ahead and implement it :-)

I support you
Reply
#8
Will stop over flights also implemented for freight?
Reply
#9
At the moment it is only planned for passengers, but if people think it should be for cargo as well, I will look into implementing it?
Reply
#10
Is there a chance to include departure times for the second leg on via flights?

FRA-SIN-SYD for example : Departure FRA 10:00 - Departure SIN 18:00.

If SIN is a hub, connecting flights could be better coordinated.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)