Ask a cargo company and you will have another answer... "more useful service" is your opinion, cargo airlines will definitely have another opinion.
@veoni believe it or not I'm actually on your side and don't like the solution. However you are seeking clarity and unfortunately there is very little to give. What I am trying to point out is...
- Cargo aircraft are not covered by hard coding
- Just because its not hard coded doesn't mean its not cheating if someone abuse the above
- There is no limit or hard rule what is or isn't slot blocking with cargo aircraft, and therefore has to be decided on case by case
- In order to bring it to attention of support, and if you believe there is bug abuse or a player using ATFs to prevent slots been used by another player, then it should be reported via proper channels (not forum)
- If you have the opinion someone is blocking via cargo aircraft, then maybe support will to
Sorry but you won't get any better answer than that
I knew this one was coming ;-)Ask a cargo company and you will have another answer... "more useful service" is your opinion, cargo airlines will definitely have another opinion.
The current EU regulation concerning slots at congested airports (there are 10 slot-congested airports in Europe where demand for slots exceeds availability throughout the day) has a very clear definition on that as it is looking to maximise the economic benefits.
Using one single ressource (a slot) to operate a 150-seat aircraft is of a higher economic benefit than operating an a 50-seater or an ATF cargo plane. As simple as that. And not my definiton.
I understand your point. I just wanted to point out that under the current set of rules it is almost impossible to find a justified case for slot blocking of cargo aircrafts. Therefore there’s no ground on reporting a company for flying ATF-freighters between big airports. And that’s something that should be corrected in my eyes, based on the exact same reasons the rule was implemented for passenger aircrafts.
@voeni Like I said I am on your side, the challenge comes (having been involved in these discussions) in actually finding a number / rule that is correct and fair is near enough impossible. If you can find that number that everyone in the community will agree with then please suggest it
I knew this one was coming ;-)
The current EU regulation concerning slots at congested airports (there are 10 slot-congested airports in Europe where demand for slots exceeds availability throughout the day) has a very clear definition on that as it is looking to maximise the economic benefits.
Using one single ressource (a slot) to operate a 150-seat aircraft is of a higher economic benefit than operating an a 50-seater or an ATF cargo plane. As simple as that. And not my definiton.
I understand your point. I just wanted to point out that under the current set of rules it is almost impossible to find a justified case for slot blocking of cargo aircrafts. Therefore there’s no ground on reporting a company for flying ATF-freighters between big airports. And that’s something that should be corrected in my eyes, based on the exact same reasons the rule was implemented for passenger aircrafts.
Do you really want to come up with reality? Then you could also argue that in reality, most cargo traffic is not transported in planes but in trucks. Can AS companies transport via trucks? No. Hence you have to fly even ultra short routes with cargo planes.
Believe ianmanson and also me: the discussions about cargo blocking slots was (and still is) intense. We are not able to find the one rule which is right for both passengers and cargo.
This is an aviation simulation, not a truck simulator. So the demand in the game should only be the one that needs to be shipped by air. If there’s cargo that competes with ground, than that demand is wrong and should not exist.
And in my opinion there’s not a single reason why the cargo planes are not equally restricted. A lot of players didn’t/still don’t like the restrictions on the pax side, yet it is in force and works perfectly fine.
The case by case basis doesn’t work and it is time consuming and unfair. If this would be a good solution, we should also use it for the passengers.
Having less aircraft types is also lame excuse. There’s no guarantee that you can profitably fly every route. If there’s too little demand or too much competition, so be it. It’s the challenge of the game.
The perfect number is needed? Well, the system is there. Apply it to cargo airport demand. That’s it. Possibly even scale it one level down, for whatever reason. But start using it. Please.
@Matth - the system is there but how are you applying this? based on pax demand or cargo demand? then how are we judging aircraft, because it was based on max pax load before. Every complexity leads to an argument and nothing achieved. Just because it is your opinion does not mean it is everyone else.
The actual number of abuses with cargo aircraft is far lower than it was without these for passengers, and therefore maybe should be dealt case by case. We have seen multiple world launches now with less and less complaints everytime. I think that is a success.
Cargo planes = cargo demand. Anything else wouldn’t make sense.
And the pax planes were based on their capacity (seats), so it’s nothing but logical to use the same measure (cargo capacity).
Make it one level lower, or possibly even two levels.
And yes, this is my personal opinion. Yet I can’t see any reasonable arguments why this should not apply.
Trouble is, the manual approach is very difficult to judge. How many ATFs can fly between 10 and 9 bar airports (cargo demand) before it is considered slot blocking? 5, 10, 50? At what level do you think I should report the case and have a realistic chance to succeed?
As pointed out previously, slots are in high demand (in real life) and in that case, commercial passenger planes always get priority. Then it’s charter flights, at third priority are cargo flights with business aircraft being at the bottom of the list. Yet in AS cargo gets priority. That’s strange, in my eyes.
As stated many times I actually do not agree with ATFs but I'm explaining and backing up the mechanism to how we got here. I will stay quiet and let some of the cargo boys argue for the ATFs ;)
Ok, to put things in perspective and to base the discussion more on facts (and less on emotions), I decided to run a few queries on my AS Routemap server.
Surprisingly (or not), there are worlds where the top three cargo airlines (cargo only) that fly with.... (suspense music on) ZERO ATF flights between 9 and 10 bar cargo airports that are less than 1,321 km (the ATF range) apart. BUT, they do manage to fly hundreds to thousands of 737s or in some cases even dozens of 77F/74F on those short hops. (The number of flights are per week).
Then, on the other hand, there are worlds, where the top three cargo carriers use up to 3,500!!! (and these are flights where the passenger size is >= 8) weekly flights between 9 and 10 bar airports that are less than 1,321 km apart.
So, if apparently it is possible to run a successful cargo airline without ATFs (or at least without using them between largest airports).
And ok, so I also sit back and let some of the cargo boys argue now.
PS: I do not want to accuse any specific airline/player of slot blocking, that's why I do not name the worlds or airlines. My point is of a general nature.
Ok, to put things in perspective and to base the discussion more on facts (and less on emotions), I decided to run a few queries on my AS Routemap server.
Surprisingly (or not), there are worlds where the top three cargo airlines (cargo only) that fly with… (suspense music on) ZERO ATF flights between 9 and 10 bar cargo airports that are less than 1,321 km (the ATF range) apart. BUT, they do manage to fly hundreds to thousands of 737s or in some cases even dozens of 77F/74F on those short hops. (The number of flights are per week).
Then, on the other hand, there are worlds, where the top three cargo carriers use up to 3,500!!! (and these are flights where the passenger size is >= 8) weekly flights between 9 and 10 bar airports that are less than 1,321 km apart.
So, if apparently it is possible to run a successful cargo airline without ATFs (or at least without using them between largest airports).
And ok, so I also sit back and let some of the cargo boys argue now.
PS: I do not want to accuse any specific airline/player of slot blocking, that’s why I do not name the worlds or airlines. My point is of a general nature.
I run a small cargo airline and I agree that these restrictions should be in place. I think differently than some people though. When I have flight that’s doing 100% all the time, I usually upgrade as soon as I can. The only stumbling block to this is the lack of cargo types. I have used PC12C but they aren’t great for profit, so I got rid of them. If the flight can’t support an ATF then I don’t need that flight. I would be overjoyed if I could build an all jet cargo airline.
Have I said sth wrong or why is the discussion suddenly dead?
The funny thing is, here is not a single person that is against the slot blocking enforcement of the cargo planes. Highscore and Ianmanson defended why it is not in force, but no other player was defending the status quo. Where are those that really insist that the cargo planes CANNOT get restricted in a similar way?
The problem is still the same: give us a profitable aircraft like the ATF in a size of a737, then you get your slot restrictions.
The actual B737-700F is just to poor. Why should I operate an aircraft what makes only 20% margins?the ATF makes about 40-50% margin. That’s all
Why engage in the discussion? Given the basic mood of the discussion ("cargo boys", for example), no open discussion is to be expected.
Why engage in the discussion? Given the basic mood of the discussion ("cargo boys", for example), no open discussion is to be expected.
Yep, certain people's minds are made up, there is no point in engaging in it. I do find it quite amusing that real life was used as an example of why the limits should be put into place for cargo when real life was blatantly ignored when the passenger restrictions were enacted.
(going back into my hole now, before the "inner circle" gets worked up and tries to compare their cargo profits to mine using bigger aircraft :lol: )
Comparisons with reality are only used if it suits, otherwise one refers to the fact that AS cannot represent reality. Same thing for over ten years.
Oh, God, that was my third contribution in half a year.
Comparisons with reality are only used if it suits, otherwise one refers to the fact that AS cannot represent reality. Same thing for over ten years.
Oh, God, that was my third contribution in half a year.
Well... I actually wanted to stay calm but this kind of needs an answer. I am always comparing to reality, always asked for more reality and definitely not only when it suits me. As you are a longtime player you should know better. So instead of cutting down a discussion (which is obviously useless, because it doesn't lead to anywhere...) just because someone used the term 'cargo boys' - which by all means is a legitimate term to describe users who use large fleets of ATF freighters and everyone knew what was meant - you should probably stop with insinuations, because THAT does not lead to an open discussion.
The best solution would be to have (as in reality) high landing fees for both, passenger and cargo aircrafts. Problem in AS is that it is way too easy to make money compared to reality (just compare margins...) and therefore even if landing fees would be exorbitantly high, the effect will be very small as everyone could afford them anyway. So in this specific case, rules are required. The rule for passenger airline was the right thing to do in my opinion and there is no reason why there shouldn't be the same rule for cargo aircrafts.
@Boeing 777-200: I don't think this is a discussion about "give me this and I'll give you that...". You are right, one has to work with the aircrafts available. But there's no right to have 40-50% margins with ATF freighters (and therefore nothing you need to be compensated for), otherwise I could use the same point for passenger aircrafts.
The reality comparison was not directed against you. It's the same with almost every discussion.
And especially the discussion about flight restrictions was emotional from the beginning. That has also been the case with almost every discussion over the last two years, which is why I am not really in favour of discussing anything. There were also too many personal (and alliance) sensitivities for me to lead a neutral and objective discussion. The fact that hardly any discussion has led to changes in the game due to a lack of programming time, reduces the weight of these discussions once again massively.
Back to the point. Who flies between two 10-passenger airports with ATRs? I just had to search mine and came across a connection AMS-LHR. At 135% ticket prices, a 737C flies in a loss of 20%, an ATR of 50% (sic!). At 200% of ticket prices, the positiv margin is just 9%, and the adjustment of landing fees was a massive blow - and rightly so in my eyes.
With the above-mentioned 45%-50% margins, I first flinched and checked my flights to see what I was doing wrong. With 120% ticket prices, the margin on an 800km route (e. g. SDF-CHS) is 5% for an ATR, 10% for a 737 and for a better comparison I only use leased machines, not bought ones. I filled the airline with ATFs at 747 to make more profit. I find the margins for ATFs rather poor, but too high for the Tu-204s and long-haul flights.
40% with an ATR is possible. I fly the SDF-MEM (503km) route with four aircraft types at 200% ticket prices - the racetrack between two extremely large hubs gives that. In Memphis there are 190 machines and in Louisville 220 machines from 737 to 747 stationed next to the ATR. I fly this route 148 times a day, more than 90% of the time is indirect. A few comparative figures:
ATF: 4 rounds per day, 67 flights in total, gain 4.3k per flight with a margin of 41%.
737C: 4 rounds per day, 29 flights in total, gain 8.6k per flight with a margin of 45%.
Tu204:4 rounds per day, 37 flights in total, gain 13k per flight with a margin of 42%.
A330:3 rounds per day, 15 flights in total, profit 32k per flight with a margin of 46%.
The A330 flights are designed to improve aircraft utilisation. 37 Tu flights are already replacing 100 ATF flights to clear slots. But I have stopped the conversion, because the rebuilding simply takes too much time if there are almost no slots available at the airport of departure and destination. But I also don't want more slots, the slots are for me in the game one of the best things. I just don't have the tools to rebook properly. It would be a great help if you could export all your flights and then gather the times externally. The export function has been required for years - but is not yet implemented. I could program a crawler that collects data via the web interface - but I'm not allowed to.
What I really want to say, however, is that slot-blocking because of the slot-blocking is rightly pursued and the restrictions as they are at present are in principle correct. Not because I think it is good that I would have found an economic solution better, but the current regulation is clear and comprehensible to everyone. Basically, the restrictions should also apply to the freight sector. Only there is less choice of freighters and finding "suitable" machines is much more difficult than with PAX. The question Dash, ATR, or Embraer or Bombardier in different versions does not exist for cargo. ATR 72-500F with 90 FE and finished, the next one is the B737-700C with 182 FE and then the Tu-204 with 300 FE. I play Aspern, there are no old used planes I can take. By the way, all machines below the ATR 72-500F are negligible. The small ATR 42 sister can only be used if she is able to carry more than the ATR 72-500 on longer distances, while all the others such as the Caravan or PC-12 fly in deficit and are more nice-to-have.
A 767, A330 or even bigger one wants to be filled. As in the PAX business, this is only possible with delivery vehicles. If a 737 is too big, the smaller ATR is used. Until the feeder flights are so numerous that the 737 would be worthwhile again, the slots are gone and rebooking will be difficult. Passenger airlines naturally have the same problem, but can react more flexibly thanks to the wider choice of aircraft types.
If the restrictions were to come, I'd see it as an amendment to a law. Bite your teeth, change routes. I do not know how many flights would be affected at all. I look at the airport cargo sizes, the PAX size is irrelevant to me. Would you get a message or would you actually have to go through all the machines? With an ATR, the restrictions apply from a total airport size of 17, and I can't imagine that (at least for me) so many routes would be affected. On the first look I would say two routes from LAX (SFO and OAK), two from IST (AYT and ADB), four from PVG (NKG, HGH, XMN, TAO), three from SIN (KUL, CGK and BKK), three from BOM (MAA, BLR and DEL). No race tracks for cargo, in total maybe 40 machines, which would be replaced by 20 bigger ones.
And especially the discussion about flight restrictions was emotional from the beginning. That has also been the case with almost every discussion over the last two years, which is why I am not really in favour of discussing anything. There were also too many personal (and alliance) sensitivities for me to lead a neutral and objective discussion. The fact that hardly any discussion has led to changes in the game due to a lack of programming time, reduces the weight of these discussions once again massively.
Completely agree with you on that. Unfortunately discussions in here hardly ever lead to changes.
Of course there is no right to make large profit with ATFs.
However, it must be possible for small Cargo airlines to start up with ATF and to operate them on profitable routes.
Large Cargo Airlines which own a huge fleet of widebodies and still run ATFs on 10bar airports are a compelling case of slotblocking.
That’s right.
I just wanted to outline that you can not compare the circumstances of Passenger Airlines with them of Cargo Airlines.
To summarize: I see the need of a hard coding for this slot blocking problem, but please design it fair