This may have been discussed before too, but is there a policy on LET usage at major airports? Considering the total dearth of slots at CDG, I find some players using 25 plus LETs to take up any remaining slots, and gradually transferring them to bigger jets once they have the money. This is really teaching others a lesson to do the same in future, by taking up all slots using dirt cheap LETs, and stopping others from growing, while you buy yourself more time.
My apologies if there is already a policy on this, but it had to be said.
Not knowing the airline but those at CDG are using them to 1-Bar Airports. At least that's somewhat realistic.....To put it into perspective it's common practice to run small capacity on purpose and add another flight (in some cases 2-3 CRJs around the same departure time) instead of using one A321/739.
There is a massive waste of Slots all over the place. Only on very few occasions an honest player is using adequate Aircraft and when they do, it leaves a lot of space even on their main HUBs. A few LET's hardly would be a problem in the first place but I understand AS to be rather soft on the rules as it would drive some customers away.
Some are even bold enough to proudly and openly defend their strategy on the forums to use as many planes as possible to lock up the Slots to protect themselfs from competition. Think about it, it's a strategy. Have a look around, they are easily identified....
It depends on how people view this game. Those who see it purely as a game try to exploit the weaknesses of the system (a case of Bug using IMO) without overstepping the bounds, those who try to play it realistic shake their heads because opportunities and dynamics are destroyed.
Agreed. My lesson learned from this situation is to grab a 10 bar airport as my hub on the next server, and set up an entire network of small feeder services using LETs...as and when there is growth I can replace them with bigger planes to other destinations, knowing that all the slots at the hub are mine. Indeed, that is a clever strategy.
Not knowing the airline but those at CDG are using them to 1-Bar Airports. At least that's somewhat realistic.....To put it into perspective it's common practice to run small capacity on purpose and add another flight (in some cases 2-3 CRJs around the same departure time) instead of using one A321/739.
There is a massive waste of Slots all over the place. Only on very few occasions an honest player is using adequate Aircraft and when they do, it leaves a lot of space even on their main HUBs. A few LET's hardly would be a problem in the first place but I understand AS to be rather soft on the rules as it would drive some customers away.
Some are even bold enough to proudly and openly defend their strategy on the forums to use as many planes as possible to lock up the Slots to protect themselfs from competition. Think about it, it's a strategy. Have a look around, they are easily identified....
It depends on how people view this game. Those who see it purely as a game try to exploit the weaknesses of the system (a case of Bug using IMO) without overstepping the bounds, those who try to play it realistic shake their heads because opportunities and dynamics are destroyed.
I totally understand your concern as it may seem kind of annoying in terms of "unrealistic" business strategy. But on the other hand, it is a legitimate strategy in this game because some companies may intend to expand their connection networks while having a limited amount of AS in their bank account.
It's funny on the one hand but sad on the other. There are complains about airlines using a LET to small airports where nothing other works. There are no complains about airlines connecting 10-bar airports 100x a day with a 737 or E-Jet. At the end this all is a matter of the circumstances. AirlineSim is not just a normal leisure game and lives from a fair interaction - the discussion about the slots are running since airlinesim exists. In the former days we also had other restrictions like (standard) terminal size etc. - and skiping one after the other leaded to a more boring issue. Anyhow - we won't find a solution for everyone, as long as we do have some aircraft with these advantages.
There are complains about airlines using a LET to small airports where nothing other works.
Well, at least not from my side.....I use CRJ200s myself to 1-Bar/2-Bar Airports. This is legitimate business.
There are no complains about airlines connecting 10-bar airports 100x a day with a 737 or E-Jet.
While I hate the E-Jets for this exact reason, it's a different story with bigger 737 or the A321. I understand not every player wants the massive disadvantage of a Widebody on short haul. However if the airline can fill 100 flights a day with E-Jets, they should be upgrading to the size of an A321....
One other point since you brought up "connecting 10-bar airports 100x a day with a 737 or E-Jet.". What about those Airlines that do it with a CRJ700? I'm not talking about small starter airlines when they find a good route, I'm talking about big airlines with 1000s of airplanes doing this and there are no consequences..... they fly these routes with 3-6 CRJ700 within 10 minutes.
The limitation of Slots is not what I'm complaining about, it's the lack of consequences for those who use their Regiojets between large airports in high frequencies, even though they clearly have the demand and money to upgrade and make Slots available to other players. Is this not the concept of fair play?
Well, at least not from my side.....I use CRJ200s myself to 1-Bar/2-Bar Airports. This is legitimate business.
While I hate the E-Jets for this exact reason, it's a different story with bigger 737 or the A321. I understand not every player wants the massive disadvantage of a Widebody on short haul. However if the airline can fill 100 flights a day with E-Jets, they should be upgrading to the size of an A321....
One other point since you brought up "connecting 10-bar airports 100x a day with a 737 or E-Jet.". What about those Airlines that do it with a CRJ700? I'm not talking about small starter airlines when they find a good route, I'm talking about big airlines with 1000s of airplanes doing this and there are no consequences..... they fly these routes with 3-6 CRJ700 within 10 minutes.
The limitation of Slots is not what I'm complaining about, it's the lack of consequences for those who use their Regiojets between large airports in high frequencies, even though they clearly have the demand and money to upgrade and make Slots available to other players. Is this not the concept of fair play?
For me, the barrier is simply upgrading the flights. To upgrade to a bigger aircraft, i need to have the correct availability of slots etc as aircraft speed and turnaround time both change. At an airport where slots are already so scarce, this becomes impossible.
Please find a way out of this, and then hold all those airlines accountable that run, say, 10x daily or more on the same route without upgrading aircraft.
Agreed. My lesson learned from this situation is to grab a 10 bar airport as my hub on the next server, and set up an entire network of small feeder services using LETs...as and when there is growth I can replace them with bigger planes to other destinations, knowing that all the slots at the hub are mine. Indeed, that is a clever strategy.
Touche!
I only have LETs running to 1-3 bar airports from KHI and NBO, where slots aren't much of an issue.
I think this is a bit to easy. If you have 100+ flights a day between two airports, you should easily be able to create 20-30 flights on this route even if there is not a single slot available just by using yours. Of course - it can be more easier, but it always sounds that nowadays it is impossible - and that's not the complete truth ;)
If the intention isn't to block slots, there's demand to fill the flights, and there's good profit being made, what is the issue of using a regional jet opposed to a wide-body? In other words, if you could put flights on the same route with 739s or A321s and make money and connections, why are you upset at what someone else is doing?
One other point since you brought up "connecting 10-bar airports 100x a day with a 737 or E-Jet.". What about those Airlines that do it with a CRJ700? I'm not talking about small starter airlines when they find a good route, I'm talking about big airlines with 1000s of airplanes doing this and there are no consequences..... they fly these routes with 3-6 CRJ700 within 10 minutes.
The limitation of Slots is not what I'm complaining about, it's the lack of consequences for those who use their Regiojets between large airports in high frequencies, even though they clearly have the demand and money to upgrade and make Slots available to other players. Is this not the concept of fair play?
@ SK no comment on this? Do you at least see my point?
This is as much "cheating" or "bug using" as it was with the cheap seats at the start of Aspern with the difference being that the "cheap seat issue" would have corrected itself after the market would have been saturated. Airlines have been resetted or severly punished, yet there are not consequences for those who block resources for other players (either on purpose or because of lazyness).....and you said yourself:
Of course - it can be more easier, but it always sounds that nowadays it is impossible - and that's not the complete truth ;)
Though I don't have "1000s of aircraft", and I don't have 5 flights leaving in 10 minutes between airports, I do have the most E95s on Aspern. I've been going through upgrading over the past couple of months, and I can let on a little bit about the process.
First, you have to want to do it. When you have a lot of aircraft to upgrade, it's a long, long process. Getting the aircraft in, transferring the flights... it's real-life time-consuming. Personally, I have a good amount of time to upgrade, but I still have only scratched the surface. A lot of it has to do with time, but there are a few other issues as well.
Second is the problem of logistics. Shifting pilots around, cancelling flights, transferring aircraft between airports... it's difficult to keep it all straight, and anyone upgrading is going to lose money. There's just no realistic way around it. The cost isn't a lot per plane, but upgrading 300+ aircraft can be expensive, especially when I'm doling out $60+ million a week in staff/dividend costs alone. With the AGEX diving down like it is, it's worrisome to be spending $750,000+ per plane when profits are leveling off quickly.
Lastly, and really the most annoying, is that some aircraft schedules can't be upgraded without significant changes. The reason behind this is I've found the difference between maintenance ratios in a E95 and a narrow-body is about 24%-28%. That means anything below 123% maintenance ratio cannot just have its flights transferred to a narrow-body and be done with it. It's a long, tedious process.
Though I don't have "1000s of aircraft", and I don't have 5 flights leaving in 10 minutes between airports, I do have the most E95s on Aspern. I've been going through upgrading over the past couple of months, and I can let on a little bit about the process.
First, you have to want to do it. When you have a lot of aircraft to upgrade, it's a long, long process. Getting the aircraft in, transferring the flights... it's real-life time-consuming. Personally, I have a good amount of time to upgrade, but I still have only scratched the surface. A lot of it has to do with time, but there are a few other issues as well.
Second is the problem of logistics. Shifting pilots around, cancelling flights, transferring aircraft between airports... it's difficult to keep it all straight, and anyone upgrading is going to lose money. There's just no realistic way around it. The cost isn't a lot per plane, but upgrading 300+ aircraft can be expensive, especially when I'm doling out $60+ million a week in staff/dividend costs alone. With the AGEX diving down like it is, it's worrisome to be spending $750,000+ per plane when profits are leveling off quickly.
Lastly, and really the most annoying, is that some aircraft schedules can't be upgraded without significant changes. The reason behind this is I've found the difference between maintenance ratios in a E95 and a narrow-body is about 24%-28%. That means anything below 123% maintenance ratio cannot just have its flights transferred to a narrow-body and be done with it. It's a long, tedious process.
SK: what you mention is entirely possible, but that also means that you will then have aircraft with half empty schedules...
I take slots from small aircraft A and B, and use them for large aircraft C. I still have A and B running on half empty schedules.
Agree 110% with caithes, there is a huge time/cost element involved in this. But granted, like you said, it is 'possible', albeit i feel only theoretically.
Though I don't have "1000s of aircraft", and I don't have 5 flights leaving in 10 minutes between airports, I do have the most E95s on Aspern. I've been going through upgrading over the past couple of months, and I can let on a little bit about the process.
Not sure if this was meant to be directly in response to my post but I was not talking about you or Aspern for that matter. I had one particular server and player in mind but the truth is you'll find this behaviour all over the (older) game worlds. The one I have in mind is just the boldest way I've come across.
I know the work behind switching aircraft as I do it regulary to keep optimal load factors between all my A319/320/321....you'll easily get lost if you dont pay attention and switch too much at once. It's a constant balance act.
Not sure if this was meant to be directly in response to my post but I was not talking about you or Aspern for that matter. I had one particular server and player in mind but the truth is you'll find this behaviour all over the (older) game worlds. The one I have in mind is just the boldest way I've come across.
I know the work behind switching aircraft as I do it regulary to keep optimal load factors between all my A319/320/321....you'll easily get lost if you dont pay attention and switch too much at once. It's a constant balance act.
I have an idea of who you are referring to. I didn't think you were referring to me, but I couldn't be completely sure. Personally, I try to play as fair as possible -- I don't take up more than 50% of slots on any airport, except for my main hub. That's my baby ;) And, as mentioned, I am currently upgrading my flights that are consistently at 98-100% full with my 96-seat E95s.
This goes back to that old chestnut about slots being the #1 resource in the simulation, and I'm not sure I want to re-hash that argument again.
@ SK no comment on this? Do you at least see my point?
This is as much "cheating" or "bug using" as it was with the cheap seats at the start of Aspern with the difference being that the "cheap seat issue" would have corrected itself after the market would have been saturated. Airlines have been resetted or severly punished, yet there are not consequences for those who block resources for other players (either on purpose or because of lazyness).....and you said yourself:
Am I totaly off the charts with this?
I was kind of hoping for a statement.....why is this behavior tolerated?
I know what you want to hear - and it is not far away from what is my opinion. But currently there is no rule backing this up. At least there is no clear border between legal and ilegal defined (which is btw. very difficult to find). So currently this is somehow legal - or "better" - it is not ilegal.