*
I am on your side with this suggestion and I hope it will be implemented before the next server.
People don't make nearly as much money as you think they do on the newer servers with small props. The landing fees don't scale down as much as they do in older servers.
Also, this seems to be just a difference in philosophy among people of different countries. Here in the US where we actually have a sufficient number of runways at all major airports except LGA, it is much more common to see small planes than at, say, LHR, where the government won't pull their head out of the sand and build another runway.
But even in the US, 3 50-seater CRJs leaving 5 minutes apart (or even all at the same time!) won’t give you 3 times as many passengers as one 150-seater 737, whereas in AS that’s pretty much what happens - not only that, you then get 3 times as many connecting passengers to your long-haul flights.
THIS is why we have such a huge problem with slot blocking in this game: it’s finantially more beneficial to use lots of small airplanes than fewer big ones. Until that demand calculation is fixed, people will keep blocking slots with lots of props because that’s what gives them the most money.
OP, So you want to prohibit connections to small 1 bar airports? Even in my strongest hubs I cannot ferquently put anything bigegr than ATR72 or Q400, if I wnat to service that airport at least 2 times per day. And that is from a 5000+ connection hub. Imagine a hub with just 1000 connections.
I said it always - allow flying with small props only to airports that are 4 bars or less, with the formula:
4 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
5 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
6 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
7 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
8 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
9 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
10 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, no smaller permitted
OP, So you want to prohibit connections to small 1 bar airports? Even in my strongest hubs I cannot ferquently put anything bigegr than ATR72 or Q400, if I wnat to service that airport at least 2 times per day. And that is from a 5000+ connection hub. Imagine a hub with just 1000 connections.
I said it always - allow flying with small props only to airports that are 4 bars or less, with the formula:
4 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
5 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
6 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
7 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
8 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
9 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
10 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, no smaller permitted
I have a problem with many Malaysian, Thai and Indonesian airports that they have extremely short runways so I have been needing to operate Twin otters and LETs, in order to expand the reach/coverage of my alliance.
OP, So you want to prohibit connections to small 1 bar airports? Even in my strongest hubs I cannot ferquently put anything bigegr than ATR72 or Q400, if I wnat to service that airport at least 2 times per day. And that is from a 5000+ connection hub. Imagine a hub with just 1000 connections.
I said it always - allow flying with small props only to airports that are 4 bars or less, with the formula:
4 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
5 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
6 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
7 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
8 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
9 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
10 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, no smaller permitted
The rules are complicated and potentially stifling competition. Thinking about this scenario:
I'm based in a country and my hub is 6-bar. Besides my flights from my hub to a 10-bar neighbour, I also want to set up a direct flight from my 1-bar city in my country to that 10-bar airport. The O/D demand is quite low (no connections possible) so I can only fill up a Q200, as I did with all my domestic flights.
That is technically a 10 bar to 1 bar route, and I don't see how it shouldn't be permitted. It's making perfect sense and putting all my resources in the best use.
Indeed, I sometimes have trouble filling smaller aircrafts even on a 6-bar to 4-bar flight. Some routes simply don't have a lot of demand, just enough for an AT42/DH3 and no more, specially for starting airlines that still have low image and few connections. But they're still a good investment if they provide connecting passengers for my bigger flights. Also the runway size restriction as CBE mentioned.
The solution in my view shouldn't be an artifical restriction, but to make it financially unprofitable to fly those planes in routes that can be filled by bigger planes, while still allowing them in routes where bigger planes are just not viable.
OP, So you want to prohibit connections to small 1 bar airports? Even in my strongest hubs I cannot ferquently put anything bigegr than ATR72 or Q400, if I wnat to service that airport at least 2 times per day. And that is from a 5000+ connection hub. Imagine a hub with just 1000 connections.
I said it always - allow flying with small props only to airports that are 4 bars or less, with the formula:
4 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
5 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
6 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
7 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
8 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
9 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
10 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, no smaller permitted
I think it works fine in some market, but definitely not in south-east Asia and Oceania market. There are tons of airports with short runways where you can't run with ATC72s. As CBE mentioned, some airports in Malaysia can serve by Twin Otters. Also, some of my flight out of CGK is using DHC8-200 because it is the only choice for me based on the flight length and runway length. e.g. CGK-ENE/PSU/SRI.
Ok, 1 bar 2 bar it really does not make a difference. There is no short runway 3 bar airport to my knowledge so let’s just settle on 2 bars. Anyway the landing fee calculation could be dynamic based on aircraft size, airport size and runway length. In other words, flying LET from Surabaya to Jakarta would have such huge landing fee it would cost more to land than all the revenue that aircraft could generate. On the other hand same LET flying from one of the mentioned airports with short runway would pay a reasonable landing fee to allow that flight to break even (not to be hugely profitable either because that slot at CGK has its value).
Hi,
The worst part for me is to read as other players advocate this and similar behavior. Even they KNOW and WRITE that it is "highly unrealistic".
So, lets do something really realistic.
I agree, we should make this realistic. We should also make the aircraft ordering process really realistic, and get rid of the one assembly line per airline nonsense. We should also change the way passengers shop for flights, putting a premium on prices as opposed to seats and comfort, so we can make the game realistic.
The same old hypocritical people on this board are back, getting upset about the "highly unrealistic" 19 seat planes flying into and out of larger airports, but get upset when other changes get suggested that would make the game more realistic, because it would affect their GAME.
Ok, 1 bar 2 bar it really does not make a difference. There is no short runway 3 bar airport to my knowledge so let's just settle on 2 bars. Anyway the landing fee calculation could be dynamic based on aircraft size, airport size and runway length. In other words, flying LET from Surabaya to Jakarta would have such huge landing fee it would cost more to land than all the revenue that aircraft could generate. On the other hand same LET flying from one of the mentioned airports with short runway would pay a reasonable landing fee to allow that flight to break even (not to be hugely profitable either because that slot at CGK has its value).
This. Like I said, make it financially unprofitable to run small airplanes between large airports, rather than an arbitrary restriction.
It's better off raising slot prices based on demand. Make it like Uber with its surge charges. If anyone dares to run small aircraft and block other flights on purpose, the blocker would risk bankruptcy.
OP, So you want to prohibit connections to small 1 bar airports? Even in my strongest hubs I cannot ferquently put anything bigegr than ATR72 or Q400, if I wnat to service that airport at least 2 times per day. And that is from a 5000+ connection hub. Imagine a hub with just 1000 connections.
I said it always - allow flying with small props only to airports that are 4 bars or less, with the formula:
4 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
5 bar to 4 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 3 bar, 2 bar and 1 bar
6 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
7 bar to 3 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 2 bar and 1 bar
8 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
9 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, smaller to 1 bar
10 bar to 2 bar OK - ATR72/Q400, no smaller permitted
In real life Aer Lingus flies MAN to DUB with an ATR42, both are 8 bar airports in AS.
The should be resolved through economic means rather than strict rules. ie slots at LHR cost a fortune, no one would waste such a slot for an ATR42 let alone a LET
So my suggestion, start charging for slots at busier airports.
Indeed, I sometimes have trouble filling smaller aircrafts even on a 6-bar to 4-bar flight. Some routes simply don't have a lot of demand, just enough for an AT42/DH3 and no more, specially for starting airlines that still have low image and few connections. But they're still a good investment if they provide connecting passengers for my bigger flights. Also the runway size restriction as CBE mentioned.
The solution in my view shouldn't be an artifical restriction, but to make it financially unprofitable to fly those planes in routes that can be filled by bigger planes, while still allowing them in routes where bigger planes are just not viable.
I absolutely agree with this concept. And to some degree the ORS already deals with this with the aircraft ratings. But I'd suggest that people would rather fly a 737 than an ERJ/CRJ/EMB any day of the week. And it is these smaller planes that cause issues in the long run when the route SHOULD call for a bigger plane. But at the end of the day a ERJ/CRJ/EMB are just close enough for ORS ratings to give them an equal allotment of passengers. When all else being equal passengers should defer to the better plane.
However, in many markets it is next to impossible to reach all of the airports unless you use a size 7-8 airport. And even then there are still markets I've found out of reach in Canadian even using small planes with long legs because of the runway length. But I have a goal to have at least one flight to every Canadian airport on Devau with Knight Regional Airlines and I've just about completed the loop. (What's with the half dozen or so 0 length runways?)
And to some degree the ORS already deals with this with the aircraft ratings.
Not really. A CR7 has maximum aircraft rating. So no rating benefit at all in using anything bigger than a 70-seater. Even the smallest CRJs and ERJs have a 4* rating.
Not really. A CR7 has maximum aircraft rating. So no rating benefit at all in using anything bigger than a 70-seater. Even the smallest CRJs and ERJs have a 4* rating.
Just to clear that up: That's not true. As always, there's a value behind those green or red bars - and other aircraft get a higher rating than a CRJ.
Just to clear that up: That's not true. As always, there's a value behind those green or red bars - and other aircraft get a higher rating than a CRJ.
Thanks for the clarification. Still, unless those bars are highly misleading, I doubt the difference in rating between a CR7 and an A320 is big enough that you would get a significant increase in passengers based on aircraft populatity alone. All other things being equal, two 70-seat CR7s flying simultaneously to the same destination will always get much bigger loads than one 140-seat A320, unless you have no competition whatsoever. And this difference is the main reason why we have such a slot problem.
I absolutely agree with this concept. And to some degree the ORS already deals with this with the aircraft ratings. But I'd suggest that people would rather fly a 737 than an ERJ/CRJ/EMB any day of the week. And it is these smaller planes that cause issues in the long run when the route SHOULD call for a bigger plane. But at the end of the day a ERJ/CRJ/EMB are just close enough for ORS ratings to give them an equal allotment of passengers. When all else being equal passengers should defer to the better plane.
Really? Since you're talking Canada, I'd be pretty indifferent between an AC E90 and an AC 320...
Really? Since you're talking Canada, I'd be pretty indifferent between an AC E90 and an AC 320...
Depends on a config.
I flew E90 on Nikki VIE-MUC and it was tight. I also flew E90 on Copa Colombia PUJ-PTY and it had an ample legroom and seat width to the extent I remember from old United Economy Plus days. A VERY comfortable flight.