Starting this to not threadjack the thread on slot blocking.
My question is simple. What size plane is the smallest you would consider "fair use" at a level 10 airport.
Also would configuration affect your judgement? Such as a slightly bigger plane equiped with larger seats aka less people.
Myself - CR7 for flights to 1 bar airports, AT7 or Q400, 1 bar airports.
1 bar, max 2 bar airport flights.
Personally, i believe PC12 should never be used in a 9/10 bar airport. For Beech/LET/EMB/Do228/Y12/Nord, restricted the max number of flight you can have. For ERJ/ATR42/An24/Convair/Dash7/DHC(except Dash8) should have less restriction, but still have a max number of flights you can operate.
I wonder how difficult it would be to program slots per plane size or "class" to make it simpler just a generic for example ERJ/ATR42/An24/Convair/Dash7/DHC(except Dash8) class maybe a max of 50 flights per day period. Not just each airline that could prevent starting multiple holdings to block slots.
I agree the posts above me sound reasonable and sound however.
In my point of view, it is a mix of origin / destination airport and amount of fights . If you fly from a 10 bar airport to 2 Bar airport a plane with 30+ seats shoud be fine. If you fly the same plane between two 10 bar airports, it looks different.
The next question is the amont of daily flights. If an airline is flying once or twice a day with a smaller plane, it might be ok. if this airline does 20 flights a day, it looks different.
Some Airports have a short runway and cannot be reached by any plane. This needs to be considered as well.
In my point of view, it is a mix of origin / destination airport and amount of fights . If you fly from a 10 bar airport to 2 Bar airport a plane with 30+ seats shoud be fine.
Some Airports have a short runway and cannot be reached by any plane. This needs to be considered as well.
As have already been pointed out by some of the previous posters, it is very difficult to make a fair and simple rule for this scenario.
I have always favoured financial means as the tool to fix this. Make landing charges such, that flying from 10 bar to smaller airports with small planes is economically viable, but flying from a 10 bar to another 10 bar would hit you twice with such landing fees that it simply does not become economical, you would make a loss.
I have in real life flown on an ATR from MAN to DUB, both 8 bar airports in AS. I have also flown on an ATR from ALB to EWR (5 bar to 10 bar), I noticed that the neighboring gate was boarding an AA Eagle Beechcraft to JFK at the same time. All of these are realistic scenarios that should work in AS as well.
I believe the only 10 bar airport I have never seen a commuter aircraft in is LHR, but apparently this something that at least used to take place http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%3Datr%25&countrysearch=-+London+-+Heathrow+%28LHR+%2F+EGLL%29&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&page=1&sid=85dca743b8e821ee363c4bf473edd431
I have always favoured financial means as the tool to fix this. Make landing charges such, that flying from 10 bar to smaller airports with small planes is economically viable, but flying from a 10 bar to another 10 bar would hit you twice with such landing fees that it simply does not become economical, you would make a loss.
Financial penalties were tried and never worked.The one who wants to block slots will then just "fly" (aka block slots) to some dummy 1 bar airports with the cheapest aircraft he can find.
It is important to realize that flying between major airports with small props is not meant to take advantage of demand distribution formula, but rather to block slots for future use. Any demand benefit and profits associated thereof is just a side benefit.
Rubio it has not stalled at UAB...it has at ASTeam level...
The information I had then, had been maybe incorrect, and I apologize if UAB agreed already on slot blocking rules. Sending you a PM.
I have in real life flown on an ATR from MAN to DUB, both 8 bar airports in AS. I have also flown on an ATR from ALB to EWR (5 bar to 10 bar), I noticed that the neighboring gate was boarding an AA Eagle Beechcraft to JFK at the same time. All of these are realistic scenarios that should work in AS as well.
I believe the only 10 bar airport I have never seen a commuter aircraft in is LHR, but apparently this something that at least used to take place http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%3Datr%25&countrysearch=-+London+-+Heathrow+%28LHR+%2F+EGLL%29&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&page=1&sid=85dca743b8e821ee363c4bf473edd431
Real life is quite different from the AS. You have airline taking slots in the real life, but the airports are not as structured as AS has. Even the airport reaches its limit, the city or the government will decide whether it is possible to expand the airports, e.g. adding runways or terminals, or get a new place and build a new airport. When the airport can't change, the airline will figure something out, considering the Skymark and ANA case at Haneda. While AS is using real life data for the system, but the players are not simulating all those real airlines, so comparing the real flight with AS might be not appropriate.
I tend actually to agree with both of you @TWAAir and @kruiseri.
So maybe another solution could be what happens in real life: I could perfectly imagine, that a potential rule might continue to allow airlines to use props at 9/10bar airports, but - as in real life - the airport would increase its (landing/handling/etc) fees as soon as the airport gets congested. Congested means a formula that is not disclosed by the AS team to prevent abuse.
My reasoning behind that approach: It is in the airport authorities' interest, that a maximum of passengers are being handled at their airport. This can also mean that small aircraft are welcome at big airports as long as there is space (slots). However, the price increase - when the airport authority wants them to leave - should be of a magnitude that it won't be viable anymore for any company to survive using - say - 25% of its fleet consisting of props landing/departing from a congested airport.
Such a rule would allow players using small props use 9/10 bar airports until a certain level of slots available. If - hypothetically - a 9/10bar airport remains for months unused by other players, why not let the LET-players be happy there?
As for the financial impact. I am reading rubiohiguey2000 stating "Financial penalties were tried and never worked." To be honest, I don't think that it has been tried hard enough. If the airport meets the "congestion formula" raise handling fees from 11AS$ to 30AS$ per pax, double the landing fees, double the ATC fees. The cost hike should be such, that even using Slimline seats at 300% of the price, the profit would be in the red digits.
Your suggestion would involve a whole new lot of complexity and burden on system resources with such dynamic calculations, as they would need to be done every time a flight departs… Because well, between now and 3 minutes later an airport might become congested or decongested by a third party airline adding or removing a single slot pair.
ATC fees have nothing to do with the airport, they cover en route navigation.
Pax handling fees can be circumvented by using private terminals.
Only the landing fees can be changed and it has been shown that even multiplying the landing fees by factor X (aspern and onward) does not bring in desired results. Increasing the landing fees is a complex matter in addition to technical and computational complexity, it also touches complexity of the logic, because logically a Let landing fee would not be the same or more as landing fee for a 737, at max it would be the same. But in the current formulas those landing fees for small props are almost the same as landing fees for midsized jets. And it’s obvious that the current landing fees even though they are much much higher than on legacy world’s, do not have the desires effect.
Another point to consider is that Martin is very busy and the most feasible solution is a simple solution, for the time being. The community would much prefer to have a simple slot blocking solution and the little time Martin has being devoted to development of new features, rather than stopping development and dedicating time to complex slot blocking solutions. Also, to my knowledge, some somewhat complex slot blocking solutions were already proposed and were negated exactly because of the complexity involved and time factor they would require.
Yes, I agree with you that my approach would add complexity. And I don't pretend that I have thought through all the aspects.
I merely wanted to show that there might be solutions that could accommodate all kind of players and strategies.
Since your technical analysis found out that system resources won't be able to handle the load generated by such a formula, we should look for a better solution then.
... the airport would increase its (landing/handling/etc) fees as soon as the airport gets congested...
Hi,
slot blocking is at it worst at the start of a new server. Airports are not congested then. So players could still start with loads of small planes to claim slots. It is their intention to replace the LET's by bigger planes later on ;-)
As for the financial impact. I am reading rubiohiguey2000 stating "Financial penalties were tried and never worked." To be honest, I don't think that it has been tried hard enough...
I agree.
Apart from that, it has been suggested to limit the number of planes that can be leased with the Immediate delivery program. One could also increase the delivery time for small aircraft. It is not because a plane is smaller that it has to be delivered 3 times faster.
As far as I am concerned, the AS-team can simply tell us it is illegal to operate anything smaller than a 50-seater out of a 9 and 10 bar airport during the first month of a new server. You know, a simple rule that everybody understands. If you want to start in Timbuktu, fine. Lease a Cessna Caravan if you want. If I start an airline in Heathrow , on a new server, I would start flying to AMS, FRA, CDG, FCO, and so on. These will be my trunk routes. I can always add a flight to the Isle of Man later on. Slots there will not have gone if I wait a month.
I appreciate the fact that solutions should not prevent people from making choices (which planes do I like). I also understand that Martin has other things to do. We all have to make a living. But this problem comes back with every new server. Hopefully someone comes up with a brilliant idea. If not, a stupid rule that prevents massive slot blocking is better than reading the same complaints again and again.
Jan
Hi Jan,
I think it boils down to what has been told in other threads (and which is - if I understand correctly - the underlying message you are transporting in your post): We need a clear rule to deal with that problem. It may be as easy as your suggestions (which I like, by the way) or as complex as my approach ;)
slot blocking is at it worst at the start of a new server. Airports are not congested then. So players could still start with loads of small planes to claim slots. It is their intention to replace the LET's by bigger planes later on ;-)
I do agree with your comment - but just to clarify what I meant: My proposed scenario would deal with this. Players on new worlds can still claim a lot slots using loads of LET's at ten bar airports. But after a while - usually after two/three weeks after a server start in PEK/LHR - the penalty would kick in. Either those LET holding airlines have converted their fleet by then, or they move elsewhere - or they will go bankrupt if they stay.
The philosophy of my scenario was "All airlines - regardless of fleet composition - are welcome at all airports as long as there are enough slots. If those slots get scarce - those aircraft should leave."
However, needing to clarify my scenario shows, that it is too complex for game play.
Kudos, since your solution approach hasn't been fended off within 4 - 6 minutes of posting here (like others before). So, my hope is that your approach gets through "the filter" and reaches the AS team / UAB. :)
Hoi Reto
As you saw in the Thread: Elections in May 2016: Candidates wanted, the topic Slot blocking is for almost all candidates an important one. I belive, that the elected members will bring in some proposals, how to handle it. If there is a definition, what will be rated as slotblocking, it must be easy understandable.
When I see the finance results of some airlines, a finance penalty does not care them. There are other penalties, which would be more efficient.
Cheers
Falciformis
The financial burden might work in the beginning. If a fresh airline uses his complete 10 mil to lease LETs with a grand plan of swapping them out for larger planes latet, it would not work if those 50 LETs made a considerable loss.
... Kudos, since your solution approach hasn't been fended off within 4 - 6 minutes of posting here (like others before)...
Yeah well... perhaps they haven't read it yet ;-)
But seriously. An airline that uses 90% of the slots in its hub, is also slot blocking because no other airline can reach that airport anymore. But we see that as a successful airline, not someone who blocks the slots. If CBE tells us that he scheduled a dozen ATR's in Singapore to claim a few dozen slots, that is also slot blocking. But nobody would consider it as slot blocking because he plays on an established server.
Players feel it as unfair when "slot blocking" changes the playing field. On a new server, everybody has the same chances and opportunities. That is when people get upset because a few players manage to claim all the slots in just a few weeks.
Removing old planes from the data base was done for the same reason. The first players on a new server would lease all the (extremely cheap) 727's and other oldies, and within a two weeks these airlines operated a fleet of 200 planes.
So what we need is a solution that stops a few players from taking over big airports within the first few weeks.
It doesn't matter if the solution is financial, embedded in the software, or put in rules.
Have a nice day,
Jan
taking over big airports within the first few weeks.
I wonder why slot purchases were never introduced? The more you take and the bigger the airport the more you pay. Suddenly buying the 10th slot pair for a LET does not look so attractive because you deplete your funds and hinder your own growth.
Also, it would encourage players to build a HUB not necessarily at a mega airport because their overall growth will be slow. The same players may also prioritise flights to smaller airports to save the funds for expansion and suddenly LHR is deserted :D .
Once the game world progresses, new entrants receive initial (large?) discounts. Again, the more they take the quicker the discount disappears.
Seems realistic and simple to me but I bet this has been discussed to exhaustion already.