Thanks, Ufsatp.
if conventional ways dont work, get down to frontier justice...
why not just do the same to this player? just take a few players, each of them founding an airline with xy LETs, and do the same to this player...go ahead and slot-block his hub (in this case LHR).
i'd be curious how long it takes until he/she quits or restarts somewhere else.
The team will address these cases
We're already taking action regarding the first cases that have been reported to us.
I agree that the LET and other prop abuse (the Chinese Avic II comes to mind) needs to be addressed. Some suggestions were already made through appropriate channels.
I simply find it wrong flying LETs from LHR to Belfast or DH4 from LHR to FRA, or a 50-seater AVOC-II, 25x daily from Osaka to Tokyo, on server start.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, "Rubio" is correct that the LET and other prop abuse needs to be addressed.
The LET use at the start of a new game world, out of a major HUB like LHR is wrong. Even those DH4 out of LHR is just crazy!
Again, Rubio is correct that suggestions/complaints should be made through appropriate channels.
Not by lambasting a fellow player on the forums.
Just my thoughts!
Rubio, have you given any thought to players multiple requests for you to join us on Quimby IV?
Nothing Sinister or anything, just good fun and competition.
@hsx - sent you a PM
It's been reported. And yes, I accuse him/her in public. What he/she is doing is not good.
Absolutely support your opinion. This is Airline SIM(!) - completely unrealistic business models like starting masses of LETs from Heathrow should get banned.
Thanks to the team for taking actions.
And now the same formulation with 16 ANTONOV AN-140A for European flights. Oh, man, how unimaginative.
Sorry, now there are 17 ANTONOV AN-140A.
How well has the aircraft as long lead time. Since the replenishment will take a while.
Again, this would be easy to fix. A landing fee of 10.000 AS$ for aircraft with MTOW less than 45.000 kg or so on 9-10 bar airports.
interesting, given that you yourself operate nine aircraft with a MTOW of 22.500kg out of Amsterdam Schipol....
interesting, given that you yourself operate nine aircraft with a MTOW of 22.500kg out of Amsterdam Schipol....
ATR-72 out of AMS is not the same as LET, but if there was such a financial burden on ATRs, I wouldn't.
I just tossed the MTOW value out of my head without any proper scientific analysis, it might as well be less than 60 seats instead of MTOW. But the principle is the same. If we want certain types of aircraft to get out of large airports, do it with financial means. Then 25 LETs at LHR would not simply work because they would not make any money.
I don't know, maybe the LETs are not profitable even as we speak as the airline in question here restarted and changed to slightly larger aircraft ;-)
And it does not seem like the ATRs are making that much money at AMS either ;-)
[quote]
I just tossed the MTOW value out of my head without any proper scientific analysis…[\quote]
my point exactly. and this is not directed at you but the general public. all we see is one player doin something most of us deem unacceptable. then people start yelling, ask for immidiate solutikns, some threaten with not playing AS any longer.
ever considered the team is working on it but that scientific working might take a little longer than just throwing out random ideas and then complaining nothin ever gets done?
and you say it yourself: the atrs out of AMS already operate at a low profit (something you might really want to take a loo at given the youth of the server). so LETs won’t so much better. maybe this early in the game due to the lack of offer and unsatisfied demand, he makes a little, but he won’t be able to compete and will be outgrown fast by anyone with a half-decend business plan.
so give the team some time to breath, improve your game plan and actually watch things develop before yelling it wouldn’t work
ATR-72 out of AMS is not the same as LET, but if there was such a financial burden on ATRs, I wouldn't.
I just tossed the MTOW value out of my head without any proper scientific analysis, it might as well be less than 60 seats instead of MTOW. But the principle is the same. If we want certain types of aircraft to get out of large airports, do it with financial means. Then 25 LETs at LHR would not simply work because they would not make any money.
I don't know, maybe the LETs are not profitable even as we speak as the airline in question here restarted and changed to slightly larger aircraft ;-)
And it does not seem like the ATRs are making that much money at AMS either ;-)
60 seats? I guess all those 50 seat RJ's flying out of ORD, ATL, DFW, LAX and just about any other hub in real life shouldn't exist in this "simulation".
As for 19 seat aircraft flying out of 10 bar airport being "unrealistic", well....
DEN
LAX
60 seats? I guess all those 50 seat RJ's flying out of ORD, ATL, DFW, LAX and just about any other hub in real life shouldn't exist in this "simulation".
As for 19 seat aircraft flying out of 10 bar airport being "unrealistic", well....
DEN
Please guys, don't take it literally. I simply provided the numbers to illustrate the principle.
@yukawa
"my point exactly. and this is not directed at you but the general public. all we see is one player doin something most of us deem unacceptable. then people start yelling, ask for immidiate solutikns, some threaten with not playing AS any longer.
ever considered the team is working on it but that scientific working might take a little longer than just throwing out random ideas and then complaining nothin ever gets done?"
If you go through this thread, I think you will find, that I have not been accusing anyone or crying for punishments. I've said that I agree that this issue needs to be addressed somehow, and in my opinion the best way is to make it economically unviable.
Then I made the huge mistake of providing an actual example to illustrate the principle. I am sorry about that.
to add to Ufsatp's pictures:
Schedule of real live Great Lakes Airlines. Please take particular interest in page 4ff
Sorry to jump into this topic since i'm not playing on the server.
Why not set a limit of small aircraft can be park inside the airport at certain time? Some airports have apron just for small props and RJs, when it reaches the limit, you can't take more aircraft in. In this case, you will be able to use those tiny planes in a mega airport, and also not having slot blocking issue.
BTW, Even Great Lake operates from Denver with Beeches, it doesn't take the majority slots of the airport. also, if the problem is serious enough to be considered as slot blocking, that means you have tons of LETs or similar planes operating out of the airport. I don't think anyone will get this issue since the server just started. Maybe it's a little bit early to worry about this problem
Instead of complaining just battle fire with fire !!
Or have a better business model.
My airline is based in China I know that the LET will form a problem.
So I will make sure I’ll beat the companies with a better model and wave systems.
Quality over quantity.
It’s a management game !
So fifght for your territory.
to add to Ufsatp's pictures:
Schedule of real live Great Lakes Airlines. Please take particular interest in page 4ff
I don't see any departures from DEN (or LAX) to MDW, CLE, PIT, BNA, MCI, STL, OMA, SLC, DAL, TUS, ABQ, OAK, SNA, or any other similar airports.
For example, all of the destinations out of Denver are to (AS-rated) 1-bar airports, with the exception of a single 2-bar airport.
Also most of the routes out of DEN / LAX are EAS routes paid for by U.S. government (which also assures slots are available for those flights).
It's not that Great Lakes is making big money on those routes... the U.S. Government pays for it, and pays hefty fees to both LAX and DEN (through Great Lakes) to allow such service.
I don't see any departures from DEN (or LAX) to MDW, CLE, PIT, BNA, MCI, STL, OMA, SLC, DAL, TUS, ABQ, OAK, SNA, or any other similar airports.
For example, all of the destinations out of Denver are to (AS-rated) 1-bar airports, with the exception of a single 2-bar airport.
Also most of the routes out of DEN / LAX are EAS routes paid for by U.S. government (which also assures slots are available for those flights).
It's not that Great Lakes is making big money on those routes... the U.S. Government pays for it, and pays hefty fees to both LAX and DEN (through Great Lakes) to allow such service.
Who said that Great Lakes was flying to large airports fom DEN and LAX? Many comments have been that 19 seaters flying out of 10 bar airports is unrealistic, which as pointed out by the Great Lakes example is wrong.
Some more non Great Lakes examples...
FLL
And so people do not think it is just a US thing....
YYZ
BOG
DUS
SYD