Building new Runways

English Boards Suggestions and Ideas
41

That is a repositioning flight. They do happen everywhere when aircraft arrives in city A but needs to depart from city B.

Edit: it is actually a filler flight after arriving from EZE or MVD, in order for the aircraft not to sit on the ground for the whole day. The capital cost of the aircraft is already being covered by EZE and MVD routes, they just basically need to earn fuel and wages only on those BCN hops. UX rotates 4 particular aircraft on those routes. The issue is that departures must be always in the night for those destinations, so you have the aircraft sitting whole day after it arrives. Not much to do with it in EZE and there are many tag on to SCL, but they cannot have it sit idle whole day on both ends.

42

Delta flys 2 flights a day between MCO and ATL with a 767-300.

43

No, it is not. According to the source (which is German sorry for this), the list only includes regular scheduled flights. Please also note that this flight is scheduled daily MAD-BCN and a return flight.

44

No, it is not. According to the source (which is German sorry for this), the list only includes regular scheduled flights. Please also note that this flight is scheduled daily MAD-BCN and a return flight.

Yes it is, it is a filler flight, go to flightradar 24, enter the flight number, check the tail numbers,a nd check the past and future routes for that tail number.

P.S. A repositioning flight does not mean that it has to be an unscheduled. If you are going to reposition regularly, better get some money out of it by selling some tickets. Anyway, as I wrote, it is a filler flight on a four plane rotation MAD-EZE-MAD and MAD-MVD-MAD.

FR24 is your friend ;)

Delta flys 2 flights a day between MCO and ATL with a 767-300.

Must be a rotation thingy not a regular stuff, because for Friday Feb 5 I did not find one single 767 scheduled on DL on MCO-ATL out of 18 scheduled flights. I did find one on Friday Feb 26, one single 767 out of 18 flights. It's always 739 or 757.

Anyway, more often than not, widebody short haul flights are repositioning flights. If you see one, you can just type FLT# into FR24 and check the tail number and its past and present routes. Most likely you will see repositioning.

45

aren't we getting off-topic here?

I thought this thread was about the pro's and con's and potential implementations of building or otherwise adding a new rwy to an airport.

46

Of topic:

I have been flying A330s inside Europe which Norwegian wet-leased during the spring of 2015 when their pilots were on strike.

47

aren't we getting off-topic here?

I thought this thread was about the pro’s and con’s and potential implementations of building or otherwise adding a new rwy to an airport.

Correct. But it was not me who derailed the thread :smiley:

48

I also like the idea of allowing runway extensions, provided

- a large capital cost: 1 billion seems even low to me, in Rubio's scenario I'd say more like 200million per bar

- no advantages for airlines who paid for it. It should be announced early on, at least to all current occupants, if not also in the news feed: if you don't like freeloaders, don't invest.

The advantages seem to me clear: more possibilities for new entrants to enter the market, etc. It is also realistic: FRA has just expanded, LHR will expand (it's just the UK, their infrastructure projects take decades, not years), many examples outside of Europe have already been cited.

And of course there is no regular larger-than-767 service intra-Europe or intra-North America (please!) - instead airlines lobby the government to build new runways.

One could even say, instead of paying AS$ X for the runway extension, we have to raise AS $ X to bribe (sorry, lobby) the relevant government authorities.

49

of course, in real life airports grow. and that data will find its way into airline sim, thus airports will be updated and "grow".

but please, somebody explain to me the short-term, mid-term and long-term steps after an additional rwy has been introduced that will actually benefit new players and airlines.

50

of course, in real life airports grow. and that data will find its way into airline sim, thus airports will be updated and "grow".

but please, somebody explain to me the short-term, mid-term and long-term steps after an additional rwy has been introduced that will actually benefit new players and airlines.

In real life airports grow because the airports' needs grow. But the AS needs may be quite different. An airport that may have a lot of use IRL may not have a lot of use in AS and the other way around. So we can have an airport that's fully loaded for years in AS but it will never grow because there's no need for it IRL.

This breaks the simulation, because IRL if the demand in that airport was as great as it is in AS, the airport would grow (or at least might grow) eventually. We're basically held hostage to what the RL airlines decide to do, even though those airlines don't exist in our game world, rather than having the players' airlines create their own flying environment as it should be.

Each gameworld at launch copies the real world as it is at the moment. Once the simulation starts and the first few airlines are launched, we are no longer copying the real world but creating our own alternative reality. That reality should evolve not by copying the real world evolution, but organically by simulating what would happen to a real world environment if the real world airlines made the same decisions as the AS Airlines are making.

It should however be ridiculously hard to expand an airport, just as it is IRL, but it should be possible. I like the idea suggested before of charging ever increasing fees for congested airports, and have those fees eventually used to automatically pay for an extension. That should prevent player abuse by ensuring that only the airports that are really full for a long time have a chance of being extended, rather than having players artificially extend airports that don't need to by randomly donating money,

On the other hand, extending a runway 100 or 200 meters should be quite easier to acheve than building an entirely new runway. There should be a possibility of extending those farm tracks if there is physical room and regular services to main airports start becoming a reality. But that's a wholy different issue altogether.

51

of course, in real life airports grow. and that data will find its way into airline sim, thus airports will be updated and "grow".

Exatly. And the suggestion would break that fixed, rigid frame in a subtle way.

AS can only try to copy real life. You can build the largest hubs only around existing, big hubs, because that's where AS has the biggest demand/capacities.

As a simulation, the world should also adapt in some way to the game play. That means, if somebody manages to create a big hub on a (real life) medium size hub, why should it not be possible to have that specific airport extended in the game, as apparently the player manages it very well.

On another point. Yes, we all would love to see the use of widebodies on a heavily demanded route. In real life, that happens sometimes, but not too often, although no airline will fly 50x a day with a LET. But let's assume, we can trim the game play to favor the use of widebodies, that some players will switch their aircraft (given they find the necessary slots on the already congested airport, due to different TA-times). Now will a big player release the slots to others? Most likely not. He will be prepared, and fill the empty slots with new machines to new destinations. Just like in real life. If BA uses 2 A380 instead of 3 777 to a destination, they surely will not give up the slot, they will fill it immediately with another flight for their own expansion.

My argument is, whenever an airport is full, it will stay full, no matter what. Once the limit is reached, it will become static. No gameplay takes place anymore. It simply stops. The expansion of the airport would trigger new activity. It will enable the big, as well as the small player to do something new. And I'm convinced, that many players would be able to take advantage of a new runway, not just the big fat cat dominating that airport. Let's assume, I build a new runway in Beijing, so that I can grow further. Other big players will now suddenly have the chance to schedule additional (or even for the first time) a flight to that destination, because previously it wasn't possible. Or they could add a second daily flight. It would help to increase their network, and enrich their game play. Yes, the dominating player of that airport would probably benefit most, but he's most likely also the one to invest the money.

52

In real life airports grow because the airports' needs grow. But the AS needs may be quite different. An airport that may have a lot of use IRL may not have a lot of use in AS and the other way around. So we can have an airport that's fully loaded for years in AS but it will never grow because there's no need for it IRL.

This breaks the simulation, because IRL if the demand in that airport was as great as it is in AS, the airport would grow (or at least might grow) eventually. We're basically held hostage to what the RL airlines decide to do, even though those airlines don't exist in our game world, rather than having the players' airlines create their own flying environment as it should be.

Each gameworld at launch copies the real world as it is at the moment. Once the simulation starts and the first few airlines are launched, we are no longer copying the real world but creating our own alternative reality. That reality should evolve not by copying the real world evolution, but organically by simulating what would happen to a real world environment if the real world airlines made the same decisions as the AS Airlines are making.

Very nicely said, and I can say that I fully agree. You  expressed so much better my thought of "simulating organic growth, not just copy-pasting real world".

53
 

now, what is the reason the idea of builing additional rwys is on the table? It is about increasing a restricted resource, namely slots, to allow more departures. For the sake of thisargument, let's forget about how the new rwy comes into being, who pays for it, etc. Let's just assume, a new rwy opens, new slots become available. Well, who has the capital to fill up those slots fast? Usually the big airlines. Even, if rules are in place limiting big players' access to a new rwy, they would still get a fair share of it.

...

The well-known, well discussed and certainly well-thought of (by the AS team) issue is the demand distribution system. For as long as it is more economical to have many small a/c fly the same route many times rather than having fewer flights with demand-appropriate a/c and a good connection set-up (not by sheer number but by intend), there is no solution. All that can be done is to counteract some of the symtoms. Personally, I think increasing a limited resource such as slots is not doing that, but is only delaying the symptoms. (not to mention, that, in my opinion, it is exactly the limited resources that makes this game worth playing)

Until a solution to the demand distribution can be found and - more importantly - actually be implemented (which I believe to be a real hazzle), we are stuck with counteracting symptoms. For this problem, I believe to give economical incentives to use bigger planes and fly the same route fewer times is better suited. One way could be to make it really expensive to fly the 25th daily flight on the same route. Maybe make slot pricing depended on airline size or on number of flights already on the planned route (either total or by the operating airline) - or maybe a combination of both.

However, this topic is on building new runways, so this idea is for another thread.

But - and this is were AirlineSIM starts and leaves AirlineARCADE - if in your example further slots in Bogota are not available to existing and new enterprises, Avianca would use larger aircraft and therefore reduce some daily flights to open new routes. This happened before here in FRA in real life as well. And in matter of new airlines, in general they don't have any chance to enter an airport in reality too, where all slots are occupied. They get a chance if an antitrust authority demands so (i.e. on making contracts with oponents).

By increasing the number of slots (in whatever way) there is a chance for newly founded or young airlines to get a hold of some of these slots. But as there are a lot of airlines around that have way more capital (both the major airline(s) already based at the particular airport and other airlines from the same country), only few of those slots could actually be used by the young airlines. In my opinion, all it would do, is increase the number of flights any newly founded or young airline would have to compete against, thus reducing their chances of success even further.

So, I come to the conclusion that increasing the number of available slots is actually counterproductive for all young airlines.

While it may be slightly off from the 'building new runway' topic, it's related to the background why we have to build runway - to open up slots congested airports. As Yukawa has nicely write, building runway is not necessarily solve the slots congestion. Like in Heathrow and other slot-restricted airport around the world, there would be slots coordinator agency that will consider granting slots to new entrant airline offering new potential destination to enrich the airport connection.

So instead of having feature to grow the airport that could lead to numerous ways of unthinkable game exploits, it's better to fine tune the demand distribution to encourage utilization of bigger aircraft. It will more realistic and strategically challenging, and will ease the hunt for slots as the most valuable in-game resource. 

Growing AS airport beyond RL is virtually unrealistic, because there is no one growing the economy in AS, there's no one opening new factories, there's no one developing tourism sites, and there are no a bunch of other factors that drives the demand for air travel. RL data is the necessary limiting factor as the simulation doesnt factor in political, economical and other RL factor that shape air travel demand. If AS airport allowed to organically grow, it's a matter of time before we see an ultra-gigantic airline flying to every cities in the world from its hub, dominate the world and s*cking all the traffic thru his hub.

54
it's better to fine tune the demand distribution to encourage utilization of bigger aircraft
 

aren't we getting off-topic here?

I thought this thread was about the pro's and con's and potential implementations of building or otherwise adding a new rwy to an airport.

It is beyond my understanding why some people still keep hijacking the RUNWAY thread and keep using word "widebody aircraft" or its alternative "bigger aircraft". Well said yukawa! This discussion is not about using widebody aircraft on 500km hops!

Matth may halt me (as this is his thread) but please stick to the topic of pros and cons of developing and building new runways. Please keep "bigger aircraft", "frequencies" and other stuff off the discussion here, this thread is not about those topics. As was correctly pointed out several posts above, people are not giving up slots they already have, they would reschedule new routes with those slots if smaller aircraft or more frequencies do not work any more.

55

I think it is a great idea , seeing the difference between the real world and the game is the expansion of airlines on the game is much faster , thus slots get taken up much faster compared to real life .

56

first of all, thank you Bobb and Matth for responding to my post. I understand your arguement and actually find it quite appealing. However, I have the same concerns as pointed out by rpandugita.

It certainly would be great to see a more dynamic environment, however, pax demand and other economical factors would have to become more dynamic as well in order to fit the dynamics in airport size.

To pick up Matth's point of building a hub at a mid-sized airport, I agree that for this airline it would be great to be able to increase the number of slots. and yes, I fully agree, that that is what - if nothing is making it impossible - would happen in real life. However, particularly at medium-sized airports, where a player established a hub and now needs more slots to grow, the already big player is going to grow even further. Operating flights at smaller airports, particualar in bigger numbers, is only working, if you have a lot of connections. A young or even new airline has even less chance of benefitting from an extension at a small or medium sized airport than he has at a big airport, as there is less O/D demand he could tap into.

My concern in regard to airfield extensions is not so much with realism, but with game balancing.

Unfortunately, no one yet responded to my request to explain to me, what real benefit would come out of adding more slots (in whatever way) other than delaying congestions a bit longer. I doubt everyone is agreeing with my assessment, that more slots at congested airports would only make this harder for all newly founded airlines in mid-term and long-term?

57

Also airports in some cities can't be physically expanded with a new runway as the space around the airport is not available.

In most cases, building new runway for airport expansion means building a whole new airport somewhere outside the city border.

Does the proposed capability of building runway would factor this obstacle, having AS to find data about possibility of making new runway.

or simply ignore the limiting factor and just grow the airport organically until every country have their own LHR, DXB, JFK???

OFF TOPIC

To some delusional ordinary poster who beyond my understanding keep thinking others are hijacking the thread, please realize that it's journalistically unethical to quote people's post out of context, you even paste the out of sequence time stamp, lol. why you think you have to win all argument is beyond normal people understanding. 

OFF TOPIC END

I am very sorry Matth, got nothing personally against you or your ideas. As a dominant airline in a big hub, with more than 75% slots and so much excess money, I would LOVE to have capability to build a new runway and expand my home airport, as it also gravely need to be expanded IRL and for 10 years they still stuck with the planning. The discussion is not only simply pro-contra, but should be more philosophical as it will greatly change the gameplay as we use to know.. why we want this feature? how this feature will affect the gameplay? what problem we want to address with this feature? does this feature correctly address the problem? how this feature might be adversely exploited that could ruin the game for everyone? what other alternative that will bring similar results? what are the compromise that we can agree regarding this feature? So yeah mentioning alternatives is relevant to challenge a proposed idea, otherwise forum admin please remove my post.

58

OFF TOPIC

To some delusional ordinary poster who beyond my understanding keeps bugging please realize that I am not a journalist so your journalistic whatever does not apply to me, and the time stamps are irrelevant in the spirit of getting the point across, lol. why you think you have to keep on ridiculing yourself with silly posts is beyond normal people understanding. 

OFF TOPIC END

59

Stop this please!

60

I said it multiple times (should I look up several of the threads where I posted it?):

I respond in kind.

I said it multiple times: I do not start being noisy, but when a stone is thrown at me, I throw it back.

As soon as that individual stops, I will gladly stop myself. It is my wholehearted wish to not be involved in this kind of altercations.

In all the reasonableness, Sasha, if you look up through this thread and the past ones where we had this problem before, it is clear that I am not the first one throwing the stone. And as long as stones are being thrown at me, I keep throwing back.

It is always this individual who ignites the issue, by making an idiotic comment, to some post of mine or issue/subject matter I discuss. I have not posted to his posts (and he posts quite a lot) for a long, long, but very long time, since the last stone throwing contest last year. I do not understand why he has the urge to ignite the fire and calls for new stone throwing contests. It's now 2016 so I guess he wants to repeat the tournament this year again.

I tell you why, he likes it, he knows I throw the stone back, and he actually enjoys when he becomes the centerpiece of attention in a two sided stone throwing.