Competiton Rules

My few cents to the discussion so far ...

1. I am quite convinced, that it is possible to start late and still survive. On fornebu I*ve seen quiet a lot of airlines rising and falling. Strategy, focus and spotting gaps is the solution. Entering a market, with one or two dominating airlines, surely is not the first choice to get track. But hey, that*s quiet realistic ...

2. Further, I think more regulation not necessarily leads to more competition. Bigger player already have several disadvantages, thus small, flexible new entrants just need to build on their advantage of flexibility.

3. I agree, slots are rare, which is in many cases a doubtful entrance barrier. I think the proposals of new, more flexible pricing models would be a good step to increase fair play in first place, reduce quiet unrealistic market structures and finally support more competition.

4. Ceasing IL agreements as a strategic way of managing ones airline is the way you do it. I mean companies have to make a return on invest and probably fulfill some other stakeholder interests, but I can*t imagine, that there is any interest in supporting new market entrants. Established airlines are choosing IL agreements thoughtful. That*s probably one reason, they are able to defend markets.

5. By pushing competition, I doubt, that all who today complain about to less competition, will really welcome a rougher market. I am looking forward to the upcoming complaints, when AGEX will dive within the next months.

Summarized - more competition through improved financial means is welcome, more regulation not seen as adding value.

I said small planes should be used what they are intended for: operations TO small airfields. The point of departure is irrelevant to this. Small planes should not be operated between big airports. I dont want small aircraft to be locked out. How would I otherwise serve 2-bar airports out of my HUB ?

I agree with this approach. One “simple” step is to make the utilization of very small aircraft by a mainline carrier unattractive. I also need small aircraft to connect my hubs with rural towns and I need small and very small aircraft for this purpose. It is simply a business-case that a Dash 8-100 or smaller aircraft are needed to connect such small airports with a hub and my subsidiaries are there to fulfill this job. In real life the operating costs (and income) of smaller aircraft are unattractive for big airlines and attractive for smaller companies due to several reasons. These reasons are nearly not noticeable because such factors are not considered in AS (like scope clauses etc).

The business remains to be highly individual and personally I am against a general restriction of small aircraft between major cities because a small aircraft could be the biggest one operated by a tiny airline. Aircraft with higher and more typical/realistic seating-capacities should generally result in attractive operating-costs and not the supply of a 30-seat CRJ because the AS-passenger likes the comfort and service. Such a “relaxed” seating should automatically result in very high (too high!) operating costs per seat and unattractive cost-structures to continue such an operation despite high demand. IMO airlines with “normal” (typical) seating-arrangements are in a clear disadvantage. Despite the known fact of lower efficiency of my classic aircraft, I am 100% sure that a 150-seat MD-80 generates lower seat mile costs that a 75-seat A318. The “loser” should the A318-operator despite the fact that the A318 is much more modern. The yardstick should be adjusted.

In the end, the simulation is dynamic and nothing last forever. Big companies fail and this always allow new entrants to react quickly and to capture market shares.

I admit that Sparrow Air is not really different from those airlines who want to capture a large portion of the home market. The big and important difference is that Sparrow Air uses much bigger planes (mostly additional MD-80s and 757s) to generate enough traffic with all the disadvantages and advantages of my business-strategy. The advantages of operating bigger aircraft largely outweigh the penalties that I suffer from operating classic jetliners. I wouldn´t be able to feed my hubs and flights with aircraft too small for such a strategy. I need enough spare-capacity per flight and the availability of enough seating-capacity for connecting passengers.

Last but not least: Every company (even the biggest one) has its strengths and weaknesses. Everyone can enter the competition. It was rather seldom that I entered a market without existing competition. The weakness of my main airline is clearly visible. Take a look at my structure! As a new (and “experienced”) player I would know how to destroy Sparrow Air: Take 45-seat Q400s, 95-seat 737-800s and 125-seat A321s and offer a better comfort and service compared to Sparrow Air. 190-seat A321s? No comfort.150-seat MD-80s? Awful. 187-seat 757s? They (Sparrow Air) are nuts. Is it possible to make huge amounts of money with a 45-seat Q400? Yes! Is the seat mile cost important? Not really, no. Offer a comfortable seat, offer a nice service and the airplane is not only loved by passengers but also highly profitable.

After a few years of playing this nice (!) game, I think that I discovered the tools needed to adapt an airline exactly to the dynamics on a server to be extremely profitably. However, Sparrow Air would look totally different to the one that schedules howling 757s and whining MD-80s.

Keep up this interesting discussion.

Simply locking out small aircraft from big airports certainly is the wrong approach. We don't need more regulation by rules.

It should always be possible to operate even the smallest airframe into the biggest airport.

What we need is a dynamic pricing model. One that calculates the actual fees for a slot not only based on aircraft size and route but also based on slot occupancy (price should always be the result of supply and demand)

For example:

Operating a Cessna Caravan into a mega-airport with 5% slots occupied should be cheap. Doing the same at 95% occupancy should cost a LOT more. I’d offer my assistance in finding an applicable pricing model.

I think this is the number one thing missing for a more competitive and realistic game at the moment.

As many other have pointed out once you have taken most slots on a large/mega airport you are safe, there is no way for anyone else to take those slots from you other then you quitting the game.

The most appropriate place to put this "Slot cost/fee" would be on the landing fees since they already work a bit like that ( but are not harsh or flexible enough, just more expensive for bigger airports ).

Once the slots start to become scarce the fees are dynamically raised so that it first becomes prohibitly expensive to operate Cessnas and other small props...  Airlines operating these will be forced to switch to bigger airplanes, move or go bankrupt (in all cases releasing their slots).

Next step when slots are say 90-95% taken, landing fees are raised even higher, so high that regional jets like CRJ and Embaers become unprofitable...

Airlines operating these will be forced to switch to bigger airplanes, move or go bankrupt (in all cases releasing their slots).

IMHO it should be balanced so that when all slots are gone on a mega airport small narrowbodies should be possible to run, but without profit (making them feasible as feeders which many real airlines use on mega airports). Larger narrowbodies should be profitable but the fees should significantly cut into their margin, reducing it down to perhaps no more then 20-25% maximum.

As you can see this change would also promote a change in behaviour and greatly increase the relative profitability of larger wide-bodies, which in reality are the real moneymakers of the big airlines.

It would also mean that the supply of seats is significantly increased before slots run out due to larger aircraft in general, greatly increasing competition.

Many good suggestions, mainly involving increasing “fees” at mega airports. I don’t think anyone disagrees that this would help prevent small aircraft usage into mega airports especially (profitably). My understanding is they increased landing fees during an update not so long ago to help combat the “slot grabs”, right around the time of Aspern launch. Does this seem to have any positive effect on slots / aircraft sizes? My hope is that the landing fees were a realistic increase…

If not, perhaps a more dynamic cost structure concerning slots could be developed. My biggest concern is to keep this as realistic as possible. I have seen C208 aircraft operate into ATL and other very busy airports, if this is legal and profitable in reality than it should sadly remain so in AS, even if it means edging out any competition. We should not recommend changes in a simulator just because we don’t like the consequences, they should be changed because they do not reflect or emulate the real world environment the way it should be.

Point being, the topic deserves some attention and research by the AS team to see what sort of pricing structures are used at aiports around the world (im sure it varies from country to country and airport to airport) and find a healthy balance that is also realistic.

Edit: I believe the landing fees were increases primarily at large airports, LHR, etc etc.

Many good suggestions, mainly involving increasing "fees" at mega airports. I don't think anyone disagrees that this would help prevent small aircraft usage into mega airports especially (profitably). My understanding is they increased landing fees during an update not so long ago to help combat the "slot grabs", right around the time of Aspern launch. Does this seem to have any positive effect on slots / aircraft sizes? My hope is that the landing fees were a realistic increase...

...

Edit: I believe the landing fees were increases primarily at large airports, LHR, etc etc.

It does help a bit. Undoubtedly a step in the right direction.

I do play at Aspern and for a CRJ700/ATR72 landing at for mega airports pay a landing fee of around 2200 which is quite a bit compared to all other fixed costs at around 5000-5500 (making up 30% of all fixed costs).

You can however still run them with a small profit ( around 10% ), which is why I think dynamic fees that raise these high baseline fees even higher once slots start to become contested are needed.

Does this seem to have any positive effect on slots / aircraft sizes?

It has an effect on ultra small aircraft between big airports (Cessna, LET, etc.). That being said, those were never the real problem. The real issue is with CRJs, Dash8, etc. between big airports and that's where it actually is not effective enough.....a good profit is still remaining.

It was definitely a step in the right direction but it was not strong enough to target the actual problem. Still a lot of small jets between big airports like on any other game world.

Well okay just read the last few comments.  I think it's completely realistic that E jets and the likes fly to mega airports.  This happens in real life also..  but not between mega-hubs.  So maybe the cost should be based on a O&D model.  Mega -> Mega => slot more expensive then Mega -> smaller regional airport?

Btw.. in real life a lot of airports give a cost reduction the first x period a new destination (fort the airport) is offered.  Seems like a small thing but might be interesting too..

I think it's completely realistic that E jets and the likes fly to mega airports.

In AS it is realistic to configure an Embraer 195 with less than 75 seats and to make money with it. This is (for me and maybe only for me) a “problem” because it shows that operating-costs not really count. Most operators in real world configure them with far more seats and they are not doing this to anger passengers. The Embraer 195 is a 110/120-seater, not 75-seater. Embraer developed alternative derivates for the 70/80-seat market. The possibility of offering a very roomy cabin is fine. However the ability to make high profits with aircraft designed for higher capacities is unrealistic and totally distorts the scenario. Same with some other rather modern aircraft with rather high operating costs per passenger - even with typical seating.

But: Players who configure them like comfortable business jets recognized the way how to generate money, demand, passenger-popularity with high fares. So there is no fault and there is actually no fault by players who schedule very small aircraft on trunk routes unless the simulation adapts more realistic data.

Regards

 unless the simulation adapts more realistic data.

I hope the next server they start will be an "advanced" one where all these requests will be included. Afterall, we have a beginners world only 6 months after Aspern.....time to cater the ones looking for some action.  ^_^

So, October 2014 then?  :)

The problem with realistic data is you have to look at real world data. There's simply not enough real passengers to allow startup airlines to survive, perhaps even on a new server world. If you simply reduce the demand, then it just makes the ORS and connections more important. With lowered demand, you are going to see people go even more to regional jets because they're not as expensive to run as narrow and wide body jets.

I personally think Aspern is pretty close to fair. There are plenty of airlines that use mostly regional that are doing well, and there are plenty that are using mostly narrow/wide body jets that are doing well too. Things might be better with some further tweaking, but I think Aspern is pretty close to balanced.

 With lowered demand, you are going to see people go even more to regional jets 

...and this is where the higher landing fees would come to play. It wont be an option. This would be an interesting scenario I think.

First, just an observation of AS as a whole: No matter what you do, there will always be one aircraft that is "best" among the others when it comes to profit margin. Invariably, most people are going to gravitate towards that plane to use it. On Aspern there are over 3300 E95s. There are over 1300 736s. There are 11 Raytheon 1900s. Why? Because the E95 is way more profitable than the 1900. Why would anyone get the 1900 except as a novelty? In a "higher landing fees" world, there's still going to be that #1 aircraft that many, many people are going to buy. It won't be "realistic". People will be right back here saying it's not realistic enough.

All I'm saying is I don't think higher landing fees is the Holy Grail when it comes to fixing the system. Good idea? Yes, definitely. Going to fix everything? Doubt it.

Now onto the reason I started this post ;)

This has probably been suggested before at some point, but I don't remember reading anything about it. What about separate slot restrictions for each type of aircraft, depending on the size/demand/traffic of the real airport as a guide? Suppose we're talking about an 8-bar demand airport for passengers that normally has ten slots per five minutes.

* Two slots per five minutes are for prop planes.

* Three slots per five minutes are for regional planes.

* Four slots per five minutes are for narrow-body planes.

* One slot per five minutes are for wide-body planes.

Probably a crap idea, but.. an idea.

There are over 1300 736s

This is a wonderful indication that something is terribly wrong when it comes to economics. The Boeing 737-600 is the least-economical type of the 737NG and (in real world) the biggest operator of this type openly discussed the retirement of this type after less than three years after entering service. 

Probably a crap idea, but.. an idea.

That´s no crap. It is a good way to continue an open discussion and to consider ideas and this is the reason for such topics.

Actually, I've read the 737-600 isn't even produced anymore, or at least cannot be ordered.

...

* Two slots per five minutes are for prop planes.

* Three slots per five minutes are for regional planes.

* Four slots per five minutes are for narrow-body planes.

* One slot per five minutes are for wide-body planes.

...

IMO that would be another case of regulation by rules.

Sure the exact numbers would be subject to discussion, but this way you'd limit the number of options no matter what. If I'd want to operate a hub with 100 747-8i, I'd be penalized. I'd be forced to operate small equipment.

Top priority needs to be a system that allows anyone to operate any equipment at any time from/to anywhere as long as there are no "natural" limitations (nighttime ban, noise regulations, slots)

The most practical way I see is the aforementioned system of dynamic landing fees.

Let's play around with a little example that is certainly be subject to discussion:

Well, take your time, it's a bit lengthily, I'm bored right now... :wacko: :blink: -_-

Say we're operating a Dash8-Q200A (DH2) with 36 seats.

Condition at present

Landing fees (Tempelhof server) range from 0 for a 0-bar airfield to 142$ for a 10-bar airport.

Even if I link two 10-bar airports (say LHR-FRA) it doesn't cost me more than 142$ or 4$ per seat. It doesn't matter what route I'm flying and it doesn't matter how many slots are left.

Target

We need the following factors:

Aircraft size (MTOW), airport size at both origin and dest., slot occupancy at both origin and dest.

This needs to be packed into a formula with slot occupancy being the dynamising element.

Let's assume the following base data for the DH2 (these numbers are subject to discussion):

For basic landing fee (BLF) we take MTOW in kg / (100kg/$) -> 15,960kg/(100kg/$)= 160$

The A380 would consequently have 560,000kg/(100kg/$) = 5600$ for example

Airport size (demand-) factors (ASF): 0 for 0-bar, 0.1 for 1-bar and up to 1 for a 10-bar.

Connecting between a 3-bar and a 6-bar airport would calculate to 0.3*0.6 = 0,18 for example.

Connecting a 1-bar to a 10-bar (the typical feeder flight) would be 0.1.

Connecting between two 6-bar would logically be 0.36.

Slot occupancy factor (SOF)

(Let's take both origin and dest. to have identical values for the return trip - makes it easier to control and understand)

The formula could look like this: SOF = 1+5*(Oo*Od)3  (max SOF = 6)

Oo = Occupancy origin (/100%), Od = Occupancy dest. (/100%)

Example 1: FRA-LHR

Oo = 96%/100% = 0.95

Od = 98%/100% = 0.98

SOF = 1+5*(0.95*0.98)3 = 5.03

Example 2: FRA-DTM

Od = 0.11

SOF = 1.006

The full formula for a DH2 onroute FRA-LHR:

Actual landing fee (slot fee)

SF = BLF*ASF*SOF = 160$*1*5.03 = 809$ (= 22$/seat)

FRA-DTM:

SF = 160$*0.5*1.006 = 80$ (= 2$/seat)

Ok, the A380 on FRA-LHR would cost a fortune:

SF = 5,600$15.03 = 28.168$

A size correcting factor SCF would be in order here. So to say a factor favouring lager aircraft - I think that's what the discussion also was about...

Let's simply assume we want our heaviest airframe (the 388) to cost only half (SCF = 0.5) and the smallest airframe roughly SCF = 1.5

=> SCF = (MTOW388/MTOWxx)0.133 - 0.5

SCF for a 388 would be (560,000/560,000)0.133 - 0.5 = 0.5

SCF for a BNI would be ( 560,000/2990)0.133 -0.5 = 1.51

SCF for our DH2: (560,000/15,960)0.133 -0.5 = 1.11

SCF for a 73J: (560,000/85,130)0.133 -0.5 = 0.78

So, a final formula could be

SF = BLF*ASF*SOF*SCF

Our DH2 would cost us on the FRA-LHR trip at given occupancy rates: 160$*1*5.03*1.11 = 893$

The 388 would cost us 5,600$*1*5.03*0.5 = 14,084$

Being bored turns out to be a good thing.  I think your example would be an excellent starting point.

Maybe we need to take my other suggestion also in scope... a new route is favored (for x amount of time) over the twentieth carrier flying FRA - LHR...  or am I taking this too far?

Everyday there a new airlines starting on old servers and many of them manage to get big themsevles. I guess that's because they acutally play and not only complain in the forum.

I myself started my airline when the server was over a year old and manged to grow to 900 aircraft at the moment. Currently my alliance has a new member who started only a few months ago and is doing very well so far. So neither your claim that there's no competition nor your claim that you can't start a new airline on old servers are true at all. Of course it's probably a bad idea to start a new airline on an old server at a mega hub like Frankfurt. But that's part of the game. You need to find your market just like in the real world where a new airline starting at Franfkurt would probably have a very though position against Lufthansa's presence.

I really hate replies like this. It's like telling him to shut up because how he feels is invalid. If lots of people make the complaint, it's probably a valid complaint.

That said, I have indeed started on old servers many times, and I know I *can* become big. I just don't want to. It's not fun. The level of dominance that you have to go against makes it just... not appealing to put in that much effort. At least for me. Some others feel differently, that's fine.

I started and failed with 15 airlines on old servers about six months ago, and just gave up. The only reason I'm playing again is because I got to get in on the LAUNCH of Quimby, assuring that the playing field was level. And you know what? They game has been a blast, and all my failures have ensured that I'm not making mistakes, and I'm the second largest operator in my (very busy) hub right now, gaining on the number 1 operator.

But the complaint is valid. I got to the end of my "trial" credits, bought the smallest amount possible to just give it another few tries, and when that ran out I just quit and stopped giving AS any money. Because it wasn't enjoyable or entertaining to play a game that's ridiculously rigged against you. Again, that's just how I felt.

You shouldn't be telling him that how he feels is invalid, and obviously he's just lazy if that's how he feels. That helps no one.