On the basis you have expressed your desire to slot block LAX publicly I would say no…
On a serious note it could (not saying it will just you run the risk) fall under a few different rules if you do do something like what you are suggesting…
Bug Using
Resource Blocking
Very simply if you are doing something that is unrealistic to create a disadvantage to other customers you could be found to be cheating.
Sorry I did not see from your OP it was about another airline.
If it is already happening and you suspect abuse of the rules I would suggest clarification from AS before using the same tactics yourself (maybe via support@).
You have answered it yourself - currently it is not forbidden. But if there is a consense I don't mind to add this area to the list of forbidden flights/airports too.
You have answered it yourself - currently it is not forbidden. But if there is a consense I don't mind to add this area to the list of forbidden flights/airports too.
I think intra hub traffic should be permitted here because you have a lot of transfers going on in that area.
Clearly this should not be allowed. I'm in favour of disallowing all flights within a ground network, I can hardly see any flight which does make sense and is flown in real life.
Why not completely forbid flights within a ground network?? Then we would not have this discussion on and on again.
Regarding this specific matter: It's simply ridiculous to fly between these airports. But if AS allows it, then feel free... maybe we need many more threads like this (and many more airlines doing it) until the community is ready for a general ban within a ground network.
I think we should not forbid this complety. Of course you should not be able to exploit this thing, but if you just put some flights to a nearby airport just to have to flightplan filled and a good maintenance ratio I think its okay. And for those who say that its totally unrealistic to fly within the same ground network: Its rare, but you can find a few examples for that in real life. One example is Luxair which is operating the route LUX-SCN three times daily, in AS LUX and SCN are in the same ground network.
A blanket ban on flights between ground network airports can’t work, as ground network radii aren’t equal for all airports. SK’s post from last year says that the radius of the GN increases if there aren’t a set number of airports close by. I’d be annoyed if flying YOW-YUL (154km) was permitted, but flying YYC-YEG (240km) was not.
buhuuuu ... forbid it ... buhuuu ... forbid it, because I dont want to use it, so everyone should not do it ... buhuuu
You obviously don't get what the discussion is about and your post is one of the most ridiculous (e.g. useless) one I've seen. And I've seen a lot over the years!
Question is, would any dumb passenger on the planet book these flights? You can drive from LGB to LAX in 40 mins. and it costs you a few drops of fuel, so why should any passenger book such a flight? From my experience, these flights show a high demand and are highly profitable. So is there any realism to it?
So I would strongly vote to ban these flights at all or set demand to 0 (although I know that nothing will be done). Of course, ground network radii have to be adjusted, didn’t know that they are different.
But until then, go ahead! Sometimes problems have to get bigger until action is being taken…
CAN and HKG are in the same ground network, yet Dragonair and China Southern both fly this route, KA even uses an 333 to fly one of the flights too - so banning flights within ground network wouldn't be unrealistic.
And don't tell me CAN and HKG shouldn't be in the same ground network, because I know people who would travel from Guangzhou to Hong Kong on train/coach to catch a flight :)
buhuuuu ... forbid it ... buhuuu ... forbid it, because I dont want to use it, so everyone should not do it ... buhuuu
sorry, this is a free market. everyone should shedule flights as he want and think its usefull.
So, what you are saying is, If I wan't to put flights between Heathrow and Gatwick in London, or Midway and O'Hare in Chicago I should be able, after all it is a free market. Slot blocking is a thing that rips a hole in the game, because They, (the AS team) assumed that noone would sink so low as to ruin the game for others. That is like cheating *Scratch* IS Cheating POSTED FROM GAME RULES:
Resource Blocking: Resources (airport landing slots, used aircraft, etc) in the game are, ultimately, limited. Therefore, making use of them for no other reason than to deny their use to another player is expressly forbidden. This particularly concerns blocking off airport slots with dummy aircraft not eqipped with crew or seats, or timetabled in such a way as to ensure cancellations will occur. Please note that purchasing or leasing aircraft with the intention of transferring them between holdings controlled by a single player, by deleting the first holding further down the line, is, similarly, forbidden. Sales or leases within holdings you control, however, are allowed. Very short connecting flights are accepteable if they constitute a realistic service (for example, flights between nearby islands). Link http://en.airlinesim.aero/wiki/index.php/Tutorial/1.5/general/Game_Rules (tap that in or paste it.) You can not do that as it falls under resource blocking. Your move. EDIT: that was also very disrespectful, at least argue rather than just mock 'im.
But Enterprise: blue Aero USA on Aspern just started to do that.
So i see big problem for me in future, and I must think for counter measures
You have answered it yourself - currently it is not forbidden. But if there is a consense I don't mind to add this area to the list of forbidden flights/airports too.
Hi,
you have brought a possible problem under everyone's attention. And you have received a clear answer: currently it is not forbidden.
If your neighbour has started doing it, follow suit if you think that is the best strategy.
So, what you are saying is, If I wan't to put flights between Heathrow and Gatwick in London, or Midway and O'Hare in Chicago I should be able, after all it is a free market.
Not exactly, as those examples are specifically mentioned in a different rule.
The rest of it has to be a judgement call - by the AS team, not by a player - the rules don’t specifically prohibit LAX-SNA, nor FRA-Hahn (whatever the IATA code is), but SK is willing to add it to the exception list. Make the rational argument to persuade, something along the lines of “LAX and SNA are 69km apart (68km according to Google Maps, 58km as per GCMap.com) and serve similar domestic markets. In fact, Santa Ana is within the Greater Los Angeles area as defined by the US Census Bureau. The two airports are considered to be co-terminals according to the ticketing policies of United Airlines”
Coming to the forums with the argument “Company Z is doing it, so therefore I will too, and I’ll take up all the slots so nobody else can fly to any of these airports” doesn’t present a convincing argument that a policy change/adjustment needs to be made.
You obviously don't get what the discussion is about and your post is one of the most ridiculous (e.g. useless) one I've seen. And I've seen a lot over the years!
Question is, would any dumb passenger on the planet book these flights? You can drive from LGB to LAX in 40 mins. and it costs you a few drops of fuel, so why should any passenger book such a flight? From my experience, these flights show a high demand and are highly profitable. So is there any realism to it?
So I would strongly vote to ban these flights at all or set demand to 0 (although I know that nothing will be done). Of course, ground network radii have to be adjusted, didn’t know that they are different.
But until then, go ahead! Sometimes problems have to get bigger until action is being taken…
Maybe you dont know what zynism is, however. A law or rule is only needed, when a legally protected interest got injured. Nobody has an disadvantage, if someone fly between LAX and LGB. And where is the borderline between an allowed flight and a forbidden flight? The result is an arbitrary decision. A law or rule cant be arbitrary. If so, it is illegitimate because of its vague legal concept (I hope this is the right translation, in german its called "Unbestimmtheit"). You can handle it randomly.
When you forbid to fly between LAX and LGB, you can also forbit to fly between JFK and BDL. AS is not reality. You have to handle some fuzzines. If your hub is in LAX, you want to get the demand from LGB too and connect it to your routes. Of course, in RL someone would use train or bus to get to a flight from LAX. In AS he can do this too, but the rating is horrible. So offer flights between LAX and LGB are usefull ... and legitim. I dont hurt someone with it. The slot used, cant be claimed by anyone. I could even shedule a flight to SFO, but I shedule it to LGB. If I use a 739 you could not say it is slot blocking. A flight between LAX and LGB dont deny their use for others as a flight between LAX and SFO or PEK. It is used primarily to get passengers from LGB and connect them to my flights. This is legitim and cant be subsume under the resourceblocking-rule ... it can, if I use hundrets of LET or CNC, yes, then it is slot blocking, but if I shedule legitim flights to connect passengers? It is not slot blocking. As in the real world, a rule or law have to be extert in the individual case, not be generalized.
The first thing you learn in a law study is "it depends on whether...".
And even in RL there is no rule, that prohibit a flight between LAX and LGB or? If there would be a demand (rich people that fed up with traffic jam?) a flight would be done. In AS is a demand. So I shoud be able to serve this demand.
Again, the here discussed rule is arbitrary. A new player cant be aware of such a rule because of their arbitrariness. And a rule must be distinguishable.