The simplest solution is to have passengers take the bus as a primary means of transit, therefore tearing the demand away from these unrealistic routes, oh yeah and Kahael, that is what you were saying and Ken, I was arguing against kahael's I can do what I wan't free market arguement, sorry for any confusion.
REAL WORLD EXAMPLE Flying from CVG to LUK (both Cincinnati airports) isn't forbidden, it would not be realistic. It takes about 30 minutes to drive between the two, but when I flight simulated it It took a 10 minute flight and 20 minutes in security at CVG (I've flown out of there and the TSA takes 20 minutes, plus any time used leaving Lunken airport. This flight would've been of the same nature as flying between those 5. Silly and expensive. So why is this a thing? I think it is a no brainer that short flights that would be faster to drive should be banned (then again with LA traffic... :lol:). Really it is of no use arguing it, as only the AS team's opinion matters in this argument.
We might aid buses into airlinesim for ground transport lol you could also offer different seating/service and improve ground rating... buses could operate only within the current ground network.... Azul Linhas Aereas in Brazil operates coach line to feed their air network.
Because it is AirlineSim and the transportation by ship, bus, train, tuk tuk, donkey or whatever is a public transportation and that's why it is called "public" ;)
Because it is AirlineSim and the transportation by ship, bus, train, tuk tuk, donkey or whatever is a public transportation and that's why it is called "public" ;)
I think that the issue with flights between very close airports (for example 100 - 150 km) could be solved by increasing the ground transportation ORS for these destination pairs. If you will have an empty plane you will for sure give it up and, as in RL, everyone will prefer a 1 - 2 hours trip by car, bus, train or whatever is on the ground than going to the airport at least one hour before the flight and than fly for 15 - 20 minutes and change plane (all of these at a higher price). Of course, banning all ground network flights is the easiest way to do but is not at realistic.
@Marig, pity it isn't realistic, that would be a good way of doing it, but then a realistic flight from CVG to IND would be banned, as well as other flights. so if that was to be done, it would be a bit more complicated than that, pity though, that would be a good way of doing it.
I think that the issue with flights between very close airports (for example 100 - 150 km) could be solved by increasing the ground transportation ORS for these destination pairs. If you will have an empty plane you will for sure give it up and, as in RL, everyone will prefer a 1 - 2 hours trip by car, bus, train or whatever is on the ground than going to the airport at least one hour before the flight and than fly for 15 - 20 minutes and change plane (all of these at a higher price). Of course, banning all ground network flights is the easiest way to do but is not at realistic.
BEB-BRR. 31km apart, maybe one or two public transport opportunities (apart from air) per day depending on the arrival time at BRR, which depends on the tide.
In RL, passengers from GLA-BEB (via BRR) fly this every day. Any spaces left by people disembarking at BRR sold to people wanting to enjoy the return trip BRR-BEB.
The debate about distance in ground networks only applies where there are realistic alternative public transport opportunities. There are many examples, usually involving islands, where much shorter journeys are essential and viable.
Because it is AirlineSim and the transportation by ship, bus, train, tuk tuk, donkey or whatever is a public transportation and that's why it is called "public" ;)
What about developing DonkeySim? I would play it if we can put Slimline HD seats on it...
1. In the US alone, short flights over land like LAX-CLD, LAX-SBA, DEN-COS, ORD-MKE, SFO-SMF and PHL-EWR are quite common - to provide connecting traffic to/from a hub.
2. With the sprawl of the LA area, SNA-BUR (46 mi) may actually be a feasible flight distance for an airline with a hub in either of those airports, seeing as traffic out there can be insane and UA used to fly LAX-OXR (49 mi). However, OXR and LAX are not part of the same urban agglomeration while SNA and BUR are.
3. The distance between SNA and BUR (the two furthest LA airports from each other) is less than the distance between LTN and LGW, which you are not permitted to fly between.
4. While airports in places like NYC, LON or MOW are considered alternatives/competitors for the entire metropolitan area, the ones in LA more or less serve their communities, with the obvious exception of LAX?
5. If flights between LA area airports are banned, what happens to places with similar situations like South Florida with MIA/FLL/PBI?
I am flying within ground networks (but not within a city) for a simple reason: the ground network has a very very very big disadvantage over a simple flight. The time of travel between airports is very big. (Up to six hours for 200 km, MTC included).
By offering a well timed flight i can find decent connecting flights on the first page of the ORS instead at the last.
On the other hand it is very strange that flights within the ground network are always full. Sometimes it looks as if passengers are taking a ride from my hub to the nearest airport to fly with me.
We don't need to ban flights within ground networks.
Also, increase the landing fees a lot
I'd even go as far as saying increase the attractiveness of ground connections "a lot" so we can use those secondary airports finaly as a cheap alternatives (of course only with the right pricing).....again we have sooooo static game worlds
I also agree the landing fees should be even more higher than they are on Aspern right now....simple reason, there are STILL people flying with their stupid Dash8 and other small "Slot eaters" between big airports and keep increasing the frequency when the planes are full....they need to get hit hard with a big loss, especially if it's flights between big airports.
No argument against feeder services from small airfields to a big HUB airport but this is so ridiculous it's driving me insane!
EDIT: Will we ever get the higher landing fees on the old servers? It would really help sorting out some (lets put it mildly) questionable connections.
I think the prices are pretty high for the smaller planes already. Maybe a little tweaking is in order, but if someone was to fly from Denver to a 2, 3, or 4 bar airport, they wouldn't make a lot due to the higher prices. Of course feeder lines and regional airliners don't make the money that larger airlines do, and that makes sense. I just wouldn't want it so high that feeder airlines lose money, even in a high AGEX environment.
but if someone was to fly from Denver to a 2, 3, or 4 bar airport, they wouldn't make a lot due to the higher prices.
Actually, flying between a big and a 4-bar airport (or smaller) is not expensive in reagrds to landing fees / ATC and that is very good for the very reason you mentioned. You can check with the performance tool. For example I fly between DEN-BLI (4-Bar) cost me only 141 in landing fees with a CRJ1000.
