No. The bigger airports are more expensive in landing fees. The cost for landing fees it shows on flight information is the avarage between departure and destination airport. So if landing fees increase by 100A$ at the big airport, the costs increase by 50A$ each way. If you fly between two big airports, then it increases with 100 A$ each way, which demotivates airlines to fly with small aircraft between two big airports - but still keeping it economical to operate feeder from small airports into the HUBs
aahh...of course. I forgot there was a difference between Aspern and the old servers. Didn't check for a while.
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…
I must be one of those "dumb passengers", as I have flown on United/Skywest from LAX to ONT in the past. It was much faster to get in the Inland Empire that way, versus fighting LA traffic.