In real life Lufthansa operate a CRJ700 between LEJ-FRA which is a 70 seater which I think everyone will agree is a reasonable size aircraft. Even so I can Garuntee LH pay a premium on the slots. The problem is not with 70 seat aircraft in the game, I wouldn’t complain if slots were been blocked by a CRJ700. The problem is 3-7 times smaller than that
,,, And thus the Lufthansa flies from Frankfurt to Bologna, Mönchengladbach, Innsbruck ...?
Slotz are not blocked, but used. 3-7 times smaller? 78 divided by 2 makes? 39!
Bologna…737, FMO …CR7, INN … Airbus I think? All reasonable types!
78 divided by 9 (the number of seat aircraft used at LGW to block slots) is actually 8.67,
My Apologies in my maths. In terms of others complaints its a 19 seater which a crj is 4 times bigger. Either way you do not see any airline in Frankfurt using a Let 410, Islander or Trislander!
There are many situations in which use of small aircraft is perfectly logical. The issue is not with right-sized aircraft, even if small, for a particular route. The problem is with using many, many small aircraft flying many, many flights in order to prevent other airlines from using those slots.
My man in Lima now has 67 LETs that take 1665 slots. He is trying to occupy every slot he can, as a strategy to smother competitors. He has, for example, the ridiculous number of 62 flights per day from Lima to Arequipa (a four bar airport), and 47 to Cuzco (another 4 bar airport), 37 to Trujillo, etc, etc. All of them with 14 seat aircraft. He will also fly multiple LETs to the same destination with the same departure time.
This is not serving those routes with appropriate aircraft. It is trying to take over all of the most limited resource in the game - slots - in a way that bears no relationship to reality.
My man is now operating 75 LETs from Lima. Every spare dime he gets, he rents another LET. Wondering why some such behavior is rejected as "slot blocking", but others do the same thing and are allowed.
Imagine if everybody just rented another LET rather than tried to develop a network. All the hubs would be full with about 1/10 of the passengers served. Completely nonsensical. A major flaw in the simulation.
Anyway, I'm out of this game when my credits expire if something doesn't change.
I think you should counter by screwing his routes and blocking the slot using LETs too... and don't expect admins to work on that.
expect the unexpected ;) We are doing something, but please keep in mind, that there is no clear border between slot blocking as you understand it and in some cases I would also define it that way and the way it was meant in the game rules.
Or simply try to use a good aircraft with a good product on the route? If you offer the better product, passengers will fly with your airline and he will lose quite a bit of money. See how long he can afford it.
And why not write a message to his interline partners, asking them if they do agree with his practices? Make a reasonable network out of Lima (I'm sure you'll find some slots) and offer his partners to interline with you, so they still have an interline partner in Lima. I'm sure, many will agree with you!
Simple and realistic way to regulate this is to make landing fees higher at larger airports. The more "bars" the airport has it should be more costly PER EACH LANDING to fly there. This way the smaller aircraft you fly the more per passenger you have to pay.
It is not that simple, but yes, that's the direction we are currently thinking about.
Hi SK,
I appreciate it's not an easy thing to implement. So here would be my latest, and hopefully most realistic idea.
Each flight has various fees that could be manipulated, in particular...
- Aircraft Handling Fee
- Airport Landing Fee
- Passenger Handling Fee
If every airport had a minimum number of seats (not sure best way of dealing with cargo), which would start at 0, when an airports slot availability decreases below a number (say 10%) this number would rise in incriments.
If an operator wishes to operate an aircraft into this airport with less than the min number of seats, then they would have to pay the 3 above fees based on if they were operating an aircraft at the minimum number of seats level.
For example. If an airports minimum number of seats were to increase to 50, an operator wishing to operate a Let 410 may still do so, however instead of been charged for a 19 seat handling/airport landing/passenger handling, they would be charged for a 50 seat aircraft. This way smaller aircraft can still operate into airports, but if there is a real demand for the route then they would have to pay a premium.
I hope that makes sense...if not let me know!
Thanks
Ian
As written before, we are currently developing a new formula for the landing fees. But thank you for the input. In our opinion this will not work as you described as you can not operate any flights to airports with short runways or less demand.
Thanks SK,
I understand what you are saying but I cannot think of any real life examples of where an airport would allow a operator to operate a small aircraft when a larger aircraft could take that slot just to operate a route to a short runway or less demand. If you have a look at what it happening to Guernsey at the moment (short runway + less demand), they lost the LHR route as KLM used the slots on an Amsterdam route (more pax = more money for airport), and now flybe are selling theyre slots at LGW (to Easyjet...bigger aircraft = more pax = more money for the airport).
I might be wrong though...
I have an example a few years ago ... Frankfurt - Hof - operated by FD328 - there are also several DHC-8-400 operations flying to/from Frankfurt.
Think about a country like Norway with several small airport.
Fair play SK. Didn’t even think of Norway!
I think but can not promise that FRA would charge the same fees as it would a larger aircraft which would be passed onto the pax. If there is a true market for the premium route people would pay.
As far as Norway is concerned I guess it’s mostly PSO money which is another Pandora’s box I won’t open.
Either way im looking forward to this update, and hope it continues to make gameplay as realistic as possible.
As always keep up the good work AS team and if I can be of any help just let me know
My Slot pig has now above 50 aircraft and is yet again manually cancelling flights showing no intention of operating the flights, just preventing use of slots to other players. No point in reporting because aparantly they are doing nothing wrong :( Starting to think maybe it's time to persue a refund from AS
Of course you can report them. If they are cancelling the flights this can be a slot blocking action.
SK I have reported them, they are still reported from the last time. I even sent a spreadsheet showing that over a week, more the 20% of the flights were manually cancelled, on some days over 50%. I sent it to support@ at one point to be told that they are playing within the rules?!?
Please send it again to me at support@airlinesim.aero - maybe I was not aware about the cancelations
Thanks SK, just sent. Like I've said it is out of date as it was sent over 2 months ago. It's just getting frustrating checking the departure board and seeing "Cancelled" when I, or others, could be using those slots.
Thanks for your time (especially on a Saturday)