What exactly are these ominous-sounding "new automated anti-slot blocking measures" coming this Monday?
I hope you're not going to ban smaller airplanes from larger airports. I know a lot of AirlineSim airlines like to mindlessly fly large jets to and from large cities, but some of us prefer hub-and-spoke type airlines with a mix of plane sizes and types. Banning smaller planes from larger airports will impede the ability to serve smaller cities. And it doesn't reflect the real world where not every city is served with a 737 or A-320. Even today at a megahub like AMS, KLM Cityhopper flies smaller Fokker 70s to smaller cities.
I also hope that if you impose a size restriction, it won't be retroactive. I simply cannot upgauge some of my smaller planes due to slot restrictions. It's just not possible.
first of all, I am sure everyone would appreciate it if you were to use standard fonts and sizes.
second of all, Martin clearly stated that more information will be made available on Monday. whatever the reason, he didn't want to make it known quite yet.
so my suggestion is: let's hold off on the witchhunt until we know who the witch is....
Nothing will happen to existing flight plans when the patch is applied. The measures only affect scheduling (for now).
Martin |Good Evening,
I would Like to ask if this new rules will affect ATF aircrafts, I ask it because we cargo players don't really have much options in cargo frames as PAX airlines does, for example my major hub is in MEM in Riem world, my cargo company operate more than 1K ATF that is crucial for connecting cargo to smaller airports around the world, above the ATF I have almost 600 narrow/wide body aircrafts in duty, as we all know riem is a advanced game world where the demand is lower and those ATF are essential for any cargo company I guess in All game worlds.
At Least the game worlds that doesn’t have much more options of cargo frames, the option for a cargo operator is like SH = ATF, MH = 737c, LH=767f and ULH= 777F
I say it because doesn’t have aircrafts with good cargo performance for example a330 the 767 is way more suitable and the Russian AC has that huge delivery time.
I think is a awesome feature to have those rules for pax I really think using a LET in airports like PEK with 14pax config is near madness, but a ATF that carries 90CU is reasonable.
first of all, I am sure everyone would appreciate it if you were to use standard fonts and sizes.
second of all, Martin clearly stated that more information will be made available on Monday. whatever the reason, he didn't want to make it known quite yet.
so my suggestion is: let's hold off on the witchhunt until we know who the witch is....
I didn't know I was using a non-standard font size. I'm not sure how that happened. I think I fixed it.
There's no witch hunt. I was just curious about what the changes will be.
I would Like to ask if this new rules will affect ATF aircrafts, I ask it because we cargo players don’t really have much options in cargo frames as PAX airlines does,
I think is a awesome feature to have those rules for pax I really think using a LET in airports like PEK with 14pax config is near madness, but a ATF that carries 90CU is reasonable.
Best Regards.
Sorry for some english mistakes.
Why should it be ok to fly an ATF between two 10 bar airports when a Pax ATR should not be allowed to do it?
If there is not enough demand to fly with a bigger aircraft, then you could still accept a partial loss or give up the route, no? You face the same problem with Pax, just on a different level.
PS: And no, I’m not referring specifically to the solution that is implemented but ask in general
Why should it be ok to fly an ATF between two 10 bar airports when a Pax ATR should not be allowed to do it?
If there is not enough demand to fly with a bigger aircraft, then you could still accept a partial loss or give up the route, no? You face the same problem with Pax, just on a different level.
PS: And no, I’m not referring specifically to the solution that is implemented but ask in general
Not all 10 bar passenger airports are 10 bar cargo airports. If the 10 bar passenger airport is literally the only airport in town, how else can you efficiently serve that city? Why should you have to give up a route or run the flight at a loss? Route optimization should be as much of this game as the let's fly 737s/A-320s between large cities strategy many airlines seem to follow. Most real world regional cargo flights take off and land in the middle of the night when the airport is pretty desolate, anyway. So even if you banned passenger ATFs during the day, what's the sense of banning them at an off-peak time when the airport shouldn't be as busy?
Besides, real world passenger airlines fly regional aircraft between two large airports all the time. See Delta's CRJ-900 flights between JFK and YYZ, for example. Sometimes, they are right-sizing their flights because they are the smaller airline on the route or don't have a hub at one or both ends. Other times, they are providing convenient schedules for passengers by running every hour or every other hour. But what those flights often do is provide competition where there otherwise would be none if they were forced to run very large aircraft.
My question was more to find out if passenger flights should be favored over cargo flights.
I know the example for the HKG airport. Passenger aircraft have the first priority for slots, then it is for cargo flights and least priority is given to private jets.
If we allow to fly ATFs between two 10 bar (Pax bars) airports, then that means basically we favor cargo flights over passenger flights. So that is my main question. Is this what should happen in the game? And would it make a difference if let's say the same flight with the ATF is between two 10 bar cargo airports? Should that be allowed too?
To restrict certain aircraft to certain times is not possible in the game and wouldn't even make sense, as currently the demand is the same throughout the day/night (unlike in real life).
Matth, as much as I would like to free up HKG a bit @ Riem, as much will I have to disagree. As long as cargo is, as it is, ATF shouldn't be prohibited. A good example is LHR-AMS. It's nearly impossible to make a profit on cargo, with anything else than ATF. If you use a 737, you will have to increase the price so much, that you will lose cargo to the PAX companies - just to have a very small profit.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see all ATF out of HKG, but it’s just not fair. Cargo really only has one short haul plane to choose from.
I've never run a cargo airline, but if there aren't many choices for cargo planes, logic should dictate that we need special rules tailored for cargo carriers. From other's comments, it appears that there's no viable cargo airplane between an ATR and 737. Yet there are tons of viable passenger planes, including regional jets and smaller narrow bodies, like A318s and 737-600s.
Well the problem is doesn’t matter the size but distance a 737 can’t be profitable in a 300 to 500km route in cargo unless you charge 140%, the pax companies charge 60% but with atf ithe work at default so yeah cargo is extremely difficult to work with without the atf
This IATA site might be useful… But the standard procedure seems to involve a series of biannual talks and discussions and lucky draws and reuse of unused slots which are not suitable here… the rule state that as long as 80% of the slot is operated then the slot can be keep while in AS any unoperated slots are immediately taken back from airlines.
Why should it be ok to fly an ATF between two 10 bar airports when a Pax ATR should not be allowed to do it?
If there is not enough demand to fly with a bigger aircraft, then you could still accept a partial loss or give up the route, no? You face the same problem with Pax, just on a different level.
PS: And no, I’m not referring specifically to the solution that is implemented but ask in general
With ATR you can gain profit on short haul - with 737 you are creating a loss. And finally we are playing a management game and we have to act economically. If we intentionally create loss, we are violating the rules.
Matth, as much as I would like to free up HKG a bit @ Riem, as much will I have to disagree. As long as cargo is, as it is, ATF shouldn't be prohibited. A good example is LHR-AMS. It's nearly impossible to make a profit on cargo, with anything else than ATF. If you use a 737, you will have to increase the price so much, that you will lose cargo to the PAX companies - just to have a very small profit.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see all ATF out of HKG, but it’s just not fair. Cargo really only has one short haul plane to choose from.
That is not really true. Just ran the numbers and a 73C can be profitable between LHR-AMS at a price point where the cargo flight still maintains a 99 ORS rating.
With ATR you can gain profit on short haul - with 737 you are creating a loss. And finally we are playing a management game and we have to act economically. If we intentionally create loss, we are violating the rules.
This is not true in most of the cases. If you know the price point where 99 ORS turns into a lesser value, if you use that price point, almost all but the shortest of the shortest cargo flights, can be flown profitably with 73C, even in the environment of higher landing/navigation cost servers such as Ellinikon, Riem, etc.
Of course if you run cargo at default price it will not be profitable, but who in his right mind would run cargo at default price at a cargo airline with dedicated freighters and good image, you can charge way but way but waaay more than default and still maintain top of the line direct as well as connection ORS rating.
I tried all available freighters with different prices (100% to 150%) and ORS 99 up to 1000km. Despite the higher landing fees the ATF is the only freighter which is economically justifiable.
If there will be new rules there will be new rules and we have to deal with them. But at the moment the descision which plane to use is economically-driven.
I’m just surprised to see one airline using 40 daily flights between a 10 bar and 9 bar (cargo) airports, when a competitor used 737C or even 767s. So I guess somehow it seems to be possible to make money with a different and bigger type. Therefor I was surprised to hear the repeated statement that only ATFs are a viable type to use.
And don’t get me wrong. I was just asking the general question and don’t want to point fingers at anybody specific. If it is the common understanding that ATF should have unrestricted access to/between all airports then that’s perfectly fine.
But as we seem to easily accept that ATRs should not be allowed excessively between very large airports I am surprised to have a (such a big) different measure for cargo.
I just mentioned that airport as I live here and know how the slots are prioritized in reality.
I just wanted to use it as an example. Both our companies can’t grow at all, at this time, but I would still have to disagree with prohibiting ATF for now. Just to put it in perspective.
Rubio, yes it might be possible to make a profit with a 737. But if I can choose between a ATF which is easy to fill with a 30% margin, or a 737 with 5% margin - and possibility of a loss if it doesn’t fill up, I know what I would choose.
But that discussion brings us back to the distribution topic. I would personally love that larger airplanes was an advantage in this game. But it’s not.
