Regarding today's announcement

Dear AS staff

As i cannot comment on announcements regarding the forbidden intra-city flights i use this topic to report to you that in Europe we also have in this situation the OTP and BBU aiports (both in Bucharest). Flights between these two should also be forbidden. Fore more information :


We kindly ask for patience. We will collect these suggestions and have to discuss that in the user advisory board in a few weeks again. Otherweise it might getting confusing.


I have also send this message to sk, also saying that BBU will move all its commercial traffic to OTP starting March 25th. BBU will become a private/business jet only airport. I am sure that all this changes will be introduced in the game also in the future.


What is the timeframe to comply with this new requirement? I have 50+ flights on HND-NRT on Croydon across 25-30 aircraft, since it is the shortest flight there is, it isn’t possible to replace it with another flight in the existing schedule, and since there is no free slots, rescheduling is pain in the ass and takes forever. While just taking all these flights off will leave a lot of a/c underutilized.

The 5th of April - when the new rule becomes valid .- that’s some 14 days from now on.

Bah, … stupid rule ever and should be ignored (as many rules are ignored in the business world … like the EU cookie-directive; will the AS-Team apply it?). However … how will it be scantioned?

btw … are the votes of the UAB - that discussed and voted about this issue - public? I dont want to vote for the guys who voted yes on this topic

I’d say it’s rather stupid to fly between two airports in the same city. This thing does not happen in real life (only ferry flights maybe). If i was running AS i wouldn’t even bother putting this to vote. I would ban players instantly and forever for using this kind of dirty tricks to block slots.

Well, lets ban everything which is not possible or can not be done in RL. The game would be very boring. Copy the RL isnt what I expect of a Simulation. I expect that I can do new things based up on reality (planes, airports etc.), but without limitations. Everyone can do it, so it is fair. This rule would not prevent slot blocking. I can still operate hundrets of flights between BWI and EWR, instead of BWI and IAD. I only have a handfull of flights between BWI and IAD. But it is hard to change em now to other routes. There is also no "dirty trick"; this would be, if only some players would know about it and would have an advantage of it.

Most players use it to drop the maintenance ratio.

Your Arguments are weak. There is no slot blocking and no "dirty tricks", so come with better ones. Even the "blub its not done in RL blub" sounds stupid, if you have a look at some routes that are offered in AS. This isnt reality. This is a game based up on RL-things and let you build up something new.

This isn’t a game. This is a simulation. And simulations should reflect reality as much as possible. Otherwise it would be a game. I enjoy this simulation because it’s the closest thing to reality (it can’t be like in reality, i realize that). If i would wanted a game then i would play Airwaysim, Airline Mogul or other simple games.

If we would follow your arguments then why should we have slots ? Why should we have airline performance system ? Why should we have this complex passenger demand ?

Well, you can call Sim City a simulation too, but it is still a game. But there is no difference how you name the child. But you should differ between "Simulated objects", this are Airports, Planes etc. they should be close to reality as possible and between the "economic gameplay" this is what you can do with the simulated objects. There should be as much freedom as possible. Rules that exist in the real world, can be applied too, they are objects. But this rule we talk about isnt an existing rule, like the five freedoms. In RL there is no economic use for city flights. But in AS they are usefull. In RL you can "fly" between Frankfurt and Cologne by rail, there is a Train-Route operated by Lufthansa (in cooperation with the Deutsche Bahn). In AS I need to shedule flights between city airports to transfer passengers, if I use both airports. This is just because of the lack of a transfer possibility within ground networks. If this would be possible, I wouldnt care about this new rule. But until this isnt possible, the AS team should offer me the possibility to design my network on my own.

I like this new rule. If I voted for UAB I’ll vote these guys.

question: is the intra-city thingie coming to other places as well? ex. africa, oceania

i also dont like this thing though, but since im not flying there atm i dont worry . but is this game trying to be more accurate. if yes then i suggest that there are intra-city forbids only where they are in RL(if the current ones are ,then im sorry ,but im havent researchd about it alot) and all the other places you can fly , BUT everywhere ,weher 2 airports are very close( <150 or 200[km] maybe) will have less demand. since its cheaper to drive by car or bus wich is true in RL .

Why were not of the LA and SF airports included?


Its not fair to call it a "dirty trick to block slots" i have a significant amount of intra city flights because they make me a lot of money it has nothing to do with slot blocking.

An its not cheating if the game up until now has allowed it, its just a matter of working with the rules to achieve the best financial outcome. Now the rules have changed and i understand why, so i will comply with the new rules. That doesnt make us bad people! lol

Same here. I operate a couple of these routes solely for connectivity and profit. There’s no slot blocking going on. The prices are usually 20% above AS as well. But I get it, I just wish there was more time than 2 weeks to do this. For example, I operate IAD-BWI and IAD-DCA, and while I have no problem removing the 60 daily or so flights between the two, it’s a lot to ask of me in 2 weeks when you consider that IAD is almost completely slotted up, meaning it’ll take a good amount of effort and time to properly shift the schedules to other routes.

So if you apply a better aircraft utilization, you have the same effect as adding intra-city flights.

The UAB came to the decision to limit it currently to the same City Code, so if airports have the same city code than they should be included. We had the discussion as well for airports very near-by e.g. FRA-CGN, DUS-CGN. But then there would be a discussion where to start and where to stop. So we came up with the City Code option.

You are right it is not cheating, as currently this was possible. Nevertheless AS is a developing game and this point was a red dot to a lot of players, the main problem though was that at the moment it is not possible to penalize those connections technically. So therefore a rule was introduce, to close this gap.

There you have the slotblocking. If you operated 60 daily between intra-city airports, these 60 slots (which is quite a lot btw.) are blocked for "normal" routes and for competitors, consider IAD is almost full, as you’ve said. But no blame, it was allowed until now. But at least this should give you a hint about how others view this…

I think trying to compare BWI-IAD to BWI-ENR is stupid. BWI-ENR is a real flight that is operated by several airlines. Not one airline operates BWI-IAD, and that is for good reason.

In my opinion no flights should be allowed between airports in each others ground network. If flights exist in RL between two airports with each other in their ground networks then the ground link is removed. I appreciate the new rule being introduced but in many ways think it should just be a basis for future restrictions. Further to this the new ruling should improve server performance a little I hope :slight_smile:


I don´t really understand that, where can I find those ´city codes´ , is that something official ?

What surprises me is that JFK and EWR have the same ´city code´ even though these airports are not in the same city, not even in the same us-state.

I´m not saying that flights between those two should ne allowed, I´m just curious.