There was a thread recently with a suggestion proposed by Matth, where we discussed that rich airlines could build runways to increase slots, with this being a very expensive proposition, taking some time (maybe weeks) and every airline could then benefit. Unfortunately, most people shot down the idea :-(
Thank you for sharing this information, I missed this post, and now I have read the first page discussion on this thread.
Though the goal is similar to solve the slot issue, build extra runway is not exactly same as no limitations on slot. Well, most people when reading this will probably say, oh, that's crazy, and not realistic. But slot is not the only resource limited in the game. Take aircraft build system for example, it is _not_ realistic, the orders from different users are not influenced, if 10 users order 737, all will get first aircraft in a day. So aircraft build resource is a _per user_ realistic, not totally realistic. Take terminal build as another example, anyone can build additional terminal on any airport, no space consideration at all. This is neither per user realistic nor totally realistic. What I am saying is realistic is never the most important consideration in this game for blocking new ideas. And for technical point of view, easier/simpler is always better. Isn't it? If no limit on slot, this forum will be much quite without any discussion/complain about slot blocking, slot abuse, etc...
I don't like to discuss in terms of realism. Players in favor of adding runways say in real life they also expand an airport if it becomes congested. Players against adding runways say the game won't be realistic if JFK has more runways in the game than in reality. Discussing realism is like discussing the gender of the angels :-)
I prefer to look at things from the gameplay perspective.
Last month my airline ordered 50 Antonovs. The last one will be delivered in august. Other players would not be happy if they ordered one Antonov 148 today and saw that it would be delivered halfway august. Working like this would also disturb the market. My airline is sitting on huge reserves. I would always order surplus planes, to make sure I have them if and when I need them. And if you are desperate for a plane, I would lease it to you at 110% of the price. That would make me even richer. But on a new server (with 1200 players wanting planes) it would surely slow down growth...
Building space for terminals used to be limited. Until two years ago, I had to wait for another airline to delete before I could build a terminal at big airports. I guess it has been changed because the role of terminals will change in the future, and it would not be fair that some players get an advantage over other players because they started playing one or two years earlier.
Building extra runways would have similar effects. Adding a runway (slots) In Paris would result in the congestion of Nice, Marseille and other secondary airports in France. More planes in Paris would also mean you get a real fight for passengers. The way the booking system works, smart players would replace their 739's by Embraers or Bombardiers. And in the end, we would all fly L4T's in and out of Paris.
I am in favor of all rules and measures that slow down growth. But we have to make sure these new rules have no perverse side effects.
Perhaps a quick start would be to make better use of ground connections and help to spread the slot demand from non-based airlines by severely reducing any ORS penalties these flights incur. Ultimately, passengers don't fly to a specific airport but the area that it serves. It also helps to open up large airports and their massive airlines to heavy competition (watch the massive dislike towards this part of the idea).
A long term project could be to remodel the passenger streams by making them independent from airports and model them simply as gateways through which people travel to their "real" destination. For example in real life, ATL is not a major airport because it has huge demand from the surrounding area but because a big airline is based there. This in turn makes ATL in-game only attractive because the current demand is based on the fact that Delta Airlines have their Hub there.
If passenger streams would reflect their "true" destinations ATL would be as attractive as any other airport nearby a big city.
making passenger streams independant from airports is actually a good idea. If I understand you correctly, regions would have passenger demand. If there are two airports in a region, passengers from that region would consider these two airports as equal possibilities for departure. And departing from an airport in a neighbouring region would lower the rating, like it does today. To stay with your example, the state of Georgia would calculate passenger demand. If Delta (or you in the game ;-) decides to create a hub in Savannah instead of Atlanta, that airport would see more passengers. And every airport in that region would have the same passenger demand, the limit being the length and number of runways of each airport. Well, and limited by the fact that not every airport allows transfers. And that is a matter of saving server resources.
Mind you... if I am correct, passenger demand is already partially "regionalised". If real ATL has 500 passengers per day for JFK, part of these passengers are (in the game) divided over airports in the region.
Your suggestion moves away from realism as a copy of the real world towards realism as how processes work in the real world.
However, I don't know how realistic your suggestion is in terms of rewriting the ORS :-)
The other part of your suggestion, real origin and final destination of passengers, is different problem. Only airport to airport statistics are available. That's why places like Dubai and Abu Dhabi have so much passenger demand in the game. Most of the real passengers do not go on holiday to the Arab Emirates, they fly for example from Europe to Asia/Australia with Emirates or Etihad. With just a stopover/transfer in DXB or AUH.
It is very easy to get statistics from U.S.' RITA BTS (TRANSTATS) about passenger flows between city pairs in USA and USA to international (this includes direct flights and connections, because airlines report city pairs sold). While the statistics include only a portion (for statistical purposes) of the total number of tickets sold, this is an excellent basis for knowing where the passengers in USA fly to/from (rendering irrelevant which hub was used in particular).
Unfortunately, such statistics are not available for most of the other countries in the world.
when you think about it, this is as good as it is bad :-)
I sometimes check airport wiki's and flightstats.com to check for possible routes. Imagine that all information would be available to the public, and that real world data would be reflected exactly in the game... it would remove half of the fun of discovering routes.