"Players not behaving like this or breaking this or following rules, may be punished by the game administration with game-internal fees up to temporal blockade or even complete elimination within the game."
"May be punished"...... So if the AS team decides they should not punish the player, they still are in line with the statement.
Seriously though, just get rid of the damn LET's. People really seem to have an issue with their use, regardless if they are used for slot blocking or not. My little test in Quimby proved that....
I started this topic two week ago and I see no reply of any team member. They didn't respond even to my email I sent on April 24th.
What reply were you expecting?
As I can see in our ticket system, on the day you started this topic, you reported several companies. You received a reply to all of those reports and the enterprise owners have been informed to adapt their flight schedules. So everything is going as it should be - I don't understand what further comment from the team you'd expect in this thread.
I'm really asking if I should post this reply, in terms of "Don't feed the troll".
So your answer for my question "This company has already been reported - and what next?" is, that enterprise owners have been informed to adapt their flight schedules... It is superb answers after more than two weeks.
But maybe I'm wrong, my point of view... if your meaning of "to adapt their flight schedulest" is "to add more L4T and BNI flights". Because this is what the reported companies do (except two at LHR).
And just for info: I reported four (4) companies. The worst cases at LHR, MAD, PEK were reported long ago before me. This is the reason I started this topic with this sentence: "I saw a lot of companies they are and/or they have been reported. But in 99% of all cases nothing happened".
So you reported 4 companies, and after the team deals with them, two change their behaviour and that's "nothing happened"? Seriously: What did you expect? That they're banned from the game?
I’m not complaining, knowing that the team is working on a solution is great. Because when half of the flights out of big airports are LETs or caravans or ATRs, something wrong.
There’s two solutions I see that airports use in the real world. Prohibitive landing fees with discounts given to airlines operating with bigger aircraft types. In a capitalist world with a supply and demand system, when slot availability falls below a certain threshold, airports will raise landing fees to make more money. At some point, the landing fees would be prohibitive enough that flying small commuter planes into these airports will consistently lose money even when fully loaded. This would be the intention as the slots will be used efficiently in big hub airports.
Or, airports will restrict certain slots only for aircraft with more than X number of seats. That way you open the airport to mainline carriers and not regionals flooding the market not supported by mainline carriers.
In the real world, regional carriers are seldom, if at all profitable. That’s why almost all regional carriers operate on a wet lease basis for the mainlines. The fact that people can run a profitable operation utilizing CRJs and ERJs, or even LETs is not an accurate representation of the civil aviation world of today.
Prohibitive landing fees with discounts given to airlines operating with bigger aircraft types. In a capitalist world with a supply and demand system, when slot availability falls below a certain threshold, airports will raise landing fees to make more money. At some point, the landing fees would be prohibitive enough that flying small commuter planes into these airports will consistently lose money even when fully loaded. This would be the intention as the slots will be used efficiently in big hub airports.
I like this idea a lot. One of the issues I see with this game is that the flight booking mechanism favours using smaller a/c. Don't get it wrong: it's a good approach to evenly distribute the load on all players. But at some points it's just out of control. I look e.g. at JNB/CPT in South Africa. One of my (big) competitors there is using everything from turbo prop to wide body on this relation. On other connections in South Africa, I see lots and lots of small a/c where it's still easy for me to fill bigger types of the same family in multiple schedules per day. After what I've read, providing 500 Seats in CR7 would grant for a better market share than provding 500 seats in CRK once the market is saturated.
At this point, it might maybe a good idea to rethink this a bit and make it more expensive for big companies to use up slots. Slots is one of the few limited resources in the game and it's maybe one of the few items where balancing the game is possible. There's a lot of good things with this game, but one of the weak points is that there's hardly any balance. The game is to some extent designed as a single-player game where of course you want to be sucessful and grow. In a multi player environment, this exponential growth is something that needs to be controlled and limited. For the few weeks that I'm reading in this forum now, I saw a number of not that bad ideas being argued against "but it would be too easy for big companies with their billions of AS$ in the accounts". So, let's make it more expensive for them to run their airlines. One of the ideas I have is to make slots more expensive the more you use and the more saturated an airport is? Let's say you give away the first few slots (enough for a new airline to start a decent schedule) at the current prices, Once a certain threshold is reached, slots are getting priced according to the usage - and for all airlines that are operating there, not just for the airline using up the last slot in a certain time frame. If you want to have cheap slots you need to adjust your schedule and spread it out evenly, especially when a busy airport fills up.
Yes, this would mean a lot of work for bigger airlines (or they just operate with this 'penalty'), but would be a way to balance the game.
If they still make money, then the landing fees are not high enough.
And yes, it would mean they have to reschedule a lot of flights, etc. But in real life, there are also events that trigger changes. To somehow give the players a chance, give em a grace period, but then it's on.
If they still make money, then the landing fees are not high enough.
And yes, it would mean they have to reschedule a lot of flights, etc. But in real life, there are also events that trigger changes. To somehow give the players a chance, give em a grace period, but then it's on.
Gradually introduce it - that over a few weeks or months you slowly raise the fees up to 100% of the new model.I would by the way consider both, a/c handling and landing fees. The a/c handling is determined by slot usage rate for the start slot, the landing fee of course by the figure for the landing slot. Take it as an attempt to spread out ground staff load evenly at the airport.
Maybe you could also get some discount when you're extending your ground time, e.g. add options for the dynamic tournaround: different team sizes or resource usage for cabin cleaning, baggage/cargo and catering loading/unloading.
To somehow give the players a chance, give em a grace period, but then it's on.
Basically experienced player offering any higher service competition could kill him. In order to dig up the root you need to stick the shovel in the ground and right now the ground is frozen. You can try sticking in that shovel at different locations but your chances of digging up the root will only be slimmer and mostly impossible.
It is a beautiful place, where a man who ask only for following rules is called "troll".
The label "troll" is indeed subjective. While some people might characterize the poster as a troll, others may deem his behavior ("Are you kidding me?) as legitimate contribution to the discussion. To me (again: a subjective perception) a troll purposely disrupts forums and does not contribute to the solution. To my belief, the OP fits perfectly these qualifications. This is why I second @schoos that we should not feed the troll.
I got today on Quimby IV a mail from an IL partner who asked my to review my IL with a number of airlines slot blocking to avoid that he cancel the IL with me.
Honestly, that is an approach to solve the problem and I think it is a good idea.
As much as we shouldn't feed trolls, we should not feed the slot-blocking airlines with IL. I guess that, from a pure demand calculation standpoint, this won't impact those airlines - but at least they do know that their "strategy" is perceived as being abusive of the system.
BTW: What do I consider as slot blocking? An airline that has more than one prop aircraft at a 9+ airport. (Your mileage may vary).
So a company flying multiple Q400s or ATRs is slot blocking?
Yes, I personally belive so but there is always a lime to be drawn between a slot blocker and a "newbie" which also use this tactic in many cases. Personally I also fly about 10 daily ATR cargo flights between KUL and SIN but I will not increase the frequency and they are just temporary and will go away in a month when other more suitable aircraft are delivered.