AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: LAX Slots  (Read 2110 times)

737Capt

  • Former member
LAX Slots
« on: October 04, 2009, 04:15:53 PM »
35 movements per hour for LAX in 1993 is extremely unrealistic!  The airport has had 4 operating runways for years and only 35 movements??  The airport should be on par with ATL and ORD.  All slots are almost already taken in LAX and the game just started!   >:(

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2009, 04:53:38 PM »
LAX doesn't have as many slots as ORD or ATL in reality, it's got about 1/3rd less slots in real-life, but it should have more than it does in-game.

A while back I provided sami a list of all major US airports (top 25 I think) and what their slots should be per the FAA.  Because, for the longest time, all US airports were identical in size in AWS except ATL, MDW, and JFK.  Some of the most egregiously incorrect were updated for these latest games (starting with North America Challenge), but not all of them.  LAX is one of them that hasn't been.  Even the ones that have been adjusted weren't made exactly right, but they were adjusted so that the were more-or-less proportionally correct.   So rather than moving them all up, he adjusted the really big ones up so that they were at least proportionally larger than the others.

So, while LAX is still too small, it's at least proportionally correct to most other airports.  i.e. it's roughly the same size as BOS, IAH, or MCO as it should be.  It's about 1/3rd smaller than ORD as it shoudl be.  And it's got about half the slots in-game as DFW as it should.  ATL kind of throws it off though, as it's correct in number, but proportionally off other US airports since almost all of the others need to be adjusted upwards a good 30% or so; it should have been adjusted downwards from previous games to be about the same size as ORD (actually a tad less) but it's higher number of slots was retained when the adjustments were made.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 04:56:40 PM by Sigma »

Offline Tim

  • Members
  • Posts: 886
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2009, 04:30:55 PM »

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2009, 12:34:07 AM »
Yes, that is the data I provided to Sami, but I went through and summed them all up into a table of all the major US airports.

In the case of LAX, it was the optimum departures + optimum arrivals and divide that by 2 (since we only count departures as movements in-game), so it was 71.  In comparison ATL should be 92 and ORD should be 95.

But there's also a date adjustment to be made as well.  I believe it's 1 slot per year here, and the 71 is 2004 data.  So we should be at about 61 in AWS right now.  So it's about 40% too low.

It should be noted that is the optimum slot figure.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 12:37:31 AM by Sigma »

Offline oggie84

  • Members
  • Posts: 1031
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2009, 12:58:48 AM »
Right now in ATB#2, it's currently Sept 2003 and LAX is only at 40 slots per hour. Still someway short of 71. So i think your calculations are indeed correct...that would put it at around 40% below what it is in real life.

ORD is at 61
ATL is at 77

Wow, LAX has nearly 50% less slots than ATL, alot less than 1/3  ::)
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 01:03:28 AM by oggie84 »

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2009, 03:46:58 AM »
Right now in ATB#2, it's currently Sept 2003 and LAX is only at 40 slots per hour. Still someway short of 71. So i think your calculations are indeed correct...that would put it at around 40% below what it is in real life.

ORD is at 61
ATL is at 77

Wow, LAX has nearly 50% less slots than ATL, alot less than 1/3  ::)

Yeah, like I said, while most of the US airports are at least somewhat proportionally correct, ATL is not.  It was too large before (1 of only 2 in the country that were at the time along with JFK) and, though the data I provided Sami said it should have been brought down, it wasn't.  JFK was, but ATL wasn't (not saying that in a bad way, I'm happy at least some were).  If all the major US airports (except ATL) aren't going to be brought up a good 1/3rd, then ATL should at least be brought down so that the proportion stays right.  

737Capt

  • Former member
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2009, 05:13:56 PM »
Yeah, like I said, while most of the US airports are at least somewhat proportionally correct, ATL is not.  It was too large before (1 of only 2 in the country that were at the time along with JFK) and, though the data I provided Sami said it should have been brought down, it wasn't.  JFK was, but ATL wasn't (not saying that in a bad way, I'm happy at least some were).  If all the major US airports (except ATL) aren't going to be brought up a good 1/3rd, then ATL should at least be brought down so that the proportion stays right.  
Where are you getting your data from?  Is the data slot capabilities or slots used?  LAX's capabilities should be very close to ATL up until about two years ago when ATL opened their 5th runway.

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2009, 05:26:13 PM »
Where are you getting your data from?  Is the data slot capabilities or slots used?  LAX's capabilities should be very close to ATL up until about two years ago when ATL opened their 5th runway.

From the FAA.

In optimal weather LAX has a capacity of 148 flights/hr.  In similar conditions, ATL has a capacity of 188 flights/hr.  This is capacity not utilization and is from 2004 prior to ATL's new runway and the ability to depart 3 flights simultaneously.

With the increase of the 5th runway ATL now has a capacity of ~237 flights/hr.

In AWS only departures are counted as "flights", so each of the respective numbers would be halved to get what they should be in AWS.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 05:32:51 PM by Sigma »

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2009, 08:28:16 PM »
Hey, if someone is not too busy I'd appreciate an excel or text file of the capacities of US airports (all that is available) sent to me. As noted I already got some of this data but just in case there is a more complete list/data available than what I have already.

Just a simple:  ICAO code - movements/hr   type list, one per line.


Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2009, 01:05:12 AM »
You'll have something this evening, sami.

Lamantijn84

  • Former member
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2009, 03:48:32 PM »
Just an other point of view:
Why should the amount of slots be based on real life? I know this is a simulation, but it's also a game. If for some reason the game is more balanced on some routes by making the amount of slots bigger then in real life, why not? The real life date can be use as a guideline of course...

Branmuffin

  • Former member
Re: LAX Slots
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2009, 07:17:06 PM »
Just an other point of view:
Why should the amount of slots be based on real life? I know this is a simulation, but it's also a game. If for some reason the game is more balanced on some routes by making the amount of slots bigger then in real life, why not? The real life date can be use as a guideline of course...

Good point but, unless I am mistaken, don't forget that passenger demand on most routes in AWS is based on real-life data, so it's sort of necessary to make sure that passenger demand remains proportional to airport capacity (as it works in the real world)... either both have to be realistic or both have to be fictional for things to still be balanced.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.