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: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.  (Read 6814 times)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2010, 06:33:37 PM »
The 2 runways are only seperated by around 1km, so the flight path isn't far away on either.  They switch runway usage at 1500 daily anyway

Okay... So Buckingham Palace is bearing about 085 from Heathrow...

And in all honesty, I didnt know LHR was a two runway airport.   If disturbing Her Majesty was the only major issue, why not land on 09R and take off from 27R?  I am not an airline pilot so I don't know if that would be against the rules due to planes taking off in the same direction as approach.   But, if I was in control, I'd just have all flights from 27R immediately change course to 000 after gear up.

EDIT:  NOT A RIP ON LONDON... but why did they opt for building so many airports with just a couple of runways???  Atlanta and JFK both have 4.  Heck even Cleveland (KCLE) has 4.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 06:39:31 PM by swiftus27 »

Kontio

  • Former member
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2010, 06:37:03 PM »
Somehow I don't think the Queen is the only person affected by noise from LHR.

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2010, 06:39:04 PM »
Okay... So Buckingham Palace is bearing about 085 from Heathrow...

And in all honesty, I didnt know LHR was a two runway airport.   If disturbing Her Majesty was the only major issue, why not land on 09R and take off from 27R?  I am not an airline pilot so I don't know if that would be against the rules due to planes taking off in the same direction as approach.   But, if I was in control, I'd just have all flights from 27R immediately change course to 000 after gear up.

Aircraft have to take-off and land into the wind, otherwise you get wind shear and all sorts of flying problems.  Aircraft do also follow designated take-off routes to reduce noise over heavily populated areas

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2010, 06:41:26 PM »
Aircraft have to take-off and land into the wind, otherwise you get wind shear and all sorts of flying problems.  Aircraft do also follow designated take-off routes to reduce noise over heavily populated areas

I understand the concept of flying into the wind to generate lift but I can't expect that all the winds in London come from the due east or west.

Sadly, it almost looks like London should sell Heathrow and Gatwick and start over with one mega airport.  That way, the new airport would be able to have many more slots so we could implement them into the game!

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2010, 06:44:35 PM »
I understand the concept of flying into the wind to generate lift but I can't expect that all the winds in London come from the due east or west.

Sadly, it almost looks like London should sell Heathrow and Gatwick and start over with one mega airport.  That way, the new airport would be able to have many more slots so we could implement them into the game!

London Gatrow anyone? ;D

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2010, 06:45:54 PM »
London Gatrow anyone? ;D

I prefer LuHeathWickSted

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2010, 06:48:50 PM »
I prefer LuHeathWickSted

Now that would be a mega airport! - Surprised our Labour Govt hasn't ceased the idea already!  ;D

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2010, 06:52:22 PM »
The majority of runways are constructed to follow the local wind conditions and with LHR its an East-West alignment, as the winds are 85-90% of the time from the westerly direction.  If NW, SW etc then there is still a headwind from the W, just less directly.

Unfortunately, various restrictions (political, geographical, societal and environmental) have stopped the airports expanding as they would like and there have been ideas to build a new super airport in the Thames estuary, but the opposition is huge everytime anything about expanding a UK airport is mentioned.

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2010, 07:28:22 PM »
Unfortunately us Brits love to complain about things so the chances of a new "mega" airport anywhere in the UK is slim to nil! Even a third runway at LHR is not that likely.

It's typical really, almost everyone who travels by air the UK moans about delays and cancellations but if you even hint at expanding an airport people freak out, it's just crazy!

Can you imagine what a beast of an airport it would be if you scrapped the five existing ones in favour of one huge one!! London's airports had a throughput of over 136million passengers in 2008!

LHR 67m
LGW 34m
STN 22m
LTN 10m
LCY 3m

New "Mega" Airport 136m!!??! Where would you build such a thing in crowded SE England?

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2010, 08:40:02 PM »
I have a possible recommendation that would add "realism" and address some of the concerns about rapid expansion early in the game and slot limits.  Place severe penalties on negative cash balances.  As it is now, you can have a negative cash balance and still buy fuel, pay your staff, and (despite what the manual may say) keep you a/c maintained.  All while going further into the red.  This encourages risky behavior such as acquiring large numbers of a/c quickly early in the game.  It is also "unrealistic".  It assumes employees and fuel suppliers are carrying the debt load for the carrier by continuing to supply labor and fuel even though they are not being paid.  If you charge a high interest rate (which a bank would for a short-term unsecured loan to a start-up company with no real assets) for being in the red and then bankrupted the carrier quickly, early growth would be much slower.

I am at IAD in Jet Age and I am the dominant carrier.  There are two others.  One of them has had a negative value (and I am sure negative cash balance) for most of the game.  He is 5 million in the red on value with 6 leased jets.  He will bankrupt at some point but it seems to me he is already past the point where any reasonable supplier would be selling him fuel on credit!

I'm not sure this particular restriction would really do anything to slow/stop expansion early in the game.  At one point I had the second largest fleet in the game, and I have never had, nor even been close to, a negative cash balance (though I did have a very negative value).  Nor was I leasing every pile of junk I could get my hands on, I only leased two types of used a/c.  They just happened to be smaller a/c.

ICEcoldair881

  • Former member
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2010, 06:48:12 AM »
If disturbing Her Majesty was the only major issue, why not land on 09R and take off from 27R?  I am not an airline pilot so I don't know if that would be against the rules due to planes taking off in the same direction as approach.   But, if I was in control, I'd just have all flights from 27R immediately change course to 000 after gear up.

EDIT:  NOT A RIP ON LONDON... but why did they opt for building so many airports with just a couple of runways???  Atlanta and JFK both have 4.  Heck even Cleveland (KCLE) has 4.

answer 1: the reason why they don't land/take off on the runways you said, is simple: noise. If you TO from 27R, your jetblast and all that noise would go directly to Her Majesty, and the reverser noise on landing would do the same. the reason why they don't change heading right away is because they can't turn that fast and the way you described. If you did that they would fly right over the terminal, and possibly over other noise-restricted areas. ;)

answer 2: the reason why is exactly what NorgeFly said: environmentalists. (i love how we have "mental" in there.....makes them sound stupid ;D) people are too close to LHR, LGW, STN, LTN and LCY to fit a third runway in there......and also people don't want to move from their "ideal" location right beside the busiest airport in the UK.......especially right beside one of only 2 runways..... ::) stupid people. if they complain about delays, cancellations and whatnot but "don't want to move out of the way for a third runway" because they want to stay there instead of go through the trouble of moving, is beyond me. It's kind of stupid of them really; you don't want to move away from your small house adjacent to the busiest airport in the UK and right beside one of only TWO runways servicing it, and you complain about the noise too because there is "too much traffic in the air", yet you complain to the government about the fact that the delays at THE BUSIEST AIRPORT IN THE UK are too excessive because the TWO RUNWAYS are getting far too clogged and noise-restricted, and yet when you want to go somewhere, your flight is delayed and you get extremely mad. All of that, because you don't want to move away from the busiest airport in the UK so that your frustration towards delays and cancellations can be eased. Seriously, JUST BLOODY MOVE AND STOP WHINING!!!!!!!! ::)

huh....that was long and confusing :P

(btw, no offense is meant towards the UK, LHR (and LGW), Her Majesty's Government or any residents of the UK in the general London area :))

jumbo Mouse

  • Former member
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2010, 06:55:58 AM »
yes

If i could move i would, I assure you. I was the first ariline at LHR and would love to move after the rediculous slot grab by Atlantic Express!!!

But game rules unfortunately dictate you cannot Move after 3 months at a base, and all was well till Junklantic Express appeared, flying every model under the sun...

thanx for the advice to MOVE, let me know how then!!!

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2010, 10:35:51 AM »
yes

If i could move i would, I assure you. I was the first ariline at LHR and would love to move after the rediculous slot grab by Atlantic Express!!!

But game rules unfortunately dictate you cannot Move after 3 months at a base, and all was well till Junklantic Express appeared, flying every model under the sun...

thanx for the advice to MOVE, let me know how then!!!

jumbo, if you were replying to ICEcold's post right above yours, I think you might want to read it again.  He wasn't suggesting you move, he was commenting on the hypocrisy of certain London residents who complain about flight delays, and also object to expanding airports.  (One of my favorite categories of idiots  ;D , people who move next to something large and then object to it being in their backyard.  The university I attended gets sued by the neighbors every time they want to build something, even though the university was there probably decades before any of the houses.)

As for Atlantic Express, if I understand you correctly you object to:
1. the fact that he expanded faster than you because he ignored fleet commonality

The game already has a mechanism to deal with this issue.  The financial hit from having that many fleet groups has to be crushing him.  Ignoring fleet commonality like he did has probably insured that his airline's life will be V shaped.  A quick rise followed by a quick fall.  Just calm down and wait for it to happen.

2. and that he uses so many slots because he flies shorter routes than you feel people should fly from Heathrow.

He doesn't appear to be flooding routes excessively beyond demand since he's got market share % roughly equal to slot usage %.  If there's demand there, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to fly the route.  Just because you think those routes are a poor use of a Heathrow slot is not enough reason to have the game keep him from operating them and serving that demand. 

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2010, 12:45:50 PM »
rediculous slot grab by Atlantic Express
..
Junklantic Express

I have investigated the airline status and he is NOT "grabbing" slots in a way that administration would take actions. True, he is using rather every piece of decent equipment he can get but he is routing them normally to proper destinations and not overflooding the routes. The poor management on aircraft types will probably hurt sooner or later.

But once more I'd like to remind that the tone of your messages is not very proper for this forum. Insulting other members at the forum is not allowed.


Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2010, 03:23:31 PM »
I only wish that it were in the British constitution the right of eminent domain.  

In the USA, if the government deems that you are on land that would best be used or suited for public needs (I.E. an Airport), they can take it from you and build.  They are required to pay you ~110% of fair market value (or more) for your home.  That's how KCLE's largest runway was built.  Everyone fought it tooth and nail but the homeowners eventually took their money and left.  As if living on top of a runway was a good idea.

How did these people live prior to stage 3 silencing?  How did their air smell back before turbofans??  Any Convair flying by would have polluted the sky.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 03:26:41 PM by swiftus27 »

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2010, 05:27:00 PM »
The main difference I guess with the UK is that it's a lot more crowded and has much less space to build things.

The UK is 94,060 sq mi with around 62 million people living there.
Ohio is 44,825 sq mi with around 11.5 million people living there.
Greater London is 672 sq mi with around 7.5 million people living there

If the density in Ohio was the same as London, around 500 million people would live there.

If you include the already urbanised land, areas of water and other unsuitable topography then what's left is either protected or requires copious amounts of planning permission.  This is the main reason why airports cannot expand.

My nearest airport Manchester was granted a second runway after a huge public enquiry and protestors even camping out and digging tunnels to prevent construction work - http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/travel/runway2_history.shtml.  It took some 10 years from inception to opening.

London Gatwick actually has an agreement to not build a second runway until at least 2019 and I think Stansted has something similar.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2010, 05:36:17 PM »
I never thought that the UK was just over double in size compared to Ohio.  That's kind of scary.  You can drive from end to end in 8 hours?   

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2010, 05:44:03 PM »
Erm, no!  :)  The road network is probably a bit busier with all the people :)

EDIT:  Theoretically I guess you could, but traffic would hold you back.  Land's End to John O'Groats - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land's_End_to_John_o'_Groats is widely regarded as the tip-tail length of the UK mainland.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2010, 05:56:28 PM »
Sure sure... It is just strange to me to envision that GBR is that small (not an insult to the nation).   

874 miles is so small in comparison to Van Buren, Maine to San Diego, CA (3276 miles).

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Unrealistic...slots and airlines...more regulation required.
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2010, 06:06:33 PM »
I think we've been kicking above our weight for a while.  Culturally, economically and historically I think our 'size' has become a bit distorted, but I'd like to think as a proud Brit, it was somewhat just :)

3000 miles from me sat here is Dubai or Toronto!

 

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.