[ok] Airport size classes

[Sami]

Back to this topic, as already mentioned the system will be changed and will be as follows (to replace the current fixed 1-5 size classes for airports):

* Infrastructure size class, levels 1-10. Measurement of available facilities like runways and terminals.

* Traffic size class, levels 1-10. Measurement of airport "busyness", how much traffic (pax) there is yearly.


So basically LHR would eventually be 10/10, while some ex-military airport with long runways serving only some cargo or charter flights would have high infra level but low traffic level 8/2 for example.


Calculation:

* All airports start at infra level 1-5, corresponding to what has been assigned today as a size class value (or alternatively this can be counted from number/length of runways etc but it's not that good as it does not take into account terminal capacity which the pax count does see). Infra class level cannot go lower but it can go higher (see below).

* Traffic level is determined on which percentile of world airports this airport goes (from airports that have >0 pax/cargo transported). The highest 10% of pax transported per year will be at traffic class 10, next 10% at class 9 and so on. For the first game year this is calculated from the preset database values (real life stats) and from year 1 onwards the values are calculated according to actual passengers transported to each airport by players' airlines.

* Traffic class can change by 1 step per year on both values either direction. 1 minimum, 10 maximum.

* Cost of airport operations (landing fee, handling fee, pax fee) will be determined by a combination of these two figures (infra+traffic = cost factor), similar to today's 1-5 levels.


How infra level can get higher?

* For this I'd plan a new feature called "airport expansions". This is a reply to the slot situation at some airports and also especially to make the airports even more dynamic.

* If the airport is getting crowded ( 1) running out of slots, or 2) getting much more passengers than what the capacity (traffic class) is) then the airport will start to plan an expansion. Depending on game year (and possibly world area?) the expansion plans will take X years to complete (let's say 5 years). When the expansion is completed new slots will be allocated (new runway) and the infra level will go up one step.

* There would be a limit on when the airport can expand again after previous expansion (let's say 5-10 years after previous has been completed they can think of new expansion, so the time between two expansions would be 10-15 yrs). But theoretically a tiny regional airport could expand from level 1 to all the way to level 10, meaning that it's capacity would grow from somewhere at 5 slots / hr to 100 slots / hr (just to throw in some random numbers). But this of course takes tens of years.

* This expansion process cannot be funded by players, as runways and such are not funded by airlines. Instead the airport collects the money from you as the airport fees... Higher infra level = higher fees.

* Also idea is here that each game starts in the 1950s so there is plenty of time for expansions. If we're doing short games that start in year 2000 for example having infra class 5 wouldn't be a problem as it's only a cost calculation value, the amount of basic slots would be calculated as per current system still - or alternatively the starting infra size classes can be a factor of the initial game year, so start up in 2010 LHR is already 10/10 airport. But for games starting early and going on for a long time the initial airport capacity for some airports (for example ATL already at 40 slots in JA) would be smaller.



And to add, these figures would not really affect the pax calculation so far at the first point of implementation and with present demand systems, just to the ops costs etc and the possiblity to get more capacity, and especially a feature to enable all sorts of dynamism in the future .


..also something I forgot probably. But please discuss.


(note so self, see also duplicate thread: http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,16679.0.html )

[Sami]

Really, no comments on the airport upgrades?

[Sanabas]

I missed it. Not a great deal to say, it sounds very good. 

But theoretically a tiny regional airport could expand from level 1 to all the way to level 10, meaning that it's capacity would grow from somewhere at 5 slots / hr to 100 slots / hr (just to throw in some random numbers). But this of course takes tens of years.

I'm curious about this bit, as it seems that to trigger an expansion to level 10, it'd need to also have a traffic level of 10? Does that mean that as traffic level increases, demand may also increase? Or is it just to have that sort of ability in place for the future, when things like cargo/city-based demand appear?

[dmoose42]

So this expansion model completely replaces the existing slot drop system?  How will slots be allocated after expansion is complete?  Will it be first come first serve still?  Or will there be some pro-rata share among airlines?

I do think this type of flexibility is great when considering the future - i.e., city based demand - and other game play elements that will make for a much more dynamic game world.

[Sami]

Um, slot system is not related to this. But when expansion is complete the airport capacity would increase from 50 to 70 slots (examples) right away, or in bits over a year for example. If slot allocation is changed, it will be another story then but not related to this one.

But this is one step towards the 100% dynamic demand and world.

[dmoose42]

ok - just didn't know if you were planning on changing the slot allocation system as well...next time!

[schro]

Um, slot system is not related to this. But when expansion is complete the airport capacity would increase from 50 to 70 slots (examples) right away, or in bits over a year for example. If slot allocation is changed, it will be another story then but not related to this one.

But this is one step towards the 100% dynamic demand and world.

So, would it become obvious to players that the expansion is happening and to not expect any more slots until the expansion is complete (a la Aerobiz Supersonic)?

[ezzeqiel]

But theoretically a tiny regional airport could expand from level 1 to all the way to level 10, meaning that it's capacity would grow from somewhere at 5 slots / hr to 100 slots / hr (just to throw in some random numbers). But this of course takes tens of years.

Nice

(let's say 5-10 years after previous has been completed they can think of new expansion, so the time between two expansions would be 10-15 yrs)

I do not like this... with the current slot allocation system , that means that If I lost the "F5" war, I'd have to wait 15-20 years in order to give the "f5" war another try... Even if it's once every 5 years... (25RL days seems a lot)

IF, you change the slot allocation system, it would be better, but I wouldn't set a hard cap between expansions anyway... when an airport expands, they usually have several "stages" or "phases" to make in the next 5-10-20 years... so in just one plan, you have 2-3 expansions over the next 10 probably 20 years...

But for games starting early and going on for a long time the initial airport capacity for some airports (for example ATL already at 40 slots in JA) would be smaller.

I disagree on this feature until city based demand is done because you'll have two incompatible systems at the same time... you'll have RL current data pax demand, with fictional, 1950 airport capacity... this will make airports with big demand, more inaccesible than before, since they'll have much more demand than the rest of the airports, but with the same slots...

Once city based demand, airports closer to bigger populations can have a bigger initial capacity, with, as you sayed, few for example military airport in the middle of nowhere with huge infra capacity waiting to be made into a world class HUB...




Finally, I'd make much more smaller infra levels... for example, 0.5 slots every 1 infra level, with multiple projects at the same time...

That way you'll have a more smoothly slot creation rate
example at a given time for a given airport (of course viewable by the airlines):
+construction of 3rd runway: 50 infra levels to be finished by 2012
+construction of 6th terminal: 30 infra levels to be finished by 2015
+instalation of CAT III ILS on runway 1: 8 infra levels to be finished by 2011
+instalation of ground radar: 20 infra levels to be finished by 2018

That way, you'll know that you'll have 4 slots available on 2011, 25 slots by 2012, 15 by 2015 and 10 by 2018...


You can make a differentiation on the events acording to date:

For example, in 1950/60 we can have events like "radar instalation". "gates bridges instalation", "x rays screenning instalation", and every single upgrade that makes aiports able to handle more passengers...

In 1970/80 you can have "computarized check in counters", "baggage carrousels", etc...

In 2000, you can have "automatized baggage handling systems" etc etc... (you get the point)

[LemonButt]

I like the idea, in theory, but I don't think airports should have any sort of advantages over each other right out of the gate, especially with city-based demand implemented.  Chicago Midway has the same passenger base as Chicago O'Hare, for example.  What I mean is that every airport should start at the same level--let's say level 4.  Then if slots are used and justifies expansion, go to level 5, 6, etc.  If slots aren't used, then the airport starts shutting down terminals/runways/etc and "decays" to a level 3, 2, or 1.  An example of this would be CVG--Delta's former #2 hub.  Comair (owned by Delta, largest regional airline in the US) had 80 gates with an entire concourse dedicated to them.  Comair is now shutdown and out of business.  Concourse C is now shutdown as is other parts of CVG due to lack of demand.  The same goes with STL--a former TWA hub that is no longer a hub for anyone.  Of course the decay would take time.  If an airline has a huge base at ATL and goes BK and frees up 50% of the slots, if there isn't a certain number of those slots being used up and filling the vacuum within, lets say 2 years, the airport scales back it's capacity.

The bottom line is growth should go both ways in a "use it or lose it" type format.  I also think the slot growth should be over the course of 2-4 game years versus 5-10 as most airports have a master plan for expansion and expanding shouldn't take 10 years.  Maybe the level divided by 2 is the time period--going to level 6 takes 3 years, level 7 takes 3.5 years...level 10 takes 5 years.  Also, slot growth should be steady versus waking up one day with a huge pool of slots.  The reason being that when you open a new runway or terminal at an airport, growth doesn't happen overnight.  New aircraft have to be bought, terminals staffed, air traffic controllers trained, etc.  It's a process.  Maybe 30% of the slots get dumped into the pool immediately and the other 70% are steady growth.

[LemonButt]

I am in DOTM at the moment.  The only reason airlines at airports like Heathrow are absolutely murdering it and have billions in CV already is because it is literally impossible to compete with them since there are zero slots available at Heathrow, leaving them with a monopoly on most of their routes.  Get rid of the arbitrary restrictions and let capacity expand so these mega-airlines can get a run for their money.

[Infinity]

I find the entire feature obsolete with city based demand (especially regarding the London Situation) and would vote against it altogether, but since it's already decided on i will at least vote against implementing it in running game worlds.

[LemonButt]

I find the entire feature obsolete with city based demand (especially regarding the London Situation) and would vote against it altogether, but since it's already decided on i will at least vote against implementing it in running game worlds.

How is it obsolete?  City-based demand has nothing to do with airport capacity.  ATL is only as big as it is because of the airlines (Delta) IRL that have forced the airport to expand, not due to ATL's population.  ATL had 95 million pax last year and only has a population of ~5 million.  Major cities like Louisville, St Louis, Indianapolis, and New Orleans will end up with no slots while ATL has what, 80+?  You're going to end up with smaller airports being jam packed and large airports being largely empty.

[Infinity]

  ATL is only as big as it is because of the airlines (Delta) IRL that have forced the airport to expand, not due to ATL's population.  ATL had 95 million pax last year and only has a population of ~5 million. 

ATL is only big because of connecting traffic, in itself it does not create more O/D-traffic than a city like Charlotte or Minneapolis. So, with connecting traffic - that feature is necessary, I would agree. But without, no. Completely against it.
As for the London Problem, this would be alleviated with city based demand. It would encourage larger airlines to base in other airports than Heathrow if they were able to reach the same demand, and they would use larger aircraft. Currently, Stansted and Luton are completely filled up with small aircraft, that would shift with city based demand.

Again, I am completely against prematurely adding a feature that is depending on another yet-to-come feature. Add them together or in a newly starting game world, but not in a running one. This completely overthrows peoples basing choices, it's just not right.

Connecting traffic and airport expandability? Yes please.
Airport expandability without connecting traffic? No thanks.

[Sami]

I find the entire feature obsolete with city based demand (especially regarding the London Situation) and would vote against it altogether, but since it's already decided on i will at least vote against implementing it in running game worlds.

Anything but obsolete. With the future possible city demand system you would not be able to create a mega hub like ATL to some existing small airport without this feature. But this is also useful in the current long game worlds to relieve slot problems at some airports, and it is always a good idea in my mind to make these larger changes step by step in small steps, since no matter how carefully tested and coded there will always be issues and needs for improvement. This way it will go smoother...

[Infinity]

Anything but obsolete. With the future possible city demand system you would not be able to create a mega hub like ATL to some existing small airport without this feature.

I revised my statement in the second post. I agree, with connecting traffic and city based demand this does indeed make sense (if those two features are well executed). But on a stand-alone basis, I don't think so at all.
Adding this in the current worlds without aforementioned additional features would only be an incentive to use smaller planes and again punish those who use larger aircraft. There are already too many features doing that. We don't need another one.

and it is always a good idea in my mind to make these larger changes step by step in small steps, since no matter how carefully tested and coded there will always be issues and needs for improvement. This way it will go smoother...

Be that as it may, I simply don't think this feature is a good one without the other additions. Only they make it sensible in my eyes.

[schro]

ATL is only big because of connecting traffic, in itself it does not create more O/D-traffic than a city like Charlotte or Minneapolis.

Its more of a geography thing for ATL. There are NO other airport options within 100 miles of Atlanta, whereas for CLT, you've got AVL, GSO, CAE and GSP.

Last I looked at ATL's O/D numbers, they were surprisingly high for what you'd assume to be a connecting hub (if I'm remembering right, it should be around 60% of total traffic and about 25m domestic passengers per year... CLT is around 8m O/D per year and MSP around 15m)

[LemonButt]

Its more of a geography thing for ATL. There are NO other airport options within 100 miles of Atlanta, whereas for CLT, you've got AVL, GSO, CAE and GSP.

Last I looked at ATL's O/D numbers, they were surprisingly high for what you'd assume to be a connecting hub (if I'm remembering right, it should be around 60% of total traffic and about 25m domestic passengers per year... CLT is around 8m O/D per year and MSP around 15m)

I'd venture to say people in ATL fly more due to the fact it is so easy, so cheap, and you can go nearly anywhere direct.  I live in AVL and drive to CLT or ATL (2 and 3 hours respectively) to catch a plane because the prices are so much higher out of AVL and GSP unless you fly Allegiant.  I flew to Vegas last October on Southwest and instead of driving to GSP and paying $600 with a connection (Southwest), I drove 2 more hours to ATL and paid $350 and got a direct flight on Southwest.  I'm pretty sure there aren't many airports within 100 miles of ATL is because the FAA keeps it that way with all the traffic (chicken and the egg).

St Louis is a perfect spot for a mega-domestic hub IMO.  I'd love to blow up an airport like that to one of the largest in the nation, but it will never happen without being able to expand it to ATL-type levels.  I also have Fargo on my list of places to create a megahub.  Can't wait for connecting pax to be implemented

[LemonButt]

After thinking about this some more, at a minimum you should put the data in the existing game worlds so people can see it.  I'm sure if people think the infrastructure level of an airport or the city-based demand capture area/population of an airport is wrong, they'll let you know and we can get it corrected for the future game worlds

You could also put a notes section on each airport where the game would spit out a "log" file of what it would do to the airport demand based on current conditions without actually implementing it.  I think seeing is believing and we can work the bugs out of it before going full bore in a new gameworld...

[BD]

Anything but obsolete. With the future possible city demand system you would not be able to create a mega hub like ATL to some existing small airport without this feature. But this is also useful in the current long game worlds to relieve slot problems at some airports, and it is always a good idea in my mind to make these larger changes step by step in small steps, since no matter how carefully tested and coded there will always be issues and needs for improvement. This way it will go smoother...

To a noob like me who BK'd a couple times already in current JA, not really an issue, as each BK is like entering a new game, in a way.  For that matter, given the rash of BKs over recent times, seems like all but a few would really object for similar reasons. 

Of course, if I had a monopoly at some very large airport and thought that the remaining "challenge" from that for the long time frame left was "fun", perhaps I'd have a different opinion.   

We are probably all better off with the opportunity to test this out sooner rather than later, considering that the capacity for additional worlds is limited IRL (as I've gathered from other forum topics).

[Infinity]

Of course, if I had a monopoly at some very large airport and thought that the remaining "challenge" from that for the long time frame left was "fun", perhaps I'd have a different opinion.   

Anyone who has a 'monopoly' in a very large airport will not be put by this change. He will just be forced into using smaller planes. The only thing that will happen is that Aircraft like the 777, 747 and A380 will lose the few airports in which they still make a bit of sense.
If I was based in Heathrow and additional slots became available, I would only be forced to split an A380 flight into two A330 flights, nothing more. There is absolutely no gain for 'smaller' players in this new feature. Just an annoyance without connecting traffic.