I thought the frequency had been tweaked?

[Hillians]

How about the introduction of an airport tax duty on a per plane basis (not per passenger) for every landing made at an airport.
Tax duty would have to vary according to the size of the plane but larger planes could have a cheaper tax per passenger.
Taxes could also vary according to airport so larger airports command a higher tax, this could deter everyone from starting to fly to LHR as it would penalise them in the beginning.

This would also deter people from using the "wrong/small" aircrafts on high demand routes as they would have to pay more airport tax.
it would make people think twice about loading routes with small aircrafts as the tax duty would have an impact on their profits.

In my opinion I believe this would be the best way to tackle the frequency issue as people would have to make the correct aircraft choice for each route.

look forward to people's thoughts on this..
apologies if someone already suggested this in another thread...


Fred

[Sami]

Since we are basing on reality, there will not be any made up charges or such.

And airports already charge for each landing based on MTOW. Same for navigation fees, and partly for handling too (plane size..).

And each pax has a fixed fee based on airport size.

[Dave4468]

How about the introduction of an airport tax duty on a per plane basis (not per passenger) for every landing made at an airport.
Tax duty would have to vary according to the size of the plane but larger planes could have a cheaper tax per passenger.
Taxes could also vary according to airport so larger airports command a higher tax, this could deter everyone from starting to fly to LHR as it would penalise them in the beginning.

This would also deter people from using the "wrong/small" aircrafts on high demand routes as they would have to pay more airport tax.
it would make people think twice about loading routes with small aircrafts as the tax duty would have an impact on their profits.

In my opinion I believe this would be the best way to tackle the frequency issue as people would have to make the correct aircraft choice for each route.

look forward to people's thoughts on this..
apologies if someone already suggested this in another thread...


Fred

Permit me to comment.

Still fixing something that doesn't need fixing and missing the main issue. Adding airport costs is just going to cause more problems. What needs to be deterred is not flying to LHR, JFK or CDG, it's flying routes that in real life are flown by B737, B757 or A320s are being flown by large numbers of ATRs and Dash 8s because frequency always wins. BA fly from Heathrow to Scotland in A320s, not ATRs as it always seems to be in AWS. Surely heavier aircraft should have to pay more?

This will again kill totally legit airlines in Europe especially where a A320 sized plane can be flying 6 times a day perfectly realistically with ridiculously high costs for doing so. And you don't want to deter people flying to LHR, I know from experience that getting the flights to Heathrow can make or break an airline, thats from an airline based in Jo'burg.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Since we are basing on reality, there will not be any made up charges or such.

And airports already charge for each landing based on MTOW. Same for navigation fees, and partly for handling too (plane size..).

And each pax has a fixed fee based on airport size.

I'm not getting the point here... are we being charged properly for these? or are you saying that these variables are not fully accurate?

[Sami]

are we being charged properly for these

Yes.

[Kadachiman]

There could be a much simpler answer than a player trying to capture frequency....ATR's are affordable to new or smaller players...I would buy an A380 but the bank wont lend me the money...too high risk apparently.

So lets price the small planes out of the game and then even more people will have to become F5 clones to get the 'correct aircraft'.
BTW - what actually is the correct aircraft for this game? I would assume that if the answer is so simple then we would all be flying them...even though we may have to wait until 2 years from the end of the game to score one :-)

As a newbie I am still to work out many aspects of this game...but to date the 'big planes' send me broke and the small planes give me the opportunity to play the game and learn.

[samomuransky]

I'm one of those who fly ATRs with high frequency. It's not because I want to hodge slots (there are PLENTY of them in my base), but simply because it's way how to survive at smaller airports, plus it's standard in RW that by offering more flights you get more passengers. I can't see why this should be wrong.

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Yes, I agree with Samo, I usually fly smaller aircraft with frequency, this is my first time using long haul and I much prefer making a decent regional airline.  Frequency IS used IRL and it should be used in AWS.

[Dave4468]

Yes, I agree with Samo, I usually fly smaller aircraft with frequency, this is my first time using long haul and I much prefer making a decent regional airline.  Frequency IS used IRL and it should be used in AWS.

Yes, it should to a point. And in the right places, but not to its current extent. Pax should prefer faster and quieter jets over slower and louder props by a certain point. I like to base in BRS, I will normally use ATRs on most short domestic routes but on higher demand routes such as to Scotland, Paris and the like I like to use small Airbuses.

Think back to our competition between LHR and GLA (I think it was) in DotM. When I was using B727s and B737s against your BAC-1-11s we were as equal as possible (ignoring your advantage from CI and RI) but as soon as you started to put on a large amount of props I was decimated on that route. That shouldn't happen.

As I've said many times using small aircraft is not the issue, its letting airlines use ATRs and Dash8s where IRL airlines are using B737/757 or A32x's and get away with it and beating an opponent using the Boeings & Airbuses because frequency wins. I wouldn't mind losing market share where I was flying A320s again someone using E-195s AND frequency, it's believable (fast jet and frequency), losing it to someone using ATRs is not (frequency over all). 

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Yes, it should to a point. And in the right places, but not to its current extent. Pax should prefer faster and quieter jets over slower and louder props by a certain point. I like to base in BRS, I will normally use ATRs on most short domestic routes but on higher demand routes such as to Scotland, Paris and the like I like to use small Airbuses.

Think back to our competition between LHR and GLA (I think it was) in DotM. When I was using B727s and B737s against your BAC-1-11s we were as equal as possible (ignoring your advantage from CI and RI) but as soon as you started to put on a large amount of props I was decimated on that route. That shouldn't happen.

As I've said many times using small aircraft is not the issue, its letting airlines use ATRs and Dash8s where IRL airlines are using B737/757 or A32x's and get away with it and beating an opponent using the Boeings & Airbuses because frequency wins. I wouldn't mind losing market share where I was flying A320s again someone using E-195s AND frequency, it's believable (fast jet and frequency), losing it to someone using ATRs is not (frequency over all).  

Yes perhaps it is over the top that frequency wins in every scenario, however I disagree with pax preferring faster and quieter jets to louder props.  First of all it does depend on the type of prop, for example, the Dash 8-Q400 engines are noise certified to chapter 4, the Q in Q400 stands for quiet.  In all fairness having flown on the Q400 and MANY other commercial aircraft (mostly jets) I can say that the Q400 is a TINY bit louder than them, and I mean TINY.  And on a route less than 500NM the speed difference is not factor.  So in reference to our battle of Glasgow and Heathrow passengers would choose to fly on the turbo prop as they could choose when and the prices (should) were lower.

Because of fuel consumption the Q400 ticket prices should be lower than if someone was flying on a Embraer 195 or similar.  So you have a passenger deciding between two airlines flying from A-B that is 400 NM apart.  Airline 1 is using a Dash 8-Q400 flying 5 times a day and the ticket price is 10% cheaper than Airline 2 that is using an airbus 319-100 and only flying 3 times a day.  I know which one I would pick.  

The same goes for the ATRs, I don't know what the noise levels are like but I believe they are Chapter 4 on noise as well.  Fly Be are ordering Q400s like no tomorrow.  Manchester Airport is RIDDLED with them, they are probably the most common aircraft at EGCC.  

[NorgeFly]

Fly Be are ordering Q400s like no tomorrow.  Manchester Airport is RIDDLED with them, they are probably the most common aircraft at EGCC.  

Not technically correct... Flybe have very few Q400's on order and in fact will be removing some from the fleet in the coming months/years as they replace them with new E-jets.

The Q400 is great for domestic routes, but it is not popular on the slightly longer international routes (CDG, FRA, DUS etc).

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Not technically correct... Flybe have very few Q400's on order and in fact will be removing some from the fleet in the coming months/years as they replace them with new E-jets.

The Q400 is great for domestic routes, but it is not popular on the slightly longer international routes (CDG, FRA, DUS etc).

Sorry ordered was the wrong word, using would be more correct, as their fleet of Q400s is 57 with 3 remaining from their last order of 15.

[NorgeFly]

Sorry ordered was the wrong word, using would be more correct, as their fleet of Q400s is 57 with 3 remaining from their last order of 15.

You're right though, they are everywhere... it doesn't matter where you go in the UK you're almost certain to bump into one of their Q400s! Chances are though over the next 5 years they will gradually get less and less and be replaced by shiny new E175s.

Anyway, kinda off topic now.

[ukatlantic]

Your absolutely right about bumping into their Q400's they are everywhee but were mainly purchased for route outof Exeter, Southampton and Guernsey and maybe a few more airportsto boot, although they are removing some Q400s from the GCI-LGW route to replace it with their smaller e-jets.

[samomuransky]

Pax should prefer faster and quieter jets over slower and louder props by a certain point. I like to base in BRS, I will normally use ATRs on most short domestic routes but on higher demand routes such as to Scotland, Paris and the like I like to use small Airbuses.

Why would someone prefer Airbus flying once a day over my ATR flying every two hours on one-hour long route from FLL to NAS?

By the way - in RL I prefer always smaller aircrafts. You always get window or aisle seat and you travel with less people what somewhat helps atmosphere

[diskoerekto]

I think the modeling and abstraction level is correct. What is incorrect is that the people play this game and real life company CEOs are different people and do this job for different reasons.

The game world starts at some certain date (let's say 1990 for just argument's sake). At that moment there are NO airline companies in a world with quite a lot demand to fulfill. Suddenly, hundreds of airline companies are summoned and they start with the SAME amount of money and luck.

Moreover, there are never enough number of airline companies like real life. To add insult to injury, people here are playing a game and not trying to make real life money so decisions are far far more rash or irrational than real life. For example just for kicks and laughs I can start a company that only operates VSTOL aircraft out of LHR. What is more interesting is, I can really be successful with this idiotic idea just because there is no BA or other company to crush me like a bug. Every player can dare to do crazy stuff, and some of the crazy ideas which nobody would dare to implement in real life might turn out to be good ideas. And as I said, quite a few bad ideas would still be successful because the opponents are just people playing a game. What is even weirder is that, you cannot see a huge airline company to go bankrupt just because the CEO had too much to do in real life. I recently closed my company in DOTM2 which was printing money like a bank, flew to every destination from 50 nm to 7000 nm from Zurich even if there is 30 pax daily demand because I had real life issues and did not have enough time to take care of the company. You would not see swissair close the company just because the CEO was too busy otherwise.

I can say a few more paragraphs about the variations that exist because of this being a game people play with certain rules and the difference of this (very core difference) from real life business but I do not want to get boring. So I will give an example.

Think of a game world that starts in early 1900s, or at least just after WWII (~1945). Let's say this is not advertised anywhere and it is forbidden to talk about this in the internet so nobody starts playing on the first game day. And let's say the pax in this game have contacts in real life so that when there is unmet demand somewhere they would start complaining to people and eventually someone with money (game credits for this purpose) hears about this and starts a company there. Like this, slowly, imagine that around 1000 players start playing the game but nobody has real life issues and stuff so every player treats this game very seriously and devotes a lot of time.

Under those conditions, even though nobody is making real money out of it, so even though people still try crazy (let's say courageous) ideas, when it is 2011 in game time there would be dynamics quite close today's real life. Of course a lot of stuff will still be different because of the following reasons:

1- This is a system which is "sensitive to initial conditions" in chaos theory lingo which means there are butterfly effects that changes the outcome.
2- This is a game so there are abstractions and lack of information and formulations which do not exactly match the real life because you cannot simulate the whole universe with 100% precision.
3- People who are playing this "know the future". I mean, playing in 1950s I know for sure that someday props will rule over piston powered aircraft and jets will rule over props and fuel prices will go up and European Union will get formed so I can base my planes in other countries and Soviet Union will get dissolved etc etc etc. People in real life are never sure about what is going to happen in the future.

There may be more reasons added to those but even though those exist, if there is an imaginary game world like I suggested above, the planes used in 2011 and the frequency and stuff will closely resemble what happens in real life today. Since it is practically impossible to create such a game world (just motivating ~1000 players to play the game seriously makes it impossible enough), we have to assume this is a game and play accordingly.

What I do is this: I know this is a game and for various reasons (some listed in my post) it is not possible for people to behave like this is real life. So I take this as a game that is slightly different than real world and play by its rules. If I do some calculations and find out somehow using 707s in year 2010 on routes over 10.000 nm make a lot of money, I would not care that makes no sense in real life and I'd go for it.

So maybe except for wanting some stuff fine tuned (which I also think probably is needed), wanting restrictions to be put so that everybody has to play just like real life airline companies do limits the game and takes out a lot of fun. Games with certain recipes to win so that whoever applies that recipe better becomes more successful always become boring very quickly. Games where every tactic has its counter and no certain ways to be successful are always fun. Think about the first serious MP RTS games. Westwood had the market first with C&C and Red Alert, but Starcraft just beat the hell out of them because there were many ways to beat your opponent and every way to do so had its counter-tactic whereas in other games there were always one or few "recipes" to win and who did those best always won.

This is my 2 cents

My 2 cents.

[schro]

Why would someone prefer Airbus flying once a day over my ATR flying every two hours on one-hour long route from FLL to NAS?

If you're a frequent flier that gets free upgrades to F, there is a very strong motivation to take the A319 as the ATR won't have a big recliner and free booze...

[slither360]

I think the modeling and abstraction level is correct. What is incorrect is that the people play this game and real life company CEOs are different people and do this job for different reasons.

The game world starts at some certain date (let's say 1990 for just argument's sake). At that moment there are NO airline companies in a world with quite a lot demand to fulfill. Suddenly, hundreds of airline companies are summoned and they start with the SAME amount of money and luck.

Moreover, there are never enough number of airline companies like real life. To add insult to injury, people here are playing a game and not trying to make real life money so decisions are far far more rash or irrational than real life. For example just for kicks and laughs I can start a company that only operates VSTOL aircraft out of LHR. What is more interesting is, I can really be successful with this idiotic idea just because there is no BA or other company to crush me like a bug. Every player can dare to do crazy stuff, and some of the crazy ideas which nobody would dare to implement in real life might turn out to be good ideas. And as I said, quite a few bad ideas would still be successful because the opponents are just people playing a game. What is even weirder is that, you cannot see a huge airline company to go bankrupt just because the CEO had too much to do in real life. I recently closed my company in DOTM2 which was printing money like a bank, flew to every destination from 50 nm to 7000 nm from Zurich even if there is 30 pax daily demand because I had real life issues and did not have enough time to take care of the company. You would not see swissair close the company just because the CEO was too busy otherwise.

I can say a few more paragraphs about the variations that exist because of this being a game people play with certain rules and the difference of this (very core difference) from real life business but I do not want to get boring. So I will give an example.

Think of a game world that starts in early 1900s, or at least just after WWII (~1945). Let's say this is not advertised anywhere and it is forbidden to talk about this in the internet so nobody starts playing on the first game day. And let's say the pax in this game have contacts in real life so that when there is unmet demand somewhere they would start complaining to people and eventually someone with money (game credits for this purpose) hears about this and starts a company there. Like this, slowly, imagine that around 1000 players start playing the game but nobody has real life issues and stuff so every player treats this game very seriously and devotes a lot of time.

Under those conditions, even though nobody is making real money out of it, so even though people still try crazy (let's say courageous) ideas, when it is 2011 in game time there would be dynamics quite close today's real life. Of course a lot of stuff will still be different because of the following reasons:

1- This is a system which is "sensitive to initial conditions" in chaos theory lingo which means there are butterfly effects that changes the outcome.
2- This is a game so there are abstractions and lack of information and formulations which do not exactly match the real life because you cannot simulate the whole universe with 100% precision.
3- People who are playing this "know the future". I mean, playing in 1950s I know for sure that someday props will rule over piston powered aircraft and jets will rule over props and fuel prices will go up and European Union will get formed so I can base my planes in other countries and Soviet Union will get dissolved etc etc etc. People in real life are never sure about what is going to happen in the future.

There may be more reasons added to those but even though those exist, if there is an imaginary game world like I suggested above, the planes used in 2011 and the frequency and stuff will closely resemble what happens in real life today. Since it is practically impossible to create such a game world (just motivating ~1000 players to play the game seriously makes it impossible enough), we have to assume this is a game and play accordingly.

What I do is this: I know this is a game and for various reasons (some listed in my post) it is not possible for people to behave like this is real life. So I take this as a game that is slightly different than real world and play by its rules. If I do some calculations and find out somehow using 707s in year 2010 on routes over 10.000 nm make a lot of money, I would not care that makes no sense in real life and I'd go for it.

So maybe except for wanting some stuff fine tuned (which I also think probably is needed), wanting restrictions to be put so that everybody has to play just like real life airline companies do limits the game and takes out a lot of fun. Games with certain recipes to win so that whoever applies that recipe better becomes more successful always become boring very quickly. Games where every tactic has its counter and no certain ways to be successful are always fun. Think about the first serious MP RTS games. Westwood had the market first with C&C and Red Alert, but Starcraft just beat the hell out of them because there were many ways to beat your opponent and every way to do so had its counter-tactic whereas in other games there were always one or few "recipes" to win and who did those best always won.

This is my 2 cents

My 2 cents.

This was well written Emrah. I agree with all of it I think 

[samomuransky]

If you're a frequent flier that gets free upgrades to F, there is a very strong motivation to take the A319 as the ATR won't have a big recliner and free booze...

There are no free upgrades at most European airlines, except op-up.

[ukatlantic]

There are no free upgrades at most European airlines, except op-up.

If you are a frequent flyer and the airline has a loyalty scheme then you are more likely to get upgraded free if the aircraft is oversubscribed in your class and they have available space upfront.  I have been upgraded for free on a Long Haul flights before.