Changes to rules, slot transfers (to discuss)

[DavidBurnie]

Not sure why your attacking me.  I have no problem with your point of view.  What I have a problem with is people saying you can't do X because its socialism.

What we should be focused on here is what makes airwaysim a better game, not on whether a particular rule coincides with one's chosen economic theory.

I suppose different players would have different views of what would make it a better game. Although I agree with you that calling something socialism/communism just because you don't like it is a stupid thing to do. Having an undergrad education in PoliSci I've come to learn that most people just use those words as a general insult and don't have a sodding clue what they actually mean. Frankly we're simulating one aspect of the aviation industry, and it is the free-market system (which is horribly anachronistic in the Early Days and progressively less so but still odd up until MT). If we were going for total realism your problem wouldn't be slots - it would be restrictions on registering new airlines at most airports. In GW4 I got to Paris first, if this were real life I would be owned and propped up by the French Government, and not only would I be protected from competition from my own base, other airlines would only be allowed the slots I said I didn't want and international routes would require negotiation and concessions.

[mavi]

I suppose different players would have different views of what would make it a better game. Although I agree with you that calling something socialism/communism just because you don't like it is a stupid thing to do. Having an undergrad education in PoliSci I've come to learn that most people just use those words as a general insult and don't have a sodding clue what they actually mean. Frankly we're simulating one aspect of the aviation industry, and it is the free-market system (which is horribly anachronistic in the Early Days and progressively less so but still odd up until MT). If we were going for total realism your problem wouldn't be slots - it would be restrictions on registering new airlines at most airports. In GW4 I got to Paris first, if this were real life I would be owned and propped up by the French Government, and not only would I be protected from competition from my own base, other airlines would only be allowed the slots I said I didn't want and international routes would require negotiation and concessions.

Which is precisely why total realism is should not be sought in designing games.

[schro]

Sami,

Can you confirm that the new limitation only applies to player released slot events and not airport capacity increases? The way I read your statement is that capacity increases will not be under this system unless one happens after a major player release and does not push the total available over 30%.

[LemonButt]

What I have a problem with is people saying you can't do X because its socialism.

Any idea that negatively impacts large airlines, particularly the ones run by the more vocal players here, will inevitably be called socialist/marxist/communist/etc.  See nearly every post I've ever posted in the feature request forum   It's mostly a combination of blind allegiance, ignorance, and fear, so don't read too much into it.

[dmoose42]

That's because half your ideas are crazy Lemonbutt and the other half are brilliant.  The only problem is that everyone disagrees as to which are which.  Except terminals.  They are awesome.  And I attribute this to you (perhaps erroneously).

[Sami]

Can you confirm that the new limitation only applies to player released slot events and not airport capacity increases? The way I read your statement is that capacity increases will not be under this system unless one happens after a major player release and does not push the total available over 30%.

Please read again .. When apt capacity increases this new thing does not change anything. And if capacity increase happens when the limitation is in force, then the limitation is also disabled (since it's just random luck then so let him have it :p). But if capacity increases, and then player bankrupts, the limitation is in force.

[ezzeqiel]

Please read again .. When apt capacity increases this new thing does not change anything. And if capacity increase happens when the limitation is in force, then the limitation is also disabled (since it's just random luck then so let him have it :p). But if capacity increases, and then player bankrupts, the limitation is in force.

I really hate hard caps and unrealistic limitations... It's really disappointing (to me) you chose to go this way... This game has so much potential, however that potential is not used at all...


I think we all agreed on terminals, however that's not even on a development agenda, if that even exists here...

[dmoose42]

Sami,

If you approve, can some of the folks that have been more vocal about terminals draw up a BRD aroudn how they could be incorporated into the game?  To Ezzeqiel's point, this is not something that is actively being worked on, but I think the community could really help accelerate the concept and build it out.  However, we only want to spend time on it, if you support the concept.

The working group could be:
lemonbutt
ezzeqiel
dmoose42

Plus a couple other people who would want to join.

Thoughts?

dmoose42

[LemonButt]

Sami,

If you approve, can some of the folks that have been more vocal about terminals draw up a BRD aroudn how they could be incorporated into the game?  To Ezzeqiel's point, this is not something that is actively being worked on, but I think the community could really help accelerate the concept and build it out.  However, we only want to spend time on it, if you support the concept.

The working group could be:
lemonbutt
ezzeqiel
dmoose42

Plus a couple other people who would want to join.

Thoughts?

dmoose42

Here is the "original" post on terminals for cross reference: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49624.msg277457.html#msg277457

[schro]

Please read again .. When apt capacity increases this new thing does not change anything. And if capacity increase happens when the limitation is in force, then the limitation is also disabled (since it's just random luck then so let him have it :p). But if capacity increases, and then player bankrupts, the limitation is in force.

Got it. That's what I was thinking, I was just making sure I understood it correctly.

I really hate hard caps and unrealistic limitations... It's really disappointing (to me) you chose to go this way... This game has so much potential, however that potential is not used at all...


I think we all agreed on terminals, however that's not even on a development agenda, if that even exists here...

Compared to the limits that were proposed, these really aren't that bad. They do not restrict slot capturing during airport expansion (which was on the table) and only directly target large bankruptcies/base closures. Overall, I think it is a reasonable solution to implement for the time being.

Of course, the one flaw in the calculation is that 24/7 airports will nearly always have 30% of their slots free (i.e. ATL) and thus not be subjected to it, even if all of the useful slots (0500-2355) are mostly taken.

[LemonButt]

Of course, the one flaw in the calculation is that 24/7 airports will nearly always have 30% of their slots free (i.e. ATL) and thus not be subjected to it, even if all of the useful slots (0500-2355) are mostly taken.

It should probably be adjusted to only count slots 500-2300 so that all airports are "equally regulated".

[Sami]

Here is the "original" post on terminals for cross reference:

For talk and ideas on terminals, just pls post them to that thread for future reference..

[dmoose42]

Ok - to be honest, if the terminal idea is just going to get bookmarked on a thread for some time in the future, I'm not going to spend time thinking about it.  When it's ready to be considered, let's bring it up again and have a full fledged discussion on the topic.

Best.

dmoose

[Sami]

It IS one of the thing planned for future, basics thought already but ideas etc always welcome (as usual).....

[BD]

I don't think this has been mentioned, so here goes a modest proposal...

Why not add slots to the amount of slots normally released, with the adders being calculated based on a threshold market share of each airline based there (e.g. those with 50% share or higher ?  Or, alternatively, release a new slot for every one that a dominant airline over a threshold percentage share buys?

Maybe even have it scale such that a higher percentage share causes an increasing number of slots to be released.

This would:
- eliminate slot locking/blocking as a strategy, and the incentive to cheat in the manner identified above (airlines could still conspire to split airport share to the threshold level)
- therefore allows slots for smaller airline at the HQ or incoming airline who has demand to fill (slot locking can still happen when/if the non-dominating airlines buy up the remaining slots - at least until the next planned release).
- allows even large dominant airlines to continue building if they have demand to fill, but they are not stopping others from growing at that airport either.
- works in early and late stages of the game

It seems it could be simple to code (relatively).

I've tried to upload (but cannot) a spreadsheet that you can play with (threshold factors, shares and slot consumption by release) to see how it would work (both alternatives), so included a snippet of it here.  If there is interest, I can find a place to share it.

[Tiberius]

Fly to Gatwick

[dmoose42]

It IS one of the thing planned for future, basics thought already but ideas etc always welcome (as usual).....

I understand that, but cargo and city-based demand are also planned for the "future" so it's unclear if the intention is to do something in the next couple months (after the pricing adjustment work) or whether it is the long-term planning.  I guess I assumed based on your response that development would be longer-term.

[tcrlaf]

Ok. But what about JFK? (Is that 1st cime 1st serve?) Despite having four runways just like ATL, they are crosswind so even though I think it's possible to use two for takeoff and two for landing, the proffessionals think otherwise so just like LHR, only one per takeoff and one per landing at any given time. JFK tends to have longer queues than LHR sometimes aswel. It took 40 minutes for my BA flight to taxi from the gates to the runway. Surely a 40min delay was accounted for because it is a regular occurrence there and Im assuming most flights would be delayed if they didn't factor in taxi time. I can see how slot times may be a bit vague there and less strict.

In Manchester Airport it is first come first serve. It isn't a busy airport. Gatwick, they are way more strict and I have witnessed planes waiting at the runway threshold while 1, 2 or 3 planes come from behind and get airborne before the aircraft that was waiting. And that is a regular sight there. When they takeoff to the west I should say. Not 8R.

Same at LHR. Some planes are very close to the runway but end up staying put for 5 to 15 minutes while a bunch of olanes overtake. I believe in those cases they are either early or late although ATC at LHR do do favours for some airlines.

I was at LGA for a short while, and it was a game to see who could push first, vs. the competition, on some flights. That our ERJ could force a competitors 767 to wait for the alley to clear was kind of a gas.  

I've heard ATC request a bypass for slotting more than once, but that is at the discretion of the captain of the leading aircraft, I believe. I'm sure one of the drivers here can confirm that or not. In the last 15 years or so, many airports have constructed pullouts at the end of the taxiways so that they can push on time, even if the release isn't cleared yet. Remember, at least in the U.S., Push time is departure for the monthly DOT on-time reports, so the incentive is there to go, even if you still haven't got a release. My company flew under several different colors, and I know at one carrier, even if they had to do late bags in the alley, (Dzero means Dzero) the aircraft pushed on time. (Our contract had a performance payments clause in it.)

[tcrlaf]

It's my job to choke the life out of you so that you BK and then I can jack up the fares on my own flights and bank the profit. Why should I give a solitary damn about how easy it is for anyone to compete with me? If that's not your idea of fun why are you playing a business simulation, especially of one simulating one of the most cutthroat industries in the world? Economists may not think a monopoly is good, but as a CEO I'd love a monopoly on my base. I think the problem here is people are more interested in simming a sandbox of the aviation industry than what it really is. So you can't fly to LHR, BFD - out of 2000 or so airlines in the real world, 90 get to fly there.

I'm old enough to remember how the New York Air pilots used to complain constantly about the USAir pilots taxing at dead slow in front of them in several cities, to make them late....

[ezzeqiel]

It IS one of the thing planned for future, basics thought already but ideas etc always welcome (as usual).....

It would be nice to publish a development schedule, with the proposed changes for the following versions of the game.

IE. 1.4: terminals, custom airplane layout.
1.5 custom turn arounds
1.6 improved airport growth.
etc.

Otherwise, it feels the game just develops according to your daily mood.


I have no clue about the economics of running a website like AWS, but It would also be nice to hire some programmers to help, since I've been playing this game for 1y8m now, and city based demand promises are still that, promises...