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: Airport attributes  (Read 1836 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17161
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 3 people who like this post:
Airport attributes
« on: September 02, 2018, 12:48:53 PM »
With City Based Demand the airports act merely as gateways for the passengers, but currently they do not have some of the characteristics that would be meaningful to model the passenger flows in a realistic manner. For example currently the London City airport is allowed to expand to be as large as Heathrow while in real life this is not possible.

So for that reason some more airport attributes are needed. A public crowd-sourcing system will be opening soon where users can input data about airports. This includes real-life data about airport name, curfew and runway length changes over the course of history.

Besides of this a new setup of airport attributes will be collected. In this thread I am asking for suggestions what these could be. The attributes would be simple "yes / no" flags on airport data and they will direct the demand properly. An example of such attribute is "no international traffic" - meaning that only domestic passengers can fly from this airport, due to lack of facilities or due to government rules for example.

Examples / list to be added:

  • No international passenger traffic [only domestic routes are allowed]

  • No domestic passenger traffic

  • No international cargo traffic

  • No domestic cargo traffic

  • Infrastructure cannot expand [stays at the level designated by the system, for example due to lack of land space]

  • Infrastructure cannot grow beyond level X [1-9, meaning that airport has some room to expand but not till the full level 10]

  • No passenger facilities [airport can handle only cargo, pax facilities cannot be built]

  • No cargo facilities

  • Runways cannot be lengthened

  • Can handle Heavy Cargo (maybe?)


What else?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 04:51:53 PM by Sami »

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2018, 01:34:07 PM »
No LH pax traffic. BVA, for example.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17161
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2018, 02:02:01 PM »
Longhaul and shorthaul won't be a thing in the demand distribution.

And is that BVA airport restricted to shorthaul only by some government rule, or is it only because there are no lh airlines flying to it and/or there is no such terminal?

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4523
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2018, 03:01:16 PM »
Difficult to model in a yes/no fashion:

-Limit to length of flights - DCA, LGA perimeter rules, DAL Wright Amendment

Offline Mort

  • Members
  • Posts: 639

The person who likes this post:
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2018, 05:55:07 PM »
Able to handle the A380; quite an important part of a lot of airport's history is building facilities that can handle an A380.

Whether this is best modeled as a specific airport attribute is a further question - should it instead be an 'unlock' at a certain higher infrastructure level? Kind of how it works with allowing large and very large (at levels 3 and 4 if memory serves?)

Would this be a good extension/replacement of the current aircraft size categories - runway length is obviously not the only limiting factor?

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2806
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2018, 06:37:34 PM »
ok, maybe not the intention of the whole thing, as aircraft data needs to be adapted as well maybe:
.) runway mtow
.) altitude (makes a difference if you takeoff in denver or jfk)
.) runway-surface (currently all are set to "asphalt" or "concrete" - even though some airports are gravel etc.)

not sure if a proposal or really a bug:
.) when planning a tech-stop at an airport, the aircraft size apparently isnt an issue... so an airport only accepting large aircraft can refuel VL aircraft.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2018, 05:45:28 AM »
Difficult to model in a yes/no fashion:

-Limit to length of flights - DCA, LGA perimeter rules, DAL Wright Amendment


Also, landing requirement for aircraft. At least, KMDW comes to mind. Early jets would be a no-no for the most part.


- I've always wanted historically accurate runways for airports. That in itself is a massive game changer.


Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2018, 06:53:38 AM »
Great stuff, Sami!

Various points here.

1°) for "no intl flights", when we discussed about the closing of Soviet Union, you said it wasn't possible to close it anymore (cf cargo: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75950.msg447219.html#msg447219) due to the new CBD system. But if you find a new way to restrict it, that's really great (mini-feature request, already asked: during Soviet times, apart from SVO, LED, KBP and TAS were also allowing intl flights -> see https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75099.msg440068.html#msg440068

2°) Opposite to what Dani says, non-asphalt/concrete runways exist in the game (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Airport/UNOO). Having more info can be used to limit the planes used (another reason to use Soviet/Russian birds).
Would need adding a tag on the aircraft's info page (unprepared runways yes/no).

3°) on a more general matter, the new way to expand airports makes possible a late game diverging quite heavily from RL. So the idea to have only pure rock-hard data on the other hand seems a bit strange. While I agree on some limitations from RL (London City is a good one), some might be a little different and even vary from GW to GW. Thus at the beginning of a game you have to carefully look at the various airports in the metropolitan area you're in.
Obviously, there couldn't be such a thing as LGA + EWR + JFK forbiding intl traffic, that would be a nonsense. But one of them could.
My idea beyond that is that in such metropolitans areas there is an organisation, all airports from a said area work as a system, all together, and thus that very system could just be plain different from RL (given the limitations allow it). The only global limitation is that at least one of the airports of the area has one of each trait.
-> I reckon that this might be a bit disorienting for new players, and an heresy for "sim pictures RL" players, so might be an idea for a mini-game to test it first.

4°) Beyond traits given at game start, there is this interesting post: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78252.msg461169.html#msg461169
for pax - yes, companies do not invest by thmeselves.
but usually it their lobby who does - like lufthansa peer in FRA or HON terminal there.

But if i am not mistaken companies invest in maintenance and cargo handling facilities at the airports.
that what we can play around, meaning not always FRA should be cargo hub but any other nearby airport where player will biuld cargo facilities to handle heavy cargo :-[
Basically, by allowing such a thing, ORY (existing already in 1950) could become the main cargo hub of Paris because airlines can invest. Then CDG opens, and gets most intl/LH traffic because airlines weren't able to invest in pax infrastructure in Orly.
Would change from RL but not completely. And the idea to separate pax infra from cargo infra (and with maybe a "general infra" covering both of these) could be a nice way to split the difference.

I reckon I going a bit far from the "yes/no" request, but I think this works a whole and should be taken into account while establishing this "yes/no" part.

Additional possible yes/no:
 - soviet aircraft only (if it is decided to force players in SU to use Soviet planes - only the few intl airports wouldn't have this tag - would require the integration of a Soviet tag in the A/C data)
 - small aircraft allowed, either to follow RL or to avoid this (thanks to the demotivator thread)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 07:42:44 AM by Tha_Ape »

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2018, 07:53:21 AM »
ORY is a special case, as the political goal was to remove all international flights from ORY. Cargo was not thought about. Result, all cargo is in CDG(which is purely coincidental), some domestic traffick is in CDG, and some international traffick is in ORY - despite the political will. No cargo in BVA is indeed a political decision, but no LH in BVA seems coincidental, from what I heard. Ryan air & Wissair(99% of BVA's traffick) do not fly LH.

Going even further(and probably too far given the scope of the game, but I'm still throwing the idea), airports could have a "business" factor, which would be zero in BVA, low in ORY, and strong in CDG. Maximum would be for LCY only.

I do love also the idea to allow only some aircraft on s***ty runways. Would give the A148 another interest.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 08:56:25 AM by gazzz0x2z »

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2806
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2018, 08:08:06 AM »
Going even further(and probably too far given the scope of the game, but I'm still throwing the idea), airports could have a "business" factor, which would be zero in BVA, low in ORY, and strong in CDG. Maximum would be for LCY only.

i dont think that goes too far. it would be great if there would be a distribution of passenger-types. business passengers which prefer short-haul-flights to be in the morning or evening and prefer LCY, and on the other hand tourists that do not care if they are flown on tuesday or saturday, or dont even mind if they land at "london" southend airport.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2018, 08:40:17 AM »
@Gazzz

What I'm saying about ORY/CDG is how in the game it could both follow history when it's important and diverge from reality when it's not (but always staying realistic, though).
-> the strong political decision behind CDG + LH is respected
-> as cargo is not completely planned, it goes where it wants

Offline wilian.souza2

  • Members
  • Posts: 882
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2018, 01:36:07 PM »
I have some suggestions:

 - The distribution of passengers into domestic/intl/longhaul should be an attribute of the city, not of the airport. This way, all airports in the city will have the potential to have international flights when needed. Of course the infrastructure of the airport will limit attraction of international demand (for example, minimum level 2 for internarional and 4 for longhaul);

- This way, all the cities would have some international (short or longhaul) demand to anywhere in the world. This demand would be grabbed by larger airports nearby and this would help emulate the effects of connecting flights.

- Airport runways shouldn't be changed; the fun of this game is to simulate real world's airline's operations in airports from the real world. The ability to change runway length would descharacterize this aspect and make the game less interesting because of this disconnection with the real world. Besides, finding out which of the hundreds of the airports in AWS could have their runways extended would be an overkill. It's not worth it.

- Curfew times should be dependent on infrastructure level of the airporr, except in special cases (for example, large airports in the urban area of large cities and other famous airports with curfew times known). Airports with infrastructure up to 2 would only allow flights during the day (8-17h), infrastructure 3 would operate between 6-20h and from 4 on would be 24h

- Route image should be calculated with respect to city connections, not airport connections. It won't make sense in CBD to connect some city to London via Heathrow, have a hard time building up route image and then have the same hard time building route CI if you opt to make a second flight to London via Gatwick.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 01:44:11 PM by wilian.souza2 »

Offline wilian.souza2

  • Members
  • Posts: 882
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2018, 02:18:04 PM »
- small aircraft allowed, either to follow RL or to avoid this (thanks to the demotivator thread)

It could be modelled as a ban of small aircraft in airports with infra (or traffic) level 5 and higher, or each airport have an Aircraft type switch like this:

Aircraft allowed: [ ] small.  [X] medium. [X] large.  [ ] very large

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2018, 02:44:22 PM »
(.../...)- Route image should be calculated with respect to city connections, not airport connections. It won't make sense in CBD to connect some city to London via Heathrow, have a hard time building up route image and then have the same hard time building route CI if you opt to make a second flight to London via Gatwick.

Well, IRL, there is a strong RI between BVA & WRO. There is none between CDG & WRO, or ORY & WRO. It would need time for people used to go to BVA to get the hint. So I'm not sure the game is not realistic, there.

Offline wilian.souza2

  • Members
  • Posts: 882
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2018, 05:32:09 PM »
There's the example of São Paulo, too, where CGH is the most desirable and VCP less desirable because the first is closest to the city center (after MAE, but this one doesn't have scheduled, commercial flights) and the latter is the most distant. But route image is not about which airport is the most desirable or more accessible, it's about the passenger thinking, "Well, that airline has a flight from city A to city B so I'll take it" without caring much about which airport it will depart or arrive - considering the average traveller's thinking.

If your thinking were applied to AWS, no route pair would ever achieve RI 100. I think CBD's catchment areas of airports and the (slow) demand shift will do the job of limiting demand attraction on its own and RI shouldn't be a problem if the airline wants to open a new connection to the same city it already connects through a different airport.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 05:36:33 PM by wilian.souza2 »

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2018, 05:45:23 PM »
- This way, all the cities would have some international (short or longhaul) demand to anywhere in the world. This demand would be grabbed by larger airports nearby and this would help emulate the effects of connecting flights.

if you look at cargo, it already works like this and will probably do so for pax as well. Which is quite strange as you can fly cargo from all of USSR to the world in 1950 but have to wait until 1991 to have an intl pax flight that doesn't goes through SVO.
In the case of USSR, though, I'm for reestablishing the closing (bar SVO, KBP, LED and TAS) and the bottleneck effect: it's part of the flavor of playing in USSR, not many countries have such larges changes in the game and I think they ought to be preserved.

- Airport runways shouldn't be changed; the fun of this game is to simulate real world's airline's operations in airports from the real world. The ability to change runway length would descharacterize this aspect and make the game less interesting because of this disconnection with the real world. Besides, finding out which of the hundreds of the airports in AWS could have their runways extended would be an overkill. It's not worth it.

They might be changed only according to RL. HKG, for example, with plenty of changes over the years. And you got to wait and play differently until the runway gets lengthened. In the end it's a little like what I just said about USSR - more immersive.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8163
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2018, 11:53:05 PM »
Able to handle the A380; quite an important part of a lot of airport's history is building facilities that can handle an A380.

Whether this is best modeled as a specific airport attribute is a further question - should it instead be an 'unlock' at a certain higher infrastructure level? Kind of how it works with allowing large and very large (at levels 3 and 4 if memory serves?)

Would this be a good extension/replacement of the current aircraft size categories - runway length is obviously not the only limiting factor?

I think the "Unlock" should be guiding principal here for most or all of the airport features, instead of prohibitions or un-earned granting of these features on GW start.

Airport would have to achieve certain threshold for the next feature to be available to be unlocked.

As far as the features listed, I think rather than Yes / No, it should be "Encourage / Discourage / Don't care".

If the airport has a "Discourage" on certain feature, for example lengthening of the runway length, then the unlocking the next level would have a higher threshold then normal.

This way, nothing would be set in stone, almost anything will be possible, but some things will just have more resistance.  For example, the longer, take-off runway at LGA is stopping at waters edge.  It would just go a little further over the water.  It would just take a little extra effort than extending runway into an empty field...   So threshold to unlock "Extend runway" would be a lot higher.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 06:52:10 AM by JumboShrimp »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8163
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2018, 12:08:48 AM »
  • No international passenger traffic [only domestic routes are allowed]

  • No domestic passenger traffic

  • No international cargo traffic

  • No domestic cargo traffic

  • Infrastructure cannot expand [stays at the level designated by the system, for example due to lack of land space]

  • Infrastructure cannot grow beyond level X [1-9, meaning that airport has some room to expand but not till the full level 10]

  • No passenger facilities [airport can handle only cargo, pax facilities cannot be built]

  • No cargo facilities

  • Runways cannot be lengthened

  • Can handle Heavy Cargo (maybe?)


What else?

I think the infrastructure should be broken down to 3 (maybe 4) areas:
- handling passengers
- handling cargo
- runways
- external road / highway / rail link (maybe)

For passenger handling alone, it could be up to 10 levels
- can handle passengers (of any kind, anywhere)
- dedicated international / immigration facilities
- dedicated customs facilities (one for pax, one for cargo)
- small domestic / international passenger hub
- medium domestic / international passenger hub
- large domestic / international passenger hub
- regional specialist (Short SH flight's should get a +1 or more)
- International LH specialist (International LH would get +1 or more)
- small terminal / medium terminal / large terminals (maybe up to 10 levels that would also account to gate facilities)
- jetways in terminals (none, some, most, all)

Each airport could earn (unlock) these features by reaching certain threshold, which could unlock (either automatically or by some other mechanism) infrastructure growth of the airport.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 12:19:35 AM by JumboShrimp »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8163

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2018, 12:39:52 AM »
More important than having these features is what to do with them.

Anyone who looked at or played CBD cargo in very large metropolitan areas (NYC, London, LA) knows that CBD is badly broken.

These airport infrastructure "points" I outlined above can serve to fix CBD.  This is how it would work.

Suppose there is demand from Manhattan NYC to downtown LA.  Currently, there may be 25 airport pairs that can serve this square.  The breakdown of CBD is that each one of the 25 airport pairs is treated equally.

The cure for CBD would be to take infrastructure "points" into account.  If JFK has 20 of these passenger infrastructure points, and Lehigh Valey has 1 infrastructure point, then the passenger from Manhattan will be 20x as likely to take the passenger flight from JFK than from Lehigh Valley International (in Pennsylvania)

Right now, the system is treating them equally, and additionally, gives Lehigh Valey in Pennsylvania boost up to 10% of its potential demand, even though the slicing the demand to equal 25 route pairs would only amount to only 4% (still too much).

OTOH, even if the features outlined in Sami's list are all implemented, if will fix only about 5% of the 100% broken CBD system
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 12:46:02 AM by JumboShrimp »

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The person who likes this post:
Re: Airport attributes
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2018, 02:12:48 PM »
(examples in GW2)

It's not normal to be able to think "I just set up cargo in ORY and will steal 80% of CDG's demand" while cargo infrastructures in ORY are weak.20% of the medium Cargo demand from Bratislava to Paris being still is reserved to ORY, while since ages, only CDG is served with medium cargo capacity(I don't know exactly when, but both companies fly thre since forever).

After 20 years or more of 2 companies from CDG carrying medium cargo to Bratislava, and none from ORY, ORY's actual demand should be 1% of CDG's, maximum. It's 530kg for ORY,  2480kg for CDG. Nearly 20% of cargo demand fool enough not to have gotten the memo in decades that medium cargo from Bratislava to Paris flies only through CDG, not ORY.

That's the broken thing. There is light cargo offer on both routes, so it's not shocking to have actual demand on both routes. But there has never been any offer for medium cargo on ORY, so actual demand should be a joke.

Infrastructure comes only after. Cargo infrastructures IRL are trinkets in ORY compared to CDG. This should be enough to limit demand. But, the trap is, it should be enough to limit overall demand. Let's say the capacity in ORY is 20 tons per day of medium cargo, then a few lines could be maximized.....and then actual demand in any other line would stop growing, due to lack of infrastructures. I mean, capacity can be spread aout amongst multiple destinations, or focused on a few key destinations. In Jumbo's example, you could fly LeHigh valley at full capacity to Stansted, and there would be no more actual demand at all for any other detinations. All the capacity would be used by a single cargo line. In pax terms, a good chunk of ORY's domestic capacity is eaten by ORY-NCE. Etc...

So 2 things should limit actual demand more than it is limited now : (1) Lack of actually flying capacity when a nearby airport does actually fly the destination for the class(in my example, the class being standard cargo), and (2) Overall capacity in the class. There should not be a minimum at 15/20% as we can see. Companies flying BTS-CDG should enjoy at least 3010kg of actual demand for the 3340kg of potential there. The only have 2480kg to share, while 530kg are still reserved to ORY for never flying. I believe we can safely consider CDG dos have enough capacity for those additional 530 daily kg from BTS.

if we go in this infrastructure thing, display shall be essential. "CDG has 87% of its medium cargo capacity currently being used" should appear somewhere. Or if we go more to a Jumbo-like solution, "Lehigh Valley is limited to 250kg of medium cargo demand per destination, due to limited capacity". There are different solutions possible. But the "minimum" thing is horribly broken. And has to be corrected before going to CBD for pax.

 

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.