In MT3, I am based in Detroit (72 departures an hour). I want to fly small planes to Chicago (69 departures an hour). The demand between the two is approx 1100. Can I fly small turboprops between the two, or would it be slot hogging?
That would be legitimate use of the slots.
I believe using a lot of slots is ok as long as you didn't intend on replacing the small planes with larger ones flying to (many) different destination when (or around the same time) you created the routes.
Quote from: Jps on October 11, 2010, 03:19:32 PM
I believe using a lot of slots is ok as long as you didn't intend on replacing the small planes with larger ones flying to (many) different destination when (or around the same time) you created the routes.
No. I just want to run my competitor at DTW out of business.
Quote from: RushmoreAir on October 11, 2010, 03:21:45 PM
No. I just want to run my competitor at DTW out of business.
That's the spirit!
+1 for running people out of business.
1100 pax / 60 seats means ~18 daily departures. So you'd end up using 18 slots only per airport, so that's not as bad as it first may sound.
Quote from: sami on October 11, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
1100 pax / 60 seats means ~18 daily departures. So you'd end up using 18 slots only per airport, so that's not as bad as it first may sound.
bad assumption, Sami. I bet he goes to 110-120% of demand. That means you have a flight almost every hour to that destination. How common is that?
Always, a good question to ask is what if everyone did that. If everyone did that, it would ruin the game, since the slots would be used up at just about every airport, with nowhere to fly. In real world, the airport authority would put an end to it.
Since we don't have it here, and it is a complete waste of Sami's time to look into individual cases, I think there should be slot rental charge, making such strategy less desirable (less profitable) - all without the need for administrative intervention. Slot rental fee would be just part of doing business, and another variable to take into account.
Slot rent fee is something that may be considered. But I'm still mentally strongly against it as that's not the reality.. :P (but other part of mind says it would be smart for the game balance in some cases)
Quote from: sami on October 11, 2010, 09:39:26 PM
Slot rent fee is something that may be considered. But I'm still mentally strongly against it as that's not the reality.. :P (but other part of mind says it would be smart for the game balance in some cases)
due to high slot prices I fly no plane less than 125 seats (except for one B736 with 113seats from LHR-LGA), and it makes the bill go green again in the end!
I pay >1.5M for one week of slots in LHR!!
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2010, 09:37:24 PM
Always, a good question to ask is what if everyone did that. If everyone did that, it would ruin the game, since the slots would be used up at just about every airport, with nowhere to fly. In real world, the airport authority would put an end to it.
Since we don't have it here, and it is a complete waste of Sami's time to look into individual cases, I think there should be slot rental charge, making such strategy less desirable (less profitable) - all without the need for administrative intervention. Slot rental fee would be just part of doing business, and another variable to take into account.
Also why I have been BEGGING for there to be less of a frequency bonus.
US Air is flying 20x daily from LGA-PHL with regional jets in the real world. Seems like slot hogging to me, but there's nothing the regulators can do about it....
Quote from: swiftus27 on October 11, 2010, 09:25:09 PM
bad assumption, Sami. I bet he goes to 110-120% of demand. That means you have a flight almost every hour to that destination. How common is that?
I don't know how common it is but it does happen. They've apparently cut back or sold out some flights, but last time I checked you could fly from MCO to EWR on Contenential at least once an hour between something like 0500 and 2100, and Delta flies 752s and 753s from MCO to ATL every hour between 0530 and 2030.
The problem is it's hard to define anything as slot hogging as long as its satisfying demand and making money so long as the game has the current large bias in favor of smaller aircraft.
Shuttle style services are not uncommon on busy routes between two business centres. Frequency and flexibility is very important on some routes.
I am sorry. With how busy OHare is, there is just no way that they'd allow someone to fly tiny A/C to Detroit 20 times a day. No way.
Quote from: NorgeFly on October 11, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
Shuttle style services are not uncommon on busy routes between two business centres. Frequency and flexibility is very important on some routes.
Bingo. Look at the previously mentioned US Airways Shuttle (now disbanded) that operated between the big cities on the east coast in the US. Also there's a lot of hourly inter-island service in Hawaii.
Quote from: swiftus27 on October 11, 2010, 10:04:43 PM
I am sorry. With how busy OHare is, there is just no way that they'd allow someone to fly tiny A/C to Detroit 20 times a day. No way.
Since the 6th runway was built, ORD doesn't have slot restrictions anymore. The only issue at ORD is gate space these days....
Quote from: sami on October 11, 2010, 09:39:26 PM
Slot rent fee is something that may be considered. But I'm still mentally strongly against it as that's not the reality.. :P (but other part of mind says it would be smart for the game balance in some cases)
The game balance is something that should be considered. Reading the posts, slot hogging (with airports running out of slots) and over-use of small aircraft to take advantage of frequency bonus are probably #1 and #2 complaints.
It could leave the role of frequency as is, but make it more costly, in the long run, less advantageous. In the long run, players will end up using the right sized aircraft for the routes.
Quote from: swiftus27 on October 11, 2010, 10:04:43 PM
I am sorry. With how busy OHare is, there is just no way that they'd allow someone to fly tiny A/C to Detroit 20 times a day. No way.
American Airlines fly LGA to ORD 15+ times per day with MD80s and 757's... so by your argument they shouldn't be allowed and should be forced to fly 767s or A300s 5 times per day instead? There are many commuter routes with frequent flights with aircraft of a size that balances capacity with frequency.
It ain't small turboprops.
Remember, the airport makes money on a per passenger basis in terms of fees. If you're filling up mid size to large jets them you have a whole new situation that I can't disagree with
Quote from: NorgeFly on October 11, 2010, 11:05:51 PM
American Airlines fly LGA to ORD 15+ times per day with MD80s and 757's... so by your argument they shouldn't be allowed and should be forced to fly 767s or A300s 5 times per day instead? There are many commuter routes with frequent flights with aircraft of a size that balances capacity with frequency.
Not forgetting that they probably do so many frequencies because of connecting flights. Not all can arrive at certain times so it can fill a 767 or A300 hence the many frequencies to suit their customer base.
Some examples or crazy frequency: SEA-PDX, something like 28-30 flights a day on Horizon and 9 flights a day on United. At one point, there was like 40 flights a day and it was the 2nd or 3rd busiest route in the world in terms of frequency.
In the summer, SEA-ANC is 25-26 flights on planes no smaller than a 737-700
and during the spring - summer of 2008, Alaska had half hour departures from Seattle to LAX from like 20 flights a day..... as part of their West most schedule, in competition with 3x daily A320 V. America flights and 4x daily United A320/Crj700 flights!!
So..... 20 daily flights is acceptable...
Quote from: swiftus27 on October 11, 2010, 11:10:12 PM
It ain't small turboprops.
Remember, the airport makes money on a per passenger basis in terms of fees. If you're filling up mid size to large jets them you have a whole new situation that I can't disagree with
The point is that on routes where frequency is important airlines use smaller aircraft to obtain frequency without having too many seats. Whether it's A320's instead of 747's or E145s intead of 737's, the principle is the same.
Another example is LHR to CDG where BA operate up to 8 flights with A319/A320... sure they'd love to fly it twice a day with a 747-400 to free up some slots, but that would not be attractive for business people who want to go to Paris for a lunch time meeting and fly back a few hours later.
I work in ops for a UK regional and know how important frequency and convenience is on some of our routes.
Quote from: Seattle on October 11, 2010, 11:38:20 PM
In the summer, SEA-ANC is 25-26 flights on planes no smaller than a 737-700
So..... 20 daily flights is acceptable...
Well, it would not be 20 737-700. RushmoreAir is probably talking about flooding the route probably with 100x day flights with 18 passenger planes.
This would, BTW, make the whole ORD airport less attractive. If you fly 100x per day, about 19 useful hours, that would take away 5 slots / hour from ORD. That would be much more significant damage to ORD than to DTW.
I'm a big user of Dash-8's on 1,000+ demand routes and even I find it quite ridiculous and unrealistic.
But, it's how you get ahead. :-\
-Matt
Quote from: NorgeFly on October 11, 2010, 11:43:44 PM
The point is that on routes where frequency is important airlines use smaller aircraft to obtain frequency without having too many seats. Whether it's A320's instead of 747's or E145s intead of 737's, the principle is the same.
Another example is LHR to CDG where BA operate up to 8 flights with A319/A320... sure they'd love to fly it twice a day with a 747-400 to free up some slots, but that would not be attractive for business people who want to go to Paris for a lunch time meeting and fly back a few hours later.
I work in ops for a UK regional and know how important frequency and convenience is on some of our routes.
Yes, but AGAIN, the airport will make a TON more money on landing fees. They make more on larger planes, they make more with more pax flowing through the airport. Airports will not let you fly in TPs when the airport is at 105% capacity when there is additional demand. They will exert pressure to increase the plane size.
Quote from: swiftus27 on October 12, 2010, 12:27:03 AM
Yes, but AGAIN, the airport will make a TON more money on landing fees. They make more on larger planes, they make more with more pax flowing through the airport. Airports will not let you fly in TPs when the airport is at 105% capacity when there is additional demand. They will exert pressure to increase the plane size.
Airports do not dictate to airlines what aircraft they fly on a route and they cannot stop an airline flying a particular aircraft type. A slot, once obtained can be used for any aircraft. That is why it is not unusual to see a BMI E145 or KLM F50 at LHR to keep a slot warm.
Also, at London Gatwick, the World's busiest single runway airport, Flybe are the 3rd biggest slot holder and they fly dozens of flights with turbo props and regional jets each day.
Quote from: NorgeFly on October 11, 2010, 11:43:44 PM
The point is that on routes where frequency is important airlines use smaller aircraft to obtain frequency without having too many seats. Whether it's A320's instead of 747's or E145s intead of 737's, the principle is the same.
Another example is LHR to CDG where BA operate up to 8 flights with A319/A320... sure they'd love to fly it twice a day with a 747-400 to free up some slots, but that would not be attractive for business people who want to go to Paris for a lunch time meeting and fly back a few hours later.
I work in ops for a UK regional and know how important frequency and convenience is on some of our routes.
We all understand that frequency is important. We ( maybe its just me and Swiftus? ) are only arguing against the fact that small turboprops are used on high demand destinations. If the choice is between 15 daily or 40 daily not counting night flights it would be down to counting a preference to a turboprop because it leaves in 5 minutes instead of the 737 in 35 minutes. If you consider that a medium sized jet also is faster to arrive than a turboprop the arrival might not be far between either. For me it sounds unlikely that normal economy travelers pick their airline based on a 30 minute head start.
One idea ; Maybe the business class demand could be making its preferences more based on frequency/comfort and the economy class travelers base its preferences more on price. After all I spent 8 h in heathrow last monday to save some money.... :laugh:
I really doubt BA would want to fly jumbo to paris even if all business meetings in france started at the same time. Id imagine theyd want them to stay in the air a little bit longer. Definately not the same principle to compare two planes actually produced to fly the same distances to switch A320 to 747.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2010, 11:54:00 PM
Well, it would not be 20 737-700. RushmoreAir is probably talking about flooding the route probably with 100x day flights with 18 passenger planes.
This would, BTW, make the whole ORD airport less attractive. If you fly 100x per day, about 19 useful hours, that would take away 5 slots / hour from ORD. That would be much more significant damage to ORD than to DTW.
I'm pretty sure he means 40-60 seat turboprops like Dash 8s, ATRs, or An 140s. 18 seat aircraft are a quick ticket to bleeding cash usually.
QuoteWe all understand that frequency is important. We ( maybe its just me and Swiftus? ) are only arguing against the fact that small turboprops are used on high demand destinations. If the choice is between 15 daily or 40 daily not counting night flights it would be down to counting a preference to a turboprop because it leaves in 5 minutes instead of the 737 in 35 minutes. If you consider that a medium sized jet also is faster to arrive than a turboprop the arrival might not be far between either. For me it sounds unlikely that normal economy travelers pick their airline based on a 30 minute head start.
I agree that flying routes 40+ times per day is crazy, the problem is that the game currently actively encourages this since the person flying the smallest aircraft the most times almost always wins.
I've been arguing for awhile that the benefits of frequency need to have some kind of diminishing return and actually zero out at some point.
I also think that turboprops do not currently suffer enough from their slow speed on longer routes. In the last ATB game I got clobbered on the MCO-EWR route by someone flying ATR72s against my MD90s (we both satisfied ~100% of demand), in spite of the fact that it takes an ATR approx 1 hr longer to fly that route than an MD90. I don't remember exactly what the pax demand was, but we were both flying significantly more often than once per hour, he was just flying ~2.5x as often as me. Who the hell is going to choose to spend an hour longer on a turboprop to depart the airport fifteen minutes earlier? Anyone? Yet in AWS the pax all go to the guy flying the slow turboprops.
Quote from: ucfknightryan on October 12, 2010, 02:22:14 AM
I agree that flying routes 40+ times per day is crazy, the problem is that the game currently actively encourages this since the person flying the smallest aircraft the most times almost always wins.
I've been arguing for awhile that the benefits of frequency need to have some kind of diminishing return and actually zero out at some point.
I also think that turboprops do not currently suffer enough from their slow speed on longer routes. In the last ATB game I got clobbered on the MCO-EWR route by someone flying ATR72s against my MD90s (we both satisfied ~100% of demand), in spite of the fact that it takes an ATR approx 1 hr longer to fly that route than an MD90. I don't remember exactly what the pax demand was, but we were both flying significantly more often than once per hour, he was just flying ~2.5x as often as me. Who the hell is going to choose to spend an hour longer on a turboprop to depart the airport fifteen minutes earlier? Anyone? Yet in AWS the pax all go to the guy flying the slow turboprops.
Very good point. Focus should be arrival and not departure.
I just read some documents by the European Commission, it actually seems that airports will get pretty regulated at least in the European Union. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2009/0176 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2009/0176)
( it actually seems like all the regulations are already there but a codification is being made )
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993R0095:EN:HTML (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993R0095:EN:HTML)
It will be interesting to follow. It says alot about how airports have to work for the good of the citizens of the union, how slots have to be managed to create opportunity for new airlines, how to prevent congestions in slots and airtraffic. Unfortunately I couldnt find the current document about how slots should be managed "legally". The laws of free competition should be quite strong.
Quote from: ucfknightryan on October 12, 2010, 02:22:14 AM
I'm pretty sure he means 40-60 seat turboprops like Dash 8s, ATRs, or An 140s. 18 seat aircraft are a quick ticket to bleeding cash usually.
I looked up the route, and he is using Let L-420, which is 18 seat aircraft. To fulfill demand of 1100, you need to fly 61x daily. To fill the peak Friday demand, probably 80x daily or more.
Quote from: ucfknightryan on October 12, 2010, 02:22:14 AM
I agree that flying routes 40+ times per day is crazy, the problem is that the game currently actively encourages this since the person flying the smallest aircraft the most times almost always wins.
I've been arguing for awhile that the benefits of frequency need to have some kind of diminishing return and actually zero out at some point.
Yup, it works. I had a bunch of Dash-8 flying DTW to ORD route as well in the current ATB. Also on DTW-ATL route. That way, when a new player came around started HQ in Detroit, and of course the very first route they set up is either DTW-ORD and DTW-ATL. And they would get chewed up by 10s of Dash-8 plus CI of ~90-100.
Quote from: ucfknightryan on October 12, 2010, 02:22:14 AM
I also think that turboprops do not currently suffer enough from their slow speed on longer routes. In the last ATB game I got clobbered on the MCO-EWR route by someone flying ATR72s against my MD90s (we both satisfied ~100% of demand), in spite of the fact that it takes an ATR approx 1 hr longer to fly that route than an MD90. I don't remember exactly what the pax demand was, but we were both flying significantly more often than once per hour, he was just flying ~2.5x as often as me. Who the hell is going to choose to spend an hour longer on a turboprop to depart the airport fifteen minutes earlier? Anyone? Yet in AWS the pax all go to the guy flying the slow turboprops.
Yup, the variables such as price, speed, seating quality, age/condition of aircraft, CI - they do amount to something, but not much. RI is the only one that really makes a huge difference, all the others are marginal
As Woody Allen said: "Eighty percent of success is showing up."
That's very much case in AWS, except, in AWS, you have an option of showint up 40 times per day...
I thought hourly pax demand was not a variable in this game. If that's really the case frequency examples for business meetings or connecting flights would not apply here. I can get 60 TP fly all at 5am and do the same thing at 7-8am to the next closest airport, and then to the next.
Again, the idea here is to flood the route, not to keep the slot warm...
Slightly un-related question but what is the smallest aircraft that you can operate and still earn a profit with in AWS?
I've only done a little experimenting and when I tried in ATB a Metro-only airline where I owned the aircraft I seemed to do okay.
Quote from: raptorva on October 12, 2010, 04:59:00 AM
Slightly un-related question but what is the smallest aircraft that you can operate and still earn a profit with in AWS?
I've only done a little experimenting and when I tried in ATB a Metro-only airline where I owned the aircraft I seemed to do okay.
Small A/C are a supplement only. Don't use as backbone of an airline.
Quote from: raptorva on October 12, 2010, 04:59:00 AM
Slightly un-related question but what is the smallest aircraft that you can operate and still earn a profit with in AWS?
I've only done a little experimenting and when I tried in ATB a Metro-only airline where I owned the aircraft I seemed to do okay.
If you throw Marketing out the window, you can make a net profit operating planes of about 35 pax. But it's not easy, it takes a lot of them in the air to even cover the startup overhead and to turn a profit, and the margins will be super-thin.
Quote from: NorgeFly on October 12, 2010, 12:43:40 AM
Airports do not dictate to airlines what aircraft they fly on a route and they cannot stop an airline flying a particular aircraft type. A slot, once obtained can be used for any aircraft. That is why it is not unusual to see a BMI E145 or KLM F50 at LHR to keep a slot warm.
Maybe in Europe, but in the US the airport can most certainly dictate what a slot can be used for. Right now, DCA is in the process of reviewing slot applications and the available slots are tied to destination and plane.
-Matt
In europe:
Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports
Article 6
Airport capacity 1. At an airport where slot allocation takes place, the competent authorities shall determine the capacity available for slot allocation twice yearly in cooperation with representatives of air traffic control, customs and immigration authorities and air carriers using the airport and/or their representative organizations and the airport coordinator, according to commonly recognized methods. Where the competent authority is not the airport authority it shall also be consulted.
This exercise shall be based on an objective analysis of possibilities of accommodating the air traffic, taking into account the different types of traffic at that airport.
The results of this exercise shall be provided to the airport coordinator in good time before the initial slot allocation takes place for the purpose of scheduling conferences.
2. Paragraph 1 may be applied to airports designated as coordinated under the provisions of Article 3.
Article 7
Information for the coordinator Air carriers operating or intending to operate at a coordinated or fully coordinated airport shall submit to the coordinator relevant information requested by the coordinator.
Article 8
Process of slot allocation 1. (a) Subject to the provisions of Article 10, a slot that has been operated by an air carrier as cleared by the coordinator shall entitle that air carrier to claim the same slot in the next equivalent scheduling period.
(b) In a situation where all slot requests cannot be accommodated to the satisfaction of the air carriers concerned, preference shall be given to commercial air services and in particular to scheduled services and programmed non-scheduled services.
Is anything going to be done against the misuse of slots? Couldnt at least a "designation" of slots be done so we could prevent switching aircraft type/size and destination?
To me its quite apparent that airlines are not allowed to do whatever they feel like at least not in europe where the union is working for free competition on the internal market. So can we at least consider it a problem that our skies are full of Saabs, that control towers are working over time hiring extra... but less people are travelling through our simulated airports because of huge unmet demands due to slotavailability.
Ive heard rumors that the SimToblerone factory had to be shut down due to low sales. :'(
How bout the airport issues a astartup airline with 28 free slots (enough for 4 daily departures) and then afterwards airlines would be forced to pay for all other slots afterwards? I know Brisbane Airport offers something like that as an incentive to attract airlines. (Oh and Virgin Blue and Qantas have 3o min departures to Sydney from Brisbane in peak periods and hour departures for the rest of the day.)
Quote from: jneil121 on October 19, 2010, 07:08:50 AM
How bout the airport issues a astartup airline with 28 free slots (enough for 4 daily departures) and then afterwards airlines would be forced to pay for all other slots afterwards? I know Brisbane Airport offers something like that as an incentive to attract airlines. (Oh and Virgin Blue and Qantas have 3o min departures to Sydney from Brisbane in peak periods and hour departures for the rest of the day.)
Already modeled.
Your initial slots are either free or very cheap. Subsequent slots get more and more expensive dependent on a number of variables including time as well as whether you are monopolizing the arrival/destination airport or route, but these costs level out very quickly and they are a tiny portion of the potential profits on a route regardless, so they're essentially a moot point.
I have also seen airports where no one is flying, where the slot cost has been $0 ;)