AirwaySim

Allrighty, this may have been talked in other threads but I am planning imminent changes due to long Jet Age game, so let's check with this again.

With slots the obvious problem is that it is "first come, first take" which is not fully fair. But that is not going to change yet at least. One change I would plan for this, in order to limit huge monopolies, is that home based airlines combined together could not control more than 60 or 70% of the slots at the airport. All other slots would be marked for non-based airlines.

However, when we think of longer term the one big issue is that when you replace your fleets to faster ones, the arrival/dep times at outstation change and you may end up having no slots for the departure, and you have to stick with the 1955 propliner schedule to LHR all the way to 2020 even though the flight could be 5 hours faster. This isn't very realistic nor desirable.

What I quickly thought for a solution could be that your slots are actually time locked only at base airports. For any outstation airports you could freely move the departure time there as long as you just have a slot on the route. So when editing a route you can freely change the departure time from the other airport without problems - however slot edit price would remain the same, so larger change equals larger one time price, but you'd never end up in a situation where the slot is not available there.

..ok, not realistic and this may have some issues but some solution for the route editing and change of fleet types (to make it easy) would be needed.

Sami,

I think these are generally good ideas...some thoughts below.

Monopolies at home bases:

1. While a cap at the base (60% or 70% or whatever) sounds like a good idea, it also reduces the striving aspect of the game where one of the goals is to slot-lock an airport in order to reap monopoly profits.  If a cap is going to be inserted, then there needs to be another modification that replaces the sense of accomplishment for slot-locking an airport. Not sure what the answer is, but need to balance competition and the ability to achieve something.  Perhaps by opening a base at an airport an airline gets x slots guaranteed (or created)?  Something like that?

2. 60%/70% at LHR with no nighttime hours means something different than at ATL which is open 24 hours, so some adjustment would be needed for that (higher cap at restricted hour airports vs. non-restricted?)

3.  Overall, I hesitate to institute hard caps on things and suggest that we try to find a gameplay mechanism to avoid the cap.  While obviously some time in the future, city based demand may alleviate some of this concern (LHR traffic would likely flow to LGW and others if the LHR airline is charging monopoly prices).

Fleet transitions/slot flexibility at out-stations:

1. This would definitely make transitioning plane types easier, but still would have the challenge of red-eyes where your props land in the morning, but when you convert to jets, they suddenly arrive in the middle of the night.  So there will always be some switching involved.  However, I do think this proposal will mitigate some of the player fatigue that occurs when an airline has a large fleet and a transition is coming up and the player gets fed up and quits the game world.  So from a playability perspective this may be a good idea.

2. A key challenge is what happens to the slot, if the outstation slot is not fixed, and there are no slots available at the 'new' time, then where does the slot come from, does it continue to be removed from the original time slot until a slot at the new time is available?  Also, this gives a lot of flexibility to airlines not based at the airport to create optimal schedules, but may hinder those airlines actually located at the base to produce optimal schedules because they are still constrained.  In a situation such as JFK-LHR - the airline based at JFK will have a much easier time optimizing that route in the mid to end game than the LHR airline with this change.

3. For slot constrained airports, slot price is typically irrelevant except for the first couple game years, so that is not a significant consideration in my opinion.

4. Could a trading system more effectively produce this result (i.e., trading slots at an airport on a 1 to 1 basis, not selling for cash)?

5. Another thing is that this could be exploited such that a person creates a route that needs to take off in the middle of the night from a slot constrained out-station, flies it a week, and then changes the take off time such that the outstation gets an ideal departure time.

Happy to discuss further, but I think we need further clarity on these potential rule changes to fully think out the consequences before we make them in order to not have any unforeseen adverse consequences.  Thanks for your hard work Sami.

dmoose42

Quote from: dmoose42 on July 10, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
one of the goals is to slot-lock an airport in order to reap monopoly profits

Can't approve such goal by any means, such would have to be nearly impossible by game rules and mechanics.

Also for item #5, we can also fix that the slot time change without constraints is possible let's say every 5 years or so.

I guess my point was that it shouldn't be prevented by a physical cap that disallows slot purchases beyond x%, but rather the game mechanics that create additional competition - which is why i suggested the guaranteed slots associated with opening a base idea (analogous to a new terminal/runway, etc.).

Separately, I do think there is a challenge regarding how the cap is determined?  Is it x% for each hour block?  or x% across all blocks?  If it's x% against all blocks then I think this cap would be less effective as the monopoly airline may have a huge majority of the desirable slots and leave the less desirable slots for other airlines.'

As for your item #5 limitation, i think that will definitely help reduce abuse.

Oh and Sami, one more thought (from jaimer)

You also have the problem if the cap is 70% and a well established airline has 65% of slots.  If a brand new airline opens there with an HQ, they could only ever control 5%.  So if the cap is for all airlines based at an airport, then it may have the effect of reducing competition.

If restrictions like this are brought in then it can severely limit the game. with 3 more bases but only 100 a/c per base the game could become very boring, very quickly. Changes like this would definitely make me rethink about how much I play this game.

Another slot hogging prevention method which I posted to another thread earlier is a slot quota. In other words each airline is limited to X % of the available slots each game month. Easy method to prevent the f5 spam...

Sami,

Another example - if the cap is 60% and there are 4 good airlines at the base, then each (on average) could have no more than 15%...which is restrictive.

If you want to provide more opportunities for airlines to acquire slots at slot restricted airports, I think the approach you just mentioned of limiting slot acquisition (x number of slots a month) is a better idea.  It would also be an easy implementation relative to some of the other proposals that have been suggested over the years to change the slot allocation system.

Sami,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this topic, and for allowing us to provide input.

I agree that some of us like to build huge airlines, and - consequently - some of us end up dominating an airport.

That having said, I believe there is good competition amongst airlines that have homebases / bases at almost all airports. In the last 2 years, a lot of restrictions were created already to avoid that airlines would grow too fast and dominate too quickly. Just to mention a few ... the limit of 7 calls per week to the used market, the ability to get a maximum of only 3 aircraft from the used market in any 7 day period, the slower release of slots at airport, the slot releases at random times, the pricing restrictions on how aircraft can be sold within alliances, the new algoritm on pax allocation by route looking at optimal aircraft / frequency by route, etc. Further there is the 4 bases limit, the max 100 aircraft per base limit, etc.

Most of these changes (if not all) were very good ones to increase competition.

City demand - when it will be introduced - will create further competition.

So I believe the current system already enables a lot of competition. Again, I agree that there are a few exceptions (usually LHR and a few other airports).

Implementing the restrictions that you suggested would have significant downsides that would potentially impact a lot of players, also in places where more restrictions are not at all necessary. Dmoose42 mentioned a few here below. These restrictions would impact a lot of airlines, also in places where the restrictions would not be needed.

Airports that end up having no slots seem to be located mainly in Europe or Asia. If the objective is to provide better access to everyone to the (relatively few) slot restricted airports, then perhaps a much easier solution could be to just increase the total amount of slots in those (few) airports such as (LHR, FRA, NRT etc?). That might address the issues maybe in a more efficient way rather than creating another artificial limit?

Herman

I think a priority system may be a solution:
The airport is trying to introduce new competition and allow new comer to have a certain amount of slot set aside:

Let's say 3 airlines, A from beginning, B opened a base in DOTM, C joined in in MT in a slot restrain airport

A has 1000 slot
B has 400 slot
C has 7 slot

new slot release = 168 slot in a 24 hours airport.

Slot will be pre-released to the new airline for 7 days. They can get up to certain amount of slot before it is released to the public. Where it is free grab or based on a lottery system. You apply for a slot and is awarded slot if there is no contest. If there is other airline applying for that same slot it will be randomize by the server.

Let's say a new airline has priority for 35 slot before it is released to public. I don't think that will be too harsh on the original base airline(which in theory should have most route filled by now). Obviously the priority or the modifier should be scalable when the airline grow as you do not want the competition able to have the same amount of slot as the main airline who played for 30+ years.(not all slot lock airport is LHR HND etc)

Ok, I have to get my 2 cents in here....

IRL, there are a limited number of fully slot controlled airports. At those airports, slots are occasionally offered to airlines with little or no presence at the airport. To avoid putting unfair restrictions on paying customers while still allowing players outside of the normal slot constrained airports to serve those airports, I would propose a system like that.

For example, lets say LHR is 100% out of slots. Airline A wants to offer service to LHR, but has no slots. Airline A can apply for slots held aside for airlines with little or no presence at that airport. These slots would be EXTRA slots not included in the displayed slot availability. An airlines ability to apply for these slots would disappear after lets say 21 slots are owned.

If you say this is unrealistic, it is far more realistic than artificially capping a based airline at 70% of the slots. This kind of system is used in the US at airports like DCA and LGA for new slots.

I am 100% against any measure that will limit my ability to play the game I pay to play....if slots are open at an airport, I should, in all fairness, have the same ability to go get them that the next guy does. The only truly fair way to do this is to implement a system where airlines with limited or no presence can apply for and acquire slots created for that purpose.

Don

Quote from: sami on July 10, 2013, 12:55:56 PM
What I quickly thought for a solution could be that your slots are actually time locked only at base airports. For any outstation airports you could freely move the departure time there as long as you just have a slot on the route. So when editing a route you can freely change the departure time from the other airport without problems - however slot edit price would remain the same, so larger change equals larger one time price, but you'd never end up in a situation where the slot is not available there.

Yes please!! please please !!

With that in mind there's no need to limiting based carriers up to 70%, since foreigns will always have slots...



I don't agree (as some sayed before) on hard capping the slots for monopolistic airlines vs new entrants ... if you open a base in a full airport it's your responsability... there's always plenty of empty ones.. new entrants should have no "advantage" over other airlines.


My Idea... every airline start with 5 slots (5 per hour).. then you can "fund" for terminal and runways upgrades, thus granting you slots for every "funding"... you don't own anything... you "fund" to the airport, they grant you slots... (5 more slots per hour... you can use them at your discretion: maybe you can lend some unused to alliance members or just for personal use)

Every funding is exponentially more expensive than the previous one (airline by airline basis), thus limiting the amount of slots that every airline can have to their individual efficiency for generating money...

New entrants can build up slots easily, cause they will be at the bottom of the exponential curve (as the older airlines once were)... monopolistic airlines will have serious difficulties in creating more slots (going bigger) since the cost will be extremely high...
For big airports, you can raise the starting point of the exponential curve for each funding each of the other airlines do, thus making that airport less desirable with every slot built...


This (I think) will make the game fully playable and even more fun :)

Finally, thanks for listening to the players ;)

Greets.

The reality of life is, at slot constrained airports, the dominating carrier will have monopoly price control over the routes that are serviced from there. With the move to city based demand, things could get significantly more interesting as the viabilty of say, TTN instead of PHL/EWR, where a new entrant could disrupt the major airline at the slot constrained airport. Thus, it seems that trying to solve the slot problem before city based demand is just putting a bandaid on something that will be fixed for good later on.

I personally do not like arbitrary restrictions placed on what can be done (i.e. the 70% slot limit at a base airport). While slot locking can be one way to eliminate future competition, it is also a business decision to fly your routes less efficiently than your competition in order prevent them from creating ideal schedules to fly against you. The business decision to fly less economical fleets (i.e. F100's instead of A320's) inherently weakens that airline, creating more difficulty for it to sustain itself during a fuel spike or other adverse downturns compared to a more efficient operator. Staying with the business decision side of things, perhaps pricing will be the best way to deter slot locking - sure, it costs me $3m per set of slots in ATL right now in MT8, but at my airline's size, that isn't a real deterrant to me scooping up everything that comes available. Once my slot holdings reach a certain level, perhaps you'd want to make me chose between buying a set of slots or buying an airplane (i.e. 30m/set).

The other consideration for slots could be to limit them less, and only limit slots at airports that are currently slot constrained (of course, I'm thinking from a US perspective).  In the US, your slot constrained airports are LGB, SNA, SFO, EWR, JFK and LGA. Anything beyond that, there are no slot considerations in real life in the US.... It would be interesting what a free for all would do...

There are many gameplay problems that revamping the slot system would solve.  Right now there is an artificial ceiling on slots and anytime you put an artificial ceiling on anything, you create artificial scarcity.  In a free market without artificial floors/ceilings, things reach equilibrium using supply/demand.  With that being said, coding a hard cap on slots is absurd.  Sure there are airports that are slot constrained, but anything is possible for the right price.  A prime example is Denver International Airport—the largest airport in the world by area.  They have a master plan for additional terminals and runways for future growth.  However, they are only going to build out the rest of the airport if there is sufficient demand and money available.

In AWS, there is no amount of money you can spend to increase the number of slots available.  Once slots are gone, the price of slots effectively rises to infinity.  In the real world, if I walked into KDEN and said I'm willing to pay you $1 billion for the privilege of flying into your airport, they're going to find a way to build those extra runways/terminals and make room for me.

Therefore, the solution is to eliminate ALL artificial ceilings on slots, which effectively drops the price of slots from infinity to something less than infinity.  IRL you'd have to account for not only takeoff slots, but also landing slots, which is eliminated from AWS for simplicity.  The same thing would happen for takeoff slots.  You can't tell me that if I said I'd pay $1 billion for a rush hour slot at Heathrow that they wouldn't find a way to squeeze me in and make it happen.  Part of the problem is that having a hard cap  on slots reflects the real world versus the fake world we play in.  The only reason ATL has a billion slots and STL doesn't is because there is no airline with a major hub in STL.

So the solution is to eliminate all hard caps and restrict slots based on market factors.  At some point, slot prices simply become cost prohibitive instead of impossible to acquire.  Since slots are simply expensive to acquire versus infinitely expensive and impossible to obtain, there is no need for a hard limit on the number of players in a game or the number of players based at an airport.  Slots will always be available—for a price.

The simplest model would be to charge for takeoff slots at the base and destination airports based on 4 factors: how many slots are used at the airport, used by the airline at the airport, used on the route, and used within +/- 1 hour.

1.   Slots used at the airport—since we have a hard limit from real life, we can use this as the benchmark.  Currently slots grow from 50% to 150% over time, which is good.  Once slots used are >150% the benchmark, they start getting more and more expensive.  So if an airport has 100 slots/hour IRL, it starts at 50 and grows to 150 slots/hour over time.  When airlines start buying slots #151 or higher the cost starts to rise dramatically.

2.   Slots used by the airline—this is based on competition and the real life limit/benchmark.  If an airline controls more than 50% of the slots compared to the benchmark and/or total slots used (since we can create infinite slots) at an airport, additional slots start getting real expensive.  If an airline goes BK and frees up a bunch of slots to get the total slots used below the benchmark level, slots get cheaper.  If they BK and the free slots is above the benchmark, they get cheaper, but not by nearly as much.

3.   Slots used on the route—airports like competition because it lowers fare prices and gets more people flying.  If the slots are used on a route with no competition, the slots are more expensive.  If they are being used to enter a new route for the airline that another airline already flies, they are cheaper.

4.   Slots used +/- 1 hour—this is relative to the rest of the day.  The first step is using up slots for "cargo airlines" to help our benchmark.  Something like 1 slot/hour during the day with a bunch of slots used overnight, such as 5-10 slots/hour from the hours 11pm to 5am.  Then, we calculate the average slots used per hour for our benchmark value (total slots used / number of hours open).  Then, we calculate how many slots are used +/- 1 hour and compare it to the average slots used.  This tells us how "busy" that time period is for the airport and the busier the airport is, the more expensive the slots.  This encourages "more equal" distribution of slots so that every airport doesn't end up with 0 slots used overnight and 200 slots used during the day.

By calculating all 4 of these values, you'll get 4 coefficients that determine slot costs for the base and destination airports.  This solves several gameplay problems:
1.   Players will never run out of slots—they will always be available for the right price.

2.   Players will never be able to block competition—slots will always be available and if an airline doesn't fly into the airport yet, the slots will be significantly cheaper than an airline with 1000s of slots there already, encouraging competition.

3.   Players will never be blocked from upgrading planes.  Slots will always be available for purchase no matter what time they takeoff, which means they can upgrade a prop to a jet with piece of mind knowing they can actually schedule it.

4.   Players will be faced with opportunity cost, which is the basis of all business decisions.  Airlines will reach a point where it is cost prohibitive to expand by adding planes/routes and will be forced to open a new base and/or use bigger aircraft on existing routes.  They will reach the point where it makes more sense to spend $300 million on an A380 or opening a new base than spending $300 million on slots to schedule another A320.

5.   Players will BK more often—they will overextend themselves much quicker/easier and the used market will get a nice boost when it happens.  Patience and steady growth is key to survival in AWS.  Since players cannot block competition anymore, they will be more vulnerable, making it that much more important to build an airline the right way.

6.   Players no longer have to worry about slot hogging—neither will admin.  Slot hogging is against the rules and "cheating".  This would make this form of cheating impossible.
In addition to this feature, since we have long game worlds it would be prudent to remove the basing restrictions in terms of number and location.  By removing the cap on number of bases, airlines can choose to create focus cities by having 10 bases and flying routes between them.  This strategy would mean more expensive base costs, but cheaper slot costs.

In terms of basing location, airlines should be able to open bases anywhere they want.  US-based carriers such as Delta have international bases at AMS, CDG, and NRT.  For long game worlds, restricting airlines to one country doesn't make sense.  The most boring game ever would be basing at Doha, Singapore, or Hong Kong.  This further increases competition so that no one is safe.  If you are a large US airline and see an opportunity in Europe or Asia, you should be able to exploit it.  If you're in Hong Kong and Shanghai or Taipei has an opportunity, you should be able to jump on it.

All of these ideas would increase competition, eliminate players getting bored, and make the game more challenging.  The idea of having uncapped bases and opening focus cities excites me.  By doing this, city-based demand will be more realistic as well.  Competing airports will have the opportunity to truly compete as Chicago Midway can add slots and be larger than O'Hare.  The airports in Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Moscow, etc. will be able to compete with each other and airlines won't be stuck picking the larger airports simply because there are more slots there IRL.

So I think the bottom line, in general, is to stop imposing artificial floors/ceilings and let the market work when it comes to slots, bases, number of players in a game, etc.  All of the issues in the game today are due to these artificial constraints, with the exception of limiting calls to the used market (since having aircraft go to the highest bidder require a substantial waiting period).

When reading Sami's post here, my immediate reaction was "market based" solution!  Not sure I follow all of LemonButt's model, but I think LemonButt has it right on with the direction the solution needs to take...the demand for slots need to be modeled and a price mechanism that reflects the demand.

Right now slots are priced like a "rate table", where, as LB thoughtfully suggests, there are other factors to measure that should affect price an individual airline pays.  I would think just the congestion pricing alone would be a major modification in behavior.

Also, don't airline usually pay a large sum for expansion of their base airports IRL?  Perhaps some ability for the mega airlines to buy/build a new terminal.

Thanks BD - I agree that a game mechanics/ market driven solution is better than legislating caps/etc.

Quote from: LemonButt on July 11, 2013, 12:55:48 AM
In terms of basing location, airlines should be able to open bases anywhere they want.  US-based carriers such as Delta have international bases at AMS, CDG, and NRT.  For long game worlds, restricting airlines to one country doesn't make sense.  The most boring game ever would be basing at Doha, Singapore, or Hong Kong.  This further increases competition so that no one is safe.  If you are a large US airline and see an opportunity in Europe or Asia, you should be able to exploit it.  If you're in Hong Kong and Shanghai or Taipei has an opportunity, you should be able to jump on it.

All of these ideas would increase competition, eliminate players getting bored, and make the game more challenging.  The idea of having uncapped bases and opening focus cities excites me.  By doing this, city-based demand will be more realistic as well.  Competing airports will have the opportunity to truly compete as Chicago Midway can add slots and be larger than O'Hare.  The airports in Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Moscow, etc. will be able to compete with each other and airlines won't be stuck picking the larger airports simply because there are more slots there IRL.

I'm drooling  ::)


I agree with your ideas... it's similar to what I proposed (but highly much more elaborated)... I think we (all) agree on a free market.. how is that free market implemented, that's debatable, but the basis are the same...


Also, I think we all agree with removing hard caps.. I mean, not being able to play, because the cost of expansion is prohibitive is one thing (acceptable), but not being able to play, because your competitor pushed F5, 10seconds before you and got the slots is really really annoying...

Quote from: LemonButt on July 11, 2013, 12:55:48 AM
The simplest model would be to charge for takeoff slots at the base and destination airports based on 4 factors: how many slots are used at the airport, used by the airline at the airport, used on the route, and used within +/- 1 hour

This variable slot pricing has been there already for ages really.. And it already takes into account pretty much everything you mentioned in price calculation.

Also, having unlimited airport capacity or unrestrcited basing will not be done. Will keep at least some sense and relation to real life in things....

Quote from: sami on July 11, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
This variable slot pricing has been there already for ages really.. And it already takes into account pretty much everything you mentioned in price calculation.

Also, having unlimited airport capacity or unrestrcited basing will not be done. Will keep at least some sense and relation to real life in things....

Why not just increase the amount of total slots available in these airports that always run out of slots so quickly, and keep all else as is for now? It's easy to implement and will provide more competition (which I think is what you want)?.

Quote from: sami on July 11, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
Also, having unlimited airport capacity or unrestrcited basing will not be done. Will keep at least some sense and relation to real life in things....

I think you get it wrong... In RL you actually do have unlimited building capacity in airports... what you do not have is the excesive amount of money required to do it...

I'm sure that If I go over LHR and pay BAA and the city over 100billion USD to build another terminal or even the third runway (and another few millions in lobbying, and another few millions to the people living around the airport that has to leave), they'll probably let me, but paying that money for that reason is just insane... of course it makes more sense landing in stansted, or gatwick instead...


Unrestricted basing is another topic...

I like the idea of excessively high slot cost. So airlines won't use small/less effective A/C to block slots easily. An airline control more than, for example 3000 slots, and >50% of that airport slots, will purchase slots at 10x normal price. Like I'm paying almost 4m per set, imagine if it'll be 40m it's another story. An if an airline take like 6000 slot, and >70% slots, cost can be up to 100x

QuotePlayers will be faced with opportunity cost, which is the basis of all business decisions.  Airlines will reach a point where it is cost prohibitive to expand by adding planes/routes and will be forced to open a new base and/or use bigger aircraft on existing routes.  They will reach the point where it makes more sense to spend $300 million on an A380 or opening a new base than spending $300 million on slots to schedule another A320.

Unlimited building capacity? In what world you are living in? Of course there are limits building new runways or terminals, and money isn´t the solution for everything.
Especially in Europe you can´t build anything on an airport site before you went through court for about ten years with varying success.
Congested airports are an important problem in RL, they should also be here. Space is not unlimited, neither in the sky nor down here.
Maybe price should matter more, when acquiring the last open spot of an hour would be an investment that hurts even the strongest.
Some slots should be reserved for incoming traffic though to keep some outside competition for based airlines.

Quote from: exchlbg on July 11, 2013, 04:10:31 PM
Unlimited building capacity? In what world you are living in? Of course there are limits building new runways or terminals,

Always so aggressive...

Quote from: exchlbg on July 11, 2013, 04:10:31 PMand money isn´t the solution for everything.

"In what world you are living in?"



If you can't extend a runway, because there's a 15th century church, and the whole country turns against it, you can always build a new airport 50 miles away, where there's plenty of "nobody cares about" land... of course no airline has the money for it... but again, the limiting factor is money, not room...

The limiting factor is always money... "cost benefit" of building... opportunity costs... not "hard caps"...

Yes, the real world is unlimited with the only constraint being money.  What is the price of doubling the size of Heathrow?  I don't know, but it is less than infinity which is the cost in AWS.  This is based on economic theory that most people don't have a good understanding of, so I'd expect most players to respond this way.

Why is it CVG has so many slots?  They are a smaller city in the grand scheme of things, but Delta made it a hub due to proximity and as a result it is huge in the game.  The same thing goes for CLT.  When city based demand is implemented, being able to grow an airport will be required to compete effectively.

To further emphasize the point of things being unlimited IRL just look at places like Japan.  No room to build an airport?  Spend billions to create an artificial island and build it anyways.  ATL moved millions and millions of yards of fill dirt many miles with a custom conveyance system several miles long just so they could build an additional runway.  JFK could be expanded out into Jamaica Bay for the right price. 

Japan is indeed a very good example that only money and political will of the gouvernment determines what´s to be built and where.Like with their nuclear power plants.
At least for central Europe politics face a growing opponing population which can´t be just dealt with spending money.Maybe the US still work that way but it will change there,too.
But how can the possibilitiy of building some other airport nearby in RL have an effect on the slot situation at the airports in AWS ?

Why did ORD get built when MDW already existed?  Why is there 3 airports in NYC?  Demand is the reason.  I don't forsee sami allowing new airports that don't exist IRL to be built, so what is the solution?  You expand existing airports.  Tokyo doesn't have 2 airports because they thought it would be fun, but because the airlines needed the space to satisfy demand.  So with all of that said, what happens when we outgrow ORD in AWS?  We can't build airports so we must add capacity to existing airports.

Quote from: exchlbg on July 11, 2013, 07:53:09 PM
At least for central Europe politics face a growing opponing population which can´t be just dealt with spending money.Maybe the US still work that way but it will change there,too.
But how can the possibilitiy of building some other airport nearby in RL have an effect on the slot situation at the airports in AWS ?

You are talking from present time, 2013, but I'm currently playing in 1956... I don't remember reading much about opponing population back in the 50s.. at least not about these issues since they had more important things to be dealt back then than where an airport is or is not built... plus aviation was seen different back then... Also, cities were not as populated as they are presently...

Just as an example... in my city, between 1930 and 1990 a main avenue was constructed, demolishing entire blocks in the middle of downtown... it was done no matter what...
Today, some trees are taken off that avenue, and a legal issue is raised which stops working for weeks...

Times changed, but don't forget JA starts in 1955...

Yes, you´re right, I was talking as of today. Jet Age slot problems don´t come from congested airports in RL, but only here, where 100+ airlines fight for 20 potential PAX (realistic?)

Quote from: sami on July 11, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
This variable slot pricing has been there already for ages really.. And it already takes into account pretty much everything you mentioned in price calculation.

Also, having unlimited airport capacity or unrestricted basing will not be done. Will keep at least some sense and relation to real life in things....

I've done some more thinking on this.  Sami, you mentioned having some sense/relation to things in the real life.  I live in the US and am well traveled, but just for the sake of argument I'm going to use North America.  IRL, there are only 13 airlines with 40 or more aircraft flying in the US.  In AWS in Modern Times circa 2013 there are probably at least 100 airlines with 40 aircraft or more in North America.  The actual breakdown IRL is even more discouraging with 4 airlines 600-750 aircraft, 2 airlines with ~350 aircraft, 4 airlines with 100-200 aircraft, 4 airlines with 40-70 aircraft.

In reflection, AWS is NOTHING like the airlines that exist IRL.  They are subject to a market based system where they can influence the expansion of airports and slots, whereas in AWS our hands are tied.  In 2001 ATL started building a fifth runway and served ~75-80 million pax/year from 2000-2005.  When the runway opened in 2006 it increased capacity by 40% from 184 flights/hour to 237 flights/hour.  6 years later they are serving 90 million pax instead of 80 millions with plenty of room for further growth as they just built a brand new international terminal also.  To build the runway, they piled fill dirt 11 stories high in some places, destroyed surrounding neighborhoods, and had to modify two cemeteries where dead bodies were buried at a total cost of $1.28 billion.

IRL, there are no arbitrary caps on the number of bases or available slots.  ATL needed more slots and they exhumed dead bodies to make it happen.  I think you're underestimating how great a market-based system would be as it would dramatically change the game and make it MORE realistic, not less.  Furthermore, another statistic to add to slot cost calculation would be passengers served.  This would very greatly as 100 slots with a CRJ versus 100 slots with an A380 would produce dramatically different results, so it would have to be something like "passengers served per slot used".  This would be a good scaling metric as someone flying 100 CRJ slots would have to pay considerably more to "create" slots as they should be upgrading to use larger planes versus the A380 guy who can't buy anything bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_airlines_in_North_America#North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsfield%E2%80%93Jackson_Atlanta_International_Airport#History

Quote from: LemonButt on July 14, 2013, 02:22:25 PM
In AWS in Modern Times circa 2013 there are probably at least 100 airlines with 40 aircraft or more in North America.

40 airlines in MT#8 in North America with fleet more than 40 (March 2010 game date).

The overall pax demand in AWS is indeed higher than in real life if you look at the numbers of pax transported in the larger airports vs. real life counterpart. And I do not see why the mega hubs should be made even bigger by better slot availability or by any other mean. (well yea, if the slots are in poor supply there is no competition etc, but what I mean that making the big hubs even bigger is a bad idea)

Anyway, this is already out of the original topic and question in my mind as my original point was to look for ideas in how to make th long term game play easier in terms of slots and route/fleet changes etc.

Quote from: sami on July 14, 2013, 02:51:17 PM
but what I mean that making the big hubs even bigger is a bad idea

The main problem with that statement is that ATL shouldn't be a big hub in the first place... ATL wouldn't be a third of what it is today without delta, and delta does not exist in AWS...

But that leads (again) to city based demand...


I would suggest, creating a new world with "special rules", and applying a free market slot system and maybe basing (since you don't want to change the current slot system under any argument)... They do that in other airline simulation games...
So the people who wants to play a "realistic" game, will play the current rules... people who wanna play a balanced game, will play the new world...


As I once suggested, all airports should start with the same pax traffic (at least all 5 airports), and then grow accordingly to how well the airlines there are doing... That, would be closer to RL (the way I see it)...

But if you start a game with the mega hub ATL is today, and let the airlines there expand it even bigger (just because they based there), of course it would be a bad bad thing...


With the current system you don't let DELTA, create what ATL is today, you let ATL, create an AWS delta replica.

Quote from: sami on July 14, 2013, 02:51:17 PM
40 airlines in MT#8 in North America with fleet more than 40 (March 2010 game date).

The overall pax demand in AWS is indeed higher than in real life if you look at the numbers of pax transported in the larger airports vs. real life counterpart. And I do not see why the mega hubs should be made even bigger by better slot availability or by any other mean. (well yea, if the slots are in poor supply there is no competition etc, but what I mean that making the big hubs even bigger is a bad idea)

Anyway, this is already out of the original topic and question in my mind as my original point was to look for ideas in how to make th long term game play easier in terms of slots and route/fleet changes etc.

But this IS on topic.  The idea to make the game playable long term is to allow unlimited slots throttled by exorbitant prices.

ezzequiel proved the point--ATL wouldn't be ATL if it weren't for Delta and the reason people base there in AWS is because the Delta traffic/demand/slots are modeled in AWS.

Here is a list of metropolitan statistical areas for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Once city-based demand is created, what happens?  Las Vegas is the 31st largest metro area in the US, but their airport is the 24th largest in the WORLD.  #30 and #32 are Kansas City and Columbus, OH, respectively.  Are you telling me that these airports are going to all serve ~2 million people in AWS with city-based demand?  Have you ever been to the Kansas City airport?  It is almost a ghost town.

Salt Lake City is #50 on the population list, but their airport is #15 in the US and relatively HUGE.  San Diego is #17 in population, yet their airport only has 1 runway.

So if we're really talking about long term play-ability vs slots, what happens when city-based demand kicks in?  Is SLC going to have 50 slots an hour go unused while SAN is impossible to fly into?  The real world doesn't work based on city-based demand (see Las Vegas) due to not only tourism, but also the hub and spoke model that has airlines setting up large hubs.  St Louis is the 19th largest city in the US, but they are without a hub, but the 50th largest--Salt Lake City--has more than three times the traffic (20 million pax/yr versus 6 million).

It seems to me that a market-based solution with unlimited slots throttled by pricing relative to demand factors is the only solution.  If you really want to keep some sort of realism, it doesn't get any more real than the same free market system under which every airline operates.  Right now, when it comes to slots, the market is fixed and players are reacting (see slot hogging).  In a free market, the market react to players, and players react to the market.

so sami, any conclusions yet ??.. apparently no more ideas are coming :S

Quote from: ezzeqiel on July 18, 2013, 12:29:39 AM
so sami, any conclusions yet ??.. apparently no more ideas are coming :S

This is a big issue, and seven or eight days later may not be enough time to flush this out.  There are many hardcore players who have made many contributions to these forums that have not responded here.

Looking back at some other threads on major changes, they went for months, as the discussion evolved and coalesced around some ideas and how to model them.  Not suggesting we carry on for months, but not sure the "brainstorming" phase is over yet.

Quote from: sami on July 10, 2013, 12:55:56 PM
With slots the obvious problem is that it is "first come, first take" which is not fully fair. But that is not going to change yet at least. One change I would plan for this, in order to limit huge monopolies, is that home based airlines combined together could not control more than 60 or 70% of the slots at the airport. All other slots would be marked for non-based airlines.

However, when we think of longer term the one big issue is that when you replace your fleets to faster ones, the arrival/dep times at outstation change and you may end up having no slots for the departure, and you have to stick with the 1955 propliner schedule to LHR all the way to 2020 even though the flight could be 5 hours faster. This isn't very realistic nor desirable.

Quote from: sami on July 14, 2013, 02:51:17 PM
Anyway, this is already out of the original topic and question in my mind as my original point was to look for ideas in how to make th long term game play easier in terms of slots and route/fleet changes etc.

I like the line of thought the LemonButt has provided.  

As I read Sami's request again, the essence is that to make the game playable from game time=0, the world is unpopulated with any airlines.  The model assumes high growth to make it interesting for the players in a virtually unopposed marketplace.  So there is in place various mechanisms to limit the impact of that growth to mitigate the advantages of monopoly, again to make it playable for a larger number of players (vs dominated by a hand full of "winners").

To model what LemonButt is discussing would require competition to exist right from the start (otherwise who is bidding on slots?).  That is the holy grail of most games, and may be rather complex and computing intensive to implement on this scale.  Hence these shortcuts, like the suggested cap on % of slots at home base, multi-factor step function on slot prices, limits to 3 aircraft purchases per week, etc..  

For similar reasons, there are also limits to the number of slots in the entire game world.  

Ultimately, if the game runs out of computing resources or becomes too big and complicated to support efficiently within the price that Sami charges, then it won't work.  So, I see where Sami is coming from.  We have to trust Sami on this bit.  

So, I will (perhaps presumptuously  :) ) attempt to ask Sami's question in different words...

"Given that we are limited to having some artificial mechanisms (let's face it, they all are, but easiest way I can think to express is...that are not a "simulated market place" as proposed by LemonButt, sorry LB  :( ), is there some combination of limitations or parameters that can be set that makes the game interesting to anyone, no matter when they join in the long games, while being challenging enough throughout the life of the game to maintain interest?  What should the game start 'look like' so that it doesn't give an unbalanced advantage to those who got in on day one?  And, how can these tweaks help ease the administrative aspects of the game?"

Underlying the answer to these questions are:

• What do/should players consider a "success" in this long game?
• Does it make sense in the long game to have airlines so large or with such a large cash balance early enough in the game that they no longer face an existential threat?
• Does the game reward perseverance with game mechanics (e.g. editing hundreds of routes in transition to new aircraft) or does it reward strategic thinking and planning?
• Does one strategy dominate or can "success" be found via multiple strategies?

I don't know enough (yet) to say if just a few tweaks that Sami may be looking for, or a major change, is required to meet all the above.  

If there is a new city demand model that is on the horizon that few (if any) have knowledge/experience with, what gets proposed here ought to be seen as short term, pending the implementation of the new model, when there might be a better educated guess on the impact of any suggested tweaks.

I hope this spurs some thinking and comments from more veteran players.

Quote from: BD on July 18, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
"Given that we are limited to having some artificial mechanisms (let's face it, they all are, but easiest way I can think to express is...that are not a "simulated market place" as proposed by LemonButt, sorry LB  :( ), is there some combination of limitations or parameters that can be set that makes the game interesting to anyone, no matter when they join in the long games, while being challenging enough throughout the life of the game to maintain interest?  What should the game start 'look like' so that it doesn't give an unbalanced advantage to those who got in on day one?  And, how can these tweaks help ease the administrative aspects of the game?"

The combination of limitations/parameters is the marginal declining utility created by the increased cost of slots.  I have a degree in applied mathematics and a programming background.  Currently slot prices are calculated using an algorithm with various factors if and only if slots are available.  I'm just saying we get rid of the artificial ceiling on slots and tweak the algorithm, because IRL slots are always available for the right price.  It will reach the point of insanity where, as I mentioned in a previous post, players will be faced with the opportunity cost of spending $300 million on slots for a 737 or spending $300 million to put an A380 on a route using existing slots as well.

The business world is all about opportunity cost.  Right now, once slots are gone there is no opportunity cost--you upgrade to larger planes, period.  And whether an airline has used 0 slots or 10,000, they are subject to no slots being available.  The current system encourages slot hogging as a means to combat competition.  If slots are uncapped, this practice will disappear overnight.  Right now, players can structure their airline based on the premise that if they use all the slots, no one can compete against them.

The issue is abundance versus scarcity.  When scarce resources become abundant, people start using them differently.  Back in the 80's a guy started treating scarce computing resources as if they were abundant and started using resources to draw pictures on the computer screen.  It was the first graphical user interface.  Right now players are identifying slots as a scarce resource and responding by securing as many slots as possible, because if they don't they won't be there in the future.

So if the question is how do you make it so players can find the game interested no matter when they join then the answer is a market-based solution.  If the artificial ceiling on slots is going to remain, the only way to ensure availability is to place an artificial cap on individual players.  This is how the USSR was run in a command economy.  The government said they were going to produce 1000 bottles of vodka and each citizen can have 1 bottle.  The end result was long lines and artificial scarcity.

This also crosses over to the basing system and the artificial cap on the number of bases and number of planes at those bases.  To keep the game interesting, a player should be able to stretch themselves too thin.  Under the current system, I can go into 4 airports with 100 aircraft each, use up all the slots available and have a monopoly on those 4 airports and nearly all the routes as all the slots will be gone and no one could compete with me even if they wanted to.  In a market-based approach, I could open 10 bases with 500 planes each.  My costs would be significantly higher as the marginal cost of each base would be higher, but if slots remained available all 10 of my bases would be vulnerable to competition entering the market.  Even if I only had 4 bases, but were able to put 500 aircraft at each one instead of 100 I'd still be extremely vulnerable.

At the end of the day, what makes the game interesting to players is not necessarily being successful, but avoiding the many ways you can fail.  A market-based approach would dramatically increase the number of ways an airline can fail, making things much more challenging and interesting.

Quote from: BD on July 18, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
is there some combination of limitations or parameters that can be set that makes the game interesting to anyone, no matter when they join in the long games, while being challenging enough throughout the life of the game to maintain interest?

Yes, there's is a combination of limitation or parameters that can be set: "market based slots"... the more slots you have the more expensive they become... money is the only limitation...

Quote from: BD on July 18, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
What should the game start 'look like' so that it doesn't give an unbalanced advantage to those who got in on day one?  And, how can these tweaks help ease the administrative aspects of the game?"

The game start (as suggested before) should look like this: all airports have the same stats... then they grow accordingly on how well each airline is doing... just like in RL... of course, cities surrounding them are an important factor, but it's not the most important one...

This way, my AWS airline can create an ATL, an AMS, a FRA, and ORD airports just like IRL, (or who knows which.. hundreds of options) and not an artifical ATL create a DAL aws replica, an AMS create an artifical KLM replica, a FRA create an artifical DLH replica and ORD creates an artificial UAL and AAL replicas...


We all know Atlanta, Amsterdam, Frankfurt populations are largely unrelated to their airport sizes... those airports exists because some airlines decided to make a HUB there (and they succeeded at it)...

When the airport is just built expecting some airlines to come, (aws current situation), then it ends like CYMX (it almost happens with KIAD, but some regulations kicked in)... of course sami here just puts some demand in the shiny new empty hub and airlines will go and fill it, but that's not RL case...


The discussion keeps coming back over city based demand... but as lemon butt sayed... if we talk long term, and if we think in the future city based demand, then we should be thinking in a market based slot system and airport building and growing, which, I think, will solve current playability problems...

Quote from: BD on July 18, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
As I read Sami's request again, the essence is that to make the game playable from game time=0, the world is unpopulated with any airlines

No, exactly the opposite. The purpose of this thread is to seek ideas on how to make the slots a "non issue" when you are running a 500 plane strong airline for 60 game years, and transitioning between fleets and planes with different speeds etc. Naturally if the slots are out of the airport and you want to get new planes, then so be it - it will eventually happen at some point. But the point is to seek ideas on how to make life and playing easier in the longer run.

That in mind I will probably implement the "free edit" thing what I mentioned earlier. In other words you can freely move the outstation slot every 5 years to any place you wish. This could bring semi-automated fleet transitioning feature for example (= just click to mass move all routes from DC-6 to B707 and the system hangs only on curfews or runway errors or other such things). The slot at the outstation will just move to the new time then (some hours could go over capacity but that's not really only a minor issue as the playability is the main focus here). This naturally requires you to change the fleet type and as said you could do it only every 5 years per each slot (route), the system already stores when you last edited each route/slot.

Quote from: sami on July 20, 2013, 10:08:47 AM
No, exactly the opposite. The purpose of this thread is to seek ideas on how to make the slots a "non issue" when you are running a 500 plane strong airline for 60 game years, and transitioning between fleets and planes with different speeds etc. Naturally if the slots are out of the airport and you want to get new planes, then so be it - it will eventually happen at some point. But the point is to seek ideas on how to make life and playing easier in the longer run.

That in mind I will probably implement the "free edit" thing what I mentioned earlier. In other words you can freely move the outstation slot every 5 years to any place you wish. This could bring semi-automated fleet transitioning feature for example (= just click to mass move all routes from DC-6 to B707 and the system hangs only on curfews or runway errors or other such things). The slot at the outstation will just move to the new time then (some hours could go over capacity but that's not really only a minor issue as the playability is the main focus here). This naturally requires you to change the fleet type and as said you could do it only every 5 years per each slot (route), the system already stores when you last edited each route/slot.

I can see this being abused.  For example, it would advantageous for an airline to fly into Heathrow and fly out just before the evening curfew.  A player could eat up 35 slots if they fly 5x daily, for example.  If they then upgrade to a bigger aircraft with a longer turnaround, they will be forced to fly out in the morning and the morning hours would be overcapacity.  However, there will now be evening slots opening up and since they are only open after the player reschedules their existing flight, they have a distinct advantage to grab those extra slots and essentially create 35 slots out of thin air for themselves.  Especially since they could use those 5 planes with empty schedules to rebook those slots, switch to a larger aircraft, and create morning slots ad infinitum.

Even if you force the slots to be allocated to the original time period, there will be players scheduling small aircraft with a 45 minute turnaround to use 3am slots at places like JFK and then upgrading to something big, such as a 747 with a 3 hour turnaround which would put the new "adjusted" slot time at 5:15, which is a peak hour and usually the first hour where all the slots get used up.

So if players can change the outstation slot time and go overcapacity, there will need to be a lot of babysitting because it will be abused.  This goes back to the core issue of artificial scarcity though--the only reason people would do either one of these scenarios at Heathrow or JFK is because available slots are finite, so players are going to react and use up as many slots as they can as quick as they can, because if they don't they'll be out of luck.

If some hour goes to >100% due to this, the whole airport capacity cannot increase (will not be open slot elsewhere). Though have to see how the time allocation work there technically. (= how to make the slot take still the original time slot)

Yes, Sami, I agree with LemonButt here.  I think there is a great risk of abuse here.  As people, knowing they can do this can fly their props to airports, landing in the middle of the night because there are no slots during the day and then POOF! they magically get a slot at an ideal time when they change planes...

Another potentially cheat is to fly a route like that with a jet (lands and takes-off at outbound station in the middle of the night), and then using your 'free edit' change the origination departure time so that it lands and takes-off at the outbound station during the day...

The other thing that people could switch planes - getting their 'free edit' at the slot constrained airport and then switching back to the original airplane type, keeping the slot time at the outbound airport, but moving the slot time at the origination airport to take advantage of the 'free edit' slot.

While many players will obviously not abuse this feature, the fact that players still get fined for violated slot hoarding rules demonstrates that abuse does and will occur.  

I'm happy to provide more examples (or more detailed examples).  

That being said, an easy way to switch between fleet types would be a big help and save a lot of time so we appreciate your efforts on this.

dmoose--I think sami is only implementing this on the destination airport and not the base, so you'd be forced to takeoff at the same time, but the turnaround times at the destination would be changed.

After typing that, I realized that wouldn't work though.  If you had a 737 with a 90 minute turnaround (for example) and wanted to put a widebody with a 3 hour turnaround on the route, you would have to change the time slots at the base airport as well :(

sami--even if you kept the total slots at the airport fixed, I think you'll end up with a lot of extra slots during rush hour as players find a way to game the system by moving 3am slots to 6am, etc.

Quote from: LemonButt on July 20, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
After typing that, I realized that wouldn't work though.  If you had a 737 with a 90 minute turnaround (for example) and wanted to put a widebody with a 3 hour turnaround on the route, you would have to change the time slots at the base airport as well :(

You'll also have to move your base slots when transitioning from props to jets... departure hours are different... I have several props scheduled to arrive just at 0500 or 0600 am (overnight flights)... with jets that'd move several hours early and won't work...

I have been specifically buying remote slots that work for both jets and props, so that I can fly them now on props and still be able to use them on jets later...which really narrows the time slots I can use at the prop stage because i have to make it jet-compatible.

It's a lot of work..so if you decide to implement this feature, please make a big announcement so I can stop doing my double-planning.  :)

I agree with others that it's amenable to abuse. And yet the prop to jet thing is quite hard with slot-locked remote stations (which is why I am doing all this pre-planning, although it will go to waste if the new system is implemented).

Maybe make it take longer than 5 years, but instead like 10 years? Or is that too long?

Also, what does it mean that the whole airport cannot increase slots if a single hour is >100%? It seems that that will easily break the slot increase system and actually cause more congestion (unless I am reading it wrong).

Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 20, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Also, what does it mean that the whole airport cannot increase slots if a single hour is >100%? It seems that that will easily break the slot increase system and actually cause more congestion (unless I am reading it wrong).

If an airport has 10 slots/hour and you have an aircraft scheduled for 5am and the slots look like this:

5am: 10 slots used, 0 avail
6am: 10 slots used, 0 avail

It will go to this if you move to 6am:

5am: 9 slots used, 0 avail
6am: 11 slots used, -1 avail

The total slots remain fixed, but the hourly slots are "fluid".  After slot growth:

5am: 9 slots used, 1 avail
6am: 11 slots used, 0 avail

So in essence, sami is fronting the slot growth for certain hours to make this work as the slot usage will be at the detriment of future growth if I understand this correctly...

I just had an idea on this that I can't believe we haven't thought of yet.  It mixes the two methods of having an artificial cap as well as a market-based system for slots.

Let's say an airport has 50 slots/hour that are all used up.  Let's give each airport a fixed growth metric, such as 10% growth per year.  So an airport grows from 50 slots to 55 slots to 61 slots to 67 slots over a 4 year period.  This is the artificial cap part of the program.

The market-based part is a "slot presale" system.  Airlines can buy the new slots using an auction-style system and have them reserved for them based on the amount of money they want to contribute to fund expansion.  So if an airport is growing by 10 slots/hour (for simplicity), lets say that only 60% of slots are available for "pre-sale", or 6 slots per hour.  The year before the slot growth happens, airlines can bid on those slots using an auction-based system.  So 6 slots/hour available means there will be 6 winning bids.  This would be one of the largest auctions as you can expect there to be only 1-2, maybe 3 slots available to reserve as most airports don't expand by more than 5 slots/year.  In order to give the smaller airlines a fighting chance, you would bid with a % of that year's revenue.  So if you did $100 million in 2013 and bid 1%, that is $1 million.  If a large airline did $1 billion, they would have to put up 1% or $10 million in order to match the bid.  Then in 2014 they'd have the slots reserved for them for a period of 1 year in a use it or lose it scenario.

Here is a step-by-step:

1. The year is 2013 and an aiirport plans on 10% growth, adding 10 slots/hour in 2014.
2. 60% of the slots are available for "pre-sale" in an auction format (1 slot/hour packages, which is 24 slots/day spread out across every hour for airports without curfew)
3. Airlines bid a % of their 2013 revenue on the slots.
4. The highest bidders pay their winning bids to the airport to secure the slots on Jan 1, 2014.
5. The airlines have slots reserved for a year.  The reservation expires Dec 31, 2014 and then go into the general slot pool.
6. When an airline uses reserved slots, they are already paid for and cost $0 to buy.

Since smaller airlines have less overhead as a percent of revenue, this should give the small airlines an edge over the larger ones since you bid % of revenue.  This also makes it easier for larger airlines to fail as it will take substantial sums to compete with the smaller airlines in the auction.  Large airlines also predominantly fly the long haul routes which are hit hardest when fuel prices spike, so if they burn all their cash in the auction and are over-leveraged with loans it will be the death knell.  Also, since the slots expire after one year, airlines will need to have aircraft orders in or otherwise have extra cash available for aircraft to actually use the slots.  This adds a whole new element to the game IMO and would be a good middle ground between "first come first serve" and a "the airline with the most money wins" setup.

I doubt Sami will implement any kind of auction.Besides, that was proposed many times before.

Hi,

I am new to AWS, and still getting the hang of the intricacies of the game, but I do have extensive RL experience with airline scheduling and slots which I think may be of relevance to this discussion and Sami's initial suggestion.

My background is in Europe and whilst there may be some differences in North America, I don't think there is much variation given that the rules and regs for allocating slots are managed by IATA. These rules are set out in the Worldwide Slot guidelines (WSG) http://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Documents/wsg-5.pdf (http://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Documents/wsg-5.pdf)
although airports and the locally based airlines can agree certain minor variations (Local rules) which apply to that airport only, these do not contradict the fundamental principles of slot allocation.

Ignoring uncongested airports, where airlines can come and go as they please, for major airports which suffer congestion at peak times (classed as Level 3 or SCR airports in IATA terminology), slots are allocated according to WSG rules. Airlines can apply to change their schedules or apply for new slots at any time during the year, however, they have more success in achieving their aims if they organise their major schedule changes around the biannual slot conferences. In effect all the airlines operating to an airport revise their planned schedules for the coming season at the same time and the airport coordinator matches demand to capacity as best they can. The order of priority that the Coordinators apply in determining which airline gets what is as follows:

1.   Historic slots – that is if you have operated a flight at a given time last year, you are entitled to the same timed slots again this year.
2.   Historic Retimes – if an airline with historic slots wishes to reschedule a flight, the coordinator attempts to move the old slot onto the newly requested time (or close to it) before addressing other demands
3.   The slots that are left (any unclaimed Historic slots and any new capacity that the airport or ATC have agreed can be released) are allocated out, with 50% being reserved for "New Entrant" airlines. The definition of "New Entrant" has varied over the years, but is currently defined as an airline which holds less than 5 slots on the day for which they are applying for the new slot – note that an arrival counts as a slot as does a departure so this means a carrier with less than two daily rotations from an airport can request New Entrant status. In reality this means that New Entrant status only applies to non-based airlines. The remaining 50% of slots are available to all other carrier requests.

Over and above the formal rules for allocating capacity, airlines can and do trade slots between themselves. Note that IRL, the value of slots defers to the airline, not the airport, much to the airports' displeasure. I can apply and obtain a slot at an unconstrained airport and I pay nothing. Or I can sell my slots at a constrained airport to another airline and pocket the cash. If I want to fly out of JFK at peak time, it is not the airport I need to pay, but an existing operator with a slot/gate and stand at the times I want. Or I can apply to the JFK coordinator year after year for a slot and get told that nothing is available in the hours that I have requested.

IRL there are airline business models which involve operating cheap turboprops into congested airports in order to build up a slot portfolio which has an inherent value and can then be sold on in part or in pieces. Note that the more historic slots an airline has, the better its ability to access peak time slots as over time, through repeated (bi-annual) historic retime requests, the airline will eventually get its 04:00 departure moved to 06:00 or even 07:00 or 08:00 as other carriers go bust, lose their rights to historic slots or request moves out of the congested hours.

In terms of adding a "market based" approach to slots, slot trading between airlines is it. The price a carrier wishing to operate a long haul wide-body is prepared to pay for a slot sets the opportunity cost for an existing carrier operating small aircraft on regional services.  This is why you rarely see an ATR 42 at LHR.....

Another point which may be too complex for AWS now, but for which the basic infrastructure already exists is the performance and use it or lose it rules – airlines which routinely operate late can lose their rights to historic slots, a major blow at a congested airport. Likewise if an airline operates less than 80% of the slots it holds, it will also lose its historic rights to the slots. This is a basic method of avoiding slot hoarding. A simple rule on repeated poor punctuality leading to loss of slots would add realism to the game and force players to give due weight to their turn-round times and scheduling as well as occasionally freeing up slots at congested airports in peak hours.

Based on the real life rules, I would suggest that a system which reserves 50% of any new capacity being released for the non- based carriers at a given airport would go some way to solving the problem of early players being able to dominate a given airport, as long as capacity is slowly and steadily increased over time. IRL capacity is slowly increased, even at airports which aren't having new terminals or runways built. Often capacity improvements come in the form or one or two movements per hour as ATC review the delay statistics, the airport adds some rapid exit taxiways or reorganise the layout of the terminal to allow more international (or domestic) passenger throughput. Note that this new capacity is first available to retime an existing carriers slots. So if an  airport adds one movement in every hour, the request of an existing airline to move a slot from 09:00 to 10:00 would be met first and then the new entrants could pick up a slot in 09:00 or 11:00 or hour other than 10:00.

I'm not sure how you would devise a system which allows an airline to move its slots between capacity constrained hours over time without requiring immense processing behind the scenes in order to avoid busting the set hourly capacity limits. In essence, what you need is a wait list, with carriers bidding to move their existing slots into a new time as and when capacity becomes available, either through expansion or other carriers going bust or moving their slots out of the hours in question. The system Sami proposed of allowing airlines to bust the limits on certain hours whilst maintaining the overall cap on movements seems likely lead to certain hours being heavily (and unrealistically) oversubscribed over time.

Quote from: Herman on July 10, 2013, 03:43:21 PM
Airports that end up having no slots seem to be located mainly in Europe or Asia. If the objective is to provide better access to everyone to the (relatively few) slot restricted airports, then perhaps a much easier solution could be to just increase the total amount of slots in those (few) airports such as (LHR, FRA, NRT etc?). That might address the issues maybe in a more efficient way rather than creating another artificial limit?

The easiest solution is to make the slot growth completely dynamic, with no presets, other than what the airport starts with at the beginning of the game world.

Quote from: sami on July 10, 2013, 02:26:43 PM
Another slot hogging prevention method which I posted to another thread earlier is a slot quota. In other words each airline is limited to X % of the available slots each game month. Easy method to prevent the f5 spam...

Slot hogging and slot locking an airport is only there because players know there is a limit, and the limit can be exploited by buying up the slots, creating a monopoly.  The limit itself invites slot hogging and attempt to slot lock the airport.

Remove the limit, and the players will know that there will always be slots added (airport expanded), and the desire to hog the slots will not be there any more, and everyone will know that they can't slot lock the airport, period, so no need to even try....

Some airports in RL grow very quickly, when the demand is there.  One such airport I have been flying to, VIE, probably grew by factor of 3 in last ~30 years.  So there is a precedent...

Another 2 issues is playability and competition.

RL issues vs. playability should be considered, playability should be a factor.  If small bending of RL restrictions will greatly increase playability - than why not?

Airports formerly slot locked by the incumbent airline may be subject to more competition, if the competitor knows that the slots will be there for him if he decides to compete by opening a base at a monopoly airport.

Knowing for fact that there will be slots at airports such as LHR, CDG, FRA may also slow down the rush to fly to them.  A lot of players rush to these airports, not only because of potential profit, but also out of fear that if they don't grab the slots early on, it may be nearly impossible later on.  Knowing there will definitely be slots may slow down this rush by outside airlines as well...

As far as expansion, maybe when an airport is below certain % of slots in 0500-2300 hours, system can add a non-trivial "airport expansion fee" on all existing slot holders - per slot.  The airline most heavily affected by the fees will be the slot monopoly holder...  So in effect, the person slot locking the airport would be funding the unlocking of the airport...

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 03, 2013, 04:23:34 AM
As far as expansion, maybe when an airport is below certain % of slots in 0500-2300 hours, system can add a non-trivial "airport expansion fee" on all existing slot holders - per slot.  The airline most heavily affected by the fees will be the slot monopoly holder...  So in effect, the person slot locking the airport would be funding the unlocking of the airport...

Interesting idea.

Seems that it could most easily be implemented as part of the landing fee. 

Could the effect of this be to discourage new entrants to an existing airport?  I don't know the answer to that, but it is a question I have.