There have been now two cases were two alliance members have coordinated a slot transfer between each others in a highly slot restricted airport (read: LHR). In practise so that the member #1 has chosen to withdraw from the game or that airport and member #2 has been given early info this. When the player #1's withdrawal happened and slots were made available the member #2 was online to immediately get all those slots.
In the first case it was a matter of over 220 slots and in second of about 55. Case 1 involved penalties, case 2 not since it was rather much smaller in scale; but due to it I've started this thread to discuss on how it will be dealt with in the future.
To begin with, coordinated slot transfers between members (alliance or not) isn't something that I would like to see, since it's not "fair play". At least in such magnitude that nobody else has a chance to get those.
In longer term the slot issues will be alleviated by changes in the demand and airport systems making the world more dynamic and reducing the need for everyone to crowd the same airport. But there still too will be a couple of slot limited airports, and all those things mentioned are still far away anyway ..
I wouldn't see it necessary to write this into the rules since it's hard to monitor, but instead a slot quota system (which I have already mentioned earlier) would be perhaps the way to go. In other words a simple system that a) is in force only at the most slot limited airports, and b) allows each airline to get only X amount of slots per game week. (X being for example 14 slots per game week on an airport where less than 10% of all slots are available?)
This thread is not meant to discuss of the technical details (use this thread instead: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49624.0.html) but instead to talk about the possible needed changes to the rules and / or game mechanisms.
And before anything final is settled, I'd suggest not to do any such slot zigzag-transfers ...
(and to add, I'm not very pleased that again I'll have to focus on such unnecessary things and take the time away from actual development of real new stuff... But it seems to be a norm rather than exception)
(ps. if there's some other PM I've forgotten to reply now, please resend it.. Has been rather busy few weeks)
Wow....
First off, the first "issue" did NOT involve two members of the same alliance but you chose to drag my name through the mud like a damn criminal, yet with Iksu and KidCo, both ACTIVE in World Link, you let them get away with it scott free. This is absolutely infuriating to me. Fair is fair, I was punished and, presumably, Dan would have been punished if he was still in the game. There is no excuse what so ever to not punish both Iksu and KidCo after you said ANY SIMILAR ACTION would be dealt with harshly....
I'm not sure I have a well formed opinion as far as the correct way to proceed on this, but my initial gut feel is that the slot quota system is not a great way to go for the restricted airports. Of course, I'm only a week into playing at my first severe slot restricted airport, so my perspectives aren't as well developed as they will be in a few more months.
At the initial start of GW4, it was quite frustrating as an incumbent airline to acquire slots, as everyone and their mother wanted their first route to be to LHR (for obvious reasons). Up until the last couple slot drops, I did not 1. Have the funding to buy many more slots and 2. Had FAR less slots than several non-incumbent airlines (I'm looking at you, dudes in JFK). Given the nature of LHR, slots will always be in the 90% or more used range even if there's a bunch of lame duck incumbent airlines that aren't working on world domination.
If the restriction was put into place that limited the number of slots acquired per game week (especially as low as 14), it would be virtually impossible for an incumbent airline to set up 7 day schedules on a predictable basis. Given that a 7 day rotation will typically have 5-7 flights per week times 7 frames, the total need for a single slot drop and to schedule 1 rotation would be 35-49 slots (and in LHR's case, that's 1/3 to 1/2 of the slots on a 1x weekly drop). I would be quite frustrated as a player watching all of the other airlines across the game world drop in and take slots for a 7 day rotation that I can only finish half of per drop (to the point I would likely lose interest in bothering).
I need to think on this a bit more to see if there's a good interim solution - I don't think the quota system is fair towards incumbants, but the current system isn't super fair to outsiders (though, informal alliance communication can often alert others toslot availability). I'd almost think another significant price increase to major slot holders during low availability times would be the better option. Thus far in the game world, I have not been able to afford to take all of a slot drop...
Quote from: JetWestInc on February 06, 2014, 05:12:33 PM
First off, the first "issue" did NOT involve two members of the same alliance but you chose to drag my name through the mud like a damn criminal
..
after you said ANY SIMILAR ACTION would be dealt with harshly....
So first reply and the whole point of my post is ignored. Sure, great.
If you care to re-read the whole thread of your earlier issue you can see that at no point I have dragged you anywhere, actually even did not name you in any of my messages (you made a post there yourself before I had a chance actually ... but should have locked the thread earlier there but was not online in the middle of the night..). And the only thing I posted in public about possible similar occurences was that "mass coordinated effort of transferring all slots in one go is not something that will be tolerated", and in this new case (who's parties YOU chose to name in public, not me ..) I didn't consider it to be large enough to justify losses of the slots (a very close call though, but like already mentioned based on this second case I'd like to get the final solution to this now). So to sum it up one word: Enough already...
(I would be tempted to lock this thread already and simply choose a way I'd think is the best, but let's try to civil for a moment still and see if anyone actually has anything proper to comment.)
Quote from: schro on February 06, 2014, 05:34:54 PM
If the restriction was put into place that limited the number of slots acquired per game week (especially as low as 14), it would be virtually impossible for an incumbent airline to set up 7 day schedules on a predictable basis. Given that a 7 day rotation will typically have 5-7 flights per week times 7 frames, the total need for a single slot drop and to schedule 1 rotation would be 35-49 slots (and in LHR's case, that's 1/3 to 1/2 of the slots on a 1x weekly drop). I would be quite frustrated as a player watching all of the other airlines across the game world drop in and take slots for a 7 day rotation that I can only finish half of per drop (to the point I would likely lose interest in bothering).
I would suspect that for the starts of the game world such quota would not apply? Or?
And you counted 49 slots, which in my mind is quote high. Let' say shorthaul plane in Europe can fly 3-4 trips per day, 7 days a week => 28 slots. If capacity is increased 1 slot per hour and airport is open 05-23, then we'd have 126 new slots. If you were to get 49 slots of those, that would mean 39% of the total which is very high for a single airline in my mind. As the basic idea here would be to simply limit on how much you can get with a "single click" so that others have a chance too! And if they don't take their chance, then in due time you can get another set .. etc.
I personally thing that slot constraints is the N° 1 thing that makes me abandon my airlines over and over again, and just get bored of the game...
Last game I played; this was a topic of discussion in the alliance I was into:
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2Fk0t5p0.png&hash=e348f41237d59dadad06cef9afabf1805b3409de)
I mean, come on. You either have to be actually employing people to press F5 every 5 seconds or there must be some type of alliance TOO tight cooperation. It's impossible to achieve that by one person only
And It always come down to E***E members.
In that game I remember one of them (e***e) was actually sanctioned by you sami for slot maneuvers in Beijing, where one of our alliance members had to compete against that...
I always wanted the long term solution (city based demand, free market slot system, etc), but in the meantime I'd agree in a quota system.
EDIT:
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 05:36:17 PM
If you care to re-read the whole thread of your earlier issue you can see that at no point I have dragged you anywhere
Come on sami... you don't have to drag anyone here to realize who are you talking about...
Every average AWS player knows what e***e does with slots...
It's happening again in LHR... and will happen again in the future unless something is done...
I'm not meaning a total cap on slots per airline per airport at this time, but simply talking on how many you can get them in a certain period for a certain airport.
If LHR would have 100 free slots right now, you would be able to get let's say max 14 of them in this game week. And if there are still some available next week, you could get another set of 14 (numbers just out of my head). In other words it would mean that for the set of new slots available other players would have a chance to get them also.
Okay, but do we then see that a member closes his base at LHR and makes 80 slots available, and then 7 of his alliance members pick up the slots and release them back to single member over a period of several game months? ..that would be a way around it, but would be rather slow and require many users online at the same time. But I wouldn't be surpirsed to see such scheme at some point.
And ezzeqiel, would rather prefer that you edit out the alliance rants from the last part of your message. That's not relevant.
(and, have to remind that all this is related to short-term changes of the system, and in longer term I visioned things in my initial post already)
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 04:55:14 PM
In the first case it was a matter of over 220 slots and in second of about 55. Case 1 involved penalties, case 2 not since it was rather much smaller in scale; but due to it I've started this thread to discuss on how it will be dealt with in the future.
Case 2 also took place in JFK, which at that point was just as restricted as LHR. So make that 110. Not so much smaller anymore.
What makes it worse is that KidCo took the slots from that base and used them to attack me in another. I absolutely refuse to accept that such blatant rule breaking is accepted due to its allegedly smaller scale. No way.
All that happens is that I am told that work on a 'final solution' (nice terminology btw) is underway.
I find selective rule enforcement of that kind quite disturbing to say the least.
Could you just remove Heathrow from the game? Everyone would be happier and no more problems!
Heathrow has little slots. Deal with it. Make sure you check regularly and be early to fly there. If you're late you missed the boat. Luckily there are about 50.000 other airports to fly to so please stop whining.
Next to that. Communication about slots is quite a normal practice for every airline. If a slot drop appears in a busy airport, do you think my alliance members stay quiet to each other? That would be very naive.
Bye
Quote from: [SC] - King Kong on February 06, 2014, 05:57:22 PM
Heathrow has little slots. Deal with it. Make sure you check regularly and be early to fly there. If you're late you missed the boat. Luckily there are about 50.000 other airports to fly to so please stop whining.
Next to that. Communication about slots is quite a normal practice for every airline. If a slot drop appears in a busy airport, do you think my alliance members stay quiet to each other? That would be very naive.
Bye
I kind of agree. But I do also see merit in restricting the number of slots per airline per week (or similar) too.
Quote from: [SC] - King Kong on February 06, 2014, 05:57:22 PM
Heathrow has little slots. Deal with it. Make sure you check regularly and be early to fly there. If you're late you missed the boat. Luckily there are about 50.000 other airports to fly to so please stop whining.
Next to that. Communication about slots is quite a normal practice for every airline. If a slot drop appears in a busy airport, do you think my alliance members stay quiet to each other? That would be very naive.
First of all, nobody is whining... Sami brought this up... And I never saw SC do what elite does with slots... One thing is friendly communication, another very different one is slot manipulation...
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 06, 2014, 06:01:33 PMwhat elite does with slots...
Did. Not does. We did do this. We were dragged through the town and forced to release them. We are just demanding a case of the same by other players to be punished in the same way. No more, no less.
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 06, 2014, 06:01:33 PM
First of all, nobody is whining...
Once more, don't go into that alliance blaming and war path. This thread is made to talk about the improvements and changes since I wanted to hear the general opinion, but sadly it seems to be impossible to stay on topic?
Now that this is repeated once more - any message not in topic will be deleted.
I want to make a remark on my post.
I'm not initiating a discussion on any alliances' integrity on slot control.
I'm pointing out that the power of alliances lie in a shared communication possibility. Of course we tell each other when slots appear, thats one of the advantages of a close cooperation and group of friends.
I do not see any benefits of limiting the amount of slots an airline can aquire. Not to the airlines at least. If one airline is larger it will be able to aquire more slots. It doesnt help to increase prices on slots, it doesnt help to reduce the amount to be bought. It is just part of a competitive market, just as the UM and ordering new planes are a competitive thing.
I'm surprised every time that people are affraid of competition. Honestly said, I love it! A strong competitor is what brings a game element in my game and makes me wanna play AWS all day (if I had ever time for that). A sandbox simulation, sorry, very boring.
Bye
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 05:36:17 PM
I would suspect that for the starts of the game world such quota would not apply? Or?
And you counted 49 slots, which in my mind is quote high. Let' say shorthaul plane in Europe can fly 3-4 trips per day, 7 days a week => 28 slots. If capacity is increased 1 slot per hour and airport is open 05-23, then we'd have 126 new slots. If you were to get 49 slots of those, that would mean 39% of the total which is very high for a single airline in my mind. As the basic idea here would be to simply limit on how much you can get with a "single click" so that others have a chance too! And if they don't take their chance, then in due time you can get another set .. etc.
If the slot quota does not apply in a game world until after the initial rapid slot growth is complete (and it reverts to the ~annualish drop for the rest of the game world), I think that would make the slot quota system a lot more acceptable.
I disagree that 39% would be high for a single airline on a 1x drop. Let's say there's 2 strong ones in said airport that each grab the 39% initially, that still leaves 22% for unbased airlines for an entire game week.
The number of slots that I'm proposing is related to a seven day schedule being placed on
seven planes. If you look at it from a short haul perspective, if you schedule 3 routes per day per plane, 49 slots would let a player schedule 2.333 planes per quota. For a slot restricted airport (of course, I'm thinknig LHR), scheduling 2-7 planes per slot drop can be a rather miserable experience...
The issue with the quota based system overall, is that it essentially removes the reward for having time, skill and planning that is needed for a congested airport. It is not a walk in the park to be prepared for new slots to come available, and with the quota system, it takes such time, skill and planning elements out of play and essentially hands those slots to others who may not have played. You know, from each according to his means and to each according to his means ;-).
Quote from: Pukeko on February 06, 2014, 06:00:05 PM
I kind of agree. But I do also see merit in restricting the number of slots per airline per week (or similar) too.
SIMPLE FIX, just like the real world.
When a "large" (I'll let Sami determine what "large" means) number of slots drop open at an airport with over 90% slot usage, then a Closed-bid AUCTION takes place for available slots, with all players notified by in-game email.
Allow 7-14 game days for bidding. You bid more than someone else for a slot, you get it. If you cannot fill that slot in 30 days after the end of the auction, you lose it, and it returns to the open pool. If you miss out on the auction, it sucks to be you. If you cannot afford to bid on the non-restricted slots, well it sucks to be you. If the slots you win are scattered all over, it sucks to be you.
Reserve a certain number of those slots (say 20%) for airlines below the 50% Value-per-capita line to bid on. Any slots not sold to this group return to the open pool. (Represents the "New Entrants" set-aside). I'm no programmer, but that doesn't sound that hard to code. (I know, easier said than done. Sorry Sami)
Something like the system the US uses for it's slot-controlled airports, without having to click the "Buy A Senator" button. (The Juan Trippe Method)
Attached is the LHR slot distribution in GW2/DOTM6.
You can add Case #3 to the list. I saw slots go up 3/hr and I grabbed a bunch of slots in a mad panic because that is effectively the only way to ensure you will get slots at LHR. There is no meticulous route planning and assuming slots will be available--you have to click as fast as you can to pick up the slots, which is a huge part of the problem. I have 4 bases in France with substantial demand (300+/day from each base) and the only slots I had were from the first game year (~20 game years ago!) and have been trying to fly into LHR from all my bases for over a decade. I grabbed a ton of slots and went from 14 slots to 63 slots. I ended up transferring an additional 21 slots to an alliance mate (me = French Toast, him = Empire).
As a result of this, airlines who aren't based at LHR now control a whopping 16% of slots. I have 63 slots with 4 base airports (approx 2 flights/day from each base) and Empire has 78 slots. Empire is based at JFK with a base at SFO with a cumulative 14000 pax/day demand that he is trying to satisfy with 78 slots, which means he would need a 1300 seat aircraft to serve 100% of demand.
The reason LHR is so profitable is because of the lack of competition and restricting slot purchases for non-based airlines isn't going to increase competition.
The easiest solution IMO is to create an overflow slot database. Right now, the two airlines based at LHR control 5857 slots (84%). In the spirit of increasing competition (this game is EXTREMELY boring without competition), all we have to do is create an overflow slot database where non-based players can buy slots upto the point that slots owned by based airlines = slot owned by non-based airlines.
So if the based airlines control 5857 slots, and non-based airlines have 1200, then the overflow slot pool would have 4657 slots (5857 minus 1200). This means that based airlines can hoard all the slots they want because for every slot they take, there is another one available to non-based airlines.
This is completely unrealistic (there are several other parts of AWS completely unrealistic too BTW), but IMO is needed to balance gameplay. If based airlines control less than 50% of slots, there is no overflow pool. I don't think anyone will argue the point that it is airlines based at LHR versus those who aren't that are taking all the slots. This would apply to all airports, not just LHR. I am based at Paris Orly and I control 73% of the slots, but there are still slots avail for all hour blocks. If those slots get used up (in any hour), then the overflow pool would kick in. This prevents any one airline from monopolizing slots (although they can still monopolize the airport).
In order to throttle players from invading these slot constrained airports from every direction, the overflow slots should be very expensive--let's say $2 million per slot ($14 million for a set). The breakeven on flights to the destination should take a couple years unless you are absolutely banking it, but odds are you'll face heavy competition and will be getting lower LF.
So in the end, I think it is important to address the problem versus the symptoms. The problem being slots costs rise to infinity because the "free market" did a terrible job of ensuring availability through pricing. By creating an overflow slot pool according to based airlines' slot control, the price of slots goes down from infinity to extremely expensive and extremely expensive ensures availability for those who are willing to pay the price. This is the same concept as to why first class seats cost more than economy. If they didn't, the first class cabin would be first come/first served and those willing to pay a premium are priced out of the first class market because the market price rises to infinity once the cabin is full. By making first class more expensive, it ensures availability for those who see it as value added and willing to pay the price.
Quote from: tcrlaf on February 06, 2014, 06:26:52 PM
When a "large" (I'll let Sami determine what "large" means) number of slots drop open at an airport with over 90% slot usage, then a Closed-bid AUCTION takes place for available slots, with all players notified by in-game email.
Good idea, and has been mentioned before, but technically not feasible since this is about ~10 or less airports in each game. (ie. not worth the time and effort?)
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 06:06:08 PM
Once more, don't go into that alliance blaming and war path.
Sorry.
So I make a suggestion: Auction system.
When an airport reaches a determined slot usage (let's say +70%) the auction system kicks in for that airport. Auction can be in 2 ways.
1- Higher bidder (money talking) takes the slots. Bids are made by hour.
Example
airline A bids for 1 set of 7:00 slots and is willing to pay 1.000.000
Airline B bids for 2 set of 7:00 slots and is willing to pay 750.000 (each one)
Airline C bids for 3 sets of 7:00 slots and is willing to pay 500.000 (each one)
If the airport has 4 7:00 slots, Airline A gets 1, airline B gets 2, airline C gets 1.
2-Slots are divided equally among all bidders (no money involved). No hourly reservations.
All interested bids in slots.
The system then allows slot rights purchases (like the market calls), for example 50% to foreign airlines and 50% to local ones.
Then you acquire whatever slots are available with the limit established. (like the market calls, you can make 7 calls, you can purchase 7-14-21 or whatever slots)
If you are online and come first to acquire the slots, you can choose whatever hour and day you like with your right purchases. If you come online last, you'll only be able to choose one slot left (the one that any of the other airlines didn't pick before you)
1 slot purchase right is for a 7 day set.
The problem here is when there's more bidders than slots. In that case, you distribute the slots between the ones that bid first.
Bidding open and closing are random. when a bid is closed, purchase rights are granted.
If you do not use your purchase rights before the next auction is open you loose them.
Currently on iPad at the dinner table so excuse any misspelling, will update once back at the computer.
I do think that some degree if alliance cooperation is to expected and acceptable, as KingKong already mentioned.
And since airlines irl also swap slots back and forth I think that completely forbidding it would be off, too.
I do agree that 220 and 55 (110) is a bit excessive....
I think that slot cost at OUTSTATIONS should increase faster. Not at your HQ because you need that, but you do not necessarily need as many LHR slots as HQ slots when u are somewhere else.
Nevertheless, if the LHR slots cost 50M there will be airlines that are willing to buy them. Hell, if I could get 2 or 3 more weeks in LHR I'd pay 100M each in MT. But that would be the price to pay, and would especially early on limit the incentive to send all your planes to the same destination.
My 2 cents so far. Back at computer in 20-30 mins, to be continued.
Cheers,
[SC] Jona L.
while I did propose an auction system, I find all of this discussion about Heathrow slots to be a waste of time.
Heathrow is a money-printing license precisely because of big demand, limited space. And BA doesn't give a damn that Jet Blue can't get any slots at Heathrow. They are going to protect as much of that Heathrow monopoly as they can, as well they should. They were there in the beginning, and they paid for it. That Cameroon Crashing Cattleways can get a once-a-day at Heathrow in real life, while someone like Jet Blue cannot, is a political thing that can't really be modeled in this type of game.
If you want Heathrow slots, be there when they come available, like I have done with the few slots I have, in the games I am currently in.
Frankly, I'm tired of the whining....
Quote from: tcrlaf on February 06, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
That Cameroon Crashing Cattleways can get a once-a-day at
Cameroon Crashing Cattleways? Never heard of that airline mate. Who are they? An African airline that crashes before getting their cattle to their destination? Do elaborate. ::)
I must agree with tcrlaf. I think that the current slot system does not work for mega hubs and believe a special law should be implemented there to allow fairness.
Bidding for slots...YES.
Having to stay up or wake up at unsociable hours or whatever yhe case maybe for the LHR dwellers is not fair. Some members do not have the time and therefore, once LHR is full, it becomes boring.
Also airlines must be able to buy and sell slots. Come on. Doesn't even need a request. Just as long as it is monitored but not tightly restricted.
And guys. I mean no offence when I say this and I do acknowledge I am not yet skilled enough to base at LHR but no one forced you to start at LHR and your arguements is boring as #@$#. Surely if you bombard Sami with polite requests he will do something about it.
Re: auction system or bidding for slots.
I don't know how y'all play the game, but I don't know what times I need slots for until I have a full plane's schedule. Having idle planes is bad business and sitting around waiting for slots to be won via an auction isn't an option either. Winning slots at 1000 instead of 1100 changes my entire strategy if I am based at a curfewed airport and flying into a curfewed airport.
Aside from terminals offering an exclusive slot pool to players, the best solution IMO is to have an automated overflow slot pool as I proposed on page 1 of this thread. Slots automatically expand based on slot consumption and there is no waiting around with a thumb up your butt waiting for everyone to get their bids in.
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 06:28:42 PM
Good idea, and has been mentioned before, but technically not feasible since this is about ~10 or less airports in each game. (ie. not worth the time and effort?)
The whole bid system is not a good idea anyways, because rich airlines just would purchase those slots away. This might either be a rich LHR-bank-airline itself or some other big fish who then uses the slots himself or transfers them.
Joe Random, flying out of this medium airport and just having a nice time in the game, never will see one of those slots. And you know why I know this? Because I'm one of the big guys who would either make sure the slot prices on such an auction go insanely high or who would simply get the slots myself - and if it's just to block the LHR-bank.
I will come back to the opening post in a seperate answer because it's too important. I just want to show why auction would be no improvement.
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 04:55:14 PM
[..]
In longer term the slot issues will be alleviated by changes in the demand and airport systems making the world more dynamic and reducing the need for everyone to crowd the same airport. But there still too will be a couple of slot limited airports, and all those things mentioned are still far away anyway ..
[..]
Unfortunately I can't offer you a short and easy solution. However, lots of people (including I) told you about that problem 4 years ago. I don't blame you on that, sami, I just want to remember this is not a new problem that occured over night.
What I see as a problem (and now comes a small blaming part) is how you try to fix this problem. How much time have you invested in the coding of the anti-auto-refresher thing that was used for slots? How much time did you invest in increasing slot sizes and slot costs and adjusting them? And where all this precious time you put in led to? Here, unfortunately.
You fight the symptons and I can understand that. It's maybe the fastest and most cost effective solution for you. But like the fire department that puts fire out by this one pyromanic, this isn't going anywhere.
So, what would be the solution to this is and can only be dynamic (and not just city based) demand!
Please let me explain why:
At the moment we all follow the pattern of real world. In Gameworld #4, 1953, my Los Angeles to Heathrow route offers like 20%-30% of my whole business and first demand. In 1953. When there were, according to the game, no airlines before. Why? Why does Peter Townsend, a citizen of Los Angeles in 1953, wants to fly to London Heathrow? What's his problem with Gatwick? Or with Manchester and then taking a connection flight?
And THIS is where the whole system falls apart.
We as players currentrly only can fit into this. We can't change demands. 1953 could have been the second where San Francisco got the biggest West Coast airport and not Los Angeles. Why is Atlanta so big in AirwaySim? In 1953 Atlanta was a big airport but it becomes good in AWS because it is a hub for several airlines LATER in the real world.
So, to finally fix (and not cut down symptoms) the problems with slots but also with weird demand numbers, it must be up to the players to develop airports and routes. This would give two advantages:
1) No more concentration on the real life big airports. When I would be able to have the same chances out of Kansas City as out of Atlanta or Los Angeles, why would I not try something new? I guess this would be true for nearly all players.
2) No concentration of slots. When player airlines develop their own hubs, increasing route demand because they actually offer services (and not because some non-existant real life airline did) the whole thing will be spread more.
This also includes dynamic airport developement. This means there might (but not must) be a maximum amount of theoretical slots. In some countries more, like the US with the big country or Russia or China, in some countries like Germany those slots might be lower. However, myself I live in the Frankfurt area and if it was a manner of life and death we would cut the curfew and extend the airport - especially prior to the 1980s, when the protests against the airport began. In 1960 NOBODY would have protested against building Frankfurt airport with 6 runways.
So, this dynamic system does not simply follow the rule "Atlanta has every game a maximum of 120 slots, Chicago has 100 slots and New York JFK has 80 slots". It would actually develop when slots run out and there is still growing demand - because a there based airline creates this demand.
That's a (and in my eyes the only) option to solve the problem without fighting symptons, but by eliminating the cause. This is nothing that can be coded in a day, but Sami, remember when we first talked on IRC years ago and you told me about your vision of AWS... are you really going to invest time to code fire departments instead of letting a few houses burn down and catch the pyromaniac I told as an example before?
tl;dr:
Dynamic City based demand
Dynamic airport growth
Dynamic route growth
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 07:27:48 PM
Having to stay up or wake up at unsociable hours or whatever yhe case maybe for the LHR dwellers is not fair. Some members do not have the time and therefore, once LHR is full, it becomes boring.
If you don't have the time, don't do it, simple as that. If you have alliance members that have time, and are willing to buy slots to transfer to you out of courtesey or as part of a deal involving reduced a/c prices or whatever, lucky for you. If not, you either have to be there, or don't fly it. Simple as that. It has always been like that, and frankly I don't see the problem.
I used to play from LHR myself, but I was in school back then, and had at LEAST 16h/day time for AWS. Now that I work, I have no time for LHR slots, so I don't play it anymore. I try to get my share of slots in LHR early game, when chances are good I find some, and later on it simply is: "use what I have".
The success of a company real world and AWS is dependant of the time and effort a player (or the staff of a company) put in. If you have a great deal of time to invest, it is only fair, that you get a great deal in returns on investment i.e. slots --> cash.
I'd have another idea to reduce the amount of LHR slots being used up unnecessarily, but I bet I will be hunted out of town for it. However I do propose it here now:
BAN SMALL A/C IN LHR. In early games where your biggest planes available are 100ish seats the minimum size should not be too high, but e.g. DC-3 or smaller (<30 seats) could be banned. Later on in the game like speaking 2010 ish one could raise that limit to 120 seats (so 737/320 or bigger required).
Same as there is a list of planes to operate into LCY, there could be a list of planes NOT allowed to operate into LHR.
cheers,
[SC] Jona L.
Quote from: CUR$E on February 06, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
That's a (and in my eyes the only) option to solve the problem without fighting symptons,
The potential new dynamic systems are still far in the pipeline, so in the meantime the current system has to work. That's what this thread is about (and that's also why any slot auction system won't be made; since while it would help today, it's not that relevant in the future and requires much effort to build .. (and the auction wouldn't have been who bids the highest anyways)).
(dynamic airports is a separate matter, while linked to dynamic demand too, and it has its own thread in feature rq forum too. It's thought out rather well already and is probably the first to be implemented .. the whole dynamic world is a matter of many pieces, so don't be fooled by the yelling of "city based demand" since that alone solves nothing, it's just one piece in a ~10 piece puzzle of larger features)
Quote from: [SC] Jona L. on February 06, 2014, 08:27:13 PM
BAN SMALL A/C IN LHR. In early games where your biggest planes available are 100ish seats the minimum size should not be too high, but e.g. DC-3 or smaller (<30 seats) could be banned. Later on in the game like speaking 2010 ish one could raise that limit to 120 seats (so 737/320 or bigger required).
The new world excluded, are there really that many regional (props) flying into LHR to make any difference. I would guess no.
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 08:33:53 PM
(dynamic airports is a separate matter, while linked to dynamic demand too, and it has its own thread in feature rq forum too. It's thought out rather well already and is probably the first to be implemented)
That actually sounds good, and seems, as Curse worked out before, the best way to fight the cause rather than the symptoms.
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 08:33:53 PM
The new world excluded, are there really that many regional (props) flying into LHR to make any difference. I would guess no.
Probably not, but I remember times where it was the problem. I haven't focused any much on LHR in the last year or so, since I don't play from there anymore.
Quote from: sami on February 06, 2014, 08:33:53 PM
The potential new dynamic systems are still far in the pipeline, so in the meantime the current system has to work. That's what this thread is about (and that's also why any slot auction system won't be made; since while it would help today, it's not that relevant in the future and requires much effort to build .. (and the auction wouldn't have been who bids the highest anyways)).
I know, Sami, I know, and I'm aware of the fact you're working on that. I just felt it is necessary to say I don't see how to draw off your attention from this by coding another symptoms fix could help.
Honestly - we lived with the current downsides for years now. Some, myself included, quit due to this. But still sometimes it's better to let a half-way working thing going and make a much better new one than trying to fix the old one.
If you really want to implement a fast resolution, increase slots to 300% or whatever. I don't think this will fix the problem at all, but seriously, you would just invest like 10 seconds to change that database entry and not waste hours and hours and hours. Those hours are better to invested in city based demand and while - shame on me!!! - I didn't participate in filling up the world with it as much as I could, I think the gathering work is mostly done.
When you release this awesome thing in - I don't know, some month? a few years? - this discussions stops anyways.
As far as fixing slots goes in the current system, how difficult would it be to implement the "call" function like on the used aircraft market, along with a maximum number of slots acquired per 8 days.
Otherwise, I'm with CUR$E. The system is flawed, but most fixes would be difficult to implement and not really fixes.
Anything short of City Based Demand is nothing more than a band-aid on top of the band-aids already applied to the situation. This is a business simulation, so putting a quota in place takes free market away and creates a communist environment. The blind auction system could work, that may be the best non city based demand solution I've read, but even that favors airlines with cash.....
Quote from: JetWestInc on February 06, 2014, 09:10:59 PM
Anything short of City Based Demand is nothing more than a band-aid on top of the band-aids already applied to the situation. This is a business simulation, so putting a quota in place takes free market away and creates a communist environment. The blind auction system could work, that may be the best non city based demand solution I've read, but even that favors airlines with cash.....
Given that slots are currently used to exclude competition, calling a quota system "communist" is a bit extreme. A quota system would foster, not inhibit competition. No capitalist country in the world permits the extreme examples of slot hoarding that go on in airwaysim.
Now, because airwaysim is a game, not real life, most slot quota systems would be a bad idea in my opinion, causing more problems then they solve.
Quote from: mavi on February 06, 2014, 08:50:57 PM
As far as fixing slots goes in the current system, how difficult would it be to implement the "call" function like on the used aircraft market, along with a maximum number of slots acquired per 8 days.
The calls wouldn't really add anything meaningful, since (talking of alliances mainly) when one sees the new open slots he can let his friend know that his favourite airport has now slots so whydontyamakeacall ..
something that would solve this problem a little bit is the city demand... or, at least some little "demand transfer" between specific airports like in London... we all know EGLL is a big airport, but if you don't get the slot and you fly from an other London airport and have the same chance to get the pax... then I don't have to fly to EGLL...
Quote from: mavi on February 06, 2014, 09:22:27 PM
Given that slots are currently used to exclude competition, calling a quota system "communist" is a bit extreme. A quota system would foster, not inhibit competition. No capitalist country in the world permits the extreme examples of slot hoarding that go on in airwaysim.
Now, because airwaysim is a game, not real life, most slot quota systems would be a bad idea in my opinion, causing more problems then they solve.
Communism is a form of government that dictates central control of all resources. Socialist is the better word to describe it, at least with respect to the rewards that someone can reap now with putting in time, planning and skill to obtain the slots needed to be successful. To make a quota would be handing over the slots that should be "earned" by those who make the effort to those who do not take the effort to plan for slot acquisition.
With regards to slot hoarding, there are very few airports in the world that are severely limited based upon them. In many cases, there are capitalist countries with socialist policies that restrict free competition to the airports. HND comes to mind as one where the government will not allow carriers to compete with the national carriers. I also think it is short sighted to say that airports are not dominated by a single airline in real life. ATL, DFW, DAL, MIA, DTW, SFO, DEN, IAH, etc come to mind in the US, while none of those other than SFO are slot restricted, the incumbent airlines have made it virtually impossible for life as a new entrant. In ATL, Delta hogged all the gates and blocked expansion - southwest had to buy airtran to gain access. Southwest is gate hogging at DAL, AA is driving up costs at MIA for others, etc... You could go on with foreign airports in the same manner...
The difference is: In real life there would be alternatives. If I would have the money and the will to open up new gates for example at DAL I guess this would work. In AWS you are screwed when the slots are gone.
That's why I'm such a big follower of the dynamic thing.
Quote from: CUR$E on February 06, 2014, 10:21:11 PM
In AWS you are screwed when the slots are gone.
yes, but a little less with some sort of city demand...
Quote from: CUR$E on February 06, 2014, 10:21:11 PM
The difference is: In real life there would be alternatives. If I would have the money and the will to open up new gates for example at DAL I guess this would work. In AWS you are screwed when the slots are gone.
That's why I'm such a big follower of the dynamic thing.
The Wright Amendment disagrees with you adding more gates at DAL ;-)
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 07:19:25 PM
Cameroon Crashing Cattleways? Never heard of that airline mate. Who are they? An African airline that crashes before getting their cattle to their destination? Do elaborate. ::)
Call it what you will, such as African Flaming Death Airways, Lawn Dart Airlines, WeFly-YouDie, whatever. Some Heathrow slots are reserved for African One-foffs, or at least used to be. They were used as a function of politics, not financials.
I read somewhere that terminals will be something of the future. Is that one of the factors of the "Dynamic Airports" you speak of Sami? I am a big fan of terminals being included and believe that should help alleviate the slot problem at the major hubs. Once a terminal has reached it's max capacity, make good use of what you got in other words unless airlines can force or influence airport growth.
Also, I hope when you speak of "dynamic", we get realistic takeoff and landing slots. Right now I can schedule 10 MD11 heavies to takeoff within 5 minutes. 28 departures an hour capacity is fine but it should be spread out the entire 60 mins and aircraft size should also be a factor in regards to takeoff slot. At LHR in real life, during one of it's peak hours, if you have a backlog of small to medium size a/c only (early mornings and late afternoon) you will have 2 tops taking off in a minute and that's when the ATC has some enter the runway further from the threshold. If it is a mixture of small and heavies or just heavies (late mornings, early afternoon and late evenings) then your looking at one every minute or even one every 90 seconds. Similar with landing.
Jona L.
Whilst I agree that in any good business simulation and RL businesses, giving all the attention it needs does nothing but nourish it more than others with scarce input, having the time to monitor slot releases may not be a luxury for some. Therefor that member is losing out. I check in maybe 3 or 4 times over the course of 24 hrs when Im off work and sometimes once a day if I have commitments. Unless I was able to predict WHEN they were to be released (Maybe notifications can be a short term solution) someone like me would lose out at a LHR type airport.
I don't think slots stealthily being released (without notification to the hub's inhabitants) at random is fair because it means someone who has more time to monitor slots will always prevail. While I believe a bidding type of method will work, Sami will not implement it so no point of me mentioning it again but I'm looking forward to "Dynamic Airports".
Quote from: schro on February 06, 2014, 10:24:21 PM
The Wright Amendment disagrees with you adding more gates at DAL ;-)
Well, it used to...
Wright Amendment ends in October, and Southwest has already announced 15 new cities from LUV.
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2014/02/end-of-wright-amendment-will-open-up.html
Quote from: schro on February 06, 2014, 10:24:21 PM
The Wright Amendment disagrees with you adding more gates at DAL ;-)
Haha, your point is good, my fault. I was aiming more for the message of possibilities. ;)
Quote from: schro on February 06, 2014, 10:24:21 PM
The Wright Amendment disagrees with you adding more gates at DAL ;-)
For another few months, then the 5 Party Agreement takes over disagreeing with you ;D
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 10:30:16 PM
Right now I can schedule 10 MD11 heavies to takeoff within 5 minutes. 28 departures an hour capacity is fine but it should be spread out the entire 60 mins and aircraft size should also be a factor in regards to takeoff slot. At LHR in real life, during one of it's peak hours, if you have a backlog of small to medium size a/c only (early mornings and late afternoon) you will have 2 tops taking off in a minute and that's when the ATC has some enter the runway further from the threshold. If it is a mixture of small and heavies or just heavies (late mornings, early afternoon and late evenings) then your looking at one every minute or even one every 90 seconds. Similar with landing.
Sami has enough problems, I would assume, without having to adjust for wake turbulence waits, as well.
That Dash-8 taking off behind a DC-10 is a really bad idea, in real life.
To add to your train of thought, should a significant delay factor be added at slotted-out airports, to represent ATC delays due to traffic, as well? Some days at Atlanta, LGA, JFK, O'Hare, or LHR,etc, delays can exceed 50% just based on wind direction and speed, alone... That can have a significant impact on Company image, too. (I personally avoid Atlanta at all costs, for instance. Too many horror stories.)
Quote from: schro on February 06, 2014, 10:15:32 PM
Communism is a form of government that dictates central control of all resources. Socialist is the better word to describe it, at least with respect to the rewards that someone can reap now with putting in time, planning and skill to obtain the slots needed to be successful. To make a quota would be handing over the slots that should be "earned" by those who make the effort to those who do not take the effort to plan for slot acquisition.
With regards to slot hoarding, there are very few airports in the world that are severely limited based upon them. In many cases, there are capitalist countries with socialist policies that restrict free competition to the airports. HND comes to mind as one where the government will not allow carriers to compete with the national carriers. I also think it is short sighted to say that airports are not dominated by a single airline in real life. ATL, DFW, DAL, MIA, DTW, SFO, DEN, IAH, etc come to mind in the US, while none of those other than SFO are slot restricted, the incumbent airlines have made it virtually impossible for life as a new entrant. In ATL, Delta hogged all the gates and blocked expansion - southwest had to buy airtran to gain access. Southwest is gate hogging at DAL, AA is driving up costs at MIA for others, etc... You could go on with foreign airports in the same manner...
You are conflating game play and economic arguments. Slot hoarding is inherently anti-competitive, as it excludes competitors from the market. A capitalist system seeks to have a free market. Very few schools of economic thought believe that monopoly is beneficial to the capitalist economy.
Arguing that players who put in the time and effort should get the slots, and that the slot quota system would punish them is a perfectly valid argument. But it is a game play argument, not an economic one.
Quote from: JetWestInc on February 06, 2014, 10:36:09 PM
For another few months, then the 5 Party Agreement takes over disagreeing with you ;D
Delta has announced new service at Love, but it is all RJ service to the hubs, with the exception of a single LA turn.
Eagle canceled to RJ's to O'Hare, and with the US Air purchase of American, I doubt they will add anything in the near future, other than maybe LGA with a large contract RJ. (hello Mesa)
Given current economic conditions, other than SWA, you won't see anything other than competitive adds at LUV. (and watch how fast that 20-gate limit goes away, too.)
They have basically locked out any competition, but I give it 5 years before the 5PA goes away.
Quote from: tcrlaf on February 06, 2014, 10:37:29 PM
Sami has enough problems, I would assume, without having to adjust for wake turbulence waits, as well.
That Dash-8 taking off behind a DC-10 is a really bad idea, in real life.
To add to your train of thought, should a significant delay factor be added at slotted-out airports, to represent ATC delays due to traffic, as well? Some days at Atlanta, LGA, JFK, O'Hare, or LHR,etc, delays can exceed 50% just based on wind direction and speed, alone... That can have a significant impact on Company image, too. (I personally avoid Atlanta at all costs, for instance. Too many horror stories.)
It's not a delay factor. Nowhere in the world will you find 10 heavies being able to takeoff simultaneously within 5 minutes. I didn't say anything about light aircraft being delayed by wake turbulence. Ofcourse that would be a nice feature (light a/c wake turbulence effect) but do I think it will ever be included in AWS? NO. Not essential.
In 5 minutes, only 4 or 5 heavy departures should be possible.
In 5 minutes, 7 or 8 light and medium sized aircraft. And obviously if you have a mixture of both heavy and light-medium, it will vary somewhere between. Each aircraft size should have their unique takeoff time. And I stated this little idea within the context of "Dynamic Airport" and "Slots".
My last input to this topic is...
Pre-ordering slots for airport native airlines.
Bidding for airlines who want to fly there.
And
Slots to be allocated 90% to native airlines while 10% goes to other airlines to bid.
With
Non native airlines able to buy and sell from each other. (for instance if a fellow alliance member chooses to be generous, he/she can remove one flight and offer that slot to alliance member)
That way, only the non-indigenous airlines with the means and dedication win their slots to fly to a slot restricted airport.
That'd be much coding time that could go into dynamic based demands and airports. :)
Per Flightaware, today, 6PMEST:
ZRH Zurich AA 64
American Airlines 6:00 PM 5:54 PM T-8
C45 En Route On-time 763
VIE Vienna VO 88
Tyrolean Airways 6:00 PM 6:25 PM ~ T-1 Scheduled
On-time 763
ATL Atlanta DL 2152
Delta Air Lines 6:00 PM 6:12 PM ~ T-2 Scheduled
On-time M88
TLV Tel Aviv-Yafo LY 2
El Al 6:00 PM 6:13 PM ~ T-4 Scheduled
On-time 772
MXP Milan AA 198
American Airlines 6:00 PM 6:15 PM ~ T-8
C46 Scheduled
15 min 763
LHR London VS 4
Virgin Atlantic Airways 6:00 PM 6:29 PM ~ T-4 Scheduled
On-time 333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAS Las Vegas B6 711
JetBlue Airways 6:59 PM 7:21 PM ~ T-5 Scheduled
On-time 320
CDG Paris DL 400
Delta Air Lines 6:59 PM 7:08 PM ~ T-4 Scheduled
On-time 764
PHX Phoenix B6 135
JetBlue Airways 6:59 PM 7:21 PM ~ T-5 Scheduled
On-time 320
LAX Los Angeles AA 21
American Airlines 7:00 PM T-8
B3 Scheduled
762
GIG Rio De Janeiro JJ 8079
TAM Linhas Aereas 7:00 PM 7:22 PM ~ T-8 Scheduled
On-time 763
SFO San Francisco DL 435
Delta Air Lines 7:00 PM 7:09 PM ~ T-4 Scheduled
On-time 752
SJU San Juan AA 1029
American Airlines 7:00 PM T-8
C33 Scheduled
757
STI Santiago DL 452
Delta Air Lines 7:00 PM 7:11 PM ~ T-4 Scheduled
On-time 73H
ORF Norfolk RP 2966
Chautauqua Airlines 7:00 PM 7:08 PM ~ T-2 Scheduled
On-time ERJ
ORD Chicago 9E 2928
Endeavor Air 7:00 PM 7:22 PM ~ T-2 Scheduled
On-time CR9
DUB Dublin AA 290
American Airlines 7:05 PM T-8
C38 Scheduled
757
SVO Moscow SU 103
Aeroflot 7:05 PM 7:35 PM ~ T-1 Scheduled
On-time 333
MAD Madrid AA 94
American Airlines 7:05 PM T-8
B1 Scheduled
757
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick glance. I'm sure LAX, NRT, or LHR could return similar results.
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 10:58:12 PM
Nowhere in the world will you find 10 heavies being able to takeoff simultaneously within 5 minutes.
Sure they can. Memphis, 0410-0415, Every weekday morning just off the top of my head.
Quote from: tcrlaf on February 06, 2014, 10:51:52 PM
Delta has announced new service at Love, but it is all RJ service to the hubs, with the exception of a single LA turn.
Eagle canceled to RJ's to O'Hare, and with the US Air purchase of American, I doubt they will add anything in the near future, other than maybe LGA with a large contract RJ. (hello Mesa)
Given current economic conditions, other than SWA, you won't see anything other than competitive adds at LUV. (and watch how fast that 20-gate limit goes away, too.)
They have basically locked out any competition, but I give it 5 years before the 5PA goes away.
The 5PA will go away, but barring a decision by the highest courts the earliest it can be dissolved is 2024. I would expect a fight to get that changed to be launched on or about October 14th this year (the day Wright goes away :))
But, back on topic....
Quote from: tcrlaf on February 06, 2014, 11:17:47 PM
Sure they can. Memphis, 0410-0415, Every weekday morning just off the top of my head.
Exactly. Departure times listed are gate pushes, not wheels up. I think AWS does a good job of mimicking this with limiting the number of departures at 0600, 0605, 0610, etc.
Quote from: JetWestInc on February 06, 2014, 11:22:24 PM
Exactly. Departure times listed are gate pushes, not wheels up. I think AWS does a good job of mimicking this with limiting the number of departures at 0600, 0605, 0610, etc.
Gate pushes? Oh. I assumed when speaking of airport slots both in the real world and within AWS that we were talking about runway departures (the amount of takeoffs and landings any one particular runway can handle AKA Takeoff and Landing Slots). Had no idea it meant the actual time the plane gets pushed back. Wouldn't that be called Gate Slots? From what I have learnt from my years at Heathrow is planes leave their gates/ramps to get to the runway at their allocated slot times. Hence why some times are much more expensive than others and when a plane is late to the runway or simply misses their departure slot, they are made to wait for planes behind them to takeoff first in order not to cause a knock on delay effect.
And what exactly are you saying "exactly" too? :laugh: tcrlaf said within 5 minutes, 10 heavies takeoff from 4:10AM over his head. He didn't say anything about when they leave their gates.
As the airline in question in one of the early pictures regarding LHR. No I do not employ a staff, however, I do have a job that allows me to check slots periodically through the day most of time. I usually can't spend much time on AWS during the day, but ten seconds to do a slot check every once in a while is easy. 5-10 minutes to add routes (especially if they are preplanned) is doable ever once in a while. An alliance that helps with slot drops is also a benefit. This is all well known and anyone can participate in an alliance that fosters such helping arrangements.
I agree with whoever said that most of the proposals are akin to putting a bandaid on top of a bandaid. The reality is that none of the proposed solutions make the simulation more fun and fair at the same time. Limit how many planes someone can schedule at once because they can only grab 3 slots? Great! Now the person has to spend more time online. Make the slot costs increase more? In JA8/GW1, I'm in LHR and I could pay ten times the amount of slots easily. That doesn't spread the slots more equitably. The things that will help: the terminal idea, city based demand, and cargo. Terminals will allow a player to have a dedicated set of slots that they can use and optimize at their convenience and allow the player the ability to help build the airport and his/her airline. City based demand will help spread the demand to other cities hopefully 'fixing' the LHR problem. Cargo may also help as it will make larger frames more profitable relative to smaller frames (i would think).
So to wrap up - while the current system is far from ideal, it affects a limited number of aiports and a lot of the proposed resolutions don't solve a whole lot. Perhaps we make up a task force to help work out the mechanics of the terminal concept? As I think that would help a lot and be a lot easier to implement than city-based demand.
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 11:51:51 PM
Gate pushes? Oh. I assumed when speaking of airport slots both in the real world and within AWS that we were talking about runway departures (the amount of takeoffs and landings any one particular runway can handle AKA Takeoff and Landing Slots). Had no idea it meant the actual time the plane gets pushed back. Wouldn't that be called Gate Slots? From what I have learnt from my years at Heathrow is planes leave their gates/ramps to get to the runway at their allocated slot times. Hence why some times are much more expensive than others and when a plane is late to the runway or simply misses their departure slot, they are made to wait for planes behind them to takeoff first in order not to cause a knock on delay effect.
And what exactly are you saying "exactly" too? :laugh: tcrlaf said within 5 minutes, 10 heavies takeoff from 4:10AM over his head. He didn't say anything about when they leave their gates.
Slot times, IRL, are actual wheels up times, departure times listed on airline websites or airport departure boards are gate push times. Sorry, the way I worded that got a little confusing. The post by tcrlaf pulls info from flight aware which takes its info from the flight plans as filed by the airlines. The actual slot times the airlines have are likely all in the 1800-1815 time frame so they file to depart at 1800. I am not sure how it works elsewhere, but at the slot controlled airports here in the USA, it is still first come first served, for example ATC is not going to stop a plane with a slot time of 1810 from departing at 1806 if the guys with the 1806, 1807, 1808, and 1809 slots are not ready (just random times, I dont know enough about JFK's slot structure to give exact times, just know that the plane that is ready first goes first to prevent undue congestion.)
Quote from: CUR$E on February 06, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
That's a (and in my eyes the only) option to solve the problem without fighting symptons, but by eliminating the cause. This is nothing that can be coded in a day, but Sami, remember when we first talked on IRC years ago and you told me about your vision of AWS... are you really going to invest time to code fire departments instead of letting a few houses burn down and catch the pyromaniac I told as an example before?
tl;dr:
Dynamic City based demand
Dynamic airport growth
Dynamic route growth
I liked your post very much.
Now, If city-based demand would come in a short amount of time, I'd agree with attacking the cause, but basing in the fact that city based demand has been on "development" since 4 years now (according what I read in the forums and you just sayed), I'm gonna go with let's attack the symptoms.
Quote from: dmoose42 on February 07, 2014, 12:02:53 AM
So to wrap up - while the current system is far from ideal, it affects a limited number of aiports and a lot of the proposed resolutions don't solve a whole lot. Perhaps we make up a task force to help work out the mechanics of the terminal concept? As I think that would help a lot and be a lot easier to implement than city-based demand.
Terminals would be a very nice option to auction systems.
Quote from: dmoose42 on February 07, 2014, 12:02:53 AM
No I do not employ a staff, however, I do have a job that allows me to check slots periodically through the day most of time.
Yeah, I'm still gonna go with the first option...
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 10:30:16 PM
I don't think slots stealthily being released (without notification to the hub's inhabitants) at random is fair because it means someone who has more time to monitor slots will always prevail. While I believe a bidding type of method will work, Sami will not implement it so no point of me mentioning it again but I'm looking forward to "Dynamic Airports".
Slots are stealthily released on a random schedule because when they were on a predictable schedule they would all be gone in less than 30 seconds after a drop to the people with the lowest latency connections to the server, as everyone in the game was sitting there with preplanned routes waiting for the instant slots would drop to rapidly switch tabs hitting create route. As bad as the issues are now they pale in comparison to the slot situation back then.
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:18:23 AM
Yeah, I'm still gonna go with the first option...
Which is what? Guilty (of doing absolutely nothing wrong) until proven innocent?
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:18:23 AM
Yeah, I'm still gonna go with the first option...
Well I suppose if you choose to create and believe delusional conspiracy theories no one here can stop you....
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:18:23 AM
I liked your post very much.
Now, If city-based demand would come in a short amount of time, I'd agree with attacking the cause, but basing in the fact that city based demand has been on "development" since 4 years now (according what I read in the forums and you just sayed), I'm gonna go with let's attack the symptoms.
Terminals would be a very nice option to auction systems.
If attacking the symptoms involves something other than rebalancing the game around the problems at maybe 6-8 seriously slot limited airports (of which maybe 5-6 are ones people actually care about) at the expense of the rest great. I think terminals are a great idea. I think hard quotas are absolutely stupid. An airport like DFW is never going to be run out of slots by a single airline. Making the airlines at airports like that sit there board out of their skulls doing nothing to fix an issue at a small number of airports is stupid
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:18:23 AM
Yeah, I'm still gonna go with the first option...
Nice. Continue the attacks. You are good at that. ;D
If you notice, I'm doing ok at ORD in GW4 at a base that is not slot-restricted. It's about building an airline that is successful - slot restrictions or not.
But this is off-point. Limiting how many slots a player can get in a single game day will still benefit those players that have more ready access to a computer or have the inclination to check in more frequently.
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:31:24 AM
-----------------
what, like you didn't delete your huge anti-elite rant at the beginning of the thread like sami told you to? Also how is it any more off topic then you posting that you don't believe that dmoose gets his slots because he can check periodically thru the day at work?
Quote from: dmoose42 on February 07, 2014, 12:35:08 AM
Nice. Continue the attacks. You are good at that. ;D
It's not an attack dude.. I honestly think you did hire some people in order to press F5 all day and grab that insanely amount of LHR slots... Anyway, your friend westjetinc already said there's nothing wrong on that, so relax dude, it's not an attack if there's nothing wrong involved, right ?
Quote from: ucfknightryan on February 07, 2014, 12:35:59 AM
what, like you didn't delete your huge anti-elite rant at the beginning of the thread like sami told you to? Also how is it any more off topic then you posting that you don't believe that dmoose gets his slots because he can check periodically thru the day at work?
I censored it, as requested by sami. If you read "ELITE" out of "E***E", that's your own problem dude...
Also, I did not went off topic; my post was well into topic with just one line of it dedicated to someone that's not even you.
Your post was entirely off topic just to answer me.
BACK TO TOPIC:
I also think hard quotas is a terrible idea. I suggested auctions (both monetary speaking and not monetary ones)
I suggested terminals, the last one being in the thread I opened to suggest ideas to an "experimental" world, so I'd really like to see them implemented.
City based demand, free market slot system/terminals, etc would make AWS the best game of its kind; that's why I always mention it, and that's why I helped with my own country data when sami asked for it.
If the real issue at hand (refer to Sami's original post) is that certain airlines have been engaged in slot swapping activities. As Sami stated this is not something he wants to encourage and will penalize if it occurs above a certain threshold. I think a big part of the challenge is the inconsistency in which penalties are applied and the difficulty in observing when the deviant behavior has occurred. The temporary fixes to the slot system that are proposed will not change the fact that airlines can still trade slots by synchonzing pickup and delivery. Certain airlines may have a vendetta against other airlines, but limiting how many slots an airline can grab in a drop will encourage more teamwork and more slot trading as alliance member look to help out their mates.
I know jetwestinc and saftrutch will always be mad about certain slot trading activites and certain other airlines will make up conspiracies about how certain alliances always cheat. Other airlines will spend their time making lists about airlines to avoid. Some airlines foster teamwork while others give self-destructive advice. The game is about competition. Honestly I love it when [SC] King Kong says "I'm surprised every time that people are affraid of competition. Honestly said, I love it! A strong competitor is what brings a game element in my game and makes me wanna play AWS all day (if I had ever time for that)." Even if he's in another alliance and even if he may demolish an airline in my alliance, I LOVE THE SPIRIT!
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:49:11 AM
It's not an attack dude.. I honestly think you did hire some people in order to press F5 all day and grab that insanely amount of LHR slots... Anyway, your friend westjetinc already said there's nothing wrong on that, so relax dude, it's not an attack if there's nothing wrong involved, right ?
I censored it, as requested by sami. If you read "ELITE" out of "E***E", that's your own problem dude...
Too funny. I'm glad you don't take yourself too seriously. I'm sorry that you are bitter. Cheers.
Quote from: Jackson on February 06, 2014, 11:51:51 PM
Gate pushes? Oh. I assumed when speaking of airport slots both in the real world and within AWS that we were talking about runway departures (the amount of takeoffs and landings any one particular runway can handle AKA Takeoff and Landing Slots). Had no idea it meant the actual time the plane gets pushed back. Wouldn't that be called Gate Slots? From what I have learnt from my years at Heathrow is planes leave their gates/ramps to get to the runway at their allocated slot times. Hence why some times are much more expensive than others and when a plane is late to the runway or simply misses their departure slot, they are made to wait for planes behind them to takeoff first in order not to cause a knock on delay effect.
And what exactly are you saying "exactly" too? :laugh: tcrlaf said within 5 minutes, 10 heavies takeoff from 4:10AM over his head. He didn't say anything about when they leave their gates.
In the U.S., pushback into the alley is generally first-come, first served, with releases confirmed by the tower, on the roll. It isn't unusual for an aircraft to wait at the end of the runway for a release to LGA, ATL, etc, or to pull out of line if that release is delayed/changed. 30 minutes from "out" to "off isn't anything out of the norm, for some destinations, especially for slotting over the Atlantic Corridor, or busy airports.
Departure time is pushback, with everything else built in to the schedule, which is what I assume Sami models(?)..
Wheels up/off times can be a whole different animal.
Speaking of the Atlantic Corridor/ North Atlantic Tracks, if you really wanted to complicate things, put an hourly limit on the number of aircraft allowed to fly the pond between Europe/North America, simulating Oceanic Center constraints. That will certainly reduce demand for slots at LHR! ;)
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 12:49:11 AM
It's not an attack dude.. I honestly think you did hire some people in order to press F5 all day and grab that insanely amount of LHR slots... Anyway, your friend westjetinc already said there's nothing wrong on that, so relax dude, it's not an attack if there's nothing wrong involved, right ?
And if you think anyone is hiring someone to hit F5 all day to help them grab slots I stand by my last post, you're delusional.
Quote
I censored it, as requested by sami. If you read "ELITE" out of "E***E", that's your own problem dude...
Also, I did not went off topic; my post was well into topic with just one line of it dedicated to someone that's not even you.
Your post was entirely off topic just to answer me.
If you honestly think what sami said in that post referred to the name of the alliance and not the whole rant about an alliance than either you're an idiot or your reading comprehension sucks.
Quote
BACK TO TOPIC:
I also think hard quotas is a terrible idea. I suggested auctions (both monetary speaking and not monetary ones)
I suggested terminals, the last one being in the thread I opened to suggest ideas to an "experimental" world, so I'd really like to see them implemented.
City based demand, free market slot system/terminals, etc would make AWS the best game of its kind; that's why I always mention it, and that's why I helped with my own country data when sami asked for it.
I don't see how any auction system monetary or otherwise will help the situation at any of these airports. If it's monetary than the big long haul airlines will drive the price up to the point that no one else can afford them, because (esp at LHR and Haneda) they are basically licenses to print money. There is no cost too high that wouldn't prevent any airport from starting there in the first place, so why not just ban airlines from starting there and be done with it. If not monetary it still favors the big airlines as they can more easily absorb the costs of inefficient operations forced on them by winning slots scattered all over the place. And if when there are insufficient slots they are divided on a first come first serve basis than the same airlines that manage to get the slots first now are going to get their bids in first then.
Terminals and city based demand are the real solutions and I'm all for them.
Quote from: ucfknightryan on February 07, 2014, 01:17:23 AM
And if you think anyone is hiring someone to hit F5 all day to help them grab slots I stand by my last post, you're delusional.
Is either that, or some kind of alliance manipulation on slots. Pick the one you like the most. (anyway, one of your teammates already confirmed this several posts ago, so this discussion is already irrelevant).
Quote from: ucfknightryan on February 07, 2014, 01:17:23 AM
Terminals and city based demand are the real solutions and I'm all for them.
I agree on this, but I think city based demand will not arrive in the short term, so sami's idea might be to put temporary patches on the situation until those solutions arrive.
I don't think auctions as the best system, but I think them as a good patch until major upgrades are made.
Auctions would be a stupid idea if monetary based, simply put the biggest airlines would be able to outbid everyone else. Dynamic airport growth and/or terminals seems like the best solution to me. Until then a loose cap at congested airports on the amount of slots that can be grabbed at once seems like the simplest solution. This would at least stop one player grabbing all the slots at once.
I don't get what you are all babbling about. We don't need any short term solution that only creates new problems, we need a good long term solution and, until then, a fair and predictable enforcement of the rules.
Watch it or you will be banned...
I agree. I think we should be devoting our energies to terminals, cargo, and city-based demand (and fixing the pricing capabilities)...
I am happy to help build out a wireframe of how the terminal functionality would work it you're interested sami...
There are always going to be some people willing to cheat. Whether by using fake routes to get slots, holding slots for someone else, gifting slots, holding planes, transferring cash to their friend. As long as they're reasonably smart about it, don't make it really obvious, they'll get away with it. Some people might notice the cheating, but they won't be able to do anything about it. Other than gifting cash to another airline, all of the most-used cheats, right back to auto-diallers for the UM, all of the frustrations, come back to the same issue.
That issue is that used planes, new planes, slots, they're all allocated on a first come, first served basis. They're all limited resources, so there is a huge competitive advantage to be had in getting more of them, a huge advantage to be had by being lucky enough to be online at the right time, the risk/reward of cheating to get them means we end up with plenty of cheating. It also means we end up with false positives. There's no way to tell the difference between prior planning to transfer a group of slots, and your friend getting the group of slots simply because they knew you were quitting and paid attention.
I'm another one who thinks meaningful competition is what makes the game interesting. But it's not something that can be had in most airports. You don't beat your competition by being more efficient, by building a better airline. You beat your competition by being better at getting planes from the UM, by being better at getting hold of slots. You should not beat your competition because you happened to be online at the right time, because you have friends grabbing assets for you.
The solution is to stop it being first come, first served, come up with something fairer, tilt the balance from luck & timing towards skill & efficiency. That applies to new planes, used planes, and slots.
Since this thread is about slots:
I don't think a hard quota is all that useful. If you end up the sole survivor in your airport, why should you be stopped from expanding to fill it? And I think the problem is in the acquisition process, rather than the end total. But a hard distinction between HQ slots and arrival slots could be useful. Just to pull a number out of the air, say there are 15 slots/hr that can only be used by airlines based in that airport, 6/hr for outside airlines. Might take some balancing, might be different %s for different airports, but would certainly stop outside airlines grabbing slots for later donation to their friend HQed there. And would work with my other suggestion...
An auction is going to favour the bigger airlines, it's complicated, it'll also make logistics harder for the user, particularly if the 14 day limit for using new slots remains in place. Would hate to spend money to win an auction, and then lose the slots because you weren't online as the auction ended.
I think a soft quota, slots being allocated to airlines upon release, would be the way to go, if the programming was feasible. Say on day 1 of the world, LHR would normally have ~20 slots/hr. And ATL would have 40. So, on day 1, for airlines outside those airports, there'd be say 5/hr & 12/hr available. Every airline that starts up in LHR would get 3/hr, in ATL 5/hr. Could have fixed, known dates each year for reallocating slots. So after 6 months, if 2 of the airlines have only used 1 slot/hr, 1 has BKed, and LHR has been given an additional 2 slots, then that's 9 slots/hr allocated to the airlines again. 2/hr for visitors, 1.4/hr for each HQed, so it'd be 1/hr for everyone, then extra 06xx & 11xx for airline a, 07xx & 12xx for airline b, etc. With all slots still needing to be paid for the way they are now. If you keep expanding enough to use every single one of your allocations each time, then you'll be on a level footing with the competition who has done the same. If you're inefficient, don't expand, you'll lose allocations & fall behind.
Could also build in some sort of request mechanism, ask for specific slots in the next round of allocations. (Which would also work very well for the UM, btw, giving both fairer access to popular models, and quicker access to less popular models with small numbers in storage, making them more feasible to use. But that's a different thread)
Might take some tweaking, but would be fair, and the competition would come back to who can use their resources the best, instead of who can grab them the fastest/who can be online at the right time. It would make it easier to plan ahead as an airline, you'll have a rough idea of future slot availability, making it easier to plan plane purchases. You'd know when to come and check to see if you got more/less than expected, you'd have a couple of RL days to react. You wouldn't need to be online regularly, hoping to be there at the right time, and then frantically gobbling up as much as you could.
Of course, somewhere like LHR, you won't be able to BK a competitor with this. But somewhere like LHR, you can't BK a competitor now. It's the easiest airport in the entire world to start on day 1 and build something profitable. All you can do now is hope they get bored & go away. All you can do now is grab more slots than them, guaranteeing you'll always be the biggest airline there. But with this sort of change, being & staying the biggest will actually be an achievement, actually be a challenge, not become a foregone conclusion 5 years in to a 50 year world.
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 07, 2014, 04:32:09 AM
I don't get what you are all babbling about. We don't need any short term solution that only creates new problems, we need a good long term solution and, until then, a fair and predictable enforcement of the rules.
Unfortunately, saftfrucht is right. A super simple solution would be to create a cap on slots for all players that can only be increased through paying a fee to increase your cap, effectively throttling the slot hoarding.
However, many airlines (myself included) have 10s, if not 100s of aircraft on order and limiting slots acquisition wouldn't be fair as there would be many bagholders (and likely BKs). Any changes would certainly have to be in new game worlds because existing game worlds are just too mature to implement something like this.
Okay, thanks for the input everyone. Decision on this matter is as follows:
System will automatically monitor any major slot releases made by players. So when a player bankrupts (by player action, not by bank), closes a base or closes routes at a slot restricted airport the data about his old slots is stored. For all other players after this action the purchase of new slots at this airport is restricted to an amount equalling 30% of the amount of slots released or 35 individual slots (which ever is higher) per each 5 game days. Restriction is valid for 14 days after the slots were closed, and after that there are no limits again.
System is in force only at airports that have less than 30% of the overall slots left and that are otherwise big enough. In GW#3 for example these airports are currently: DAAG, EDDF, EGKK, EGLL, EHAM, HECA, KJFK, KLAS, LEBL, LFPG, LTBA, RJTT, YSSY, ZBAA (just a snapshot of today's stats, this is not a hard-coded list).
If airport's capacity increases and new slots become available that way there are no restrictions (and any previous restrictions still valid are also cleared, technical reason). There are also some other thresholds involved here so for example closing just one route and releasing 7 slots at LHR does not trigger any restrictions for purchases to anyone, and so on. = It needs a large amount of slots to become available at once (= during a period of a couple days) to activate.
But to sum it up, the idea is that when a player voluntarily withdraws from an airport, his slots will be more accessible to many players and they cannot be grabbed by a single player. Of course if nobody else wants them, the single player can get them but it takes a bit more time now. And it should not also restrict players that much since 35 new slots per 5 days is enough for everyone and in case of a large airline bankruptcy of let's say 2000 slots the "fastest" airline can still get 600 of those max.
If some one wishes to transfer slots, the system cannot prevent that if it's done in small scale but any large transfers of hundreds of slots in a matter of few game days is now impossible (or it takes a very long time now when it has to be done bit by bit). And in case of bankruptcies there's now a better chance for everyone to get something ..
(data is already being collected, purchase limits will be activated some time next week)
Quote from: ucfknightryan on February 07, 2014, 12:25:12 AM
Slots are stealthily released on a random schedule because when they were on a predictable schedule they would all be gone in less than 30 seconds after a drop to the people with the lowest latency connections to the server, as everyone in the game was sitting there with preplanned routes waiting for the instant slots would drop to rapidly switch tabs hitting create route. As bad as the issues are now they pale in comparison to the slot situation back then.
Oh. Ok. Didn't know it had already been tested/ a function before. I see your point. Well Terminals and the two features some propose are excellent functions to help solve this problem.
Quote from: tcrlaf on February 07, 2014, 12:58:14 AM
In the U.S., pushback into the alley is generally first-come, first served, with releases confirmed by the tower, on the roll. It isn't unusual for an aircraft to wait at the end of the runway for a release to LGA, ATL, etc, or to pull out of line if that release is delayed/changed. 30 minutes from "out" to "off isn't anything out of the norm, for some destinations, especially for slotting over the Atlantic Corridor, or busy airports.
Departure time is pushback, with everything else built in to the schedule, which is what I assume Sami models(?)..
Wheels up/off times can be a whole different animal.
Ok. But what about JFK? (Is that 1st cime 1st serve?) Despite having four runways just like ATL, they are crosswind so even though I think it's possible to use two for takeoff and two for landing, the proffessionals think otherwise so just like LHR, only one per takeoff and one per landing at any given time. JFK tends to have longer queues than LHR sometimes aswel. It took 40 minutes for my BA flight to taxi from the gates to the runway. Surely a 40min delay was accounted for because it is a regular occurrence there and Im assuming most flights would be delayed if they didn't factor in taxi time. I can see how slot times may be a bit vague there and less strict.
In Manchester Airport it is first come first serve. It isn't a busy airport. Gatwick, they are way more strict and I have witnessed planes waiting at the runway threshold while 1, 2 or 3 planes come from behind and get airborne before the aircraft that was waiting. And that is a regular sight there. When they takeoff to the west I should say. Not 8R.
Same at LHR. Some planes are very close to the runway but end up staying put for 5 to 15 minutes while a bunch of olanes overtake. I believe in those cases they are either early or late although ATC at LHR do do favours for some airlines.
Quote from: mavi on February 06, 2014, 10:38:17 PM
You are conflating game play and economic arguments. Slot hoarding is inherently anti-competitive, as it excludes competitors from the market. A capitalist system seeks to have a free market. Very few schools of economic thought believe that monopoly is beneficial to the capitalist economy.
Arguing that players who put in the time and effort should get the slots, and that the slot quota system would punish them is a perfectly valid argument. But it is a game play argument, not an economic one.
The issue here is we are simulating a business not a government. It's not my job to make sure you have a fair share of the slots at my base. It's my job to choke the life out of you so that you BK and then I can jack up the fares on my own flights and bank the profit. Why should I give a solitary damn about how easy it is for anyone to compete with me? If that's not your idea of fun why are you playing a business simulation, especially of one simulating one of the most cutthroat industries in the world? Economists may not think a monopoly is good, but as a CEO I'd love a monopoly on my base. I think the problem here is people are more interested in simming a sandbox of the aviation industry than what it really is. So you can't fly to LHR, BFD - out of 2000 or so airlines in the real world, 90 get to fly there.
Quote from: RougeCanuck on February 07, 2014, 10:52:13 AM
The issue here is we are simulating a business not a government. It's not my job to make sure you have a fair share of the slots at my base. It's my job to choke the life out of you so that you BK and then I can jack up the fares on my own flights and bank the profit. Why should I give a solitary damn about how easy it is for anyone to compete with me? If that's not your idea of fun why are you playing a business simulation, especially of one simulating one of the most cutthroat industries in the world? Economists may not think a monopoly is good, but as a CEO I'd love a monopoly on my base. I think the problem here is people are more interested in simming a sandbox of the aviation industry than what it really is. So you can't fly to LHR, BFD - out of 2000 or so airlines in the real world, 90 get to fly there.
Not sure why your attacking me. I have no problem with your point of view. What I have a problem with is people saying you can't do X because its socialism.
What we should be focused on here is what makes airwaysim a better
game, not on whether a particular rule coincides with one's chosen economic theory.
Quote from: mavi on February 07, 2014, 11:01:39 AM
Not sure why your attacking me. I have no problem with your point of view. What I have a problem with is people saying you can't do X because its socialism.
What we should be focused on here is what makes airwaysim a better game, not on whether a particular rule coincides with one's chosen economic theory.
I suppose different players would have different views of what would make it a better game. Although I agree with you that calling something socialism/communism just because you don't like it is a stupid thing to do. Having an undergrad education in PoliSci I've come to learn that most people just use those words as a general insult and don't have a sodding clue what they actually mean. Frankly we're simulating one aspect of the aviation industry, and it is the free-market system (which is horribly anachronistic in the Early Days and progressively less so but still odd up until MT). If we were going for total realism your problem wouldn't be slots - it would be restrictions on registering new airlines at most airports. In GW4 I got to Paris first, if this were real life I would be owned and propped up by the French Government, and not only would I be protected from competition from my own base, other airlines would only be allowed the slots I said I didn't want and international routes would require negotiation and concessions.
Quote from: RougeCanuck on February 07, 2014, 11:11:33 AM
I suppose different players would have different views of what would make it a better game. Although I agree with you that calling something socialism/communism just because you don't like it is a stupid thing to do. Having an undergrad education in PoliSci I've come to learn that most people just use those words as a general insult and don't have a sodding clue what they actually mean. Frankly we're simulating one aspect of the aviation industry, and it is the free-market system (which is horribly anachronistic in the Early Days and progressively less so but still odd up until MT). If we were going for total realism your problem wouldn't be slots - it would be restrictions on registering new airlines at most airports. In GW4 I got to Paris first, if this were real life I would be owned and propped up by the French Government, and not only would I be protected from competition from my own base, other airlines would only be allowed the slots I said I didn't want and international routes would require negotiation and concessions.
Which is precisely why total realism is should not be sought in designing games.
Sami,
Can you confirm that the new limitation only applies to player released slot events and not airport capacity increases? The way I read your statement is that capacity increases will not be under this system unless one happens after a major player release and does not push the total available over 30%.
Quote from: mavi on February 07, 2014, 11:01:39 AM
What I have a problem with is people saying you can't do X because its socialism.
Any idea that negatively impacts large airlines, particularly the ones run by the more vocal players here, will inevitably be called socialist/marxist/communist/etc. See nearly every post I've ever posted in the feature request forum :) It's mostly a combination of blind allegiance, ignorance, and fear, so don't read too much into it.
That's because half your ideas are crazy Lemonbutt and the other half are brilliant. The only problem is that everyone disagrees as to which are which. Except terminals. They are awesome. And I attribute this to you (perhaps erroneously).
Quote from: schro on February 07, 2014, 12:25:20 PM
Can you confirm that the new limitation only applies to player released slot events and not airport capacity increases? The way I read your statement is that capacity increases will not be under this system unless one happens after a major player release and does not push the total available over 30%.
Please read again .. When apt capacity increases this new thing does not change anything. And if capacity increase happens when the limitation is in force, then the limitation is also disabled (since it's just random luck then so let him have it :p). But if capacity increases, and then player bankrupts, the limitation is in force.
Quote from: sami on February 07, 2014, 03:23:29 PM
Please read again .. When apt capacity increases this new thing does not change anything. And if capacity increase happens when the limitation is in force, then the limitation is also disabled (since it's just random luck then so let him have it :p). But if capacity increases, and then player bankrupts, the limitation is in force.
I really hate hard caps and unrealistic limitations... It's really disappointing (to me) you chose to go this way... This game has so much potential, however that potential is not used at all...
I think we all agreed on terminals, however that's not even on a development agenda, if that even exists here...
Sami,
If you approve, can some of the folks that have been more vocal about terminals draw up a BRD aroudn how they could be incorporated into the game? To Ezzeqiel's point, this is not something that is actively being worked on, but I think the community could really help accelerate the concept and build it out. However, we only want to spend time on it, if you support the concept.
The working group could be:
lemonbutt
ezzeqiel
dmoose42
Plus a couple other people who would want to join.
Thoughts?
dmoose42
Quote from: dmoose42 on February 07, 2014, 03:42:05 PM
Sami,
If you approve, can some of the folks that have been more vocal about terminals draw up a BRD aroudn how they could be incorporated into the game? To Ezzeqiel's point, this is not something that is actively being worked on, but I think the community could really help accelerate the concept and build it out. However, we only want to spend time on it, if you support the concept.
The working group could be:
lemonbutt
ezzeqiel
dmoose42
Plus a couple other people who would want to join.
Thoughts?
dmoose42
Here is the "original" post on terminals for cross reference: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49624.msg277457.html#msg277457
Quote from: sami on February 07, 2014, 03:23:29 PM
Please read again .. When apt capacity increases this new thing does not change anything. And if capacity increase happens when the limitation is in force, then the limitation is also disabled (since it's just random luck then so let him have it :p). But if capacity increases, and then player bankrupts, the limitation is in force.
Got it. That's what I was thinking, I was just making sure I understood it correctly.
Quote from: ezzeqiel on February 07, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
I really hate hard caps and unrealistic limitations... It's really disappointing (to me) you chose to go this way... This game has so much potential, however that potential is not used at all...
I think we all agreed on terminals, however that's not even on a development agenda, if that even exists here...
Compared to the limits that were proposed, these really aren't that bad. They do not restrict slot capturing during airport expansion (which was on the table) and only directly target large bankruptcies/base closures. Overall, I think it is a reasonable solution to implement for the time being.
Of course, the one flaw in the calculation is that 24/7 airports will nearly always have 30% of their slots free (i.e. ATL) and thus not be subjected to it, even if all of the useful slots (0500-2355) are mostly taken.
Quote from: schro on February 07, 2014, 03:47:10 PM
Of course, the one flaw in the calculation is that 24/7 airports will nearly always have 30% of their slots free (i.e. ATL) and thus not be subjected to it, even if all of the useful slots (0500-2355) are mostly taken.
It should probably be adjusted to only count slots 500-2300 so that all airports are "equally regulated".
Quote from: LemonButt on February 07, 2014, 03:46:09 PM
Here is the "original" post on terminals for cross reference:
For talk and ideas on terminals, just pls post them to that thread for future reference..
Ok - to be honest, if the terminal idea is just going to get bookmarked on a thread for some time in the future, I'm not going to spend time thinking about it. When it's ready to be considered, let's bring it up again and have a full fledged discussion on the topic.
Best.
dmoose
It IS one of the thing planned for future, basics thought already but ideas etc always welcome (as usual).....
I don't think this has been mentioned, so here goes a modest proposal...
Why not add slots to the amount of slots normally released, with the adders being calculated based on a threshold market share of each airline based there (e.g. those with 50% share or higher ? Or, alternatively, release a new slot for every one that a dominant airline over a threshold percentage share buys?
Maybe even have it scale such that a higher percentage share causes an increasing number of slots to be released.
This would:
- eliminate slot locking/blocking as a strategy, and the incentive to cheat in the manner identified above (airlines could still conspire to split airport share to the threshold level)
- therefore allows slots for smaller airline at the HQ or incoming airline who has demand to fill (slot locking can still happen when/if the non-dominating airlines buy up the remaining slots - at least until the next planned release).
- allows even large dominant airlines to continue building if they have demand to fill, but they are not stopping others from growing at that airport either.
- works in early and late stages of the game
It seems it could be simple to code (relatively).
I've tried to upload (but cannot) a spreadsheet that you can play with (threshold factors, shares and slot consumption by release) to see how it would work (both alternatives), so included a snippet of it here. If there is interest, I can find a place to share it.
Fly to Gatwick
Quote from: sami on February 07, 2014, 08:27:02 PM
It IS one of the thing planned for future, basics thought already but ideas etc always welcome (as usual).....
I understand that, but cargo and city-based demand are also planned for the "future" so it's unclear if the intention is to do something in the next couple months (after the pricing adjustment work) or whether it is the long-term planning. I guess I assumed based on your response that development would be longer-term.
Quote from: Jackson on February 07, 2014, 10:50:34 AM
Ok. But what about JFK? (Is that 1st cime 1st serve?) Despite having four runways just like ATL, they are crosswind so even though I think it's possible to use two for takeoff and two for landing, the proffessionals think otherwise so just like LHR, only one per takeoff and one per landing at any given time. JFK tends to have longer queues than LHR sometimes aswel. It took 40 minutes for my BA flight to taxi from the gates to the runway. Surely a 40min delay was accounted for because it is a regular occurrence there and Im assuming most flights would be delayed if they didn't factor in taxi time. I can see how slot times may be a bit vague there and less strict.
In Manchester Airport it is first come first serve. It isn't a busy airport. Gatwick, they are way more strict and I have witnessed planes waiting at the runway threshold while 1, 2 or 3 planes come from behind and get airborne before the aircraft that was waiting. And that is a regular sight there. When they takeoff to the west I should say. Not 8R.
Same at LHR. Some planes are very close to the runway but end up staying put for 5 to 15 minutes while a bunch of olanes overtake. I believe in those cases they are either early or late although ATC at LHR do do favours for some airlines.
I was at LGA for a short while, and it was a game to see who could push first, vs. the competition, on some flights. That our ERJ could force a competitors 767 to wait for the alley to clear was kind of a gas.
I've heard ATC request a bypass for slotting more than once, but that is at the discretion of the captain of the leading aircraft, I believe. I'm sure one of the drivers here can confirm that or not. In the last 15 years or so, many airports have constructed pullouts at the end of the taxiways so that they can push on time, even if the release isn't cleared yet. Remember, at least in the U.S., Push time is departure for the monthly DOT on-time reports, so the incentive is there to go, even if you still haven't got a release. My company flew under several different colors, and I know at one carrier, even if they had to do late bags in the alley, (Dzero means Dzero) the aircraft pushed on time. (Our contract had a performance payments clause in it.)
Quote from: RougeCanuck on February 07, 2014, 10:52:13 AM
It's my job to choke the life out of you so that you BK and then I can jack up the fares on my own flights and bank the profit. Why should I give a solitary damn about how easy it is for anyone to compete with me? If that's not your idea of fun why are you playing a business simulation, especially of one simulating one of the most cutthroat industries in the world? Economists may not think a monopoly is good, but as a CEO I'd love a monopoly on my base. I think the problem here is people are more interested in simming a sandbox of the aviation industry than what it really is. So you can't fly to LHR, BFD - out of 2000 or so airlines in the real world, 90 get to fly there.
I'm old enough to remember how the New York Air pilots used to complain constantly about the USAir pilots taxing at dead slow in front of them in several cities, to make them late....
Quote from: sami on February 07, 2014, 08:27:02 PM
It IS one of the thing planned for future, basics thought already but ideas etc always welcome (as usual).....
It would be nice to publish a development schedule, with the proposed changes for the following versions of the game.
IE. 1.4: terminals, custom airplane layout.
1.5 custom turn arounds
1.6 improved airport growth.
etc.
Otherwise, it feels the game just develops according to your daily mood.
I have no clue about the economics of running a website like AWS, but It would also be nice to hire some programmers to help, since I've been playing this game for 1y8m now, and city based demand promises are still that, promises...
Ezzeqiel - I agree with you on this one. Having a development schedule would be nice.
As for the programmers, I don't think the budget allows for it. If you figure there are 1500 players across the game worlds (and some times it's lower than that), that's only 1500 credits a week, so maybe 1000 euro at best. Unless Sami has hit the secret educational market hard, there's not a ton of resources to pay for external help...
Yea if you do the math sami is bringing in a maximum of $50k/yr on AWS, which is why it isn't his full time job.
I do run a website fulltime and I can tell you 80% of the work no one sees, so even if you don't see changes/new features I promise you there are incremental improvements being made every week that you just don't see.
I only believe in what I see. Like dinosaurs or man in the moon.
Quote from: BD on February 07, 2014, 10:17:43 PM
Why not add slots to the amount of slots normally released, with the adders being calculated based on a threshold market share of each airline based there (e.g. those with 50% share or higher ? Or, alternatively, release a new slot for every one that a dominant airline over a threshold percentage share buys?
Maybe even have it scale such that a higher percentage share causes an increasing number of slots to be released.
It seems it could be simple to code (relatively).
No comments so far. Not sure if it needs to be articulated differently, or maybe I misunderstood the original problem to be addressed and folks think this is off the mark.
As a temporary solution, wouldn't this work?
There won't be any fixed & public development schedules since this isn't my full time job, and any such schedule would be most likely lost in the first 6 months already. There is a "master plan" (internal use) that is being followed in the long run...
(also any programming is purely done by myself, but I have used, and "project permitting" will use, external help in various other tasks like graphics / UI design, data gathering etc)
Out of curiosity for future since I didn't see this and a reasonable solution has been put forth, but how hard would it be to focus on the 10 or so truly long-term Slot constricted airports and allow transfers for a high price via something like the plane UM?...instead of planes, you see the 10 worst airports.
While somewhat following the situation, in theory I don't see an issue with players swapping slots as a competitive position as long as a price would be paid (I.e., in future enhancement) and not a collusion as what seems to have caused the uproar (see RW examples like DL and US at LGA and DCA recently, or UA selling/leasing many of its unused LHR slots in the 2000s to help raise funds to get out of Chapter 11; or the outright purchase of PA LHR by UA and AA purchase of TW LHR ops/slots early 1990s). If something easy to do I'd rather see the game stay competitive and close to real world...and of course if a collusion has occurred, there's always the government anti competitive entities (I.e., SAmi) to impose a harsh penalty.
If a slot market limited to a few airports could be created and to then get around the alliance issue, maybe if it's two airlines in same alliance, game engine sets a very high fee for the transfer and price paid goes to the AWS bank (I.e. No intra-alliance money laundering) where as if it's alliance to player outside alliance then it's whatever that person is willing to pay...with assumption 7 slots at LHR are going upwards of $10-$15m depending on the era..sort of like the way it works in the UM for planes. This would be an option for a struggling airline to raise cash and anyone based at LHR can surely afford $10m for a weekly flight If there was a market for LHR, HND, ORY, JFK...those are the only ones that seem impossible start to finish. Maybe in certain phases you can add airports like PEK, AMS, MUC when they become closed off with the old airports.
Just a thought if practical to explore in the future and a new twist that create another liquid asset to raise cash if hitting financial turbulence.