Improving Gate availability

Ok this is only a suggestion and i'm sure a few will agree with me, the gate availability is getting beyond a joke, and i would imagine if you look into it most of the used gates are taken by people that join up and do nothing. Anyway onto my suggestion.
If the AE administration where to clean up the system by removing all of the airlines that just join up and do nothing but hog a gate at an airport, maybe give them 2AE months (possibly 1) to create a route with that gate? If they dont delete the airline. Would that not help out the system as well?


Thanks,
Kyle

Currently, airlines that are incactive for 2 weeks automatically get reset.

I swear this thread comes up more than "When will NW get rid of their DC-9s?"

An A.net member? there seem to be a lot of NW threads on that site lately.

Anyway, I don't think the problem is inactive airlines. The problem is that the gate availability vs. airlines vs. flights ratio is completely out of wack. Miller said that the gate system will get a complete overhaul in the pay version, with airlines renting slots rather than gates.

Although seemingly unfair, the gate availability is somewhat realistic. In the modern world, a lot of airports don't have enough gates to accomodate additional airline service. I think that what airline55 said about renting slots is much more realistic and fair then this method, though.

Well, renting gates may be realistic, as is being out of gates. However, since we don't have alliances, or partner airlines, and since we have many more airlines, planes, and flights, as well as the fact that we are only allowed 5 flights per gate, they are not at all realistic. I can put five beaches in one gate, and take up less than 2 hours, but then that gate is full. That is why I am in favor of a gate availability clock, similar to the aircraft availability.

I believe a waiting list (gate queue) system should be implemented to improve the chances of gates being gotten by those who really want them. It would have the added effect that it would allow players who live in time zones in which the month change happens at inconvient times to have equal opportunity to the gates.

I believe a waiting list (gate queue) system should be implemented to improve the chances of gates being gotten by those who really want them. It would have the added effect that it would allow players who live in time zones in which the month change happens at inconvient times to have equal opportunity to the gates.

One of the reasons you join an alliance, and there will be one member on line at change overs if you are not able to be there who will seek gates for you.

Gate waiting list will not work, has been suggested in the past.

One of the reasons you join an alliance, and there will be one member on line at change overs if you are not able to be there who will seek gates for you.

Gate waiting list will not work, has been suggested in the past.

I think by me (IIRC)... probably by someone else too in the history of this forum

Anyways, I believe it could work (or I wouldn't have suggested it) as long as additional features were added
1) Max gate request (Can only be on X many waiting list at a time)
2) Gate transfer (no longer needing to drop gates to "sell" them)
3) Option to renew a few of your own unoccupied gates (kind of like a library system where you can renew your books once, but then must give them up so others who want them can use them)

I see some people at this stage of the game is too cheap to build terminals and instead, having "world airlines" as airlines influx into Asia - the last "busy" continent with available gates.

How about you make an auction on gate availability. When one comes available then you pay through the nose for it. Highest bidder, with cash in the bank wins. If the winner doesnt have the cash in the bank then it goes on to the next highest bidder with cash in the bank.

If you want a gate that bad then you will pay for it. And if you forget that you put a bid in.... more fool you!

Oh, that will end world domination....

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Yeah but the larger airlines would have more terminals. So in practice it could work.