6 replies to this topic

[MonkeysEatingIce]

From a conversation in the discussion forum, I'm suggesting that the way gates and airport fees are priced be changed. Under the current system, you simply pay a flat rate for 5 "slots." So, I can fill up those slots with 5 747s or 5 J-31s, or whatever I choose. Here are the problems with the current system:

1. It does not take into account landing fees/aircraft weight. In real life, airlines would be paying the airport for gates and overnight parking (depending on the situation, of course), and also they would be paying landing fees based on the max takeoff weight of any given airplane that lands at the airport.

2. It does not take into account aircraft size (namely, wingspan). In real life, gates have limitations to the size aircraft they can handle. I'm no expert on the subject, but from what I can gather, there are three basic sizes. Widebody size, narrowbody (say, from ERJ-175 to B757) size, and commuter size. Naturally, most airports will have very few (some none) widebody sized, regional airports will have mainly commuter sized, medium sized airports will have mainly narrowbody sized, and international airports will have a good mix of narrowbody and widebody, with some commuter sized maybe as well. I would assume that smaller aircraft can use larger gates - i.e., an ERJ-190 can use a widebody gate.

3. The "slot" system is not very realistic in my opinion, but I'm not recommending to change that because I think if these couple other changes are made, then the slots won't be such a bad thing anymore. My main point on slots can be found here - http://forums.airlin...read.php?t=3067

So, here is my suggestion-

1. To change the airport fee structure, offer three sizes of gates to airlines, and put restrictions on the type of aircraft that can use the gate. For the small gates, the base price should be way below what they are now. For medium, probably slightly below current prices. And for large gates, probably around what they are now. Then, based on the MTOW of any given aircraft that lands at that airport, charge a landing fee. Landing fees vary wildly from airport to airport in real life. Generally, larger airports will have higher landing fees, but there are notable exceptions to this. Here are some rough estimates based on a few mintues of searching on the internet -

DAL - around $.55/1000lb (I believe this is the cheapest for a commercial airport in the US, not sure though)
AUS - around $1.85/1000lb
DFW - around $4.94/1000lb
TUL - around $1.96/1000lb
JFK - around $5.25/1000lb
ATL - around $.80 or .90/1000lb (exception to the airport size rule)

Fees can also vary from airline to airline based on contractual agreements, but that wouldn't be necessary for AE.

So, calculating the monthly airport fees would be something like this - (sum of base costs for all gates) + (sum of landing fees), and the fee for one aircraft landing over a month would be (MTOW*landing fee*# times per day*number days per month).

Right, so, this would fix a few problems I see. It would encourage new airlines to operate out of smaller airports, because in real life if I owned an aircraft and wanted to start a business I couldn't feasibly just walk over to JFK and begin JFK-BOS service...it wouldn't be very affordable. It would prohibit, or limit, airlines from flying large airplanes into airports that can't physically hold such aircraft. And, it would just make the game a little more realistic.

[travelhouse]

Nice, stats, if your that keen on this you should ask AE if they want (YOU) to perform a full detailed list of ALL cities, that way it will make AE's life easy to include vital real life airport / runway and city information

[wdleiser]

In real life, you purchase landing slots. At Londom Heathrow and Tokyo Narita, it is not so much the lack of gate space, rather the lack of available runway slots.

[TWA]

I think MCI or OMA is cheaper than DAL.

[Fly_Germany]

i think he is right, i might be wrong though... what im hoping is that more secondary airports be opened especially in Australia, all thats available are the main cities which is crazy, its really crap to new ppl too.

For example:

Coffs Harbour is the busiest regional (secondary) airport in NSW, it can handle up to a 767. I suppose most of the developers are much more busy with other things, but hopefully it will be improved because the only domestic markets are USA and Europe. Well i think that the size option is a good idea, it would make it alot more intresting and Realistic.

[gizgiz]

Nice, stats, if your that keen on this you should ask AE if they want (YOU) to perform a full detailed list of ALL cities, that way it will make AE's life easy to include vital real life airport / runway and city information

Believe me, including all this: http://amo.cheesy.ca...o.php?icao=VHHH for 140 airports is pretty damn hard. I wouldn't like to do that myself.

Although I do agree AE should take this into account when rebuilding their database (if they do do that) for the pay version, even though I'll have my own free version to play....:eureka:

[piercey]

http://amo.cheesy.ca/gameinfo/airport_info.php?icao=VHHH[/url] for 140 airports is pretty damn hard. I wouldn't like to do that myself.

Although I do agree AE should take this into account when rebuilding their database (if they do do that) for the pay version, even though I'll have my own free version to play....:eureka:

Dude I'd remove that link. You're not aloud to post competitors sites on the fourm.