Sign In
Create Account
Some people feel the gate leasing limit is too restrictive and want to see actual competition for gates at busy airports. In my opinion, having to compete for gates is more "realistic" than keeping everyone capped at 5 or 15. What do you think?
Gate Leasing Limit in Realistic Worlds
Started by Yuxi, Jan 14 2011 07:43 PM
#1
Posted 14 January 2011 - 07:43 PM
Back to top
#2
Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:56 PM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
Higher limits would be realistic, but I'd prefer to have protection from a handful of carriers locking out new airlines.
#3
Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:23 AM
lshlarson
-
- Member
-
- 928 posts
#1 Railfan
It would be better to loosen gate limits. If you begin at a large airport, when you get to 15 gates you won't be able to expand until you get enough money.
#4
Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:32 AM
BritAbroad
-
- Data Manager
-
- 1,677 posts
Moderator and Data Collector
Its a tricky one.
Terminals complicate things too. Looking at LHR in AE, it can have five airlines with 200 gate terminals and the other 200 normal gates. It means that its not restrictive enough in my opinion. AE's LHR would have built over most of Hounslow and Southall by now, which is obviously not realistic.
Some people probably like the idea of being able to build over Southall so perhaps there should be a separate gate system for realistic and open worlds?
I suppose that's another issue.
Some time ago, didn't someone announce the development of runway slots (un1, I thought)? This seems better to me as there'd then be a fixed cap that could not be breached (we could possibly have some airports "opening" a new runway (airport led, rather than airline led) - give each airport in game its runway capacity and a number based on how many more runways it could have, i.e LHR would be low as its hemmed in on all sides pretty much, but something out in the desert could be much higher. New runways could be "requested" and built after a given number of airlines register interest). If runway slots defined things, an airline could have a terminal with capacity bigger than the runway capacity. But that wouldn't have to be bad, why not link excess terminal space to the forth-coming "on-time performance" feature?
This may be very hard to implement, but would probably be as close to realism as you could get. For example, in my games, I'd have to be more like BA. Instead of having a mega hub at LHR, I'd have to put some flights out of LGW or STN.
Just a thought.
Terminals complicate things too. Looking at LHR in AE, it can have five airlines with 200 gate terminals and the other 200 normal gates. It means that its not restrictive enough in my opinion. AE's LHR would have built over most of Hounslow and Southall by now, which is obviously not realistic.
Some people probably like the idea of being able to build over Southall so perhaps there should be a separate gate system for realistic and open worlds?
I suppose that's another issue.
Some time ago, didn't someone announce the development of runway slots (un1, I thought)? This seems better to me as there'd then be a fixed cap that could not be breached (we could possibly have some airports "opening" a new runway (airport led, rather than airline led) - give each airport in game its runway capacity and a number based on how many more runways it could have, i.e LHR would be low as its hemmed in on all sides pretty much, but something out in the desert could be much higher. New runways could be "requested" and built after a given number of airlines register interest). If runway slots defined things, an airline could have a terminal with capacity bigger than the runway capacity. But that wouldn't have to be bad, why not link excess terminal space to the forth-coming "on-time performance" feature?
This may be very hard to implement, but would probably be as close to realism as you could get. For example, in my games, I'd have to be more like BA. Instead of having a mega hub at LHR, I'd have to put some flights out of LGW or STN.
Just a thought.
#5
Posted 15 January 2011 - 02:06 AM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
Some time ago, didn't someone announce the development of runway slots (un1, I thought)? This seems better to me as there'd then be a fixed cap that could not be breached (we could possibly have some airports "opening" a new runway (airport led, rather than airline led) - give each airport in game its runway capacity and a number based on how many more runways it could have, i.e LHR would be low as its hemmed in on all sides pretty much, but something out in the desert could be much higher. New runways could be "requested" and built after a given number of airlines register interest). If runway slots defined things, an airline could have a terminal with capacity bigger than the runway capacity. But that wouldn't have to be bad, why not link excess terminal space to the forth-coming "on-time performance" feature?
This may be very hard to implement, but would probably be as close to realism as you could get. For example, in my games, I'd have to be more like BA. Instead of having a mega hub at LHR, I'd have to put some flights out of LGW or STN.
Just a thought.
The thing about that is that Heathrow is an anomaly. It's one of just a handful of airports worldwide that are truly slot restricted. Even at some of the busiest airports in the world, airlines can typically schedule flights as they please assuming they've got somewhere to park the plane.
Sure, I suppose every airport has runway limits, but few are close to breaching them. Acquiring places to park and load planes is usually the the bigger concern for airlines. Therefore, I think gate and terminal limits would probably be more realistic.
#6
Posted 15 January 2011 - 02:57 AM
BritAbroad
-
- Data Manager
-
- 1,677 posts
Moderator and Data Collector
Perhaps you're right. I was just thinking of a way of helping to ease the growth at some airports in game. As I said, AE LHR can sometimes have a 1000 gates when you count everyone's terminals. Its not exactly what the thread was about, but I thought I'd chuck it in anyway! 
#7
Posted 15 January 2011 - 03:20 AM
Just for a fun test, I decided to count how many gates there truly are in LHR (in AE8). (and no I didn't actually count, I ran a MySQL query )
My results were...226, 26 over the limit. There are also a shocking 166 gates used in JFK. (this includes terminals)
This means that there actually isn't actually a strong demand for gates.
However..that will change as Moldova has announced that he will provide us with accurate gate numbers for various airports for AE3.1 (which will help to create a more competitive environment for gates), now for my required input of this thread (just input on foreign airports).
Limiting 5 gates at foreign airports, while not be realistic prevents people from fatally flooding other peoples hubs from just one country, at most the limit should be upped to 15 but not anymore as I would fear that it could cause airlines based completely on the international sector to go bankrupt, from one airline based in a completely different country. There are airlines that are indeed based in only one market, country 1 to country 2 and if an from country 2 airline floods every flight he runs the airline in country 1 will go bankrupt, which while allowed is other than horribly embarrassing, not that realistic. It would however be realistic if 2 or 3 airlines were apart of this, and one of them from country 1. That is the whole reason why I implemented the 5 gate limit. I have myself never passed 5 gates in a foreign airport before, as my number of hubs never exceeds 5, so I don't know how it feels to be unable to operate flights to a certain airport from all my hubs for reasons other than market & supply (or distance).
Now as for landing slots I was going to implement, I went in way over my head and caused an amazing amount of destruction of various pages trying to implement it..a fixed cap on landing slots rather than gates is what airlinesim has and what I hope AE inherits when timetabling is implemented. As for my opinion on this thread in general, I think 5 is good, but the power in the end is with Yuxi.
(oh and Brit, the gate systems for realistic and open worlds are different )
Now for airports in the countries you are based in...
Honestly, I would think loosening them up a bit is better, however my opinion on these is, I don't really care, I can live with the current system and no other option really intrigues me as being better. (Although yes, the current system is unrealistic)
)My results were...226, 26 over the limit. There are also a shocking 166 gates used in JFK. (this includes terminals)
This means that there actually isn't actually a strong demand for gates.
However..that will change as Moldova has announced that he will provide us with accurate gate numbers for various airports for AE3.1 (which will help to create a more competitive environment for gates), now for my required input of this thread (just input on foreign airports).
Limiting 5 gates at foreign airports, while not be realistic prevents people from fatally flooding other peoples hubs from just one country, at most the limit should be upped to 15 but not anymore as I would fear that it could cause airlines based completely on the international sector to go bankrupt, from one airline based in a completely different country. There are airlines that are indeed based in only one market, country 1 to country 2 and if an from country 2 airline floods every flight he runs the airline in country 1 will go bankrupt, which while allowed is other than horribly embarrassing, not that realistic. It would however be realistic if 2 or 3 airlines were apart of this, and one of them from country 1. That is the whole reason why I implemented the 5 gate limit. I have myself never passed 5 gates in a foreign airport before, as my number of hubs never exceeds 5, so I don't know how it feels to be unable to operate flights to a certain airport from all my hubs for reasons other than market & supply (or distance).
Now as for landing slots I was going to implement, I went in way over my head and caused an amazing amount of destruction of various pages trying to implement it..a fixed cap on landing slots rather than gates is what airlinesim has and what I hope AE inherits when timetabling is implemented. As for my opinion on this thread in general, I think 5 is good, but the power in the end is with Yuxi.
(oh and Brit, the gate systems for realistic and open worlds are different
)Now for airports in the countries you are based in...
Honestly, I would think loosening them up a bit is better, however my opinion on these is, I don't really care, I can live with the current system and no other option really intrigues me as being better. (Although yes, the current system is unrealistic)
R6 - NSW Airlines
#8
Posted 15 January 2011 - 05:45 AM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
a fixed cap on landing slots rather than gates is what airlinesim has and what I hope AE inherits when timetabling is implemented.
May I ask why?
#9
Posted 15 January 2011 - 06:03 AM
May I ask why?
I guess you never played airlinesim, anyways instead of picking departure and arrival time on a list, you pick it on a timetable of when runway slots are open!
R6 - NSW Airlines
#10
Posted 15 January 2011 - 06:06 AM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
Right. My point is that's not very realistic for 99.9% of airports. Even at mega-airports like Atlanta, airlines can schedule flights any time they please. The limiting factor is finding a place to park the plane.
#11
Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:39 PM
Right. My point is that's not very realistic for 99.9% of airports. Even at mega-airports like Atlanta, airlines can schedule flights any time they please. The limiting factor is finding a place to park the plane.
Yes but gates are smaller than runways, thus airports can build them a bit more freely.
R6 - NSW Airlines
#12
Posted 15 January 2011 - 05:40 PM
For slots I'm thinking a congestion based system for all airports (affects on time performance instead of a hard cap) and some airports like LHR would also have a hard cap.
#13
Posted 16 January 2011 - 09:04 PM
I see a real problem with increasing the number of gates at international airports. Between my two airlines, I use every slot I have at LHR, PEK, ICN, GMP, PVG, YYZ, MEX and some others I'm sure. And while I find it very annoying to bump into the limit, it provides a vital protection for airlines in other nations.
As it stands currently, the situation is this: UK airlines have an advantage over my US airline on flights to the US. This is because I must operate all my flights from each of my hubs into just 5 gates at LHR, while on the converse routes, UK competition can operate from unlimited LHR gates. So if I have 5 hubs in the US, I effectively have 1 gate per route from the US while UK operators can have up to 5x the frequency to each of my hubs. The advantage is clear when they can operate 767s twice for each 747 and charge a higher price because they need fewer pax to fill the route. Basically, the nation with more 'hub-able' airports is at a disadvantage against the smaller nation.
This means that the 5 gate limit handicaps airlines that run into it. The airlines it handicaps most are those based in China, US, Japan, UK, Canada and Germany. This is because each of these nations has sufficient traffic to fill up 5 gates at foreign airports. While other nations have as many airports (India, Brazil, Russia, and Indonesia come to mind), they don't have the demand to where the limit comes into play (whether by geography or economics).
The primary issue here is that the major airports of each nation are protected for domestic carriers. As it stands, with just 5 gates at LHR in AE14, I have 5% of total LHR traffic and the largest carrier has only 7x the passengers.
A cursory review of the rankings suggests that the handicap against these nations is needed and that raising it will increase the disparity between the highly competitive (but very profitable) nations and the smaller nations.
The practical argument in the game environment aside, the limit is very unrealistic. My info may be out of date, but at one time, BA and United were the #2 carrier at JFK and LHR respectively. In LHR, Terminal 1's 40-odd gates and additional plane-stands are operated by Star alliance members--United alone operates 11. Granted, they also utilize each gate minimally--because most TATL flights arrive between 6am and 1pm GMT, it is inconceivable that a single gate could be used for 7 daily departures on 767s, 777s, & 747s. Maybe the way to approach this is increase the limit, but use one slot for each 30 mins of turn time (so a 744 would need 4 slots while an ATR could just use 1)--or even express gate utilization as hours per day rather than slots.
As it stands currently, the situation is this: UK airlines have an advantage over my US airline on flights to the US. This is because I must operate all my flights from each of my hubs into just 5 gates at LHR, while on the converse routes, UK competition can operate from unlimited LHR gates. So if I have 5 hubs in the US, I effectively have 1 gate per route from the US while UK operators can have up to 5x the frequency to each of my hubs. The advantage is clear when they can operate 767s twice for each 747 and charge a higher price because they need fewer pax to fill the route. Basically, the nation with more 'hub-able' airports is at a disadvantage against the smaller nation.
This means that the 5 gate limit handicaps airlines that run into it. The airlines it handicaps most are those based in China, US, Japan, UK, Canada and Germany. This is because each of these nations has sufficient traffic to fill up 5 gates at foreign airports. While other nations have as many airports (India, Brazil, Russia, and Indonesia come to mind), they don't have the demand to where the limit comes into play (whether by geography or economics).
The primary issue here is that the major airports of each nation are protected for domestic carriers. As it stands, with just 5 gates at LHR in AE14, I have 5% of total LHR traffic and the largest carrier has only 7x the passengers.
A cursory review of the rankings suggests that the handicap against these nations is needed and that raising it will increase the disparity between the highly competitive (but very profitable) nations and the smaller nations.
The practical argument in the game environment aside, the limit is very unrealistic. My info may be out of date, but at one time, BA and United were the #2 carrier at JFK and LHR respectively. In LHR, Terminal 1's 40-odd gates and additional plane-stands are operated by Star alliance members--United alone operates 11. Granted, they also utilize each gate minimally--because most TATL flights arrive between 6am and 1pm GMT, it is inconceivable that a single gate could be used for 7 daily departures on 767s, 777s, & 747s. Maybe the way to approach this is increase the limit, but use one slot for each 30 mins of turn time (so a 744 would need 4 slots while an ATR could just use 1)--or even express gate utilization as hours per day rather than slots.
#14
Posted 16 January 2011 - 11:03 PM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
The practical argument in the game environment aside, the limit is very unrealistic. My info may be out of date, but at one time, BA and United were the #2 carrier at JFK and LHR respectively. In LHR, Terminal 1's 40-odd gates and additional plane-stands are operated by Star alliance members--United alone operates 11. Granted, they also utilize each gate minimally--because most TATL flights arrive between 6am and 1pm GMT, it is inconceivable that a single gate could be used for 7 daily departures on 767s, 777s, & 747s. Maybe the way to approach this is increase the limit, but use one slot for each 30 mins of turn time (so a 744 would need 4 slots while an ATR could just use 1)--or even express gate utilization as hours per day rather than slots.
United might or might not have been the 2nd largest carrier at Heathrow back when they snatched up Bermuda II rights, but they only operate 7 or 8 flights a day out of that airport nowadays. As far as I know, they're not "operating" any gates over there. They have a stake that enables use of 11 of *A's common use gates in terminal 1. British Airways owns Terminal 7 at JFK, but for our purposes, they only have a handful of flights.
Realistically speaking, apart from certain open sky agreements already implemented, AE could cut the limit to 10 slots (1 gate) and cover all but a very small handful of international airlines schedules outside their borders.
There has been discussion of gate usage going to a time based system as well as gate sharing, but I don't know if Yuxi has any plans for it or not.
When timetabling comes out, I'm personally hoping for a "no more airplanes at an airport than gates" (plus a few slots for standby fleets and what not).
#15
Posted 17 January 2011 - 12:35 AM
Look at this photo. This is ACA, not UA, but the point is valid. There are clearly 7 visible ACA planes at LHR (6 at gates, 1 on stand)... Photo is dated 2006 http://www.airliners...614485adf15c23f
In searching, I found multiple images with 5 AA and 4 UA aircraft visible in the same picture. We come back to my point that the 5 gate limit isn't realistic, but it makes game play much more reasonable.
In searching, I found multiple images with 5 AA and 4 UA aircraft visible in the same picture. We come back to my point that the 5 gate limit isn't realistic, but it makes game play much more reasonable.
#16
Posted 17 January 2011 - 12:54 AM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
With all due respect....
...you might be able to find a picture with all 8 UA flights parked at 8 different Heathrow gates at the exact same time for all I know. That doesn't change my point.
Those gates at Heathrow don't operate and work anything like gates currently operate and work in AE. Showing a picture of UA with more than 5 aircraft at Heathrow at the same time doesn't mean AE needs to allow more than 50 daily flights by an American carrier into Heathrow.
...you might be able to find a picture with all 8 UA flights parked at 8 different Heathrow gates at the exact same time for all I know. That doesn't change my point.
Those gates at Heathrow don't operate and work anything like gates currently operate and work in AE. Showing a picture of UA with more than 5 aircraft at Heathrow at the same time doesn't mean AE needs to allow more than 50 daily flights by an American carrier into Heathrow.
#17
Posted 17 January 2011 - 01:12 AM
So, am I missing something? If you're saying that the AE gate system is unrealistic but shouldn't be changed, you're in complete agreement with me.
And 250/7 is just shy of 36 flights per day. Not 50. 7 daily slots times 7 days is 49....or about 50 weekly slots or 1 gate.
And 250/7 is just shy of 36 flights per day. Not 50. 7 daily slots times 7 days is 49....or about 50 weekly slots or 1 gate.
#18
Posted 17 January 2011 - 02:28 AM
txaggie
-
- Member
-
- 157 posts
AE Know It All
I'm saying its unrealistic, but not why you think it is. And I want a number of changes to the system.
#20
Posted 17 January 2011 - 07:32 PM
Moldova96
-
- AE Moderator / Data Collector
-
- 2,024 posts
AE Winner
- Website:http://www.eurovoix.com
I think keep the gate restrictions, AE needs more competion for airport gates, in the old Sim2 London Heathrow, JFK, ATL and other global hubs had no gates left going and there was always a rush to secure a gate at the airport, if there was a gate at the airport it was snacted up within 2 minutes, this competition helped the usage of other airports in the area, there were a far higher amount of international flights to London heading into Gatwick and Stanstead then there are today in AE. Im hoping with the gate numbers Im getting we can actually get a huge sense of competition, we need to see secondary airports in AE used more we need to see the Lutons, Westchesters and Beauvais of AE used more.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
