The owner would have to figure out exactly how to incorporate compensation into the arrangement.
In my opinion, things can’t go on like this when it comes to payment.
I’d like the owner to think about how he could handle this and let us know what he decides.
I completely agree with you.
Airplanes are meant to fly.
Let’s say there’s user A , B and C with relative assets.. obviously it depends on where the airport are locate, but a group can be create between users in the same country and make a tour that includes both users airports. Or if a user has his own assets located in a certain area, owner A can make a tour that includes his airports, owner B does the same and then both users switch their tours..
That’s a good idea, but let’s be honest—no one’s going to do that.
Everyone looks for the deals that pay the most, and those are the ones with premium status. That’s perfectly fine, of course.
(It’s just absurd that aircraft owners can simply pull their planes out and the airport doesn’t even receive any compensation.)
There might be two, three, or four people who do that and fly to airports that don’t have premium status, but the rest will always look for where they can earn the most.
It’s starting all over again
I just checked again and had two planes at my airport that were ready for takeoff.
Both planes have disappeared without ever taking off.
The airport remains empty, and now the chances are even slimmer that anyone will ever fly there or fly away from there.
So now I have to send another plane there and hope that someone takes it and flies away from there so I can get a share. Of course, always hoping that the plane won’t be taken away, as happened in this case and the last one—or actually, almost every time.
This is actually completely absurd and totally annoying.
I mean, this is something non -premium members would do in order to increase their airport, it’s not aimed to gain more PAX to the pilot of course, is just a way to level up non premium airports.
I don’t understand what are you saying about planes that were on your airport.. you don’t own airplanes. owner can “move” their planes. you can’t pretend that owners are forced to fly them(unfortunately, in my opinion) 
. but in fact as I can see from your airport logs, the plane have been rented and flown away from your airport, they didn’t just “moved” so you got your share % anyway. you had all your 19 available movements. but if you see an issue, report it to simfly
Also .. you can buy your own plane and place it on your airport.
I’ll give them that, but I don’t think anyone will actually do it.
But it would be worth a try.
I’ll make a new post, with a tour regarding my cat1 airports in Antarctica, along with a link to the relative scenarios, some made by me.. and I will ask to post the same to other non premium members. Just post a flight plan (I use LNM, but anyone can use msfs save feature or something else).. and see what happens.. no need to do flights in the same day, use whatever time available you have..
I’m sorry if that was a bit confusing.
I’ll try again
Here’s the thing: When I rent planes from other players and fly them to my airport, I hope that another player will fly the plane—which I previously flew there—away from my airport, so that I can earn some XP and passengers from that player’s departure.
I guess that’s the point of buying an airport for a lot of money.
But the plane owners can simply move their planes away from the airport (in this case, from my airport where I parked the plane) without flying them themselves.
I don’t know if anyone can do this or just Premium subscribers, since I don’t own a plane myself.
Since the owners can move the plane away from the airport without flying it, the airport doesn’t receive any bonuses or passengers.
Consequently, an airport is unattractive to non-premium subscribers, who can’t offer pilots more than 20% because no one wants to fly there—since there are other airports (run by premium subscribers) that can offer 60%.
The basic premise of the game is that I fly a plane to my airport, and as soon as the plane can be moved again, it takes off from my airport.
However, that is not the case, since owners can remove the planes, and I think that in this case, there should be compensation for the airport.
On top of that, I had two planes at the airport yesterday, both of which were available for use.
When I checked just now, both planes were gone.
So the planes were moved, not flown away, meaning the airport didn’t earn anything.
The list shows that I was the last one, and yesterday there were still two planes there that could have taken off from my airport.
And that is exactly why I think an airport should be compensated.
This is not related to Premium merbership or not having it.
As non-prenium can also relocate their airplane.
The only difference is Premium members have 50 relocations for free per month.
As I suggested earlier, A share of the relocations fees (so, only when not free) could be used to the airport owner for the compensation of the plane moved away.
but I guess Simfly is more willing to burn more PAX, than giving PAX to airport owner by this way
I think the main reason of moving my plane as an owner, it’s obvious in order to make that plane rentable by other users where there’s a milestone or contest flight scheduled. Because don’t know if everyone knows, but i can fly my own plane even if is located far away from my departure. Obviously, after my flight, that plane will not be available utili ordinary maintenance finishes.
NO , The main reason to move a plane for airplane owner, is to bring it to own airport to benefit on the next takeoff of the plane on own airport. We earn much more with the take-off (thanks to the “Weekly cycle first movement” ) than with the plane rental.
Have you tried doing it without moving it? At mines the flight is still registered in the airport activity.
I would like to add my perspective to this discussion.
First of all, I am not a Premium user and, at the moment, I do not plan to become one. This is not because I do not want to support the project, but because I believe there is currently an imbalance that penalizes standard users.
Since I joined SimFly, I have always tried to return visits from pilots who fly to my airport, LIRZ. To me, this is part of building a healthy community and helping the network grow.
Over the last few months, I have visited many airports owned by some of the most active users on the platform. I have almost always returned visits received at my airport, but in most cases I have not seen the same reciprocity. I am not saying that anyone is obligated to return a flight—everyone is free to fly wherever they want. However, when a significant portion of traffic continues to concentrate around the same airports and the same groups of users, the practical result is that many other airports remain excluded from the economic cycle.
To give a concrete example, after many flights to airports all over the world, the only users who have consistently or occasionally returned visits to my airport have been:
josean62, several times;
Benoit0211, a couple of times;
Kyndra, once, despite the many flights I have made to airports in the United States;
alevelezz, once, and because of that I plan to visit more of his airports in the future.
I appreciate these users because they demonstrate that a collaborative network can exist.
The issue is that, compared to the total number of flights I have made, these are exceptions. In most cases, I have never received a return flight, even after visiting the same airports multiple times.
Because of this, I have gradually stopped using SimFly for many of my flights within Italy. I still enjoy flying there and continue to do so regularly, but often outside the platform. At many Italian airports that I used to visit, I have rarely seen any real exchange of traffic.
To me, this is an important sign. Not because anyone should be forced to return flights, but because it shows how traffic naturally tends to concentrate within the same established circles.
And this is where I see the main issue.
If the economic success of an airport depends primarily on already being part of an established network of users who exchange traffic among themselves, then a new player joining today has very little chance to grow. Not because they do not fly well, not because they do not participate, but because they are entering an ecosystem that has already formed around specific hubs and specific groups of users.
This is not only a fairness issue; it is also a long-term sustainability issue for the platform.
There is another point that I believe deserves attention.
Currently, long flights with autopilot often generate better rewards than shorter flights where the pilot is actively involved throughout the flight. With many airliners, you take off, engage the autopilot, and wait until descent. There are even tools available that notify pilots when they are approaching Top of Descent (TOD).
Meanwhile, pilots who fly short or medium routes, operate light aircraft, manage navigation, procedures, approaches, and multiple takeoffs and landings in the same session often receive fewer rewards despite performing far more actual flying.
Outside the platform, I frequently fly to smaller airports because they are similar to those I use for real-world training on ultralight aircraft such as the Tecnam P92. I can honestly say that one hour in an ultralight often involves more hands-on flying, decision-making, and piloting skill than several hours of cruise flight in a modern airliner.
For this reason, I agree with the idea that larger airports could have more available operations, but I also believe compensation should be much more balanced across airports. Otherwise, most Category 1, 2, 3, and many non-Premium Category 4 airports will continue to struggle for relevance.
I do not believe the problem is individual users. I believe the current system naturally encourages traffic concentration and makes it difficult for new airports and new players to become part of the active ecosystem.
As for me, anyone who flies to my airport, LIRZ, will always receive a return visit. Always.
I enjoy SimFly, I believe the concept is excellent, and that is exactly why I think it is important to openly discuss these issues before they become a limitation to the platform’s future growth.
it’s such a waste seeing a “simulated world” just become more and more as the greedy and materialistic world we live in… 
that’s the opportunity to gather to all non premium to do what is possible to grow between non premium users… keep an eye on topics.. asap will try to convince other user to visit “our” airports…
The premium membership offers some advantage, mainly the 60% and the relocations.
however, I beleive it also provide a necessary income for Simfly platform to pay severs, staffs or other cost !
So the main problem is not the “Premium”, but the 20% vs 60%.
(I don’t want to talk about players who only fly to their own airport but expect others to fly to them, because it’s lucrative only thanks to high level or 60%)
So yes, we are here on a platform where people come here to “fly and earn” (real USD), so it seems obvious what people will choose between getting 1Pax for landing somewere at 60%, or getting 0.33Pax for landing somewehre else at 20%.
Also the annoying point on that, the guy who own the airport at 20% and do not participate to Simfly’s Cost by suscribing to the Premium membership, is getting more out my flight ? That’s not fair …
Myself, I focus mainly on at 60% (and cat4) so I’m not helping the economic of simfly for other users than the “established Network” (which is not close, anybody can join by simply get an airport, Premium, and fly to other people airports), but anyway, I’m also helping because everybody get 60% at my airports.
Finaly, I would agree with an adjustment of the rules of 20%-60%.
and adding a share of airplane relocation fees for the airport from where it’s removed
Personnaly, i’m bit annoy when some nice people fly regurlary to my cat 4 at 60%, and i want to return it back but it mean getting only 20% (so I loose potential pax and even more on cat 3 or lower). So I fly sometimes to them, but not often, thinking somehow the 80% they get compensate that I’m not there often because it’s not lucrative for me.
Actually, I believe the image that was posted unintentionally highlights the exact point I have been trying to make.
The issue is not that Premium users earn more. If someone pays for a Premium subscription, it is perfectly reasonable that they receive additional benefits. I have never argued otherwise.
The question I am asking is different: is the current system helping the platform grow, or is it mainly redistributing PAX within a relatively small community?
Looking at platform activity, I have the impression that the active community is still relatively small. When looking at the leaderboard and the users who are regularly active, it does not appear that the majority of active players are Premium. I have also seen several posts from users who have decided not to renew their Premium subscription or who are considering not renewing in the future.
Out of curiosity, I manually reviewed the first 150 positions on the leaderboard and, unless I made mistakes in counting, I found only a little over 70–80 Premium users.
Of course, these are not official numbers and only the SimFly team has access to the real data. However, if this estimate is even remotely close to reality, it would suggest that the active community is still relatively small compared to the platform’s ambitions.
That is why I wonder whether the main issue today is not how much a single user spends, but rather how much the community as a whole is able to grow.
Because even those who invest in Premium, buy airports, or purchase aircraft are ultimately doing so to participate in a living and growing ecosystem.
If the number of active users remains mostly stable, or grows very slowly, the risk is that traffic continues to circulate between the same airports and the same groups of players.
And that is where I see the real issue.
When a community is small and traffic becomes concentrated, PAX simply get redistributed within the same circle. The economy starts revolving around itself rather than expanding through new players, new airports, and new activities.
At the same time, we have seen the introduction of new taxes, exchange fees, marketplace fees, and other economic controls. I do not know the exact reasons behind these decisions and I do not claim to know the platform’s internal data, but from an outside perspective they appear to be measures aimed at maintaining balance within the economy and managing PAX circulation.
This leads me to a broader reflection: no virtual economy can grow indefinitely by continuously redistributing value among the same users. Eventually, new players, new airports, new investments, and new reasons to participate are required.
That is why I continue to believe that the priority should not be how to distribute a few more PAX among current users, but how to make the platform more attractive to new players and how to keep those players engaged over time.
If a new player buys an airport, flies regularly, and participates in the community, they should feel that growth is realistically achievable.
Because if that feeling is missing, the risk is not that they stop investing in their airport.
The risk is that they stop using the platform altogether.
And that is a loss for everyone: Premium users, large asset owners, new players, and ultimately the platform itself.
If SimFly grows, everyone benefits. If traffic continues to remain concentrated within the same established circles, the risk is an economy that survives, but struggles to expand.
So when I look at that image, my question is not:
“How many PAX do Premium users earn?”
My question is:
“How many new users are joining, how many are still active six months later, and how many genuinely feel they have a realistic path to growth within the ecosystem?”
Because the answer to those questions is what will determine the future of SimFly.
