Airport Compensation

General
41

Actually, I think your message confirms part of the concern I have been trying to highlight.

I completely agree that Premium is important for SimFly. Servers, development, support, infrastructure, and future improvements all have costs, and someone has to cover them. I have never argued that Premium should not exist.

What I find interesting is that your reasoning is perfectly logical from a player’s perspective.

You mainly fly to 60% airports because they are more profitable.

Sometimes you avoid returning flights to people who support your airports because flying to a 20% airport would reduce your earnings.

You try to maximize the return on your flights because the system rewards that behavior.

And to be clear, I am not saying that this is wrong.

The real question is a different one:

Should the system encourage this behavior so strongly?

Because if many players follow the same logic, the outcome is fairly predictable:

  • Traffic naturally concentrates around the airports offering the highest returns.

  • Non-Premium airports and lower-category airports become less attractive destinations.

  • New players have a harder time attracting traffic.

  • Over time, the gap between players already established in the most profitable networks and those joining today continues to grow.

And that is exactly the dynamic that concerns me.

You wrote that anyone can simply buy an airport, become Premium, and join the network.

Technically, that is true.

But from the perspective of platform growth, I am not convinced that “pay first and then maybe become part of the network” is the best possible experience for a new player.

A healthy ecosystem usually works when a new player can see a realistic path to growth before having to invest more and more money into it.

Otherwise, many potential long-term users may simply leave before they ever reach that point.

There is another aspect worth considering.

You yourself mentioned that sometimes you would like to return flights to users who regularly support your airports, but you do not do it often because it is not economically beneficial for you.

To me, that is one of the clearest signs that the incentive system is influencing player behavior more than the relationships between players themselves.

We are no longer talking about choosing a destination because you like the airport, enjoy the route, or want to support another community member.

We are talking about choosing a destination primarily based on the economic return percentage.

And in my opinion, that is the real heart of this discussion.

Not whether Premium should exist.

Not whether Premium users should have advantages.

But whether the current incentive structure is creating the best possible ecosystem for the long-term growth of the platform.

Because in the end, there is one thing that benefits everyone, Premium and non-Premium alike:

More active pilots.

More active airports.

More people joining the platform and deciding to stay.

Because without that growth, we ultimately end up redistributing the same PAX among the same users.

And while that may work for a while, it is difficult to see it as the foundation for sustainable long-term growth.

1 Like
42

We have had very active non premium users group that shared flights and it was quite fun. But after several weird incidents and never announced evil changes of rules during match - most of that group is either gone or mind own business jumping on bandwagon of 60% airports only.

I know Antonio in a second will attack me I have premium :smiley: he do not want to acknowledge that i have it purely for other mods (actually 3 haha) where i do fly to airports that are 0% in Simfly as well because I don’t care to much about this system and so called earnings. There is nothing about organic growth here sadly - all spins around cut 20% from sales / pay for convenience / penalties everywhere / hidden cuts - name it.

From another hand I paid some good amount of cash for those assets… so I am using them. One may say I fly only to ENVA … not really but where should I fly if in JetCard and FSCharter I have base there :smiley:

Growth is non-existant - that is a problem for platform sustainability. Bying 5000 or 9000 usd airport is surreal give or take those are ok if platform have 1000 active users not bots who never even take off once (90% of accounts are fake).

Competition is strong and for a sub other mods deliver some sort of real economy / fun progression or you can have fun for free with 250 active pilots in peak.

Topic starter is upset because he owns airport that noone wants to fly to because its 20% - I’ve been in those shoes for majority of time.

I own some good size military airports capable of accepting any sort of heavies - been asking like a year ago for some military airports events - maybe one - nothing. Its not my attitude is a problem here but lack of common sense that could easily drive it somewhere. Why Tier1 and MIL are on the market if they are useless junk (unless you use them yourself only).

Not my circus not my monkeys as they say but its weird that direction taken not sets sail towards trying to get more users that will stay a littlee longer.

1 Like
43

There is also another consequence of this system that I think is often overlooked.

If the most rational choice is almost always to fly to Category 4 airports with a 60% return, then a large portion of Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 airports will naturally struggle to attract traffic.

This is not because those airports are bad, or because their owners are inactive. It is simply because the economic incentives push players elsewhere.

From a player’s perspective, choosing a Category 4 airport at 60% makes perfect sense. You accumulate more PAX, grow faster, buy more aircraft, acquire more assets, and if necessary you can later sell those assets to recover part of your investment.

Again, I am not criticizing the players who make that choice. They are simply optimizing within the rules provided.

My concern is what happens to the rest of the airport ecosystem.

If most traffic is pulled toward the same group of highly profitable airports, then a significant portion of the airports available on the marketplace become far less attractive investments.

And if a new player looks at hundreds of available airports but quickly realizes that most traffic is concentrated elsewhere, that can become a barrier to growth in itself.

In other words, the issue is not that Category 4 airports are profitable.

The issue is whether the gap between the most profitable airports and the rest of the ecosystem has become so large that it discourages participation, investment, and growth in the broader network.

A healthy economy should not only reward the top destinations.

It should also give smaller and lower-category airports a realistic opportunity to remain relevant and attractive over time.

44

There are number of ideas you can produce to make it more interesting.

  1. Non-premium destination week with 10% extra for landing on those.
  2. NATO week with bonus for miliatry bases arrivals.
  3. Tier2 week
  4. GA tour with small planes from country to country and some PAX bonus for finishing loop of really small airports .

Name it.

And worst shoot in own foot is 0% rental for people without premium… seriously 700 usd plane that is garbage in this system or you have to fly it yourself - 20% would change everything for all of users.

2 Likes
45

don’t wait always for Simfly on “inventing” or creating something, just do what you can do with other members together, and most of all don’t think you are the “focus” and top priority of my arguments, as instead , for you seems to be Simfly bad management, while still be part of it.

And as you say: There is nothing about organic growth here sadly.. I hope you can perhaps arrive at selling all those assets and occupy your time in a better way, than flying here I suppose. there’s no reason on “hurting” your self and be part of a non growing system.

46

I don’t think the idea itself is bad. That way, the airport operator would at least benefit from it too.

I’d be in favor of the airport receiving compensation if the plane isn’t flown away from the airport but is instead de-spawned.

That’s only fair for every airport operator on Simfly.

The organizer would have to figure out what that compensation would look like.

47

I am not hurting myself i just enjoying other mods and laughing for silly traps and penalties that happens only here, while others don’t try to hoard everything from their users at all cost.

Selling for what 100 pax that you can not sell for currency unless you dump price ? No thanks :slight_smile:

48

People thinking the same as you, just stopped flying with simfly… you always have choice, always.. don’t blame it on others.. Just choose, stay in simfly, supporting as you are doing as part of the system and don’t spit on the plate were you are eating, or just leave.. it’s easy .. others have done it, nobody is forcing to stay or agree to this , as you think “non sense”…

49

Feel free to leave if you cant stand my opinions. For real go make orders somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Peace and out.

1 Like
50

That’s exactly how I see it, too.

I’d also prefer to be able to offer people this 60% discount, even if they aren’t Premium subscribers.

I think the 60% rule is more than justified, since pilots may spend several hours in front of the computer to complete their flights, and the airport—well, it’s just there, does nothing, and gets less for it, even though it receives a small fee.

That’s exactly what I mean—if you have an airport, you get a small bonus.

I don’t want to keep 80% for myself while the pilot, who sacrifices their time for this, earns a measly 20%.

That’s why I’d be in favor of non-premium subscribers being able to claim exactly the same share as premium users.

Of course, Premium users should have advantages since they pay more for it, but why does it have to be about the payout?

I just don’t see the point in paying so much money for a Premium membership.

Especially since I already have other costs in the simulator, like Navigraph, etc.

(Yes, I know I don’t need it, but I have it for VATSIM, etc., and that’s not the only thing that costs me money every month.)

And as I’ve written a few times before, it’s not fair that you can take planes without taking off from the airport and the operator gets nothing.

51

To be honest, I don’t really understand why they’re so opposed to it.

Maybe I misunderstood, but to me it sounds like they’re saying, “Take it or leave it.”

Isn’t it true that Simfly depends on players, and if there’s a disagreement and you suggest improvements, the operators could at least take a look at it?

It seems my post has triggered something that several people don’t really like.

Surely we can talk about it, or write and discuss it here, and if the operator truly cares about the active players and wants to grow their platform, they should comment on it.

This “take it or leave it” attitude doesn’t really help the platform move forward, and in my opinion, it won’t increase player numbers.

I’d argue that it will actually go in the exact opposite direction.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, in which case I apologize, of course. :upside_down_face:

1 Like
52

Same to you… don’t worry..

53

As for your initial message, I agree with you. I think that yes, it is correct that if the plane is “moved” without flying, a value is given to the owner of the airport.

1 Like
54

Then we can only hope that the creator of Simfly reads this and perhaps makes an adjustment or comments on it :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like