As the airport expands will the air quality decrease as more flights take place. I think that as the air quality decreases some environmental protesters turn up ( the worse the air quality, the more protesters) and start interfering with airport operations. Also some air quality inspector might turn up and stop all operations if the air quality breaches a certain limit. The way to increase the air quality is to plant some trees or scale back operations.
I think that the protesters is a good idea but the inspector isn’t a good idea because someone wouldn’t cancel all flights for air quality but good idea about the tress because most airports have loads of trees around them in the UK
Honestly protesters don’t really happen much at airports because its loitering and they could be prosecuted
1 Like
Maybe if has you have poor air quality, you can’t sign as profitable contracts
You could hire an environmental officer to mitigate against the effects of pollution; they could review flight paths and so on. Perhaps for expansion as well an environmental officer would be needed to create a report to satisfy the planning commitee, with subsequent expansions becoming increasingly more difficult to achieve.
Let’s just remember that in reality, while the concept of an environmental officer may exist within an airport bureaucracy, it’s certainly not going to stop an airport from signing new contracts with new airlines, nor would it make a given contract less profitable.
If there were environmentally conscious airlines (I know air new zealand is trying to become carbon neutral) they may opt not to fly to your airport, but really why not? All airports are the same, some just have more traffic than others. It’s not the airport itself which generates pollution, it’s the aircraft, which belong to the airlines.
A better stance would be, as an airport I’m going to set minimum standards of aircraft that land at my airport, for example no 747’s (as we all know they’re gas guzzlers) and only accept new aircraft like a320 neos and dreamliners
The environmental officer role that I can imagine would be involved more with mitigating the effects of plane travel (redesigning flight paths, perhaps implementing night time noise restrictions, dealing with moaning NIMBYs) and supporting the expansion of the airport. I can foresee them generating a bill for projects to support the local community and mitigate against pollution (such as tree planting), generating a reputation boost to the airport in the process. Most of this would simply happen in the background - money leaves your account and you get reputation in return.
I would like to see the need for growth to be contingent on an environmental report - the officer would need to submit a report to support growth. This would put in a slight delay to expansion (by which I mean expanding playable area rather than just building within the existing area) that shouldn’t be too long but would require the player to be thinking about the future of their airport. I would suggest that expansion becomes increasingly difficult (i.e. would require a more experienced environmental officer) but never impossible (up to the limits of the game).
I wouldn’t like to see a situation where growth is truly hampered because, whilst it may be realistic in some instances, it will affect playability. I think it is realistic to make the player jump through some hoops to expand, and it could add valuable gameplay, but you shouldn’t really be stuck because of it. And I don’t see them restricting your flights, perhaps excepting night time restrictions.
I like the inspection idea. If our airport is constantly dealing with late arrivals, missing baggage etc, could the simulation send an inspector and if he/she finds issues; it could map them out in a checklist for us to address. We could click resolved when addressed but if they aren’t addressed within a certain amount of time perhaps fines could be levied?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 31 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.