Another kind of 0.5 frequency abuse?

[ALFC]

I´m also being realistic and I don´t have any 0.5 routes (I think), but my position on the charts is dropping a lot

that seems to be more related to you starting in a less growth oriented area, aka less of a superairport.
whilst it might be slow to start, it might be very viable in the long run, since all the people at LHR and ATL will face very stiff competition in the not so distant future, whilst your less profit oriented airport might grow slower, but might(or might not!) have you as almost monopoly, hence giving you more profit in the medium run.
i think you choice is very good, because hub'ing in say LHR has two kind of people, and only one kind that has fun: a) the kind that knows they will come out on top against competiton due to a plan and a clue b) the kind of people who think its a good solution to base off LHR and who might end up being driven out of it very fast, as soon as mr a) as money to drive them out with frequency.
i think you are in for a less glorious but alot less dangerous ride, and possibly ultimately also alot more fun than the hotshot approach

[Max2147]

100% agreed.  I can only hope it can be fixed the next round.  As for this round, use the 1x 0.5s as much as you want - it's permitted and profitable afterall.

See, that's where I disagree with some people here.  I want to play the game logically and realistically, and I think a lot of other people do too.  

Unfortunately, as Pacific points out the most profitable way to play the game is to exploit the flaw in the rules and blatantly ignore logic and the laws of physics.  Yes it is legal under the current rules, but in my mind that doesn't make it right.  That's why I want the 2x 0.5 routes per plane rule - it closes that loophole in the rule and brings the rules in line with logic.

[rodendack]

I´m also being realistic and I don´t have any 0.5 routes (I think), but my position on the charts is dropping a lot

that seems to be more related to you starting in a less growth oriented area, aka less of a superairport.
whilst it might be slow to start, it might be very viable in the long run, since all the people at LHR and ATL will face very stiff competition in the not so distant future, whilst your less profit oriented airport might grow slower, but might(or might not!) have you as almost monopoly, hence giving you more profit in the medium run.
i think you choice is very good, because hub'ing in say LHR has two kind of people, and only one kind that has fun: a) the kind that knows they will come out on top against competiton due to a plan and a clue b) the kind of people who think its a good solution to base off LHR and who might end up being driven out of it very fast, as soon as mr a) as money to drive them out with frequency.
i think you are in for a less glorious but alot less dangerous ride, and possibly ultimately also alot more fun than the hotshot approach

you forgot that I could create a base on a popular place and a new one on a small place to complement my plan  

[fozzybr]

Was going to start a new post, but found this one.  Completely agree with them caribbean badgers!

Is anything going to be done in the future about this?

One airplane
One focus city
Many many multiple .5 routes to different airports

Awesome for revenue generation, obviously.

This is just logically impossible, although since the game allows it, I guess it's condoned?  I'd rather play the game with a modicum of realism.

[blastpast]

i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.

[LOT 737-300]

i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.

That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.

[fozzybr]

blast - I do think the .5 routes have their place.  In this 1950's era we are in, that just gets exaggerated even more with the slower planes than the 2000's of last round.  Here's an example.  Base in Washington DC.  Have one .5 route to London, and another .5 route to LA.  That way the plane stays overnight, every other day, in LA or London.  That does make a lot of sense to me.  Base-to-base .5 trips make a lot of sense too.  If you had 6 bases, you could do 6 one-way flights between them, and wind up in the same place to do it all over again the next day, as you already said.

For the most part, here's an example I'm getting at.

Base (and this is just an example) in Chicago.  You have one plane.  You fly that plane on a .5 route to St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville and Cleveland.  Once you do the .5 from say St. Louis to Chicago, and then Chicago to Kansasy City, how does the plane magically reappear in Chicago or Memphis for the next flight?

[blastpast]

i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.

That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.

well then maybe there could be either allowed .5 routes to continents that your base is not on, or this will help to slow growth, and increase reliance on alliances.

blast - I do think the .5 routes have their place.  In this 1950's era we are in, that just gets exaggerated even more with the slower planes than the 2000's of last round.  Here's an example.  Base in Washington DC.  Have one .5 route to London, and another .5 route to LA.  That way the plane stays overnight, every other day, in LA or London.  That does make a lot of sense to me.  Base-to-base .5 trips make a lot of sense too.  If you had 6 bases, you could do 6 one-way flights between them, and wind up in the same place to do it all over again the next day, as you already said.

For the most part, here's an example I'm getting at.

Base (and this is just an example) in Chicago.  You have one plane.  You fly that plane on a .5 route to St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville and Cleveland.  Once you do the .5 from say St. Louis to Chicago, and then Chicago to Kansasy City, how does the plane magically reappear in Chicago or Memphis for the next flight?

ok i do see your point. however the dc-london, dc-la route does NOT make sense to me. because it wouldnt be staying overnight every other day. it would have one way from dc-london, .5 london-dc, .5 dc-la, .5 la-dc, .5 dc-london. which means it would only be in london and la every 5th day. correct?

but i do see the point of .5 routes needed for routes outside of your continent. so maybe if those could be allowed, but not .5 routes to the same continent except for your other bases. i'm not sure how possible that is

[Scandalian Airlines]

you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base.

You are not actually starting a route on that one, you are completing the second leg on day 2, and it's like that on many places in the world. One example is Atran at MMX, they do not have a base there, but have a plane that comes in from Moscow in the evening and stay there overnight, and go back before the devil gets his pants on. That's why 2 0.5's per plane is the way to go.

[blastpast]

you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base.

You are not actually starting a route on that one, you are completing the second leg on day 2, and it's like that on many places in the world. One example is Atran at MMX, they do not have a base there, but have a plane that comes in from Moscow in the evening and stay there overnight, and go back before the devil gets his pants on. That's why 2 0.5's per plane is the way to go.

no see legs are one way flights though. if it was a la-london flight, on the other person's example, with a stop over in washington, i could see. but you cant do this if washington dc is your base, because you cant start from la to go to london. i see the dc-london one way flight because that's all you can do with turnaround time. so really you are doing .5 dc-london, staying overnight, .5 london-dc staying overnight, .5 dc-la staying overnight, .5 la-dc staying overnight, and so on. although for that you only get counted for 2x.5's. and when you have two .5's in a day, you're saying that your plane is staying overnight at two different airports.

[LOT 737-300]

you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base.

You are not actually starting a route on that one, you are completing the second leg on day 2, and it's like that on many places in the world. One example is Atran at MMX, they do not have a base there, but have a plane that comes in from Moscow in the evening and stay there overnight, and go back before the devil gets his pants on. That's why 2 0.5's per plane is the way to go.

no see legs are one way flights though. if it was a la-london flight, on the other person's example, with a stop over in washington, i could see. but you cant do this if washington dc is your base, because you cant start from la to go to london. i see the dc-london one way flight because that's all you can do with turnaround time. so really you are doing .5 dc-london, staying overnight, .5 london-dc staying overnight, .5 dc-la staying overnight, .5 la-dc staying overnight, and so on. although for that you only get counted for 2x.5's. and when you have two .5's in a day, you're saying that your plane is staying overnight at two different airports.

But it still makes perfect sense for cities of smaller distance. See the example I have stated above, I can even draw what I am talking about if you want me to. Also, remember that the planes are operating 24 hours a day, so if the plane can do it, then it's possible.

[blastpast]

i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.

That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.

ok sorry i didnt read this right at first. so i did now and will respond. if you do this, you have .5 a-b, then you still have .5 b-a, and .5 a-c. but this time you're talking about  Day 1: .5 a-b. Day 2: .5 b-a, .5 a-c. Day 3: .5 c-a, a-b again. this means Day 1 is .5, but day 2 is really 1 freq, not .5. and if you could do 1 and not .5, then you should. that could be where you take .5's away.  so you're flying back from b-a without it counting against you, and i think without you paying for fuel or pilots, or counting it against you in your 24 hour flight time.

[LOT 737-300]

i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.

That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.

ok sorry i didnt read this right at first. so i did now and will respond. if you do this, you have .5 a-b, then you still have .5 b-a, and .5 a-c. but this time you're talking about  Day 1: .5 a-b. Day 2: .5 b-a, .5 a-c. Day 3: .5 c-a, a-b again. this means Day 1 is .5, but day 2 is really 1 freq, not .5. and if you could do 1 and not .5, then you should. that could be where you take .5's away.  so you're flying back from b-a without it counting against you, and i think without you paying for fuel or pilots, or counting it against you in your 24 hour flight time.

Not really. Remember that the planes are working 24 hours a day in this game. So that means I have been using that overnight example wrongly myself.
And you're still wrong.
Lets say that the last flight of that DAY is the is a .5 from A to B.
Then the FIRST flight of the NEXT day is a .5 from B to A. No 1 freq yet.
Depending on the routing, the last flight of that NEXT day should a a .5 freq A to C still nothing.
THe plane returns the next day to City A as the FIRST flight of the day and it restarts.
So still, 2 .5s make sense, I also did draw out a 12 hour flight example.
As for utilizing .5s, I only use them only when I need thm and not exceed 2 per plane. I only have 1 2.5 freq and hte rest are well rounded out 1s or 2s.

[blastpast]

i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.

That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.

ok sorry i didnt read this right at first. so i did now and will respond. if you do this, you have .5 a-b, then you still have .5 b-a, and .5 a-c. but this time you're talking about  Day 1: .5 a-b. Day 2: .5 b-a, .5 a-c. Day 3: .5 c-a, a-b again. this means Day 1 is .5, but day 2 is really 1 freq, not .5. and if you could do 1 and not .5, then you should. that could be where you take .5's away.  so you're flying back from b-a without it counting against you, and i think without you paying for fuel or pilots, or counting it against you in your 24 hour flight time.

Not really. Remember that the planes are working 24 hours a day in this game. So that means I have been using that overnight example wrongly myself.
And you're still wrong.
Lets say that the last flight of that DAY is the is a .5 from A to B.
Then the FIRST flight of the NEXT day is a .5 from B to A. No 1 freq yet.
Depending on the routing, the last flight of that NEXT day should a a .5 freq A to C still nothing.
THe plane returns the next day to City A as the FIRST flight of the day and it restarts.
So still, 2 .5s make sense, I also did draw out a 12 hour flight example.
As for utilizing .5s, I only use them only when I need thm and not exceed 2 per plane. I only have 1 2.5 freq and hte rest are well rounded out 1s or 2s.

i think one of the problems with our arguments is that the distance between a-b and a-c vary if 1-b takes 12 hours each way, but a-c only takes 4 hours each way, then a-c should be forced to go a-c and c-a in the same day. resulting in a 1 frequency, and not .5.. then you could do .5 12 hr, and 1freq 4hr each way. 20 hrs+turnaround. then you can do this :   Day 1: a-c 4 hr, c-a 4 hr, a-b 12 hr.  Day 2: b-a 12 hr, a-c 4hr, c-a 4hr. Day 3: a-c 4hr, c-a 4hr, a-b 12hr. etc.

but then say you total 21 hours. you have 3 left. how can you then put another .5 route on an airport that's 2 1/2 hrs away and have it work right? the dop wouldnt really be dop. you'd have to divide the dop in half if you only fly a route every other day in order to get the real dop. or else you're doubling on your profits.

[LOT 737-300]

Here is what I'm saying:


On the 3 hour part, like I said, I try not to go past 2x .5s per plane, what I would do is see if there is any shorter runs I can put it on that would allow a 1x (1 had 3 hrs left on my newest plane, thats where I used it on the 2.5 on a 106nm route), if not, then I just leave it alone. My loss, heck yeah, but thats just how I play. I can make another one explaining this, but with what one of my planes is doing right now. What it looks like we might not be understanding each other here.