The foreign focus cities...

[Virgin Serbia]

When the game was updated some months ago, the ability to open foreign focus cities was added. It seemed like a very good idea. But i am beginning to experience that HUGE airlines that base at major airports like LHR have begun opening foreign hubs in parts of the world that are much harder to operate in, such as Africa. That would be like Lufthansa or Delta Airlines opening a hub in Nairobi. They bomb the local competition completely, in a very unrealistic way, by flying much larger planes at lower fares.

So i suggest there be imposed some kind of restrictions on these foreign hubs. The foreign hub cant be more than, say, 1000 nm from your base. Foreign bases will be subject restrictions by limiting the amount of flights on some continents. (africa restricted to 20 flights for foreign airlines?)

Whats your opinions on this?

[Chavaquiah]

Did you stop to consider that the very same rule allows an African airline to open a hub at LHR?

[KaZoom-URD]

well i will not jump to conclusions , but it seems to me that Africa is a place where huge profit/growth are hard to accumulate/accomplish within 1 game year, unlike say from LHR/FRA etc.
The OP has a point in this offsetting the competition/growth of domestic African Airlines.
maybe its time to review the implementation of focus cities? or changing it?
The notion that the same works in reverse seems to me as an arrogant answer. im my wiev you could have saved the banalities and not posted at all, since it isnt addressing the issue, as i see it.

 

[Chavaquiah]

The notion that the same works in reverse seems to me as an arrogant answer. im my wiev you could have saved the banalities and not posted at all, since it isnt addressing the issue, as i see it.

What you saw of my answer was the self-moderated piece. In the interest of respecting other people's opinions I refrained from going all out in stating how much I loath these whining posts.

Thing is, this a game. A competitive game, at that. All players start with the same money, the same plane and the same freedom to pick their bases. Asking for artificial limits on competition defeats the whole point, both as a competitive game and as a simulation.

Besides, and regardless of how arrogant you may think my answer was, it very much did address the issue. Before MW and foreign bases you had people whining about the big advantage European and North American based airlines had over, say, African or Central American based. Well, foreign bases did level the field a little bit.

And not only by allowing players based in more difficult regions to get a taste and a slice of big airports' profits. If you think of it, you may realize that a big airline that "wastes" two domestic hubs to go to a smaller foreign airport is, once again, levelling the playing field.

[KaZoom-URD]

What you saw of my answer was the self-moderated piece. In the interest of respecting other people's opinions I refrained from going all out in stating how much I loath these whining posts.

Ok fat first i thought youre answer was arrogant, but you now reveal youre true self.

Thing is, this a game. A competitive game, at that. All players start with the same money, the same plane and the same freedom to pick their bases. Asking for artificial limits on competition defeats the whole point, both as a competitive game and as a simulation.

As for an artificial limits; what does [1]7 Focus Cities [Foreign] Total sound like in youre ears?
As for Simulation i find the game still in development.(Im not saying it is bad, not at all.).
Whats the logic in really slow airplanes being able of charging massive €, over a much much faster aircraft?
Which Airline has hubs in different countries within theyre first year of operation?, if ever in different continent?
Why is it extremely difficult to go bankcrupt?

Besides, and regardless of how arrogant you may think my answer was, it very much did address the issue. Before MW and foreign bases you had people whining about the big advantage European and North American based airlines had over, say, African or Central American based. Well, foreign bases did level the field a little bit.

And not only by allowing players based in more difficult regions to get a taste and a slice of big airports' profits. If you think of it, you may realize that a big airline that "wastes" two domestic hubs to go to a smaller foreign airport is, once again, levelling the playing field.

Instead of writing/explaining this(Which also contains alot of arrogance), you arrogantly wrote:

Did you stop to consider that the very same rule allows an African airline to open a hub at LHR?

"wastes" & "leveling". Do you by that mean an Airline with a fat wallet who ventures into a continent with a lessor developed competition?
Or do you mean an Airline who should accumulate enough money to buy a hub+plane in LHR/FRA etc. before gates run out? on the expense of inter-continental development?

As ive written before, maybe its time to review the implementation of focus cities?
I sure dont have alot of asnwers, but i on the other hand have a few questions and ideas.
But i sure as hell aint being arrogant about general enquiries & questions.

[MrOrange]

Artificially limiting the foreign hub to airports within a given distance from your base(s) kind of defeats the basic idea behind the foreign hub in the first place. If a big airline wants to create a foreign hub somewhere in Africa, why not? If an airline wants to start up in Africa, make less money and create a foreign hub somewhere in Europe, why not? What's the use of a limit then? The foreign hub concept, as mentioned, does indeed work the other way around as well, as in small airlines can try their hands on a bigger foreign hub, just as much as big airlines can try smaller hubs in underdeveloped continents. The second post in this thread, as I see it, did in fact make a valid point and does address the issue we're talking about here, so don't jump to the conclusion it didn't, and hence is arrogant. It makes your valid points look bad. Starting up your airline in Africa is a choice you can make, or not make. You're completely, 100% free to not base in Africa at all. Players could know that basing in Africa is hard and will make it tough to actually create a good airline, and if they don't, they will experience it and get the choice between asking for a reset and continuing on their current path.
When you play AM, you know there are gonna be some other airlines that might want to base where you base, and therefore be your competitors. You also know that, when you are in a small base, competition may be lethal for your airline. That's business. Business isn't about being considerate, loving and kind. Placing further constraints on competition, adopting more artificial limits than the ones we already have in place, would indeed defeat the whole point of AM, as a simulation under development.

(Oh, and you might not want to tell someone he's arrogant while adopting the same attitude.)

[Virgin Serbia]

Did you stop to consider that the very same rule allows an African airline to open a hub at LHR?

Uhm, yes i did. Problem is that you need cash, planes and available gates. For the airline at LHR, thats the worlds easiest task. That is much harder for an airline in Africa.

Ive been playing in rounds where it took me only the first game year to reach a fleet of 30 planes, based at a large airport. You cant do that in Africa.

BTW, this is not a whining post. This is a post that is aiming at increasing the quality of the game. In case you did not notice it, i put forwards some suggestions.

[Tiger In Training]

My opinion...


This is a game. People can base where they like.

[KaZoom-URD]

 

As for an artificial limits; what does [1]7 Focus Cities [Foreign] Total sound like in youre ears?
As for Simulation i find the game still in development.(Im not saying it is bad, not at all.).
Whats the logic in really slow airplanes being able of charging massive €, over a much much faster aircraft?
Which Airline has hubs in different countries within theyre first year of operation?, if ever in different continent?
Why is it extremely difficult to go bankcrupt?

Let me explain my questions and why theyre questions i ask.
As i see the "artificial limits" regarding focus cities, theyre working its own magic, i havent been around when there was "non multiworld" but i can imagine a world without such a limitation.
but i can see "improvements" to which you could mimic real world operations, since in the real world at least to my knowledge no airline works out of two or more different continents.
And to my knowledge only SAS(Scandinavian Airline System) has hubs in 3 different countries(Scandinavia-Denmark/Norway/Sweden).
What i would suggest to make this game more realistic is:
To just allow the creation of 1 "personal" (but open to competitors) Base/Hub/Focus-city, in what so ever city/Country/Continent you youreself decide.
This suggestion would seem too harsh at present regulation. (But it would hinder massive, and to me unrealistic airlines).
But in conjunction with this: "Foreign"Base/Hub/Focus-city, should/could be created only through Alliance members "Personal" Base/Hub/Focus-city. thus balancing out to a degree the issue with for me unrealistic airlines.
Wether or not to induce regulations regarding how many different "foreign" Base/Hub/Focus-cities, i think would be selfregulatory as in real world Alliance partners, do compete with each other on routes.
Wether or not Airline "A" should be able to open up routes from airline "B" Base/Hub/Focus-city, i dont know.
As for the "looks" of routes, i know it would look unbelievable stupid to have ex. Air Berlin operating ex. Dakar-Lusaka, but hence it is an Alliance operated route, you could probably make it look like Ex. Oneworld operated by Air Berlin: Dakar-Lusaka.
For me it would seem to mimic to a better degree the natural limitations were seeing out in the real world?.
please do share ideas/Critigue...

Well one thing that i really dont get is:
(I noticed this at world start, and to me it dosent give any sense)
Airline "A" operate a really slow Aircraft on Route "X" charging €€€+ for the benefit.
Airline "B" operate a 4x+ Faster Airplane on same route "X" only able to charge €€
Assuming both are operating 100% loadfactor.
I think the rationale at present is, that the price differential is justified because Airline "B" can operate more routes.
But to mimic real world wouldnt it be more accurate to have the exact opposite pricing?
I know on some "short" short-haul routes, speed wouldnt have as much an impact as turn-time.
but on the "longer" short-haul routes, this pricing seems to be a bit far off?
But then again, even real world passengers doesent calculate turn-time into their travels, even on connecting planes.
In any case turn-time relates to the specific aircraft, and not the passenger as such.
As my observations in CPH real-life turn-time regarding passengers relates to the distance the passenger needs to walk between gates.
And since we arent in the business of micromanagement, and/or using connecting flights.
this cant be the reason for the huge advantage slow aircraft recieves.
I can understand if youre the sole or even when theres a few small/slow aircraft working on a route that prices are sky-high, but this should in my opinion be nullified the second a faster aircraft enter the marked.
i dont know what the rationale is at present, thus i cant give a final solution as to what my rationale truly is.

as to bankcrupsies, i dont know how the financial model is made. but it is really too easy to make money, even on very crowded routes.
and i really dont know how financial coding works.
ive only tried "dumb" PLC coding... and there we use alot of "IF" "AND" "OR" to build up the logical sequences.

i know much was OT, but ive raised the question`s before in this thread, in relation to another poster.
at least some is valid input to the discussion. sorry if i got carried away in my search for answers.
(No im not trying to hijack this thead seriously)

[MrOrange]

in the real world at least to my knowledge no airline works out of two or more different continents. And to my knowledge only SAS(Scandinavian Airline System) has hubs in 3 different countries(Scandinavia-Denmark/Norway/Sweden).

Northwest (NWA) does, IIRC.

To just allow the creation of 1 "personal" (but open to competitors) Base/Hub/Focus-city, in what so ever city/Country/Continent you youreself decide.
This suggestion would seem too harsh at present regulation. (But it would hinder massive, and to me unrealistic airlines).
But in conjunction with this: "Foreign"Base/Hub/Focus-city, should/could be created only through Alliance members "Personal" Base/Hub/Focus-city. thus balancing out to a degree the issue with for me unrealistic airlines.
Wether or not to induce regulations regarding how many different "foreign" Base/Hub/Focus-cities, i think would be selfregulatory as in real world Alliance partners, do compete with each other on routes.
Wether or not Airline "A" should be able to open up routes from airline "B" Base/Hub/Focus-city, i dont know.
As for the "looks" of routes, i know it would look unbelievable stupid to have ex. Air Berlin operating ex. Dakar-Lusaka, but hence it is an Alliance operated route, you could probably make it look like Ex. Oneworld operated by Air Berlin: Dakar-Lusaka.
For me it would seem to mimic to a better degree the natural limitations were seeing out in the real world?.
please do share ideas/Critigue...

Sorry, I don't quite get the point. Do you propose the addition of a focus city that's reserved for one airline only as far as creating a base is concerned? The last part of the above quote I do get, and that's essentially codesharing, as far as I can tell. Codesharing is on our to-do-list but without an ETA.

Well one thing that i really dont get is:
(I noticed this at world start, and to me it dosent give any sense)
Airline "A" operate a really slow Aircraft on Route "X" charging €€€+ for the benefit.
Airline "B" operate a 4x+ Faster Airplane on same route "X" only able to charge €€
Assuming both are operating 100% loadfactor.
I think the rationale at present is, that the price differential is justified because Airline "B" can operate more routes.
But to mimic real world wouldnt it be more accurate to have the exact opposite pricing?
I know on some "short" short-haul routes, speed wouldnt have as much an impact as turn-time.
but on the "longer" short-haul routes, this pricing seems to be a bit far off?

Small aircraft are in favor, generally because they carry less passengers and can therefore charge more on average. With high demand and low supply, prices always go up. Also, speed is actually a factor in loadfactor calculation, so virtual passengers will in fact prefer the faster aircraft.

as to bankcrupsies, i dont know how the financial model is made. but it is really too easy to make money, even on very crowded routes.
and i really dont know how financial coding works.
ive only tried "dumb" PLC coding... and there we use alot of "IF" "AND" "OR" to build up the logical sequences.

We know it's too easy, which is why we're going to be introducing a lot of features that will essentially slow down the game's economy. Order books, for instance, are one way of doing that, since now you won't be able to recieve a vast number of aircraft from one manufacturer at the same time, therefore limiting the speed with which aircraft will arrive in your fleet. We will also be working on more micro-management related features in order to give you guys more work and slow down the game.

[dktc]

Let me explain my questions and why theyre questions i ask.
As i see the "artificial limits" regarding focus cities, theyre working its own magic, i havent been around when there was "non multiworld" but i can imagine a world without such a limitation.

What is it about the "artificial limits"? The world "reality" is an "artificially defined" stage of interaction / performance. The "economy" is technically meaningless. That said, whether the game mimics "reality" doesn't really matter, because the "reality" is built upon "artificial limits".

->> Hence, whether the limits regarding focus cities are artificial or not, should not make any difference, and your point is invalid.

since in the real world at least to my knowledge no airline works out of two or more different continents.
And to my knowledge only SAS(Scandinavian Airline System) has hubs in 3 different countries(Scandinavia-Denmark/Norway/Sweden).

Northwest: US, Holland (AMS), Japan (NRT)


As for your suggestion...
Would it be unfair to players who don't join alliances?
Would it create a whole lot of conflicts in between players?

Well one thing that i really dont get is:
(I noticed this at world start, and to me it dosent give any sense)
Airline "A" operate a really slow Aircraft on Route "X" charging €€€+ for the benefit.
Airline "B" operate a 4x+ Faster Airplane on same route "X" only able to charge €€
Assuming both are operating 100% loadfactor.

First, what is that assumption based upon?

Next, a 4x faster plane is likely to have 5~6 times more seats, and thus need 4~6 times as many pax to fill. If the player operating the faster plane is satisfied with flying just the amount of pas as the slower plane would have with 100% lf, the ticket price of the faster plane would have been higher, altough the lf would be somewhere about 17~20% only.

as to bankcrupsies, i dont know how the financial model is made. but it is really too easy to make money, even on very crowded routes.

This reflects the majority of our target audience I guess

[MrOrange]

What is it about the "artificial limits"? The world "reality" is an "artificially defined" stage of interaction / performance. The "economy" is technically meaningless. That said, whether the game mimics "reality" doesn't really matter, because the "reality" is built upon "artificial limits".

Not again

You basically said what I already said, with some additions, but it's ok, I don't mind.

[dktc]

You basically said what I already said, with some additions, but it's ok, I don't mind.

The additions are what took up the several minutes between our posts

[Virgin Serbia]

One simple, yet realistic possiblity, inspired by NorthWest:

Foreign hubs must have a certain amount of passengers? If we put the limit at 3 million passengers, it seems very realistic, no?

[MrOrange]

No, actually it doesn't seem realistic to me. In fact, there isn't anything you could possibly come up with to limit foreign hubs that would seem realistic to me. In fact, the restriction we have now, as in one foreign hub only, seems unrealistic to me, but we need that otherwise big airlines could just go around taking over the entire world, and we don't want that. Hence the restraint.