AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Base airport feature feedback  (Read 8354 times)

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2010, 01:25:24 AM »
I dont see the problem, ANYONE can base their first base in a top 20 airport.

BUT you opted out to avoid competition and picked a smaller airport where you could monopolize on all the routes.

The "mega fortress airline bases" exists only because many players in this game are afraid of competition.


Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2010, 02:15:25 AM »
I dont see the problem, ANYONE can base their first base in a top 20 airport.

BUT you opted out to avoid competition and picked a smaller airport where you could monopolize on all the routes.

The "mega fortress airline bases" exists only because many players in this game are afraid of competition.

Then you don't really understand the problem.

Picking a smaller airport does not "avoid competition" anymore nor does it promise the "monopolization" of routes.  As a matter of fact, you've got it completely backwards.  Under the new multi-base feature and associated rules you are going to get more competition than ever and from infinitely larger competitors because these are the bases that those in "Top 20" need to go to in order to expand.

Pick a Top 20 airport and, once you take care of the immediate competition from the game-start (or slots fill up), and you never have to worry about competition again.  You are literally impenetrable.  And if there's anyone that can monopolize their routes, its someone in a Top 20 airport largely because of slots.  At least before, with multi-leg routes, if someone wanted to they could go after all your flights (if there were slots).  Not so anymore.  You literally cannot be touched.  If it were wholly a slot issue that'd be one thing, but people aren't even allowed to fight you.  You're given carte blanche to do whatever you want and no one can do much more than lift a finger against you.

So, really, the situations have been reversed -- if you want an uber-tough, actually impossibly tough, competition -- open yourself a nice base at LGA, ORD, or any other the countless large-but-not-quite-Top-20 bases.  Because before you know it you're going to have companies many times yours moving in and driving you instantly out of business.  They've got their nice "impenetrable fortresses" to subsidize any losses they'll take at your airport driving you out of business.  You haven't got a chance.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 02:22:40 AM by Sigma »

Dookz

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2010, 02:40:34 AM »
It's really no one's business if they choose a smaller airport to start off. If an airline from the top 20 base can open a base that is not on the top 20 list, an airline from a smaller base should be able to do the same with a top20 base. It's that simple.

michael95u

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2010, 02:55:59 AM »
It's really no one's business if they choose a smaller airport to start off. If an airline from the top 20 base can open a base that is not on the top 20 list, an airline from a smaller base should be able to do the same with a top20 base. It's that simple.

exactly

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2010, 06:28:57 AM »
I totally agree. Airlines that start at the top 20 world busiest airports have a huge advantage in that they can grow exponentially while those of us that start at smaller airports must grow slowly.

I am in the middle of a battle of attrition at LGA. A huge airline, which had started up at ORD and grew very fast has opened a hub at LGA and is forcing me out. I had a relatively successful airline and most of the slots at LGA were gone. Then one of LGA's original airlines went bankrupt, which opened up a ton of slots that my new competitor ate up quickly due to his huge size. There is no way I can compete with him, especially since I can't go open up a hub at ORD.....

I know of the airline you're speaking of - they're trying to clean my clock at MSP, as well.   :P  They may succeed now that I've tried to open a second base.   :-\

As for the expenses incurred in setting up another base, as mentioned in another post...I have around 55 aircraft and I have about 100 employees per aircraft, which seems outright ridiculous for an airline of my size.  My personnel costs went up nearly a million by the time four aircraft were based at my first hub.

To put it another way, I may have signed my own death warrant.  :P

If you look at two examples of what I've got in my backyard, you'll see what I mean about personnel.  Delta has around 750 aircraft and they actually have about 100 employees per aircraft (about 73k employees).  That makes sense...for a global airline with many hubs.  Pinnacle, which is a Delta subsidiary, has 142 aircraft and only 4,300 employees - they're nearly three times my fleet size and they have fewer employees.   I've found other examples in doing some basic searching on the Internet.

As one of my alliance co-founders noted in a recent post when he established his first hub - airlines in this game are an awfully good jobs program.

It strikes me that this might be a result of the whole "not handling small airlines" issue that's been raised elsewhere.  It makes it somewhat more difficult for smaller airlines to even contemplate a new base.

I also have another question - why am I paying millions upon millions to establish a base?  Any good business (at least in the U.S.) would lease everything if at all possible (office space, hangars, etc.) - it would be a tax-deductible business expense.  Does the $18m I paid to establish a base mean I bought buildings?  It sure feels like it.  And it leaves me scratching my head.

I'm hoping I don't have to bankrupt again - QualiTeam is doing well right now.  If I do, I'll probably not return until the next new game - it'll just be too frustrating for me to keep playing in this world.  I'll probably withdraw from my new base should things get too horrible, but that'll just cap what is feeling like a $40m misadventure I could have lived without - and would probably leave me on life support for at least the next year.  With the previously-noted competition trying to smother me, I'm not sure I'd make it even then.

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2010, 04:01:22 PM »
Then you don't really understand the problem.

Picking a smaller airport does not "avoid competition" anymore nor does it promise the "monopolization" of routes.  As a matter of fact, you've got it completely backwards.  Under the new multi-base feature and associated rules you are going to get more competition than ever and from infinitely larger competitors because these are the bases that those in "Top 20" need to go to in order to expand.

Pick a Top 20 airport and, once you take care of the immediate competition from the game-start (or slots fill up), and you never have to worry about competition again.  You are literally impenetrable.  And if there's anyone that can monopolize their routes, its someone in a Top 20 airport largely because of slots.  At least before, with multi-leg routes, if someone wanted to they could go after all your flights (if there were slots).  Not so anymore.  You literally cannot be touched.  If it were wholly a slot issue that'd be one thing, but people aren't even allowed to fight you.  You're given carte blanche to do whatever you want and no one can do much more than lift a finger against you.

So, really, the situations have been reversed -- if you want an uber-tough, actually impossibly tough, competition -- open yourself a nice base at LGA, ORD, or any other the countless large-but-not-quite-Top-20 bases.  Because before you know it you're going to have companies many times yours moving in and driving you instantly out of business.  They've got their nice "impenetrable fortresses" to subsidize any losses they'll take at your airport driving you out of business.  You haven't got a chance.

I understand that you want to defend the smaller guys and Im well aware with the problems of airlines getting too big and difficult to compete with. In my opinion this case its different because if you wanted to play the big airport you could eaisly have established yourself there and later gone to a smaller less competetive one. Everyone had the same opportunity to do it. Instead players think "Hyperion Air, Oh No I better not go Dallas" "Oh no Lunar Airways, I better stay out of Atlanta". If you seriously think you can challenge these players you should at least try to play in the same ballfield. Picking a smaller airport definately avoids competition and might also give a head start in the game compared to starting at a bigger one. If not I really cant see any reason why anyone would pick a base outside top 20, can you?

Alot of players also seem to forget that demand has two directions, you will always get incoming competition from other large airports with players who are also "fortressed".

LGA is a big airport, Im pretty sure that you can run a good profit there with plenty of competition and you can open up a hub in another airport also. How about being alittle strategic?







michael95u

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #66 on: June 01, 2010, 04:31:03 PM »
I understand that you want to defend the smaller guys and Im well aware with the problems of airlines getting too big and difficult to compete with. In my opinion this case its different because if you wanted to play the big airport you could eaisly have established yourself there and later gone to a smaller less competetive one. Everyone had the same opportunity to do it. Instead players think "Hyperion Air, Oh No I better not go Dallas" "Oh no Lunar Airways, I better stay out of Atlanta". If you seriously think you can challenge these players you should at least try to play in the same ballfield. Picking a smaller airport definately avoids competition and might also give a head start in the game compared to starting at a bigger one. If not I really cant see any reason why anyone would pick a base outside top 20, can you?

Alot of players also seem to forget that demand has two directions, you will always get incoming competition from other large airports with players who are also "fortressed".

LGA is a big airport, Im pretty sure that you can run a good profit there with plenty of competition and you can open up a hub in another airport also. How about being alittle strategic?








Isn't there a restriction on how many airlines can start at each airport at the beginning of each game? Hard to start at ORD or ATL when everyone and their mother is already there. I chose LGA because there were less than 6 airlines. I guess I should have just thrown the 6 airlines/airport rule/suggestion out and started at ORD or ATL......

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2010, 04:50:41 PM »
Michael95 >>There wasnt any when this game begun no. Im not sure if there is now either. Did you try? Did Atlanta or ORD have 6 players?

( changelog says it started 1st of May, MT2 game opened 17th of April and ATB2 opened 29th of April )

Didnt you even base once at Houston?


« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 04:59:24 PM by lilius »

michael95u

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2010, 05:06:12 PM »
Can't remember if I started this game in IAH or ATB.

From now on, I am just going to use the strategy of going to a top 20 airport, building fast, and branching out. My goal was to have an airline that was based at 3 lesser airports. It doesn't work too well when the big guys come in and compete. When I started at LGA, I think there were 5 of us. Most of the slots were gone, so no room for expansion there. My growth was stunted. And then the largest airline went BK, opening a ton of slots, which is when the large airline opened a satellite base there. It was the perfect storm. I just need to change my philosophy.....

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2010, 06:42:21 PM »
Or you could just slim down your airline to one fleet type instead of 4/24AC and start earning more money than him.

michael95u

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2010, 06:58:40 PM »
Or you could just slim down your airline to one fleet type instead of 4/24AC and start earning more money than him.

Or I could just go Bk and start at an airport with some long haul and open slots.....

I was just too far in the red to dig out.

Dookz

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2010, 07:41:35 PM »
If not I really cant see any reason why anyone would pick a base outside top 20, can you?

Alot of players also seem to forget that demand has two directions, you will always get incoming competition from other large airports with players who are also "fortressed".

LGA is a big airport, Im pretty sure that you can run a good profit there with plenty of competition and you can open up a hub in another airport also. How about being alittle strategic?


To be honest, there is nothing strategic about having the top20 base restriction in the first place. If one can make an assumption that those that base at a smaller airport are afraid of competition in a top20 airport, one can now make an assumption that those that hub in fortress airports are afraid of competition from established airlines at smaller airports and airlines coming from other top20 base airports. Both not a fair thing to say of course. If someone wants to be one of the biggest airlines in a large country or economic zone, they should be willling to open up to a main competition, not just in the beginning, but the entire duration of the game just as those who are not based in the top20 (25 different airlines hubbed in different airports flying a few routes to the same fortress hub is not the same as having one established competitor in the same base, the latter is an added level of difficulty on top of your non-direct competitor). So let other huge markets collide with other huge markets, and small to big, and not just one way.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 07:43:38 PM by mini airbus »

Offline [ATA] - lilius

  • Members
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2010, 08:51:16 PM »
I dont want to say that the rule about the top 20 airports is good or bad. I only want to object to the logic used in the thread.

First of all, if you open up all airports and allow the small guys in, dont you think that you would be equally crushed at his home base as you consider him doing on your home airport? I really doubt many players from smaller hubs would make a bet with 20 millions and try to take over the mainhub from any of the big airlines.


Dookz

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2010, 07:36:40 PM »
Not everyone , will make the same decisions though. Just because A airline creates a base in this airport, doesn't automatically mean B airline from that airport would create a base in one of A airline's bases unless it is a small country. I think the driving force in the game should determine the outcome. If an airline is crushed or you think they'll be crushed, then let the consequences play out. You have little to worry about then. If an "outside" airline manages to get a staying power in an airport where there is 1 or 2 dominant airlines, then let that happen. You are probably right that many wont take that route but what about those who still chooses that path, the choice should be available to them. We can't conclude every single airline will be crushed following that road, from outside top20 airport moving into a top20 airport. But what if that airline manages to do well, with the odds stacked up against him, that possibility must be allowed in my opinion.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 07:53:41 PM by mini airbus »

Offline PH1517

  • Members
  • Posts: 1230
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #74 on: June 07, 2010, 07:59:19 PM »
As we are heading into the 2nd quarter of the game, here are some of my thoughts;

The new base system is a step ahead, :)  however I think we can rethink the restrictions.  I acknowledge the fact that we want all players to have a fair game, not to let only the big guys 'rule the world', I feel that the limits imposed on the base system are too restrictive for players like me, ie;

The number of extra bases we can open is limited to 3 to a single country or the Euro zone.  I would love to see that increased.

The number of aircrafts at new bases are limited to 70.  I am approaching my limit in 2 of the 3 bases, and am almost 50% at my 3rd base.  My headquarter has almost no available slots (exc. nighttime) and is almost saturated anyways.  Perhaps instead of limiting the number of aircrafts at the bases, maybe we can increase the anti-monopoly fees except at HQ or maybe have tax system on airlines that surpass a certain number of aircrafts (or number of PAX) at bases outside HQ.  The tax would be in proprotion with the size of the airport.  just a suggestion.  :-\
So, I am afraid this game will start getting boring for me in a very short while (and I still have 75% of the game left) since I can no longer expand. I can only do fleet renewals and make sure my competition stays a distance...

So there you go, I hope this helps.
cheers  :)
PH1517

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2010, 08:24:17 PM »
I was always under the impression that the 3 base limit was a function of the setup of the game, not of the game itself.

Wouldn't the upcoming "apron system" take care of the need for a limitation on the number of aircraft at a base?  If I were to hub at a smaller airport, 70 aircraft might be more than it could handle.  If a larger airport were competitive and I could put more than 70 there, shouldn't I be able to?

Which seems to beg a question...which would actually make the huge fee paid to setup a new base worth it...what if there were an increase in apron capacity to go with it?  :)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #76 on: June 08, 2010, 10:08:45 AM »

Hey, can someone dig some info for me ... When did actually the EU openskies start?  I have data from different sources that don't match and I'd need a confirmation to this.

Offline Laama

  • Members
  • Posts: 143
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #77 on: June 08, 2010, 10:28:46 AM »
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/1609&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Quote
The Commission's Position on International Air Transport policy

      In 1992, the Member States of the European Union agreed to create a Single Market in air transport. This meant liberalising aviation and allowing all European Community airlines to fly passengers and goods throughout the EU. All airlines established inside the EU now have equal rights under the law to operate air services from their home base. European airlines are also entitled to establish operations anywhere in the EU on the same terms as locals.

Quote
The Agreements with the United States

      Open Skies

In November 1994, US Secretary of Transport Peña released an "International Aviation Policy Statement", which offered a strong commitment towards an open aviation world. The US offered so-called "open skies" agreements to, inter alia, the EU Member States. The objective of these agreements was to liberalise air transport between the signing parties, including the right to fly onwards from a destination to a third country - known as "fifth freedom" traffic rights (for example to continue a flight from New York to Brussels onwards to Munich).

      The European Commission asked Member States not to enter into any new arrangements with the United States for the reasons outlined above, but all eight Member States cited in the current cases (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, and the UK) did so. Seven were full "open skies" deals as described above. The UK/US agreement contains similar provisions on nationality, but is more restrictive than the others in terms of traffic rights.

Does this help anything?

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #78 on: June 08, 2010, 11:33:16 AM »
hmm, not really, as that gives yet another year for that.  :P

(talking of the intra-EU openskies here)

Offline Laama

  • Members
  • Posts: 143
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #79 on: June 08, 2010, 01:07:38 PM »

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.