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 8358 times)

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #80 on: June 08, 2010, 02:52:34 PM »
I think the date you're looking for is either 01 November 1993, when the Maastricht Treaty went into effect (and the EU formed) or 01 January 1994, when the European Economic Area was formed.

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #81 on: June 09, 2010, 06:29:45 AM »
Having played this game for a little while now, and commenting on this feature earlier when the post was first set up.  I thought it prudent to make further comment as the game has progressed.  I think the Base airport feature is very good, but I think being allowed to open up 3 extra hubs on top of your main base is too much, it gives the big players far too much control and dominance over the game and routes so I suggest maybe reducing it to 1 Main base and 2 hubs only for most airlines.  However, for the airlines basing at the top 20 world airports then hub should be limited to one hub or they can have more hubs but are not allowed to base them in the top 10/15 airports of the country they are based in.  Being able to base a high number of aircraft at these bases should also not be allowed to protect the base airlines at these hubs, maybe a limit to a maxium of aircraft or adda feature where these larger airlines cannot simply add more than say 40% of the total route demand - again to protect the base airline.  This is just my thought's on the issue but I certainly think 3 hubs is too much.

Offline Tiberius

  • Members
  • Posts: 235
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2010, 08:15:15 AM »
Hmm I was thinking about the last reply and had a few thoughts in general.  I think once the tarmac space restrictions are in, restrictions on the number of bases won't be necessary or wanted.  This is also true for the aircraft number limits at hubs.  If restrictions remain in place, one couldn't hope to create an AWS version of Southwest, for example, which is an interesting strategy to try.  That is, an airline based at a smaller airport (Dallas Love), with hubs or focus cities in big cities like Phoenix, Vegas, Denver, Chicago, etc...  Southwest is actually bigger than Dallas in these and other cities.  Basically, they have several hubs/focus cities, which are designed not to be as massive as a normal airline like Delta or United.

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #83 on: June 09, 2010, 08:10:40 PM »
I personally would like the choice of doing a 2nd base or A-B-C-B-A. Thank you!

Offline ANstar

  • Members
  • Posts: 267
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #84 on: June 14, 2010, 08:57:09 AM »
Given I am a Spanish airline I would like to be able to fly Barcelona-Madrid-Valencia-Madrid-Barcelona as a route.

Offline PH1517

  • Members
  • Posts: 1230
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2010, 01:04:42 PM »
Absolutely, we need to have the possibility of doing ABCBA type routes.
With the restrictions on number of aircrafts at bases, number of bases we can open, this game has become very boring. There is hardly no more possibility to expand for PanGlobal.   :(  All my bases are maxed out with 70 aircrafts (exc Boston that still has room for another 10 aircrafts) and JFK, my HQ, has no slots to speak of (exc between 00:30 and 3:30)
I am considering closing PanGlobal and keeping my credits for another game.  This will depend if Sami will leave JFK. 
For the moment, I will be deploying my upcoming 100+ aircrafts on the last slots at JFK and Boston. Once this is achieved, I will most likely close down PanGlobal.  I ll let you guys know a bit before, maybe some of you may want to try out JFK.
PH1517

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 843
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #86 on: June 18, 2010, 09:35:49 AM »
I agree with you, ABCBA is needed, at lease for domestic. I've based in SA before and it is painful if no extention can be done on those thin routes. That's importent to small airlines at those places, as they need every means to get more income.

jest

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #87 on: June 18, 2010, 11:07:10 AM »
Absolutely, we need to have the possibility of doing ABCBA type routes.
With the restrictions on number of aircrafts at bases, number of bases we can open, this game has become very boring. There is hardly no more possibility to expand for PanGlobal.   :(  All my bases are maxed out with 70 aircrafts (exc Boston that still has room for another 10 aircrafts) and JFK, my HQ, has no slots to speak of (exc between 00:30 and 3:30)
I am considering closing PanGlobal and keeping my credits for another game.  This will depend if Sami will leave JFK. 
For the moment, I will be deploying my upcoming 100+ aircrafts on the last slots at JFK and Boston. Once this is achieved, I will most likely close down PanGlobal.  I ll let you guys know a bit before, maybe some of you may want to try out JFK.
PH1517

CA Airways is based at Hong Kong, thus not able to open new bases anywhere. Slots are gone since the end of the third game year. Yet, i am focused on increasing profitability and there is a lot of work to be done. This proves bases are not mandatory to the success of an airline. If Sami leaves JFK, i kindly request him to open a small airline on the same airport as me next game in order to save me a bunch of precious slots.  ;D

robeveleigh

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2010, 10:23:06 AM »
I've read this thread with great interest..and there is a couple of points I would like to make:

In the first instance as this is  sim surely we are aiming towards as much of a "close -to-life" situation as possible.  In real life there are very large carriers and very small ones, and they each compete upon the same terms in theri different markets.  My point is that some of the suggestions above are simply just anti-competetive, e.g limiting no of planes to 70.  I think the limits on the timings of openeing hubs should be removed.  The chances are that someone who opens up too many hubs too soon will come crashing down.
Essentially, the more rules and regs that you ad the further the sim will move away from the real-life scencario.

Secondly, modifications to the system take time and have to be realistic.  e.g can you imagine how much time it would take a developer to physically count the number of tarmac spaces at each airport in the world.  Correct limits on number of slots, which seem to be pretty much in place, should serve as ample limitation.  Therefore, when moaning about things, as some of you do, bear in mind that the price we pay to be part of this is very very cheap...we are lucky.  Other organisations might look at it from a commercial perspective and charge much more.

There you go

Rob

Sandager

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #89 on: June 30, 2010, 05:44:42 AM »
I agree with you, ABCBA is needed, at lease for domestic. I've based in SA before and it is painful if no extention can be done on those thin routes. That's importent to small airlines at those places, as they need every means to get more income.
[/quote


 The basefeature is ONLY a benefit for airliners based in EU and the US, and very big countries. It has made it way more difficult to operate in Africa where most of the routes are very thin routes. These can just not be operated with any profits.
 It is not that Sami has to give us back A-B-C-B-A. He can just give us A-B-C-A. That would still make it a lot easier to have profitable routes in Africa. I guess there is a reason that we see so very very few airliners in Africa!

 

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.