Maybe some people want to manage that kind of an airline, but it does not appeal to me. More so than the credits, I would have rather not spent all that time searching for an opening. If the world had just been listed as 'at capacity', I would have simply waited for a new game world to start instead.
And I completely agree that such a tool/message/whatever, should make things easier for new players to start and/or where to start.
Do we really want to start talking about the real world vs this game? I could point to Southwest--they started pre-deregulation in a well established market that was arguably over-served (Texas), and within a decade that saw some of the worst fuel prices in history had a fleet of 27 aircraft and were hugely profitable. Or we could talk about JetBlue, they started in 1998 at JFK of all places (one of the last actual slot-controlled airports in the US) and within a decade have a very modern fleet of 150+ aircraft and remain profitable. Both of these examples are impossible in not just this game world, but the game itself. I can easily list a half-dozen more if you really want to talk about this game vs reality.
And is the case in both of them, particularly jetBlue, the supply was already there
. they didn't go "Damn, I wish I could open a route from JFK to ATL but Delta has all the demand". They said, "You know what -- I think I can beat Delta at their own game". And they did it
. They didn't go and complain that there were too many airlines in the world. They didn't complain that the government needed to go and magically create extra demand for them so they had someone to move. They stole the passengers away from the legacy carriers on the routes.
There are massive
differences between the real world and this game, and the condition of supply being met isn't really one of them. The world of air passenger travel has excess capacity in the real world just as it does here (on most routes). Supply is met on most every route in the world and airlines are created all the time despite this fact.
You can argue that the demand model doesn't take price-sensitivity of demand into account even remotely as close as it should (I'd agree wholeheartedly) therefore not allowing a Southwest-model to work.
You can argue that the vastly superior economics of start-ups vis-a-vis legacy carriers isn't modeled at all let alone well therefore not allowing a jetBlue-like model to work (I'd agree wholeheartedly).
You can argue that the demand model being airport-driven rather than regional-driven additionally doesn't allow a Southwest-like model to work, i.e. you can't steal DFW pax by operating out of Love, or ORD pax from operating out of MDW, etc (I'd agree wholeheartedly) allowing mega-carriers to establish slot-constrained "fortresses" where they are completely immune to competition.
You can argue that the financial model in AWS doesn't allow access to the same capital markets that allow a jetBlue to buy 100+ planes virtually overnight with no money in the bank or allow a start-up to post expected losses for many years while establishing themselves (I'd agree wholeheartedlty).
You can argue countless things that prevent your provided examples from playing out here in AWS -- but the inability for you to find a place to house your up-and-coming mega-airline isn't one of them, just like there's not such a situation in reality either.
Regardless, I think you'll find that this is in fact the game play that a majority of the people who are complaining are actually looking for. I for one want exactly that; to be able to implement a profitable business model in ANY market without having my hands tied by the current slot system and/or production lines that run 2000+ aircraft, all of which are on order by the 10-15 airlines that started...at day one.
Then you don't really want a game at all. You simply want a big spreadsheet that says "X route has Y Pax, do you want to serve?" -- and that's it. No concern for money -- you want to turn a profit no matter what you do. No concern for existing supply -- you want there to be routes that you want to open whenever you want to open them.
And since you don't seem familiar with the way game worlds start here, 500 airlines start a game. A game doesn't start until 24-realhours after it opens. After such time, before the first game-second ticks by, a world is usually competely full or at least very, very near it, all initial routes are opened and initial orders placed. So there's just not "10-15 airlines" starting in a world, all 500 players start on the exact same blank sheet of paper.
This is not a case of me criticizing the game itself, as some of you so seemingly want to make it out to be. The developers have done an excellent job with the complexities involved in a game like this. Maybe when I have a "better idea" I'll add it to the Feature Request forum. Until then, I still reserve the right to bitch about a game world I spent 5 euros to join.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing the game itself -- if you couldn't tell from my comments above, I can make a whole host
of things to criticize about the game. All of which I'd say were pretty darned important things too.
But I agree completely. I am not and never have been a fan of the fact that a world must be joined to really see its current condition. And I, and many others, have recommended solutions to at least better-educate people before they buy into it. But the criticism that there is no way to "see into" a world and the criticism that there are too many people in it are two entirely different things. One I'd completely agree with, the other I'd completely disagree with.