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: Helsinki - Vantaa  (Read 1163 times)

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Helsinki - Vantaa
« on: August 01, 2011, 02:21:37 PM »
Just a curious question that why two Worldlink members open their base in Helsinki. I would rather think they are doing allied "conquering" on HEL.
And make sure that it is a legal and moral move. :)
Poor Finnish (in MT5)  :(

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2011, 03:26:41 PM »
As far as I know, there is no rule against multiple airlines in an alliance opening a base at the same base - with the 100 plane limit, it allows them to serve the demand better...

As long as they aren't oversupplying...
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2011, 05:27:40 PM »
Nothing sinister in it - Helsinki was grossly under served and as our airlines run on totally different business models there is no overlap when sharing a hub.

Offline Daveos

  • Members
  • Posts: 2983
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2011, 05:45:43 PM »
As above - the airport is massively under-served and it was a good business opportunity for both of us.  In our eyes, the move represents what many players cry out for with the regional model as 1 airline serves the commuter/short-haul network and the other the medium-long haul.

There is no difference in this than 2 alliance members sharing an HQ which has been common place in many worlds.

EDIT:  Sadly people on AWS now seem to think every move is in someway underhand or cheating in some way.  It's not meant to be an aggressive move, the demand is there to be served and the market suits us both.  Through fear of starting an argument (as every other thread turns into) I will retreat from the general forum battleground and carry on enjoying my session in peace with others who I know feel the same after a hard days work.

EDIT 2:

Just so it's here in case this rattles on  :( In reality in 2004 (current game time) Helsinki had 10 million passengers passing through it.

Before we arrived, there were 3 airlines with an HQ there with a combined fleet of:

1x A319
3x A321s
1x B757
5x S2000s

One other airline has a base there with 14x aircraft based there.

Another airline has HQ'd there us since with 1x S340.

The airport is missing out of masses of flights and so that's why we decided to use it as a dual hub.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 09:35:33 PM by Daveos »

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2011, 08:21:20 PM »
As above - the airport is massively under-served and it was a good business opportunity for both of us.  In our eyes, the move represents what many players cry out for with the regional model as 1 airline serves the commuter/short-haul network and the other the medium-long haul.

There is no difference in this than 2 alliance members sharing an HQ which has been common place in many worlds.

EDIT:  Sadly people on AWS now seem to think every move is in someway underhand or cheating in some way.  It's not meant to be an aggressive move, the demand is there to be served and the market suits us both.  Through fear of starting an argument (as every other thread turns into) I will retreat from the general forum battleground and carry on enjoying my session in peace with others who I know feel the same after a hard days work.

I hear you completely and agree.

However it could be interpreted as a violation of terms of service, so I guess it's best if Sami drops in on this thread?
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2011, 08:49:56 PM »
I was once in JFK with an alliance mate.  It was great.  He went after Europe and I went after Asia.

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2011, 08:57:33 PM »
However it could be interpreted as a violation of terms of service, so I guess it's best if Sami drops in on this thread?

I really don't think it violates any terms of service. I have never read anything that states two alliance members cannot be hubbed/based at a single airport and it is common practice.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2011, 08:58:17 PM »
Don't admit that Swiftus...you'll have Sami on your case for violation of terms of service  :laugh: :laugh:
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2011, 09:18:03 PM »
Those rules were made well after that experiment. 

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2011, 09:56:11 PM »
I really don't think it violates any terms of service. I have never read anything that states two alliance members cannot be hubbed/based at a single airport and it is common practice.
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Alliances

first sentence, second paragraph.

It could be interpreted as a violation of that statement. I am not claiming that it does. That judgement decision is up to sami...
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2011, 09:59:20 PM »
I think by scheme he is referring to any sort of coordinated external competition and not internal cooperation

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2011, 10:42:30 PM »
I would have thought that it was just good business for alliance members to force out another airline by using 'supplying demand techniques'
Isn't this game all about strategies?
Why join an alliance if you can not work together to supply word wide demand while benefiting all alliance members.

Similar to a show on TV - Outwit, Outplay and Outlast :-)
 

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3651
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2011, 10:45:11 PM »
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Alliances

first sentence, second paragraph.

It could be interpreted as a violation of that statement. I am not claiming that it does. That judgement decision is up to sami...

You refer to: "The most important rule about alliance game behaviour is that alliances are not allowed to perform any coordinated alliance-wide schemes or attacks against other single airlines or other alliances or their member airlines."

There is no coordinated "attack" on any single airline or alliance. Many of the routes were either unserved or had unserved demand. And two members of the alliance would not count as "alliance-wide".

Before our arrival at HEL there were a number of small, relatively stagnant airlines not utilising the demand available. We have moved into to do so. Helsinki has a market for both our airlines and we moved into to capitalise on it.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 10:48:25 PM by NorgeFly »

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Helsinki - Vantaa
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2011, 01:11:30 AM »
Fair enough, seems reasonable :)
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

 

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.