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: Unfair play...  (Read 1337 times)

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Unfair play...
« on: October 04, 2011, 09:50:14 AM »
From game rules...

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

Now I remember 2 airlines from one alliance being based at Oslo and Sky Connect called this co-ordinated and claimed unfair play.   So why are SC allowed two airlines in FRA co-operating against other based airlines ?    There must be co-operation going on which is breaking the rules.   Maybe JumboShrimp should open in LAX if this is allowed  ;)
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2011, 10:34:04 AM »
Now I remember 2 airlines from one alliance being based at Oslo and Sky Connect called this co-ordinated and claimed unfair play.   So why are SC allowed two airlines in FRA co-operating against other based airlines ?

From what I remember, the conclusion of that thread was that it was okay to do this so long as no rules are being broken (like 200% per alliance on a route...) so why not do it themselves if it is okay for anyone else to do it.
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2011, 10:56:34 AM »
There were many examples of two airlines basing at one airport belonging to the same alliance - I remember two WorldLink guys in a Skandinavian capital city when I was new to AWS and several share's of other people and alliances - especially after the basing feature was implemented.

In fact that was never called unfair by somebody and sami was never forced to react.


Maybe now things change and weak airlines or alliances need to go every possible way to ensure they are able to stay.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2011, 10:59:33 AM »
Even weak airlines lasted longer than you  :laugh: :laugh:

Just hope Kevin doesn't complain if Jumbo moves in LAX ehhhh  ;)
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 11:02:35 AM by SAC »
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2011, 11:07:24 AM »
Even weak airlines lasted longer than you  :laugh: :laugh:

There's no fun in just supervising the dominance that was established in the first months, the logical and smart step is to leave.

By the way... I didn't found any alliance statement about Herman caught F5-ing and getting banned and the managing member that was administrational warned. Wouldn't that be part of an alliance that claims others to be fair?


Quote
Just hope Kevin doesn't complain if Jumbo moves in LAX ehhhh

Who's too weak has to be destroyed. In real life and in AirwaySim. I built up world dominance several times out of KLAX so I don't see a good point why one shouldn't be able to defend oneself.

Offline EYguy

  • Members
  • Posts: 563
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2011, 11:47:48 AM »
Stop trolling or you should move to the off topic section. SAC, you have been reported to me as a nuisance in this topic. And you're actually trolling around a bit. Please stop and move to the general topic section.

Regards

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2011, 11:58:18 AM »
I can see how SAC's posts can be construed as trolling, however despite this I think he still makes a valid point.


vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2011, 12:02:52 PM »
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,33080.0.html

Just want to draw your attention that this was discussed before. As long as Jona and peanutoil do not violate 200% rule, I see no problem there.

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2011, 12:05:50 PM »
Hey I don't mean to cause arguments...I was led to them though !   I publically apologise for my silly comments.

I also have no problem with you guys having two airlines at FRA, as long as we are all clear this is o.k.  

We have purposely avoided this believing it would be classed as "unfair".  

I was just asking the question, and if we're happy that this is allowed then I'll crawl back under my rock  ;)
...it's not over until I say it's over

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2011, 12:12:17 PM »
Hey I don't mean to cause arguments...I was led to them though !   I publically apologise for my silly comments.

I also have no problem with you guys having two airlines at FRA, as long as we are all clear this is o.k.  

We have purposely avoided this believing it would be classed as "unfair".  

I was just asking the question, and if we're happy that this is allowed then I'll crawl back under my rock  ;)
I think I should say about why SC will have two members in FRA; simply because FRA has quite number of routes unserved, due to aircraft limit in bases Jona could not satisfy the demand. We'll allow Peanutoil to take charge of the rest of the routes.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Unfair play...
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2011, 12:29:30 PM »
If you have a rule related complaint, direct it to administration in private instead of opening a public "disgrace" thread at forums, thanks....

 

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.