Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.
I am inclined to agree. It does seems much easier to build an airline in a hostile environment, provided you have a working knowledge of AWS mechanics and slots. There's an alot of info on the forums compared to previous years and I actually think people do read what is posted... for the most part anyway.
That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint. The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...
The administrative review sounds good. I like the idea and what it can bring to the table. I do feel however, that such a system would tax alot of Sami's or the forum mod's time to deal with this one issue. Which I suspect is wide spread and rampant. Just that very few cases actually get reported or brought into the light.
Thus to add on to this suggestion, I would recommend you set up and staff, a panel of players that can devote time to review cases. Acting as peer judges for this. They can review, debate, come up with a solution to which you can approve or reject if necessary.
So, we can add a layer of protection to newer airlines, not bog down your all
of your time doing so, while getting the player base more involved into helping solve the different matters of AWS.
I think the best method is one that is fully automated. Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?
Because that is too restrictive
and we should try and involve players (you) to use there unique insight for the betterment of AWS's player development. By combining yourself with others of your skill level and there different paths of success, we can better improve everyone's understanding of AWS. Thus, improving the games retention of newer and older players alike.