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: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo  (Read 1839 times)

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2012, 12:56:30 PM »
To Talentz: 100 % agreed.
To Kīman: Since when the game rules stake :"Be as mean you can be, bomb comp out of the sky, itīs your game and your achievements is the only thing that counts." I smell a a bit adrenalin/testosterone overproduction sometimes.
Game tries to be close to reality, and as I said before, in RL aviation is far away from "free skies without limits". In many countries airlines are protected or limited by competition rules. I just think of a case I know.....Emirates tries to flood Germany  but German Government limits their destination airports thus protecting LH and AB.Russia limits expansion on Europe-Asia traffic by limiting overflight rights out of the blue probably to protect own industry.You may expand this list endlessly. So this game limits the rights of the strong against the weak to some extend, whatīs wrong about that ? Be clever and win despite and obeying these rules and everybodyīs happy.Maybe we should add a "fair play" achievement....
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 01:09:59 PM by exchlbg »

brique

  • Former member
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2012, 02:05:02 PM »
my 2 euros worth : I've found it possible to share a route, make very decent profits on it, and have little need to throw more flights on to grab that last passenger. Actually, its counter-productive in financial terms. Under-supplying your share of the demand allows for significant price-hiking to be achievable ; so much so, in some cases, that alone is worth an extra flights-worth of revenue without the extra flights-worth of costs. Beating or matching my competitor on frequency and supply, with consequent pricing considerations, would actually lower per-aircraft earnings and tie up the additional aircraft (and expensive slots) that could be off earning more profitable corn elsewhere.

maybe its a hang-over from the old pricing mechanism, but over 100% supply is, in my view, wasting money, aircraft and overhead for the pleasure of having more aircraft than you really need or running another player out of town who, with some lateral thought, is not really hurting you much at all. Chief concern should be : is every-one of my aircraft and routes maximising its revenue for the minimum cost? Get that right and competition is rarely going to destroy you.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2012, 03:27:00 PM »
Since this matter has been brought to public forums before I had a chance to investigate the matter, I am posting the results also here. Firstly, I have to say that I find it poor that I've been sent a single forum PM (ie. just a PM, not a support ticket from the contact page) and if I cannot reply within the next days, the matter is posted to forums, and only after that also support tickets are opened with a rather insulting tone. I do have to note that checking this data is a very slow process and will not be done on the moment I get the message.

Anyway, below is a direct copy of the data, all routes originate from KSEA and 1146 is the KidCo airline and 3839 the other one who has complained of the matter. Within "()" you can find my remarks about supply and prices of KidCo. And the date is the date when the airline first opened a route to that destination.

You can see that #1146 has opened routes to many destinations where #3839 has already served first - and also vice versa. Many of these routes have also a third or fourth airline already too (excluded from this list). If one looks at the route opening dates alone, it would appear quite direct targeting (but see also that #1146 has opened routes to many other destinations too in the mean time).

We do have to remember that the rules say: Competition is generally free in the sim but any clearly unfair competition measures such as flying routes with huge overcapacity and with very low prices and deliberately targeting many/all routes of a single airline are considered unfair competition, especially if the "target" is a new / small airline.

The only two problematic routes in my mind are KGSO and KSHV which have radically lowered prices. BUT the supply there is still reasonable, and hence does not exceed the threshold of admin actions. But all in all, it's on the edge already, and I would advise against such behaviour.

Quote
KSNA: 1146 - 1999-07-15; 3839 - 2007-01-12;
KGEG: 1146 - 1999-10-17; 3839 - 2006-08-02;
KLAS: 1146 - 2002-02-03; 3839 - 2007-01-12;
KSMF: 1146 - 2002-05-22; 3839 - 2007-02-03;
KDAL: 1146 - 2003-02-01; 3839 - 2006-08-25;
KMSY: 1146 - 2003-10-05; 3839 - 2006-08-25;
KLAX: 1146 - 2005-10-08; 3839 - 2006-08-25;
CYVR: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2007-03-29;   (1146, supply only 30%)
CYYJ: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 90% supply, prices -50%)
KPSC: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2007-05-06;   (1146, 50% supply, prices -50%)
KMSO: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 50% supply)
CYLW: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, price -30%)
KBLI: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 100% supply, price -40%)
KEUG: 3839 - 2006-08-02;
KLWS: 3839 - 2006-08-02; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 50% supply)
KGPI: 3839 - 2006-08-03; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 50% supply)
PAJN: 3839 - 2006-08-24; 1146 - 2006-10-24;   (1146, 110% supply, price -40%)
KROC: 3839 - 2006-08-24; 1146 - 2006-10-25;   (1146, 90% supply, price -30%)
KCLT: 3839 - 2006-08-25; 1146 - 2006-10-24;   (1146, 40% supply)
KMFR: 3839 - 2006-08-25; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 50% supply, price -40%)
KPUW: 3839 - 2006-08-25;
PHKO: 1146 - 2006-10-23;
KMDW: 1146 - 2006-10-24;
KPVD: 1146 - 2006-10-24;
KMIA: 1146 - 2006-10-25;
MMPR: 1146 - 2006-11-02;
KIAH: 1146 - 2006-11-03;
KBIL: 3839 - 2006-11-13; 1146 - 2006-12-11;   (1146, 50% supply)
KCEC: 3839 - 2006-12-01;
KACV: 1146 - 2006-12-11;
KCVG: 1146 - 2006-12-19;
CYEG: 3839 - 2007-02-04; 1146 - 2007-03-29;   (1146, 80% supply, price -20%)
KSCK: 3839 - 2007-02-05; 1146 - 2007-07-15;   (1146, 50% supply)
KIDA: 3839 - 2007-04-17; 1146 - 2007-05-06;   (1146, 50% supply)
KGTF: 3839 - 2007-04-17; 1146 - 2007-05-06;   (1146, 50% supply)
KRAP: 3839 - 2007-05-19; 1146 - 2007-09-07;   (1146, 50% supply, price -20%)
KGSO: 3839 - 2007-06-02; 1146 - 2007-07-03;   (1146, 100% supply, price -60%)
KSHV: 3839 - 2007-06-02; 1146 - 2007-07-05;   (1146, 110% supply, price -60%)
KDCA: 1146 - 2007-07-05;
KBUR: 1146 - 2007-07-12;
PHTO: 1146 - 2007-07-12;
KMEM: 1146 - 2007-07-13;
KPDX: 1146 - 2007-07-15;
KFAT: 3839 - 2007-09-18; 1146 - 2007-10-16;   (1146, 90% supply, price -50%)
KBIS: 3839 - 2007-11-15;

exchlbg

  • Former member
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2012, 03:49:41 PM »
I would like to thank you very much for sharing this detailed info with us. In my mind no need to interfere. OP was exaggerating a lot and was just frustrated his new routes didnīt work as intended. So there was no need for rules discussion in the first place.
To brique: itīs my first round with new distribution system and I found something very astonishing: serving a high-demand route with hourly turboprops my PAX accepted a very high fare (100$ over default) as long there were two flights by competitor. The moment he left acceptance for my offer was not rising, but dramatically sinking,LFīs went down from over 80% to 60% right then.
So it might be you should INVITE competitors to attract more PAX. Interesting.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 03:54:37 PM by exchlbg »

brique

  • Former member
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2012, 04:19:45 PM »
I would like to thank you very much for sharing this detailed info with us. In my mind no need to interfere. OP was exaggerating a lot and was just frustrated his new routes didnīt work as intended. So there was no need for rules discussion in the first place.
To brique: itīs my first round with new distribution system and I found something very astonishing: serving a high-demand route with hourly turboprops my PAX accepted a very high fare (100$ over default) as long there were two flights by competitor. The moment he left acceptance for my offer was not rising, but dramatically sinking,LFīs went down from over 80% to 60% right then.
So it might be you should INVITE competitors to attract more PAX. Interesting.

how odd, I noticed a similar thing on a formerly competed route too : while the competition was there, I was able to def++ price and do very nicely, once they BK-ed and set up elsewhere, my loads dropped and I had to cut prices back again, still def+ but not as lucrative. I dunno if having two or more airlines flying helps push up overall demand : I've seen mentioned that demand can be 'grown' above the stated figure : maybe the competitor was under-pricing and doing that, then you too can benefit from that extra pool of available pax, perhaps? But yes, interesting indeed, and opens up all sorts of new strategies, dont it?

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3068
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2012, 06:23:38 PM »
Now now, no need to get to worked up. There is a balance to these situations. A mix of personal and game enforced limits.

Starting in a fortress hub of a multi-billion dollar, dominate airline is asking for a slap in the face. Rightfully so too. Sami has stated that in the past. Even tested the theory out (remember ZRH, Sami? 8))

That said, an established airline going all-out attacking a newly created airline from day one is against the TOS. This is stated and is not up for discussion. Buy AWS from Sami if you don't like it.

Personally. Use for damn head. Not every player is a major threat. It's one thing if I start an airline in your hub. It's completely different if zzz user name created 11/18/12 starts in your hub. Using good judgement solves most of these cases.

As for the OP and everyone else: When you feel someone is breaking the rules, there's a little icon that you can hit to report a violation. If the admin/mods see/feel something is wrong, justice will be served. Remember, they can restore things, should you require it.

As for me, if some of you are wondering what one of most aggressive AWS players does, its simple. I don't touch newer players. Even if they open up on me from day 1. How could they be a threat to me?
I will only aggressively play with the more experienced players. Pre-beta, beta, top 1st and 2nd gen players. If they want a piece of the pie, then they have to deal with the people who sit on the top of the food chain. Nuff said.


Talentz



Well said.

I've even been known to shoot a  PM to the noobs that show up in my base with a few pro-tips if they set themselves up for an initial failure...

Offline Slurve30

  • Members
  • Posts: 516
Re: Very upset with deliberate attack by KidCo
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2012, 06:09:51 PM »
CEO of Dearborn Airlines here.  Seeing as I am one of the airlines currently at SEA, I feel obligated to comment.

BOEING717, first off, sorry to hear about your frustrations regarding competition at SeaTac.  This is my first time playing in MT and sounds like it is yours as well so I'm learning about survival as much as you are in a crowded and complicated game world. 

I started at Chicago-MDW and was looking at expansion to a larger airport.  I had looked at SEA because it was pretty open at the time.  I actually would have moved in sooner than I did, but couldn't due to the "18-month before opening a new base" rule so you got your initial toe-hold in there before I could even move in.  I was pretty impressed with how quickly you were able to expand there into the #1 carrier (by slots %).  I was surprised to see you bankrupt when you did, and when that happened there was a massive void left for KidCo and I to gobble up your vacated operations.  We have battled over a few of those routes and have seen a number of startups come and go since then.... potentially caught up in our battle for the remaining routes.  I can't speak for KidCo, but I don't believe Dearborn (me) deliberately targeted you or any other airline in SEA.  Did my expansion into new routes that I never attempted to fly before choke off your potential growth? Yeah, probably.  But I'm not going to sit around and leave them vacated and leave myself vulnerable.  That, coupled with the much higher fuel prices was going to make it very difficult for anybody to start from scratch in SEA and expect to achieve the level of growth you saw in your first attempt. 

Again, sorry that you have been frustrated with trying to serve what is clearly a favorite airport of yours.  But I see you've restarted operations as a reborn AIRWEST in ANC, and wish you the best.


 

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.