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: [ok] Base Airports 100 A/C restriction  (Read 651 times)

Offline [ATA] b757capt

  • Members
  • Posts: 702
[ok] Base Airports 100 A/C restriction
« on: February 17, 2014, 04:12:52 AM »
Just wondering were the logic came from on this?

Not saying I disagree but I am wondering.

Felt this was the best thread to but the question in.

Thanks,

b757capt
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 08:30:56 PM by sami »

Offline AUpilot77

  • Members
  • Posts: 756
Re: Base Airports 100 A/C restriction
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 03:50:52 PM »
I believe it was so that large airlines couldn't base 500 airplanes at their second base and completely wipe out the other airline(s) that were HQ'd there. This way it'd provide competition to a point, but it wouldn't allow massive airlines to swamp those who were there already.

I'm not sure I agree with that reasoning, but the rule may have been put in place for a different reason.

Offline Captim

  • Members
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Base Airports 100 A/C restriction
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2014, 06:12:43 AM »
Bump on this thread with my 2 cents.

The trouble with the current system is that your choice at the very start of the GW has a huge impact on the rest of your game. An airline starting at a smaller airport is fundamentally held back by the constraints of that base, as they'll only ever be able to add 300 a/c at additional bases.

In my current game I started at an unfashionable base with solid but limited pax potential ( KPIT ). As I grew out I launched a successful attack on a much larger airport ( KPHX )and eventually wiped out all the other operators based there. In RL an airline would likely up sticks and HQ at this shiny new prize with many times the pax potential, but I was stuck with my puny 100 a/c's that I could move there. All I had done was to open the door to other airlines to mop up all the juicy free demand i'd essentially created...

Why not have the option to move/redesignate the company HQ? It would rightly be an expensive undertaking, probably limited to a once a GW chance, but this would have enabled me to properly claim the prize that i'd spend many 'years' working towards.

This would enable airlines to expand much further from humble beginnings, as it stands only carriers HQ'd in hubs will likely ever reach 400+ a/c's...


Offline Cardinal

  • Members
  • Posts: 967
Re: Base Airports 100 A/C restriction
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2014, 01:30:48 AM »
Why not have the option to move/redesignate the company HQ? It would rightly be an expensive undertaking, probably limited to a once a GW chance, but this would have enabled me to properly claim the prize that i'd spend many 'years' working towards.

There's an archived feature request for this, it was given a [-]. The reason given was it would be a radical change to the code. But that was then. The game has evolved quite a bit since then, so I think this warrants discussion even if it's on the long-term wish list.

I like this idea, but I'd put the following restrictions on it:

  • You must have been based at the airport for a minimum amount of time (6 months, 1 year, 3 years)
  • You must have a minimum number of planes scheduled at the airport (50, 70, 100) be they A380 or F.27
  • If you have more than 100 planes scheduled at your original HQ, you must cancel routes and get that number to 100 or less since the old HQ will become a base.
  • You must keep the old HQ as a base for a minimum amount of time (2-5 years). This would be the "appease the Congressman" rule :)

This would prevent people from starting at COS and stockpiling planes just to wait for someone at DEN to bankrupt, and then quickly moving in and immediately going from 0% to 55% market share. You would have to build up the base just like you would any other base, but would enable a player with an established base to take advantage of having survived a fuel spike when the fortress-hub carrier with 300 Comets succumbs to gas prices.

I would leave the existing early one-time HQ move rule in place as well. Then the startup at COS could relocate to DEN early on, but still has to build it up normally and not move in with 300 planes.

 

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.