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: Bully tactics  (Read 1345 times)

DigitalJonathan

  • Former member
Bully tactics
« on: January 17, 2015, 08:23:27 PM »
I've just started playing in the last week -- enjoying it. I joined GW#2 and set up base, building the business slowly and surely. Then a VERY experience player sets up a base in the same airport, adds 50 planes and ... well, it's game over for me. No money to move base; no chance of building.

I know that's the game -- this is an economic simulation -- but it's basically killed me, leaving me with no option other than a restart. Not welcoming, not nice, a real pain. Truth told, it WOULDN'T be allowed in RL due to competition laws.

rant over. No sympathy expected. Just sucks.

Offline [ATA] frimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 1376

The person who likes this post:
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2015, 10:28:38 PM »
I see you are based in Congonhas in Brazil and I'm assuming you refer to one of our alliance partners.

This airport was until a few months ago in the game, the sole airport in Sao Paulo and our guy was based there with a lot of domestic routes and demand.
Then the new airport opens up (and if you know the game mechanics, it moves you automatically to new base unless asked not to move) so our guy's operations moved to the new base.

This new base has very different demand profile compared to the other airport and since his fleet was predominantly short haul focused, it's only natural to expect that he will be back in the base where he was operating from since his fleet supports the routes from that base and not let his 50 ac stand on the ground in the new base..

I know it must suck from your point of view as a new player but unfortunately you chose this base just at the time of the airport change.


Offline Wagster

  • Members
  • Posts: 42
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2015, 08:09:25 PM »
[MOD EDIT:  Post removed for crude behavior.  Poster warned.]
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 09:32:08 PM by Sigma »

Offline Maxair

  • Members
  • Posts: 158
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2015, 03:02:01 PM »
There are lots of unsavoury tactics employed by lots of players. Grossly oversupplying routes to force weaker competition into BK comes to mind immediately.

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914

The person who likes this post:
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2015, 05:21:52 PM »
Grossly oversupplying routes to force weaker competition into BK comes to mind immediately.

I see this type of comment made generally by newbies time and time again, and it simply is not correct.
It is very difficult if not impossible to bankrupt a well run airline......with emphasis on well run
As in any business world if a competitor can see a weakness in one of their competitors they will use that weakness to increase their business...that is life

Oversupply does not occur unless an individual airline exceeds greater than 200% supply to pax demand......and if they do they get an automatic system warning and if they chose to do nothing they will loose the slots on that route.

In the common case of many airlines supplying the max allowed seats.....then yes the route is oversupplied but not by any individual airline....so who is going to give up the route...YOU?

Do not confuse unfair and/of bullying play with aggressive play
If you want to be a bigger airline in this game then you have to 'COMPETE'

So instead of complaining......learn to play....because as I said...a well run airline is nearly impossible to bankrupt

The problem is that too many players leave themselves exposed by playing incorrectly...and then blame the good players for playing the game correctly

Offline Maxair

  • Members
  • Posts: 158
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2015, 01:44:03 AM »
I keep seeing the same players make these sort of comments! Its like all of you regulars know everything that goes on in every base in every game! Its amusing.

Example ive seen this more then a few times. Large airline opens a base in a relatively new airlines home base and proceeds to flood the market with excess capacity. For example; route A has a demand of 500 and is served by 3 airlines providing 650 seats over 8 flights. Big airline moves in and adds 4 more flights and 450 seats on the same route.

Explain to me how that is anything but a bully tactic? It certainly isnt a profitable tactic thats for sure. Nobody makes money flying airplanes around at 30-35% full. But when your large and have lots of cash then you can afford to take some losses right?

While i agree with the statement that it is hard to bk a well run airline, it is rather easy to bk a new airline trying to get a foothold in a city. Its pretty simple. Move in and flood the new guys routes with excess capacity and eliminate the potential competition before it gets off the ground kind of thing

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2015, 02:46:33 AM »
When I play AirwaySim I play my game and not another players game, meaning that I will grow my airline when and where I can.

If I am looking at expanding and a base looks ripe then I will expand to that base if it suits my base strategy e.g. same type of routes that I currently have planes for, etc
Part of my planning is to see what type of competition is at that base, if the competition is 'weak' then that is a point in my favour to suit my expansion plans
I do not go there to attack or follow a particular player so it is not bullying at all ...it is strategy...which is what this game is about.

Anyway it is unlikely that we will ever agree as you have your view being that of a newbie who has not taken the time to learn the game and the gameplay, and my position is form a point of view that I have made many many errors over many game years and have learnt a lesson or two...but I have many more to learn

To address your points -

1. The reason we know your base situation when we reply is that we go look to see what the complaint may be about prior to responding, otherwise I would not have a clue about your airline or your base situation

2. a) new airline supplying 450 seats on a route of 500 pax demand is not oversupply by that airline
2. b) the route itself is oversupplied, but then again WHO is going to give up their supply...its a competitive game so people will compete
2. c) new airline will actually have 40-45% LF so he will make profits once the RI is up a bit - in fact I make profits on 30% LF routes

3. There are rules about deliberately targeting a new airline so if you think the airline is following your routes deliberately then lodge a complaint with Admin.....however it is highly likely to be found that the new airline is simply playing his game his way and doing what is best for his airline

PS - just one for the other side of the coin.......I assume that you would also have an issue with a new start-up airline opening at a big airport e.g KATL, KLAX, EGLL, etc when there are already 2 or 3 big airlines there....as the start-up airline would be trying to bully the big airlines by supply 50-60 seats on routes that are already at demand?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2015, 02:51:54 AM by Kadachiman »

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2015, 10:30:03 AM »
+1 with Kadachiman.

In GW3, I'm running a medium-sized planes comany in Glasgow. I've been attacked there 7 times. The only survivor is the one that went here with smaller planes. He "bullied" me by reducing my income on many lines. Yet. It's part of the game. I've done it on countless lines(most of the times against a company based the other side of the road), and that's the way the game is meant to play.

There is place for many companies in this game. Just, make sure you go where there is some place. Especially when learning. That was my first real game, this GW3. I went to Glasgow because it was empty at first, and fleed to smaller empty bases as soon as I was attacked there. No regrets. Where noone is, there is place to grow.

Had I gone first to Heathrow, I would have been exterminated by the local behemoths. I know I'm not as good as them. I had to find a good balance between potential & lack of opposition. There are still a few good starting points in GW3(as Tahiti), with lack of opposition & juicy potential routes. Not as good as Glasgow in 1995, but hey, game is running for a long time.

Unlike Kadachiman, I did never settle to a base with already someone installed. Matter of strategy. It pushed me to smaller airports, with less potential, where I was quiet to learn the game. And I did learn a lot

So learn.

_Learn that a Short range route is likely to be attacked by smaller planes, and don't put a 737 for a 100pax potential route with 200NM of distance. You'll be destroyed. I've lost a lot of money like that, before learning
_Learn to stay focused on specific markets, and have at first a maximum of 2 kind of routes(for me, it was 737 & CRJs(replaced later by A148s)). I've lost a lot by temporary using old IL62s for raising up RI while waiting for 737NGs(Communality costs plus one extra plane category, XL, the costliest).
_Learn to maximize plane use(with red eyes flights & 7-days schedules), so that the burden of leasing(or purchasing) planes is spread amongst more lines.(flying Glasgow-Cairo by day while keeping the plane idle at night was plain costly stupidity).
_Learn to avoid technical stops, at least in the modern world. I did a try in 2020 between Nantes & Le Lamentin, with a tech stop in Horta. My A148 was 20% full. When replaced with a 737MAX7, LF went up immediatly to 90%, despite the capacity being nearly doubled.
_Learn to manage your prices carefully. Each line is different, and deserves some pricing baby-sitting.

And learn many other things I don't know yet.

One of the leaders of my alliance has been attacked in 5 of his 6 bases by the same company. He's struggling, but he's still in the green. That what Kadachiman means when he says that good players cannot go BK. Such skilled players will always survive, find a way out the pressure. For example, he replaced all his 120-seaters by 90-seaters, while moving the 120 seaters to his lone safe base, reducing the costs while not changing the income.

That's strategy. That's fun.

Offline Maxair

  • Members
  • Posts: 158
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2015, 03:13:59 PM »
I love how the big boys love to call everyone who disagrees with their point of view newbies. Ive been playing for over a year so i no im not a newbie. Been running 2 game worlds successfully for 25 years with 1 bankruptcy. And before i came to airwaysim i played other airline sims. So no im not a newbie. And no i wasnt referring to any of my bases in either game i play in. But thanks for the long winded reply and all your assumptions!

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1385

The person who likes this post:
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2015, 03:41:42 PM »
I love how the big boys love to call everyone who disagrees with their point of view newbies. Ive been playing for over a year so i no im not a newbie. Been running 2 game worlds successfully for 25 years with 1 bankruptcy. And before i came to airwaysim i played other airline sims. So no im not a newbie. And no i wasnt referring to any of my bases in either game i play in. But thanks for the long winded reply and all your assumptions!

I'm playing only since may 2014. So I'm a newer player than you. Yet. If you don't understand that strategy also means "taking in consideration others possible moves", then you still are a newbie. You can choose to ignore, face, or run away from other's moves(actual or forecastable). But whining is not an option.

Once again, this is a competitive game. Far less than the real airline world, but still. People try to be better than others. Good bases are scarce. Fight for them is rough. That's normal. I was not challenged that much as I went for smaller bases, but a company born in 2015 & well based has already overtaken me in the rankings. That's the game. That's not unfair. He wisely took an opportunity(settling in HK while someone just BK's from there), and masterfully took over the local market. The other company based there is now dwarfed. He was better.

As Sun Tzu said, know yourself, & know your enemy. I'm still mincemeat if I dare facing the big boys. That's why I'm not gonna play on their playfields. There is place for me, my A148s, and other companies. But not in Heathrow, JFK or Tokyo. At the same time, They will never settle a base in Bari, Paderborn, Reus or Nantes, as they are limited to a few bases. I'm not good enough to survive in Heathrow, but the opposition in Bari I can manage.

Plus there is something else : "being under attack" is usually not personal. Just, there is a market to be taken, and players try to take the market. Of course it sucks to have a juicy line, and poof! attack. But I've done it also plenty of times to others(that guy in Israel really must be p***ed off at me, I attacked its lines 10 times from my 10 bases). It was often the only way to make progress.

Strategy is also "look strong". If you look strong, there will be less attacks against you. If I've got 4 A148s on a 250pax line, the risk of an attack is really inferior than having just a 777 over there. The 777 might look like a good choice, as the price per seat per mile is inferior(when the plane is bought). But it is not. It makes the line look juicy to other players - especially if the slots are numerous & the route is short. Attacking a 250pax route flown by a single 777 when you have A148s in your fleet just brings you plenty of money. You don't even need to wage a price war. Put 4 A148 at price standard +20%, and they'll be 75/80% full. Leaving the 777 near-empty, or with stupidly low prices.

Look strong & deter easy attacks. Make any opposition to your routes costly. You don't? Hell, don't complain then.

NB : the original post was rather different : a plain newcomer trapped by an airport fusion. Just plain bad luck. Even a good player would have died here. Me even more. s*** happens. That's life. Maybe it will happen to me next game. Or maybe I will kill other companies.

Offline tdf42

  • Members
  • Posts: 90
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2015, 09:29:17 AM »
As I suspected the bully police are on duty with our rants against anti competitive behavior. I myself ranted a couple of weeks ago (with the understanding that it is part of the game) and was chided by these knuckleheads. I remarked at the time that they must love (and get some kind of cheap thrill) waiting for new guys to come on (with a ready made cut and paste ego rant) and complain. Mind your business.

Offline ekaneti

  • Members
  • Posts: 844
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2015, 04:06:56 PM »
I've just started playing in the last week -- enjoying it. I joined GW#2 and set up base, building the business slowly and surely. Then a VERY experience player sets up a base in the same airport, adds 50 planes and ... well, it's game over for me. No money to move base; no chance of building.

I know that's the game -- this is an economic simulation -- but it's basically killed me, leaving me with no option other than a restart. Not welcoming, not nice, a real pain. Truth told, it WOULDN'T be allowed in RL due to competition laws.

rant over. No sympathy expected. Just sucks.

I know how you feel. The game has increasingly become more and more weighted in favor of big wealthy airlines. There use ot be a one hub rule with AAA-BBB-CCC routings allowed. Then we went to a 4 hub rule. Now it is a 10 hub rule or something. This clearly hurts smaller carriers and makes it all but impossible to start a game in the middle. So you do have my sympathy.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14537
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2015, 04:41:46 PM »
Then we went to a 4 hub rule. Now it is a 10 hub rule or something. This clearly hurts smaller carriers and makes it all but impossible to start a game in the middle.

No, it's the opposite since now small and mid-sized carriers can expand to several more airports, and the cost of expansion at smaller airports is just a margin of what it used to be in the old system.

Further more, the big carriers, even with 10 hubs, are still limited by the number of planes they can base outside their HQ - effectively meaning that they must stick only to a few airports if they are major airports with a lot of demand to fill (or alternatively expand to many airports with a limited scope on what they can fly, but at the same time will then get unwanted overhead costs of the inefficient expansion).

GW#3 for example; three largest airlines by fleet size. #1 has 4 bases, #2 has 3 bases, #3 has 4 bases. Same in GW#2. Largest guy has 3 bases, and the other two have four.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 04:43:55 PM by sami »

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3073

The person who likes this post:
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2015, 06:36:03 PM »
No, it's the opposite since now small and mid-sized carriers can expand to several more airports, and the cost of expansion at smaller airports is just a margin of what it used to be in the old system.

Further more, the big carriers, even with 10 hubs, are still limited by the number of planes they can base outside their HQ - effectively meaning that they must stick only to a few airports if they are major airports with a lot of demand to fill (or alternatively expand to many airports with a limited scope on what they can fly, but at the same time will then get unwanted overhead costs of the inefficient expansion).

GW#3 for example; three largest airlines by fleet size. #1 has 4 bases, #2 has 3 bases, #3 has 4 bases. Same in GW#2. Largest guy has 3 bases, and the other two have four.

Agree that the planes outside of base greatly limits the ability for a big airline to drop in and dominate all 10 base opportunities. In reality, with a 700 plane limit (by end game), you're really limited to 2-3 major basis in addition to HQ (depending on how well you turn the screws on each of those bases). From a costs perspective, the big airline will get hosed to open a "base" and put 14 long haulers over there from an overhead perspective, so it really isn't worth doing that.

Now, for the largest guy in GW3, I can say that the lack of additional bases is moreso related to being lazy rather than a lack of available planes to station there. For the largest GW2 guy, he's locked into the UK and won't have any sensible additional basing options until the EU opens up. As for the third largest guy in GW2, more bases aren't being added due to the huge fleet transitions that are about to occur as his beer budget for the transition is already spoken for, and any further planes to swap will result in an inadequate quantity of alcohol.

Though, back to the OP's point, his competition should have been eliminated for violating game rules relating to using real world trademarks and livery. When you can't beat them in game, beat them with the rules!

I don't really want to get on a soapbox of whether the new guys or the big guys are right or wrong, but I can say that there have been significant game engine changes over the course of the years that I have played, many of which have favored the ability of newly established airlines to thrive in a base that is already occupied by a larger airline. As a matter of an attempt at fair play, if new competition opens in my base, I will generally not change my play strategy, pricing or anything else that I'm doing as a result of their presence. Let's take GW2 in LAX for example - I was engaged in a 20+ game year brawl with another player who ultimately got eaten by the sharks in the tank, leaving LAX entirely to me to rule (with demand generally saturated by my planes). A new competitor has popped up and has been running a pretty good game (actually, a suspiciously good game for someone that registered 6 months ago). I've ignored his presence and he's grown to a fleet of nearly 100 planes and is turning in a 25% operating profit margin (which is pretty darn good). He's got bases in DTW and MIA, where there are also huge airlines with a large base presence operating, yet, he's still very profitable.  Quite honestly, the way that he's playing, there's no game mechanic that I can use to force his bankruptcy. The only thing that will take him down is if he makes poor strategic decisions (and/or fails to execute on good decisions) as time goes forward. There really is NOTHING that I can do.

Offline ekaneti

  • Members
  • Posts: 844
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2015, 04:11:43 AM »
No, it's the opposite since now small and mid-sized carriers can expand to several more airports, and the cost of expansion at smaller airports is just a margin of what it used to be in the old system.

Further more, the big carriers, even with 10 hubs, are still limited by the number of planes they can base outside their HQ - effectively meaning that they must stick only to a few airports if they are major airports with a lot of demand to fill (or alternatively expand to many airports with a limited scope on what they can fly, but at the same time will then get unwanted overhead costs of the inefficient expansion).

GW#3 for example; three largest airlines by fleet size. #1 has 4 bases, #2 has 3 bases, #3 has 4 bases. Same in GW#2. Largest guy has 3 bases, and the other two have four.

Ok, I stand corrected. I am glad it is easier for smaller airlines then.

Offline Obi-Gun Smokenobi

  • Members
  • Posts: 243

The person who likes this post:
Re: Bully tactics
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2015, 07:37:44 PM »
D'J, it's not a bully tactic; it only appears so.  It matters not how many aircraft and seats a competitor puts into a specific market, but how you respond to the increased seating.

In the real world, it may mean a change in operations either by reducing frequency or reducing seats, or retasking another aircraft in your fleet more reasonable for the demand you're seeing, or adding another aircraft to serve that need....OR, abandoning the route.  The alternative is to make no adjustments to your operations which will ensure lower load factors and loss of revenue...unless one can raise their ticket prices which is counterintuitive as you'll likely lose more passengers. 

Those who load a market with tons of seats, "excessive" being relative to each airline short of breaking game rules, just to claim "market share", are also wasting valuable resources...in my opinion.  They accept lower load factors in exchange for available seat miles, it seems, in exchange for getting more passengers by increasing the number of seats in the market.  For example, a market demand of 1500 passengers with an airline dominating the market at 30% (500 seats), but to get those seats, they're sending 10 daily flights with 120 seats each.  They achieve their goal of dominating the market, but they're only filling 42% of their seats with paying passengers.   Even if they then block some seats to raise their LF, they're still operating at only 42% of the aircraft's capacity.  It's not very efficient use of the aircraft, but that isn't their goal. 

Their 500 passengers are likely at the same ticket price as yours, maybe a bit higher, or maybe a bit lower.  They exchange efficiency for revenue through volume.  It works for them.  Just as that "well run airline" another commented on can easily survive this tactic and still profit nicely...just not at the same revenue level as those who supply tons of seats.  Just different styles of play, D'J.  Btw...there is a shift in the real world from "market dominance" to "market efficiency".  Research it...
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 08:14:19 PM by Obi-Gun Smokenobi »

 

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.