Thanks for the reminder, although it is a bit late.
Personally I think the changes are good and a must for the game.
However, Sami, do you think we are going from one opposite to another opposite?
I think the logic is good when there are 2 airlines competing with each others AND the demand is smaller than the supply.
Think about a route with 1000 pax demand and there is only ONE airline offering the services. A 40% LF means only 100 pax (take a 200 pax A/C as an example). I understand that we are a new airline and the market has no confidence for us, but I still cannot convince myself for such a low LF. For me, it is contradicting between the LF and the demand.
If there is a demand and there is a route, how many customer will care about the CI and RI and seat type? I doubt about it.
Every demand curve has particular prohibitive pricing points. Nice to observe with the 'main carriers' and the 'low cost carriers'. The main carriers have generally managed to grow turnover and pax; the same happened with the low cost carriers. This occurs because they serve two very different pax demand categories, which sometimes overlap on routes and prices, but otherwise show very different behavioural patterns.
The same may hold as an explanation in our current new behavioural environment. It is very positive not too get pax that easily, simply because you have a monopoly on a certain route. In the last games, I found it way too easy to grow. If you compare the fluctuations in demand and offer that airlines experience in reality, it looks attractive to me to implement this in the game here as well. So far, you started your routes and basically let them unchanged throughout the game. To me that became boring after a while, so I am really looking forward to see some real challenges arising here, before the slot limits kick in.
And don't forget: Making money is not that easy, as it has occurred so far. I calculated a couple of weeks ago that the extreme growth in ATB1 and JA2 was largely contributed to the wrong tax repayment at the beginning the year (which could theoretically be exploited by buying a/c in December and selling them again in January; due to the non-asset value appreciation, this gave a nice profit on the sum, when your taxes were above 30% e.g.) and the missing depreciation in the income statement (in case you utilized loans). Without these two factors, the growth would already have been much slower - in my case I estimated around 50% in the early years.
So let's just face the tougher market conditions.