Multiple bases vs. multi-leg routes

[Sami]

According to our recent user survey the "multiple bases" is the single most requested feature....

While determining of the ground rules of the system it is needed to think about the route structure too. While we cannot yet model the 'freedoms of the air' we will allow multiple bases to be set up at some time in the future.

One thing what must be considered is the effect of multiple bases vs. large airline dominance vs. multi-leg routes. Now some airlines can easily span over many cities by "repositioning" their planes with nightly (near empty) flights to another city and using it "HUB-like" to fly to some third city. The new multiple base feature would be essentially the same, except the planes being already at that airport and eliminating the positioning flights.

Thus I'd be probably eliminating the whole 4-leg route possibility once the multiple base/hub feature is introduced. As having both of these would most likely result in large airlines setting many bases and flying still these 4-leg routes from these airports and thus allowing them to put their hands on even more market areas, and possibly making the life of other (smaller?) airlines even harder.

And until the 'freedoms of air' concept is introduced this would be also a step towards reality where airlines from another country cannot fly domestic services in another country, as an example.

So in summary. Answer "no" if in your mind each airline would be only allowed to fly routes from his home base to another destination and right back, or from his focus city/hub and back. No more A-B-C-B-A type routes. Or vote "yes" if you wish to keep the 4-leg routes AND the multi-hubs too.


Please don't use this thread to discuss other multi-base matters. Use the thread/forum reserved for suggestions (here).

[swiftus27]

woot, first... and definitely no.  Server load aside, it would be insane.   It is exactly like owning 2 airlines in 1 game.

[jimsom]

Voted no, but I hope It'll still be possible to fly A-B-C-B-A with a fuel stop?

[Kammola]

Voted no, but it depends...

If the second base placement is free (or allowed to some distance like 2000 nm from the original), then it would be ok without multi-legs. If the second base has to be in same country or continent, then I would prefer multi-legs.

[Talentz]

No.

If we are allowed hubs, there is no reason we should have multi-leg routes. Don't give me that option... it wont be pretty.





Talentz

[tim]

Answered YES.
But also I think that it's not goos idea to allow to open second base from game start, may be we should wait, for example, year and have some number of planes to open second base.
And, of course, we also want tech-stop flights for extra-longhaul flights like Europe-Australia.

[Brockster]

No.

If we are allowed hubs, there is no reason we should have multi-leg routes. Don't give me that option... it wont be pretty.





Talentz

Lol, and agreed.

[Sami]

But also I think that it's not goos idea to allow to open second base from game start, may be we should wait, for example, year and have some number of planes to open second base.

Please don't use this thread to discuss other multi-base matters. Use the thread/forum reserved for suggestions (here).

Voted no, but I hope It'll still be possible to fly A-B-C-B-A with a fuel stop?

Yes, fuel stop HAS to be to kept onboard still, for the sake of early era worlds at least.

[Sergey Goncharenko]

What for something to invent and vote? Let's make how it's in the real world!)
AWS - is the simulator, not a game.

[Runner]

You have to keep in mind that the simulation has to be kept playable! You'll have to think it trough before you add something like that, because it could ruin the gameplay!

[Yb]

What for something to invent and vote? Let's make how it's in the real world!)
AWS - is the simulator, not a game.

Yes, but it is not (yet) perfect. So we have to think about how to do it TILL it will be like the real world. Read what Sami wrote in the beggining and you will understand.

[Sigma]

Not that it matters much, but I was stupid and clicked the wrong button.  Gotta move one Yes to No, as No is what I meant.

[MattDell]

No!  And on top of that I feel that multi-leg routes should only be allowed for domestic routes.  I don't see why foreign airlines should be able to come into my country and compete as an equal for my routes.  I look at some people's route maps and just have to ask how that would even work in real life...

For example: could you imagine Iberia having 70% market share on a Tokyo -> Vancouver route?

[Dasha]

Make my vote a yes and no

A second hub should be connected from the first hub.
Example: I have my main hub at SVO and I take OVB as my second hub. In this case I want to be able to fly from SVO to OVB to somewhere else. So yes I think multi leg routes should be allowed but:

- The leg from hub to hub should be protected in some way. If I fly three planes a day from hub1 to hub2 and some funny ass joker decides he doesnt like me he floods that route and my hub would become disconnected from the other route.

- Also having two hubs allowes players to 'start' two airlines. I make a hub at SVO and SYD and have two big hubs to fly from. So the second hub should be limited in size.

- IF the multi legs are implemented please make it possible to fly short distances. SVO-DME   JFK - LaGuardia, stuff like that to make it profitable to have two hubs close together.

[Sergey Goncharenko]

Make my vote a yes and no

A second hub should be connected from the first hub.
Example: I have my main hub at SVO and I take OVB as my second hub. In this case I want to be able to fly from SVO to OVB to somewhere else. So yes I think multi leg routes should be allowed but:

- The leg from hub to hub should be protected in some way. If I fly three planes a day from hub1 to hub2 and some funny ass joker decides he doesnt like me he floods that route and my hub would become disconnected from the other route.

- Also having two hubs allowes players to 'start' two airlines. I make a hub at SVO and SYD and have two big hubs to fly from. So the second hub should be limited in size.  

- IF the multi legs are implemented please make it possible to fly short distances. SVO-DME   JFK - LaGuardia, stuff like that to make it profitable to have two hubs close together.

For airlines nobody can forbid to have even 20 bases/hubs. The airline has the right to base on one plane in 20 different airports and to flying any routes within the own country as a resident. For any airline can be resolved flight within other country, but without the right transportation passengers.

[JJP]

No!  And on top of that I feel that multi-leg routes should only be allowed for domestic routes.  I don't see why foreign airlines should be able to come into my country and compete as an equal for my routes.  I look at some people's route maps and just have to ask how that would even work in real life...

For example: could you imagine Iberia having 70% market share on a Tokyo -> Vancouver route?

Totally agree. I voted NO.

[samomuransky]

I voted No. But I would like to have possibility of flying HUB-HUB-DESTINATION-HUB-HUB. Let's say I have hubs in Frankfurt and Berlin, then I would like to be able to fly for example Frankfurt - Berlin - Copenhagen - Berlin - Frankfurt.

[Icelandair0416]

I voted No. But as Samo said, I would want the option to make a HUB-HUB-DESTINATION-HUB-HUB flight.

[Tube]

I vote No, with the exeption of being able to still fly HUB1 - Destination - HUB2 - Destination - HUB1

[shaun3_3]

Maybe I missed it somewhere but when could we see either one go into effect?