I am not calling you stupid. I am saying that your insistence on saying that making a techstop route with your HQ as the tech-stop somehow doubles up on demand is rubbish. Because it is. If you equate 'that thing you keep saying is rubbish' with 'you are stupid', then that's a problem on your end, not mine.
If you want to be critical, be critical of things that are actually true.
I don't see what your general point is, because I haven't seen you explain it. Other than "It stays sticky between us concerning that demand/traffic thang." Which you continue to misunderstand & misrepresent, wilfully or not. We both say that any simple option needs to use the existing demand model. I am suggesting something that does use it. You keep telling me it doesn't. You are wrong.
What I see is:
This doesn't make sense because it adds demand not already included in the demand model - Simply incorrect. It would give the ability to create a tech-stop route between two airports you are not based in. Using the existing demand between those two airports. Simple as that.
This won't work because it means far too many extra route calculations. - Also incorrect. It'd be double the existing number of routes at absolute worst.
It's all too confusing. - So don't use it. 7 day schedules are confusing. Micromanaging prices is confusing. If it's too much effort, don't use it. It's not compulsory, it's not required for success. The game's already very simple to succeed at.
I wouldn't get accurate profit for individual planes. - Big deal. Individual plane profit is irrelevant & arbitrary. It is also extremely simple to take this, and arbitrarily split the revenue between the two planes involved however you want to.