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: Base airport feature feedback  (Read 9173 times)

d2031k

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2010, 09:52:28 PM »
Ok, I have a question. Why is it that I can only open up a second base in Czechosloavakia (my base country), but Stuair (based in France) can open up a second base in Spain and Lauterjung Logistics (based in the UK) can open up second and third bases in Spain and Italy?

*I'm just using those airlines as examples, I'm sure there are many more like them in terms of bases and I have nothing against Stuair or Lauterjung Logistics.

The modelling of geo-political changes in AWS now means that the EU expands as it did in real life.  The Czech Republic did not become an EU member state until 1st May 2004, so you'll have a while to wait before you can open up in any EU country.  

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union


You'll also lose the potential to open up a Slovakian based airport in 1993 too when Czechoslovakia dissolves.

There was some discussion about the break up of the Soviet Union regarding this matter, so I'm not sure if this has been changed - http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,19538.0.html
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 08:40:36 AM by Daveos »

auerbacs

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2010, 11:40:32 PM »
Sami, and others,

What is the reason for not allowing airlines to open 2nd bases until they've existed for 18 months? Usually one wouldn't want to anyway, but in some cases one might. For instance, in MT, I started late, about a year ago, and quickly satiated demand from Hungary (with a few expansions) based upon a rapid expansion using Yak 42s. I'm not even a year into the game yet, and I'm already twiddling my thumbs and waiting to open a new base to expand. Meanwhile, airlines which started earlier, but aren't necessarily more capable financially of opening a second hub, are allowed to snap up hubs and their demand quickly. It's just one more way that you're punished for starting late. I suppose that you just want to prevent those really quick starters from charging their way immediately into the other good cities at the beginning of the game and dominating decent airlines that haven't quite established a foothold yet. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just disallow the opening of second hubs for the first 18 months of game-time in general and then open it up entirely (besides the 15 plane requirement). Then you protect everybody at the beginning and allow airlines to establish themselves without punishing those who undergo a rapid expansion (possible due to good deals in the used market) when they arrive in the game a little later.

Thoughts?

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2010, 03:02:18 AM »
I think part of the "rapid expansion" issue will be resolved in the NEXT new game, as the "C/F starting strategy" should have been dealt with in recent announced changes to the game engine.  There probably won't be as many huge airlines early on into the game to stomp on the smaller airlines at non-top 20 airports (much as I've experienced) - more of an even playing field, at least for those at the start.

Curious as to why 18 months was chosen.  I would think 12 months would be enough time from the start of an airline.

d2031k

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2010, 06:20:57 PM »
From my contrasting experiences in MT#2 and ATB I would suggest that secondary bases should perhaps be prohibited for a little longer.

In MT#2, I am fortunate enough to have avoided heavy competition, partly through luck but also my choice to start away from the anticipated melees in certain areas so I could actually see the dynamics of the new feature.  Secondary bases have been very easy to open, run and attack competition and I have only 1 major competitor left in my country now.  I only have 37 aircraft at a base where I am competiting with the main carrier based there and it seems reasonably easy to reduce his expansion using the money gained from my HQ and other uncontested base.

On the other side of the coin, my regional airline in ATB flopped twice - I just couldn't get small props to work this time.  I attempted to re-join, but because airlines have expanded quickly the only airports available were less than favourable and the ones that were reasonable were in countries where I would suffer if a bigger airline opened up with me.  I could see exactly how airlines like mine in MT#2 were influencing ATB.

With these two drastically different experiences, my suggestions would be:

- Limit second bases to 2 years after an airline has established.
- Limit aircraft at a new base to a lower figure to start, maybe 20 or 30.  Like slots, every year this figure could rise to perhaps simulate how a real life airline would develop a hub, maybe to the current 70 aircraft (or how ever many the new apron capacity system will allow when that is introduced - I think this should be the next major priority even before traffic rights domestically are introduced).
- Limit subsequent bases to every 2 years rather than 1.

These changes would allow:

- Some great competition at airports for the first 2 years.  That's the best part of the simulation in my eyes and for the successful victorious airlines in these battles, their growth would have been severely hampered by more intense competition.  Some big airlines in the US for example, are falling in MT#2 now and there will be very little choice of HQ to restart at.
- Late starters or bankrupt airlines would then have a bigger pool of airports to choose from or if you failed in the first 2 years, then at least you would have a few more options

Once the limits on the number of aircraft based at an airport as a whole are introduced (apron space restraints) this may not apply, but I also think the top 20 restriction should be removed.  This would get the largest airlines battling it out between themselves a bit more.

The hub feature really has made things more exciting for the long term progression of airlines and is a great effort for the first worlds it has existed in with the concepts looking spot on, but I feel it still allows airlines room to expand very quickly at the moment.

Cheers,

Dave :)

Offline UPCEO

  • Members
  • Posts: 601
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2010, 08:15:09 PM »
I agree with Dave.  Rapid expansion is still a problem even with the new hub feature in place.  IN MT2 I bankrupted Pioneer out of KPDX yesterday because a larger carrier that opened a base there several months ago caused such a reduction in my LF's that my profit margin would not sustain any future growth and merely staying solvent was becoming an issue.  I have since restarted elsewhere but I feel like I'm having to "sneak" around hoping none of the big guys notice me while I'm still young for fear of getting stomped on by them opening a new hub at my airport.  The current version with hub feature is almost impossible if you don't establish yourself as one of the big guys early on by "racing" into rapid expansion with them.  This just isn't how I want to run my airlines (I don't want to be the biggest, I just want to be successful in managing a profitable airline). 

To that end, what if something like this were implemented ... an airline can only open a new hub at an airport that has "equal to/greater than" size classification as his starting base?  This would keep the big guys from expanding into regional markets and might even encourage more airlines to start at smaller airports in order to have the ability to expand upward with time.  If necessary, the "no hub at the top 20 airports" limitation could be removed - let the big guys go head to head if they so choose.  Could something like that be implemented?

Offline Minto Typhoon

  • Members
  • Posts: 1024
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2010, 08:43:28 PM »

I agree that the top 20 city limitation is unfair to regional airport players looking to expand into major hubs as the game continues.  It also gives major hub players an advantage as home based competition cannot increase in their home airport, except from new game entrants.

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 863
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2010, 12:31:18 AM »
I want to know something first......why rapid expansion is consider as a problem in AWS? ;)

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2010, 12:37:18 AM »
Quote
I agree with Dave.  Rapid expansion is still a problem even with the new hub feature in place.  IN MT2 I bankrupted Pioneer out of KPDX yesterday because a larger carrier that opened a base there several months ago caused such a reduction in my LF's that my profit margin would not sustain any future growth and merely staying solvent was becoming an issue.

This is a big problem and one that shouldn't be allowed and it needs to be rectified.  This behavior is actually against the rules -- attacking smaller airlines when you are exponentially larger that is.  Unfortunately, this multi-base thing basically promotes exactly this behavior.  Once someone gets too big for their own airport they take their massive profit margins and superior cost advantages and move into some smaller airlines base and easily crush them.  Even if not on purpose, it's almost impossible to avoid.

To that end, what if something like this were implemented ... an airline can only open a new hub at an airport that has "equal to/greater than" size classification as his starting base?  This would keep the big guys from expanding into regional markets and might even encourage more airlines to start at smaller airports in order to have the ability to expand upward with time.  If necessary, the "no hub at the top 20 airports" limitation could be removed - let the big guys go head to head if they so choose.  Could something like that be implemented?

I agree with this suggestion, though I might extend it a bit to allow going at least some downwards expansion at least a little bit.  Otherwise if you start at the top, you've really got nowhere else to go outside of perhaps another uber-large airport and that may not be what you want.

It not only would, as mentioned, limit competition for the smaller airports where people tend restart and/or start later and should face minimal competition, but I think a bigger positive is that it would force larger airlines to compete amongst themselves, inhibiting their presently exponential growth, and allowing those that do start later to have a chance to "catch up".

In effect, it could be used to establish different difficulty levels within the same world.  Pick a large airport and be prepared to play with the "Big Boys", pick a medium airport and likely play of more easy-going players, or pick a small airport and likely be forever left alone.

I want to know something first......why rapid expansion is consider as a problem in AWS? ;)
Because it's not exactly representative of reality but rather a byproduct of some people's knowledge on how to "game the game".

Once you know how to work the system for maximum expansion, an airline is simply not reachable by anyone else.  The expansion is simply too large that, barring some stupid mistake (not likely to be made by said people that know the systems), they will be literally untouchable within about 2 real-life days -- after that, the game has essentially been decided, their growth will continue exponentially and largely unabated while 90% of players haven't the remotest chance of ever touching them and whose game will be forever shaped by a minority of players who are, basically, "allowing" everyone else to play because, if they really wanted, they could wipe every single one off the map.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 12:53:47 AM by Sigma »

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 863
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2010, 02:04:41 AM »
so knowing which plane do better/wrose than the real world in AWS should be consider as knowing how to "game the game" :P

well......this is a game, we all know that. And when there are somebody want to set up a small regional airline, there should be even more want to have a big airline ;) From my point of view raid expansion is almost impossible to be completely prevented. Even we make a lot of rules, somebody or anybody will go and find way to get away from the limit. Now what we are doing is trying to slowing down the expend, but what I saw is when you make some mistakes or having some back luck, you will be even harder to catch up because the slow production speed. The reduced speed slowed down the game speed I agree, but not changing the result, only make it come much later. I don't think this is a success, as smaller airlines will be even more vulnerable to big airlines whose successfully bit the rules, especially for those who have their first base in long hual airports.

The idea of dividing the base seems to be a reasonable way to do, but I think if this is really put into use some of the rules should be reomved, like the top 20 limit. Those big boys are big but they still need demands to live ;) Maybe also the speed of plane production too. In big airport speed is always importent. Under this kind of situation, reduce limit for this should be consider I thank. Those big boy have no place to hide, I think we should give them something except for the demand ;)

Except for planes, the base country is my another fouce point. Some countries have only a few large airports or demand is highly fouce to 1 or 2 airports. Those countries may need specail arangement for them.


I also have ideas on this ;) Maybe we can just make a world full with airlines, but only waiting for players to take incharge?

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2010, 06:33:51 AM »
I'll give my experience as an example of what's being talked about in regards to "rapid expansion".

The current incarnation of my airline is the fifth.  I had to re-enter the game as the first four attempts failed miserably.  Not because of what I'd done, necessarily.  I've done quite well in previous versions of this game - look at TJA - I have KMSP by about 65%.  And that would be the second time I've managed that level of success in a full game.

There was a noted issue with low load factors with startups that was eventually fixed, but I'm convinced that it crippled my ability to grow my early attempts at an airline, which cost me valuable time within that first 18 months.  I'll admit that I tried to expand a bit too quickly (which I'd been able to manage in the previous version) the first few times, but even slowing that down a bit in my later attempts, I wasn't able to make sufficient profit in order to sustain operations.  Only once that load factor issue was fixed did my load factors reach (appropriate) levels where I was able to sustain a profit and grow the current version of the airline.

By this time, there was substantial competition - one airline basically following my usual model (regional to national to international) and another content with being a small regional, basically flying prop-commuter flights and doing well at it, at least at first.  There were a few others, but they had/have not posed substantial competition (this is the first time I've ever seen KMSP with 4-5 airlines HQ'd there).

Then, an airline based at Chicago-O'Hare opened up shop at KMSP.  Given their size at the time, I can only surmise that they were able to take advantage of either that airport's major demand domestically and internationally and/or the "C/F starting strategy" before the game engine was updated to block that particular strategy.  In either case, me and my closest competitor were almost immediately dropped to 2nd and 3rd place at KMSP.

At this point, two airlines that had based at KMSP are gone, including that #3 competitor, the small regional is under major pressure and I can no longer engage in substantial growth as this new airline has effectively eaten up nearly all viable slots at the airport.  Given the price pressure I'm experiencing now, I can only assume that an attempt is underway to squeeze me out of the market entirely, leading to a fifth bankruptcy.  They may succeed, which is going to irk me, having just started QualiTeam up in this world.

The limitation on "no top 20 airports" allows airlines that setup at those airports to effectively setup "fortress hubs" at such airports.  If an airline at a "top 20" is able to eliminate the competition based at their HQ, they have the ability to rake in massive profits which they can use to order massive numbers of aircraft (which dramatically smaller airlines' ability to expand outside of the used market) and drop in airports just below the "top 20" and effectively crush any airlines based there.  They can then repeat the cycle.  There is no opportunity for other, established airlines to compete at those fortress hubs, as they're blocked from doing so.  Any new player going into such airports don't stand much of a chance - two aircraft with the startup money aren't going to make much of an impact against an airline owning a percentage of its aircraft, a monthly PAX count in the millions and a company value in the billions.

The top 20 restriction needs to go away to permit better (and more realistic) competition.  And if it doesn't, then it at least needs to be reworded to specify "top 20 global airports" - having seen the screenshots prior to the launch of this world, it was my (incorrect) assumption that as a U.S. based airline, I wouldn't be able to expand upward and that airlines based at the top 20 in the U.S. wouldn't be able to expand downward into my airport.  Had this been clearer to me, my strategy would have been different.

I'm also wondering about the time limit.  If, for whatever reason, an airline can afford to expand before the 18 months is up, they should be allowed to do so.  This restriction does not exist in the real world and I'm not sure time is the right measure of when an airline should be "ready" to add hubs.  Number of aircraft makes sense as one measure, particularly if the "C/F strategy" no longer works - not being entirely familiar with the airport side of this business, I would imagine that an airport's administration would not be willing to commit the resources in permitting/establishing a hub without the guarantee of a minimum of business.  I'm wondering if perhaps a given percentage of their HQ's (or prior hubs) market share might be a better way to go.  Nothing terrible (I'm thinking 10-20%, perhaps even lower).

I'd be curious to see the effects of some of the other changes proposed...I'd hope that they're thoroughly tested before implementation.  I'd be happy to volunteer as a tester if needed (I did it for six years at a Fortune 100 company).

Offline Minto Typhoon

  • Members
  • Posts: 1024
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2010, 06:49:17 AM »
Very well written.

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 863
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2010, 08:19:27 AM »
Quote
The limitation on "no top 20 airports" allows airlines that setup at those airports to effectively setup "fortress hubs" at such airports.

this is something I've try to let sami understand, but HE NEVER MAKE IT until the world come out and we can now see the result ;)

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2010, 08:44:28 AM »
The limitation on "no top 20 airports" allows airlines that setup at those airports to effectively setup "fortress hubs" at such airports.


Im interested in knowing how you would stop an airline from becoming a feared "fortress hub"?



- Talentz

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2010, 09:08:26 AM »

Im interested in knowing how you would stop an airline from becoming a feared "fortress hub"?



- Talentz

I think the idea of not allowing people to setup hubs in airports smaller than their headquarters would do it.

It would mean that, barring slot limitations (which would be a big deal if a move wasn't made in very short order), the only competition they could face at a Top 20 airport would be from other, somewhat-equally-sized airlines coming from another major airport.  They're the only ones that could ever hope to sustain the losses that would be required to ever hope to take out, or even slow, another player in a hub.  And it would provide at least some level of threat to those players that do choose a Top-20 base, because they can never face in-house competition again once their initial players are dealt with because no one can ever open another hub there, whereas those players who choose medium-sized airport will be constantly forced out when a large competitor opens a hub there

In effect it would force competition amongst competitors somewhat on-par with one another. Whereas today, with the new base model, you are actually promoting and literally forcing players from the uber-huge airports to go into smaller airports and run out the smaller-competition.  And you're not even allowing the same to happen to them, not that there'd be any chance anyways.

I do understand though that this would be extremely difficult to implement simply because it would mean that the vast majority of countries you could not expand in, because you'd start in the only large airport there, and you'd be screwed because you'd have no ability to open a base at another smaller city in your home country.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 09:11:28 AM by Sigma »

Curse

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2010, 11:32:28 AM »
Only a small question to these wo opened a second base before:

Why I have to hire new pilots etc. when opening a new base? My staff costs increased from $237 Mio to $287 Million, thats a plus of 50 Millionen...

Until now I have no (new) aircraft at the base.

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2010, 01:23:08 PM »
I think the idea of not allowing people to setup hubs in airports smaller than their headquarters would do it.

It would mean that, barring slot limitations (which would be a big deal if a move wasn't made in very short order), the only competition they could face at a Top 20 airport would be from other, somewhat-equally-sized airlines coming from another major airport.  They're the only ones that could ever hope to sustain the losses that would be required to ever hope to take out, or even slow, another player in a hub.  And it would provide at least some level of threat to those players that do choose a Top-20 base, because they can never face in-house competition again once their initial players are dealt with because no one can ever open another hub there, whereas those players who choose medium-sized airport will be constantly forced out when a large competitor opens a hub there

In effect it would force competition amongst competitors somewhat on-par with one another. Whereas today, with the new base model, you are actually promoting and literally forcing players from the uber-huge airports to go into smaller airports and run out the smaller-competition.  And you're not even allowing the same to happen to them, not that there'd be any chance anyways.

I do understand though that this would be extremely difficult to implement simply because it would mean that the vast majority of countries you could not expand in, because you'd start in the only large airport there, and you'd be screwed because you'd have no ability to open a base at another smaller city in your home country.

When I first looked at this, I wasn't sure.  Thinking about it, however, it makes a degree of sense, but I'm going to offer a slightly different alternative.

I live within a few miles of MSP, so I'm familiar with Delta.  Delta, being a global carrier, tends to stick to larger hubs within the U.S. - MSP, ATL, MEM, DTW.  Southwest, being a domestic carrier and with its business model, at first tended to stick to smaller hubs - DAL, MDW and BWI, for example.

A lot of games I've played, including a standalone airline management simulator, have the concept of a "difficulty level".  I'm wondering if the size of the airports one can HQ/hub at couldn't work in this manner.  It would require the player to make a call (offline or online somehow) before they jump into a game - what kind of airline do I want to build?  This would be analagous to a business plan, which any business would have to create before it launched (and got the loan they start out with).

I think of it like weight classes in boxing.  I'm going to be a "heavyweight", so I'll be limited to airports with a size of "5" - I'm going to go up against the "big boys".  I'm going to be a bit smaller, so I'll be limited to airports with a size of "4" and/or "3" - I might be able to breathe a bit.  And so on.  I'm wondering if the size of the starting loan isn't tied into this call as well - a bank might not give as much money to start what has been defined as a smaller business.

I have some other thoughts on possibilities with this feature, but I think those would come under the heading of "enhancements", so I'll save those for elsewhere.  ;)

Offline Kazari

  • Members
  • Posts: 461
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2010, 01:50:45 PM »
Although this is a hub discussion, I think it touches on an issue that we have discussed many times before that has new relevance: phantom airlines.

Having a sponge to soak up excess demand would make the game a lot harder and would make a lot of the hub discussion moot: It would be very hard to grow big fast so the hub growth would be more natural.

Fortress hubs are a outgrowth of monopolies, be they natural monopolies (as we create in the game) or government-created monopolies (say a state-chartered phone company, for example). They will exist.

The fundamental question of how soon and dominant they will be shouldn't be decided by a they-must-go-to-a-bigger-hub rule (which I think might actually work in the game, but is tremendously artificial) but by cutthroat competition at the route level.

Phantom airline demand would tamp down growth because all the demand on a route COULDN'T be met by you. These phantom airlines would meet exactly the demand of the market at exactly the suggested fare. Perhaps only a handful of these would exist -- at the largest airports.

Offline DHillMSP

  • Members
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2010, 02:17:02 PM »
Although this is a hub discussion, I think it touches on an issue that we have discussed many times before that has new relevance: phantom airlines.

Having a sponge to soak up excess demand would make the game a lot harder and would make a lot of the hub discussion moot: It would be very hard to grow big fast so the hub growth would be more natural.

Fortress hubs are a outgrowth of monopolies, be they natural monopolies (as we create in the game) or government-created monopolies (say a state-chartered phone company, for example). They will exist.

The fundamental question of how soon and dominant they will be shouldn't be decided by a they-must-go-to-a-bigger-hub rule (which I think might actually work in the game, but is tremendously artificial) but by cutthroat competition at the route level.

Phantom airline demand would tamp down growth because all the demand on a route COULDN'T be met by you. These phantom airlines would meet exactly the demand of the market at exactly the suggested fare. Perhaps only a handful of these would exist -- at the largest airports.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  I was looking at things from the "status quo" perspective, whereas you've hit the underlying issue.

Airlines at, say, ATL or LHR, have a huge advantage with the demand created by those airports compared those of us who start at smaller airports.  Without "existing" airlines (phantoms) to suck up some of that demand, this issue will persist.  The only other alternative is to start the game in like the late 40's or early 50's.  Much lower demand.  Not all the airports we're used to would be present (they haven't been built yet).  It would take time to build an airline.

I still like the notion of the "difficulty level", at least as a start-up condition.  I don't think it stays in place forever - usually most businesses execute their initial business plans within a number of years (3-5) - after this the limitation would lift.  The standalone simulator I mentioned in my previous post had such a requirement - you had to repay your startup loan (which was based on where your HQ was located) and stay within certain conditions (i.e. build the airline you planned to build) for the first few years.  After that, you were on your own and could act without restriction.

michael95u

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2010, 08:51:08 PM »
I think you've hit the nail on the head.  I was looking at things from the "status quo" perspective, whereas you've hit the underlying issue.

Airlines at, say, ATL or LHR, have a huge advantage with the demand created by those airports compared those of us who start at smaller airports.  Without "existing" airlines (phantoms) to suck up some of that demand, this issue will persist.  The only other alternative is to start the game in like the late 40's or early 50's.  Much lower demand.  Not all the airports we're used to would be present (they haven't been built yet).  It would take time to build an airline.

I still like the notion of the "difficulty level", at least as a start-up condition.  I don't think it stays in place forever - usually most businesses execute their initial business plans within a number of years (3-5) - after this the limitation would lift.  The standalone simulator I mentioned in my previous post had such a requirement - you had to repay your startup loan (which was based on where your HQ was located) and stay within certain conditions (i.e. build the airline you planned to build) for the first few years.  After that, you were on your own and could act without restriction.

I totally agree. Airlines that start at the top 20 world busiest airports have a huge advantage in that they can grow exponentially while those of us that start at smaller airports must grow slowly.

I am in the middle of a battle of attrition at LGA. A huge airline, which had started up at ORD and grew very fast has opened a hub at LGA and is forcing me out. I had a relatively successful airline and most of the slots at LGA were gone. Then one of LGA's original airlines went bankrupt, which opened up a ton of slots that my new competitor ate up quickly due to his huge size. There is no way I can compete with him, especially since I can't go open up a hub at ORD.....

jest

  • Former member
Re: Base airport feature feedback
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2010, 11:39:41 PM »
I totally agree. Airlines that start at the top 20 world busiest airports have a huge advantage in that they can grow exponentially while those of us that start at smaller airports must grow slowly.

I am in the middle of a battle of attrition at LGA. A huge airline, which had started up at ORD and grew very fast has opened a hub at LGA and is forcing me out. I had a relatively successful airline and most of the slots at LGA were gone. Then one of LGA's original airlines went bankrupt, which opened up a ton of slots that my new competitor ate up quickly due to his huge size. There is no way I can compete with him, especially since I can't go open up a hub at ORD.....

Starting in the top 20 has its disadvantages. At the beginning there were 8 airlines at HKG and three years into the game all slots disappeared. Having said that, i agree with you that you should be able to base in the top 20 Airports. I've been playing AWS since day one, always had huge airlines and ironically enough, some of the rules that were enforced to protect small companies are actually helping me to stay big.

 

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.