Feeling Let Down, Cheesed Off and Out of Pocket!.

[JumboShrimp]

Personally, I would welcome airlines being 'protected' for the 18 months after they start until they are allowed a second base, such that no-one else can move in on them - but then again, some players can FILL an airport in 18 months. So maybe for 12 months... hard to say!

But anyway, competition will happen whenever limited resources are available, and slots are just that - limited. 

What do you mean by being 'protected'.  That no one can open a base at their HQ, or that their routes are protected somehow?

As far as other larger airline not moving in to the new player's HQ - I am not sure if it makes any sense at all.

First - a new player is one of 500 airlines.  The larger airline is not picking on you.  You being there did not influence his decision to open a base there ....

[Sigma]

Attacking the route with 10s of Dash-8, supplying just under 200% could be considered targeting, is withing the rules, and it is even encouraged by the game algorithms.

"Attacking" a route is, by definition, not allowed and, depending on the exact circumstances is absolutely not 'within the rules'.  There's a reason why the 200% rule and the "no-targetting" rule are 2 separate rules.  This isn't a hard concept.

BTW, that is not what I am doing on ATL - FLL route.  I am supplying ~100% - 105% of the average demand (below peak Friday demand), and I do so with A320/A321.  That can't be by any definition be considered targeting.

Of course it can.  "Targetting" has nothing to do with how much you supply but rather the reason for why you did it.  That's why there's no objective rule or automated system in place to prevent it like there is the 200% rule.  It's impossible to determine on a single lone route unless one is boneheadedly stupid enough *cough* to brag about it by admitting to explictly violating a very explicit rule and is usually seen via a concerted effort to 'target' a particular airline by repeatedly hitting their particular routes, either alone or as an alliance.  Slamming a newbies routes with 100% is not in violation of the 200% rule but it is in violation of the targetting rule -- any doubt was instantaneously removed when one flat-out comes out and says "I did this to get you off my route" (to paraphrase).

Speaking hypothetically: When you have a 10s of $200+ million aircraft in the order queue, with intention to fly, say from ATL to Narita, shouldn't the player be concerned that he may not be able to use the aircraft because of lack of slots?  Is that against the rules?

Absolutely.  This has already come up and been ruled on.  You can only hold slots that you intend to use in the immediate future, 90 days is the timeline I believe before unused slots expire.  Holding slots by incessantly renewing them or via excessive flights of small aircraft to later use is also against the rules and is at sami's discretion when a violation has occurred as every situation is different.

Now suppose an "untouchable" new player comes in, hogs the slots in ATL with ATR, Dash-8, EMBs, who is playing within the spirit of the game, the player who wants to fly a very large aircraft from ATL to NRT, or the player who consumes 100s of slots at ATL with small aircraft. End of hypothetical

The player operating the smaller plane is within the "spirit of the rules" absolutely.  Now if he flew a bunch of 9 passenger Cessnas, it's a different story.  As long as he is producing a profit (and that means not using other routes to subsidize his 'seizure' of the slots via unprofitable actions) then he is operating not only "within the spirit of the game" but explicitly with the rules which make this very clear.  

Targetting other airlines to protect "your" slots at "your" airport is, first and foremost, a d*** move and by virtue of that absolutely not with the "spirit of the game".  You go get a couple-hundred planes on order the fact that there may not be enough slots come delivery is simply a risk that one takes.

Speaking about actual game, I fly only large and very large aircraft at ATL, do not oversupply routes, and do not hog slots.  I certainly could, like others do.  If nothing changes with the algorithms (encouraging frequency, slot hogging), I may be forced to join the club...

Come on, you sound like an immature, spoiled brat.  
"NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!"  
"GIMME WHAT I WANT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
"BUT JIMMY DOES IT!"  

First of all, It's a frickin' game.  Secondly, making some sort of elusive pseudo-blackmail threat to sami about how the game better be changed to suit your demands or else, is probably more stupid than your original braggart comment.

The rules aren't hard.   Here's the relevant ones for you:

Any coordinated "attacks" by single airlines, alliances, or by any other group of airlines, to prevent some airline from operating on a route ... are not allowed.

The airline is also forbidden to acquire aircraft and route them so that the only purpose is to get airport slots and preserve them for future use. In practise this would mean routing aircraft to airports and routes that provide no profit .... and later switching the routes to other airports when more suitable aircraft equipment is available.

[LostInBKK]

Speaking hypothetically: When you have a 10s of $200+ million aircraft in the order queue, with intention to fly, say from ATL to Narita, shouldn't the player be concerned that he may not be able to use the aircraft because of lack of slots?  Is that against the rules?

Now suppose an "untouchable" new player comes in, hogs the slots in ATL with ATR, Dash-8, EMBs, who is playing within the spirit of the game, the player who wants to fly a very large aircraft from ATL to NRT, or the player who consumes 100s of slots at ATL with small aircraft. End of hypothetical

If someone does that they should get banned or fined crazy amounts of cash that is also against the fair play of the game.

[LostInBKK]

"Attacking" a route is, by definition, not allowed and, depending on the exact circumstances is absolutely not 'within the rules'.  There's a reason why the 200% rule and the "no-targetting" rule are 2 separate rules.  This isn't a hard concept.

Of course it can.  "Targetting" has nothing to do with how much you supply but rather the reason for why you did it.  That's why there's no objective rule or automated system in place to prevent it like there is the 200% rule.  It's impossible to determine on a single lone route unless one is boneheadedly stupid enough *cough* to brag about it by admitting to explictly violating a very explicit rule and is usually seen via a concerted effort to 'target' a particular airline by repeatedly hitting their particular routes, either alone or as an alliance.  Slamming a newbies routes with 100% is not in violation of the 200% rule but it is in violation of the targetting rule -- any doubt was instantaneously removed when one flat-out comes out and says "I did this to get you off my route" (to paraphrase).

Absolutely.  This has already come up and been ruled on.  You can only hold slots that you intend to use in the immediate future, 90 days is the timeline I believe before unused slots expire.  Holding slots by incessantly renewing them or via excessive flights of small aircraft to later use is also against the rules and is at sami's discretion when a violation has occurred as every situation is different.

The player operating the smaller plane is within the "spirit of the rules" absolutely.  Now if he flew a bunch of 9 passenger Cessnas, it's a different story.  As long as he is producing a profit (and that means not using other routes to subsidize his 'seizure' of the slots via unprofitable actions) then he is operating not only "within the spirit of the game" but explicitly with the rules which make this very clear.  

Targetting other airlines to protect "your" slots at "your" airport is, first and foremost, a d*** move and by virtue of that absolutely not with the "spirit of the game".  You go get a couple-hundred planes on order the fact that there may not be enough slots come delivery is simply a risk that one takes.

Come on, you sound like an immature, spoiled brat.  
"NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!"  
"GIMME WHAT I WANT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
"BUT JIMMY DOES IT!"  

First of all, It's a frickin' game.  Secondly, making some sort of elusive pseudo-blackmail threat to sami about how the game better be changed to suit your demands or else, is probably more stupid than your original braggart comment.

The rules aren't hard.   Here's the relevant ones for you:

Can we continue to have a sensible discussion about this please! This is not the JumboShrimp bashing thread. It's for people to understand that their action affect other people who are trying to learn the game and can drive new players away.

[slither360]

Whether or not its in the spirit of the game, filling a route with 100% capacity is perfectly legal, unless you are targeting. Targeting is going after 1 airline, whether as an alliance or individually, as an attempt to bankrupt the airline. JumboShrimp is flying the route in order to save slots for himself. That may not be the best "spirit of the game," but it is a strategy which happens to work very well in this sim, and isn't particularly unfair to anyone else since they can do it too. If I understand correctly, JumboShrimp hasn't gone and dumped capacity of every route of LostInBKK, he's only done it to 1 (or a few). That isn't targeting, therefore, JumboShrimp isn't violating any rules, cheating the sim in any way, or really gaining any unfair advantage.

[Sigma]

Whether or not its in the spirit of the game, filling a route with 100% capacity is perfectly legal, unless you are targeting. Targeting is going after 1 airline, whether as an alliance or individually, as an attempt to bankrupt the airline.

Targeting is that, yes.  But it is also, and says so explicitly in the rules, going after an airline with the purposes of forcing them off a given route.  "Targeting" does not just pertain to an attempt to bankrupt the entire airline.  On a given route it would be impossible to determine if one was guilty of "targeting" or simple competition, but when one comes out and says that they're doing it to force you off the route so they can get "their slots" back, that's as clear of a rule violation as one can get.

JumboShrimp is flying the route in order to save slots for himself.

No, that would be fine as long as it was a profitable route.  But he said he's flying the route with the express purpose of forcing the newcomer to leave it and therefore free up the slots that they're taking up at his base.

There are certainly a lot of grey areas in AWS, as there would be in any game that's trying to even remotely faithfully recreate what is, in the real-world, a highly-regulated business environment.  And just like the real-world, one can argue whether something is a violation of grey-ish regulations all day long trying to prove intent, but when some one flat out comes out and says why they did it, it's not grey any longer.  He could have said that he was planning on opening a Fort Meyers route already, it would be impossible to prove otherwise and he has the planes on order, so it would seem like a logical explanation.  Instead he admitted he was doing it for no other reason than to save "his" slots by forcing the newcomer off the route.

[LostInBKK]

For the record JumboShrimp is based in Atlanta and I am based in Fort Myers.

[JumboShrimp]

Targeting is that, yes.  But it is also, and says so explicitly in the rules, going after an airline with the purposes of forcing them off a given route.  "Targeting" does not just pertain to an attempt to bankrupt the entire airline.  On a given route it would be impossible to determine if one was guilty of "targeting" or simple competition, but when one comes out and says that they're doing it to force you off the route so they can get "their slots" back, that's as clear of a rule violation as one can get.

So the "violation" is not the action but what the person is thinking while performing the action...  This is where things become very slippery...

Maybe we should have torture every player who opens a route that competes with another player - to make the player confess whether he is thinking some disallowed thoughts.

Let's forget obvious actions (flying 50 Dash-8 flights, supplying 199% of demand), let's examine thoughts of the player supplying 100% with large aircraft...  Because it is not actions we are examining, it is the evil thougts we want to unearth...

No, that would be fine as long as it was a profitable route.  But he said he's flying the route with the express purpose of forcing the newcomer to leave it and therefore free up the slots that they're taking up at his base.

I compete on all the routes from my HQ.  Up to 302 now.  LostInBKK was not even on my radar until this post here.  That route was just one out of 302.

And on all of them - old players, new players, large airlines small airlines (most of the time, I don't even check the age of the airline).   I want to outlast the competition, so that I end up with higher LFs, and get the slots freed up.

If that is against the rules, then AWS is more Kafka-esque then I ever imagined....

[JumboShrimp]

The player operating the smaller plane is within the "spirit of the rules" absolutely.  Now if he flew a bunch of 9 passenger Cessnas, it's a different story.  As long as he is producing a profit (and that means not using other routes to subsidize his 'seizure' of the slots via unprofitable actions) then he is operating not only "within the spirit of the game" but explicitly with the rules which make this very clear.  

Flying a Dash-8 on a 4000 pax route is the same as flying Cesna on a 400 pax route.  Flying such a plane to a large, severely slot limited airport is really an attempt to blow things up, not really play the game.  If you think that in the game, as is, it is fine to fly ATR into ATL or LHR, then we have a difference of opinion.

Come on, you sound like an immature, spoiled brat.  
"NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!"  
"GIMME WHAT I WANT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
"BUT JIMMY DOES IT!"  

First of all, It's a frickin' game.  Secondly, making some sort of elusive pseudo-blackmail threat to sami about how the game better be changed to suit your demands or else, is probably more stupid than your original braggart comment.

Not a threat at all just an observation of how one may have to adjust to still run a successful airline.  There are nearly 3000 Embrear Jets in MT3, 1242 Dash-8.  I don't have a single one in the current MT3.  You are throwing around accusations against one of the few successful arilnes in MT3 that is not gaming the game.

[JumboShrimp]

The rules aren't hard.   Here's the relevant ones for you:

Any coordinated "attacks" by single airlines, alliances, or by any other group of airlines, to prevent some airline from operating on a route ... are not allowed.

The airline is also forbidden to acquire aircraft and route them so that the only purpose is to get airport slots and preserve them for future use. In practise this would mean routing aircraft to airports and routes that provide no profit .... and later switching the routes to other airports when more suitable aircraft equipment is available.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  But that makes 2 of us.  You don't know what you are talking about either.  Accusations and no facts.

Here are the facts - now that LostInBKK clarified that he is talking about Fort Meyers - RSW (I confused it with FLL in another post - which just shows how much pre-meditated targeting took place), here is a snap shot of the route.  The 1234567 routes have been there for 10+ game years.  I may have added 2 flights by A321 (7 day schedule) in last 1 or 2 game years.  So that is the maximum extend of the "dispute", that I went on for 10+ years supplying 80%, and in the last 2 years I increased it to 100%.



[attachment expired]

[LostInBKK]

Hang on my friend JumboShrimp, I never said you targeted me. Please go back and read my text.

Thanks
Lost

[ACDennison]

* ACDennison Pulls out Fire Extinguisher, hoses down thread firmly

[JumboShrimp]

Hang on my friend JumboShrimp, I never said you targeted me. Please go back and read my text.

Thanks
Lost

I know.  Thanks.  Sigma is accusing me of all kinds of things, and my replies were to him.

[swiftus27]

I am not 100% sure there was an accusation there. 

calm down, folks.

Personally, I feel that every plane under 50 pax should be removed from the game.  You simply can't make a good airline around Cessnas, Islanders, or Brasilias.   All they are really used for is gimmicks, slot hogging, or anything unauthentic imho

[ACDennison]

If you remove <50 pax aircraft from the game you may as well close half the airports too, i.e. all the small ones.  And also therefore remove any chance for late starters like myself to expand into an area and type not dominated by the big players.

For the record, I run 14 EMB120's very profitably, the best makes $100k+ a week (I do own that one...)  I intened to add several more at another base or two, all local airports with chances to make good money.  I know some players use hordes of small aircraft on high demeand routes, but plenty like me use them as they were designed.

I have previously said I would support banning small aircraft from the biggest airports, but to egt rid of them would be abig mistake IMHO

[swiftus27]

If you remove <50 pax aircraft from the game you may as well close half the airports too, i.e. all the small ones.  And also therefore remove any chance for late starters like myself to expand into an area and type not dominated by the big players.

For the record, I run 14 EMB120's very profitably, the best makes $100k+ a week (I do own that one...)  I intened to add several more at another base or two, all local airports with chances to make good money.  I know some players use hordes of small aircraft on high demeand routes, but plenty like me use them as they were designed.

I have previously said I would support banning small aircraft from the biggest airports, but to egt rid of them would be abig mistake IMHO

AC, I just ran an airline with small planes with virtually no competition.  I actually de facto blogged about it.  It is so amazingly inefficient compared to the revenue generation anything 100 pax + can draw in.  One 747 can pull in almost 2 million weekly in modern times if flown correctly.

[RushmoreAir]

One 747 can pull in almost 2 million weekly in modern times if flown correctly.

Digressing off topic, my 747s in DOTM pulled in $2.3 mil per week

[ACDennison]

I know swiftus, and I enjoyed your small airline test blog...

But basiclly your postion seems to be that small aircraft are inefficent and should be scrapped.  I disagree, I can show that they are a valuable addition to an existing airline.  I operate only small and medium aircraft and do very nicely, but I get the feeling that you feel you must be right.  I'll agree that it would be very hard starting with smalls, hence why I started with ATP, then 1-11s, then EMB120ERs as my third fleet group (with the engine commonality with ATP helping).  My airline is doing very nicely for itself, and flying routes out of two bases that all the big carriers simply don't bother with.

Bear in mind my EMB120ER's are 50% again the size of your failed Fairchilds, which I admit makes a big difference overheads-wise, but I reckon even 19-seat aircraft can turn a profit as part of a larger operation, and in bulk where you can can save on costs.  Overall, I see no reson why less efficent aircraft should be scrapped, they are simply an option for those who enjoy them, and should be allowed to be.


<Rant>

Lets say we do scrap small aircraft, I would again note we may as well remove half the airports in the game... and while we are at it, we can get rid of all the russian aircraft because they are inefficent too.  Africa can be taken off the map too, nothing there really after all, maybe just leave an insland at Algiers, Cairo and Jo-berg.  The loan system can go too, paying interest is inefficent and all the big players have cash from their A3-profit margins and B7-money makers, so no need to offer credit to those growing a little bit at a time on the margin, heh?

In fact, lets close all but the top 100 airports, and remove all aircraft not made by Boeing and Airbus... then triple all the slots, and allow each manufacturer to make 1000 aircraft a month.   And all airlines must be registered in the starting year, because starting late is too hard.  Then maybe we'll have the game so many players seem to want... <sarcasm>  Of course, it will be half the size and have no variety...

Normally I am very even-tempered about forum debates, hell I had a tried to lighten this thread up earlier, but I get very cross when people assume a game has to be played the way they play it, and don't appreciate that others enjoy different challenges, styles of play and so forth... and that sometimes, they can succeed those different ways.

</Rant>


As I said before though, I will reiterate that I wouldn't mind small aircraft being banned at Class 5 airports, and maybe a new 'Class 6' for the biggest being used that even bans mediums... I have no love for people slot hogging unfairly,  but that's the player's fault, not the aircraft's!

[swiftus27]

I feel you are being very exaggerating for effect.   There are many things you stated that are just way over the top.

[schro]

Digressing off topic, my 747s in DOTM pulled in $2.3 mil per week

I've gotten 757-300's and A300-600R's turning over 2 million per week in Modern Times scenarios....