A good reason for ETOPS; Misuse of frequency feature;

[Frogiton]

This could also be effected if any in flight stuff was ever introducted. You can fit better and bigger everything on a B777 than you could on an A320 and still return a profit. I'm thinking IFE and galley's and the like.

Ironically this whole sim has left out the most important part of the airline business. Passengers. Passengers in this game are meaningless little numbers that account to our LF's. They have no major personalities, no preferences, and no holidays. One of the biggest features should be stuff like, seating arrangments, seat comfort (more in-depth than the kindergarden system seating configurator in play now), IFE, meals, lighting. Ticket prices should make a MUCH higher impact than they do right now. Ticket prices are the most important thing in the world it seems like in real life. If Delta is flying a route for 129 and United is flying the same route for just a dollar less, and they both have the same ammenities, I'm flying United. Even if you shave 10 bucks off ticket prices in this game, your barely get a few more passengers.

[Frogiton]

Also, how's this for ETOPs, this guy just gained 8 awesome points. https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/654/#

[Sanabas]

Why is it a 'misuse' of the frequency feature to fly lots of a321s on routes they are well suited for?

What constitutes 'proper use' of the frequency feature?

Didn't 1.3 tweak the frequency bonus anyway, so that beyond ~5 flights/day, it makes no difference?

[boch]

In my opinion, characterizing a competitor's business model as a "joke" and as "hogging" is not consistent with the rules of AWS.  I would  respectfully suggest that you review the Etiquette of Playing rule:

...you are of course free to manage your airline in the way you see the best and employ the best tactics you have learned but always keep in mind that you must be friendly and polite to other members, and also of course stick to the rules and terms set by the administration.

According to the description of the frequency feature , "on 4000pax/day route the min. interval is 15 mins between two flights."  So for LHR<>JFK (at 4260 pax/ day), flying 12 sectors by A321 is well within the rules. Even if your competitor was flying more frequently, they would pay the price in passengers.

I'm sure that your intention here is not solely to disparage your competition, but you seem to have incorporated quite a few different ideas in your post.

• If you are requesting changes to the AWS model so that aircraft usage is more closely resembled the real world, you might want to start a new thread focused on that one idea.
• If you are requesting refinements to the frequency feature to further limit frequencies, a new thread may also be in order.
• If you are looking for recommendations, try using the right equipment for each route. The simulated passengers prefer to travel on smaller aircraft. In AWS 1.3. a 777 might just be too large for LHR<>JFK (and LHR<>LIS).
• If you are requesting that ETOPS rules be implemented, I believe that would belong in the Feature Requests discussion.

Hope that helps!

Boch

[Jona L.]

1) Is the name "British World" ok to be used in this game? British World Airlines was a real-world airline: Photo of British World B733 and B752

2) You yourself used B733s on multiple frequencies between MAN and the East Coast USA and East coast of Canada against my B752/B763/B772 in DOTM 4...

@ 1) No idea, dunno the airline, sami/sigma/EYguy must judge that

@ 2) These were all-C/F-jets to fill demand that was unfilled, and too small for a bigger plane. My main fleet there were B757.

It would be nice to have a guide that helps the newcomers with airplane choices. Something like "on a short distance (less than 600nm) and a demand of less than 100 pax a day, you would look into a plane that has a fuel consumption of less than x/hour, or a prop plane." or "On a high demand route with long distance, you should look at the seating capacity and xyz factor."

There is "swiftus' guide for newbies" and "Curse's Basic FAQ available on the general forums (sticky topics at top), so this guide already exists.

Why is it a 'misuse' of the frequency feature to fly lots of a321s on routes they are well suited for?

What constitutes 'proper use' of the frequency feature?

Didn't 1.3 tweak the frequency bonus anyway, so that beyond ~5 flights/day, it makes no difference?

a) It is improper, as planes like B767, B777, B747 and A330/340 and A300 were designed for these routes and A320 or B737 family are designed for shorter routes, like domestic and shorthaul but not for 3000NM intercontinental traffic. And the frequency feature supports this, that is why I keep up my fight for a 0% bonus for each flight you add.

b) Proper use is when there is a relation between seats supplied per flight vs. seats demanded and If you fly 120 seats (which is about a 3-class config in A321) on a route with >5000Pax/day demand that it is not proper. If you fly 707 with 150 seats on LHR-JFK in the 60ies I don't complain because it is the biggest you can get, but if you use a plane of that size in 2010 then you just have not heard the shot...

c) Not enough the only tweak was to punish real airline business (Long Haul) for the sake of supporting something that in real life is only there because Long Haul finances it. (I am speaking of short haul and domestic hops, might be different in the US though as they have a way bigger domestic market then we do in Europe)
The frequency limit is calculated based on the average daily seats, which still is suited for planes of the size of an ATR72 even on long haul routes.

[Jona L.]

In my opinion, characterizing a competitor's business model as a "joke" and as "hogging" is not consistent with the rules of AWS.  I would  respectfully suggest that you review the Etiquette of Playing rule:

According to the description of the frequency feature , "on 4000pax/day route the min. interval is 15 mins between two flights."  So for LHR<>JFK (at 4260 pax/ day), flying 12 sectors by A321 is well within the rules. Even if your competitor was flying more frequently, they would pay the price in passengers.

I'm sure that your intention here is not solely to disparage your competition, but you seem to have incorporated quite a few different ideas in your post.

• If you are requesting changes to the AWS model so that aircraft usage is more closely resembled the real world, you might want to start a new thread focused on that one idea.
• If you are requesting refinements to the frequency feature to further limit frequencies, a new thread may also be in order.
• If you are looking for recommendations, try using the right equipment for each route. The simulated passengers prefer to travel on smaller aircraft. In AWS 1.3. a 777 might just be too large for LHR<>JFK (and LHR<>LIS).
• If you are requesting that ETOPS rules be implemented, I believe that would belong in the Feature Requests discussion.

Hope that helps!

Boch

Are you trying to explain to me how that stuff here works?!

I am telling you nicely now, that I surely do know these rules, and etiquettes. I do also know the frequency rules, I do as well know that most people don't manage to survive with one of the greatest plane in history (B777). Also I tell you, that I had a stressful day today, meaning I am in a bad mood already, + being p*ssed off about A321 trans-Atlantic (as said in first post), so better not try to be a cleverass here.

I did this post for the reason to see how the community's position on A321 across the Atlantic is, while showing my position toward it as well. The sections you "analyzed" are true in parts (not going to comment any further). If in AWS 1.3 a B773 trans-Atlantic is inferior to an A321 on the same route, than it probably does not deserve the predicate "Simulation" but to prove you wrong I lead in market share because I still have more flights than him each day, while using normal sized planes for that route.

[Zabuti]

Hello

For the records, British Airways is making a transatlantic flight IRL with an A318. (true story). The plane is configured with business class seating only, and is marketed with the motto "feeling like a private plane".

The flight is from LHR to JFK, via a tech stop in Shannon, Ireland. If it's possible IRL with a A318, why would it be impossible in this game with A321 ?

Moreover, I see many small a/c at my base airport IRL doing transatlantic flights (I work at CDG). These B737 or A320s from Delta or AA are always looking strange, but here they are !

However, I admit that A332 or B773 are the best "reasonable" a/c for such flights in our current mind. This is exactly the reason why the B787 was developed. It is a small plane (around 200 pax in premium airline config) and designed for long-distance profitability.

Food for thought

PS : This was not said because Sleak is in my alliance. It's simply because I believe these small planes have a great potential. However, I do not believe in their future on this business model.

[Sanabas]

a) It is improper, as planes like B767, B777, B747 and A330/340 and A300 were designed for these routes and A320 or B737 family are designed for shorter routes, like domestic and shorthaul but not for 3000NM intercontinental traffic. And the frequency feature supports this, that is why I keep up my fight for a 0% bonus for each flight you add.

'It is improper' is usually just code for 'this shouldn't be allowed because I don't like it'. Seems like it is here, too. If the a320/737 were only designed for shorter, domestic routes, then why did airbus/boeing offer them with a MTOW that allowed them to fly close to 3000NM? If the planes are designed well enough to be that flexible, why shouldn't airlines take advantage of that fact?

b) Proper use is when there is a relation between seats supplied per flight vs. seats demanded and If you fly 120 seats (which is about a 3-class config in A321) on a route with >5000Pax/day demand that it is not proper. If you fly 707 with 150 seats on LHR-JFK in the 60ies I don't complain because it is the biggest you can get, but if you use a plane of that size in 2010 then you just have not heard the shot...

So, would you also have strong objections to somebody flying E-jets on a busy, near 2000NM route that also have a competitor's 747? Because I know that one actually happens in real life. There are also <100 seat planes flying regularly on one of the busiest routes in the world, one that has nearly 70 flights per day overall.

c) Not enough the only tweak was to punish real airline business (Long Haul) for the sake of supporting something that in real life is only there because Long Haul finances it. (I am speaking of short haul and domestic hops, might be different in the US though as they have a way bigger domestic market then we do in Europe)

So any RL airline not flying LH isn't in the 'real airline business', and must only be in business because a 'real airline' is financing them?  

One tweak was to lower the ticket premium for flights defined as LH, hence the 77x/a34x being tougher to use. But one tweak was also to lower the bonus from frequency, so that if 2 airlines supply 100% of demand, one with 20 flights, one with 10, the market share should be 50/50. Makes sense to me, no frequency bonus at all doesn't make sense, because convenience does matter. An airline that offers a morning & evening flight will get more business than one that offers the same number of overall seats but only flies once a day at lunchtime. Extreme frequency bonuses don't make sense either, one flight every 2 hours is going to be just about as good as 6 smaller flights every 20 minutes.

One way to fix it is to have a full bonus up to say 3 flights per day, then slowly scale it back until the 11th flight simply adds seating capacity, and 11 200 seat flights will get you the same overall sales as 10 220 seat flights. A potentially better, more complicated way to fix it (which would also help with flying routes that justify 3 flights/week, like those out of various bits of Africa) would be to remove all frequency bonuses, but split the weekly demand into blocks of maybe 4-8 hours, and allow unserviced demand to overflow to other sections within the same week. That'd mean a 60 pax/day route would support 2xweekly 767 flights, and it'd mean if airline A offers a flight every 2 hours from 0600-0000, and airline B offers a flight every 30 minutes from 1900-0000, then instead of 50-50 split thanks to 10 planes each, there'd be a roughly 50-50 split for the evening demand, but airline A would get 100% of the morning peak, the lunchtime & afternoon demand. That'd fix the problem nicely, and it would also work equally well with city-based demand & connecting pax when they arrive. I'd split shorthaul flights into smaller blocks than LH flights, too. Maybe 4/day vs 2/day.

You'd still lose out roughly 65/35 on a route that supports your 1 a34x a day to a competitor who flies a morning & evening a320 on the same route, but I don't have a problem with that.

The frequency limit is calculated based on the average daily seats, which still is suited for planes of the size of an ATR72 even on long haul routes.

That's a different thing entirely. If the frequency bonus has been capped or offers diminshing returns (which I remember Sami saying it has), then there needs to be a frequency limit to stop people flying multiple planes at the same time. Changing the limit & treating nearby flights as single entities just makes it easier/harder to reach the bonus cap. As for LH ATRs, I do think one thing that needs tweaking is the penalty for a tech-stop when there is a competitor flying non-stop, and also some preference for the overall flight time. Even if it makes my Moscow-Beijing F100 flights no longer viable.

I am telling you nicely now, that I surely do know these rules, and etiquettes.... Also I tell you, that I had a stressful day today, meaning I am in a bad mood already, + being p*ssed off about A321 trans-Atlantic (as said in first post), so better not try to be a cleverass here.

Someone politely suggests that the tone of your OP & calling a competitor's practices 'hogging' & 'a joke' is a bit harsh, and you respond by threatening him? If you're already in a bad mood, maybe that's an indicator that your OP could have been over the top, and someone pointing it out could be seen as a reminder to calm down a bit, rather than as an incitement to go even further? If you do know the rules about etiquette & politeness, then why do you ignore them in the OP and that recent post?

[Sigma]

This is a good conversation guys, let's just tone down the personal comments.  Let's just forget the words "hog and "joke" were used by the OP, call it a lesson learned, and drop that particular subject altogether because outside of that there's the potential for a value-added discussion here.  I don't want to have to lock this down if that subject escalates as its headed.

And if you have an issue with someone's airline name, there's a reporting mechanism within the game to report it.  Outside of the initial creation there's, literally, nothing that can be done until a report is issued by someone into the system.

[Kadachiman]

Personally I don't know one plane from another...most look the same to me except some have props and the rest are small, big or bigger planes :-)
Therefore if I am incorrectly using planes that do not suit a route in real life, sorry but I am only playing a game.
I look at the demand, the distance, the money I have and go search for a plane to suit while keeping an eye on fleet types, etc so that my costs don't go up (something I have only found out by playing this game as I would not have thought about that previously).

When I started playing I leased Yaks, because they looked cool, fuel usage didn't mean anything to me...lesson # 1
I then leased planes because there were plenty of the same type ....lesson # 2
and unfortunately the list goes on and on :-(

The point being that some of us buy tickets to get from A to B and the type of plane doesn't mean anything.....the ticket price, service, and hostesses mean a lot more :-)

But I do enjoy games that involve strategy and this game has it in spades...so if the game allows me to fly a 20 seater plane 5000nM and I can still turn a very good profit so that I could expand then I would do it.....just can't find that plane on the market yet though.

Regards Darryl

[EYguy]

I just would like to point out that BA flies twice a day from LCY to JFK with an A319 configured in an all business class set up. So I would say that it is not impossible to fly an A321-200 across the pond!

Btw, I reckon that this issue about frequency should be analized quite in depth because operating a/c of the A318 category is the exception, not the rule, when talking about crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
Even what Lemonbutt said is correct, but rather tha using premium seats, it is a matter of legroom, IFE and on board service which cannot be categorized under the "premium seating" consideration...

Btw, if Jona and Curse have argued, please guys, keep it in a private conversation. The forum is getting more and more like a kindergarten!

[Dave4468]

Personally I don't know one plane from another...most look the same to me except some have props and the rest are small, big or bigger planes :-)
Therefore if I am incorrectly using planes that do not suit a route in real life, sorry but I am only playing a game.
I look at the demand, the distance, the money I have and go search for a plane to suit while keeping an eye on fleet types, etc so that my costs don't go up (something I have only found out by playing this game as I would not have thought about that previously).

When I started playing I leased Yaks, because they looked cool, fuel usage didn't mean anything to me...lesson # 1
I then leased planes because there were plenty of the same type ....lesson # 2
and unfortunately the list goes on and on :-(

The point being that some of us buy tickets to get from A to B and the type of plane doesn't mean anything.....the ticket price, service, and hostesses mean a lot more :-)

But I do enjoy games that involve strategy and this game has it in spades...so if the game allows me to fly a 20 seater plane 5000nM and I can still turn a very good profit so that I could expand then I would do it.....just can't find that plane on the market yet though.

Regards Darryl

You are the perfect example of why I would watch out for moving AWS to hyper-realism. We could also introduce funded pilot training, fines for passenger refused entry to their destination nations, ETOPS and all the rest but it would get rid of a lot of people.

Rather than adding more and more anal features as Frogiton has said passengers need to be more detail and be affected more by a lot more factors rather than just frequency.

[Jona L.]

I just would like to point out that BA flies twice a day from LCY to JFK with an A319 configured in an all business class set up. So I would say that it is not impossible to fly an A321-200 across the pond!

Btw, I reckon that this issue about frequency should be analized quite in depth because operating a/c of the A318 category is the exception, not the rule, when talking about crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
Even what Lemonbutt said is correct, but rather tha using premium seats, it is a matter of legroom, IFE and on board service which cannot be categorized under the "premium seating" consideration...

Btw, if Jona and Curse have argued, please guys, keep it in a private conversation. The forum is getting more and more like a kindergarten!

Curse never said a word here.
Kindergarten? I doubt that kindergarten children write such long essays

It is indeed right, that the A318 goes LCY-JFK via Shannon and return is nonstop, but the demand is by far lower than LHR-JFK, thus I never said anything about it.

The thing with CDG is, that also IRL there are plenty of slots available, thus they don't limit anything. IRL BAA, the operator of LHR and some other airports in UK, requires that for these flights a certain size of plane is required, which CDG maybe doesn't.

@Kadachiman: This is actually supposed to be a simulation, which is not the same as a game, though they all make fun
I am neither talking of passenger preferences than of airline usage of certain planes. I know most people don't look at the a/c type, though I make the educated guess, that those are a minority on these forums.

@ Sigma: I used strong words with the intention to create more and stronger response. I see the wind here is blowing from a different side than the one I expected. I am sorry if this topic goes another way than you wish (I do notice this touch in the topic as well). I apologize for my aggression in the reply to "Boch".

@Sanabas:

I used the word "improper" in response to your question what I would consider as such, and not use as a code for anything.
I am not saying these planes shouldn't fly that range, or not trans-Atlantic*, just use them on routes that fit their size better (e.g. LHR - Halifax is demand for a 738 or 739ER).
[* I might have used unclear words, what I do mean is high demand roues between major airports, flying from secondary airports (e.g. STN) into US-airports where your demand is about 150-200 you can surely use those.]

I indeed have strong objections against EMB195 on high demand routes in such distances. I suggest 757 or 767 sized aircraft on such a route (or larger).

About the airline ops:
Some airlines like Southwest or Ryanair don't do long haul operations, but these two examples run the wholly different business model LCC.
MOST (not all) big airlines such as BA, AF or LH use long haul to finance the domestic hops, as these usually are less revenue bringing. Airlines like "Contact Air" or "Mesa airlines" run contract services for big airlines, providing regional service for the big airlines, while operating profitable as bigger airlines can finance these contracts thanks to LH income. This is highly different in the US where most revenue is generated on the HUB to HUB flights and the Airport - HUB legs are financed by the HUB-HUB flights. These regional services are mandatory though, as they provide some of the high-paying pax for longer routes.

You misunderstood the part about the ATRs a bit though. What I meant was that the frequency cap (number of flights/day at which a further flight is no more bonus) is so high, that you can run ATRs on that route without reaching the limit. Even if the route is a 4000NM route the limit can never be reached.


About the etiquette:
The player came across trying to explain this forums to me, while I chose the location for this topic on purpose as there are enough feature requests about slots, aircraft, ETOPS, IFE, etc. thus no further are needed. Anyhow, as said above I apologized for my strong words against him.
Furthemord I didn't see it as a reminder to calm down but as a try to bring this discussion in another direction, and to provocate by the arrogance of the one feeling superior.

cheers,
Jona L.

[Sanabas]

I used the word "improper" in response to your question what I would consider as such, and not use as a code for anything.

But it seems like you call it improper simply because you, personally, don't like the idea of high demand routes not being flown by the biggest planes available. Because you don't like the fact that your competitor is using an effective business model that you don't like.

I indeed have strong objections against EMB195 on high demand routes in such distances. I suggest 757 or 767 sized aircraft on such a route (or larger).

And yet it does actually happen IRL. Again, if the plane is well designed enough to be that flexible, why shouldn't an airline take advantage of that? If an a32x is an effective aircraft for one 3000 nm route, I don't see why it's not also an effective aircraft for another 3000 nm route, just because that 2nd route is busier. It's just as fast as an a34x/77x, it's just as comfortable, it seems like the main objection is an aesthetic one.

You misunderstood the part about the ATRs a bit though. What I meant was that the frequency cap (number of flights/day at which a further flight is no more bonus) is so high, that you can run ATRs on that route without reaching the limit. Even if the route is a 4000NM route the limit can never be reached.

That's wrong though. You seem to be confusing the number of flights you can have without interval penalties with the number of flights that will still give you a frequency bonus. Before I quit MT5, I was flying Q400s/CRJs from Sydney to Melbourne. I had flights leaving every 10 minutes, with no penalty for short intervals. That allows ~100 flights/day, but I was certainly not getting more bonuses from added frequency with my ~40 flights/day. The cap is not as high as it was prior to 1.3, and certainly appears reachable. I still think the frequency system could be done better, I outlined the basics of how I'd do it in my last post. I could happily design a more in-depth version.

[Jona L.]

But it seems like you call it improper simply because you, personally, don't like the idea of high demand routes not being flown by the biggest planes available. Because you don't like the fact that your competitor is using an effective business model that you don't like.

And yet it does actually happen IRL. Again, if the plane is well designed enough to be that flexible, why shouldn't an airline take advantage of that? If an a32x is an effective aircraft for one 3000 nm route, I don't see why it's not also an effective aircraft for another 3000 nm route, just because that 2nd route is busier. It's just as fast as an a34x/77x, it's just as comfortable, it seems like the main objection is an aesthetic one.

That's wrong though. You seem to be confusing the number of flights you can have without interval penalties with the number of flights that will still give you a frequency bonus. Before I quit MT5, I was flying Q400s/CRJs from
Sydney to Melbourne. I had flights leaving every 10 minutes, with no penalty for short intervals. That allows ~100 flights/day, but I was certainly not getting more bonuses from added frequency with my ~40 flights/day. The cap is not as high as it was prior to 1.3, and certainly appears reachable. I still think the frequency system could be done better, I outlined the basics of how I'd do it in my last post. I could happily design a more in-depth version.

I am sorry, if that lead to some misunderstatement but I can asure you, that it was used as I said, and not implying anything.


A320family is neither as fast (.79 vs. .82 on A330/40, and .85 on B777, additionally A320 uses a lower flight level resulting in an even lower GS), nor is it as comfortable, headspace, overhead storage and seating width are a lot smaller then on widebodies; also flying characteristics of A320 are less stable than the heavier (thus harder to influence) widebodies, resulting in less comfort.

I don't say they shouldn't take advantage but I do say that it is unrealistic to fly them on those highest demand routes you can find in these ranges. (as said in previous post)

As I use decent sized planes I seem never to reach the limits, nor does my competition seem to do so, thus I can only conjecture that it is so high, that it is not reachable.

cheers,
Jona L.

[malus]

Personally I don't know one plane from another...most look the same to me except some have props and the rest are small, big or bigger planes :-)
Therefore if I am incorrectly using planes that do not suit a route in real life, sorry but I am only playing a game.
I look at the demand, the distance, the money I have and go search for a plane to suit while keeping an eye on fleet types, etc so that my costs don't go up (something I have only found out by playing this game as I would not have thought about that previously).

I think this goes to the heart of Jona's argument and that of alot of others - it's how we view this game. Some of us take it quite serious, and play it like a "Real Life Simulation". Others play it more as a "Game". No one is right or wrong and really it's both, and has to be. The game would be a whole lot less exciting i'm sure if one wasn't able to be sustainably able to fly from Auckland to Cancun (must be lots of Rugby fans there). In the absence however of a passenger model that will stop "improper" use of aircraft, there's nothing wrong with playing the game in the way it allows it, regardless of whether someone likes it or not. If your business model is strong enough to compete against someone that does that, then more power to you. Personally I like the realism, and am very particular about which aircraft grace my fleet, and usually in an emotional rather than rational sense.

If passengers don't mind tech stops interrupting their sleeps on the red eyes and being cramped, then that's the reality of this world...

[sleak76]

It appears this all roots back to how one wins through frequency. 

For instance, I am now losing market share to someone flying Saabs 600nm.

Perhaps there should be a max number of flights between A and B where the number is decided by a scale (and there's a different scale for int'l flights)...  If under X nm distance then Y A/C.   

That is exactly the reason I have gone to A321 over the atlantic.

If this game favors frequency more than capacity, then I had no choice but to dump 321's to routes of 3,000nm and less.

I like the earlier game versions where capacity did have an impact on results of MS. Since this game doesnt, then what other options does one have to survive?

[tm07x]

But it seems like you call it improper simply because you, personally, don't like the idea of high demand routes not being flown by the biggest planes available. Because you don't like the fact that your competitor is using an effective business model that you don't like.

So what? The guy has a solid argument. He might not understand or know all the underlying causes and reasons to why a 320 family AC or a 737 family AC is NOT suited for IRL transatlantic operations but he gets the basics of it and his point is spot on.

There are several real life reasons to why flying transatlantic with a 321/320 series doesn't make any sense.
One in particular is, 320 and 321 are NOT ETOPS rated. 319ACJ/LR are however.

I agree with many of you that introducing too many realistic features will drive away many players. But ETOPS are ETOPS. A very important and a very real issue. Comparable to range of an AC. Either it can make it or it can't.

That being said, Airlines with 10 different fleets can still survive because they have so many of each type that MX cost doesn't really matter anymore. You might need more than 2-3 types to accomodate the business model suggested by OP.

If your main fleet is based on A320s for domestic, Q400 for short-haul and 757s for lower demand international routes, you'd be s*** out of luck if you wanted to add a fleet of 5-8 330s. In REAL life the added MX cost for the 3rd and 4th type wouldn't be such a big difference. It might give you an added training cost for all mx personel, and many mechanics are checked out to work on more than one type of AC.

My point is, you don't need to add a bunch of rules to make the game more realistic. Rather remove a few, such as the commonality punishment.

Then you could fly whatever type you want....

[Sanabas]

So what? The guy has a solid argument. He might not understand or know all the underlying causes and reasons to why a 320 family AC or a 737 family AC is NOT suited for IRL transatlantic operations but he gets the basics of it and his point is spot on.

There are several real life reasons to why flying transatlantic with a 321/320 series doesn't make any sense.
One in particular is, 320 and 321 are NOT ETOPS rated. 319ACJ/LR are however.

I agree with many of you that introducing too many realistic features will drive away many players. But ETOPS are ETOPS. A very important and a very real issue. Comparable to range of an AC. Either it can make it or it can't.

Personally, I couldn't give a rats about ETOPS, it's an acronym I first heard maybe a month ago. Interesting for RL, not so much for this game for me. From a gameplay/programming perspective, having the route planner need to create & measure zigzag paths based on ETOPS ranges rather than simple great circle routes which can be automatically calculated from an airport's co-ordinates seems like a lot of hassle for very little benefit. Paticularly when there's much more benefit to be had from 4 other big gameplay/programming challenges (cargo/freq bonus/connecting pax/city based demand). From a factual perspective, a quick bit of research says that a320s DO have an ETOPS 120 rating, and can do LHR-NE USA on a great circle route if an airline wants to use them for that.

Adding ETOPS won't even be a band-aid solution for the issues with frequency bonuses & tech stops being irrelevant. It will cause significantly more hassle. To fix frequency issues, it needs to be done via a change to the game mechanics for filling demand. That is something I'd like to see.

My point is, you don't need to add a bunch of rules to make the game more realistic.

I agree, and I think ETOPS is one of those rules that doesn't need adding.

[tm07x]

I totally agree with you. I'm just stating facts here. Point is, the A321 can't make a trans-cont flight with normally expected payloads. At maximum payload, the range of a 321-200 is aprox. around 2400nm. Fwiw max range and ETOPS don't always correlate. Doesn't matter if you can meet etops and don't have the range to get to your destination if there is some head-wind. Thus isn't the A321 a realistic plane for transatlantic operations.

Now, like I said, I agree with you, enforcing more rules isn't the way to go here. Even enforcing an ETOPS rule or code doesn't bring any solution to the problem. There are too many un-real life like scenarios in this game to ever make it real. In what world do 300 or 600 airlines start operations on the same day?

Unfortunately, and this is my opinion only, this game doesn't offer enough options for different strategies, which would make the game more enjoyable (I believe) for more players.


If there were fewer and more clear cut rules that were easy to understand, the strategy would make a difference from the get go.

IMO there should be no base limitation, I do think a type limitation based on # of AC is healthy. No airline can operate with 10 different planes having one of each. It mimics real life in a good way and makes you pick a strategy, you can go for long hauls, regional or whatever type airline you want. and potentially become the biggest regional airline in the game. if that's what your strategy is.

Or running an LLC, where price becomes more important than seat comfort and what not. At the end of the day, demand is based on price and price alone. If flying was free everybody would fly, people fly with airlines that offer lower cost but don't offer the same service or quality.

removing the used marked entirely would also be more beneficial, because right now people who F5 and spend ungodly amounts of time monitoring the used market get rewarded significantly. it's redundant, unfair and so far away from real life as you get.
in reality any airline in the world can get their hands on any used equipment they want.

bottom line, I believe in a system made for different strategies and types of operation vs strangling us players with more rules.
this is still an MMO and people should get rewarded for knowing how to play, not how actively they press F5 or take advantage of the code and game engine.