Dawn of the Millennium #3

[vitongwangki]

Smaller airlines at smaller airports already are subject to (what is for them) total competition with 100 aircraft.

And now, 50% more planes comes in. I don't know how to say they have no difference between.

[slither360]

In some ways, I agree with you JumboShrimp.

However, what you are not accounting for is the frequency bonus. Airlines at midsize airports which could hold on against 100 mainline planes will crash when fighting E190s, Q400s, and 737s tech stopping across the atlantic.

[JumboShrimp]

And now, 50% more planes comes in. I don't know how to say they have no difference between.

If you have a small to mid size airport that can support less than 100 aircraft, ability to base more than 100 aircraft will make no difference.

So the argument that this change would affect smaller airlines at smaller airprots makes absolutely no sense.

This change would affect large airports and players with large number of aircraft based at these large airports.

[slither360]

If you have a small to mid size airport that can support less than 100 aircraft, ability to base more than 100 aircraft will make no difference.

So the argument that this change would affect smaller airlines at smaller airprots makes absolutely no sense.

This change would affect large airports and players with large number of aircraft based at these large airports.

Lets say hypothetical airport A can support 100 mainline jets.

The airline HQed there can stay alive against 100 mainline jets from another airline based there.

They cannot stay alive against 200 RJs and Props.

That is the issue I am worried about.

Of course, there is a good chance that I'm completely wrong. 

[vitongwangki]

If you have a small to mid size airport that can support less than 100 aircraft, ability to base more than 100 aircraft will make no difference.

So the argument that this change would affect smaller airlines at smaller airprots makes absolutely no sense.

This change would affect large airports and players with large number of aircraft based at these large airports.

You assume smaller airlines at smaller airports has only 100 planes to house, but this assumption is completely wrong in airports can house from 100 - 300. If you can use <100 as the argument, then the limitation can lift upto 400. I am not going to twist your word but logically, this makes no difference from your argument either.

[JumboShrimp]

However, what you are not accounting for is the frequency bonus. Airlines at midsize airports which could hold on against 100 mainline planes will crash when fighting E190s, Q400s, and 737s tech stopping across the atlantic.

That's a separate issue.  The frequency bonus needs to be addressed, and the best proposal on that is Jona's proposal, in my opinion.

Jona's proposal is that the frequency bonus be changed so that "appropriate" aircraft size for a given distance could not be overwhelemd by smaller, less appropriate aircraft for the distance.  He has different distances and sizes, but if you take just one example, say > 3000nm, the appropriate aircraft would be a 300 seat aircraft.  So if airline A flies 1x300 and airline B flies 2x150, airline B would get credit for only 1x300, not 2x150.

[JumboShrimp]

Lets say hypothetical airport A can support 100 mainline jets.

The airline HQed there can stay alive against 100 mainline jets from another airline based there.

They cannot stay alive against 200 RJs and Props.

That is the issue I am worried about.

Of course, there is a good chance that I'm completely wrong. 

The same issue would be the case if both airlines are HQd at the same airport.  So it is not basing issue, it is frequency issue.

[slither360]

That's a separate issue.  The frequency bonus needs to be addressed, and the best proposal on that is Jona's proposal, in my opinion.

Jona's proposal is that the frequency bonus be changed so that "appropriate" aircraft size for a given distance could not be overwhelemd by smaller, less appropriate aircraft for the distance.  He has different distances and sizes, but if you take just one example, say > 3000nm, the appropriate aircraft would be a 300 seat aircraft.  So if airline A flies 1x300 and airline B flies 2x150, airline B would get credit for only 1x300, not 2x150.

I like Sanabas' proposal better, but I understand and would welcome Jona's as well...

Regardless, I think everyone agrees that frequency needs to be fixed. However, until frequency does get fixed, I don't know if I should support changes that make it easier to dump frequency on routes. Allowing more planes at a base certainly would enable more frequency dumping, which is why I'm not too excited about the prospect.

That said, once frequency and other competition related problems (mostly having to do with pax allocation) get fixed, I would happily support unlimited aircraft at bases.

[slither360]

The same issue would be the case if both airlines are HQd at the same airport.  So it is not basing issue, it is frequency issue.

This is true.

But if another airline was HQed at the airport, they can't dump many planes at once on routes. I can tell you that if I was HQed at Airport A, I would notice very quickly if my competitor started using smaller, frequency driven planes. By the time my competitor would have enough planes to gain significant marketshare, I would have the opportunity to make my own moves to try to counter this move.

Compared to an airline based at another big airport, shows up, dumps 150 E-jets onto my base, and I'm dead before I even start to counter.

(I realize this example was extreme)

[JumboShrimp]

You assume smaller airlines at smaller airports has only 100 planes to house, but this assumption is completely wrong in airports can house from 100 - 300. If you can use <100 as the argument, then the limitation can lift upto 400. I am not going to twist your word but logically, this makes no difference from your argument either.

Well, that's my point.  Any increase in basing limit (or removing the limits completely) would not affect airports that support < 100 aircraft.  Only airports that support > 100 aircraft.

This would level the playing field between small and large airlines  (and airports).  The large airlines are "protected" by the 100 aircraft limit, small airlines don't have any protection.  Removing the limit would make both airines subject to competition.

[Monk Xion]

Well, that's my point.  Any increase in basing limit (or removing the limits completely) would not affect airports that support < 100 aircraft.  Only airports that support > 100 aircraft.

This would level the playing field between small and large airlines  (and airports).  The large airlines are "protected" by the 100 aircraft limit, small airlines don't have any protection.  Removing the limit would make both airines subject to competition.

I disagree. We already have had a lot of changes that have made the game harder to play for the little guy IMO. I have always tried making a smaller airline and always have a bigger one crush me.

Let just all have fun and enjoy the game with out making it super complicated

[Sami]

Guys, this is completely the wrong forum and thread for this discussion. So far no changes are planned in v.1.3 games to bases.

[Miller11]

You clearly misunderstand the larger pircture (or pretend to).

The change to increase the limit of aircraft at a base would have no effect on smaller airlines in smaller airports.  The change is intended to add more competition to larger airlines at larger airports.

Smaller airlines at smaller airports already are subject to (what is for them) total competition with 100 aircraft.

For larger airlines at larger airports, 100 aircraft is no competition at all.

+1 also same at medium size too

[wtdawg]

Guys, this is completely the wrong forum and thread for this discussion. So far no changes are planned in v.1.3 games to bases.

In all of that Sami, you missed the question about timing of the super long game.  I'm interested too!