Unfair competition, breaking the rules and no actions from administration...

[lilius]

If you don't want competition, go to Vanuatu, not Amsterdam.


Just my two cents..

I have to disagree here. Its the bigger airlines that are the ones which are AGAINST competition and smothers every effort that a new airline makes. It wont matter if you are the best player in AWS history and LOVE competition if the other airline puts the double capacity and cuts the fares to all your new destinations. It bothers me when established players leans back and does this and then puts themselves in the excellent business manager category when they in reality are just panicking when they see that the "n00bs" are reaching a 30 aircraft fleet.

This is the complete opposite of competition.

If the new players opening up in Amsterdam are so awful, why the need of destroying every effort they make to get bigger? They will BK eventually anyway right?

Those are my tio öre...

[Jona L.]

I have to disagree here. Its the bigger airlines that are the ones which are AGAINST competition and smothers every effort that a new airline makes. It wont matter if you are the best player in AWS history and LOVE competition if the other airline puts the double capacity and cuts the fares to all your new destinations. It bothers me when established players leans back and does this and then puts themselves in the excellent business manager category when they in reality are just panicking when they see that the "n00bs" are reaching a 30 aircraft fleet.

This is the complete opposite of competition.

If the new players opening up in Amsterdam are so awful, why the need of destroying every effort they make to get bigger? They will BK eventually anyway right?

Those are my tio öre...

Well, if the player goes to Amsterdam, because he wants competition, there is no reason to then complain about the competition...

[Infinity]

Rarely have I ever seen such a pathetic action and even more so reaction on both sides. Bravo!

[alexgv1]

Best thread ever all thanks to the "push button to BK"-reaction and the "Happy now?"-comments 

Wholeheartedly agree! 

[Jona L.]

Rarely have I ever seen such a pathetic action and even more so reaction on both sides. Bravo!

This is the greatest fun-thread in years on this forums

[lilius]

Well, if the player goes to Amsterdam, because he wants competition, there is no reason to then complain about the competition...

Of course not, and its rare that it happens too. The difference is that I wouldnt call it competition or competing when all you do is to follow up every route of the tiny airline and cutting fares.

Im saying that the big airlines are usually the ones that are afraid of competition and thats why I find posts about "competition" ironic...

[alexgv1]

Im saying that the big airlines are usually the ones that are afraid of competition and thats why I find posts about "competition" ironic...

It's easy to be a "big boy" in a sandbox.

Once again Dutch Airlines is in AMS.

(Or is it Delta... LOL) 

[pascaly]

Massive over-reaction from both sides I feel.  The game is about competition. Really? Another airline opened routes on an available route? *shock horror*

PM the player involved, don't run crying because you chose a Top 5 (?) airport and found that someone was already there.

What's next here? Every player gets there own game world so they don't feel "targetted" by the other players in this MMO?

[andriitis]

If you don't want competition, go to Vanuatu, not Amsterdam.


Just my two cents..

There's only space for one airline in Vanuatu - and that is mine!

[Josua]

I started a year or so late.  Spend hours going through all big airports to get the largest possible airport with no airline based at the airport.  Started carefully building capacity on empty routes till I was strong enough to compete on already established routes.  My airport pax numbers stated growing based on the masive amount of money I spend on marketing.  Then a new airline popped into MY airport and started adding aircraft to MY profitable routes .  Driving my profitability down like you can not believe.  I am sorry, even if he complain to sami et al.  I will try and work him out of my carefully selected airport and out of my previously profitable routes.  It is not economically viable to have his airline at my airport.  It is killing my airline.  I will ensure all profitable routes are covered at max capacity.  That my fares are a bit lower.  That marketing is loaded on the routes we fly.  That is the game.  And the message to all: If you don't like it.  Go play solitaire .

[exchlbg]

The difference between fair and unfair competition is not 100% definable.
A new airline starting at a competitive airport should not be safe even if it´s small, when it is breaking into routes
which are fitting into a company pattern of an already existing airline.
It should not be attacked if it starts a business model not yet cared of (like low demand short haul).
Just starting to fly some coincidental routes yet unserved but fitting into existing business model should not leave you unattacked (in a reasonable way, of course).

[[SC] - King Kong]

So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?

Talk about free market economy.....

Nah, competition is part of the deal

[exchlbg]

If you would have opened those routes in near future anyway,because they fit into your business profile, I think it´s ok.
If it´s just to BK the other one or meaningless seat/price dumping I think it´s not.

[schro]

So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?

Talk about free market economy.....

Nah, competition is part of the deal

Generally, I would say yes, especially if you have other routes available for those airplanes that have unmet demand. The fact that you  happened to chose the 4 that your new competitor opened up would appear to have the intent of squashing before they got off the ground.  Brand new airlines are at such a significant disadvantage to startup airlines that the single move of doing that would put them out of business.

When I'm the incumbant airline at a base, I will generally try to avoid new routes started by these small airlines in order to give them a chance at succeeding. I'll focus my efforts on finding all other unmet demand from the base so I can cover it before they can get to it (and this is also the best way to prevent new airlines from even wanting to start in your base).  If you already have demand in your base covered with your flying, then there's really no extra action you have to take to bump off the newcomer airlines.

[Captain Ted]

Most airlines started out at smaller airports and grew into larger airlines operating at larger airports.  When you have a few large airports receiving the bulk of new start up airlines it seems a bit unreal.  Why not limit the number of airlines that can operate at any airport for a predetermined number of months or years.  Let the amount of airlines that can be based at each airport increase as more slots become available as well as increase in passenger traffic.  Just my thoughts.

[pascaly]

So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?

Talk about free market economy.....

Nah, competition is part of the deal

Well said. This isn't kindergarten where "we're all winners!"

[Sigma]

Well said. This isn't kindergarten where "we're all winners!"

No, but it is a business, and sami has no desire to have all new players chased off because everytime they start up, no matter where it is, someone slams 10 planes onto their routes at $10/seat in order to immediately bankrupt them.  There's a huge difference between "we're all winners!" and "everyone except the 100 players who've played the longest are losers!".  There's a big difference between "competition" and "killing off a newb" -- and you're just fooling yourself if you think running off a new entrant into your base requires some sort of elite business savvy that makes you a better player.

It's all a byproduct of the same thing that gives us base limits, aircraft limits, pricing effects (or lack thereof - somewhat tweaked now), and other things that all exist to keep a handful of players who know how to play the game from 'gaming the game' and dominating the game world.  "Winning" at AWS isn't nearly as much about being the best "airline CEO" as it is about knowing how to 'game the game' the best; something older players will always have better experience with.  Business savvy and great marketing -- the real hallmarks of making a business successful and winning against the competition and the things that make little guys succeed against big ones in the real world -- aren't gonna get you diddily-squat in AWS.

The rules are the rules.  They're not new, so there's no reason to get all up in arms about them now.  The rules against targetting players have existed for years now.

And, frankly, this is more realistic than not.  Almost every western nation has very stringent regulations regarding air carriers even in "deregulated" environments; there are monopoly regulations, and countless laws/rules/regulations regarding fair business behavior.  That's what keeps every airline out there from running all the new entrants in the airline industry over the past 20 years out of business in the first few months doing exactly the same thing.  We can't possibly simulate that all here so it's left up to the administration to decide what is considered unfair, really no different than the regulatory or judicial bodies that would determine if such things occurred in reality.  It's a rare complaint, and even rarer that something comes out of it, so there's really no reason to be upset about it.

[Sigma]

Most airlines started out at smaller airports and grew into larger airlines operating at larger airports.  When you have a few large airports receiving the bulk of new start up airlines it seems a bit unreal.  Why not limit the number of airlines that can operate at any airport for a predetermined number of months or years.  Let the amount of airlines that can be based at each airport increase as more slots become available as well as increase in passenger traffic.  Just my thoughts.

This already exists.  It's not a hard-coded limit, but if you start somewhere with a sufficient number of players already there, the game will warn you that you should choose someplace else.

That doesn't apply if you're starting a new airline at a major airport that only 1 or 2 airlines presently exist at.  You won't get a warning.  You can check to see slot availability, but it won't warn you not to start there because the guy is too big for you to compete against.  Otherwise you'd never be able to start at any of the larger hubs after the first couple game-days due to their headstart.

[swiftus27]

Well said. This isn't kindergarten where "we're all winners!"

[lilius]

So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?

Talk about free market economy.....

Nah, competition is part of the deal

Oh come on that is neither "free market" or "competition". Its just excessively defensive and boring in a multiplayer game environment.