Monopoly on route?

[Zombie Slayer]

Agreed, Dan.

Adjusting the 200% rule is one thing, but if I operate a route with just 1 daily departure, the is no reason the 200% rule should come into effect as there is NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE to be gained, in any way, on that 1 flight. If someone else opens on the same route, we are still splitting passengers.

I have an example. I am operating LIRF/FCO to EDSB/FKB with a daily demand if 90. I have a 737-800 on the route, oversupplying just 1 day by 200% (Saturday, 80 demand, 162 seats supplied). The route is profitable ($10,000 per day, each direction) yet it is illegal. To say I can not operate that route is down right STUPID.

I have no problem with changes to the game, but to make a change like this mid game is a slap in the face to paying customers. Implement this for future games only if this is how you want the rule to work, don't tell me that a route that was legal yesterday is not legal today. Also, DON'T TELL ME IT IS A BUG as routes with 1 daily flight were excluded from the 200% rule intentionally. I know this for a fact because I contacted you myself and pushed for routes that could not support more than 1 daily departure to be excluded for the rule and you agreed. This was during the 2010/2011 version of ATB and PacAir was operating E70's to destinations with 20-40 demand from Guam that were profitable thanks to cheap labor.

Sorry for the rant, changes like this really get under my skin. A hard cap on the 200% rule = very good (but should be implemented in  future worlds only), doing away with the rule that allowed oversupplied routes with 1 daily flight to be exempt = very bad.

Don

[ARASKA]

Sure Sami, I'll have 10 fleet types to serve all of the demand from my base and use tech stops also. The rule is ridiculous.

[swiftus27]

I agree the 1x per day rule should be re-implemented.  

If the sim exists where supplying 300x demand by 1 flight is profitable, then you have a problem with your model and not the player.

You also can't change this mid-game.  This messes with many people's 7 day schedules and they often cant find flights to fill the void.

[NorgeFly]

I don't often complain about changes to AWS as I can see the reasons behind them. But this change is really annoying me. It renders many routes unserviceable.

[RushmoreAir]

I don't often complain about changes to AWS as I can see the reasons behind them. But this change is really annoying me. It renders many routes unserviceable.

+1

Changing a key rule (which severely hampers some players' strategies) in the middle of a game AND shortening their time to respond to it in one fell swoop is just WRONG.

[TranceAvia]

+1

Changing a key rule (which severely hampers some players' strategies) in the middle of a game AND shortening their time to respond to it in one fell swoop is just WRONG.

amen!

/Please sort it out Sami

[Sami]

I have an example. I am operating LIRF/FCO to EDSB/FKB with a daily demand if 90. I have a 737-800 on the route, oversupplying just 1 day by 200% (Saturday, 80 demand, 162 seats supplied). The route is profitable ($10,000 per day, each direction) yet it is illegal. To say I can not operate that route is down right STUPID.

The warning does not trigger in that case, it's not exact 200% but a tad above to avoid these nuisances.


edit: Also changed it so that the rule checker is not valid if you fly to a destination only 3 times or less a week. It cannot be changed back to 7 times or less (1x weekly) since I have looked the data before the change, and there were a considerable number of cases where two(or more) airlines flew a route and a single airline flying 7x week was still oversupplying the route, and hence being in violation of the rules and making the life harder for the competition playing by the rules. (since he had weekly freq of 7 or more the automation did not pick it up and warn him)

edit #2: And also have to remind that the automation does not, still - like previously, also check on the very small routes if both seat demand and supply are within certain limits (= you cannot but 500 seats on a 10pax route still). I adjusted a few of those numbers so you may have gotten a warning that you can ignore. The system does NOW send a message too when the warning is no longer valid!



(added a bit more text, and fixed an essential typo; not -> now ...)

[ARASKA]

The warning does not trigger in that case, it's not exact 200% but a tad above to avoid these nuisances.

Well the MT demand has risen so at one point, it was illegal to fly this route. The rule is absolutely stupid sami.

[stansu]

Thanks sami, the removed warning made it much more reasonable now.

Can't speak for everyone, but in many case people schedule a 200%-demand flight just to earn a little income on route no one is using to earn a little more money before the a/c parks for the night. For example, my a/c returns to base at 1800, and if I can squeeze in a short low-demand flight in that would help even if LF is 40% only. From the RP point of view to serve a un-serviced the small airports, it seems to be the right thing to do for corporate to help the small-town residence getting around too.

I have several ideas:
* Can you publish the exact formula or criteria? Is it the weekly average demand, or does it look at each day? what is the threshold? It would be frustrating if I schedule a route, paying the slot fee, and then realize it just misses the 200% cut-off.
* Other than the system message, is this warning available in Route notification view? It would be very useful.
* Could you consider triggering the rule only if there are indeed competition? (As soon as a second airline schedules a route, the warning would trigger. Otherwise it doesn't.)

[Sami]

 - looks each day individually (ref. Manual). Warning threshold is a bit above the 200% of the true demand of that day,

- route area warning was just added (in the individual route detail view page, or "route information").

- the warning when only competition is not possible, as large oversupply on a route is effectively also blocking competition, and this is why part of the rules were adjusted. The supply rule is always valid.


Also, another small change, or new feature even actually: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg242859.html#msg242859

[madflava13]

I adjusted the configurations of my aircraft on my (newly) oversupplied routes - this cost me a decent amount of money. I looked and should now be either at the 200% limit or under it in all cases (including returns), yet there is still a yellow warning box when I view these routes. I am concerned these routes will be canceled on me...

[Mr.HP]

Also, another small change, or new feature even actually: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg242859.html#msg242859

Hi sami,

Good feature that we don't have to configure A/C to have less seats

However, could you please make the restriction manually input on both legs (go and return) independently? I have routes with the demand going much greater than the demand returning (70 vs 20)

Thanks

[Talentz]

I guess I must have been the only person not effect by this change?....

Hmmm...



Talentz

[brique]

I guess I must have been the only person not effect by this change?....

Hmmm...



Talentz

me too, quite annoying... I feel left out... 

[stevecree]

I have airlines in 3 worlds, including nearly 800 a/c in MT7, yet only got 1 single warning from all of those worlds which sorted itself out without action.   I did get a couple of PM's last night from very unhappy players that were severely affected and they were thinking of BK'ing !   Hope the improvement in the system last night keeps these players playing as if not we're losing regular players which I am sure was not Sami's aim.    My personal view as always is there are too many restrictions, although I do strictly play within these restrictions.  I would absolutely love a restriction free game for those who wanted a cut throat world - but even in this type of world you would still be foolish to supply near or above 200% demand as it may quash competition but would hurt your own airline just as much !