[ok] Stations (Mini-bases)

[Infinity]

This request is a spin-off/amendment/whatever of previous feature requests, with some notable differences.

It would work with the current basing feature and would probably be exceedingly easy to integrate.

Opening a station would in my idea work in the same manner as opening a base does today, but:

• It has a much lower plane limit than a base does (5? 10?)
• It adds a lot less overhead/staff cost than a base does, to be financially viable (better scalability with low plane numbers)
• It has no (or a very generous) numerical restrictions (like the maximum of 3 bases today), but retains the current country limitations bases have
• Open the possibility to upgauge a station to a fully fledged base

This would add a lot of depth to the game with (I imagine) very little effort:

• Open up more business models than are currently available. Currently, players are kind of 'forced' into the 'Fortress Hub'-Model. Adding this simple little feature would make it possible for players to operate more along the lines of Southwest/Ryanair style LCCs or even an airline like Pan Am
• Make smaller airports a lot more interesting to players, thus potentially adding competition on routes that would otherwise remain served from one terminus only. Right now, few players will open bases at airports they know won't support 100 aircraft or close to that number. This feature would alleviate that.
• Enhance the playability of small and medium sized countries. For example, Pakistan or New Zealand will possibly become quite boring after the largest cities are served. This would open up the smaller cities to the players there as well, beyond the current basing limits.

The only difficulty I see is how it would work in conjunction with bases. An airline that already has 3 bases should maybe not be particularly encouraged to open a ton of stations as well.

What do you guys think?

[dmoose42]

Reducing (eliminating?) the basing restrictions is always a good idea in my book...

[brique]

I do like this idea, it would resolve basing difficulties in many smaller countries, like my beloved PNG, which have useful traffic between smaller airports, but never enough to justify the massive back-office cost of opening a full base. Even opening a full base in the next largest airport becomes a revenue-neutral exercise : more costs, more turnover but no extra profit.

Perhaps we could utilise the existing airport classifications : so, Class 1/2 need a full-on base with all the current restrictions in place then class 3 and lower can have a 'station', with the assumption all back-office/heavy maint/etc is done at the HQ so only needing bare-bones staffing levels on-site.

gets my vote.

edit : on reflection, I can also see other advantages for this notion : it offers an alternative to the classic 'hub-and-spoke' feeder model with a more 'nodal' system, one which would have real possibilities once the new dynamic demand model is in place.

[Infinity]

Perhaps we could utilise the existing airport classifications : so, Class 1/2 need a full-on base with all the current restrictions in place then class 3 and lower can have a 'station', with the assumption all back-office/heavy maint/etc is done at the HQ so only needing bare-bones staffing levels on-site.

Personally, I would prefer to see as few restrictions as possible. The way you propose it gives part of the advantages of the idea, but it isn't possible to do for example a Pan Am like operation, flying a couple of long haul flights from many cities because they wouldn't allow a station due to their category.

[brique]

Personally, I would prefer to see as few restrictions as possible. The way you propose it gives part of the advantages of the idea, but it isn't possible to do for example a Pan Am like operation, flying a couple of long haul flights from many cities because they wouldn't allow a station due to their category.

Its just a starting position to work from : Class1/2 airports should be able to support a full-on base but I do see your point and it has many good facets : a lot more competition in larger airports from a myriad of 'stations' would keep any incumbent on their toes, for sure : as a'stepping-stone' for players still learning all the wrinkles, it would be an excellent experience to be able to get a taste of working out of a major without the higher-risk, or just daunting, approach of a full base or HQ.

[AndreiX]

Let's be real! Even if it sounds great we couldn't do withouth some restrictions... I belive somehow the number of minibases still needs to be limited, but to a number of let's say 30. That way it can be fun and the long term gameworld will be quite captivating. Also, a restriction should be applied as in RL that you will not be able to close the base in a certain period (maybe depending on the airport size or benefits you mig get from the airport -like route image starting from 10-15 becuse of publicity)... There are so many things you could do starting from here...

Ok, I've been dreaming enough, something needs to be done and this is a very good ideea.

[Ryno]

• Open up more business models than are currently available. Currently, players are kind of 'forced' into the 'Fortress Hub'-Model. Adding this simple little feature would make it possible for players to operate more along the lines of Southwest/Ryanair style LCCs or even an airline like Pan Am

i love the idea but to make a ryanair/southwest style LCC viable staff happiness should not count towards company image

[brique]

i love the idea but to make a ryanair/southwest style LCC viable staff happiness should not count towards company image

Would have to take-out customer happiness as well...

[Infinity]

i love the idea but to make a ryanair/southwest style LCC viable staff happiness should not count towards company image

I agree with you, but this is I believe a step in the right direction, and necessary to make LCCs work at all.

[FORSBERC]

Would have to take-out customer happiness as well...

Or you could have customers "care" more about price. I would say care about a direct flight as well, but we until the new demand model, that is just a wishful dream.

[Infinity]

Another option would be to introduce a hard limit on planes based outside the home airport, so instead of allowing 3 bases with 100 planes each, allow as many bases as a player wants with 300 planes across all of them.

[Sami]

Bump for comments and ideas on improvement of the 'bases' feature to allow more base choices for small carriers (regionals or 'low cost' carriers) that typically have many bases but not so many planes per base ..

[LemonButt]

Bump for comments and ideas on improvement of the 'bases' feature to allow more base choices for small carriers (regionals or 'low cost' carriers) that typically have many bases but not so many planes per base ..

Cap bases at 400 aircraft with no cap on number of bases.  That means players can base at ORD and then open a base at ATL and put 400 aircraft there if they want.  If a player wants to open 100 bases with 4 aircraft each, they can.  Staffing would need to be modified so it is scaled up based on remotely based aircraft instead of base count.

OK, so maybe there should be a limit on based aircraft so you don't have the 400 aircraft at one base scenario, but it should be relative versus absolute.  So maybe the limits cascade down based on airport size.  The base limit would be something like 200 aircraft at class 5 airports, 150 at class 4, 100 at class 3, etc.  That will force players to decide if they want to open 2 big bases (2x200) or 3 medium bases (3x150--although capped at 400 total) or 4 small bases (4x100) or they could even decide to open 50 bases with 8 aircraft each and have focus cities.  With city-based demand, focus cities are going to be a thing.

[AUpilot77]

Cap bases at 400 aircraft with no cap on number of bases.  That means players can base at ORD and then open a base at ATL and put 400 aircraft there if they want.  If a player wants to open 100 bases with 4 aircraft each, they can.  Staffing would need to be modified so it is scaled up based on remotely based aircraft instead of base count.

OK, so maybe there should be a limit on based aircraft so you don't have the 400 aircraft at one base scenario, but it should be relative versus absolute.  So maybe the limits cascade down based on airport size.  The base limit would be something like 200 aircraft at class 5 airports, 150 at class 4, 100 at class 3, etc.  That will force players to decide if they want to open 2 big bases (2x200) or 3 medium bases (3x150--although capped at 400 total) or 4 small bases (4x100) or they could even decide to open 50 bases with 8 aircraft each and have focus cities.  With city-based demand, focus cities are going to be a thing.

+1    I like that whole post lol  It's a good idea to keep the limit of aircraft based outside of your HQ, but it gives much more flexibility for airlines that have different models.  Then you could open 8 extra bases with 50 aircraft each.  That's more of the style I'd be looking for.  For those that don't like it, they can spread out their extra 400 airplanes wherever they'd like.

[dasherhalo]

That's great, actually. Not only for the regionals, but for the larger airlines. It will mean that adding a base at a top 20 airport won't be a waste of time, like it is at the moment (and by waste of time, I mean that 100 planes isn't enough to allow you to start a serious argument against someone who can call on up to 500 planes (as I discovered moving into Manchester in GW3. I dumped 100 planes in there in a few game months... and it did precisely ..... NOTHING).

It means the big end of town can open 2 massive bases... but that's it.

Having said that - there needs to be some thought on how you'd protect again one of the top operators going from base to base, wiping out the competition, then leaving, and letting their alliance buddies move in to clean up. A minimum time limit perhaps?

[LemonButt]

Having said that - there needs to be some thought on how you'd protect again one of the top operators going from base to base, wiping out the competition, then leaving, and letting their alliance buddies move in to clean up. A minimum time limit perhaps?

I'd be surprised if this happens because it would literally take several game years for a player to "dethrone" an established competitor for their alliance buddies.  The easiest solution would be to have players pick a "business plan" when they start.  This would limit their choices for bases.  So if you say you want to be a big airline with 2 bases then that is what you're limited to and those 2 bases have to be at class 5 airports (or higher).  If you say you want to be a medium airline with 4 bases then you can base at class 4 or higher.  Smaller would be class 3 or higher, etc.

[weasel]

The easiest solution would be to have players pick a "business plan" when they start.  This would limit their choices for bases.

Could be a solution, yet there should be a mechanism to allow changes. Just thinking of the GWs spanning multiple decades; e.g. an airline that started as a regional carrier in the 1970s could evolve over 20-30 years time.

Just thinking out loud: if you choose to operate from 2-3 hubs (and are limited to these), you could gain a benefit in PAX by the network of connecting flights you provide (at a cost of providing these, of course) whereas when you choose to operate from multiple smaller bases, you do not get the additional pax at the bases, yet operate at a lower cost.

[NorgeFly]

I really like this idea as long as the required staffing levels are appropriate. I like to run regional airlines but they are incredibly difficult to make work in the current basing system.

Many small and medium airports have enough demand to operate 10-20 aircraft but they're just not a viable option as a hub or base as there just aren't enough growth opportunities to keep the game interesting for 20+ years.

Introducing mini-bases/stations would allow an airline to operate a good size fleet of 100-200 aircraft over 5, 10 or even 15 airports that would otherwise be pretty much ignored.

+1 from me, 100%

[Pukeko]

And maybe the location of bases or mini-bases could be opened up a bit more. Outside of the EU, if you are operating in a small country, things get very restrictive with regards to growth. If you were able to base within your continent that would be a great help. Ie. a New Zealand based airline could set up a base in Fiji, a Nigerian one could set up in Ethiopia. It would definately make those countries a lot more attractive to operate in.

[LemonButt]

And maybe the location of bases or mini-bases could be opened up a bit more. Outside of the EU, if you are operating in a small country, things get very restrictive with regards to growth. If you were able to base within your continent that would be a great help. Ie. a New Zealand based airline could set up a base in Fiji, a Nigerian one could set up in Ethiopia. It would definately make those countries a lot more attractive to operate in.

While I agree, I can tell you that the response will be cabotage and freedoms of the air and the fact this is a simulation and not an arcade game.  IRL though there are US airlines like Delta that have international "gateways" aka hubs in places like Amsterdam, Tokyo Narita, and Paris CDG.  Other places that come to mind are city-states like Hong Kong/Singapore and small countries with only one airport, like Qatar (Doha).

If the business plan route is taken, you could model this.  If an airline is large like a Delta you could create a rule that a new base outside the country must be 3000+ miles away from existing bases or if you are a smaller carrier you could base closer by in countries like Fiji, etc.