Possible rule change; alliances vs. bases

[Sami]

Please discuss about the topic "many airlines of the same alliance based at the same airport".

Should it be directly disallowed in the rules?
(= only one airline per each alliance would be allowed to base at any given airport)

Currently there is no clear and direct written rule about it, though alliances have themselves coordinated their bases so that there are no overlaps.

[Infinity]

No need to discuss anything in my opinion. We were forbidden to do it in earlier games and I see no reason to allow it now.

[gazzz0x2z]

Open door to many dodgy manoeuvers. I agree with Infinity : it shall stay forbidden.

[Kadachiman]

Make the rule Black & White = Not allowed

[we74]

Forbid it.

/ Anders W.

[Solemus]

Yep agreed should not be allowed 

[alexgv1]

I think it would make the competition interesting in the Challenge scenarios.

For the main Game Worlds, probably not as it is a bit too competitive if some smaller or non-alliance players get caught up in the crossfire.

[Pukeko]

With the new basing rules I don't see what difference it makes...one airline can now easily dump many hundreds of planes at a new base to squeeze out an existing airline. In the past this was not possible.

[Mr.HP]

I'd suggest giving airlines 12 points for bases; and level 4, 3, 2 and 1 bases require 4, 3, 2, 1 points respectively

Also, the base should be limited to a fix number of A/C or percentage/fix number of slots allowed

For alliance, I'd prefer coordinating bases within alliance communication tool, and not use a hard rule auto disable any overlapping. Sometime, a small airline is looking for regional demand while another one seek for LH business and both of them can safely base at one airport

[stevecree]

We have asked this previously to you directly Sami, and were told this is forbidden, although I note in GW3 airlines of the same alliance occupying the same base !?

The rule should be clear...and a big fat no to it.  You do not see it happen in real world, therefore replicate it as best as possible here.

[CarlBagot]

The one exception in the real world are express airlines which are sub contractors to the major brands such as United Express, American Eagle, Delta Connection, etc.

Therefore sectioning for a should be allowed such that one could have a base with small and medium and the other has a base for large and very large (also codify this so that you can have your HQ  be only 1-2 or HQ and bases be only 3-4 and check for conflicts thereafter.


This is needed when we will have connections and code sharing as regional brands will exist and be sought after but must operate in the same bases.


Slots per alliance should be capped though or smaller planes should take up less slots? (less separation time needed)

[bdnascar3]

My question is......What is to stop an alliance from recruiting a non member player to provide competition to other alliances and work with their alliance?

[DHillMSP]

My question is......What is to stop an alliance from recruiting a non member player to provide competition to other alliances and work with their alliance?

That's a fair question, but I'm not sure you can control for that. You can only control the formal relationship through the alliance.

[11Air]

The real problem most of us have is the unavailability of routes at the Hub Airports.  EGLL and LFPG in particular for me but it's a world wide issue.

1. I suggest the 'Sami' and his team should set the initial prices for slots (it varies during the 24 hr period) but as each ten per cent is sold the price the goes up by ten percent. (As an airport operator why wouldn't I do exactly that).

2. in addition I also suggest that traffic not being carried should migrate to the next nearest airport, the percent migrating each 'month'? reducing for greater distances.  In the game mechanics the traffic at EGLL would migrate to EGLC, which would be over capacity so they would migrate to EGKK or EGSS etc.  [EGLL has demand much greater than current traffic is catering for, moving it (= it would move) to satellite airports is what would happen in real world.
Now maybe the range of the passenger flights should be considered so long haul demand doesn't go to EGLC.



I hope you can see that this will resolve the blocking of Hubs, just as it actually does in the real world.

[Sami]

Rule in force, details here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg325572.html#msg325572

(But this rule may be lifted for any special scenarios. And will be thought again when the demand systems are fully updated, and that's why it is just a simple "no" with no exceptions or tricky systems for now.)