Basing rules for low demand regions

[NovemberCharlie]

Looking around the world airlines open bases in other countries and continents, often using a different AOC.
Given that the world would be dominated by a smaller number of carriers if this would be allowed globally, I want to make clear that this is not what I am talking about.
However there are regions that currently see no airlines based at their airport, mainly due to small prospects (especially during long game worlds) of expansion.

So, despite the fact that we want to maintain realistic I would like to suggest that some regions will allow these transnational AOCs. All managed under one AWS airline, ofcourse.
Looking globally in real life this is not even too far off. For example:

• Fastjet operates from Tanzania and Zimbabwe, with ambitions to become a pan African LCC.
• Caribbean Airlines operates from Trinidad an Jamaica.
• LATAM is perhaps one of the largest airlines being a trans-Latin American airline. However due to the large demand from some SA countries I would not suggest allowing it all over the continent
• etc.

I have taken the liberty to draw up a map of some of the regions which could be used. This is obviously up for discussion.

Also in my opinion states as Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc. should not be included since they provide mayor opportunities in their attached state (e.g. France)

[qunow]

One airline can operate in many different countries but they most probably utilized different tactics and are actually different companies. For example in LATAM's case it actually include a subsidiary in each of those south america country so that it can comply with local aviation regulation about airline ownership. Many airlines operating in multiple countries employed same tactics, like AirAsia, Jetstar, Virgin, etc. all use the same tactic of one (or multiple) airline per country that they have base.

Also, if there are something similar going to be implemented due to real world situation, I don't think you need to add limit onto south american aviation market, as it is still smaller than the EU market.

[NovemberCharlie]

One airline can operate in many different countries but they most probably utilized different tactics and are actually different companies. For example in LATAM's case it actually include a subsidiary in each of those south america country so that it can comply with local aviation regulation about airline ownership. Many airlines operating in multiple countries employed same tactics, like AirAsia, Jetstar, Virgin, etc. all use the same tactic of one (or multiple) airline per country that they have base.

Also, if there are something similar going to be implemented due to real world situation, I don't think you need to add limit onto south american aviation market, as it is still smaller than the EU market.

The comparison was more to prove that similar practices occur in real life, though AirAsia and Jetstar might have been better examples.
Currently it is not allowed to base in different countries unless there is a treaty in place between certain countries (EU).
My idea proposes to allow it, under the pretense of a separate AOC, in markets that are otherwise too small to receive a home carrier.

Having said that, I have run airlines with over 400 aircraft from Argentina and my current airline in Brazil already has 229 aircraft, with a lot more to come soon.
Giving these countries access to "South Asia minor" may allow a large Brazilian airline to also set up shop in Argentina (or Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela), which might make it difficult for others to get a chance at the largest centers of commerce in these regions.

I for one would love to give a go at a Central African or Caribbean airline, however I know that after a small number of years my expansion will be finished and in a 30 year, let alone a 70 year gameworld I find this unacceptable...

[fark24]

Perhaps the ability to base in multiple countries can enhanced by considering political and visa changes (similar to the established EU basing). There are many examples of this, such as:

- Countries with communal visas. These include the "Central America 4" (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras & Nicaragua  - effective June 2006) and Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya (effective Jan 2014).

- Countries with common customs unions - such as the Eurasian Customs Union (Belarus, Kazakhstan & Russia effective Jan 1, 2010; Armenia and Kyrgyzstan added on Aug 6, 2015).

Allowing airlines in these countries to base within other countries within the group would definitely enhance gameplay. As it stands, many airports in these countries get neglected because players have such limited growth prospects. Some have good markets and it would only help gameplay if there was an incentive to play them competitively.

[11Air]

I like the world map, it would open up areas to intermediate players, but still protect them from the Super Players.
I tried a north African state, but with only one significant airport I was at the mercy of outside airlines targeting my better routes. The internal routes were Cessna 208 services, not enough to make a difference, or any progress in the world.

It's become a trend lately to slavishly follow historical events. Time for a change to keep our interest?
The Confederates keep control of the Southern Sates. EU doesn't happen. The middle east finds peace and emerges as a leading industrial centre, forming a confederation to rival the EU in terms of passengers per population.

But for now lets enjoy the new Cargo system and explore that.

Reading a post above this - The real airlines use locally registered subsidiary companies to service the local demand. Make the cost of establishing a base outside the home country much higher to reflect the opportunities that this should/will open up. it must already be a destination, and share a border (or historic political links) with the 'home' company.

EDIT:
Perhaps your route to the New Territory should have a good route image before that destination can accept you opening a 'subsidiary' airline.

[Sami]

Bump for comments.

AWS will stick to real life basing rules, but in these ”unpopular” regions some exceptions could be possible. They would be considered as subsidiaries if they fall into regions/countries you cannot normally base at, and will incur a higher setup fee and higher staff (management) levels compared to a base in your home country. But otherwise functionality will be thr same like in a normal base.

Just the matter on how the area rules are chosen?

[DanDan]

i would really think its more interesting to make it subsidary airlines (like in real life: LAN Chile, LAN Peru, LAN Colombia, ...). So they would be separate legal entities that can be funded according to a few restrictions.

for more info, see: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77662.0.html

why i am not in favour of the "regions" is rather simple: if you work with different regions, one would just get into the same dynamics as in the big countries. the thing about the multiple bases is: one always has to use the same fleet types in each of them. so you are limited to the same thought patterns over and over and over again. imagine the map with the central america. what would an airline do, where would it place the base? well, obviously, it would start with SJO or PTY. next they would go to PTY or SJO, whichever they havent had so far. they will use the same aircraft as all the other airlines in the big countries.

it certainly wont make the game better suitable for the "casual player". thats what i think mentioned proposal would be much better at: to make the game more scaleable for players that are not necessarily into high intensity gameplay.

[MuzhikRB]

Bump for comments.

AWS will stick to real life basing rules, but in these ”unpopular” regions some exceptions could be possible. They would be considered as subsidiaries if they fall into regions/countries you cannot normally base at, and will incur a higher setup fee and higher staff (management) levels compared to a base in your home country. But otherwise functionality will be thr same like in a normal base.

Just the matter on how the area rules are chosen?

Firslty we can check Economy Unions from real life.
Like I wrote some time ago - we have economy union between Russia/Belarus/Kazakhstan.
Currently Belarus and Kazakhstan are not occupied cause too small for even single airline. but can be good as additional base for Russian based airlines.

if we will connect thic changes with "base points/no ac limits" system it will allow more strategy in Russian market at least. while company can choose to play regional opening 2tier bases and adding Belarus and Kazahstan to their mid level bases. While big guys from Moscow and St.Peter will not use their base points for that.

[wilian.souza2]

I propose a division of the African continent which reflects a little their common official languages and former colonizators. The map is shown as follows:



Western Africa (W.A.) can be occupied by an airline based in any of the countries in this area; then, it can be shared by Algerian, Tunisian and Senegalese airlines, airlines that usually establish in game worlds;

Southern Africa (S.A.) can be occupied by an airline established in any countries within this area (for example, South Africa, Ethiopia);

Portuguese area (P) features all former Portuguese colonies. For this area I propose that any airline based in Portugal can establish in this area (thus, if they based in some of these countries before the 60s, they wouldn't lose their bases when these countries become independent). Also, airlines headquartered in these countries sould also base in Portugal;

French area (F) features Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion and other former French colonies in the Indian Ocean. Rules would be similar to Portuguese area's;

Egyptian area (E) features Egypt and Sudan (North and South). An airline based in one of these countries could base anywhere within this area.

For South and Central America I propose the following:

- Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay can be based by any airlines headquartered in their neighbor countries, as well as Paraguayan, Bolivian and Uruguayan airlines can base in any of their neighbors (except Brazil, Argentina and Chile);

- Guyana can be based by an airline in Britain or any former British island in the Caribbean; Suriname can be based by an airline in Netherlands and any former Dutch island in the Caribbean; French Guyana can be based by an airline in France or any former French island in the Caribbean.

- The Central America could be made as one block, free to be explored by any airline established in one of those countries - and maybe even by a Mexican airline, too;

- Haiti could be based by a Dominican airline;

- Cuba could be based by Soviet, Chinese and Venezuelan airlines! 

[DanDan]

I propose a division of the African continent which reflects a little their common official languages and former colonizators. The map is shown as follows:

this would certainly make gameplay impossible for anyone starting in smaller countries. in any case, i would advise against pooling bigger countries and smaller countries together. imagine just a drastic example of South Africa and Zimbabwe. nowadays, you can make an airline in Zimbabwe... you will have maybe 10x 19-seaters and 5x 50-seaters in service, all flying from Harare (the other airports i am sure are not giving any real demand). so you have a nice 15 aircraft airline. theoretically, you could now move to south africa. you can move into a country where every airline has 100 planes at least.

now imagine if a south african airline can open a hub in harare: they have 100x 19-seaters and 50x 50-seaters, backing up the "invasion force" of maybe another 15 aircraft! sure, the airline from zimbabwe could move into south africa, but the airline from the smaller country will always be at a disadvantage. especially if there is a penalty included. its kind of like having an airline in france with 1000 aircraft and after the open skies agreement moving into dublin airport... it just kills the smaller countries.

thats why i think the airlines should be separated legally. and furthermore such expansions should be limited to players of small airlines only, so that a mega-airline cant just walk into smaller markets and destroy them. so you can make a small airline in zimbabwe, a small one in kenia and maybe a small one in south africa, but you will always be limited by total aircraft number and are not going to be able to invade another country with the sheer size of the untouchable force you have in your background.

Just the matter on how the area rules are chosen?

@dear sami: if for some very reason you decide to implement this "country group feature", please please please: dont pool countries that do not match each other in demand. only equal or similar countries should be matched together. but in any case, i am certainly no advocate of this proposal, as the players that are not wanting to manage 1000 planes will suffer from this.

and yes: i know my proposal is much more complicated to implement, but i am convinced it is adding value to the gameplay.

[DanDan]

nowadays, you can make an airline in Zimbabwe... you will have maybe 10x 19-seaters and 5x 50-seaters in service, all flying from Harare (the other airports i am sure are not giving any real demand).

I stand corrected. you cant make a 15 aircraft airline with two fleet-types, certainly not with small and medium aircraft. the "special" AWS rules bring way too high commonality and staff costs. this is something that really needs to be discussed imho

[Tha_Ape]

To back this idea, here's a link to the historical company Air Afrique:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Afrique
Not a company with branches overseas, a plain one, the same in different countries.
Was founded by 11 African countries that realized that individually they would lack the power to do it on their own.
(sorry for the double-post, but we have some kind of double thread: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,79622.0.html)

[diskoerekto]

Bump for comments.

AWS will stick to real life basing rules, but in these ”unpopular” regions some exceptions could be possible. They would be considered as subsidiaries if they fall into regions/countries you cannot normally base at, and will incur a higher setup fee and higher staff (management) levels compared to a base in your home country. But otherwise functionality will be thr same like in a normal base.

Just the matter on how the area rules are chosen?

nice to see some dev feedback on this good proposition. I say, the area rules should be decided by game specific data (equal number of certain sized bases for example) rather than any politic or linguistic grouping otherwise it might turn into an unproductive discussion.

[gazzz0x2z]

Bump for comments.

AWS will stick to real life basing rules, but in these ”unpopular” regions some exceptions could be possible. They would be considered as subsidiaries if they fall into regions/countries you cannot normally base at, and will incur a higher setup fee and higher staff (management) levels compared to a base in your home country. But otherwise functionality will be thr same like in a normal base.

Just the matter on how the area rules are chosen?

Well, just my 2 cents : would be coherent groups of unplayable nations. In Africa, you'd avoid the biggies(SA, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, ... not sure for Ethiopia & Nigeria), and make groups, like "Sahara"(from Khartoum to Nouakchott), "Austral Africa", "Western Africa"...

If everyone likes the idea, I could come with geographically & economically coherent regions, at least for Africa. I guess "Caribbean independant countries" could be a group as well(with or without Cuba would be the lone question to settle). I have no clue for Asia, I don't know the area well.

EDIT : NovemberCharlie's map actually sounds very good, bar the inclusion of French Guyane. Ethiopia & Nigeria would be discussed