-La Compangie is a terrible example, because it is a Premium business carrier and operates a much lower than standard total configuration. It is a specialist carrier operating long haul premium only. American major carriers tend to operate it on thinner routes where the capacity of a widebody is not needed. B737's are starting to be used transatlantic by Norwegian but are operating out of smaller major European airports, Edinburgh, for example to less well known airports in US. E.g. New York is Stewart International.
- In AWS, despite restrictions on overly premium configuration, it's still possible to configure half their 757 with premium cabin and fly on routes they desired. And they will nevertheless face the same "aircraft too small warning" warning.
- "American major carriers tend to operate it on thinner routes where the capacity of a widebody is not needed" Because their 757s are going to retirement and they don't have more 757 so their deployment of 757 would be where the aircraft is best suitable for.
-"B737's are starting to be used transatlantic by Norwegian but are operating out of smaller major European airports, Edinburgh, for example to less well known airports in US. E.g. New York is Stewart International" Despite the use of secondary airports, they are still tapping into the larger market of Edinburgh - New York. I believe the use of secondary airport is more related to their business model than commerical reason. the EDI-NYC route also have four other daily flights by UA, AA and DL, and all of them are run by 757.
-That is still a lot less slot availability than we generally have late in game. A reduction in player numbers leads to lots of space in the game later on and along with growth and game settings leads to an excess of slots.
In the previous GW2 I started playing in a French airport in last few years in the game, and if I recalled correctly, there are still some airports I cannot fly in freely due to slot condition.
-That would be too late to see the warning, it's better to put the warning as early as possible for the aircraft being to small for a particular route. That would also involved the airline in question still getting a large number of slots, which would defeat the idea of reducing the amount of slots people having by using wide bodies on the larger long routes. It's important to at the earliest opportunity that is practical to reduce the demand for slots to keep them available for competition from airlines already in the game, or to allow new airlines to come in.
- Even if a warning system is changed to by airport authority, warning can still be setup in route creation stage.
- "That would also involved the airline in question still getting a large number of slots, which would defeat the idea of reducing the amount of slots people having by using wide bodies on the larger long routes." How? There are still the "oversupply rule", and if the airlines really want to keep their slot, in current game setup they can still upgauge their aircrafts on those routes affected by the warning.
- Warn players in route creationg stage or once routes are created like oversupply warning, are more effective in asking them to hand out their slots, and also at the earliest time, than simply cut their demand.
-Passenger comfort is a big thing. Always being squeezed in a smaller narrowbody aircraft with nearly 200 other passengers will always psychologically feel more cramped and less comfortable than a wider aircraft. Passenger expectations are such that a widebody will give a better experience. Therefore where there is demand, passengers want the bigger better aircraft. Narrowbody isn't necessarily bad, it's just that wider cabins will give a better feeling of space and comfort.
I am not sure how many people will actually book a ticket based on that psychology. People used to said "4 engines are necessary for long haul flights" but then you see where A340 and superjumbos are going to in real life. Icelandair and WOW also attracted quite a bit of Trans-Atlantic traffics with their mostly narrowbody aircrafts.
-Well, it would be a better solution that the current huge 3rd fleet penalty. A points based system would be a good model for a more complex commonality system. A points based system could account for the similarities in operating B757 and B767 and keep them as the separate fleets than they are now. At the moment with 3 fleets, operating both is stupid because it uses up 2 or your available fleets. It could also take into account the that A330/A340 and A350 are somewhat easier to operate costs wise because training across types is simpler than A330 and B787. A more complex model of commonality would contribute to a more realistic system, yet it still has to take into account that this is an Online Simulation Game, compromise have to be made in the interests of game balance and feasibility of building the system.
"Point-based system" is already overly, unnecessarily complicated in my opinion (the system proposed is based on more at trying to create a fictional system to balance between game and real life, instead of trying to use real life element to balance the game), a simpler way would be make super-family commonality, as in create new commmonality group for aircrafts just like how engine commonalities are treated.