Does every airline route have to return back to the home airport

[xx420mcyoloswag]

I can't figure out how to make my plane just fly to dallas and then continue on to new york, it keeps routing it back to LA. It this always the case or this there something I can do?

[deovrat]

Yes, currently every flight in AWS returns to base.

[bdnascar3]

Yes, its called a-b-a routing. You can only have routes to from your base. The exception is to have a fuel stop, but you cannot board passengers.

[Zobelle]

This is most unfortunate. I could stretch my regionals out much better if we had A-B-C-D-C-B-A routing.

[gazzz0x2z]

It's been turned off for rather good reasons. Think about what a player better than others can make to all others with this kind of possibility.....

[wilian.souza2]

Well, it could be possible to do it if the intermediate stops were in the company's base airports. Would help improve airplanes' schedules.

For example, in Brazil there's an airport called Jacarepaguá (SBJR). In current GW2 it has a good demand, but there is the runway requirement problem, so a Martin 4-0-4 can land there but the Convair CV-440, my current fleet, can't. I have bases in Salvador (SBSV), Belo Horizonte (SBCF) and Curitiba (SBCT), all with  demand to that airport. If I could add stops to board passengers, I could buy an M404 and make a route for it like SBSV-SBJR-SBCT-SBJR-SBCF-SBJR-SBSV, using 1 plane in a very efficient way. But it isn't possible, so I didn't buy any M404 because there's no use to keep 1 M404 at each of my bases just to fly to there.

[freshmore]

It's been turned off for rather good reasons. Think about what a player better than others can make to all others with this kind of possibility.....

Yep, all hell would break loose. It went way too far before, years ago.

[Zobelle]

Then let it break loose.

It shows who the weak are and who the strong are.

[freshmore]

Nope, it would just end up with the stupid things that happened last time. It basically ended up with everyone setting up Bases without them actually being bases. This was before the bases actually existed in game and went away when they were introduced. It's not really showing the strong or the weak any more than the current game does, it's more that how it got used and how it would get used would be against the spirit of the game. So if 5th freedom was to come back, it should have controls.

Essentially, the old system was you could run flights from a UK base, through Europe and then onto another airport in North Africa. E.g. Heathrow - Somewhere in Europe - Algiers. You could also run A route from Europe to N.America and then onto Asia. Effectively setting up a US base as a European airline. This system actually ends up very much against the spirit of the game, allowing airlines airline to basically set up a base where they shouldn't normally and is very much unfair to those who set up a base there. For example, an airline based in Algiers would suddenly find itself competing on most of it's routes with one airline from the UK that is routing via Europe and a US airline would suddenly find it's Asian routes being competed on with an airline from Europe routing via the US.

I think it should be bought back for Long haul routes with some controls, because that is really what 5th Freedom rights are for. By controls, it's something I mentioned the other day somewhere else, in that you could have 5th freedom routes but only if the final destination is a certain distance away from your own Base. This distance would increase with era as new longer range aircraft are introduced. In real life 5th freedom rights were always limited and controlled, not a capitalist free for all, which is basically what would happen in the game. Attaching some common sense limitations would allow it to work without it getting stupid.

Could be bought back for short haul in an A-B-C-B-A routing, as long as A and C are already bases. Basically every leg that lands somewhere that isn't a base, it must then return to a base, but doesn't necessarily have to be the one you came from. That would keep the basing limitations of A-B-A routes but allow more freedom to use aircraft over multiple bases. A-B-C-B-A would enable some freedom to spread an aircraft over 2 bases for a route but avoid the free for all mess that would happen if there was no limitations. A-B-C-D-C-B-A -> A and C would be bases and A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A -> A,C and E would be bases.

[Zobelle]

It would be wonderful if we could share aircraft between bases. It could cut down on some of the frames one needs. More efficient.

[Tha_Ape]

It sure would be more efficient, but then it would have to be balanced with a harsher economic context (taxes or so).

Or do you lack money?

[freshmore]

I agree it would be more efficient, not sure about it's implementation, which is probably the biggest barrier. The profit model is quite generous so I would say that could be toned back a bit if that was to be implemented. I certainly think we could do to be making less money in the 50's based on GW2 but that's another matter.

[Zobelle]

It sure would be more efficient, but then it would have to be balanced with a harsher economic context (taxes or so).

Or do you lack money?

Out of HQ limit is unnecessarily punitive, for one.

[freshmore]

Out of HQ limit is unnecessarily punitive, for one.

I was referring to all bases not just HQ. So every flight must leave or return to a base airport. If you didn't, you would end up with in an A-B-C-B-A routing, both the B-C and C-B legs would be between two airports you wouldn't usually be able to fly. So if you make C the same airport each time you effectively end up with another free base, which isn't what is intended and is not the spirit of the game. This is main reason why it got removed in the first place, that and the addition of basing as we know it, before it was a single airport base and that was it. It would be needed to avoid that kind of gaming the system again. Long haul really is where 5th freedom needs to make a return.

[Talentz]

It's been turned off for rather good reasons. Think about what a player better than others can make to all others with this kind of possibility.....

Nope, it would just end up with the stupid things that happened last time. It basically ended up with everyone setting up Bases without them actually being bases. This was before the bases actually existed in game and went away when they were introduced. It's not really showing the strong or the weak any more than the current game does, it's more that how it got used and how it would get used would be against the spirit of the game. So if 5th freedom was to come back, it should have controls.

Essentially, the old system was you could run flights from a UK base, through Europe and then onto another airport in North Africa. E.g. Heathrow - Somewhere in Europe - Algiers. You could also run A route from Europe to N.America and then onto Asia. Effectively setting up a US base as a European airline. This system actually ends up very much against the spirit of the game, allowing airlines airline to basically set up a base where they shouldn't normally and is very much unfair to those who set up a base there. For example, an airline based in Algiers would suddenly find itself competing on most of it's routes with one airline from the UK that is routing via Europe and a US airline would suddenly find it's Asian routes being competed on with an airline from Europe routing via the US.

Wooo those were the days... of past.


AWS is far more balanced then in the earlier versions. While it still possible to dominate other players, it's considerably harder and less rewarding. This makes AWS more playable from an outsider's view. The goal is to bring players in not chase them away. No need to revert back to those days... 


Talentz

[wilian.souza2]

I was referring to all bases not just HQ. So every flight must leave or return to a base airport. If you didn't, you would end up with in an A-B-C-B-A routing, both the B-C and C-B legs would be between two airports you wouldn't usually be able to fly. So if you make C the same airport each time you effectively end up with another free base, which isn't what is intended and is not the spirit of the game. This is main reason why it got removed in the first place, that and the addition of basing as we know it, before it was a single airport base and that was it. It would be needed to avoid that kind of gaming the system again. Long haul really is where 5th freedom needs to make a return.

I support the idea of the return of this practice with the difference that the airline will only be able to board passengers in intermediate stops if there is an airline base at the stop, and this base should be the size suitable for the aircraft which will board passengers. This would help airlines based at large countries create longhaul routes, especially in the early ages of the game.

[bdnascar3]

I just wish when they designed the routing engine, they had designed it more realistic. Allowing a-b-c-d-etc routing but requiring once a day it goes thru a maintenance base for its daily check, once a week it spends at least 5hrs in the maintenance base for its A/B checks. You could limit the number of maintenance bases, make them more expensive and keep them in the country of origin. This would be closer to reality. However I don't see Sami rebuilding the game engine. After all they are so many promised things we're still waiting for.

[YoYo]

they had designed it more realistic

In real world this called "Freedom of the Air", it is involving with 9 different scenarios / freedoms.

You can google it for the details but I just attached some pic here to demonstrate what it looks like 

What we have here is only 1-3 (and some more for EU Open Sky in 90s), it would be nice if game could set up the same way each individual country enter into bilateral agreement during period of time. 

[Sami]

Manual explains it all: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Freedoms/

No changes planned to this.

[YoYo]

Oh...I did not notice that manual is covering this part also