Too small penalty for cargo?

[Talentz]

There's 3000+ airports in the world... why the F care about one airport. If someone wants to run a 2000 aircraft airline flying too 200 destinations, more power too them. Still going to end up in 2nd place at the end of the Game.

Great job spending those credits, Sami Appreciates™



Talentz

[Zombie Slayer]

Beyond all of the tall of frequency limitations and such, the simple fix seems to be fleet type relief. Simply not counting cargo aircraft (to an extent, maybe 1-2 types) could alleviate the spamming with smaller planes. If I could add, say, A300-600F without my commonality jumping $150m a week I would gladly add that instead of, say, the 757f that was the discussion on page 1.

[groundbum2]

I'd vote for leaving things as they are. This is supposed to be a capitalist game, so players need to compete after looking at all the variables. I don't understand why people want  "socialist" "big brother" free-trade restrictions put in place that imposes artificial constraints on other players.

Simon

[Zobelle]

What is unnecessary is flying 15 757F per day between HK and FRA. I dont think the fix is complicated at all. "Too small" does its job with pax flights. It could do the same with cargo. Sure its not perfect but its better then the status quo.

Profits over practicality. Welcome to the business world. 

Cargo doesn't complain about "cramped seats" nor lack of refreshments. That is strictly a meatbag problem.

[Tha_Ape]

I'd vote for leaving things as they are. This is supposed to be a capitalist game, so players need to compete after looking at all the variables. I don't understand why people want  "socialist" "big brother" free-trade restrictions put in place that imposes artificial constraints on other players.

Simon

Even the most capitalistic countries puts restrictions on trade. It's not about being "socialist" or "big brother" or whatever, it's about allowing people to be, simply be.

In the case of AWS, these restrictions already exist, they are the 3 fleet limitation or the "too small" penalty. One can complain that they are not well made or could be better if so, but in the end they are here so no it stays a game and not a turkey shoot for just a happy few (and one could argue that it's already a turkey shoot as more and more airline BK in the course of a game).

In other words, barriers, no, but obstacles, yes.

(remember that the one of the reason we don't kill each other might be thanks to obstacles: a law is an obstacle)

[Zobelle]

I'd vote for leaving things as they are. This is supposed to be a capitalist game, so players need to compete after looking at all the variables. I don't understand why people want  "socialist" "big brother" free-trade restrictions put in place that imposes artificial constraints on other players.

Simon

Agreed, That or make it so only VL aircraft can carry HC.

[Tha_Ape]

Agreed, That or make it so only VL aircraft can carry HC.

At that point I'd rather see a 4th category of cargo that only VL a/c can handle. Would make more sense, in my opinion.
Like: "You want the juicy stuff? Ok, but then invest, don't play small: you can be king of the hill, but not with the tool that undercut others.

Saying this because if HC can be handled only by VL, I can say goodbye to my 90 737F, I'll need only one A330F and could abandon all other routes (too small demand).