Harder events

[schlaf]

I wish there could be harder events in Airwaysim, like the last 9/11 in gw3 seems to be very easy to survive. Already some game-weeks after the event it starts to turning back to normal again...   

Why dont give us a real headache with events that (sometimes) last for many years, and there you have to take some active decision to be able to survive???

Like it is now, with 9/11 its just to save some cash and sit back and just wait until its over.
 I guess its not many players that actually do anything without just waiting until it's over

[JumboShrimp]

9/11 event in GW3 was indeed very weak.  I went right back to making money the following week.

[wilian.souza2]

In the case of 9/11, you've been warned that it would be weaker than usual...

But indeed, some routine events should be harder, notably the ones referred to nature events, like: volcanic activity could ground aircraft in an entire region for 1 week, tornadoes and sandstorms could close one or more airports for 3-5 days, some airports subject to floods could be closed for a couple days because of that, etc. Also, stock market crashes should hit demand harder (30% at least) and its effects should be felt for longer.

[DanDan]

About events:
My opinion: I think that events in their current form are anything but relevant in AWS. Noone adapts anything due to them, and noone really needs to adapt anything due to the events in most cases. And of course, that is just understandable: it is slightly too expensive, timewise, to adapt schedules to such events when you maybe just realize they even happened only shortly before they are over. So what is the point in such events!? The only real event that people take into account are the jumps in the fuel price.
There is no point in a scrabble world cup or a heavy rain... or whatever. It doesn't change anything except give a few extra coins or reduce income for a bit - after you made your decisions.

Proposal:
So to make things a bit different, and possibly more interesting, I think that events should have a lasting impact on an economy, meaning: they should not necessarily impact demand instantly, but have a lasting effect on future demand.

1) There should be an "economic development index" (EDI), which symbolizes the current demand level and an "economic development prognosis" (EDP), showing the expected future economic growth. A bit like the fuel management: you have a fuel price and you have the prediction for the future, but less "jumpy" maybe
The EDP should be comprised out of three factors: a global, regional and national component. So there may be a global economic boom, but the region or a certain country may experience a downturn, which will result in lower demand in the future in this particular country, even though the world in total experiences higher demand in the future.

2) Correspondingly, there should be a) global events, b) regional events, c) national events (probably no sense in going deeper than that, since that would be counterproductive with CBD). Meaning: there is a new tourist attraction on a national level; or a war on a regional level; or an economic boom on a global level - these influence the EDP. Some events could influence demand faster, some influence it slower.

3) Of course, we can still add events like "movie production is done in xyz" and for a few days there is extra delays. And maybe that can even give a bit of a boost to the EDI or EDP of the country/region/global when it takes place (like the lord of the rings gave to new zealand).

Example:
If you have an airline in the US, and you fly inside the US, and the US has a good economic development prognosis, the country should prosper and all your flights accordingly. So in the next years you can expect the US airline industry to grow due to higher demand. Yes, "next years": because thats something that will actually have an effect on planning and the decisions we make.
If you fly to a different region or a different country, and that country has a bad EDP, the demand will not grow as fast or even get smaller in the next years; since demand depends on both the countries that are connected. General idea of the whole thing is that there could be more than just a "global" economy, with linear demand growth, but that players in different countries/regions can have different predictions and situations in the future.

Another point in my opinion is the question concerning real or fictional:
Should AWS -) represent reality, with real events -) fictional events (possibly makes things less forseeable) or -) mix them. Currently it is the last Id say: we have only 9/11 and the breakdown of the SU hard coded it seems. And for some weird reason OP desert storm [and i think that one isnt even announced  ], which is from an affected position the most relevant of these (9/11 is over after a bad quarter or two).