AirwaySim

According to our recent user survey the "multiple bases" is the single most requested feature....

While determining of the ground rules of the system it is needed to think about the route structure too. While we cannot yet model the 'freedoms of the air' we will allow multiple bases to be set up at some time in the future.

One thing what must be considered is the effect of multiple bases vs. large airline dominance vs. multi-leg routes. Now some airlines can easily span over many cities by "repositioning" their planes with nightly (near empty) flights to another city and using it "HUB-like" to fly to some third city. The new multiple base feature would be essentially the same, except the planes being already at that airport and eliminating the positioning flights.

Thus I'd be probably eliminating the whole 4-leg route possibility once the multiple base/hub feature is introduced. As having both of these would most likely result in large airlines setting many bases and flying still these 4-leg routes from these airports and thus allowing them to put their hands on even more market areas, and possibly making the life of other (smaller?) airlines even harder.

And until the 'freedoms of air' concept is introduced this would be also a step towards reality where airlines from another country cannot fly domestic services in another country, as an example.

So in summary. Answer "no" if in your mind each airline would be only allowed to fly routes from his home base to another destination and right back, or from his focus city/hub and back. No more A-B-C-B-A type routes. Or vote "yes" if you wish to keep the 4-leg routes AND the multi-hubs too.


Please don't use this thread to discuss other multi-base matters. Use the thread/forum reserved for suggestions (here (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34.0.html)).

woot, first... and definitely no.  Server load aside, it would be insane.   It is exactly like owning 2 airlines in 1 game.

Voted no, but I hope It'll still be possible to fly A-B-C-B-A with a fuel stop?

Voted no, but it depends...

If the second base placement is free (or allowed to some distance like 2000 nm from the original), then it would be ok without multi-legs. If the second base has to be in same country or continent, then I would prefer multi-legs.

No.

If we are allowed hubs, there is no reason we should have multi-leg routes. Don't give me that option... it wont be pretty.





Talentz

Answered YES.
But also I think that it's not goos idea to allow to open second base from game start, may be we should wait, for example, year and have some number of planes to open second base.
And, of course, we also want tech-stop flights for extra-longhaul flights like Europe-Australia.

Quote from: Talentz on September 30, 2009, 05:58:21 PM
No.

If we are allowed hubs, there is no reason we should have multi-leg routes. Don't give me that option... it wont be pretty.





Talentz

Lol, and agreed.

Quote from: Tim on September 30, 2009, 06:16:18 PM
But also I think that it's not goos idea to allow to open second base from game start, may be we should wait, for example, year and have some number of planes to open second base.

Quote from: sami on September 30, 2009, 03:18:38 PM
Please don't use this thread to discuss other multi-base matters. Use the thread/forum reserved for suggestions (here (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34.0.html)).

Quote from: Jimmy Ringsell on September 30, 2009, 04:21:34 PM
Voted no, but I hope It'll still be possible to fly A-B-C-B-A with a fuel stop?

Yes, fuel stop HAS to be to kept onboard still, for the sake of early era worlds at least.

What for something to invent and vote? Let's make how it's in the real world!)
AWS - is the simulator, not a game.

You have to keep in mind that the simulation has to be kept playable! You'll have to think it trough before you add something like that, because it could ruin the gameplay!

Quote from: Uran on September 30, 2009, 08:22:00 PM
What for something to invent and vote? Let's make how it's in the real world!)
AWS - is the simulator, not a game.

Yes, but it is not (yet) perfect. So we have to think about how to do it TILL it will be like the real world. Read what Sami wrote in the beggining and you will understand.

Not that it matters much, but I was stupid and clicked the wrong button.  Gotta move one Yes to No, as No is what I meant.

No!  And on top of that I feel that multi-leg routes should only be allowed for domestic routes.  I don't see why foreign airlines should be able to come into my country and compete as an equal for my routes.  I look at some people's route maps and just have to ask how that would even work in real life... ???

For example: could you imagine Iberia having 70% market share on a Tokyo -> Vancouver route?

Make my vote a yes and no :)

A second hub should be connected from the first hub.
Example: I have my main hub at SVO and I take OVB as my second hub. In this case I want to be able to fly from SVO to OVB to somewhere else. So yes I think multi leg routes should be allowed but:

- The leg from hub to hub should be protected in some way. If I fly three planes a day from hub1 to hub2 and some funny ass joker decides he doesnt like me he floods that route and my hub would become disconnected from the other route.

- Also having two hubs allowes players to 'start' two airlines. I make a hub at SVO and SYD and have two big hubs to fly from. So the second hub should be limited in size.

- IF the multi legs are implemented please make it possible to fly short distances. SVO-DME   JFK - LaGuardia, stuff like that to make it profitable to have two hubs close together.

Quote from: Dasha on October 01, 2009, 08:27:12 AM
Make my vote a yes and no :)

A second hub should be connected from the first hub.
Example: I have my main hub at SVO and I take OVB as my second hub. In this case I want to be able to fly from SVO to OVB to somewhere else. So yes I think multi leg routes should be allowed but:

- The leg from hub to hub should be protected in some way. If I fly three planes a day from hub1 to hub2 and some funny ass joker decides he doesnt like me he floods that route and my hub would become disconnected from the other route.

- Also having two hubs allowes players to 'start' two airlines. I make a hub at SVO and SYD and have two big hubs to fly from. So the second hub should be limited in size.  

- IF the multi legs are implemented please make it possible to fly short distances. SVO-DME   JFK - LaGuardia, stuff like that to make it profitable to have two hubs close together.

For airlines nobody can forbid to have even 20 bases/hubs. The airline has the right to base on one plane in 20 different airports and to flying any routes within the own country as a resident. For any airline can be resolved flight within other country, but without the right transportation passengers.

Quote from: MattDell on October 01, 2009, 03:39:13 AM
No!  And on top of that I feel that multi-leg routes should only be allowed for domestic routes.  I don't see why foreign airlines should be able to come into my country and compete as an equal for my routes.  I look at some people's route maps and just have to ask how that would even work in real life... ???

For example: could you imagine Iberia having 70% market share on a Tokyo -> Vancouver route?

Totally agree. I voted NO.

I voted No. But I would like to have possibility of flying HUB-HUB-DESTINATION-HUB-HUB. Let's say I have hubs in Frankfurt and Berlin, then I would like to be able to fly for example Frankfurt - Berlin - Copenhagen - Berlin - Frankfurt.

I voted No. But as Samo said, I would want the option to make a HUB-HUB-DESTINATION-HUB-HUB flight.

I vote No, with the exeption of being able to still fly HUB1 - Destination - HUB2 - Destination - HUB1

Maybe I missed it somewhere but when could we see either one go into effect?

Quote from: sami on September 30, 2009, 03:18:38 PM
some time in the future.

Do you know when? Weeks, Months, Years? Tell us  :)

I have another suggestion:

why not allow one more base in the same continent (or in a range distance) and allow to base one aircraft there per 10 operated planes from the main base?!!!
btw. Voted YES!!

No.
It will lead to dominance by the strongest airlines, most experienced players, & you will lose many smaller  airlines or other players happy dealing with a small but successful airline in a region, but if the big guys come in it will be lost for them.

It also will LOSE revenue for the game itself, as people will simply quit if they dont get a fair play & chance.
Whilst it is a game not the real world, participating n gaining the enthusiasm of many people worldwide, is what yr working for, hence we all have to be happy with some participation, not total dominance.

It may well be good to be able to add a 2nd fuel only stop to broaden the range of aircraft & routes though...

I would've voted YES, but it's already closed. BUT ONLY if you're only able to fly second legs on domestic routes or international routes from another airport in your own country. I also think that you should be able to select second HUB's only in airports in the country of your main HUB.

Quote from: marc0o0o0o on October 08, 2009, 12:39:11 AM
I would've voted YES, but it's already closed. BUT ONLY if you're only able to fly second legs on domestic routes or international routes from another airport in your own country. I also think that you should be able to select second HUB's only in airports in the country of your main HUB.

I totaly agree

I wote NO but YES to 4 leg routes on domestic routs  :)

I read this only now, but I have an weird idea.

Generally, any airline should not be allowed to use any more than 75% of slots in any airport. And multi-leg routes should never be allowed.

If an airline has multiple hubs, total number of used slots in all hubs should not exceed 75% of slot amount in main hub. Percentage could also be bigger, but 75 sounds good for me.

Ile

or.........

your second hub can't have any planes that can carry more than 110 pax.  You get one large use airport and one small one.

How about limiting the number of certain sized hubs yo can have?

i.e Max of:

2 x size 4 & 5 +
3 x size 3 & 2 +
4 x size 2 & 1

I think the simpliest would be - you can have as many hubs you want but - each new will be much expensive (²), will increase your needed staff numbers by 20% and you can only have them in your country or specified exceptions (like Czech and Slovakia is allowed due to long historical bond or countries in the Yugoslavia will be conted together). This way everybody will soon reach their limit.

I vote for yes...multiple base should be allowed, at a substantial cost...

i.e. planes in different bases can not enjoy the commonality savings...
Open a second base should be costly and there should be more risks involved to justify the benefits...