So, that my story:
I've joined DOTM4 world 10 years after it started. I based in AMS/EHAM, my favorite European location, because of a lot available slots. Then, like any other small starting airline, I'd started searching routes without competition. I'd found 3 longhaul destinations to small North American countries for 3 my DC10 and 2 European cities for 1 B732. And everything did very well until one of my bigger (much bigger than me) competitors had started attack to 4 of 5 my routes. I'd checked the manual and discovered that
"Any coordinated "attacks" by single airlines, alliances, or by any other group of airlines, to prevent some airline from operating on a route or to deliberately push some airline out of the simulation are not allowed. Competition is generally free in the sim but any clearly unfair competition measures such as flying routes with huge overcapacity and with very low prices and deliberately targeting many/all routes of a single airline are considered unfair competition, especially if the "target" is a new / small airline."
So, I wrote about this situation directly to sami... Yesterday midday... And still no answer, no action... My airline is in red zone now and going down... I don't understand what's going on...
Sami is very prompt and active, but I think he deserves more than 24 hours before complaining to the forums.
Indeed, I am abroad at the moment, and have not been able to check the situation yet, since I would have to ask the other party too.
But based on your description.. directly opening routes against a new competitor (on all his routes) is something that is not allowed.
Thank you, sami! I just just very disappointed about this situation and player's actions.
Ok, I will declare bankruptcy so you can have the whole AMS to yourself. Trust me, I have been attacked before.
Tim, here you go. :'(
Tim, did you ever bother to contact the other airline and tell them your new?
when I was new I contacted an airline and they actually helped me when they found out I was new...
VDM Airways has declared bankruptcy
VDM Airways has been put into bankruptcy today by the airline CEO. All operations of this airline are ceased, all staff will be fired, and all assets and aircraft are returned to their owners or to creditors.
VDM Airways operated from Amsterdam - Schiphol (EHAM / AMS) airport and had a fleet of 157 aircraft in operation at the time of the closure.
You happy now Tim?
I just want to plug my "New Player Protection System", that would prevent this...
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,38388.0.html
Oh well. Talking of a wee-bit "drama queen" effect again here and completely unnecessary overreaction. Before I have been even able to check what's going on. It really is not THAT serious.
Looking at "first registration" dates, who is the beginner ?
Do I have a RIGHT to open company at a highly competetive airport as AMS and a GUARANTEE my routes will be safe?
Do I have a GUARANTEE to start right with longhaul, fly 3 aircraft from at least 2 groups and stay in the green all the time ?
Should I start complaining to SAMI if something goes wrong before at least trying to clear things up with competitor?
Quote from: exchlbg on August 03, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Looking at "first registration" dates, who is the beginner ?
Do I have a RIGHT to open company at a highly competetive airport as AMS and a GUARANTEE my routes will be safe?
Do I have a GUARANTEE to start right with longhaul, fly 3 aircraft from at least 2 groups and stay in the green all the time ?
Should I start complaining to SAMI if something goes wrong before at least trying to clear things up with competitor?
+1
This went way too far too quick for no reason.
Didn't even know this rule exist,and frankly it is a stupid rule.
I used to attack fresh airlines that start in my base,to prevent him from making profit or at least slow him down a bit.
When you choose a major hub with a couple of well established airlines,you know the competition are going to be rough.
Quote from: exchlbg on August 03, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Do I have a RIGHT to open company at a highly competetive airport as AMS and a GUARANTEE my routes will be safe?
Nope.
QuoteDo I have a GUARANTEE to start right with longhaul, fly 3 aircraft from at least 2 groups and stay in the green all the time ?
Nope. However, when the existing airline's pax graph has been basically static for 12 months, and you've found 3 empty, ~150-250 pax routes to start flying to small caribbean airports, which all have a competitor's flight suddenly appear, I reckon feeling aggrieved is ok.
QuoteShould I start complaining to SAMI if something goes wrong before at least trying to clear things up with competitor?
PMing the competitor is a good first option. Waiting a few days for Sami to get back to you is good. A public forum thread after 24 hours, and an 'ok, I'll BK then' response are a bit over the top.
Quote from: CX717 on August 04, 2012, 03:44:44 AM
Didn't even know this rule exist,and frankly it is a stupid rule.
I used to attack fresh airlines that start in my base,to prevent him from making profit or at least slow him down a bit.
When you choose a major hub with a couple of well established airlines,you know the competition are going to be rough.
Yes, I used these methods before until someday sami wrote me that he'd got a message from fresh airline, and that I'm breaking the rules. So, now I'm giving some time to new players =)
Anyway, sami, we need kind of automatic system to detect these situations.
If you don't want competition, go to Vanuatu, not Amsterdam.
Just my two cents..
What is attack and what is prevention?
If a new airline starts at the base you are at, why wouldn't you try to limit his/her growth so that he/she doesn't become a major competitor....it's far cheaper and easier to get rid of them before they grow......and ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure.
Let's not forget that the new airline 'MADE THEIR CHOICE' to start at an established base....so they need to take all consequences that come with making THEIR decision.
I currently have a very aggressive airline at the base I am at in MT...he grabs slots so quick when they are released that he grows fast and the others have to wait (with brand new planes parked up)...but instead of complaining I sent him a PM complimenting him on his good game-play...why...I chose to start at a larger base so knew I would have good competition.
Maybe we need two version of each game world.....a competitive version with no 'allowances' made and a sandbox version for people that want it easier.
Best thread ever all thanks to the "push button to BK"-reaction and the "Happy now?"-comments :laugh:
Quote from: Dasha on August 04, 2012, 09:15:25 AM
If you don't want competition, go to Vanuatu, not Amsterdam.
Just my two cents..
I have to disagree here. Its the bigger airlines that are the ones which are AGAINST competition and smothers every effort that a new airline makes. It wont matter if you are the best player in AWS history and LOVE competition if the other airline puts the double capacity and cuts the fares to all your new destinations. It bothers me when established players leans back and does this and then puts themselves in the excellent business manager category when they in reality are just panicking when they see that the "n00bs" are reaching a 30 aircraft fleet.
This is the complete opposite of competition.
If the new players opening up in Amsterdam are so awful, why the need of destroying every effort they make to get bigger? They will BK eventually anyway right?
Those are my tio öre...
Quote from: lilius on August 04, 2012, 04:26:10 PM
I have to disagree here. Its the bigger airlines that are the ones which are AGAINST competition and smothers every effort that a new airline makes. It wont matter if you are the best player in AWS history and LOVE competition if the other airline puts the double capacity and cuts the fares to all your new destinations. It bothers me when established players leans back and does this and then puts themselves in the excellent business manager category when they in reality are just panicking when they see that the "n00bs" are reaching a 30 aircraft fleet.
This is the complete opposite of competition.
If the new players opening up in Amsterdam are so awful, why the need of destroying every effort they make to get bigger? They will BK eventually anyway right?
Those are my tio öre...
Well, if the player goes to Amsterdam, because he wants competition, there is no reason to then complain about the competition...
Rarely have I ever seen such a pathetic action and even more so reaction on both sides. Bravo!
Quote from: lilius on August 04, 2012, 02:36:41 PM
Best thread ever all thanks to the "push button to BK"-reaction and the "Happy now?"-comments :laugh:
Wholeheartedly agree! ::)
Quote from: saftfrucht on August 04, 2012, 07:09:36 PM
Rarely have I ever seen such a pathetic action and even more so reaction on both sides. Bravo!
This is the greatest fun-thread in years on this forums ;D
Quote from: Jona L. on August 04, 2012, 06:17:46 PM
Well, if the player goes to Amsterdam, because he wants competition, there is no reason to then complain about the competition...
Of course not, and its rare that it happens too. The difference is that I wouldnt call it competition or competing when all you do is to follow up every route of the tiny airline and cutting fares.
Im saying that the big airlines are usually the ones that are afraid of competition and thats why I find posts about "competition" ironic...
Quote from: lilius on August 04, 2012, 07:53:27 PM
Im saying that the big airlines are usually the ones that are afraid of competition and thats why I find posts about "competition" ironic...
It's easy to be a "big boy" in a sandbox.
Once again Dutch Airlines is in AMS.
(Or is it Delta... LOL) ::)
Massive over-reaction from both sides I feel. The game is about competition. Really? Another airline opened routes on an available route? *shock horror*
PM the player involved, don't run crying because you chose a Top 5 (?) airport and found that someone was already there.
What's next here? Every player gets there own game world so they don't feel "targetted" by the other players in this MMO?
Quote from: Dasha on August 04, 2012, 09:15:25 AM
If you don't want competition, go to Vanuatu, not Amsterdam.
Just my two cents..
There's only space for one airline in Vanuatu - and that is mine!
I started a year or so late. Spend hours going through all big airports to get the largest possible airport with no airline based at the airport. Started carefully building capacity on empty routes till I was strong enough to compete on already established routes. My airport pax numbers stated growing based on the masive amount of money I spend on marketing. Then a new airline popped into MY airport >:( and started adding aircraft to MY profitable routes :'(. Driving my profitability down like you can not believe. I am sorry, even if he complain to sami et al. I will try and work him out of my carefully selected airport and out of my previously profitable routes. It is not economically viable to have his airline at my airport. It is killing my airline. I will ensure all profitable routes are covered at max capacity. That my fares are a bit lower. That marketing is loaded on the routes we fly. That is the game. And the message to all: If you don't like it. Go play solitaire :P.
The difference between fair and unfair competition is not 100% definable.
A new airline starting at a competitive airport should not be safe even if it´s small, when it is breaking into routes
which are fitting into a company pattern of an already existing airline.
It should not be attacked if it starts a business model not yet cared of (like low demand short haul).
Just starting to fly some coincidental routes yet unserved but fitting into existing business model should not leave you unattacked (in a reasonable way, of course).
So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?
Talk about free market economy.....
Nah, competition is part of the deal
If you would have opened those routes in near future anyway,because they fit into your business profile, I think it´s ok.
If it´s just to BK the other one or meaningless seat/price dumping I think it´s not.
Quote from: Airlinemaster on August 08, 2012, 12:22:21 PM
So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?
Talk about free market economy.....
Nah, competition is part of the deal
Generally, I would say yes, especially if you have other routes available for those airplanes that have unmet demand. The fact that you happened to chose the 4 that your new competitor opened up would appear to have the intent of squashing before they got off the ground. Brand new airlines are at such a significant disadvantage to startup airlines that the single move of doing that would put them out of business.
When I'm the incumbant airline at a base, I will generally try to avoid new routes started by these small airlines in order to give them a chance at succeeding. I'll focus my efforts on finding all other unmet demand from the base so I can cover it before they can get to it (and this is also the best way to prevent new airlines from even wanting to start in your base). If you already have demand in your base covered with your flying, then there's really no extra action you have to take to bump off the newcomer airlines.
Most airlines started out at smaller airports and grew into larger airlines operating at larger airports. When you have a few large airports receiving the bulk of new start up airlines it seems a bit unreal. Why not limit the number of airlines that can operate at any airport for a predetermined number of months or years. Let the amount of airlines that can be based at each airport increase as more slots become available as well as increase in passenger traffic. Just my thoughts.
Quote from: Airlinemaster on August 08, 2012, 12:22:21 PM
So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?
Talk about free market economy.....
Nah, competition is part of the deal
Well said. This isn't kindergarten where "we're all winners!"
Quote from: pascaly on August 09, 2012, 03:18:20 AM
Well said. This isn't kindergarten where "we're all winners!"
No, but it is a business, and sami has no desire to have all new players chased off because everytime they start up, no matter where it is, someone slams 10 planes onto their routes at $10/seat in order to immediately bankrupt them. There's a huge difference between "we're all winners!" and "everyone except the 100 players who've played the longest are losers!". There's a big difference between "competition" and "killing off a newb" -- and you're just fooling yourself if you think running off a new entrant into your base requires some sort of elite business savvy that makes you a better player.
It's all a byproduct of the same thing that gives us base limits, aircraft limits, pricing effects (or lack thereof - somewhat tweaked now), and other things that all exist to keep a handful of players who know how to play the game from 'gaming the game' and dominating the game world. "Winning" at AWS isn't nearly as much about being the best "airline CEO" as it is about knowing how to 'game the game' the best; something older players will always have better experience with. Business savvy and great marketing -- the real hallmarks of making a business successful and winning against the competition and the things that make little guys succeed against big ones in the real world -- aren't gonna get you diddily-squat in AWS.
The rules are the rules. They're not new, so there's no reason to get all up in arms about them now. The rules against targetting players have existed for
years now.
And, frankly, this is more realistic than not. Almost every western nation has very stringent regulations regarding air carriers even in "deregulated" environments; there are monopoly regulations, and countless laws/rules/regulations regarding fair business behavior. That's what keeps every airline out there from running all the new entrants in the airline industry over the past 20 years out of business in the first few months doing exactly the same thing. We can't possibly simulate that all here so it's left up to the administration to decide what is considered unfair, really no different than the regulatory or judicial bodies that would determine if such things occurred in reality. It's a rare complaint, and even rarer that something comes out of it, so there's really no reason to be upset about it.
Quote from: Gunner on August 08, 2012, 09:13:06 PM
Most airlines started out at smaller airports and grew into larger airlines operating at larger airports. When you have a few large airports receiving the bulk of new start up airlines it seems a bit unreal. Why not limit the number of airlines that can operate at any airport for a predetermined number of months or years. Let the amount of airlines that can be based at each airport increase as more slots become available as well as increase in passenger traffic. Just my thoughts.
This already exists. It's not a hard-coded limit, but if you start somewhere with a sufficient number of players already there, the game will warn you that you should choose someplace else.
That doesn't apply if you're starting a new airline at a major airport that only 1 or 2 airlines presently exist at. You won't get a warning. You can check to see slot availability, but it won't warn you not to start there because the guy is too big for you to compete against. Otherwise you'd never be able to start at any of the larger hubs after the first couple game-days due to their headstart.
Quote from: pascaly on August 09, 2012, 03:18:20 AM
Well said. This isn't kindergarten where "we're all winners!"
Quote from: Airlinemaster on August 08, 2012, 12:22:21 PM
So if an airline is opening in my base and he opens 4 routes which I do not serve, and I add double frequencies to all those routes, that is forbidden?
Talk about free market economy.....
Nah, competition is part of the deal
Oh come on that is neither "free market" or "competition". Its just excessively defensive and boring in a multiplayer game environment.
My head hurts trying to figure out why this thread is so long.
Quote from: Frogiton on August 10, 2012, 12:31:48 AM
My head hurts trying to figure out why this thread is so long.
Try using 'string theory'... it explains everything, apparently... :'(
Quote from: Frogiton on August 10, 2012, 12:31:48 AM
My head hurts trying to figure out why this thread is so long.
Despite the drama I must say that I find the discussion about competition and newbies/small airlines quite giving on many levels.
So I am playing the Dayz mod to Arma 2... perpetual world, perma death. Only goal is to survive, at all costs. You need to eat and drink. You bleed causing you to need bandages.
Zombies are the NPCs but the other players can be your friend and then turn on you. I've seen it in action... Someone runs with someone else all night and then executes the person that's been helping all along. And poof, starting over and over again.
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 11, 2012, 11:45:05 AM
So I am playing the Dayz mod to Arma 2... perpetual world, perma death. Only goal is to survive, at all costs. You need to eat and drink. You bleed causing you to need bandages.
Zombies are the NPCs but the other players can be your friend and then turn on you. I've seen it in action... Someone runs with someone else all night and then executes the person that's been helping all along. And poof, starting over and over again.
This deserves its own thread because there is quite nothing that can match up with it in this one. Did you consider it? Maybe one in each Game World so noone would miss it?
Quote from: lilius on August 11, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
This deserves its own thread because there is quite nothing that can match up with it in this one. Did you consider it? Maybe one in each Game World so noone would miss it?
No! That would dilute the power!