If I am being unfairly targeted by the Anti Monopoly rules, I am a airline with 7000 weekly passenger these rules are supposed to help me. Is there anywhere I can go to challenge the decision??
I've started a bug report on this. Feel free to add an useful commentary with screenshots etc.
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,44349.0.html
Just now - routes that I have been flying for a long time have been flagged by this anti-monopoly warning.
These are routes I have made zero changes to... and am flying no more than one plane (aircraft unchanged) per day at most into.
Not sure what is going on, but the routes are nowhere near 200% capacity (which I read in another thread).
At worst, the aircraft may oversupply a route at 30%.
Update: I have now received a message saying I corrected the oversupply on 2 of the 16 flagged routes.
I never made a single change to either of those routes.
A part of the rules was changed slightly, and that is why you got the message.
Please see the manual here: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Competition
charger - part of the numbers of the automation checker were just adjusted to make a bit more sense, so that is why you get the "all clear" on the routes now. So feel free to ignore those but please still do check the messages (click on the globe icon on the messages) to view that you are not oversupplying any route.
I just got a notification that the route oversupply was corrected, I'm assuming that the change in the numbers helped or that my plea was heard. I did however go from having a pretty constant supply of passengers (50-60%) and now it has gone down dramatically is that normal or is it the game messing with the route due to my supposed breaking of the rules???
Now a bunch of my routes have been closed and my planes are parked on the ground with gaps in the schedules!!
Why did you have to tinker with things during the game?!?!
I'm not going back over 80+ planes and try to reschedule.
Hopefully these routes will be restored by AWS.
1 plane 1 route 1 per day flight.
That's it.
WTF kind of oversupply is that?!
These are routes that have been flown since the game started.
No increases to capacity at all.
At worst, I have seen slow days where the plane is a little more than half full.
I´m afraid AWS is not restoring anything, but you can....now it is possible to limit the seats you offer, so you no longer go over 200%.
Quote from: exchlbg on November 23, 2012, 03:01:18 AM
I´m afraid AWS is not restoring anything, but you can....now it is possible to limit the seats you offer, so you no longer go over 200%.
I wasn't ever near 200% before... anywhere.
I thought that was clear... maybe not.
And no - I am not going to take hours and re-do my routes.
Funny how yesterday when these monopoly messages started I would get route warnings one minute, problem corrected the next... then the same routes warned again - then gaps.
Pretty whacked out system.
And a good way to wreck the game.
Quote from: charger27 on November 23, 2012, 04:19:14 AM
I wasn't ever near 200% before... anywhere.
I thought that was clear... maybe not.
And no - I am not going to take hours and re-do my routes.
Funny how yesterday when these monopoly messages started I would get route warnings one minute, problem corrected the next... then the same routes warned again - then gaps.
Pretty whacked out system.
And a good way to wreck the game.
Seems obvious then that your routes were borderline 200% : and the usual demand fluctuations were bringing them in and out of the warning zone : I dont know what aircraft you are flying or the demand on your routes : but if its a thin route, it doesnt take a lot of movement for it to become vulnerable to over-supply : the demand you see on your route planning pages is not always accurate, as has been explained several times in the forums : accuracy depends on the efficiency of your staff : it can be + or- 30% in extreme cases ; the system, however, can see the 'true' demand figure and thats what it bases the warnings on : so, as you can see, lots of room for falling into over-supply on thin routes.
I dont know why you seem set against fixing the issue yourself with the seat-blocking function : start on your first route, fix if needed, click the next route link (top right hand corner in grey print) ; repeat ; how hard can that be? take the time to check demand (both ways) and adjust prices while you are at it.
yes, its a pain it happening mid-game : but the 'background' system applies to all worlds, I beleive, so its going to be mid-game somewhere whenever an update is made. Of course, Sami could just pull all the games, make the changes then start again one game at a time to get the gaps back again : sure that would be preferable?
Quote from: brique on November 23, 2012, 04:34:50 AM
Seems obvious then that your routes were borderline 200% : and the usual demand fluctuations were bringing them in and out of the warning zone : I dont know what aircraft you are flying or the demand on your routes : but if its a thin route, it doesnt take a lot of movement for it to become vulnerable to over-supply : the demand you see on your route planning pages is not always accurate, as has been explained several times in the forums : accuracy depends on the efficiency of your staff : it can be + or- 30% in extreme cases ; the system, however, can see the 'true' demand figure and thats what it bases the warnings on : so, as you can see, lots of room for falling into over-supply on thin routes.
I dont know why you seem set against fixing the issue yourself with the seat-blocking function : start on your first route, fix if needed, click the next route link (top right hand corner in grey print) ; repeat ; how hard can that be? take the time to check demand (both ways) and adjust prices while you are at it.
yes, its a pain it happening mid-game : but the 'background' system applies to all worlds, I beleive, so its going to be mid-game somewhere whenever an update is made. Of course, Sami could just pull all the games, make the changes then start again one game at a time to get the gaps back again : sure that would be preferable?
It is overseas routes.
So... what should I fly 737's with fuel stops?!
Planned in is 1 ONE MD11 flight per day.
And you may think you have the answers... but you don't.
Tell me, what do you do if you have a 1 week block of a planned route - and not individual days?
Is the answer to restrict the seats down to the thinnest day, and then lose on 4 or 5 days that are dramatically better?
Am I going back and splitting routes on 50 or 60 planes?
Go back and re-plan routes that have been erased, only to have them eliminated again?
Not on your frickin life.
I don't have countless hours to spend in an online game, unlike some others.
I am going to let the last credits expire, and close it down.
If anyone wants a 1.5 billion dollar airline - let me know.
Now that it needs a pile of repair work thanks to AWS changing the parameters mid-game, I am done with it.
Quote from: charger27 on November 23, 2012, 05:09:55 AM
Tell me, what do you do if you have a 1 week block of a planned route - and not individual days?
Is the answer to restrict the seats down to the thinnest day, and then lose on 4 or 5 days that are dramatically better?
Are you saying that by limiting the number of seats provided down to the thinnest day which is Saturday, you're going to lose opportunity to sell on busy day (Monday and Friday) ?
If Saturday has like 50 demand, then just limit your seats to about 90. I don't think Monday and Friday have more demand than 90
I know it's painful to manually fix the little things, but since you're operating 1 week block of planned route (1 route that fly everyday vs 7 routes that fly on 7 days, if I'm not mistaken), it's not too bad if you compare to someone with 7 day schedule
HP
I had to adjust about 10 routes in 7-day-schedules on A300-600R, overseas. And? What's the problem? It didn't took "hours". It might have taken 10 minutes while I watched House MD on the second screen.
If you tell which routes are affected in detail, I can tell you exactly what's the problem on your side.
Can I adjust my flight so that even if the plane has 65 seats available for that flight only we only offer 40 seats so that i don't go over???
Yes, see announcements forum.
Quote from: charger27 on November 23, 2012, 05:09:55 AM
It is overseas routes.
So... what should I fly 737's with fuel stops?!
Planned in is 1 ONE MD11 flight per day.
And you may think you have the answers... but you don't.
Tell me, what do you do if you have a 1 week block of a planned route - and not individual days?
Is the answer to restrict the seats down to the thinnest day, and then lose on 4 or 5 days that are dramatically better?
Am I going back and splitting routes on 50 or 60 planes?
Go back and re-plan routes that have been erased, only to have them eliminated again?
Not on your frickin life.
I don't have countless hours to spend in an online game, unlike some others.
I am going to let the last credits expire, and close it down.
If anyone wants a 1.5 billion dollar airline - let me know.
Now that it needs a pile of repair work thanks to AWS changing the parameters mid-game, I am done with it.
No thanks, got a 1.5bil airline of my own : with no over-supply warnings ever issued on it ; and, tbh, it would be no big deal if there were : get real, adjusting a route with the seat-block function is a damn sight easier than fiddling with prices : open, enter number, save, done : if thats too much for you, then, imho, nothing will help.
cheerio.
Quote from: Klcosta on November 23, 2012, 10:01:43 AM
Can I adjust my flight so that even if the plane has 65 seats available for that flight only we only offer 40 seats so that i don't go over???
yep, thats the way to resolve any potential problem on your route ; open route to edit : enter 40 in the seat block box, save : go have a coffee, your work is done :)
thanks!!! so helpful
Quote from: brique on November 23, 2012, 10:46:49 AM
No thanks, got a 1.5bil airline of my own : with no over-supply warnings ever issued on it ; and, tbh, it would be no big deal if there were : get real, adjusting a route with the seat-block function is a damn sight easier than fiddling with prices : open, enter number, save, done : if thats too much for you, then, imho, nothing will help.
cheerio.
THAT isn't the time consuming issue I have.
Yes, adjusting seat totals is simple... but I have planes with gaps in schedules and absolutely no idea where those routes were flying in order to restore them.
So... trying to figure out the destinations that drop into the weekly schedule like a puzzle, or wiping the sched and starting again - are both time intensive.
My airline was ALWAYS first second or third in the ENTIRE game with aircraft usage... that's how tight I had things fit together.
Quote from: charger27 on November 23, 2012, 02:53:29 PM
but I have planes with gaps in schedules and absolutely no idea where those routes were flying in order to restore them.
Oh, you meant your routes were shut down automatically and you don't know which one, at which time, flying to which places? I tend to have a spread sheet of all my 7 day schedule, so no big deal for me
Well, 24h notice is kind of short, really. But at least you still have the warning message, right? It still shows the destination, not the time though if the routes have been closed automatically already
Yep, its a pain, that is true, trying to resurrect/reconstruct things : but if you have gone to the considerable effort of building a successful airline, and if its worth 1.5bil, then that is what it is, it would be a shame to BK it without making a stab at recovery.
where to start : 'route image' page will tell you what destinations are no longer served ( see 'last flown' date) : note them down: using 'open new route' to set-up a trial flight ; that will give you a total flight time/turnaround : write that beside the destination : go through your schedule page, see the time gaps between flights, then match that slot to one off your list ; create the route, schedule ; tick off your list : the more holes you fill, the easier it will become to match routes and gaps as each list gets smaller. check the demand levels too, you may have room for extra flights, you may need to seat block : if so, note that on your list as well, so you can go back later to see if it can tweaked better.
look for other clues, see if any routes are showing up in the notifications sub-section of route management : some may still be there but 'grounded' : some may be in your route management page as n/a due to lack of flight data.
Its maybe not a perfect solution but its the best I can offer.
Its also maybe a lesson for others, and for the future ; do a regular copy/paste of your route management pages to a txt file (or save the whole thing as a web page), just as a safety back-up.
Quote from: Mr.HP on November 23, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
Oh, you meant your routes were shut down automatically and you don't know which one, at which time, flying to which places? I tend to have a spread sheet of all my 7 day schedule, so no big deal for me
Well, 24h notice is kind of short, really. But at least you still have the warning message, right? It still shows the destination, not the time though if the routes have been closed automatically already
Right.
But... when the warnings started, they were always followed by the oversupply corrected message.
So in that regard, I was lulled into a false sense of security on my own behalf... that, and not completely understanding what the sudden influx of monopoly warnings were really about - as reflected earlier in this thread.
Then suddenly yesterday, gaps appeared in several of the schedules... where routes were actually closed.
I am not serious enough in this game to start with spread sheets or backups... it is very much a casual pastime.
Whether I finish first or last doesn't matter in the least to me.
As was said... it is what it is, I guess.
So. You are not serious into this game but you make lot of noise because your schedules have few gaps now?
But ok. I'm also not serious into this game. True story.
Quote from: [SC] CUR$E on November 23, 2012, 07:39:07 PM
So. You are not serious into this game but you make lot of noise because your schedules have few gaps now?
But ok. I'm also not serious into this game. True story.
No - unlike you who puts out pretend press releases, and snaps up airport slots to restrict competition... I am not serious.
I log in, buy different plane types, create routes to worldwide destinations... the end.
It's called FUN.
I like commercial aircraft, and enjoy worldwide geography - that's it.
My income level is set to the lowest point, and I don't bother sitting there for hours and tweaking settings to get more out of the airline.
Why?
Because I could care less.
Planes are on routes for one simple reason... because I feel like it.
Do some of them make economic sense?
Of course not... but who cares?
I have been involved with AWS for years, but only play beginners worlds.
Why?
Because I just want to fly planes, and have no desire to be competitive with anyone.
So yes, when new restrictions are implemented in the middle of a game, and get in the road of casual fun... I get annoyed.
If you don't like my "noise" - then don't read it.
Still fun how much time and effort you put into explaining yourself while you think you don't take it serious. ;D
If I'm not serious about something I would simply shut everything down and leave. But your airline still exists and you whine here around and blame others for the fact you missed the messages.
About pretending stuff:
"1.5 bn worth"
"1st or 2nd in utilization"
"perfect schedules"
Tell me more about how you log in, create randomly some routes to places without sense and logging off because you couldn't care less. :P
Quote from: [SC] CUR$E on November 23, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
Still fun how much time and effort you put into explaining yourself while you think you don't take it serious.
If I'm not serious about something I would simply shut everything down and leave. But your airline still exists and you whine here around and blame others for the fact you missed the messages.
About pretending stuff:
"1.5 bn worth"
"1st or 2nd in utilization"
"perfect schedules"
Tell me more about how you log in, create randomly some routes to places without sense and logging off because you couldn't care less.
The "perfect schedules" are created once... then left.
The utilization follows the created routes - if you do it right the first time.
1.5 billion is easy to attain - if you do your schedules properly.
See the pattern?
Pretty straightforward gameplay actually.
No complicated secrets, no time intensive tasking.
The most time I have put into anything, is screwing you out of new Heathrow slots before you could grab them up.
And if you could actually read - you would see I am contemplating shutting the airline down.
Isn't about time for another "press conference"? ::)
Yep, I see the pattern. You invested lots of time (once), still writing long forums posts and still pretend you are taking this not serious. Which step is denial on the addicted scala?
Also I'm a bit disappointed your main goal was to "screw me" and you failed doing so. Must be hard if you fail not only at the main goal, but also on other points, like pretendend you're not seriously into AWS and so. But no offense taken on my side, people tried to "screw me" lots of times and they all failed, so you are just a number.
About the press releases - of course there will be new press releases when my airline achieved a new milestone. I'm not an English native like you, but "press releases" are for press conferences to announce milestones, future plans etc., aren't they?
PS: I still want to make a point here. I'm honored your main goal was to "screw me" and I'm happy you loved my press conferences this much you still refer to them in other threads. But I only can accept female stalkers and groupies. I'm sorry.
Quote from: [SC] CUR$E on November 24, 2012, 10:14:19 AM
Yep, I see the pattern. You invested lots of time (once), still writing long forums posts and still pretend you are taking this not serious. Which step is denial on the addicted scala?
Also I'm a bit disappointed your main goal was to "screw me" and you failed doing so. Must be hard if you fail not only at the main goal, but also on other points, like pretendend you're not seriously into AWS and so. But no offense taken on my side, people tried to "screw me" lots of times and they all failed, so you are just a number.
About the press releases - of course there will be new press releases when my airline achieved a new milestone. I'm not an English native like you, but "press releases" are for press conferences to announce milestones, future plans etc., aren't they?
PS: I still want to make a point here. I'm honored your main goal was to "screw me" and I'm happy you loved my press conferences this much you still refer to them in other threads. But I only can accept female stalkers and groupies. I'm sorry.
I got the Heathrow routes I wanted in spite of your slot collecting, and cut your route revenue by 60%.
Take that any way you want.
To the developers:
Can you lengthen the timeline on the route oversupply?
When I turn the computer off in the evening, everything is fine... no messages.
By morning - I have a route that has disappeared because a warning that came overnight has already expired.
If the restrictions are going to work on gametime, it needs to be longer.
Why for heavens you all want to serve a route for as close to 200% as possible? Stay with a bit over 100% by seat sell limiter and everything still makes sense and nothing will happen overnight.
I would really like to see Sami turning the cost screw up a lot more to make these company policies a failure right from the start.
What airline in RL flying with less than half-full planes is making a profit (except state-owned or -pampered ones, of course) ?
To charger: you don´t give a damn if you are making a profit? You don´t care if it is totally senseless flying routes? What the heck?
You play this game for years, but only beginner´s world? How is that possible, by the way ? Seems time for Sami to look over participation rules,too.
And now, knowing all that, why should we or Sami care about anything you are criticizing?
You like aircrafts? Try plane-spotting on some airport fence, it´s free and fresh air ! You like geography ? Try google world. This is an economy simulation, not Microsoft Flight Simulator.
You don´t care about this game the smallest bit, you have fun by and brag about reaching some goals against untrained newbies, at the same time taking advantage of easier surroundings and being a bad example. You are not helping this project moving forward one inch further, instead you´re starting a great whine-storm because somebody spoiled your fun by enforcing rules.
Ok, guys, let´s move on.....
Quote from: exchlbg on November 24, 2012, 03:40:49 PM
Why for heavens you all want to serve a route for as close to 200% as possible? Stay with a bit over 100% by seat sell limiter and everything still makes sense and nothing will happen overnight.
I would really like to see Sami turning the cost screw up a lot more to make these company policies a failure right from the start.
What airline in RL flies with less than half-full planes is making a profit (except state-owned or -pampered ones, of course) ?
Agreed ; just what is the benefit of deliberately doing so? The seat limiter solves the problem, set it to allow 150% of demand if you really must over-supply for some arcane reason, but even then no warnings will need ever be issued, so the issue of how long you have to change an offending route is a bit moot, in my view...
BTW : its 24hrs real time, not 24hrs game time : not even Sami is that cruel... well... best not go there... Sami has announced another change so warnings/notifications only get issued once a week.. he is going soft... in my day we were glad to get a 4-minute warning.. and that was for total mutually assured world destruction.. kids these days...
Quote from: charger27 on November 24, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I got the Heathrow routes I wanted in spite of your slot collecting, and cut your route revenue by 60%.
Take that any way you want.
Taking the spare slots that were left is not really "slot hunting". Even at the moment there are enough slots to form a daily schedule if one doesn't care about all flights at the same time.
And, just a hint: Smaller LF with massively increased prices pay in more money than normal or low prices and higher load factors. But just because I can I reduced prices to show you where your place it as market share. It seems pretty important to you.
Quote from: charger27 on November 24, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
When I turn the computer off in the evening, everything is fine... no messages.
By morning - I have a route that has disappeared because a warning that came overnight has already expired.
If the restrictions are going to work on gametime, it needs to be longer.
I know Canada is a very very big (and mostly beautiful) country, but aren't 24 hours there the same amount of time as everywhere else? I know there exist places on this planet where's no night (or day) for more than 24 hours, but if you go to bed in the evening (let's say at 19pm because you were tired early due to slot hunting and AWS) and sleep very long (because you need much power for AWS and long forum posts, so let's say 9am)... that are only 12 hours so far.
I'm not some kind of math genius, but isn't 24hr-12hr=12hr? So another 12 hours left?
Are you still sure the fail is in and not in front of your computer?
Quote from: exchlbg on November 24, 2012, 03:40:49 PM
Why for heavens you all want to serve a route for as close to 200% as possible? Stay with a bit over 100% by seat sell limiter and everything still makes sense and nothing will happen overnight.
I would really like to see Sami turning the cost screw up a lot more to make these company policies a failure right from the start.
What airline in RL flying with less than half-full planes is making a profit (except state-owned or -pampered ones, of course) ?
To charger: you don´t give a damn if you are making a profit? You don´t care if it is totally senseless flying routes? What the heck?
You play this game for years, but only beginner´s world? How is that possible, by the way ? Seems time for Sami to look over participation rules,too.
And now, knowing all that, why should we or Sami care about anything you are criticizing?
You like aircrafts? Try plane-spotting on some airport fence, it´s free and fresh air ! You like geography ? Try google world. This is an economy simulation, not Microsoft Flight Simulator.
You don´t care about this game the smallest bit, you have fun by and brag about reaching some goals against untrained newbies, at the same time taking advantage of easier surroundings and being a bad example. You are not helping this project moving forward one inch further, instead you´re starting a great whine-storm because somebody spoiled your fun by enforcing rules.
Ok, guys, let´s move on.....
How about you play your game the way you want... and I'll do the same? ::)
I fly planes and routes because I feel like it, not necessarily for the economics. You don't like that, tough.
BTW - you can play beginner's worlds again after a 5 month or so break between games... has always been this way.
Which is fine by me, because a half year off between long games is about right.
Against untrained newbies?
Puleeze.
Do you know how many of the top players are so-called newbies?
Here's a hint - it's a nice round number. :laugh:
And again for the illiterate.
I am not playing
against anyone.
If I finish last in the standings - who cares?!
Enforcing rules is fine.
If you could only read and comprehend - you will see I was not happy about it showing up in the middle of the game.
Moving the project forward?
Not my concern if the project advances or not... I'm not here to help the developers.
I pay to play.
If you want to be a test case - hey, have at it.
Quote from: charger27 on November 24, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
......, and cut your route revenue by 60%.
Quote from: [SC] CUR$E on November 24, 2012, 04:13:11 PM
And, just a hint: Smaller LF with massively increased prices pay in more money than normal or low prices and higher load factors. But just because I can I reduced prices to show you where your place it as market share. It seems pretty important to you.
I thought you were at least using standard prices, but it seems you have discounted the price a good amount (or didn't cover up inflation).
Quote from: [SC] CUR$E on November 25, 2012, 08:29:05 AM
I thought you were at least using standard prices, but it seems you have discounted the price a good amount (or didn't cover up inflation).
That would be YOU who drops his pants at the ticket window, not me.
Nice try at the guesswork though, genius.
The largest discount off default standard for ANY of my tickets is $40 for any class.
And that isn't in any of the European routes.
Ok, a technical question to help me better understand this oversupply restriction.
We have all seen the pink boxes that pop up telling you that your plane has been restricted to a certain number of pax on a route due to rwy requirements or distance flown.
Often times, the restriction is still for more passengers than my aircraft is configured for.
So obviously that tells me if someone configures the same plane for a pile of high density seats - they can squeeze far more people into the same jet.
Now, on the oversupply issue.
Are these warnings based on a MAXIMUM possible default configuration of an aircraft - and not necessarily MY specialized configuration?
If that's the case, then the problem can be dealt with by restricting my planes to my passenger limit.
Oversupply is based on the seats you actually have for sale. It's got nothing to do with maximum config.
Ok, this oversupply BS needs to be figured out.
I recently opened 7 routes (1 per day) to an Asian destination - with 2 planes covering.
Over the 7 days... the lowest pax is 182, and the highest at 240.
There is one competitor who is supplying 200 seats for 6 of the 7 days.
So here I come with my A340-200 configured at 294 seats... route reduced to 356 for distance (not applicable obviously).
I default the 2 planes at 290 restricted seats, and do the marketing campaign to improve my stats.
Just had EVERY route closed with this stupid oversupply gimmick!
Now someone needs to explain their math to me.
Lowest day 182 @ 100%... 364 @ 200%.
Highest day 240 @ 100%... 480 @ 200%.
290 seats isn't even CLOSE to 200% in ANY situation!
So - a couple questions before I just BK, and say to hell with this game.
1. How does the competitor's 200 seats factor into the mix? Or do they?
2. Why does it always appear the warnings are based on the number of pax that actually board the plane, and NOT on the pax available?
I have been tracking this for awhile on a South American route that always seems to be in conflict - even though my aircraft is reduced almost to 100% of availability... in a location where my airline is also exclusive.
One week the loadfactor is lower... warning.
The next week pax carried total is higher... no warning.
As far as your supply goes, the competitors seats dont matter at all. They'll affect how many you fill, but not how many you offer.
the demand figure YOU see on your charts is not accurate : bottom right is a text in grey which gives your airlines accuracy rate : its affected by how efficient your staff are, thats affected by wages, numbers and morale and, I think, how long you have been flying the route (as in, your airline gets better at predicting the demand).
The warnings are generated by referral to the TRUE demand figures contained in the game-data ; which of itself varies as demand fluctuates both day-to-day and also over time.
So its not a fixed number, it moves, you dont even get to truly know that number, except within a range defined by your accuracy rate on the day and at the time you look.
mathematically ; you are missing a factor in your working-out ; A near-200% supply magnifies the effect of any movement in the base figure ; example : demand is 100 : you supply 190, leaving a 10% margin : if the base demand drops by 5 pax you lose your 10% buffer : if it drops by 6 pax, you go over 200%. If your accuracy rate is 90% : you dont even know if there is 100 to start with, could be 90, could be 110 : if its an actual figure of 95, for example, you have no 10% buffer at all, 1 pax less is enough to push you over the mark.
But what it really comes back to is why are you even trying for a 200% supply? okay, you play your game your way, yada, yada, but its just creating these issues for you and you aint addressing the root cause so perhaps its best you Bk and beggar off before you blow a fuse refusing to accept a fundamental fact ; 200% supply aint neccessary, going over it it will get the route pulled, and beating yourself over the head with a calculator trying to get your supply as close to that figure as possible is idiotic at best when the actual 100% figure is not fixed.
thank-you, its been emotional.
I don´t see where your warning of leaving should affect us, on the contrary. You just insist of playing a foolish game of economic kamikaze trying to bomb other airlines as well as yours, crying to forums over figures you can´t make up.
Good bye.
I'm just curious, but haven't you someone in the big ELITE alliance network who could figure out what you're doing wrong constantly? Isn't that what an alliance is for? Mentoring each other?
I'm serious about that. Hard to tell what you made wrong exactly because what you describe doesn't have the effects you see.
Quote from: exchlbg on November 27, 2012, 10:01:32 PM
I don´t see where your warning of leaving should affect us, on the contrary. You just insist of playing a foolish game of economic kamikaze trying to bomb other airlines as well as yours, crying to forums over figures you can´t make up.
Good bye.
GFY :laugh:
Quote from: brique on November 27, 2012, 09:50:35 PM
As far as your supply goes, the competitors seats dont matter at all. They'll affect how many you fill, but not how many you offer.
Ok, good. Thanks.
the demand figure YOU see on your charts is not accurate : bottom right is a text in grey which gives your airlines accuracy rate : its affected by how efficient your staff are, thats affected by wages, numbers and morale and, I think, how long you have been flying the route (as in, your airline gets better at predicting the demand).
The warnings are generated by referral to the TRUE demand figures contained in the game-data ; which of itself varies as demand fluctuates both day-to-day and also over time.
So its not a fixed number, it moves, you dont even get to truly know that number, except within a range defined by your accuracy rate on the day and at the time you look.
Yes, I realize all this.
mathematically ; you are missing a factor in your working-out ; A near-200% supply magnifies the effect of any movement in the base figure ; example : demand is 100 : you supply 190, leaving a 10% margin : if the base demand drops by 5 pax you lose your 10% buffer : if it drops by 6 pax, you go over 200%. If your accuracy rate is 90% : you dont even know if there is 100 to start with, could be 90, could be 110 : if its an actual figure of 95, for example, you have no 10% buffer at all, 1 pax less is enough to push you over the mark.
Ok, makes sense... but I'm not running any of my planes that close to the mark - since they have been adjusted for the new rules, of course.
For example, this route I have indicated: 360 @ 200% on the one bad day... 290 seats.
That would have to be a huge fluctuation to drag even the worst day down to 200% capacity.
BTW - every other day of the week is over 200 pax listed, and the worst day is the one my competitor chose not to fly at all.
But what it really comes back to is why are you even trying for a 200% supply? okay, you play your game your way, yada, yada, but its just creating these issues for you and you aint addressing the root cause so perhaps its best you Bk and beggar off before you blow a fuse refusing to accept a fundamental fact ; 200% supply aint neccessary, going over it it will get the route pulled, and beating yourself over the head with a calculator trying to get your supply as close to that figure as possible is idiotic at best when the actual 100% figure is not fixed.
thank-you, its been emotional.
Not trying... I wish there were more routes with adequate pax.
Fact is, I am only mentioning the routes that are a problem... not the vast majority that are not.
What it comes down to - I have basically run out of destinations that are worth servicing... both domestic and international.
The secondary long distance flights are a problem because of the need for a plane to reach the location vs seats available when you get there.
So the adjustment continues.
While I appreciate your answers... it still doesn't answer my question as to why my Asian routes were closed.
Essentially you have confirmed my math was not wrong - and something is not right with this new system restriction.
I should mention, all these routes were individual flights... not several days grouped together.
Also - even my high 240 day route was closed, along with all the others in between high 240 and low 180.
And that would have to be an outrageous swing of pax to take the 290 seats to over 200% on a 240 projected day!
I could reduce to - say 20 seats over the listing.
But why should I have to - when 200% isn't even close?
Just trying to understand what makes the new rules work.
Your routes were closed because the system judged they were breaking the 200% over-supply rule.
We've endeavoured to explain how that rule works, and how and why going by the raw demand figures shown on route planning can be deceptive.
We've offered solutions, such as seat-blocking and questioned the very need to over-supply at that level, particularly as you say you have no competition on some of these routes.
If you continue to have routes pulled when, by your calculations they should not be, and none of the explanations or solutions offered here suffice, then report a bug in the correct forum, giving all the relevant information, (this being a general discussion forum, so may not attract Sami's attention as readily) and await Sami's investigation and response.
As to the difficulty of finding the right aircraft to service long thin routes, that's not a new problem, sometimes some routes just cant be done at all, never-mind profitably, with current aircraft types ; seat-blocking does go some way to allowing you to try for them though, but you do need to judge the amount of seats offered carefully : I have one route in JA which wanders quite randomly up and down from 330 to 430 ; add in my 95% accuracy rate and it could be worse, or better, depending... which illustrates the problem of judging what is 200% nicely...
Quote from: charger27 on November 27, 2012, 11:07:46 PM
I should mention, all these routes were individual flights... not several days grouped together.
Without having seen your airline, and since you are very clear that you weren't close to 200%, my guess is you've made a relatively common mistake, and not looked closely enough at the return route.
Say your Friday flight lands at the destination at 2200, and the return flight takes off 2 hours later, at 0000. Your Saturday flight lands at 2100, the return flight departs at 2300.
So when you look at the route planning, you'll see 290 pax on Friday, and 290 on Saturday. BUT, if you look at the planning for the return route, you'll see 0 pax on Friday, and 580 pax on Saturday. So you get a warning, and you get your route closed, even though nothing looks wrong on your route planning page.
Since you say they were all individual routes, rather than a weekly route with identical timing, that'd me my first guess about an otherwise inexplicable monopoly warning.
*edit* I just had a quick look, and I'm almost certain that's what the issue was. I don't know the specific route you had closed. But you are making that same mistake I mentioned on existing routes. I've attached a screenie of the route planning for you to & from Bangkok. As you can see, it all looks fine on the outward leg. But the return leg, not so much. If that route was slightly smaller, you'd be getting warnings for supplying 588 seats on Saturday.
You look to have the same problem on your flights to Buenos Aries, Caracas, Hong Kong (You should be getting warnings about Hong Kong & Caracas), Memphis, Miami, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Sao Paulo (540 Sunday, 0 Monday, ~270 demand so that'll be likely to trigger warnings then say it's fine on a week to week basis), Shanghai, St Louis, Taipei, Toronto, Winnipeg. Not all of those will generate warnings, but every one of those has the route planning for the return leg look very different to your even planning for the outward leg.
So I assume that was also the case for the route that was closed. Nothing wrong with the system, just a relatively (though could be painful with so many routes) easy to correct mistake with the way you schedule. If you use 7 day schedules, you can avoid having to deal with this issue, and also avoid all those 0000-0455 takeoffs/landings.
Quote from: charger27 on November 27, 2012, 09:29:16 PM
Ok, this oversupply BS needs to be figured out.
There is NO bs in it.
The rules are very simple and it sends the warnings if you really are over the rule limits, for sure, and the messages are correct. So check the message you got, also the return route.... (there is a direct link to that leg's route planning from the globe icon)
Quote from: Sanabas on November 28, 2012, 02:44:56 AM
Without having seen your airline, and since you are very clear that you weren't close to 200%, my guess is you've made a relatively common mistake, and not looked closely enough at the return route.
Say your Friday flight lands at the destination at 2200, and the return flight takes off 2 hours later, at 0000. Your Saturday flight lands at 2100, the return flight departs at 2300.
So when you look at the route planning, you'll see 290 pax on Friday, and 290 on Saturday. BUT, if you look at the planning for the return route, you'll see 0 pax on Friday, and 580 pax on Saturday. So you get a warning, and you get your route closed, even though nothing looks wrong on your route planning page.
Since you say they were all individual routes, rather than a weekly route with identical timing, that'd me my first guess about an otherwise inexplicable monopoly warning.
*edit* I just had a quick look, and I'm almost certain that's what the issue was. I don't know the specific route you had closed. But you are making that same mistake I mentioned on existing routes. I've attached a screenie of the route planning for you to & from Bangkok. As you can see, it all looks fine on the outward leg. But the return leg, not so much. If that route was slightly smaller, you'd be getting warnings for supplying 588 seats on Saturday.
You look to have the same problem on your flights to Buenos Aries, Caracas, Hong Kong (You should be getting warnings about Hong Kong & Caracas), Memphis, Miami, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Sao Paulo (540 Sunday, 0 Monday, ~270 demand so that'll be likely to trigger warnings then say it's fine on a week to week basis), Shanghai, St Louis, Taipei, Toronto, Winnipeg. Not all of those will generate warnings, but every one of those has the route planning for the return leg look very different to your even planning for the outward leg.
So I assume that was also the case for the route that was closed. Nothing wrong with the system, just a relatively (though could be painful with so many routes) easy to correct mistake with the way you schedule. If you use 7 day schedules, you can avoid having to deal with this issue, and also avoid all those 0000-0455 takeoffs/landings.
Hong Kong was a "noob-like" oversight on my part.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Caracas was a slot deficiency that I was aware of.
It has now been corrected, courtesy of my competitor. :D
Quote from: charger27 on November 28, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
Hong Kong was a "noob-like" oversight on my part.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Caracas was a slot deficiency that I was aware of.
It has now been corrected, courtesy of my competitor. :D
Not trying to sound harsh, but all the routes I listed are 'noob-like' oversights. ;)
It's an easy mistake to make, and a minor one in most cases, it'll just lead to low load factors on one day of the week on the return leg, not enough to make a difference to a profitable airline. It just becomes bigger when it triggers oversupply warnings and route closures, is all.
Was this why your route got closed unexpectedly?
Quote from: Sanabas on November 28, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Not trying to sound harsh, but all the routes I listed are 'noob-like' oversights. ;)
It's an easy mistake to make, and a minor one in most cases, it'll just lead to low load factors on one day of the week on the return leg, not enough to make a difference to a profitable airline. It just becomes bigger when it triggers oversupply warnings and route closures, is all.
Was this why your route got closed unexpectedly?
The domestic routes are not oversights.
They are schedule fillers... so will look silly to some degree on the timelines - but I have never received warnings for these either.
But the other two daily flights connected with each aircraft are very profitable.
Yes, I could run another 10 planes to pick up the shorter routes I am "wasting"... and maybe I will, eventually.
The 2 Caracas routes that were a problem, I have been waiting for over a week (real time) for better slot openings - which I finally got.
Venezuela is again pretty much a "what do you do with planes that have a bit of space to fill" in the weekly sched... and not a big concern for the revenue.
Gather a couple bucks rather than have the plane sit for the empty spare time.
No way that route could support an aircraft as the primary revenue source.
Hong Kong? I have to THINK that's why they were closed unexpectedly.
I dunno - even after I fixed the routes to proper times, I still got a warning.
So I have reduced the seats further and we'll see how it goes.
These are new and developing routes with decent pax... so we'll have to be a little patient and let the marketing campaign do its thing.
Quote from: charger27 on November 29, 2012, 12:18:38 AM
The domestic routes are not oversights.
They are schedule fillers... so will look silly to some degree on the timelines - but I have never received warnings for these either.
But the other two daily flights connected with each aircraft are very profitable.
Yes, I could run another 10 planes to pick up the shorter routes I am "wasting"... and maybe I will, eventually.
Yeah, fair enough. You do end up with no flights one day, and 2 flights and vastly oversupplied the day before. But as I said, pretty minimal impact in terms of profit.
You don't need another 10 planes to pick up extra routes. You could fly all of your LH destinations at the same time every day, and you'd probably free up a plane or two in the process.
QuoteThe 2 Caracas routes that were a problem, I have been waiting for over a week (real time) for better slot openings - which I finally got.
Venezuela is again pretty much a "what do you do with planes that have a bit of space to fill" in the weekly sched... and not a big concern for the revenue.
Gather a couple bucks rather than have the plane sit for the empty spare time.
No way that route could support an aircraft as the primary revenue source.
OK. I have a feeling you're still misunderstanding the issue. You say that you have already fixed the issues with the Caracas flight. However, I'm looking at the route planning for SVMI-KMSP right now. You appear to have manually restricted seats to 120 aand 140 for the routes you were getting warned about. You offer 260 seats on a Wednesday, and 0 seats on a Thursday. The daily demand is ~110. You've 'fixed' it, but it's clearly in violation of the oversupply rules, and should generate a warning. Screenie is attached...
QuoteHong Kong? I have to THINK that's why they were closed unexpectedly.
I dunno - even after I fixed the routes to proper times, I still got a warning.
So I have reduced the seats further and we'll see how it goes.
I don't think you have fixed the routes to proper times. From Buenos Aries, you offer 604 seats Mon & Fri, 302 Tue, Thu, Sun, 0 seats on Wed & Sat. No warnings though, because the daily demand is ~350.
Sao Paulo you've manually reduced two of the flights to be 260 & 280. But you still offer 540 seats on a Sunday, none on a Monday, and so are very very close to 200%, and may well get warned/told you're fine depending as the demand fluctuates by 5-10 people up or down.
Taipei, you've reduced 4 of your flights to 220 pax. Those would be the 4 you got warnings. As a result, https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/RCTP/KMSP shows 440 pax on Mon & Saturday, 288 tues, Thur, Fri, none on Wed & Sun. So should avoid warnings.
From Hong Kong, I can't tell for sure, because there is another airline on the route. But I *think* you are offering 450+ seats on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. 250 or so seats on a Friday. No seats at all on Monday, Wednesday, Saturday. You are definitely going to get warned about your flights to Hong Kong, and you are definitely going to have them shut down yet again, unless you fix it. Please click on https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/VHHK/KMSP and look at the graph.
So it seems like you're just taking a guess, reducing your seats for sale a bit, and hoping that avoids warnings. Rather than understanding the actual cause of the problem, and fixing it. Your Caracas and Hong Kong flights ARE NOT fixed, and that is why you are getting warned. They WILL get closed down.
Quote from: Sanabas on November 29, 2012, 02:03:55 AM
Yeah, fair enough. You do end up with no flights one day, and 2 flights and vastly oversupplied the day before. But as I said, pretty minimal impact in terms of profit.
You don't need another 10 planes to pick up extra routes. You could fly all of your LH destinations at the same time every day, and you'd probably free up a plane or two in the process.
OK. I have a feeling you're still misunderstanding the issue. You say that you have already fixed the issues with the Caracas flight. However, I'm looking at the route planning for SVMI-KMSP right now. You appear to have manually restricted seats to 120 aand 140 for the routes you were getting warned about. You offer 260 seats on a Wednesday, and 0 seats on a Thursday. The daily demand is ~110. You've 'fixed' it, but it's clearly in violation of the oversupply rules, and should generate a warning. Screenie is attached...
I don't think you have fixed the routes to proper times. From Buenos Aries, you offer 604 seats Mon & Fri, 302 Tue, Thu, Sun, 0 seats on Wed & Sat. No warnings though, because the daily demand is ~350.
Sao Paulo you've manually reduced two of the flights to be 260 & 280. But you still offer 540 seats on a Sunday, none on a Monday, and so are very very close to 200%, and may well get warned/told you're fine depending as the demand fluctuates by 5-10 people up or down.
Taipei, you've reduced 4 of your flights to 220 pax. Those would be the 4 you got warnings. As a result, https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/RCTP/KMSP shows 440 pax on Mon & Saturday, 288 tues, Thur, Fri, none on Wed & Sun. So should avoid warnings.
From Hong Kong, I can't tell for sure, because there is another airline on the route. But I *think* you are offering 450+ seats on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. 250 or so seats on a Friday. No seats at all on Monday, Wednesday, Saturday. You are definitely going to get warned about your flights to Hong Kong, and you are definitely going to have them shut down yet again, unless you fix it. Please click on https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/VHHK/KMSP and look at the graph.
So it seems like you're just taking a guess, reducing your seats for sale a bit, and hoping that avoids warnings. Rather than understanding the actual cause of the problem, and fixing it. Your Caracas and Hong Kong flights ARE NOT fixed, and that is why you are getting warned. They WILL get closed down.
Eh, maybe some day when I have time I'll take a look at the returns more closely.
For now, good enough.
Thanks for the tips.
Yet another case of unfriendly behaviour. After complaining in aggressive tone not a bit understanding what is going on, now this improper answer to someone that really cared and worked out route by route where the problems really lie.
I would like to thank Sanabas for all the work he had to put an end to it.
Quote from: exchlbg on November 29, 2012, 12:23:51 PM
Yet another case of unfriendly behaviour. After complaining in aggressive tone not a bit understanding what is going on, now this improper answer to someone that really cared and worked out route by route where the problems really lie.
I would like to thank Sanabas for all the work he had to put an end to it.
GFY
Quote from: charger27 on November 29, 2012, 04:10:28 AM
Eh, maybe some day when I have time I'll take a look at the returns more closely.
For now, good enough.
Thanks for the tips.
Trying to squeeze the "extra" flight out of the long routes per week.
Works with outbound, but not so much with inbound.
Guess I will just revert to the "cleanup" 3rd plane that I have used in other games.
That keeps the logistics in order.
I'm still missing the excuse to sami calling his feature and software "Bulls***" while the mistake was absolutely on user side...
Instead of telling us what he is planning to do (who cares?) he should have excused to everybody else.
Okay, give it a rest already ..... ::)
A couple days ago, I had these routes warned then closed.
I couldn't find anything wrong - and reconstructed them.
Now I have them all under warning again.
Can someone see something that I am not?
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi574.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss188%2Fmeleyssa%2Fspecialty%2Fmspkixmap.png&hash=cee0ede6c7b9597611c2cebf5b8d4c47b03b47d4)
You've closed your MSP-KIX routes, so hard to tell. Based on the screenies, you shouldn't have been warned about it.
You have fixed or removed all of your problem routes, which is good. Flights to Hong Kong now all depart at identical times, for instance.
You would have had at least 3, and possibly 7 different route numbers for MSP-KIX. Did all of them get warnings? Or only a couple?
There are only a few possibilities:
You're mistaken, and the warnings you received didn't correspond to the screenie you posted.
The actual demand for KIX-MSP on a sat/sun was under 150 (doesn't appear likely, looking at the route planning)
You were warned incorrectly, and there was a bug (can't tell now, unfortunately. If you recreate them and get incorrectly warned, you should take screenies of the planning, the warnings themselves, and post a bug report.)
The warnings were generated because the competition on the route is also a member of your alliance, and so the alliance offering over 200% is in breach of the rules. However, that should mean the other airline should have also received warnings, and as far as I know, warnings of that type must be manually generated after a complaint, they're not automated.
Quote from: Sanabas on December 15, 2012, 04:28:50 AM
You've closed your MSP-KIX routes, so hard to tell. Based on the screenies, you shouldn't have been warned about it.
You have fixed or removed all of your problem routes, which is good. Flights to Hong Kong now all depart at identical times, for instance.
You would have had at least 3, and possibly 7 different route numbers for MSP-KIX. Did all of them get warnings? Or only a couple?
There are only a few possibilities:
You're mistaken, and the warnings you received didn't correspond to the screenie you posted.
The actual demand for KIX-MSP on a sat/sun was under 150 (doesn't appear likely, looking at the route planning)
You were warned incorrectly, and there was a bug (can't tell now, unfortunately. If you recreate them and get incorrectly warned, you should take screenies of the planning, the warnings themselves, and post a bug report.)
The warnings were generated because the competition on the route is also a member of your alliance, and so the alliance offering over 200% is in breach of the rules. However, that should mean the other airline should have also received warnings, and as far as I know, warnings of that type must be manually generated after a complaint, they're not automated.
I didn't close the routes... they got closed by the system AGAIN!!
If it is my alliance affiliation causing the issue - no problem, exit the alliance.
And yes it was all the routes over two planes.
That is twice - if I get more warnings (now that I have rebuilt them again), I will submit a ticket.