Message sent just after setting up two routes. Two planes, two different routes.
Notification from the Anti Monopoly Bureau,
The Game Rules state that airline is not allowed to oversupply routes with excess seat capacity to allow fair competition. The automatic checking system has found some of your routes to be in violation of these rules (you provide too much capacity on the routes, and are exceeding the limits set forth in the rules).
Please check these routes and reduce their capacity immediately so that they are no longer oversupplied against the rules. If changes are not made within 24 hours the system will close down these routes.
Routes in violation of the rules:
ยป WJ003, KMDW - KPBI View route Route planning
Please be aware that oversupplying a route is forbidden in the game rules and airlines violating the rules may be penalized.
Really? one plane on a route and I'm "Monopolizing it? LOL Give me a break. What is this Obama's redistribution AirSim game? I'm sure glad this game had a 7 day trial because it blows. Good by AirwaySim, you won't be getting any of my money.
Hats off for that totally unnecessary rage quit ( ::) ), but these are the rules, and they are very clearly described in the manual for example, and unfortunately seems to me that you just didn't take the few moments to read what this message is actually about. And the message you received is a first warning only, and you would have had plenty of time to react (and it would have taken 10 seconds to sort it out, but .. never mind then.).
Routes vs. seats chapter: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Competition
@ MsWest
I hope you step on Lego.
Better bring the "not sure if serious?" memes.
So if you have two planes with two different routes and triggered the oversupply warning, that means 1 plane served more than 100% of the capacity.
I think he failed to discover the Route Planning popup which shows demand and was just opening routes without realizing that data was available, thus the ridiculous post...
Actually I think that flying 1 flight per day should NEVER EVER trigger this oversupply warning.
Why?
Who cares if you are flying a 747 on 80pax/400nm route? It's only yourself who suffers. If somebody schedules a Q400 or ATR on that same route, then he will get more or less 50% of pax anyway, so what's the point of the restriction? It should be only in place when there are more than 1 scheduled flights per day. When using 7-day scheduling it's major PITA to first add seat blocks and then 5-10 years later remember to remove them if plane capacity happens to be more than 2x the pax but you expect it to grow...
It was used to hog slots in the past.
How?
Quote from: Boot on March 18, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
How?
If the only plane you have is a 744 and you're just grabbing slots at a slot restricted then its easiest just to hit a nearby airport with it even if it is 10X demand (as you can easily fit that into one frame), and once you have your set of 7 planes, convert it to a proper money making long haul route.
Of course, the work around now is to just seat restrict that 744 to not trigger the warning, however, doing that habitually is also a violation of the rules (though, enforcement action wasn't taken last time I reported such an obvious abuse).
Quote from: Game RulesThe airline is also forbidden to create routes so that the only purpose is to get airport slots and preserve them for future use. In practice this would, for example (but not limited to), mean routing aircraft to airports and routes that provide no profit, or by clearly oversupplying the estimated pax demand, and later switching the routes to other airports when more suitable aircraft equipment is available.
Yep. If you are at LHR and a slot drop happens, you can't fly a big bird 1x daily to 3 nearby airports with 10 pax/day demand just to secure slots.
IMO the warning is more of a benefit than a nuisance. If you are supplying more than 200% demand then your max LF is 50% and flying profitably with 50% LF can be extremely difficult unless you are doing a good job with pricing.