I rest my case. While Rome is burning the AS Team continues to work on eye candy.
The new booking classes might be an awesome feature but it won't matter because you can't compete when you can't find slots anywhere with a really cut-throat person running one of these behemoths.
You mean like DL in ATL, DTW and MSP, AA in DFW, PHL and CLT, UA in DEN and IAH, WN in DAL, LAS, MCI, STL, MDW, BWI, AS in SEA, AC in YYZ, BA in LHR, IB in MAD, TP in LIS, AF in CDG, KL in AMS, OS in VIE, EK in DXB, EY in AUH, QR in DOH, LN in SCL, CM in PTY, AV in BOG, etc. Etc.Exact numbers notwithstanding (I would prefer around 50% per user - regardless of how many holdings or airlines), this would actually be realistic. IRL there are anti-trust authorities that prevent airlines from getting too much of a market share and monopolizing airports.
Intesting R
You mean like DL in ATL, DTW and MSP, AA in DFW, PHL and CLT, UA in DEN and IAH, WN in DAL, LAS, MCI, STL, MDW, BWI, AS in SEA, AC in YYZ, BA in LHR, IB in MAD, TP in BCN, AF in CDG, KL in AMS, OS in VIE, EK in DXB, EY in AUH, QR in DOH, LN in SCL, CM in PTY, AV in BOG, etc. Etc.
Interesting. I had no idea that Delta had over a 70% market share in Atlanta. And apparently they also fought tooth and nail against a smaller airport opening up commercial flights in northern Atlanta. Based on what I'm reading they seem to have been successful to this point in keeping operators out of that airport. But even Delta, the biggest airline in the world, only operates 13 hubs total and 10 within the US.
And as a consumer I find Delta's behavior reprehensible...but not shocking.
I don't think you can ever put a number for that. Last july Delta had 78% share in ATL, but it's losing the share over the time.
50% might sound too low, maybe 80% will be better.
Edit: i think the case on Stapleton does seem to be a little bit ridiculous. Maybe we do some measure on that
I think the amount of hub players have in game is usually more is probably because there are more demand, more money, faster grow in game compare to real life, all result in much larger scale airline in game compare to real world. If it is as hard to run an airline in AS as in real life then the issue should be gone.Intesting R
Interesting. I had no idea that Delta had over a 70% market share in Atlanta. And apparently they also fought tooth and nail against a smaller airport opening up commercial flights in northern Atlanta. Based on what I’m reading they seem to have been successful to this point in keeping operators out of that airport. But even Delta, the biggest airline in the world, only operates 13 hubs total and 10 within the US.
And as a consumer I find Delta’s behavior reprehensible…but not shocking.
Funny you mention Brazil, as in my server (Stapleton), a single holding is monopolizing nearly 100% of slots on all the major airports:
http://stapleton.airlinesim.aero/app/info/airports/407?12
http://stapleton.airlinesim.aero/app/info/airports/480?10
http://stapleton.airlinesim.aero/app/info/airports/479?9
http://stapleton.airlinesim.aero/app/info/airports/469?8
...
This is a major market for airlines to and from Europe, South America, Central America and the Caribbean, so the idea that 70% of slots would be empty is absurd.
If I continue in Brazil, I will also occupy all slots or nearly all slots... it is possible of course but what comes next then? Nothing. Hence I would prefer a competitor.
But there in lies the problem. As a potential competitor I'd look once at that market and pass looking for better opportunities elsewhere. And on most servers there are better opportunities if one isn't discerning. With only $10 million to start and 20% slots in the big airports that is nearly an impossible task with the way the game calculates connecting passengers. My guess it would be realistically impossible to set up an efficient wave system with only 20% of the slots and a huge competitor that already swamps the most obvious airports. And I'd look once at my Devau Canadian market and would locate in a smaller market like my existing competitors have done.
And as both of us know…once you’ve got those slots locked up it is basically just set to autopilot and the only thing left to do domestically is buy terminals and planes. (You could of course try your hand at the open markets but as a late entrant those are usually pretty hard too…unless you just happen to catch someone drop out of the game.)
Even for the bigger players the game would be MORE FUN if you constantly had to deal with competition because you couldn't just use up all the slots in every airport in the country. As it is now you just grow big and then it is only a matter of time until you decide you've accomplished your goals on that game and it is time to move on.
So basically...maybe a 60-70% hard limit on slots for a holding PLUS additional costs for opening up additional Hubs that go up exponentially as you grow. (IE...a cash sink to make help newer/smaller airlines in the game longer) And I don't even suggest they do this to the older servers. I have no clue how you would do this on the older servers...other than players having to dump their least profitable routes until they get under the limit. Serious ouch. But you could set it up in the new worlds so you don't end up with a bigger gripe storm that what is currently happening on the German forum about the changes to turboprops/regionals.
Plus that would give me a reason to play the new server as it would truly be an entirely different game.
The way I am trying to make my first airline in otto is to start with more, smaller aircraft (ATR), and that also mean flying shorter route instead of longer route so it is not a wave system, and i get a fair start from this… but with the limitation on aircraft size this might make it more challenging in term of selecting start hub?
At some point AS needs to decide what it is, and what it wants to be. If it wants to be like AIrline Empires, then put in unrealistic caps on the amount of flights to an airport, or continue to limit the types of aircraft that can fly between airports. In orther words be just another game. If it wants to be the "realistic simulator" that it sells itself as, then it needs to come to terms that fortress hubs and frequency over capicity are a way of life. Real life.....
Ok...I'm willing to "grant" you fortress hubs. But that isn't even really the issue. Having even an 80-90% market share in one market in the US doesn't make you a dominate player in and of itself. But the problem is when you begin to build "Fortress America" (cough) and move rapidly into any market that falls one way or another. If you had to pay $100 million to add that 10th hub and pay $10 million a week to maintain it...it would make the game a lot harder to dominate in the biggest markets. The first 3 to 5 hubs should be cheap...but once you become this sprawling mega-airline it is BS the way these companies can quickly move into new markets and overnight dominate the market.
Simply put the biggest US carrier IRL has 20% market share over all (from 2015: Southwest 19%, Delta 17%, American 17%, United 15%, and then the smaller carriers. From https://www.statista.com/statistics/250577/domestic-market-share-of-leading-us-airlines/
So yes...having fortress HUBS makes sense but having FORTRESS AMERICA with over 50% of the market is BS!
Further: As things stand now in all the game worlds.
1 player controlling over 50% of the US market:
Kaitak
Nicosia
Stapleton
Pearls
Gatow
Aspern
2 players controlling 70% of the US market:
Croyden
Tempelhof
Servers that no one controls (yet): (but most are dominated by 3 or so players)
Idlewild
Devau
Fornebu
Meigs
Ellinkon
Riem
It seems obvious that the system as currently designed is made to order to be "Monopoly" on steroids. Now Monopoly is a fun game when you are 10...but once you get older and you see someone take the good properties early in the game it is "GAME OVER!". So it is here. Once you get big enough and you "control" the biggest markets it is just a matter of out waiting your competition to grow. And once someone gives up there is no hope in those servers above for someone to start a new airline and be able to compete. By the time they've added their 20th (decently) sized plane the slots are completely taken.
Ufsatp: Have you considered your end game? At what point is enough, enough? And once you've cornered the market what else is left to do? Quit. That is all that you'll be left with. Or you can keep it running until AS shuts it down. (As a monument to your own glory I suppose) In my mind it is better to have a continuing interesting game that is always changing and offering new challenges. Or maybe that is just me?
And don't say it is just sour grapes...because it isn't...I've now made 3 different big airlines in various markets. One of which was the US market in Aspern. (Only 1 of which I'm currently still running in Devau)
You mean like DL in ATL, DTW and MSP, AA in DFW, PHL and CLT, UA in DEN and IAH, WN in DAL, LAS, MCI, STL, MDW, BWI, AS in SEA, AC in YYZ, BA in LHR, IB in MAD, TP in LIS, AF in CDG, KL in AMS, OS in VIE, EK in DXB, EY in AUH, QR in DOH, LN in SCL, CM in PTY, AV in BOG, etc. Etc.
Well, 70% market share is not the same as holding 70% of the slots! Most of those airlines use long haul aircraft which increases the amount of passengers per slot.
Especially in the US, the anti-trust commission is very strict in keeping competition, with every merger usually the airline needs to get rid of some key slots in specific markets. Competition in the US is high, thanks to all those measures in place.
Come on, there are possibilites how you can offer support for new companies in a saturated market. You could offer cheap planes and let new players enter the market as well. Done on Idlewild and Gatow for example. But then you need players who do not want to be the leader, the monopolist and the imperator of the whole world - which seems not to be the case on most servers. Thanks to the community on Idlewild that it is / was possible there!
Well, 70% market share is not the same as holding 70% of the slots! Most of those airlines use long haul aircraft which increases the amount of passengers per slot.
Especially in the US, the anti-trust commission is very strict in keeping competition, with every merger usually the airline needs to get rid of some key slots in specific markets. Competition in the US is high, thanks to all those measures in place.
You said it correct - with a merger. If an airline grows organically, there is no limit anyone puts on it.
You said it correct - with a merger. If an airline grows organically, there is no limit anyone puts on it.
In the US, if an airline managed to get 50%+ of the marketplace and have a veritable monopoly in more than just a couple of markets I have to believe that at least some administrations would seek the breakup of the airline using the existing Anti-Trust Laws.
But as it is the game is WAD.
Ok...I'm willing to "grant" you fortress hubs. But that isn't even really the issue. Having even an 80-90% market share in one market in the US doesn't make you a dominate player in and of itself. But the problem is when you begin to build "Fortress America" (cough) and move rapidly into any market that falls one way or another. If you had to pay $100 million to add that 10th hub and pay $10 million a week to maintain it...it would make the game a lot harder to dominate in the biggest markets. The first 3 to 5 hubs should be cheap...but once you become this sprawling mega-airline it is BS the way these companies can quickly move into new markets and overnight dominate the market.
Simply put the biggest US carrier IRL has 20% market share over all (from 2015: Southwest 19%, Delta 17%, American 17%, United 15%, and then the smaller carriers. From https://www.statista.com/statistics/250577/domestic-market-share-of-leading-us-airlines/
So yes...having fortress HUBS makes sense but having FORTRESS AMERICA with over 50% of the market is BS!
This doesn't work in AS... In real life, you don't have airlines just quit and go into bankruptcy. in AS, players can do that, so if there are three players in the market with evenly market share, and two players decide to leave AS one after another, so the only player left will control the majority of the market. in your theory, you want that player to go down as well because he/she takes more than 50% of the market?
It might be beneficial to take sure one airline don't take the slots in one airport, but controlling market share is simply not feasible in AS.
Edit:
Even if using your method, you need to have multiple players in the same market at any time, which is not quite possible. AS can't force anyone to enter the market unless they want to. Again, you have tons of airlines in US market in real life, and each of them is running the airline differently. After the mergers in some many years, you really don't have airline run the same way as others; similar airlines already had the merge. so even if it is legal to have a merger between those large airlines, i still really doubt they will do that. The management of the airline will be a mess right after the merge.
Limiting amount of hub might not be a good idea as for instance in the US it might restrict the willingness for airlines to enter smaller faraway fragments like Hawaii inter-island or Northern Mariana.
In real life, Canada seems to be considering relax over investment rule to allow foreign investor invest onto establishing new airline in canada tto foster competition. Can we make a country switch between open/close to investment depend on market competivieness?
In theory, since one of the stated goals of the new class system is (effectively) to nuke the tendency to run low-density aircraft everywhere, slot congestion ought to be less of an issue once it's implemented (which is not to say no issue, and assuming it works out - but still). Certainly there's the potential for it to be possible to fill larger aircraft on less frequencies effectively where currently it isn't an option. Not knowing or having seen the exact details of how it'll shape out, though, it does seem a bit strange to be launching massive rants about it already...
This doesn't work in AS... In real life, you don't have airlines just quit and go into bankruptcy. in AS, players can do that, so if there are three players in the market with evenly market share, and two players decide to leave AS one after another, so the only player left will control the majority of the market. in your theory, you want that player to go down as well because he/she takes more than 50% of the market?
It might be beneficial to take sure one airline don't take the slots in one airport, but controlling market share is simply not feasible in AS.
Edit:
Even if using your method, you need to have multiple players in the same market at any time, which is not quite possible. AS can't force anyone to enter the market unless they want to. Again, you have tons of airlines in US market in real life, and each of them is running the airline differently. After the mergers in some many years, you really don't have airline run the same way as others; similar airlines already had the merge. so even if it is legal to have a merger between those large airlines, i still really doubt they will do that. The management of the airline will be a mess right after the merge.
TWAAir,
Market share is a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. The problem is your current ability to run thousands of flights out of every major airport. This is not realistic as the American regulators would never allow one company to control that much of the marketplace.
9 &10 Bar US Airports:
ATL, BOS, BWI, CLT, DEN, DFW, DTW, EWR, FLL, IAH, JFK, LAS, LAX, LGA, MCO, MIA, MSP, ORD, PHL, PHX, SEA, SFO
That is a count of 22 airports. And if we were to include the 7-8 sized hubs that you could make a decent hub out of the number is around double the above. Now you tell me how it is justified that one airline holding company hold over 50% of the slots in most of those airports above. It simply does not make sense. No administration in the US would allow a company to become essentially a monopoly. No way!
Now, from a game play perspective the most effective way to limit someone from growing into controlling ALL of the above airports is through a cost function. Every time someone wants to go over 500 flights in an airport they should have to designate it as a hub and pay a fee. For the first hub the fee would be completely nominal. But by the time you add your 10th hub it would be enormous ($100m + 10m / week in costs say) This cost would NOT STOP you from becoming a mega-airline it would just slow you down. (Instead of adding $100 million worth of planes after a large company fails you're suddenly facing $100 million in costs to first add the hub.
Now, is that an artificial way of essentially adding in a regulator? Well...yes. But unless AS wants to have to constantly monitor players it is a solution to the Monopoly Problem.
I don't even suggest that this is done on the existing servers. Simply doing something like this on future servers would keep those servers interesting for a much longer time. (IE...more players last longer & late game entry is easier)
Oh...and call these costs, "Political Lobbying & Political Action Committee Costs" going to the Feds and local governments and of course the media.
At some point AS needs to decide what it is, and what it wants to be. If it wants to be like AIrline Empires, then put in unrealistic caps on the amount of flights to an airport, or continue to limit the types of aircraft that can fly between airports. In orther words be just another game. If it wants to be the "realistic simulator" that it sells itself as, then it needs to come to terms that fortress hubs and frequency over capicity are a way of life. Real life.....
Someone with more than 6000 airplanes in a single holding doesn't like the idea of limiting unrealistic growth. What a surprise...