I think it would be interesting to introduce some sort of ORS penalty for a connection through a foreign country.
isn't it highly unrealistic to see something like SEA-YWG-ORD in real life, because one would have to clear customs while connecting in Winnipeg? yet, there are times when these connections are at the top of the ORS
a customer would be more likely to prefer a domestic connection, if only for time's sake
I think this has been discussed before, but an alternative would be adding extra time for international transfers at an airport, which in turn would affect the ORS rating of the connecting flight
Actually, US-CAN-US would be illegal cabotage, as neither country grants the other the Eighth Freedom. Although it may appear in the ORS, it isn't a bookable flight, unless there's a new treaty that hasn't been implemented on Croydon yet or reported in the news. On the other hand, US-CAN-Europe/Asia is a valid journey which is bookable in the real world and in the game. Because the Eighth Freedom hasn't been granted anywhere other than the EU Treaty countries and Aus/NZ, domestic connections should automatically be prioritised. Even the EU and Oceanic treaties are still subject to maximum permitted mileage (Air Canada's term, because I can't remember the real term) of a multiple of the actual distance traveled.
I'm not sure if it's necessary. Each airport already has minimum transfer time and one-stop flight already has max rating of 75. So, if the total price of the journey is attractive enough, some people certainly don't mind doing international connection. International terminal usually will be more convenient, and also with less people travelling thru, compared to domestic terminal.
In fact it's quite common for people to fly CGK-DPS vv or CGK-KNO vv thru SIN or KUL during national holiday seasons, when flights between CGK-DPS vv and CGK-KNO vv will be so full, extraordinarily expensive and not to mention the chaotic situation in the domestic terminal during that time. So much more expensive and troublesome that splitting your journey into two separate flights and paying two international airport taxes made more sense than shorter non-stop flight.
So yeah, I don't think it's justified to further penalized international connection.
Actually, US-CAN-US would be illegal cabotage, as neither country grants the other the Eighth Freedom. Although it may appear in the ORS, it isn't a bookable flight, unless there's a new treaty that hasn't been implemented on Croydon yet or reported in the news. On the other hand, US-CAN-Europe/Asia is a valid journey which is bookable in the real world and in the game. Because the Eighth Freedom hasn't been granted anywhere other than the EU Treaty countries and Aus/NZ, domestic connections should automatically be prioritised. Even the EU and Oceanic treaties are still subject to maximum permitted mileage (Air Canada's term, because I can't remember the real term) of a multiple of the actual distance traveled.
It is illegal, yet I think in the game those flights are bookable. I did try routes to serve foreign domestic markets by fully utilizing the geographical advantage of my airports, and it actually worked despite low profits.
It is illegal, yet I think in the game those flights are bookable. I did try routes to serve foreign domestic markets by fully utilizing the geographical advantage of my airports, and it actually worked despite low profits.
Is it really ? If Air Canada operated two separate sectors, such as SEA-YWG and YWG-ORD that would certainly be legal. Then could they not sell a connection using those two separate flights ?
Completely different question is of course, who would book that as there are tons of better routings available ;-)
Is it really ? If Air Canada operated two separate sectors, such as SEA-YWG and YWG-ORD that would certainly be legal. Then could they not sell a connection using those two separate flights ?
No, by law they can’t. If the passengers book the two flights individually that’s a different issue, but that’s not covered in AS.
Yes but in RL you cannot also fly unlimited form one country to all other countries with only a limited number of restrictions in AS. So do we really want to reflect RL so much? In that case, most airlines would be able to fly one or two daily flight to just most of the countries, one or two major airports only. Because that's what RL bilaterals allow. USA airlines would be best off, because it has open skies with 100+ countries. Airlines in other countries would not be that lucky though.
Is it really ? If Air Canada operated two separate sectors, such as SEA-YWG and YWG-ORD that would certainly be legal. Then could they not sell a connection using those two separate flights ?
Completely different question is of course, who would book that as there are tons of better routings available ;-)
Legal in this game only haha. I did PEK - MFM - SYX before (based in MFM), and passengers PEK - SYX were booked on my flight.
I guess a geographically more fitting example would be something like YVR-ORD-YUL or SEA-YYZ-JFK.
But there seems to be disagreement about the relevant question: is it an AS-bookable connection or not?
It is bookable. I tried not on this exact route but similar: MIA - GCM - IAH. And flights were booked (very early stage of a server not enough direct flights between the airports)
Guys, don't just look at the US and CAN. In Europe (and most other regions of the world) you don't have to clear customs, therefore you can basically connect through every country even if your final destination is in the origin country again.
I just had a look at the Air Canada website and they do not allow me to search for flights from SEA to ORD, so it is indeed not allowed:
Air Canada does not permit flight searches which have both an origin and destination in the United States.
The same goes for Singapore Airlines flights with start and finish in either Malaysia or Indonesia - one of the few real-world examples I could think of that would actually make sense. So of course they can't stop you if you buy those two tickets separately, but they are not allowed to offer you the connection by themselves. The EU being open skies is a different story altogether.
I do think that it is possible in AS, however although I haven't taken a closer look into that.
Even though you aren't allowed to connect through foreign countries in some countries in real life, I think implementing this in AS would probably mean the end for many airlines, as this is their business case. So if anyone is thinking about implementing this restriction, I think adding it to the new game worlds at first would be the best way.
I just had a look at the Air Canada website and they do not allow me to search for flights from SEA to ORD, so it is indeed not allowed:
The same goes for Singapore Airlines flights with start and finish in either Malaysia or Indonesia - one of the few real-world examples I could think of that would actually make sense. So of course they can't stop you if you buy those two tickets separately, but they are not allowed to offer you the connection by themselves. The EU being open skies is a different story altogether.
I do think that it is possible in AS, however although I haven't taken a closer look into that.
There is no question that this is illegal in the real world - as in actually illegal, not against airlines' rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabotage. With the notable exception of the EU and Oz/NZ, but that is because these countries have decided to treat their area as one domestic market. (This is modelled to some extent in AS.)
The question is, does AS allow such (i.e. Cabotage) bookings.
Guys, don't just look at the US and CAN. In Europe (and most other regions of the world) you don't have to clear customs, therefore you can basically connect through every country even if your final destination is in the origin country again.
Europe is a very special case (see above). This is not about the possibility of connecting I-to-I without clearing immigration&customs, but rather the possibility of a connection A-B-A, where A and B are two (non-European and non-down under) countries.
It is bookable. I tried not on this exact route but similar: MIA - GCM - IAH. And flights were booked (very early stage of a server not enough direct flights between the airports)
How do you know that you got passengers MIA-IAH (rather than just MIA-GCM and GCM-IAH)?
How do you know that you got passengers MIA-IAH (rather than just MIA-GCM and GCM-IAH)?
Both MIA - GCM and GCM - IAH are full on the first day, with a lot of internal transfers, yet my individual IAH - GCM and GCM - MIA legs are far from fully-booked. (The return legs don't connect)
Both MIA - GCM and GCM - IAH are full on the first day, with a lot of internal transfers, yet my individual IAH - GCM and GCM - MIA legs are far from fully-booked. (The return legs don't connect)
Had basically the same thing going on few years ago on a serverstart. I started in MEX and one of the first flights I launched where MEX-LAX-MEX and MEX-MIA-MEX. The flights connected in MEX with probably 1:30 transfertime. Both flightplanes where launched without the 3 days in advance. Just minutes later the demand calculation in LAX went by. Out of the 120 pax, 120 pax transfered to an internal connection which had to be the MEX-MIA flight. That flight had exactly 120 pax as well. The rest of the flight had no bookings yet.
sure it is possible in the game, as others have already pointed out.
I guess this is because the ORS only checks if a single flight is legal. Then it combines legal flights without checking if the overall route is legal. For a Mexican airline it is legal to fly to Panama. It is also legal to fly to the US. So passengers from Panama can fly to the US via MEX. It uses the same simple rule to check flights like LAX-MEX-MIA.
Mind you, it would be better for the game if this was not possible. At this moment big airlines treat foreign countries as domestic markets, making it very difficult for a new airline to start in a country that is officially "empty".
Mind you, it would be better for the game if this was not possible. At this moment big airlines treat foreign countries as domestic markets, making it very difficult for a new airline to start in a country that is officially "empty".
Even if "hidden cabotage" is not permitted IRL, no airline can do anything against your own "hidden cabotage" self-connect. So AS just depicts that RL possibility.
Even if "hidden cabotage" is not permitted IRL, no airline can do anything against your own "hidden cabotage" self-connect. So AS just depicts that RL possibility.
Why wouldn't it be possible? I think it should quite easy to implement a rule which forbids the ORS to show 8th freedom connections and make exceptions in the EU and Oceania.