Jump to content

Photo

Joint Flagship Airlines

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Poll: Joint Flagship Airlines (19 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Joint Flagship airlines be implemented?

  1. Voted Yes (11 votes [57.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.89%

  2. No because I have a reason and will post why. (8 votes [42.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
Nexus8

Nexus8

    Football Wingback

  • Member
  • 2,389 posts

User's Awards

   2      
We should the feature of airline belonging to countries with a total pax count below a certain number and has no other airlines operating out of that country and is within a certain number miles from each other.
For Example My Oasis in R5 is based in Fiji and has almost maxed out expanion until the 777lr and A350s come out but what if I could add Marshall Islands or French Polynesia or some other island country as a second base country so I can add flights to there. it would help add flights to smaller countries.

Signature%203.png


#2
violetQueen

violetQueen

    The Resident B!tch

  • Member
  • 584 posts
Not every country has the same geographical advantages, you should take into consideration things like range, etc when you pick your country... besides I hardly consider yourself to be in a whining position when you operate an airline with 130 aircraft out of Nadi, that's a bit like flying 2000 aircraft out of Ireland and complaining its market is too small.


I liked TW and it's gone. NW, and it's gone. CO, and it's gone. Pray I don't like you.

"How sad it would be, should laughter disappear."
Posted Image

Spoiler


#3
RefReed

RefReed

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 21 posts

Not every country has the same geographical advantages, you should take into consideration things like range, etc when you pick your country... besides I hardly consider yourself to be in a whining position when you operate an airline with 130 aircraft out of Nadi, that's a bit like flying 2000 aircraft out of Ireland and complaining its market is too small.


I agree, If the restrictions are too much for you, I think an open world is the way to go.
banner.png

#4
Nexus8

Nexus8

    Football Wingback

  • Member
  • 2,389 posts

User's Awards

   2      
NO what I am talking about is countries that are close together and small. Look at SAS it is the flag carrier of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Those countries aren't even small.

Signature%203.png


#5
Moldova96

Moldova96

    AE Winner

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 2,024 posts
  • Website:http://www.eurovoix.com
SAS is the flag carrier of Denmark, Norway and Sweden because the Governments of those nations decided to create a joint flag carrier, they are the only countries in the world that have a joint flag carrier between them. Hence why I feel this is not a good idea.

eu30cUI.png


#6
David22

David22

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 32 posts
Maybe what we could add is some subsidery thing. Like with my airline which is based in Australia I would like to expand to New Zealand but because of restrictions I can only fly domestic there.

#7
Will101

Will101

    Only Teardrops

  • Member
  • 1,683 posts
I like the idea of having 2 countries to operate from but it would be hard to implement in game and it may get abused.

#8
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

Maybe what we could add is some subsidery thing. Like with my airline which is based in Australia I would like to expand to New Zealand but because of restrictions I can only fly domestic there.


subsidaries are planned for the upcoming version of AE (AE4.0) which is due to be released in October 2013 (well thats the plan anyway)

#9
kaarlows

kaarlows

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 60 posts
The idea of subsidiaries is great. Joint flagship, as Moldova96 pointed out, isn't good.
Also "open world" is already a nice solution for people who wants to base their airline from more than one country.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users