30 replies to this topic

[Amadeus Inc.]

In the light recent violation warning, Amadeus group would like to file petition to review Game Rules #2 

 

 

Multiple airlines owned by the same player in a world cannot be used to give an unfair advantage to each other (selling aircraft to each other to get around delivery slot limits, flooding routes together to gain market share, etc).

 

Our position is that in real world, different airlines under same ownership do fly certain route together. For example, Malaysia Air Asia (AK) and Indonesia Air Asia (QZ) both fly same route between Malaysia and Indonesia, i.e. CGK-KUL, DPS-KUL, MES-KUL, etc. You can see on their website www.airasia.com and notice different color code for sector flown on AK metal and QZ metal.

 

Therefore we would like to beg the AE Administration to review the Game Rules #2 and consider to allow this kind of airline group business model.

 

Thank you!

[Will101]

Although in reality people do this, AE has this rule to stop people making many different airlines to kill competition, or control an area or route. In some cases it may need fully looking into but it should stay.

[Northern]

What Will says is correct, the rules are the rules, they are perfectly fine

[Amadeus Inc.]

Killing competition is best achieved by making multiple airlines and targeting several different high yielding routes of an airline competitor, thus effectively damage the airline competitor's profitability on wider network than merely on a number of routes. Flooding a number of routes using multiple airlines is a suicide as they did it on the expense of their own airlines' profitability and will not sustain long term competition.

 

So imho this rule is irrelevant to prevent abuse, does it matter if those airlines that flood a route are owned by one or many player?  I don't think so as we can't make price agreement in this game as to make a cartel, so instead there should be a rule that airline should not flood a route, i.e. offering seat twice the demand. Made more sense, imo.

[LLC]

In the light recent violation warning, Amadeus group would like to file petition to review Game Rules #2 
 
 
 
Our position is that in real world, different airlines under same ownership do fly certain route together. For example, Malaysia Air Asia (AK) and Indonesia Air Asia (QZ) both fly same route between Malaysia and Indonesia, i.e. CGK-KUL, DPS-KUL, MES-KUL, etc. You can see on their website www.airasia.com and notice different color code for sector flown on AK metal and QZ metal.
 
Therefore we would like to beg the AE Administration to review the Game Rules #2 and consider to allow this kind of airline group business model.
 
Thank you!

 
I suggest a different system:
 
1) Maximum of ONE Airline Company per person
 
but with wholly owned subsidiary airlines owned by that ONE Airline Company:
 
For Example:
 
Main Airline Company "US Airways"
wholly owned Subsidiary #1 "US Airways Shuttle"
wholly owned Subsidiary #2 "US Airways Express"
wholly owned Subsidiary #3 "Metro Jet"
 
etc
 
With a sub pages for each wholly owned Subsidiary:
- Home
> Airline Details
> Airline Options
> Airline Finance (with the total profit/loss showing up in the Main Airline Companies Airline Finance page under a new section: wholly owned Subsidiaries profit & loss statements) 
> Airline History
> Alliance Options
 
- Aircraft
> Order New Aircraft **
> Buy Used Aircraft **
> Configure Cabin Layout
> Configure In-Flight Services
> View Pending Deliveries
> View Order Books
> Browse Aircraft
 
- Routes
> Open New Route
> My Route Map  (with the Subsidiary routes showing up as a different color and served airports a different shape as shown in the following photo att the bottom of this post)
> My Alliance Map
> (new) 
 
- Gates
> Browse Airports
> Return Gates
> Manage Hubs
> Manage Terminals
 
with the ability to move aircraft between the wholly owned Subsidiaries and/or the parent Airline Company



** The aircraft orders would be shared with the Main Airline Company, when the aircraft ordered for the wholly owned Subsidiary airline arrives it would be placed
with the wholly owned Subsidiary airline

[2ndAcr]

Rule should stay........It has been around for as long as I have played the game. I have never had an issue with any of the rules.

[Amadeus Inc.]

 
I suggest a different system:
 
1) Maximum of ONE Airline Company per person
 

but with wholly owned subsidiary airlines owned by that ONE Airline Company

 

gonna be a whole different version of AE I believe, I just try to suggest minor improvement to leverage the current game and not extensive modification

 

Rule should stay........It has been around for as long as I have played the game. I have never had an issue with any of the rules.

 

even the constitution can be amended as people's mind evolve 

[Amadeus Inc.]

Considering your airlines are in the top 10 in the world in question, i dont see how reducing your routes (and maybe closing an airline or two) will hurt you.

 

I do see you on high demand routes with two airlines that have prices that are close to eachother...

 

Thanks for the compliment, it might not last long as real life catch up and I have to abandon them. 

I closed a dozen of routes already, losing 3 million DOP, and just starting.

The problem is I might not be able to close all duplicate routes and will have to check one by one, and not to mention the occasional 504 greeting, which will be quite exhaustive effort.

 

 

oh and I'm not trying to point fingers at you Amadeus. SOrry if I sound like i come off like that.

 

Lol, it's okay, no apology needed 

[Amadeus Inc.]

If you need help, dont hesitate to give me a PM. I would be willing to help you close routes and streamline ypur fleet (if you want)

 

Wow very nice of you, thanks! will do!

[Amadeus Inc.]

Evading rule 2 is hilariously easy anyway - You've got different managers in your group, have them open Amadeus on their account and give you shared control. It then counts as an entirely different player.

 

However i do think the rule should be more enforced to the word. If i operate 2 different airlines flying a 1 daily cessna on a route with 1000 demand, this isn't "Flooding a route to gain marketshare". If i were to operate say, 250-500 seats on the route, this would be more annoying to other players and thus be a problem.

 

Wow, what a wise foxy. Thanks! Hope the administration will consider this.. 

[Pineair]

seems to me all you want to do is purchase more aircraft more quickly and grow and grow and grow. how about a separate world for those who want to do this?

[Sheepy]

As I see it.

The purpose of the rule should be to prevent airlines gaining an unfair advantage by creating multiple airlines, and people then using those multiple airlines to achieve something that could not be done with one big airline.

Say AKL-SIN. There's TEAL and MSA in AKL and SIN. I own both. Both of these airlines have the resources to operate this route daily, but there's demand for daily at best. Now I'd prefer to operate the route 14/weekly, I could do this by having 7x weekly from each of my airlines in AKL and SIN. Now I don't think this is abusing the game, because it would be possible to do with either airline, so gives me no unfair advantage.

So if airlines are quite big, rule shouldn't apply so much I expect.

[Keelung]

I think we need a board of regulators however the rules might be to monitor the airlines. Say 30~50 of us so the developers can concentrate on making AE better.

[Northern]

Your ideas are too far flung for a aviation simulator (sorry) unfortunatly for the complainers, I'm gonna be frank,the rules are there to stay, therefore if you don't like the rules, you shouldn't play this game

[Nexus8]

30-50 memebers there are maybe only a 1000 or so active members, and it would be so biased unless we train them to be like mods.

[LLC]

 
I suggest a different system:
 
1) Maximum of ONE Airline Company per person
 
but with wholly owned subsidiary airlines owned by that ONE Airline Company:
 
For Example:
 
Main Airline Company "US Airways"
wholly owned Subsidiary #1 "US Airways Shuttle"
wholly owned Subsidiary #2 "US Airways Express"
wholly owned Subsidiary #3 "Metro Jet"
 
etc
 
With a sub pages for each wholly owned Subsidiary:
- Home
> Airline Details
> Airline Options
> Airline Finance (with the total profit/loss showing up in the Main Airline Companies Airline Finance page under a new section: wholly owned Subsidiaries profit & loss statements) 
> Airline History
> Alliance Options
 
- Aircraft
> Order New Aircraft **
> Buy Used Aircraft **
> Configure Cabin Layout
> Configure In-Flight Services
> View Pending Deliveries
> View Order Books
> Browse Aircraft
 
- Routes
> Open New Route
> My Route Map  (with the Subsidiary routes showing up as a different color and served airports a different shape as shown in the following photo att the bottom of this post)
> My Alliance Map
> (new) 
 
- Gates
> Browse Airports
> Return Gates
> Manage Hubs
> Manage Terminals
 
with the ability to move aircraft between the wholly owned Subsidiaries and/or the parent Airline Company
 

 

 ** The aircraft orders would be shared with the Main Airline Company, when the aircraft ordered for the wholly owned Subsidiary airline arrives it would be placed

with the wholly owned Subsidiary airline

 

[Amadeus Inc.]

As I see it.

The purpose of the rule should be to prevent airlines gaining an unfair advantage by creating multiple airlines, and people then using those multiple airlines to achieve something that could not be done with one big airline.

Say AKL-SIN. There's TEAL and MSA in AKL and SIN. I own both. Both of these airlines have the resources to operate this route daily, but there's demand for daily at best. Now I'd prefer to operate the route 14/weekly, I could do this by having 7x weekly from each of my airlines in AKL and SIN. Now I don't think this is abusing the game, because it would be possible to do with either airline, so gives me no unfair advantage.

So if airlines are quite big, rule shouldn't apply so much I expect.

Exactly what I mean, better wording.

 

 

I think we need a board of regulators however the rules might be to monitor the airlines. Say 30~50 of us so the developers can concentrate on making AE better.

It's going to far. I think we can just use the forum to arise issue, then after some discussion, Administration can conclude and give final word.

 

Your ideas are too far flung for a aviation simulator (sorry) unfortunatly for the complainers, I'm gonna be frank,the rules are there to stay, therefore if you don't like the rules, you shouldn't play this game

Not complaining, I'm complying right now. Just asking for second opinion on the rules. As a flight crew member, I live to abide by rules. But when we have difficulties in applying SOP during our operation, we can arise the issue to safety board which will review the issues and, if necessary, make some adjustment to SOP to improve overall operation. Even FAA put new sentences every year to FAR/AIM. 

[LLC]

As for the holding company idea, semi-disagree unless it is a "global" holding company or we are allowed more than one, as at current i operate a multitude of airlines in different nations and being confined to just the USA would be awful.

Basically how it would work is when you enter a world you would have a (global?) Holding Company then you would set up airline subsidiaries in the countries you want to operate in

 

In Open (O) worlds all of the airline subsidiaries would be global

 

The current restrictions on a players two airlines operating on the same segment (segment = takeoff & landing example RDU-DEN) would apply between airline subsidiaries within a (global?) Holding Company 

The (global?) Holding Company and ONLY THE (global?) Holding Company would do the aircraft ordering on behalf of the airline subsidiaries to prevent cheating

however aircraft could be moved between airline subsidiaries
 
With a limit of ONE (1) (global?) Holding Company per AE world/player

[Keelung]

There are many airlines out there. I'm not sure how the monitoring would be implemented, but I guess these regulators would only be given the right to send official warnings to players violating the rules and the rest is up to the developers. Anyway, the onus is on these regulators, and also credit should be given if this is implemented.

[Amadeus Inc.]

Regarding Rules #2, how about this. Two airlines owned by same player can fly a route together provided they are not based in same country.

 

So if a player have airline A based in US and airline B in UK, they are allowed to fly ATL-LHR together. But if A and B both based in US, they are not allowed to fly ATL-LHR or any domestic flight together. 

 

This to imply that they are code-sharing instead of co-operate to kill the competition in given route, as they would only operate together on route between the two countries, instead of every possible routes if they based in same country.

 

Thoughts?