15 replies to this topic

[24kGEM]

This may have all ready been mentioned, but I didn't see it.

I'd like to see a world with a restriction on the number of destinations an airline could have.  With a limit of around 150 destinations, there are enough routes to be flown that an airline could take the time to focus on being more competitive on certain routes as well as introducing the concept of planning where an airline wants to fly instead of flying EVERYWHERE.

That would help regional airlines have a better chance of growing more without being squashed out of most markets.  It would also allow those who want to simulate real airlines have more realistic opportunities.

[Whatever]

One Word: spamlines

[Yuxi]

That would help regional airlines have a better chance of growing more without being squashed out of most markets.  It would also allow those who want to simulate real airlines have more realistic opportunities.

 

While I agree with you that it would reduce squashing, even a real-life regional airline like Mesa has more than 150 destinations, so I'm not sure about the "realistic" part.  Then again, that's not really comparable because regional airlines in the US are just extensions of legacy networks and don't compete on routes themselves.

[the DOC]

One Word: spamlines

I heard my name...? D:

Seriously I do not agree. It limits opportunities and options for those airlines operating from one hub

[the DOC]

As a theme game, could be a laugh.

As being stuck on every world, nonono.

Second this

[24kGEM]

While I agree with you that it would reduce squashing, even a real-life regional airline like Mesa has more than 150 destinations, so I'm not sure about the "realistic" part.  Then again, that's not really comparable because regional airlines in the US are just extensions of legacy networks and don't compete on routes themselves.

 

I don't know how "realistic" the game is anyway????  With as many flights as we have flying into airports, I doubt those are realistic numbers (though I may be wrong).  I'm pretty sure that 5,000 mile flights with a Y rate of under $150 isn't realistic though.  It's just hard to keep a moniker of "realistic" on a game that has a lot of unrealistic traits.

It's taken Mesa 30+ years to grow to just over 150 destinations, and with our worlds at 40 years...it might be more realistic than you think.  According to Wikipedia, in 80+ years United has under 400 destination.  So, as a rough estimate, half of 80 years is 40 years.  40 years is our typical world length.  Half of 400 destinations is 200.  So in 40 years, 200 destinations FOR A LARGE airline isn't that far fetched.

The whole regional example was just that...wasn't intended to be the benchmark for an airline in a world limited to just 150 destinations.

With limited destinations, once an airline gets to the max, they can then concentrate their efforts on finding more profitable routes than their least profitable and adding more profitable routes.  They would actually be managing their routes instead of just buying as many planes as they can and putting them on as many routes as they can.  What grows from this is a lack of care for what happens to the profitability of their routes because they can add more profitable routes than they lose to competition.  So, they don't manage their routes, they just grab new ones.

[Will101]

Basically, all I see from here is "yaddayadda muh realism D:<<<<, muh spamline D:<<<"

Limiting destinations I see as no way realistic, since optional destinations aren't limited on an airline; the demand, fleets, crews, available slots etc that limit them. So basically from me it's a massive nope, whichever way you want to put it.

[24kGEM]

It looks like most people just want to buy as many planes as they can and put them on as many routes as they can, and spamline them.  If that's what the game is, that's how we'll play.

[Appassionata]

I think 150 destination limit game as another special theme would be fun...but please...not on normal worlds!

[mahankr]

Most airports in all of the worlds are underserved.  There are probably over 2500 different destinations airlines you could fly to.  Many of these airports have no service at all.  If you want to be a regional airline, research the airports better.  I'm sure you can easily find 150 destinations with no service at all to the largest markets.

[mxax-ai]

A destinatio limit simply invites to open lots of hubs to maximise the number of routes. (e. g. assuming all US domestic ops more than 11.000 routes). On the other hand limiting the number of actual routes, would be better. This way opening another hub decreases the number of flights to be operated from the first hub, so spamlines would be effektively stopped. As there are 100s of profitable routes from each airport, there'd be less competition, but perhaps on the major routes.

[Stevphfeniey]

Actually, limiting destinations could be feasible for international ops, given things like Bermuda II that either exist, or have existed. 

[Randallator]

 I'm pretty sure that 5,000 mile flights with a Y rate of under $150 isn't realistic though. 

Ryanair would do it if they had the route

[Randallator]

Most airports in all of the worlds are underserved.  There are probably over 2500 different destinations airlines you could fly to.  Many of these airports have no service at all.  If you want to be a regional airline, research the airports better.  I'm sure you can easily find 150 destinations with no service at all to the largest markets.

how many of those 2500 destinations have <100000 pax per year?

[the DOC]

how many of those 2500 destinations have <100000 pax per year?

Exactly most destinations are not worth flying to unless you're Michael O'Leary