16 replies to this topic

[JollyGreenGiant]

Is it courtesy to not run the same route that one of your alliance members already runs? Or is being in an alliance just seen as a means to an end for the majority of players to get reputation up and passenger load numbers up.

[Chubby Bear]

Depends on what is agreed upon within the alliance. As long as both airlines get an equal share of the route demand I cant see why they cant both be on the same route. This also happens in real life scenarios where airlines of the same alliance codeshares and both operate the same route.

[Bradimir]

As long as it's pre-organized and equal, it should be okay. If the alliance competition is overwhelming or you're overwhelming them, then it's not.

[TNT88]

I crushed em' balls

[Tesla]

There's something called a codeshare. That's whats happening, if you and the other airline agree to take 50% demand each and ensure that none is left for other airlines to take home.

[konj1]

What do I do, let me see, hm.

 

If my alliance member already put a lot on the route, I just put some minimal resources at the same price not to disturb the balance, or just let it be and do nothing;

if they put something rational first, I put something rational in return at the same price, this sounds like a nice code-share deal expected IRL.

If my supposed partner starts flooding the route and crashing my prices at a route that I already held, well then f*** that sh**, I'd never do that, and I'll start beating that guy worse than anyone else. Alliance must have some point, so there's nothing more rational than getting all vengeful and brutal after betrayal by a supposed friend, muahaha.

I'm just sorry that there's not a more elaborate system of voting and correspondence inside alliances, and an option to kick someone out, if someone did that to me they probably did the same to a few other alliance members.

[bAnderson]

I have and will compete, because, in the end, my airline is the most important in my interests. If I have three alliance members competing MCO-MIA, and I want that route, I will do it.

[dieseltu]

I always thought it depends on if  the Alliance rules allow it.  I believe there's ardent Alliances where its agreed to not do this. And your membership requires you to follow the rules.   And other Alliances have no rules. And your membership is accepted with no agreed upon terms.   And everything in between.  

 

Certainly,  even with no rules you could decide to not compete. with Alliance members, Or even to limit your price gouging or amount of flights. against a member.   And you could send a message to the member to come to some type of agreement. 

[AIRmaster8]

Many high demand routes in the real world have multiple airlines in the same alliance on the same route.  For me, I always want to compete/ serve on as many routes as possible.  Choose an alliance that best suits you.

[alexSD]

Yes i have competitors with all airlines of my country and more alliance yes or no

[Preston]

Depends on what is agreed upon within the alliance.

Couldn't have said it better.

[hayhaa]

Couldn't have said it better.

stop reviving old threads damn it

[ffxxmz]

I normally try to share the demand in halves, if I can I PM the owner of the other airline to keep the other half having both airlines the default prices and eventually join in case another airline wants to make that route to crush it as a team. If the other refuses, then I price-fight like in any other case

[Iones]

Oops. If a member of my alliance gets that route first, I do not put any flight. If I get it first and then a member of my alliance puts a flight, war.

[Book Siberia]

In the early stage of the game, when no one has terminals and hubs, it's pure price competition and thus understandably underisable having 2 members on the exact same route (or any nonmember as well)

 

But some time later, when at least one of the alliance members has a hub at any of that route's endpoints, there begins to appear a resistance in the game to price lowering on the part of an alliance member - that resistance shows up as a higher retention of passenger fill-rates on whichever alliance members created said hub.

 

But the other alliance member, who lowered the price, benefits somewhat also, in that they do not have to drop their price as far to recapture 100% fill rate for their aircraft.  So both benefit to a degree, but there are hard limits as to how many planes can be accommodated and how far the price  lowered by this mechanism.

 

If both alliance members established a hub at one of the endpoints or the other, then not only does the above effect intinsify in range and magnitude, but other nice things also start to happen.  Things like standby passenger buildup as game time goes by.

 

The upshot of all this? Create hubs as often as you can, as early as you can.  You will be so glad you did.  But don't expect the lion's share of all the benefits to appear immediately after creating those hubs - some time must elapse, also.

 

 

And maybe then some players will stop complaining that spamliners are ruining the game for them.

 

The reason that many realistic airlines don't see this is well, because hubs aren't hubs.  When you hubify an airport, what you are doing is not creating a hub, but something a little .. different.  

 

Over and out;

Your Benovelent Spamliner O

verlord

LeerJet Air 

[Book Siberia]

In the early stage of the game, when no one has terminals and hubs, it's pure price competition and thus understandably underisable having 2 members on the exact same route (or any nonmember as well)

 

But some time later, when at least one of the alliance members has a hub at any of that route's endpoints, there begins to appear a resistance in the game to price lowering on the part of an alliance member - that resistance shows up as a higher retention of passenger fill-rates on the planes of whichever alliance members created said hub.

 

But the other alliance member, who lowered the price, benefits somewhat also, in that they do not have to drop their price as far to recapture 100% fill rate for their aircraft plus they do get some spillover stand-by passengers to keep their fill-rate-percentages high.  So both benefit to a degree, but there are hard limits as to how many planes can be accommodated and how far the price  lowered by this mechanism.

 

If both alliance members established a hub at one of the endpoints or the other, then not only does the above effect intinsify in range and magnitude, but other nice things also start to happen.  Things like standby passenger buildup as game time goes by.

 

The upshot of all this? Create hubs as often as you can, as early as you can.  You will be so glad you did.  But don't expect the lion's share of all the benefits to appear immediately after creating those hubs - some time must elapse, also.

 

 

And maybe then some players will stop complaining that spamliners are ruining the game for them.

 

The reason that many realistic airlines don't see this is well, because hubs aren't hubs.  When you hubify an airport, what you are doing is not creating a hub, but something a little .. different.  

 

Over and out;

Your Benovelent Spamliner Overlord

LeerJet Air 

[Flanco Air Enterprises]

I have and will compete, because, in the end, my airline is the most important in my interests. If I have three alliance members competing MCO-MIA, and I want that route, I will do it.

Im going to pass you in the ranks soon ,Quantum. My name is GreenSquare

- - - - - 

I have an airline in my alliance named DirectJet, and they have like every route imaginable so i always have to compete with them even on routs with barely any demand. I will compete because I know that I can price lower than they can being a low cost carrier.