29 replies to this topic

[Glennos]

I would like to make a suggestion so that airlines can choose in the beginning what they want to be , i.e a regional carrier or International airline.

How would you do this?

When starting the game you would have an extra option R (Regional) or I (International)

How would this work?

Well my idea is to help the airlines who want to fly regional routes and not be bullied by the big boys after a given period of time. The option "R" would say only allow airlines to buy aircraft of 150 seats or less. These airlines may not be allowed to fly Intercontinental routes or maybe a percentage of their total flights would be allowed.

In turn airlines flagged as "I" would not be allowed aircraft under 75 seats and cannot fly regional routes or can do so but at a disadvantage in profits.

How would this be of any good?

Well, this is only a suggestion but it would really come into play when alliances are properly working. An alliance would have International and Regional carriers. The regional carriers would then feed their international cousins.

I think something along these lines would help the game and not have everyone climbing on the same routes and make it more of a management game.

------------

Of course this is only a basic idea. I welcome comments or other idea's along these lines. If you ahve a totally different idea make your own thread :sdrool:

[travelhouse]

I would like to make a suggestion so that airlines can choose in the beginning what they want to be , i.e a regional carrier or International airline.

How would you do this?

When starting the game you would have an extra option R (Regional) or I (International)

(Like this view - be interesting to see what developers comment on programming in the code on the existing)

How would this work?

Well my idea is to help the airlines who want to fly regional routes and not be bullied by the big boys after a given period of time. The option "R" would say only allow airlines to buy aircraft of 150 seats or less. These airlines may not be allowed to fly Intercontinental routes or maybe a percentage of their total flights would be allowed.

In turn airlines flagged as "I" would not be allowed aircraft under 75 seats and cannot fly regional routes or can do so but at a disadvantage in profits.

(Yes that will be suited to many small part-time players and will also suit lower volume airports that some players like to extablish a regional hub/network)

How would this be of any good?

Well, this is only a suggestion but it would really come into play when alliances are properly working. An alliance would have International and Regional carriers. The regional carriers would then feed their international cousins.

I think something along these lines would help the game and not have everyone climbing on the same routes and make it more of a management game.

(Once alliance development is in play, this method will help alliances grow on Regional / International carriers, much like in the real world now.)

This whole suggestion plan is one of the best I have read in the forums for some time, 10/10

[alex_nl]

Only you wil need quite a starting budget to be a international player. Because big aircaft don't come cheap.

[Glennos]

Only you wil need quite a starting budget to be a international player. Because big aircaft don't come cheap.

Yes but of course the starting capital for International and Regional would be different but on the other hand you can earn more on International routes faster than you can on regional.

The main crux of the suggestion is to split up 2 types of players but still contain them into one game. At the moment it's just one big melting pot of competition.

If we had two types of players R & I then we can also have two types of rankings ;-) Alot more is possible!

[lipman]

I think thats a good suggestion but I know some of the mega carriers like myself like to have a little regional system as well so supplement hubs. Speaking for myself, I only operate hubs in Noth America so after I finish expanding from their I usually get bored so I decide to make a regional service since I dont wont to make hubs worldwide and i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt to that. I think if you split the service this way you would be encouraging more "worldwide" carriers than "continental" carriers. Nonetheless its a decent idea but I think the rules should be tweeked alot more if it were to happen.

[Spenser]

It is a good idea, but I would still like to fly both the Metro 23 and a 747.

Spenser, AirCruise

[DiscoverFRA]

Yes but of course the starting capital for International and Regional would be different but on the other hand you can earn more on International routes faster than you can on regional.

The main crux of the suggestion is to split up 2 types of players but still contain them into one game. At the moment it's just one big melting pot of competition.

If we had two types of players R & I then we can also have two types of rankings ;-) Alot more is possible!

This would dampen the realism with in AE, it's a concept that has failed with in real life as well. To be a good International Airline you must have a strong regional feed to your hub which then increases connecting load factor allowing more international flights.

To have a good regional network you need large planes bring passengers into your hub which then are distributed across your regional network. You must 2 & 2 to make 4, limiting your self to one type of operation is bad.

Think Pan Am they suffered because they had a strong international network but no regional network to feed there network. You need both!!!! :-yesnod:

[Chaostah]

Thats where you can bring in the alliance.

[flightsimer]

I dont think you can have a regional and international. It might just be the terms you used that may be wrong.

Regional- under 75 seats. most regional airlines are limited by the mainline carrier in how many passengers they can carry and this is normally around 70-90 passengers.
"mainline"- over 70-90 seats (which ever you set it as)

if you wanted to be a regional airline, then you would be limited to range only by the range of the planes.

now i dont think normal airlines should be not allowed to do "regional" flights because they can in RW and in most cases the regional airline is there to just increase the capacity of the mainline on the shorter routes that can actually use the smaller aircraft. normal airlines should just be limited to the size of the aircraf they can use. I think a good amount for each type would be around 90 seats.

now we could take this further and make it even more real where the mainline airlines could actually hire the regional airlines to operate for them just like in the real world.

the purpose of that would be say the mainline airline gets 10% of the income from the regional airline flights, but the regional airline would be given the ability for the ticket prices to be higher than say another regional carrier who isnt working for another airline without afftecting the load factors. this is the best and simplest way i could think of to simulate that since in RW there is a lot more that is in the deals.

really there would be no good from this unless there are seperate rankings for each

[OSUflight1]

What if we are allowed to operate two airlines then? Piedmont Airlines (I) and Piedmont Express ®; anyone? hehe

[Conor]

This idea could be put into play with a simple solution wich would eliminate the problem of not having a regional network. my idea is that the large "international" airline would choose a partner i.e. another player to be there regional. so you would have a 2 player airline. Although as Glennos said would only work with new alliance functions. also give the 2players the option to give each other money or have 1 shared finance

[lipman]

This idea could be put into play with a simple solution wich would eliminate the problem of not having a regional network. my idea is that the large "international" airline would choose a partner i.e. another player to be there regional. so you would have a 2 player airline. Although as Glennos said would only work with new alliance functions. also give the 2players the option to give each other money or have 1 shared finance

And that just gives me an idea about code sharing....but i'll propose that when the alliance system works

[DiscoverFRA]

What if we are allowed to operate two airlines then? Piedmont Airlines (I) and Piedmont Express ®; anyone? hehe

Well yeah but you would have to convince another AE player to be your Piedmont express, but this will require good cooperation.

[Conor]

propose now i wanna hear it

[Elchie]

Cool ideas, good discussion.

In general it's possible to integrate this in code, Yuxi will start a rework of the d***-lf-script (not really d**** - just extrem complex and with hard-to-read code ). At this time we will also check out new alliance feature and a international/regional-system.

I will also start over in summer with code-rework, so keep this discussion running. A question coming up in my mind is: Can a regional carrier have multiple regional networks up running? So in the current round I have a network in the old Europe around Hamburg and Zurich, and also one in the USA around Seattle and one around New York. Should this allowed for the new regional carriers or should they be limited to one network?

An alternative could also be different pricing. So an international carrier is allowed to buy smaller aircrafts, but he has to pay 25% more for an Embraer than a regional carrier. Is this an suitable option?

Waiting for your feedback

[lurch]

I will also start over in summer with code-rework, so keep this discussion running. A question coming up in my mind is: Can a regional carrier have multiple regional networks up running? So in the current round I have a network in the old Europe around Hamburg and Zurich, and also one in the USA around Seattle and one around New York. Should this allowed for the new regional carriers or should they be limited to one network?

An alternative could also be different pricing. So an international carrier is allowed to buy smaller aircrafts, but he has to pay 25% more for an Embraer than a regional carrier. Is this an suitable option?

Waiting for your feedback

I like this idea of international carriers paying more for smaller a/c but then what happens with the used market. Can you implement that increase into the used market too?

Something I want to add. If we do go into this I and R carriers, could the rankings maybe take into consideration how strong your hub is. For example, in Sim1, I have 58% of traffic from Naples, could the percentage be coded into the rankings. So basically the ranking isn't solely based on a/c value. I know this example was from Sim1 but this is my first round in sim2 and I don't have any examples from Sim2 yet

[Conor]

I like this idea of international carriers paying more for smaller a/c but then what happens with the used market. Can you implement that increase into the used market too?

Just have 2 seperate markets i assume would work best, one for international carriers one for regional

[Glennos]

I like this idea of international carriers paying more for smaller a/c but then what happens with the used market. Can you implement that increase into the used market too?

Something I want to add. If we do go into this I and R carriers, could the rankings maybe take into consideration how strong your hub is. For example, in Sim1, I have 58% of traffic from Naples, could the percentage be coded into the rankings. So basically the ranking isn't solely based on a/c value. I know this example was from Sim1 but this is my first round in sim2 and I don't have any examples from Sim2 yet

Well, you can see your ranking for a certain hub if you go to the airport page.

You cannot have it based on purely one hub. There should be seperate rankings for regional / International but I would take the rankings one step further and have a multitude of rankings.

Best European Carrier
Best Asian Carrier
Best ....

you get what I mean I hope. This way there is not a mad rush to be number one totally. This gives more options for airlines to aim for. Let's face it the target for the game at the moment is to be overal number 1 player, well it should be your target . Having more target makes it more exciting.

[Elchie]

Used market/international: Give the regional carriers a discount on the used market, alternatively international carriers has to pay a higher fee for small aircrafts - something like that.

[Elchie]

You cannot have it based on purely one hub. There should be seperate rankings for regional / International but I would take the rankings one step further and have a multitude of rankings.

Best European Carrier
Best Asian Carrier
Best ....

you get what I mean I hope. This way there is not a mad rush to be number one totally. This gives more options for airlines to aim for. Let's face it the target for the game at the moment is to be overal number 1 player, well it should be your target . Having more target makes it more exciting.

Good idea. We can also add some more categories depending on average route yields and average aircraft ROI. These two "awards" are more relative, a small airline can have the best ROI - you have not to be the richest player in game.

This will extend the scope of alliances: "You have to be an average route yield of 1.75 to join us". "You have to be within top 50 of the ROI-airline-list to become a member of our alliance"

Let's face it the target for the game at the moment is to be overal number 1 player, well it should be your target .

From your point of view I'm guessing there is a strong stress of "your"?