What constitutes cooperation? Benefits of Alliances

I note the rules on the Wiki clearly state:

"Although players may control more than one holding, cooperation between them is expressly forbidden. This particularly concerns stock market deals (including IPOs), providing services (renting out terminal space, for example), and buying, storing and selling aircraft. Holdings found to be in breach of these rules will be deleted."

Is being in the same Alliance considered cooperation?

I presume the rule is there to limit the advantage flowing between two (or more) holdings of the one player.

If being in the same Alliance is NOT considered cooperation, then that implies there is no advantage to being in an Alliance.

What are the benefits of being in an Alliance?

There is no benefits from being in an alliance at all, except for the social aspect. You can cooperate, and talk with members of your alliance (to compete with alliances etc.), but there's absolutely no benefits apart from that.

Hopefully in the future this will change, but as of now, it’s just an option which gives no benefits.

(Which is why, it’s okay to have to different holdings in the same alliance.)

... You can cooperate, and talk with members of your alliance (to compete with alliances etc.), ...

(Which is why, it’s okay to have to different holdings in the same alliance.)

Exactly this is where I see a problem.

Say airlines A, B, C and D form an alliance. A and C are two different holdings belonging to the same account X.

So if A cooperates with B/D and B/D cooperate with C, isn’t A cooperating with C consequently - though indirectly - but X effectively being able to coordinate a possible attack against E for example?

I mean, after all, where’s the difference between multi-accounting and effectively commanding an alliance of the willing? Of course, here it would be even more efficient to only have one holding per player in such alliance…

well, you don’t need a social group such as an “alliance” for that kind of circumventing rules.

in case anybody notices, it would probabaly become a case for the UAB. I am referring to the A, B via C construct. multi accouting, meaning to actual accounts, not multiple holdings within one account, will always result in a deletion.

Sure, my example was a bit “over the top”, still that’s what many alliances (could) work like, basically.

Every kind of coorinated cooperation between two or more holdings (alliancing) is some kind of multi-accounting. Just that an alliance has more than one player behind. But if we have one player with several holdings within one alliance, we get one step closer IMHO.

I see sour point and would just like to add that by multi-accounting one individual can gain an advantage by investing more money.

if several individuals decide to cooperate, they, of course, have an advantage overall, but bo individual has more than the standard budget that everyone gets. however, the “A1, A2 with the help of B”-concept does circumvent the restrictions and still allows one player to gain an advantage by spending more RL money

With the three-segment limitation, and the preference for nonstop or one-stop flights, it shouldn't be too long before someone jumps in to schedule a more direct routing and claim the market.  

Although in this scenario, the only player who really benefits isn't the one who is spending credits on two holdings, it's the guy in between who does.  If the middleman were truly smart, they would serve the origin and destination airports directly, bypassing the guy with multiple holdings.  (You'd be a great friend if you paid double what they do in order to boost their traffic.)

I should have made it clearer maybe. I didn’t have the advantage of someone within the alliance in mind, but the disadvantage of someone outside such alliance (E in my above example)