AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Commonality "Points"  (Read 5865 times)

Riger

  • Former member
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2011, 01:34:46 AM »
If the aim is to slow growth, just disallow leasing and make airlines buy all planes. That would slow growth.

That would certainly slow growth down, however, a fundamental change like that would require a commensurate fundamental change to the start-up cash amount and/or credit ratings with the bank.  I'd imagine that one would require access to $500mil - $1billion (cash+loans) to get a medium size airline off the ground.

Best Regards
Richard

Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2011, 08:30:17 AM »
That would certainly slow growth down, however, a fundamental change like that would require a commensurate fundamental change to the start-up cash amount and/or credit ratings with the bank.  I'd imagine that one would require access to $500mil - $1billion (cash+loans) to get a medium size airline off the ground.

Best Regards
Richard


Nope, depending on era as long as you have enough cash to get two planes then you should be good to go. The profit margins are so big for 100+ seater planes flying uncompeted routes at the start of the game that it shouldnt take too long to get enough cash for a third plane.

TBH though, it's not something I'd really support but I'd prefer it to artificially raising commonality costs.


Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2011, 08:50:56 PM »
Just an update here:

A single plane in the 6th fleet group (737).

The 6th groups goes in and out, since the planes are being leased.  It is never scheduled, so crew training should be zero.  But the bigger point, adding and removing the 6th fleet group does not decrease cost of first 5 (the way it does when adding or removing 3rd, 4th or 5th group).  We can debate if that's the best way to implement commonality fees / discounts.

But check out the fixed charges for this single aircraft.  On "per aircraft" basis, it is of course high, but nowhere near high enough to discourage someone from going fleet group crazy.  It is less than 1/2 million per week, but it should really be 5x or 10x as much for first aircraft in a new fleet group.  It may need a slightly increased start up capital to prevent new airlines going under over this, but that would be the correct way to implement fleet commonality IMO.


Jps

  • Former member
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2011, 09:01:11 PM »
Just an update here:

A single plane in the 6th fleet group (737).

The 6th groups goes in and out, since the planes are being leased.  It is never scheduled, so crew training should be zero.  But the bigger point, adding and removing the 6th fleet group does not decrease cost of first 5 (the way it does when adding or removing 3rd, 4th or 5th group).  We can debate if that's the best way to implement commonality fees / discounts.

But check out the fixed charges for this single aircraft.  On "per aircraft" basis, it is of course high, but nowhere near high enough to discourage someone from going fleet group crazy.  It is less than 1/2 million per week, but it should really be 5x or 10x as much for first aircraft in a new fleet group.  It may need a slightly increased start up capital to prevent new airlines going under over this, but that would be the correct way to implement fleet commonality IMO.



I agree 100% with this!

For as long as having more than 1 fleet group brings even the slightest amount of profit in the first few years of the game, players will use the option. And the easiest (and at least for me, the most realistic) option is to increase the commonality costs of airplanes.

May have gone a bit repetitive to the last posts, but it still seems there are many who don't get this... This is starting to resemble politicians; Everyone agrees that this must be fixed, but no1 can agree with how to deal with it...  :P
I'm glad  this isn't a democracy in the long run (and I don't mean this personally to any1, just an overall comment, not taking into account who is right or wrong (if any). After all, it's best to choose 1 option than to debate forever and never get it done...  ::)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2011, 10:01:06 PM »
Consider the posts here to be petitions to a benevolent dictator (Sami).  ;)

But someone has to protect us from what we want.  If this was a democracy, we would be spending half the time in AWS customizing flavors of tea and coffee, and discussing how more slices of ham on a sandwich should be increasing company CI.  ;)

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2011, 10:39:42 PM »
Which is why most governments get very little accomplished.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

libertyairlines

  • Former member
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2012, 11:14:21 PM »
I like most of the ideas presented here and completely agree as long as the first aircraft an airline acquires is cheaper than the next fleet commonality the airline purchases and than increases from there and than goes down as the airline increases the amount of aircraft in the next commonality that airline owns/operates.

brique

  • Former member
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #47 on: June 05, 2012, 04:28:01 AM »
Finally, there is a second person who recognizes that the unlimited leasing is problematic.  I have been a lone voice on this subject for long time...

An airline with no assets (company value) can lease $10, $20, even $50 billion worth of aircraft.  While, the credit limit for borrowing, even a secured loan (where the player actually puts up some capital and asset) is only ~ $500mil.

I think leases should be limted to the same credit limit as outright borrowing.  And that limit should be expaned somewhat...

+1

I agree, the leasing model is flawed, in RW it is highly unlikely that any start-up business would be permitted to lease a new photo-copier without lodging security, much less several $100m-worth of aircraft in its first months of operation. But, and its the big but, it would require a fairly major shift in how new airlines 'start-up' to reflect that.

The idea of a 'credit-limit' on leasing appeals, related as you describe to ones overall credit-worthiness, and does sound like a good option which could be easily incorporated (*avoids glares of angry coders and offers less than 2-day old pizza slice in appeasement).


Offline 11Air

  • Members
  • Posts: 433
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2015, 10:14:57 AM »
From a fresh approach I suspect the real issue with 'Types' is the impact on the Maintenance Department.
Each new type requires all the necessary number of maintenance teams going off on training before the type is introduced, or employing already qualified maintenance crews.
How many staff needed per aircraft type, how many types do their certs cover, and how many can one team service on an individual aircraft type, doing all the A, B, C and D service checks in a year).

For each maintenance team there is:-
1a. a single set-up cost,
1b. plus an annual renewal cost,
1c. plus a limit to how many aircraft they can maintain on the same day and in a week in total.
2a. Then there's the spares required, a whole new warehouse full for the first of a new type.
2b. With a monthly cost to cover the parts used by the number of the type in use.

Note:- the Base Size should have a limit to how many types it can service as well as the size of aircraft because of the Parts and Staff Accommodation and Work Areas.

Now this would also require that the big fleet operators no longer service all their aircraft on the same day by reflecting the real world cost and issues in trying to do this. It's a huge change for the Sami team (of one and a bit?) but perhaps a halfway/partway step or fudge would help. A better model base for the number of staff in engineering for example.

It has a built in penalty for taking on a new type, training, parts etc and that cost will continue to penalise fleets of one or two of a type.

The current system should reflect that the airline has leased out the maintenance to the manufacturer. The first plane again being at a big cost (non-resident parts and team with occasional over-runs). Should any additional plane types from that manufacturer be at a lower cost.
Since the manufacturer is involved then ALL of it's range of aircraft can be covered under one agreement though the Parts would remain a specific type cost. ie 737 v 747 don't have much in common, nor do their engines.  It means a big cost in moving to, or taking on, a new manufacturer which will help to limit the Types each airline operates.

This approach to Servicing aircraft could also apply to Engines and be applied in a similar way.

FUTURE or temporary measures:-
An option is for the Real World's "Wet Leasing" arrangements where the plane is staffed, fuelled and maintained by the owner, all at a charge of course, weekly for maintenance plus hours flown or fuel used for usage.
Ground crew is another area where the game seems to go for a fairly simple approach. Real World the number of ground crew determine how many aircraft can be turned around at the same time. Size affecting the number of Ground Crew required.

11Air - ElvenAir - in several games with sub 100 seaters but still learning how to use post 70's Boeing types.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2015, 10:25:32 AM by 11Air »

Offline Andre

  • Members
  • Posts: 1091

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2016, 12:23:50 AM »
I am so fed up with the fleet commonality mechanic. I was forced to introduce a 4th fleet type for a very short time. It's extremely difficult to stick to 3 types for 60 game years and subsequent fleet changes.

Look at this. Just by introducing 1 single A330-300. Sami.. when will we see changes to this?


Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653

The person who likes this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2016, 01:10:23 PM »
I am so fed up with the fleet commonality mechanic. I was forced to introduce a 4th fleet type for a very short time. It's extremely difficult to stick to 3 types for 60 game years and subsequent fleet changes.

Look at this. Just by introducing 1 single A330-300. Sami.. when will we see changes to this?



This IMO, is the single biggest issue with the game and has caused me to lose interest in playing. The game is supposed to be a simulation, yet the commonality penalty is completely unrealistic and un-intuitive in the way it works. For a simulation, there is no logic to the player. There is no way that adding a single plane of a different type should quadruple the costs of running the other fleet type.

I appreciate that it was originally used to overcome the gameplay issue of rapid expansion, but there are a number of better solutions to this problem (Poorly run AI airlines already running in new game worlds, relaxing the penalty after 2-3 game years, etc).

I wish this would be fixed as a higher priority than bringing in cargo, city based demand, etc, but it just doesn't seem to be seen as such an issue by others.

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 901
    • FmFreaks

The person who likes this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2016, 11:10:53 PM »
Well the day sami turn down the demand and all to big income big time. then the penalty can be removed.
But removing penalty without fixing all the issues there was the reason for it to be invented in the first place will just leave us with a even more broken game.

Offline Andre

  • Members
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2016, 05:54:08 PM »
Well the day sami turn down the demand and all to big income big time. then the penalty can be removed.
But removing penalty without fixing all the issues there was the reason for it to be invented in the first place will just leave us with a even more broken game.

I disagree with you there Sunabo. There have been many very good suggestions how to deal with these issues in a better way than it currently is. We have been asking for a change for years, offering alternative ways of doing things as well. I really hope something will change regarding fleet commonality when city based demand is introduced.

I agree with JoneseyUK that it often makes the game very frustrating instead of fun. And that can't be good for business.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2016, 09:05:49 AM »
I seem to be the only one to agree with Sunbao : it forces you to make choices. You cannot flood the market with all sizes of planes, from Pilatus to A380. You must specialize, and it's an interesting choice to make. In current GW3, around 2015, I went down to 2 fleet groups, 737MAX & Ejets. I had the choice for the 3rd fleet group, to go up or down. I went down, because Faro or Edinburgh don't have a lot of LR juicy routes. But it was not an easy choice. SW3 are cool planes, but they cannot make you a billionaire.

A good game, it's interesting choices. I had a strategic one to make. Very interesting.

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2016, 04:32:25 PM »
I have said this before and I will say it again. The three type limit had and still has a place in AWS. What needs attention is a system to facilitate fleet renewal cycles if this limit is to remain in place. Three types is plenty to run a successful airline, two is not yet to allow the constant fleet renewal that is required in 80 year games you have to play using just two fleet types.

There are several good ideas, including but not limited to the ability to mark a fleet type for retirement which would eliminate that type from counting toward three types as long as the number of said type are in constant decline, also expanding the like types further (ie 717/MD-90) to include all 737's, 757/767, etc would help.

Something NEEDS to be done, so many changes to this game are making it a chore instead of entertainment, we need some changes to make it fun again.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline pndsc

  • Members
  • Posts: 145

The person who likes this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2016, 04:57:47 PM »
Ive been playing on and off for a number of years and the three type limit has in general been a positive thing. You still get the same old faces at the top of the leaderboard, but at least theyre channeled into one type of gameplay and forced to leave other avenues open for other players to exploit instead of becoming an even more gigantic evil empire than they already are.

That said, the hideous penalty for a fourth fleet type can also bankrupt you incredibly easily if you need a fourth fleet type for a fleet change.

Theres surely some middle ground that can be reached, like being able to designate the old type being replaced and the new type coming in and then having a penalty that would increase so long as the numbers of the old/new fleets don't go down/up appreciably in a certain time frame.

Offline JonesyUK

  • Members
  • Posts: 653

The person who likes this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2016, 06:52:47 PM »
But surely the balance of the game is wrong? Logic say that you should get efficiency savings for running fewer fleet types, rather than artificially penalising an airline for adding another type? There is no way adding a different fleet type would increase the maintenance costs of your existing types, certainly not by such a large amount.

While it makes the game frustrating, the penalty actually assists larger airlines, as (especially in the modern times) it encourages the purchase of a select few fleet groups that can fly a wide range of distances and number of PAX. Large airlines can tie up large amounts of cash pre ordering these fleet groups while smaller/new start ups cant afford to tie up cash for so long and wait for the deliveries.

Offline Andre

  • Members
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2016, 08:37:29 PM »
The way it works now detracts from the experience to such a degree, it's no longer fun to play the game. Same goes for all the other artificial limits like max planes on order, max planes outside HQ and so on, although these are not as bad as the fleet commonality issue. 

And JonesyUK is right, the fleet commonality bump only helps the experienced players. It doesn't stop them from expanding, they benefit greatly from cooperation within alliances, trading planes back and forth so everybody gets what they want. The regular player on the other hand just keeps on with his 4 or 5 fleet types, completely oblivious that he's being hindered by a ridiculus, counter-productive, illogical, artificial game limit. So he goes bankrupt over and over.


---

Suggestions:

I suggest each airline answers to investors who demand you pay them this and that amount of profit each month. Like in the real world. All the artificial limits we have in place now would be unnecessary if the business/financial side of this simulation would be changed a little.

The whole game is supposed to be a business simulation, so I suggest the investment company's progress is what gives the players points. The winner is the one who's actually made sure his investors are happy. If the shares are going up and the investment company value is larger, you get more points. Or something along those lines.

Also, I suggest that fleet commonality bump is removed completely. Then all the cost of the fleet commonality is increased a little bit, and you introduce a new category in addition to the planes and engines; common type ratings.

Lower training costs for airlines operating planes with the same type ratings:

A320: all (CEO/NEO)
737: all (Jurassic/Classic/NG/MAX)
DC-9: all (DC-9/MD-80/90/717)
757+767
777+787
A330/A340/A350

Several of these types require differences training, but that's usually 3-7 days course with some simulator time.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2016, 03:50:18 AM by Andre »

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 901
    • FmFreaks

The person who likes this post:
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2016, 12:31:25 AM »
The way it works now detracts from the experience to such a degree, it's no longer fun to play the game. Same goes for all the other artificial limits like max planes on order, max planes outside HQ and so on, although these are not as bad as the fleet commonality issue. 

No one says those limits is optimal, but atm they are what keeping big players from owning whole continents.
All is in place to try getting the game to be more open for smaller and new players, and making more competition.
But as such all of them is in place because the core of the game is real bad.
We simply makes to much money, and has to high demand in the game.

We need lower profit city based demand and stock market. But we also need on board service, and options to make different kinds of airlines to make it good.

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2136
Re: Commonality "Points"
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2016, 03:40:05 AM »
I have said this before and I will say it again. The three type limit had and still has a place in AWS. What needs attention is a system to facilitate fleet renewal cycles if this limit is to remain in place. Three types is plenty to run a successful airline, two is not yet to allow the constant fleet renewal that is required in 80 year games you have to play using just two fleet types.

There are several good ideas, including but not limited to the ability to mark a fleet type for retirement which would eliminate that type from counting toward three types as long as the number of said type are in constant decline, also expanding the like types further (ie 717/MD-90) to include all 737's, 757/767, etc would help.

Something NEEDS to be done, so many changes to this game are making it a chore instead of entertainment, we need some changes to make it fun again.

Agree completely.   Especially on wide bodies where it can take 5+ years to replace 80 planes.   The only point of the penalty and not being able to designate a replacement is you park each new plane, then find a day you can replace them all...its definitely devolving into annoying chore vs fun check-ins over a year and a half game.

Real world investors would be throwing a fit if American was parking 400 new 737-800s until they had enough to replace the all the old mad dogs one weekend.  As it is they've been doing this for over 6 years and they still have 2 or 3 to go.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.