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: [-] Aircraft sales cap  (Read 2240 times)

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2013, 04:25:52 AM »
AWS is an airline operating sim, not a/c brokering sim, but the way tax/system works really forces successful airlines to be brokers, like it or not

You might have not noticed, but I've always been one of the biggest brokers in most games I've played. However, I still support limiting brokering


Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2013, 04:45:14 AM »
AWS is an airline operating sim, not a/c brokering sim, but the way tax/system works really forces successful airlines to be brokers, like it or not

You might have not noticed, but I've always been one of the biggest brokers in most games I've played. However, I still support limiting brokering

Always?  You have only been on AWS a little over a year.

How about you start limiting your own brokering if it is bothering you so much, and let other players decide what they want to do, how they want to play AWS.

Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2013, 09:50:05 AM »
I think the change in the tax system (as Sami has discussed extensively and is working on) so that buying new aircraft does not reduce current year tax will have a significant impact (i.e., reduction) on the number of planes purchased simply to lease out, particularly in the early game when cash is a scarce commodity.

Also, it seems like there are really two issues/questions here.  One is that some people want to limit airplane brokering as a limit on large airlines as if that will solve all their problems.  Two is that people who want to get a certain type of plane cannot because the line is too long.

To me, I would rather have Sami continue working on significant gameplay enhancements (city-based demand, cargo, fixing tax accounting, etc.) then putting in more artificial limits.  Having started games late in the past (and been a dominant airline in others), I have always felt that having airlines broker aircraft adds liquidity and depth to the UM that wouldn't necessarily be there without it.  In JA currently, I have some 40 DC-10's in storage that I would be happy to sell to anyone who wants it.  In the prior MT, the UM was flush with almost every aircraft possible by the mid-game.  To me the UM is doing it's job.  While I understand that certain production lines (787) in the current MT are booked out for eternity, this will change.  Airlines BK, the production line will expand, airlines will sell 787's.  The same thing happened in the last MT, but within a couple years, you could get 787's on the UM.  (though from a cost efficiency perspective, given that they are 50%-75% more expensive than a 764 or A330, I wonder if they really increase profits on an all-in basis).


Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2013, 06:00:23 PM »
That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What is it with your hatred towards team players? I kind of don't get it that some mavericks like you are doing literally everything to ruin the game for team players. It's so sad.
This game is about competition - competition is always to someone elses detriment. What peculiar world do you (want to) live in, some weird Barbie Dream House where all live together in peace and nothing 'bad' ever happens? How disgusting.
I have said time and again that buying planes to lease them out is to absolutely _NOBODYS_ detriment, especially not smaller players! What does it take for you to finally get that? You got your way with forced maintenance, which I kind of agree on, and that's as far as it should go. How do you always come up with another idea to sabotage more dedicated players games? What's next if this 'idea' is approved, a general cap at 100 planes per player?

I have nothing against team players, but as it was stated it is to the detriment of other players.  The theory of constraints says an entire system will be constrained by the weakest link in the system, so if it limit is production slots, airport slots, etc. it doesn't matter how much money you have etc. because the effective price is infinity if you resources don't exist.

I apologize for coming up with ideas.  The game clearly has flaws because players are working the system in ways that it shouldn't be, jamming up production lines in this.  If you don't believe the current system isn't at least partially broken and need fixing, then just say so--no reason to call me stupid etc. for actually trying to contribute.  My ideas get implemented less than 50% of the time and I think I've exchanged one PM with sami in the several years I've been playing this game, so there is no behind the scenes anything happening and everything has been public on this forum.

For the record, I live in the US and am a libertarian--I love the idea of free markets working and believe the chaos of an open/free market is order.  The problem is many of the concept in AWS are not market based.  For example, if there are zero slots at an airport there is no mechanism to respond by building a new terminal/runway/etc.  If there are 5000 orders of an aircraft type, there is no mechanism to build a new manufacturing plant and double production.  If a busy airport is full, you can't serve the demand out of a secondary airport (yet--city-based demand will fix this).

IRL there are no airlines putting in huge aircraft orders to lease them out to alliance mates or otherwise.  C-level leadership reports to a board of directors and shareholders to which they are accountable.  Why did you just spend $1 billion on aircraft orders?  For our alliance mates.  This doesn't fly.  IRL that billion would be used on an acquisition, stock buyback program, etc.  The only way to add "realism" and keep players from doing insane things like dropping $1 billion on aircraft to lease out is to enact arbitrary measures to keep it from happening.  If it makes you feel any better, sami could create a board of directors in AWS and anytime you do something crazy just popup a message saying the board won't let you perform this action (ordering >400 new aircraft, too many used aircraft at once, etc).

The finite elements of the game are airport slots, aircraft production slots, and aircraft availability (used+new).  There are already several measures/plans in place to resolve many of the issues such as city-based demand, terminals, limits on ordering used/new aircraft, etc. but there is still obviously work to be done.  In a perfect Barbie Dream House world we'd have perfect competition with responsive markets with a virtually infinite supply of slots, aircraft, etc.  I would love to see LHR with actual competition and every player having equal opportunity to do anything in the game regardless of start date, base airport, etc.  When scarce resources become abundant, people use them differently.  However, if it weren't for certain resources being finite there wouldn't be much strategy in this strategy game, so we can't have unlimited everything.

So in the end, the only way to make sure players aren't acting irrationally (i.e. not looking out for shareholders best interests) and placing orders for aircraft they'll never use, jamming up production lines for other players, we have to put some arbitrary system in place.  As I mentioned in other threads, many airlines get large because they abuse the system, but not everyone who abuses the system is large.  Thus, most new features put in place are to the detriment of large airlines.  I was a big opponent of the "cash only" system for slots because it hurt small airlines more than big ones (we used to be able to buy slots with negative cash) and IMO it still hurts small airlines and helps big airlines by reducing competition.  Regulation IRL is nearly always for the benefit of the big established companies in placing additional barriers to entry or reducing competition, so I'm all for anything that helps the little guy and small airlines be successful, including unjamming the production lines.

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2013, 07:30:52 PM »
I have nothing against team players, but as it was stated it is to the detriment of other players.


It was stated, and yet I have still not seen a good reason as to why that should be so. I, on the other hand, have clearly pointed out how large players brokerage activities keep the game going for many smaller airlines in the later stage of the game when fuel is high. That is a fact, there is just no way around it.

I am very open to any argument for your communist proposal (yes, it's exactly that!) that is actually valid. I have yet to hear one.

The only thing that jams production lines is a systemic error in the launch policy and stretches out to the newest aircraft types only. Hard caps are just a dumb solution people come up with if they don't have the creativity to come up with better things.

For the record, I live in the US and am a libertarian


I very much doubt that. If I have ever seen a communist in my life, that would be you. I don't mean to be insulting, but there is just no other conclusion possible from the sum of your proposals of late.

IRL there are no airlines putting in huge aircraft orders to lease them out to alliance mates or otherwise.

No. In real life, airlines can negotiate together right away and get a large order discount for a joint order (that is one of the voiced purposes of Star Alliance and others, joint acquisition). There is already a cap of 400 new orders at a time in place, which is not too restricting but forces you to chose what planes you order as you can't have everything. That is enough.

placing orders for aircraft they'll never use, jamming up production lines for other players


That is just not happening, no matter how often you may repeat it. It does NOT happen. Period. Even if a production line ends up jammed (which is only the case with very few), those planes are made accessible via the used market, in shining new condition and forced maintenance on them is all that was ever needed to alleviate any problems associated with this.

many airlines get large because they abuse the system


It is like you have never even played the game. Name one airline that GOT LARGE due to this. It's only once you are large that you can even do this kind of stuff. You talk of things you understand nothing of.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2013, 08:01:55 PM »
I'm not sure why my proposal is communist.  I'm stating that players shouldn't be able to sell aircraft younger than 5 years old unless they are actually flying a fleet of that type.  If you recall, the reason you can't cancel a lease until a minimum period was to prevent money laundering.  I'm proposing a similar system to avoid production slot hoarding/abuse.  It has been explained time and time again that a production slot used by one player is at the detriment of another because they are finite, so I'm not sure why you disagree with this.  I totally understand your argument that when capital is tight production lines get shutdown due to lack of orders etc. and big airlines can provide a "service" to smaller ones by creating "liquidity" in the used aircraft market, which is a good thing, but considering most airlines BK when fuel spikes and there ends up being an abundance of used aircraft as a result, I believe the benefits far outweigh any unintended consequences of making players have a legitimate fleet.

IMO the problem is pretty crystal clear and there needs to be a solution to address it.  Below is a screenshot I fetched from the airport storage feature request thread.  The B767 just came out and here is a clear example of a player with no intention of every flying aircraft they ordered--they are listed at 50%+ of their calculated value.  So if you don't believe this is a problem, then so be it.  However, I think most players would say this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Oh and in naming an airline that got large by abusing the system, I don't remember the exact names but there was a guy who was the F5 king and swiped up every used aircraft, turned them into magic carpets, and just owned the used aircraft market.  He got very big and very profitable very quickly.  Nearly ever new rule is a result of players abusing the system and while I agree that most airlines have to be large before they can use many of these tactics, it's not necessarily true.  If there is a spare production slot opens up due to gaps in scheduling or BKs, then a small player can put 20% down to buy the aircraft in that slot, take out a loan for the other 80% when it shows up and then sell it for +50% over value.  I'm guilty of doing this myself to raise capital and put money in the bank.  You could argue that this helps small airlines, but IMO it helps big airlines more by simply dropping the price of an aircraft from infinity to +50%.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2013, 08:10:32 PM »
Also, if you go back and read the beginning of this thread it was another player suggesting a hard cap--not me.  The same goes with virtually every other proposal I ever made to change the game.  I'm more interested in market based solutions, such as making slots eventually getting so expensive they end up with a "soft cap" based on ROI versus a "hard cap", and various other suggestions.  You and other players seem to blame me for parking fees/storage/etc. when my idea was to freeze the maintenance clock for listed aircraft so used aircraft never have expired maintenance checks.  Any market based solution where things just get very expensive versus rising to the cost of infinity is something I can get on board with (such as terminals).

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2013, 08:19:40 PM »
There we go again, picking one negative example to try and prove a point. Beyond words.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2013, 08:36:27 PM »
That is just not happening, no matter how often you may repeat it. It does NOT happen. Period. Even if a production line ends up jammed (which is only the case with very few), those planes are made accessible via the used market, in shining new condition and forced maintenance on them is all that was ever needed to alleviate any problems associated with this.

I am just responding to the above comment.  There are plenty of other examples in the aircraft storage thread, but this is obviously one of the more extreme.  You can't claim it doesn't happen because it does happen, which is the entire reason this thread exists.  Not sure why your beyond words...

You mentioned alliances putting in joint orders.  Those joint orders are not using one airlines capital to buy aircraft for a different airline.  However, I understand the concept of putting in large orders as an alliance and having bargaining power/leverage to get discounts.

What if there was a "secondary" production slot line for alliances?  If there were a restriction on new aircraft to ensure players aren't flipping aircraft, you could say that you cannot sell/lease an aircraft above or below market value (the price is fixed) for any aircraft less than 2 years old.  That means players could still jam up the production lines, but they just won't profit from it to the same extent they do today.  In addition to this, a secondary production line of lets say 2 or 3 aircraft/month could be available for alliance orders.  An alliance could place a joint order for any/all members and they'd get the big order discounts etc.

In the end, this wouldn't solve the problem entirely.  If player A was flying Airbus and player B was flying Boeing, both players could put in huge orders for both aircraft types and then sell the other brand to the other player and end up effectively doubling their deliveries, but it seems allowing alliance orders would help airlines get a hold of aircraft without resorting to other tactics while providing an additional benefit of being a part of an alliance.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2013, 08:40:32 PM »
And also the problem isn't that the aircraft aren't available.  Providing liquidity in the used market is important, but when the aircraft on the market sit for 2 years with a buy only option and listed at 50%+ market value, it isn't creating liquidity or helping anyone.  If aircraft are listed at a reasonable price and can be leased, then it is a different story.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2013, 11:55:36 PM »
I'm not sure why my proposal is communist.  I'm stating that players shouldn't be able to sell aircraft younger than 5 years old unless they are actually flying a fleet of that type.  If you recall, the reason you can't cancel a lease until a minimum period was to prevent money laundering.  I'm proposing a similar system to avoid production slot hoarding/abuse.  It has been explained time and time again that a production slot used by one player is at the detriment of another because they are finite, so I'm not sure why you disagree with this.  I totally understand your argument that when capital is tight production lines get shutdown due to lack of orders etc. and big airlines can provide a "service" to smaller ones by creating "liquidity" in the used aircraft market, which is a good thing, but considering most airlines BK when fuel spikes and there ends up being an abundance of used aircraft as a result, I believe the benefits far outweigh any unintended consequences of making players have a legitimate fleet.

IMO the problem is pretty crystal clear and there needs to be a solution to address it.  Below is a screenshot I fetched from the airport storage feature request thread.  The B767 just came out and here is a clear example of a player with no intention of every flying aircraft they ordered--they are listed at 50%+ of their calculated value.  So if you don't believe this is a problem, then so be it.  However, I think most players would say this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Oh and in naming an airline that got large by abusing the system, I don't remember the exact names but there was a guy who was the F5 king and swiped up every used aircraft, turned them into magic carpets, and just owned the used aircraft market.  He got very big and very profitable very quickly.  Nearly ever new rule is a result of players abusing the system and while I agree that most airlines have to be large before they can use many of these tactics, it's not necessarily true.  If there is a spare production slot opens up due to gaps in scheduling or BKs, then a small player can put 20% down to buy the aircraft in that slot, take out a loan for the other 80% when it shows up and then sell it for +50% over value.  I'm guilty of doing this myself to raise capital and put money in the bank.  You could argue that this helps small airlines, but IMO it helps big airlines more by simply dropping the price of an aircraft from infinity to +50%.

LemonButt, this is a competitive game.  Every single DAMN THING any airline does is to the detriment of another airline.  The fact that some action negatively impacts another airline cannot by itself be a reason restrict it, otherwise you wind up with a freaking sandbox and not a game. 

We've just implemented a new game mechanic (parking fees) that is supposed to discourage airlines from having tons of aircraft sitting around they aren't using and another (making C/D checks be kept current on the UM) that is makes it significantly more work and less profitable to buy tons of aircraft for the market, why do we need a new restriction before we've even seen how those two mechanics actually alter player behavior?  In my case I'll probably never buy any aircraft to lease on the open market ever again, it's become too much work and takes too much time now.

Additionally, while it's not responsible for all of the cases of people ordering for other people to increase delivery rate, a huge portion of this is driven by the current commonality system which means that restricting it without making changes to commonality makes fleet replacement in the longer game worlds even more difficult than it is now and IMO will drive even more people on to a smaller number of types that can be operated economically for the longest period of time.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2013, 11:57:11 PM »
And also the problem isn't that the aircraft aren't available.  Providing liquidity in the used market is important, but when the aircraft on the market sit for 2 years with a buy only option and listed at 50%+ market value, it isn't creating liquidity or helping anyone.  If aircraft are listed at a reasonable price and can be leased, then it is a different story.

Some of those may not actually be intended for sale, just sitting idle for fleet replacement due to the commonality system.  Why not list them at outrageous prices and hope someone bites?  At least prior to the recent changes for parking fees and maintenance of aircraft up for sale anyways.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2013, 12:12:37 AM »
I think the change in the tax system (as Sami has discussed extensively and is working on) so that buying new aircraft does not reduce current year tax will have a significant impact (i.e., reduction) on the number of planes purchased simply to lease out, particularly in the early game when cash is a scarce commodity.

Agreed

In the prior MT, the UM was flush with almost every aircraft possible by the mid-game.  To me the UM is doing it's job.

Agreed as well.  And the New market would be doing its job as well, if there were no artificial production line caps in the system.

The game world starts completely starved for aircraft.  The supply of aircraft on the UM may be able to serve maybe 25% of world demand (in MT worlds).  The system can't reach a balance where aircraft is available (New or UM) until the supply of aircraft catches up.  And that takes minimum of 10 years in MT world.  During those 10 years, UM market is empty, New aircraft production lines are sold out 5-10 years into the future...

In year 10-15, the MT game world reach some balance, the production lines start to become dynamic.  Production slows down or accelerates based on demand for the aircraft in the production line.

But the first 10-15 years, the production lines are static, locked to the production line cap...

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2013, 12:14:47 AM »
Also, if you go back and read the beginning of this thread it was another player suggesting a hard cap--not me.  The same goes with virtually every other proposal I ever made to change the game.  I'm more interested in market based solutions, such as making slots eventually getting so expensive they end up with a "soft cap" based on ROI versus a "hard cap", and various other suggestions.  You and other players seem to blame me for parking fees/storage/etc. when my idea was to freeze the maintenance clock for listed aircraft so used aircraft never have expired maintenance checks.  Any market based solution where things just get very expensive versus rising to the cost of infinity is something I can get on board with (such as terminals).

Well, I was surprised that in this instance, you were agreeing with something that was completely out of left field, not at all consistent with free market approach...

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2013, 12:18:01 AM »
To me, I would rather have Sami continue working on significant gameplay enhancements (city-based demand, cargo, fixing tax accounting, etc.) then putting in more artificial limits.

My suggestion would take literally 5 minutes to implement:  Where the system tries to adjust production line, there is a special condition for the cap.  Just remove that line of code...

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2013, 12:29:45 AM »
LemonButt, this is a competitive game.  Every single DAMN THING any airline does is to the detriment of another airline.

This isn't true.  If I have first class seats on a route, there is nothing stopping an airline from putting first class seats on that route.  If I earn $1 in profit, it is not at the expense of a competitor earning $1 in profit.  Wealth is created, not simply transferred.  Most items in the game are not a fixed pie where one can only benefit at another player's expense.  However, items like aircraft production slots and airport slots are a fixed pie and there is no possibility for wealth creation.  No one ever complains about a player operating a route profitably at another players expense because it is not a fixed pie.  This is the reason I'm an advocate for a terminal system where players have an exclusive slot pool--it is no longer a fixed pie and your only constraint is money and how big you can expand your terminal using that money (a market based solution BTW).

I don't park large numbers of popular aircraft so I can't say for sure, but I've very skeptical these aircraft are parked due to commonality reasons.  The same with ordering aircraft for friends.  While it is a big expense having those extra fleet types, large airlines have the cash flow to where these costs are pretty nominal.  I agree we shouldn't get hammered for the fourth fleet type the way it is modeled (and believe optimum fleet types should scale up based on overall fleet size per the commonality thread--another market based solution).

I will be buying less aircraft also, but not because of the pain in the butt to lease it out, but to get rid of them when you are doing a fleet upgrade.  I have less than 10 year old aircraft I can't get rid of because brokers aren't buying aircraft so I'm just waiting for 10yrs to come so I can scrap them.  Additionally, my new fleet type doesn't have any broker activity and after being in production for almost 5 years I still own every single airframe every produced.  That means if I stop ordering them, there will be zero on the used market and it will be impossible to expand without adding another fleet type.

In the end, maybe the solution is to force the AI brokers to buy more aircraft--new and used--to provide the liquidity benefit.  If players need to dump new aircraft immediately, the brokers should buy them up at their calculated value and then put them on the used market for resale, similar to a whitetail scenario where they buy the cancelled/BK orders up and resell.  From what I've seen that isn't really happening and exacerbates the problem.  If you aren't flying the most popular fleet types, resale is near impossible which means more players will flock to the popular models and further jam up production, compounding the problem.

It would be nice to have a "wider" production line such as JumboShrimp mentioned, but if there are no restrictions in place to keep players from working together and selling new aircraft immediately, what we'll end up with is one player taking delivery of 5 aircraft/month from a single line--1 that they ordered and 4 from their buddies.  Those 4 buddies could also be taking delivery of 5 aircraft/month and the net result being a wash, but everyone ends up with 5 aircraft/month from 5 different fleet types.  This is an extreme example, but if every player could take delivery of 1 aircraft/month from any production line regardless of the backlog and you have an alliance of 25 players working together to maximize their potential, you know this will happen unless there are restrictions on "immediate resale".

There are plenty of restrictions in place to prevent alliance members from transferring money to each other--minimum lease times before cancelling, maximum market premiums on aircraft for sales, etc.  Production slots (and airport slots) are essentially currency in the game and it makes sense to limit players from effectively transferring production slots (penalties get handed out already for transferring airport slots).  Many of the ideas I've posted are me spitballing and working through my own thoughts, so if anyone else has an idea other than "do nothing" let's hear it.  Apparently I get the blame for new features people don't like, even when they weren't my idea (I am not the one who proposed or is even advocating for an aircraft sales cap/quota as the original poster wanted, nor was I ultimately for the parking fees that were implemented), so if you've got a solution other than "do nothing" I'm all ears.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2013, 12:34:26 AM »
This isn't true.  If I have first class seats on a route, there is nothing stopping an airline from putting first class seats on that route.  If I earn $1 in profit, it is not at the expense of a competitor earning $1 in profit.  Wealth is created, not simply transferred.  Most items in the game are not a fixed pie where one can only benefit at another player's expense.  However, items like aircraft production slots and airport slots are a fixed pie and there is no possibility for wealth creation.  No one ever complains about a player operating a route profitably at another players expense because it is not a fixed pie.  This is the reason I'm an advocate for a terminal system where players have an exclusive slot pool--it is no longer a fixed pie and your only constraint is money and how big you can expand your terminal using that money (a market based solution BTW).

Not true.  There are a finite amount of pax that can ultimately be attracted to fly on any airline no matter the price.  Every passenger that flies on your airline is not flying on someone else's airline.  By offering seats on a route that someone else is already flying you are taking passengers to their detriment.  It is indeed a fixed pie at any given point in the game.  No one complains about it because competing for as much of that fixed pie as possible is the point of the game.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2013, 12:49:11 AM »
I don't park large numbers of popular aircraft so I can't say for sure, but I've very skeptical these aircraft are parked due to commonality reasons.  The same with ordering aircraft for friends.  While it is a big expense having those extra fleet types, large airlines have the cash flow to where these costs are pretty nominal.  I agree we shouldn't get hammered for the fourth fleet type the way it is modeled (and believe optimum fleet types should scale up based on overall fleet size per the commonality thread--another market based solution).

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.  I just scheduled a route on a 4th type as an experiment.  It increased my commonality expenses by $41m a week.   That's a 5x increase in commonality expenses.  That is not a nominal expense for the vast majority of airlines in this game, even the large ones.  That difference (just the difference mind you, not including the portion I was already paying before) is enough by itself to exceed expenses from any single item except staff, fuel, and leases for my airline.  Most large airlines have no choice but to park large numbers of aircraft to do a fleet replacement as going to 4 types is economically suicidal, esp if they face significant competition.

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2013, 01:00:47 AM »
I just realized that this is probably the perfect solution because large airlines with lots of capital won't be able to avoid the tax man thanks to the new tax system.  So large airlines with lots of cash would be looking for ways to use it before they lose it.  The extra cost associated with rushing an order could be a one time special expense.

You have a quote attributed to me that I never said, please fix it.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2013, 01:03:44 AM »
Apparently something went wrong with my second to last post...

In a nutshell, what if we used the JumboShrimp wider production line but used pricing to regulate quantities demanded?  Boeing can pump out an extra Dreamliner each month for the right cost--lots of overtime and rush deliveries downstream in their supply chain.  If players had 3-5 options when they ordered--take the next avail production slot and pay list price, get it sooner for a premium, even sooner for a bigger premium, or get the very next one off the line for +50%.  This would remove the profit motive and effectively destroy the "immediate resale" market.  It would also reduce the price of getting an aircraft from infinity to very expensive, going from impossible to possible to "expand the production line".

 

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.