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: [ok] Stations (Mini-bases)  (Read 3255 times)

dasherhalo

  • Former member
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2014, 04:34:56 AM »
I'd be surprised if this happens because it would literally take several game years for a player to "dethrone" an established competitor for their alliance buddies.  The easiest solution would be to have players pick a "business plan" when they start.  This would limit their choices for bases.  So if you say you want to be a big airline with 2 bases then that is what you're limited to and those 2 bases have to be at class 5 airports (or higher).  If you say you want to be a medium airline with 4 bases then you can base at class 4 or higher.  Smaller would be class 3 or higher, etc.

Not a bad thought, but that limits the flexibility of a player, by locking him into a "game plan" at day 1. If it's a long game world, and you change your mind on strategy (or get forced to by external forces (what your competition does, etc), then the lack of ability to change strategic direction. So if I think at the beginning of the game that I want to be a top 10 player, and it doesn't work out, then why should I be locked into only two bases for 60+ game years (and months in real life)? Business models can certainly change over 5 or 6 decades...

That's the other side of the coin: if you have 60+ years to play with, then a heavy hitter playing out of Heathrow with unlimited budgets can quite easily spend 5 years at a time going from base to base paving the road for their alliance buddies.

Just spit-balling here: perhaps you could have a limitation on the number of bases you can close, as opposed to the number you can open?

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2014, 06:28:14 AM »
Possible new rules, draft 1, aim to lift restrictions and allow more mini bases:

- Bases limited to max. 10 (incl HQ, = 9 additional bases ... Ryanair has 57 bases but I think that's too far already).
- No restriction on minimum number of planes in each base or in your HQ.
- You can base a total of 500 planes max outside your HQ (like now, scheduled planes total). No restrictions per base numbers (0-500 per base).
- Airline must be at least 12 months old and operate at least 10 planes before bases are "unlocked" (this can be lifted by game specific settings). But you can for example then move all 10 planea from HQ to bases.

- Opening costs to be more airport size specific, cheap for small airports (let's say ~$500k for a class 2 airport?)
- All other costs to be checked, airport size and plane count both matter, emphasis on plane count.
- Interface needs to be modified where bases are listed to allow a long list (10 vs 4), technially it is otherwise already fully ok. <-- this takes the most time

- No changes to traffic rights, so no basings in foreign countries (this won't be changed due to realism).
- No changes to rules regarding base openings/closings. However would be tempted to add a rule that two members of the same alliance may not base at same airport, since there have been some issues related to that, but not sure if that's necessary.

All numbers can be later adjusted but this would be a controlled growth from the current limited model. The new rules will be used in the next game world. This change would benefit both large and small airlines - large can grow further and small can expand more easily.


Business plan model has been thought for a long time already but managing the change between plans is complicated.

Or alternate model for this would be the "base sizes": http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,22678.msg117570.html#msg117570

And actually the size model linked above could be the way to go since in the future the airport size classes will change as airports grow and that would create undesired sudden jumps to the costs, without any change/action from the player.... And this model would allow regionals an easy option to base at the mega-hubs too and create the feeder traffic there.



And here's actually the original thread: http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,22678.0.html
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 06:51:05 AM by sami »

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2014, 06:47:23 AM »
Sounds very good! Would be nice if the staff requirements at the HQ when opening a base would be lowered - something like this is a bit unrealistic (base opened but not a single aircraft with routes based there):


Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2014, 08:01:11 AM »
Something else that sprung to my mind, the cooldown timer between base openings should scale with the airport size. The current 12 months are probably too much if you allow more bases.
So, maybe keep the cooldown at 12 months for size 5 airports and scale it down to, what, 6 months for a class 3 or something like that? That would probably prevent some frustration with the system for players who want to operate out of smaller bases.

Offline weasel

  • Members
  • Posts: 109
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2014, 08:15:17 AM »
Or alternate model for this would be the "base sizes": http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,22678.msg117570.html#msg117570

And actually the size model linked above could be the way to go since in the future the airport size classes will change as airports grow and that would create undesired sudden jumps to the costs, without any change/action from the player.... And this model would allow regionals an easy option to base at the mega-hubs too and create the feeder traffic there.

I prefer the idea with base-sizes, which would allow to operate a small number of turbo-props or jets from an airport, which would otherwise be way too expensive to open a base there. Not sure how feasible it is to tied them to aircraft size (fleet commonality), as some aircraft below 100 seats already count as large ones, thus would make a smaller base very expensive to operate and limit the aircraft choice considerably.

Is feeder traffic taken into account yet? If so, could be an additional option to allow transfer at a base or not.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 08:27:31 AM by weasel »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2014, 01:56:56 PM »
sami--I like everything in your draft.  One thing I would add back in is ABCBA routes, but A and C must be bases.  This allows an airline in a country like France operating out of Lyon, Strasburg, etc. that has international demand, but not enough to sustain groups of 7 large aircraft, to open up those international routes and absorb passenger demand out of multiple bases with one aircraft.  Since the 500 aircraft limit is aggregate, there shouldn't be an issue with someone "overpopulating" a base unless they are flying out of their HQ.  But then again, if an airline has 500 remotely based aircraft, the odds are their HQ is large and they are only flying ABA routes.

Offline hmellouli

  • Members
  • Posts: 590
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2014, 04:20:24 AM »
sami--I like everything in your draft.  One thing I would add back in is ABCBA routes, but A and C must be bases.  This allows an airline in a country like France operating out of Lyon, Strasburg, etc. that has international demand, but not enough to sustain groups of 7 large aircraft, to open up those international routes and absorb passenger demand out of multiple bases with one aircraft.  Since the 500 aircraft limit is aggregate, there shouldn't be an issue with someone "overpopulating" a base unless they are flying out of their HQ.  But then again, if an airline has 500 remotely based aircraft, the odds are their HQ is large and they are only flying ABA routes.

+1 * 1000. this also helps tremendously with scheduling efficiency.

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2014, 08:27:18 PM »
Possible new rules, draft 2:

Goals: Lift unnecessary restrictions, give players more freedoms and help small airlines in expanding their business.

Rules / changes:

- Bases limited to max. 10 (incl HQ, = 9 additional bases)

- No restriction on minimum or maximum number of planes based in each base or HQ

- However the number of scheduled planes is still restricted like now. But the restriction is company-wide, so no per-base restrictions at all anymore. Base (or HQ) is operational even with 0 planes scheduled/based there, until the player closes it. (this change allows larger bases for those who like them. original thread: here)

- Total number of planes allowed to be based (=scheduled) outside your HQ is related to game year. The number grows over time: linear growth from 100 (1950) to 700 (2000+). .. these numbers can be debated, or perhaps made as game specific settings so they can be customized per game. (this change avoids mega airlines in the early games and keeps the long games interesting with future growth potential. original thread: here)

- Airline must be at least 12 months old and operate (own/lease) at least 10 planes before bases are "unlocked" (this can be lifted by game specific settings). Once bases are "unlocked" you can do anything with the bases (open/close/etc) even if the total num. of planes falls below 10 (for simplicity). This sort of "arcade level up" thing is to prevent new players in bankrupting themselves, and after all each airline should start ops from their HQ in any case.

- No changes to traffic rights, so no basing in foreign countries etc.

- No changes to any other game rules in regards of bases.


- Airline can base at any sized airport, regardless of his HQ size - like now. But the "base size" can be selected when base is opened, which determined the operation and cost level of the base. You can open bases corresponding to the aircraft sizes (small, medium, large, very large); 4 size classes of bases. The base size equals the largest allowed aircraft size class for your operation in that base (= medium class base can support small/medium planes).   (this change would allow small airlines to open new bases in the same extent as large airlines do, and a regional airline could now easily open a regional base at a global mega-hub too (paving the way for future features on airline co-op), original thread: here + partly here)

- Base sizes can be up/downgraded. Cost for upgrade would be the cost difference between the opening costs + a small extra margin? Downgrade cost 20% of that difference?

- The size of the base is not related to airport size in any way (since airport size classifications are dynamic in the future), but it is instead the measurement of the size of operation the player is planning there. However the system will check that you won't open a "very large" base on an airport that does not allow "very large" aircraft at all - but this checker will be then only at the base opening stage; if the airport size later changes (airport becomes smaller) then your base size won't change and you need to downgrade it manually (for simplicity). (but the dynamic airport sizes are anyway thing of the "far" future still)

- All costs of the base are directly related to the base size. Roughly, the costs of the 'small' base would be like 10% of the cost of 'very large' base .. or in that ballpark; similar to a/c maintenance costs between groups (= very small costs for the small class, but not linear, so large/very large are quite near to each others). The costs of 'very large' base could be even increased a bit from the current level to deter the mega carriers a bit (mainly opening cost).

- There would be no base specific aircraft number restrictions. The 'small' base can have the 700 planes there if you wish, they just have to be 'small' in size. (a 'base points' system was also suggested, but I would like to keep this extremely simple and flexible)


- Time between opening new bases would be also related to the size of the base opened. However this would have to combined somehow to the upgrade/downgrades too, so that you couldn't open a 'small' base and then upgrade it to the biggest and still be able to open another base quickly. So this would be possibly kept still at fixed 12 months per each new base.


(- and to this actual topic, "mini-bases".. there won't be any 'downgraded bases', but as you read the bases itself are flexible. So we're in the wrong thread here, but whatever ...)



..is 700 + HQ as the max plane count too much? Now we have 400+HQ (4x100)..


(may have forgotten something, please add.. the aim is still to implement the changes before the next game world, so this will move ahead with a fast pace - and only to any future games (not to current games))
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:50:25 PM by sami »

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2014, 09:17:26 PM »
I'm undecided about the new aircraft limit.

500 or even 700 aircraft concentrated mean airports with lots of slots, especially in the US but also some others (Narita, Paris CDG) will become massive battlegrounds because they can't be slot-locked.


This basically means a buff to airlines starting in slot restricted airports (Heathrow, Haneda, Frankfurt - to name some) and a nerf to everybody else. A Heathrow airline could then invade London Gatwick (like now) but unlike now it could absolutely control the airport, even slotlock it too, while they can't be attacked in their Heathrow fortress. That also allows operations for a long time without making profit to drive existing airlines out of business.


Same for US and EU openskies. Very healthy airlines can destroy other airlines - that must not be airlines that are badly maintained, but maybe some that had or have huge fights with other airlines at an airport that is hard or impossible to slot lock.



Due to extreme and insane staff requirements on the HQ when opening a base (I linked a screenshot from GW#4 above) many good players will just stick to a single base but control it with the allowed 500, 700 or whatever amount of aircraft.



Again, this has advantages and disadvantages. I just can't see how it could be fair with the current slot and staff requirement settings.

Offline Elladan

  • Members
  • Posts: 546
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2014, 10:45:55 PM »

- Airline can base at any sized airport, regardless of his HQ size - like now. But the "base size" can be selected when base is opened, which determined the operation and cost level of the base. You can open bases corresponding to the aircraft sizes (small, medium, large, very large); 4 size classes of bases. The base size equals the largest allowed aircraft size class for your operation in that base (= medium class base can support small/medium planes).   (this change would allow small airlines to open new bases in the same extent as large airlines do, and a regional airline could now easily open a regional base at a global mega-hub too (paving the way for future features on airline co-op), original thread: here + partly here)


Just to comment on the above - this would mean I can open a medium sized base in say Chicago O'Hare, move 700 BACs there and generally ruin everyone's day while still enjoying discount on base costs. On the other hand someone else wanting to open a base and station there 7 767s will have to pay a lot more than me. Doesn't sound too fair, does it? I suggest linking base operation costs (assuming we're talking about running costs, not just opening base cost) to either number of planes or something like total MTOW or total seats.

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2014, 10:51:28 PM »
Just to comment on the above - this would mean I can open a medium sized base in say Chicago O'Hare, move 700 BACs there and generally ruin everyone's day while still enjoying discount on base costs. On the other hand someone else wanting to open a base and station there 7 767s will have to pay a lot more than me.

If you feel that the airport can support 700 BACs then why wouldn't you be allowed to do it - though I would find it extremely unlikely since the demand and slots are the constraints. Since one aspect in the long term is to open up for more competition and especially more dynamic world (the airport expansions/slots etc are planned where airports can then meet the demand, and the new demand system is another part of this ... the base rules update is only one small knot of the whole thing). And why would someone wish to base only 7x B767 to major (top20) intl airport? The aircraft size class (to which base sizes will base) is already ENTIRELY aircraft capacity/MTOW related only, no need to make it more complicated.

And base running costs are always tied to the number of planes of course (= staff) - like already today -, but added with an element of the size class. So base 1 (class: 'small') that has 100 planes costs less to run than base 2 (class: 'large') with 100 planes (if we exclude pilots who already cost less, but all others would be relative too). And opening costs will have a similar relation.

But the 700 max limit may be too much, perhaps should go with 500+HQ. (since today it's 3x100+HQ, not 4x100 like I posted earlier)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:59:22 PM by sami »

Offline Elladan

  • Members
  • Posts: 546
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2014, 11:14:03 PM »
I think you missed my point Sami :)
The example with 700 BACs versus 7 767s was just an extreme case to illustrate the fact size of operations is not tied to plane type size. If the running cost per plane for medium base is lower then for very large one the small player operating big planes might be treated unfairly. Obviously the devil is in the details and this might or might not be a very big position in the total expenses but still, the fact remains.
I suggested to link size of operations class with both number and size of planes - total MTOW would be simple to calculate I guess but it's again, just an example.

As for total number of planes allowed in bases I think after a certain number it doesn't matter. 500 or 700, that's enough to satisfy demand of biggest airports. I don't know how this will work in practice to be honest, it's a good development for sure, but it also have a good potential for nasty bite.

EDIT: Perhaps something along the lines of: base operating cost per plane = k*(total MTOW)1.1/number of planes can work?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:28:46 PM by Elladan »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2014, 11:47:28 PM »
Would this perhaps be a good time to introduce terminals?  i.e. if you open a base, you get an exclusive slot pool and are paying fees based on that terminal.  This would help throttle growth/expansion.  So if an airline says they want a base with 24 aircraft (at a 24 hour airport) then they would get a terminal with 4 slots per hour (24x4).  This way they would have to schedule flights at 3am instead of sucking up all the primetime slots.

IRL you'd have dedicated gates and instead of having 24 aircraft leave at 500 every morning you'd have the flight spread out because you don't have 24 gates to use.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2014, 12:28:58 AM »
I don't see much difference between 500 and 700 aircraft (or 50000). I think the amount of aircraft that allows a good player to take over a base/HQ at least partially is 200-300. At the end of the day I don't care about me, there's a very high chance I'm one of the airlines that are on the bright side of this feature, I just think about the other people that don't have so much time or effort or just don't understand mechanics of the game and then get overrun by hundreds of aircraft from a rich guy.

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2014, 02:11:13 AM »
If you feel that the airport can support 700 BACs then why wouldn't you be allowed to do it - though I would find it extremely unlikely since the demand and slots are the constraints. Since one aspect in the long term is to open up for more competition and especially more dynamic world (the airport expansions/slots etc are planned where airports can then meet the demand, and the new demand system is another part of this ... the base rules update is only one small knot of the whole thing). And why would someone wish to base only 7x B767 to major (top20) intl airport? The aircraft size class (to which base sizes will base) is already ENTIRELY aircraft capacity/MTOW related only, no need to make it more complicated.

And base running costs are always tied to the number of planes of course (= staff) - like already today -, but added with an element of the size class. So base 1 (class: 'small') that has 100 planes costs less to run than base 2 (class: 'large') with 100 planes (if we exclude pilots who already cost less, but all others would be relative too). And opening costs will have a similar relation.

But the 700 max limit may be too much, perhaps should go with 500+HQ. (since today it's 3x100+HQ, not 4x100 like I posted earlier)

I like the idea of scaling (100 in 1950 to 700 in 2000ish) but I still feel some sort of limit needs to be in place to avoid major death matches. As has been said, places like LHR, HND/NRT, JFK and a few other airports generally slot constrained become even stronger with this update as you can use that "fortress" to create havoc in other non constrained airports. Plces like ORD, ATL, DFW could easily become major battle grounds with 1500 E-Jets locked in a fight to the death and with winner of the battle will be the player that has their base slot locked. Maybe limit each individual airport to no more than 250 total planes? This would allow a large and encompassing operation but make it impossible to come in and completely take over another HQ with your base.

As for 700 being too high, I disagree. The current model of 3 bases for 300 frames outside of the HQ is good for a 20-25 year game, but makes 80 year games very boring. A system where in 1950 you can have 2 bases with 100 total planes based outside your HQ scaling to 750 in 2010 over up to 10 bases keeps it interesting to the end.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline LotusAirways

  • Members
  • Posts: 846
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2014, 02:23:40 PM »
I would like to see an anti-monopoly rule in place like a limit on how many slots an airline can have.
Something like 40% in a level 5 airport. 50% on a level 4. 60% on a level 3. 70% on a level 2, and 80% on a level 1.

LA
 

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2014, 02:45:22 PM »
And IMO it all goes back to terminals.  The only reason an airport get slot constrained is because everyone flying out between 500-700 in the morning.  The problem isn't 700 aircraft, it's 700 aircraft departing during that 2-3 hour block in the morning.  If players were forced to spread their flights across all 24 hours (or whatever the airport has open) then a player would be faced with the option of departing at 200 or not flying at all.  This leaves slots available during all (most) hours and keep an airport from being slot constrained and turned into a fortress hub.

Offline weasel

  • Members
  • Posts: 109
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2014, 02:49:59 PM »
The example with 700 BACs versus 7 767s was just an extreme case to illustrate the fact size of operations is not tied to plane type size. If the running cost per plane for medium base is lower then for very large one the small player operating big planes might be treated unfairly. Obviously the devil is in the details and this might or might not be a very big position in the total expenses but still, the fact remains.
I suggested to link size of operations class with both number and size of planes - total MTOW would be simple to calculate I guess but it's again, just an example.

I support your point. Number of planes per base should have a higher impact than size class alone. Example: Medium-sized carrier with strong HQ+ smaller (amount of planes) bases that exchanges F100 or B146-300 with B717 has to upgrade his bases to large, despite number of planes and amount of seats/plane remains roughly the same.

Pricewise, what would the following examples cost? Pure base costs:
- 7x Medium A/C (e.g. F100) - 25% of Very Large?
- 7x Large A/C (e.g. B735) - 75% of Very Large?

Amount of PAX/MTOW is very similar, yet likely to have a huge effect in costs. That should be prevented or at least, made marginal. MTOW instead of size class seams much better, considering a B753 has double the MTOW of an B735 while being the same size class.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 02:52:05 PM by weasel »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2014, 03:24:14 PM »
I like the idea of using MTOW versus airport class or aircraft size because the data is continuous versus discrete.  That is, instead of using arbitrary buckets of data (class 5, class 4 or medium/large aircraft) you have a continuous scale where using the correct/appropriate aircraft is rewarded.

For example, many players will simply get the B752 with the longest range (~4000nm) just so they don't have to worry about being restricted if they want to fly a long flight.  However, the MTOW for a 2000nm and 4000nm model is 99,000 kg versus 115,000 kg.  By using the "correct" aircraft and using a 2000nm model for a 2000nm route, you can save 15% on MTOW and fly more aircraft out of that base.  This might seem minor, but when you start getting up there the numbers get really big.  The B773 vs the B773ER is a 33% difference despite fuel burn being only 4% more for the heavier model.

Using MTOW is extremely arbitrary, but really there isn't much strategy when it comes to selecting the right variant of an aircraft model at this point in the game.  If you elect to fly the heavier/long range variant you will pay more for landing fees and fuel, but other than that it doesn't do anything to your strategy.  If flying the heavier models means you only can base 100 aircraft instead of 150 then it starts to matter a whole lot.

Offline bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 213
Re: Stations (Mini-bases)
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2014, 06:35:56 PM »
And IMO it all goes back to terminals. 


I agree!!!  I would like to see gate space be a part of each airport. Similar to time slots you would have to 'buy' gate space - either for the whole day or part of the day. You  could also the lease gates back to other airlines. This is what happens IRL. And you you could put a restricition of how many gates one airline could own. 20-25% of all available gate space for instance.

 

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.