4th fleet = 4x more costly to operate

[begla]

Hey Guys,

So I recently started to receive Fokker 100s to begin replacing my Ageing BAC 1-11s. And what I found was shocking, to say the least.
It's a well known fact amongst us all that operating a 4th fleet type is very costly when compared with 3 types, but I've never fully grasped the extent of the financial penalty until my F100s started rolling in.

I thought i'd share this with you all, but instead of telling, i'll show you (picture below).

It really does instil the importance of operating a streamlined airline.
I know this has been discussed to death, but Sami, is this really intended?

A 4th fleet type has caused an overall increase of roughly 400% to operate 4 types rather than 3. Far from realistic when compared to the real world and far too costly for me to actually begin replacing my fleet until i have enough to replace the entire fleet in one swoop (again, not realistic when compared to the real world).

[wildavidson]

This is the only thing in this game I don't like. I agree there should be a penalty for running more fleets but a 4/5x jump between 3 and 4 fleets makes it harder to expand and means that the same aircraft are being taken from um and production line in every game whereby if you had the flexibility to add more fleets you could see more differences between fleets.

[bdnascar3]

And another point, this penalty was imposed to stop airlines from hogging production slots. Problem is, the very large airlines don't care, if they're making a billion a year who cares if it costs 100 million. And the small airlines don't care because they're making it up in load factors. The airlines who get squeezed are the middle airlines.

[wildavidson]

For what its worth here's my suggestion for this issue. I think there should be a more linear approach to the penalties applied when running additional fleets. I would propose some kind of multiplier on the commonality penalty. An example would be as follows (although the values have just came from my head but the main point is the principle)

So I would apply a points multiplier to each fleet type which would only apply when operating more than 1 fleet

eg

Small 0.25
Medium 0.5
Large 0.75
Very Large 1

So in a working exapmle the system would generate a commonality value for each fleet type based on aircraft type, number, condition and age. This value is then multiplied based on the point system above. All airlines running 1 fleet type would pay the above commonality costs. Any airlines operating more than 1 fleet would pay the default costs + a penalty based on the total of the multipliers shown above

Example

Airline starts with a medium fleet
- airline would pay default costs as only operating 1 fleet

Airline adds a large fleet making 2 fleets (medium and large)
multiplier = (0.5+0.75) = 1.25 so therefore pays 2.25x the default cost

Airline adds a very large fleet making 3 fleets (medium, large and very large)
multiplier = (0.5+0.75+1) = 2.25 so therefore pays 3.25x the default cost

Airline then adds another large fleet making 4 fleets (medium, 2x large and very large)
multiplier = (0.5+0.75+0.75+1) = 3 so therefore pays 4x the default cost

and so on


This is my idea. Sorry if I've not explained it correctly but I feel its a bit fairer, still gives airlines who run small numbers of fleets and advantage but allows others to expand and run different types of aircraft they are unable to do now. This may help with the UM as it allows players to choose different fleet types without getting the massive jump in expenses.

[begla]

Many airlines subcontract maintenance to 3rd party companies (Lufhansa Technik, Monarch Aircraft Engineering, SIA Engineering and so on) not only does it make having more types viable, it does it without breaking the bank... Of course having more fleet types will always mean an incremental rise (crew training, admin, etc) but nowhere near the increase that AWS puts us through.

I can understand (for the purpose of the game) that putting this kind of measure in place is supposed to curb the biggest airlines, but in all honesty it does nothing.

The current Game Model is actually flawed in a way that becomes very beneficial to a bigger airline.

I now have 200 Fokker 100s coming in. Instead of using them to replace my fleet, i'll use them to support my fleet by leasing them out until I have enough Fokkers to replace my 1-11 fleet all in one go. So really on that basis, it could be argued that the '4th fleet' restriction does nothing but undermine the realism and quite frankly, the fun of the game.

I'll lease out my Fokkers (and my L1011 replacement aircraft) as cheaply as possible to bring in money, whilst I build numbers and when the time comes I'll pull them from the market and utilise them with minimal financial penalty. Thus becoming a bigger, more cost effective business to dominate the market. 4th Fleet Penalty = More success to the big boys by using the little boys.

[Kadachiman]

4th Fleet Penalty = More success to the big boys by using the little boys.

At what point does a little boy airline become a big boy airline?
From your own posting your airline has approx 550 aircraft and you have 200x Fokkers on order, if that is the case then most would call your airline a 'big boy airline'

I can understand (for the purpose of the game) that putting this kind of measure in place is supposed to curb the biggest airlines, but in all honesty it does nothing.
The current Game Model is actually flawed in a way that becomes very beneficial to a bigger airline

In your case the 4th fleet penalty would seem to be doing the job that you have stated it was implemented to do...'curb the biggest airlines'

[begla]

4th Fleet Penalty = More success to the big boys by using the little boys.

At what point does a little boy airline become a big boy airline?
From your own posting your airline has approx 550 aircraft and you have 200x Fokkers on order, if that is the case then most would call your airline a 'big boy airline'

I can understand (for the purpose of the game) that putting this kind of measure in place is supposed to curb the biggest airlines, but in all honesty it does nothing.
The current Game Model is actually flawed in a way that becomes very beneficial to a bigger airline

In your case the 4th fleet penalty would seem to be doing the job that you have stated it was implemented to do...'curb the biggest airlines'

Apologies if I came across a little strong in my opinions. Though you can surely understand the frustration? We're all just out here trying to do our best and being penalised when we do have success. I would at least expect some kind of change to be implemented (as would most players i expect). I'm not asking for the world, i'm asking for compromise. It's the least one should expect from a game that one is paying money for, don't you agree.

[Kadachiman]

Agreed, the 4th fleet penalty has caused many good airlines to fall to their knees and beg the AWS god for mercy

It is the major reason that you see many big airlines fall over at the fleet replacement points in a game
However this can be planned for e.g. I now only run 2 fleets with the 3rd only coming in for transitions as I too have fallen victim many times to the huge financial challenge of fleet replacements which wrecks an entire game.

The biggest problem I see with the >3 fleet penalties though, is that this very fact severely limits the use of 'different planes' other than Boeing 737/767/777 and Airbus A320/A330/A340 in this game

Open up the number of fleets, put a cap on the number of planes you can have of each fleet (e.g. 200 frames) and watch the airlines go routes other than the above 'gameplay biscuit cutter' method

[schro]

Sorry, but the penalty does not help the big airlines at all. In gw1, I had a fleet of about 850 planes when I added a 4th type, which took my monthly commonality bill from 26m per month up to 296m per month. My quarterly profit at the time was about 250m per quarter, meaning it would have bankrupted me very quickly had I not transitioned 120 planes in about an hour. If you watched Fly me in gw2, the larger lhr airline, he nearly bankrupted after losing 13+ billion doing a multi year long fleet conversion.

At the end of the day, its how the game works, thus in would suggest adapting your play to how the game works.

[Infinity]

I can understand (for the purpose of the game) that putting this kind of measure in place is supposed to curb the biggest airlines, but in all honesty it does nothing.
The current Game Model is actually flawed in a way that becomes very beneficial to a bigger airline

Total BS and it does not become any more true by putting it in bold writing.

The 4th fleet penalty scales with overall fleet size, it's barely noticeable at 100 planes but becomes hefty at around 250-300 planes, and at 800 planes it is enough to make even the most profitable airline fail if sustained. At 800 planes it increases commonality costs by more than 1000%.

So please explain to me how exactly this benefits large airlines. On the contrary, it makes running a large airline a pain because efficiently running a huge airline on 2 types is very difficult and at 3 types it becomes virtually impossible to replace a fleet due to the severity of the penalty.
Small airlines, meanwhile, can fly 6, 7 types and barely notice anything. But they don't need to, it makes little sense for them. It makes all the sense in the world for large airlines, but for those it doesn't work anymore.

[Kadachiman]

I didn't make the statement, I copied it from a previous post and then disputed the statement
I actually agree with you if you reread the post above mine and then my post :-)

[wildavidson]

Total BS and it does not become any more true by putting it in bold writing.

The 4th fleet penalty scales with overall fleet size, it's barely noticeable at 100 planes but becomes hefty at around 250-300 planes, and at 800 planes it is enough to make even the most profitable airline fail if sustained. At 800 planes it increases commonality costs by more than 1000%.

So please explain to me how exactly this benefits large airlines. On the contrary, it makes running a large airline a pain because efficiently running a huge airline on 2 types is very difficult and at 3 types it becomes virtually impossible to replace a fleet due to the severity of the penalty.
Small airlines, meanwhile, can fly 6, 7 types and barely notice anything. But they don't need to, it makes little sense for them. It makes all the sense in the world for large airlines, but for those it doesn't work anymore.

Totally agree with you.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

Yeah its f***ing up larger airlines.

I just last week had to replace all my 200 md80 with md90 in a 20 hour long move to avoid being f***ed over by the huge penalty. At least i owned all those planes cant imagine during it with  leased ones then either the extra lease cost of big number of planes stuck on ground or the high penalty for 4 types would have killed operation long before it was done.

[JumboShrimp]

You kind of need to have 2 fleet types and use 3rd fleet type for fleet replacements, which puts extra pressure on big airlines...

Small airlines can ignore fleet commonality until they become large enough to feel the penalty...

[spiff23]

You kind of need to have 2 fleet types and use 3rd fleet type for fleet replacements, which puts extra pressure on big airlines...

Small airlines can ignore fleet commonality until they become large enough to feel the penalty...

Unfortunately with these long world's 2 fleet types is, frankly, boring and starts to make the game unattractive over the long run. It's also pretty unrealistic...no need to start that argument...but this is more so unrealistic than some of the other stuff that merits threads.

It's definitely an area Sami should have a think about to keep interest as competition from competing games starts to pop up.

It's not like the latest system isn't already broken when 25 players in an alliance coordinate orders with tools outside the game to almost instantly clog up the good plane queues...737s and A320s.  coordinated alliance ordering is big airlines on steroids and further limits the attractiveness of long play...so there's plenty of flaws all around.

From my perspective airlines should have ability to declare a fleet for fleet replacement with a sliding scale penalty.  So you want to retire 727s for A320s...you declare this and there some fleet upstart cost, then a smaller percent than 4x more like current * 1.5 as long as 727 YP12 <  (YP01-15): else current * 3... Basically ensuring you are winding down the fleet by some set number or you get a penalty for delaying fleet replacement.  15 being a compromise for taking delivery of new planes between 1 and 2 a month....or tiered by plane type small and medium -24; large to very large-12.

Seems like plenty of ways to create a replacement model that doesn't make AWS and exercise is running a boring airline with 2 plane types for aRW year and half.

[JumboShrimp]

It does not mean you have to be at 2 fleet types all the time (and I disagree that running airlines with few types is more boring than running an airline with many types).

In a long game worlds, you are always in a replacement stage of one fleet type (having the old and the new, for total of 2) and one longer term fleet (3rd one).

When the fleet replacement of 1 fleet finishes (and you get to 2 fleet types for a moment), you are ready for next fleet replacement.  Hopefully, you already have accumulated some aircraft for that fleet replacement that are parked or stored.

It just takes planning and discipline.  With planning and discipline, you can have a big airline, and stay within 3 fleets.

[tdf42]

Can the penalty cost amount be anticipated or is it some random number?

[JumboShrimp]

It can be anticipated, it is not a random number.  It scales with number of aircraft you are operating.

When you are below 100 aircraft, it is negligible
100-300 aircraft - you can live with it, if otherwise profitable
It is exponential, so from there up, it will either eat all your profits or kill your airline.

[spiff23]

It does not mean you have to be at 2 fleet types all the time (and I disagree that running airlines with few types is more boring than running an airline with many types).

In a long game worlds, you are always in a replacement stage of one fleet type (having the old and the new, for total of 2) and one longer term fleet (3rd one).

When the fleet replacement of 1 fleet finishes (and you get to 2 fleet types for a moment), you are ready for next fleet replacement.  Hopefully, you already have accumulated some aircraft for that fleet replacement that are parked or stored.

It just takes planning and discipline.  With planning and discipline, you can have a big airline, and stay within 3 fleets.

Well if you want to live in the Soviet Union and buy what they have for you at Gum...all the power to you.

It's BORING!!!!

I get you can plan for it, and if I were Sami, I would plan for a lot more long world games where fewer than 200 players a game world stick around because of these arcane rules that diminish the attractiveness of the game.

Maybe the other competing games are better or maybe they will have there growing pains, but there's really no point to a 4x penalty going from fleet 3 to 4 fleets when one is a replacement.

You are seriously advocating ordering new planes and parking them in the desert until you can spend 20 hours mass replacing a fleet type. Glad you have the time to do that.

In the real world, outside the USSR the shareholders would oust you in a New York minute.

[JumboShrimp]

I am not saying that the system is perfect, or that it can't be changed / improved.

But it did does succeed in slowing down growth of airlines.  Otherwise, the airlines would have 1000 aircraft in 10 fleet types in first 3 years of the game, and then, whet is there to for the remaining 30+ years?

As it is implemented, you have a tradeoff.  You can either grow very fast with > 3 fleet types, you can even outpace others in overall profit, but you will eventually be sacrificing your profit margins as your airline becomes larger.  Or you can go with no more that 3 fleet types, with slower growth, but you can maintain better profit margins, as your airline becomes larger.

I am just giving you advice how to play under current rules.  You need to be always moving toward 2 fleet types.  Your 3rd fleet type, that you are planning on replacing, needs to go down in numbers, preferably to zero, and then you can comfortably bring in its replacement, without having to do 20 hours of scheduling in a single day.

Looking at your airline in GW1, you need to pick which one you are going to stick with longer, either BAC One-Eleven or 722 (or you should have done that, a while ago).  You should have been increasing the numbers of the one you are sticking with, decreasing the numbers of the one you are getting rid of, so that when your A320s start arriving, you can put them into service right away.

All this would apply, if your airline was 2x the size it is or larger.  With 214 aircraft in operation, going to 4 fleet is not going to kill your airline.  This is generally an issue for much larger airlines.