(comments) AirwaySim v.1.3 news, previews & info

[dmoose42]

Sami, I think the issue is that a lot of people have historically used the UM to park aircraft for CV storage.  Rather than disposing of the planes, they would just sit there.  Obviously with the new rules (accounting to be implemented and UM checks - implemented shortly), there will be a significant reduction in player's willingness to park aircraft on the UM to store CV.  I have done this a lot (and had to scrap 500 some aircraft when the storage rules came out to avoid being decapitated).  While I agree that both sets of rules make sense for the game (although the option to keep planes on the UM but just paying for their checks without having to repost them would be nice), it is a bit frustrating to make in game changes to strategy to account for rule changes.

If I may, I would suggest the following, would it be possible to publish a roadmap of proposed timing of changes and the types of changes that are envisioned for 2014?  This way people can not feel blindsided (in the case of jetwestinc) by changes.  I don't think it needs to be too specific something like below...

December 2013: Storage Capability
January 2014: UM aircraft require updated checks
February 2014: Updated Accounting System goes live (biggest change is how aircraft are accounted for depreciated from purchase price rather than written off as an expense upon purchase)
May 2014: City-based demand test server
August 2014: City-based demand goes live

[Zombie Slayer]

What on earth are you talking about?

edit/typos

My bad, was discussed elsewhere, not on this board. Also, was referring to new aircraft value system and not storage/scrapping.

And I would appreciate to tone down this "rules changing again" thing, since it really isn't by any means a big deal. If I'd decide to make everyone's tax-level 70% (just an example..), then it would be a big deal. But updating the rules to disallow "storage" of aircraft on the used aircraft market isn't a dealbreaker and that is why it will be introduced on all game worlds.

(and I did also offer assistance to your issue a few messages back, but you seems to ignore that alltogether..)


edit/typos

I did not ignore that, it just does not help. What would help would be a) mass scrapping function b) any plane forcefully removed from the market placed into long term storage and c) the ability to view all stored aircraft on one screen in my aircraft view.

The idea is for the better of the game, I do not in any way disagree, I am just still fuming over the amount of time I have and still have to utterly waste because of this change. As noted before, I have well over 400 planes to dispose of. I have to click view plane, click aircraft for sale, click remove from market, click continue, click scrap, click confirm. 6 click per plane, 15-25 seconds each frame on a good day. If I do nothing but click for an hour straight, I might get through 180 frames. No one can sit and click the mouse 1000 times in an hour without getting a headache.. ..so realistically it would be more line 100-120 frames an hour. So because of a mid game change I will be forced to waste upwards of 6 hours in one game world including the 150 frames I have already scrapped.

By simply adding the functions listed above, this whole outburst would have been avoided. More thought really has to go into the "how will this affect current game worlds and how can complications be avoided" in addition to the required "does it work as intended."

[Sami]

I think the issue is that a lot of people have historically used the UM to park aircraft for CV storage.  Rather than disposing of the planes, they would just sit there.  Obviously with the new rules (accounting to be implemented and UM checks - implemented shortly), there will be a significant reduction in player's willingness to park aircraft on the UM to store CV.

Use the long-term storage feature for that. Planes there will be counted towards your "company value" (= visible in balance sheet).

(although the option to keep planes on the UM but just paying for their checks without having to repost them would be nice)

You can do C/D's to planes while they are for sale .. Automatically or manually.

I did not ignore that, it just does not help. What would help would be a) mass scrapping function b) any plane forcefully removed from the market placed into long term storage and c) the ability to view all stored aircraft on one screen in my aircraft view.

Like mentioned I can put all your for-sale planes into long-term storage with two or three database queries, takes <5mins here. But that's then ALL planes you have for sale (or alternatively a list of ID numbers which not to move, but that's slower for you than using the UI)..

[dmoose42]

Use the long-term storage feature for that. Planes there will be counted towards your "company value" (= visible in balance sheet).

Yes, I understand that capability will exist, but people won't be buying large numbers of extra planes now because A) they don't want to get caught paying all those checks.  B) the planes just depreciate at 4% a year (roughly) - whereas typically before they would maintain their value as the value would be the market value

So, yes, while they can put them in the storage freezer, the benefit is a lot less.  Just saying.

[Zombie Slayer]

Like mentioned I can put all your for-sale planes into long-term storage with two or three database queries, takes <5mins here. But that's then ALL planes you have for sale (or alternatively a list of ID numbers which not to move, but that's slower for you than using the UI)..

Can you pull every plane but DC-10's? Would you need ID numbers of all for sale DC-10's for that?

And after they are pulled, a view that is really needed is Aircraft In Storage added to My Aircraft....there is currently no way to search for aircraft in storage. This would help and would save a lot of time, even without mass scrapping function.

[Sami]

whereas typically before they would maintain their value as the value would be the market value

That's incorrect ... The old valuation system (that has been removed) had a great emphasis on plane age, and it went like this (example):

If plane was purchased in 1985 at $10mil (of that year's currency). In 2010, after 25 years, the same plane, in 100% condition, was valued at $3.3mil by the calculation. Scrap broker's payment for it would have been about $800k. (inflation has been taken into account here)

In the new depreciation method the $10mil plane from 1985 is valued in company bookkeeping at $1mil in 2010 (and remains at $1mil since it's the salvage value). So much more accurate really in my mind.

(to make it short: planes have always depreciated in value, the calculation method for it has just been changed. = No big deal..    Where you have figured that plane values would not decrease over time in the old calculation method?)

My bad, was discussed elsewhere, not on this board. Also, was referring to new aircraft value system and not storage/scrapping.

The depreciation model now used is the same used in real life. (the useful life and salvage value differ a bit from airline to airline but the basic method is just this)

Can you pull every plane but DC-10's? Would you need ID numbers of all for sale DC-10's for that?

Easiest if you PM me a comma-separated list of the ID numbers (database ID, from my aircraft a/c details page URL) it would work. So a list of what NOT to remove.

[dmoose42]

(to make it short: planes have always depreciated in value, the calculation method for it has just been changed. = No big deal..    Where you have figured that plane values would not decrease over time in the old calculation method?)

Sami, I apologize for not being clearer.  Currently the plane value on the airline's book is a combination of the depreciated value (as planes age) and the effects of inflation on the value of the plane.  Historically, these two components have been roughly the same, if anything inflation occurring at a faster rate than depreciation, causing the plane's value to increase in nominal terms particularly in the first 10 years of its life.

Now, we are eliminating the inflation component (and tweaking the depreciation component).

edit: Not disagreeing with the change, just explaining my interpretation of the change.  I am very much in favor of the change in accounting rules that are proposed.

[EsquireFlyer]

But updating the rules to disallow "storage" of aircraft on the used aircraft market isn't a dealbreaker and that is why it will be introduced on all game worlds.

I think the problem is that it was mid-game, as described. Because if the "long term storage" feature existed at the beginning of the gameworld, more people would have used it, and we wouldn't have this UM mess that we have now. But because there was no LT storage option at the start of the world, the only way for players to simulate parking AC in the desert (which real airlines do all the time) was to dump them on the UM, even if it's not an "appropriate" use of the UM, since there was no "real" storage option.

(And, in turn, the urge for players to buy massive numbers of planes they don't need is because of the way the tax system works in this game, based on cash accounting, another game design decision which dramatically affects player behavior, for which the players are now being punished.)

And so now, since the game world has been running for ~30 years, mass-kicking those planes from the UM in the middle creates a huge pain for players with large fleets stored there, which is a problem that wouldn't exist if the both the UM ban and the LT Storage option existed at game start.

So the request from some players is just to have some kind of easy or automated way to transfer hundreds of planes either from the UM into the LT Storage, or into the chop shop or scrapping, so that it functions "as if" the rule was in place from the beginning of the world, and no players are punished.

This rule doesn't affect me personally, since I never had large cash piles (due in part to Algerian rebellion, etc.) with which to buy surplus planes that I didn't need to fly immediately, or income that I needed to invest to avoid taxes. But I can still see why the affected players feel unfairly punished by this rule change and why they request a remedy.

[schro]

So the request from some players is just to have some kind of easy or automated way to transfer hundreds of planes either from the UM into the LT Storage, or into the chop shop or scrapping, so that it functions "as if" the rule was in place from the beginning of the world, and no players are punished.

There's already a feature request for this - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,50757.0.html

[[ATA] - lilius]

I think the problem is that it was mid-game, as described. Because if the "long term storage" feature existed at the beginning of the gameworld, more people would have used it, and we wouldn't have this UM mess that we have now. But because there was no LT storage option at the start of the world, the only way for players to simulate parking AC in the desert (which real airlines do all the time) was to dump them on the UM, even if it's not an "appropriate" use of the UM, since there was no "real" storage option.

(And, in turn, the urge for players to buy massive numbers of planes they don't need is because of the way the tax system works in this game, based on cash accounting, another game design decision which dramatically affects player behavior, for which the players are now being punished.)

And so now, since the game world has been running for ~30 years, mass-kicking those planes from the UM in the middle creates a huge pain for players with large fleets stored there, which is a problem that wouldn't exist if the both the UM ban and the LT Storage option existed at game start.

So the request from some players is just to have some kind of easy or automated way to transfer hundreds of planes either from the UM into the LT Storage, or into the chop shop or scrapping, so that it functions "as if" the rule was in place from the beginning of the world, and no players are punished.

This rule doesn't affect me personally, since I never had large cash piles (due in part to Algerian rebellion, etc.) with which to buy surplus planes that I didn't need to fly immediately, or income that I needed to invest to avoid taxes. But I can still see why the affected players feel unfairly punished by this rule change and why they request a remedy.

Planes are bought to avoid taxes but they are kept to keep company inflated by overvalued scrapyard material.

And at last we have been given these long gameworlds that we have been waiting for. In them we know all aircrafts, we pretty much know the fuelprices and we can see into the future demands just by joining a later running gameworld. Is it really necessary to talk about unfair punishes? They are pretty much the most exciting thing happening in the whole game and the game is running smooth and stable despite the constant improvements being made.

[b757capt]

Can we add status of Aircraft in C Check / D check to the new operational status drop down?

[dancingcol]

Just noticed a new line on the "Company Value" tab - Slot value.

How is this calculated and whats its purpose etc?

[dmoose42]

It's calculated based on acquisition cost.  However, it is not comprehensive since the start of the airline as I believe Sami only started tracking this data within the last month.

It's purpose is that under the new accounting system, slots are proposed to be treated as an asset rather than an expense - and thus the value of the slots you have acquired will count towards CV (at cost).  note that this means that acquiring slots is no longer a tax deductible expense and that you will have to pay taxes on this income, even though you used the cash to buy slots.  This change will likely go into effect sometime in the next 2-4 weeks.

dmoose42

[LemonButt]

note that this means that acquiring slots is no longer a tax deductible expense and that you will have to pay taxes on this income, even though you used the cash to buy slots. 

It didn't occur to me that this would end up taxable.  I think there needs to be a balance of sorts since the EU allows basing in other countries etc.  Taxes in Dubai are 0% whereas they are 30%+ in other countries.  That means a $700k set of slots in Dubai cost $700k for the Dubai airline and $1 million for other airlines.

I think slots at your bases should be an asset only, but slots at destination airports outside of your country should be an expense.  The reason being, for example, a US company is protected by US laws and buying slots at JFK would be a protected asset.  If you were flying to Cairo from JFK, those Cairo slots are at the mercy of the Egyptian government and if there is a revolution etc. and the Egyptian government says they are confiscating slots, there is nothing a US based company can do.  Granted there would little an Egyptian company could do, but I would think most countries would protect their home carriers first and foremost if things like this happened.

So in short, slots at your bases/home country are an asset, but slots at other airports should be an expense.  If you are flying domestic, those should remain an asset (and income taxes) also since it is protected under the same government/legal system.  I would think EU wouldn't count--if you are based in Paris then only slots in France are an asset and if you open a base in Germany etc. then they aren't "protected".  This means airlines in Dubai etc. aren't given an even larger advantage than they already have.

[dmoose42]

Lemonbutt - that might get confusing.  It may be better just to allow a tax deduction for slot acquisition fees for all airlines even though the value of the slot is being recorded as an asset.

The even more complicated approach would be to tax the slot acquisition fees at the tax rate of the country you bought them in (but who wants that level of complexity other than Sami's paid legion of accountants )

[Sami]

That means a $700k set of slots in Dubai cost $700k for the Dubai airline and $1 million for other airlines.

Seems that you misunderstood. The slot is an asset, so it will not count towards your taxable income/expense in any country, until you stop using the asset(slot) and remove it from the company books. So the 700k slots cost 700k in cash for everyone and it has no effect on your taxable result.

Though if you look it that way, that if you earn $1mil from tickets and spend $700k on slots, your taxable result will still be $1mil (with $300k cash in hand) - in any country. And in 30% tax country you will then just pay $300k taxes (leaving $0), and in 0% country $0k (leaving $300k). But that's the way it should go, and ultimately the 'cost' of the slots is the same for both in this case.   ..if they decide to close the route/slots, then the $700k is written off as an expense and then the taxable result will be reduced by that amount, giving advantage to the one who has higher tax%..

And also, the slots will be treated the same way regardless or country/HQ/...

[LemonButt]

The slot is an asset, so it will not count towards your taxable income/expense in any country, until you stop using the asset(slot) and remove it from the company books.

This doesn't make any sense.  So if I earn $1 million in profit and then pay $1 million for slots, then it doesn't count as a $1 million expense dropping my tax basis to $0?

Since slots are an asset and it is impossible to convert that asset to cash in the game, it would make sense that it gets booked as an expense to lower your tax basis.  If the asset is removed from the books, does that mean the airport will be refunding the slot cost to the player now?

[Sami]

This has been already discussed in depth in the feature rq. forum's thread about the accounting changes, and this is the valuation method that has been chosen for slots.

They are an asset like aircraft, but have a bit of different basis for their valuation (no depreciation), but the principle of taxation is exactly the same when you buy them. If you buy a $50mil aircraft, it is not a tax deductible expense at the minute you buy it either (like we have now).   (and it's not relevant if the asset can be converted into cash or not; many companies have for example 'goodwill value' on their balances, for which they have paid when buying another company for example .. etc)

The manual page with detailed information about the new system and transition to it will be online later today.

[LemonButt]

The main question is if aircraft are depreciated over x years to allocate expenses to the right month with associated revenue, where are slot expenses allocated?  Lump sum when you buy them?  They are not depreciated, so unless they show up somewhere as an operating expense, then they are paid for with post-tax income, which is ultimately what I am trying to find out.

I searched the accounting thread in feature forum and couldn't find the answer, but will review manual when it goes live.

[dmoose42]

They are paid effectively with post tax income as you only get to record an expense if you give up the slot.