Commonality "Points"

[Andre]

I'm bumping this thread up again. This needs to be dealt with, now. It's the single biggest flaw with AirwaySim. In the real world, having a fleet of 30 or more airplanes pretty much cancels out the extra commonality cost. In Airwaysim, the system works the exact opposite. With a large fleet, adding a single aircraft of another type will kill you.

We all know why this mechanic is there. But it's not realistic, and it doesn't work as intended. Seasoned players within alliances help each other out by ordering aircraft for each other, bypassing the 4th type penalty.

Sami, we've been asking for a change for YEARS. We must have made a hundred good suggestions how to do this differently by now. Please change it.

[11Air]

For 'A' maintenance per aircraft for 4 to 5hrs each month week = 6 working hours per week so one guy or gal can do 7 aircraft a week given that none of the maintenance times overlap.

For 'B' maintenance per aircraft for 24hrs each month = 6 hours per week so one guy or gal can do 6 aircraft a week given that none of the maintenance times overlap.

So one person qualified for A and B checks can do some 4 aircraft with overtime while B is in progress to cover A's on the rest of the fleet, and some garden days (Monday and Friday?) in between.

For 'C' and 'D' maintenance per aircraft for 3 weeks per year = 20h/d x 21days = 420 hours per year PLUS 20h/d x 21days = 420 hours per 10 years so one guy or gal can maintain 5 aircraft in C and D checks given that none of the maintenance times overlap.

So lets group the A & B checks under one team and have a choice of Employing, or Buying In Contractors at a rate.
Same for C and D checks, similar level of skills so same choices.
All we need to add then is the cost of their Training, Updating their training, and Certification.  A bit messy but at least it's more realistic than what we currently have.
I don't know how many people are required for each of these checks, varies by type I suspect, some certificated, some 'coffee makers'.

So, from Sami's end that's two maintenance team types, each team providing UP TO 45 hours a week, and requiring Certification and yearly UpDates (at a cost (fraction of Purchase price?).
Then does the next scheduled maintenance wait until the previous is completed? Or is a contract Team brought in, at a higher cost.

Each new type in the Airlines Fleet will require Certification of AB and CD Teams, at a cost, but not necessarily more staff.

It's a relatively simple solution, it's type specific, and it covers staffing costs.  Perhaps an add-on in the aircraft purchase page to prompt for Maintenance by Staff or Contractors?

[JumboShrimp]

I'm bumping this thread up again. This needs to be dealt with, now. It's the single biggest flaw with AirwaySim. In the real world, having a fleet of 30 or more airplanes pretty much cancels out the extra commonality cost. In Airwaysim, the system works the exact opposite. With a large fleet, adding a single aircraft of another type will kill you.

We all know why this mechanic is there. But it's not realistic, and it doesn't work as intended. Seasoned players within alliances help each other out by ordering aircraft for each other, bypassing the 4th type penalty.

Sami, we've been asking for a change for YEARS. We must have made a hundred good suggestions how to do this differently by now. Please change it.

I think the reason the system is the way it is has to do with playability.  If operating a handful of aircraft was so much more expensive (per aircraft) then operating 100, the new airlines would have hard time surviving (or starting late in the game).

As far as severity of the cost of the additional fleets beyond 3 - it is there to slow down the growth of the airlines.  If a player could have 6  fleets x 100 aircraft, that can be achieved twice as fast as 3 fleets x 200 aircraft.  Also, there would be no compromises, no trade offs, no fleet planning....

[Andre]

I think the reason the system is the way it is has to do with playability.  If operating a handful of aircraft was so much more expensive (per aircraft) then operating 100, the new airlines would have hard time surviving (or starting late in the game).

As far as severity of the cost of the additional fleets beyond 3 - it is there to slow down the growth of the airlines.  If a player could have 6  fleets x 100 aircraft, that can be achieved twice as fast as 3 fleets x 200 aircraft.  Also, there would be no compromises, no trade offs, no fleet planning....

I completely disagree. The game mechanic right now is unnatural, incredibly annoying, and manages to ruin the game. Fleet planning, compromises and trade offs are very much a real thing at any airline. A 4th type penalty is not needed. The fleet commonality costs could be increased across the board, but without any multiplier at a certain number of fleets. There's a reason some airlines run a 100% commonality fleet, like Ryanair and Southwest, while others go for "one aircraft type per type of mission" strategy like Delta. Commonality very much matters without an artificial cost multiplier.

Going through several generations of aircraft in a 1960-2030 game without ever going into 4th fleet type is very difficult. The results are airlines storing hundreds of brand new aircraft for more than a decade, before every scheduling them. It's completely mindboggling and unnatural.

There are a million ways to slow growth other than a 4th and 7th fleet type penalty. Many of them have been discussed before. The best way would be to have investors who demanded return on their capital investment into your airline. You start the game using their cash, and they'd like it back and then some. Just like in the real world, the most successful airline would be the one who manages to return the most capital to their investors.

[JumboShrimp]

Going through several generations of aircraft in a 1960-2030 game without ever going into 4th fleet type is very difficult. The results are airlines storing hundreds of brand new aircraft for more than a decade, before every scheduling them. It's completely mindboggling and unnatural.

Well, that's because you are doing it wrong.  You need to be at 2 fleet types, and always use the 3rd type to be the one that is in transition.  And it takes a TON more compromises to run an airline with 2 fleet types.

There are a million ways to slow growth other than a 4th and 7th fleet type penalty. Many of them have been discussed before. The best way would be to have investors who demanded return on their capital investment into your airline. You start the game using their cash, and they'd like it back and then some. Just like in the real world, the most successful airline would be the one who manages to return the most capital to their investors.

The investors of the airline are more or less irrelevant, they put up peanuts (in the game terms). 

It is the leasing companies that put up the real capital.  And one way to slow down the growth is for the leasing companies to act like lenders, only willing to lend so much.  Severely undercapitalized company would not be able to lease a brand new 777, just because it has 4 months worth of lease payment cash on hand, and D credit rating.

[Andre]

Well, that's because you are doing it wrong.  You need to be at 2 fleet types, and always use the 3rd type to be the one that is in transition.  And it takes a TON more compromises to run an airline with 2 fleet types.

The investors of the airline are more or less irrelevant, they put up peanuts (in the game terms). 

It is the leasing companies that put up the real capital.  And one way to slow down the growth is for the leasing companies to act like lenders, only willing to lend so much.  Severely undercapitalized company would not be able to lease a brand new 777, just because it has 4 months worth of lease payment cash on hand, and D credit rating.

Yep I'm always using 2 fleet types. But when you have 700 aircraft, with 400 and 300 respectively of each type.. well then it's not even possible to switch out one of them without storing hundreds of planes for several years. Simply an incredibly backwards game mechanic which ruins the sim.

The investors would own a certain percentage of the company and expect returns corresponding to their capital investment as well. There are a lot of ways to do it. The last part about the leasing companies I 100% agree with you on, it would be a great way to hinder growth in a realistic way.

I still want fleet commonality, just tweaked differently with additional sub groups like cockpit commonality/type ratings, maintenance, training, and so forth. Just not an artifical bump anywhere in the mix.

[ZombieSlayer]

There have been many great ideas on how to alleviate this problem with long game world's, but sadly they have all fallen on deaf ears over the years....

[JumboShrimp]

Yep I'm always using 2 fleet types. But when you have 700 aircraft, with 400 and 300 respectively of each type.. well then it's not even possible to switch out one of them without storing hundreds of planes for several years. Simply an incredibly backwards game mechanic which ruins the sim.

You just have to be extra careful, and put a ton of planning effort early on to map out the fleet transitions.  You just can't jump on every shiny new fleet type that launches, and you end up with fleets for far longer, past their prime.  You need to have the fleet transitions 10+ years apart.  I think the 3 fleet limitation really stresses strategic planning.

You can run 400-500 aircraft airline and be self sufficient in ordering aircraft replacements.  To go beyond that, and we are talking maybe top 10 airlines in the game, you will need some help, from the alliance or from UM to make the transitions.

The investors would own a certain percentage of the company and expect returns corresponding to their capital investment as well. There are a lot of ways to do it. The last part about the leasing companies I 100% agree with you on, it would be a great way to hinder growth in a realistic way.

The credit market, IMO, needs to be re-worked, to be a little more realistic.  The whole credit rating, credit worthiness, borrowing power based on that right now really plays almost no role for running an airline.  Barring any short term miscalculation on my part, I can play the entire game without looking at it once.

For starters, the implied interest rate that goes into the leasing price should have some dependence on airline's credit rating.  Meaning, there would be a trade-off:
- Grow fast, have low capitalization, low credit rating, but pay more for leases.
- Grow slower, concentrate on profitability, build equity, improve credit rating, but then have better rate on leases, loans

This trade-off does not really exist now in early fast growth phase of the game world.

We already have the UM, and price the AI brokers are asking for the aircraft to purchase.  All that would be needed is to have the lease price be derived from the interest rate appropriate for the airline, based on airline's credit rating.  For starters.

Then, the lease payment obligations (from leased aircraft in use, and aircraft ordered) would be compared to current revenue and profitability, and calculate a cap, in dollar terms, as far as total value of aircraft the player can have on lease.

With these changes, the player would be checking his credit rating, borrowing power on daily basis...

I still want fleet commonality, just tweaked differently with additional sub groups like cockpit commonality/type ratings, maintenance, training, and so forth. Just not an artifical bump anywhere in the mix.

The commonality should be a bonus, IMO, like in real life, not a penalty.  Each successive aircraft in the same fleet should be cheaper to operate.

To go from the existing system, we have the "Administrative Fee" for a fleet, which is one fee per fleet.  To go to successive fleets, the fee would scale, say:
- 2nd fleet: 5x
- 3rd fleet: 20x
- 4th fleet: 100x

This way, you still would have the incentive to stay within 2-3 fleets, but if you are operating 800 aircraft, 200 per fleet, each fleet would be large enough to earn enough money to cover the administration fees.  And each additional aircraft would make that fee less per additional aircraft, rather than more as it is modeled currently.

And this approach would successfully slow down the early growth, maybe more successfully than the current system.  Right now, when you are under 100-150 aircraft, you can pretty much fly 10 fleets with almost no penalty.  With administrative fees scaling with additional aircraft even at early stages, players would be more judicious in adding extra fleets.

[Andre]

You just have to be extra careful, and put a ton of planning effort early on to map out the fleet transitions.  You just can't jump on every shiny new fleet type that launches, and you end up with fleets for far longer, past their prime.  You need to have the fleet transitions 10+ years apart.  I think the 3 fleet limitation really stresses strategic planning.

You can run 400-500 aircraft airline and be self sufficient in ordering aircraft replacements.  To go beyond that, and we are talking maybe top 10 airlines in the game, you will need some help, from the alliance or from UM to make the transitions.

Yes, definately agree on this. I calculate about 10 years, but this time around it's taken me nearly 15 years and I'm not done yet. We have been trading intra-alliance, and managed to get into the top tiers in that game world. But the thing is, in reality nobody knows what the future holds. You can carefully plan your fleet, but you wouldn't know what type of aircraft would surface in the future. On this point I'd like to thank Sami for letting prototypes into the game, letting us decide if the aircraft type is successful or not. Not just based on history.

The credit market, IMO, needs to be re-worked, to be a little more realistic.  The whole credit rating, credit worthiness, borrowing power based on that right now really plays almost no role for running an airline.  Barring any short term miscalculation on my part, I can play the entire game without looking at it once.

For starters, the implied interest rate that goes into the leasing price should have some dependence on airline's credit rating.  Meaning, there would be a trade-off:
- Grow fast, have low capitalization, low credit rating, but pay more for leases.
- Grow slower, concentrate on profitability, build equity, improve credit rating, but then have better rate on leases, loans

This trade-off does not really exist now in early fast growth phase of the game world.

We already have the UM, and price the AI brokers are asking for the aircraft to purchase.  All that would be needed is to have the lease price be derived from the interest rate appropriate for the airline, based on airline's credit rating.  For starters.

Then, the lease payment obligations (from leased aircraft in use, and aircraft ordered) would be compared to current revenue and profitability, and calculate a cap, in dollar terms, as far as total value of aircraft the player can have on lease.

With these changes, the player would be checking his credit rating, borrowing power on daily basis...

Definately agree on this as well. The same thing could be done with the banks regarding loans, not only the lease companies. And with investors demanding a quarterly return on investment, you wouldn't have all the money in the world to spend on new metal.

The commonality should be a bonus, IMO, like in real life, not a penalty.  Each successive aircraft in the same fleet should be cheaper to operate.

To go from the existing system, we have the "Administrative Fee" for a fleet, which is one fee per fleet.  To go to successive fleets, the fee would scale, say:
- 2nd fleet: 5x
- 3rd fleet: 20x
- 4th fleet: 100x

This way, you still would have the incentive to stay within 2-3 fleets, but if you are operating 800 aircraft, 200 per fleet, each fleet would be large enough to earn enough money to cover the administration fees.  And each additional aircraft would make that fee less per additional aircraft, rather than more as it is modeled currently.

And this approach would successfully slow down the early growth, maybe more successfully than the current system.  Right now, when you are under 100-150 aircraft, you can pretty much fly 10 fleets with almost no penalty.  With administrative fees scaling with additional aircraft even at early stages, players would be more judicious in adding extra fleets.

Absolutely. That's how it works in the real world. It gets cheaper the more aircraft you have in a fleet, and it kind of works the same way in Airwaysim - except when you get your 4th or 7th fleet type. I've heard people say 30 planes of the same type in a fleet is enough to cover the extra commonality costs of introducing another type of aircraft, others have said 100. Either way artificial punishments for adding another fleet is not a good thing. Instead we should have to invest in infrastructure, training, manuals, simulators, tools.. everything you need to bring on another type of aircraft. It could range from 500,000 USD from the smallest type of plane to 100,000,000 USD or more for the largest types. Basically as an entry fee so to speak. It would be an incentive to keep to the same type of airplanes, without an artificial punishment when you get the 4th or 7th type.

With future developments in Airwaysim, we'll be able to run our airline as a pure low cost carrier, or a full service legacy carrier. Fixing the commonality issue, and being able to choose the type of approach regarding fleets would be a welcome addition to this. Run an airline like Southwest or JetBlue with 1 or 2 fleets, or an airline like Delta with a seperate fleet for each type of mission.

If we could choose to buy maintenance services from 3rd parties like we do with fuel, or keep all maintenenace in-house, this would affect commonality as well. If you're a small airline it could be cheaper to have maintenance done outside of the airline, but if you're a big carrier with several hundred aircraft it would be cheaper to do it in-house.

So many possibilities.

[JonesyUK]

Having played the game since the first worlds (After the beta), I've pretty much given up on it, and it's all down to this one flaw. The game forces you to stick to fleet groups with large variations in the planes such a the 737 or A320 groups and leaves no scope to use less popular, but more narrow groups (HS Trident, etc).

/given up.

[Andre]

Another issue that is related to the fleet commonality one, is the insanely irregular prices for new aircraft in this sim. The prices start normal, but end up sky high because people don't have a choice when ordering airplanes.

Examples:

In GW4 the 737-700 has been a 100m USD aircraft for a while now. In the real world the list price is about 70m USD, but they sell for as low as 22m USD after discounts. In AirwaySim you might get it for 80m USD if you've played your cards right and gotten all the discounts. That's 4 times the real world price.

The same goes for aircraft like the A320 series. The A321neo is now a 150m USD plane in Airwaysim.

These problems would get sorted out by removing the fleet commonality issue. It would let airlines order different types of planes and the demand for the most popular types would fall. The prices would then stabilize on a more normal level. I'm not against the pricing mechanic, but I'm against the artificial fleet commonality mechanic which causes this problem.

What's the point of this fantastic, large database of aircraft when we don't have a choice when ordering planes? You can't go for a fourth type without your airline going belly up within a week. The fact that this straight out destructive game mechanic still is a part of the sim is beyond belief.

[gazzz0x2z]

Another issue that is related to the fleet commonality one, is the insanely irregular prices for new aircraft in this sim. The prices start normal, but end up sky high because people don't have a choice when ordering airplanes.(.../...)

I strongly disagree, and find the system actually excellent. You can go for Kickass MAX8 at 120M$, or slightly inferior(mainly in terms of range and versatility) C919 at 80M$. The way players jump on the best planes, and the way it alters prices, help as a self-balancing system. TU204, A148, even IL96, have their uses.

[Andre]

I agree gazzz0x2z, but that's not my point. The point is that those planes are not a choice because of the fleet commonality penalty. Several of these planes you mention appear late in the game. If the commonality penalty wasn't so severe, those planes would actually be an option!

[gazzz0x2z]

I agree gazzz0x2z, but that's not my point. The point is that those planes are not a choice because of the fleet commonality penalty. Several of these planes you mention appear late in the game. If the commonality penalty wasn't so severe, those planes would actually be an option!

And here you score.

I was planning to get C919 to replace my 737-300 at the end of GW3, but I did notice they lack 250NM of range for most of my destinations in Alaska. So nope. As I always stick to 2 fleet groups, I have fewer transition problem(but I don't fill as much niche than players with 3 fleet groups, that's the drawback). So I'll probably stick to planes obsolete in the early 2000s, buying new ones in the middle 2020s.....

Of course, transition is so tough that it weeds out the market when you expect it the less, but are those playerswho left because a missed transition likely to come back to Airwaysim? I'm not convinced.

[KestrelAIH]

Andre, your points are spot on.

Surely we are not asking for a huge change, just a slight increase in realism? OK, if you want to mainline JFK to USA its easy, but in other parts of the world a mixed fleet are a must, and unrealistically unaffordable. The saddest thing is that the developers dont even seem to reply ( or even read?) any more? 

Real world take a company like SWISS - they need longhaul planes. Their real fleet has two core types. They need european route planes. Their core route has two main types. (Soon 3). Its a necessity for them. We arent arguing here so much about the temp costs of fleet renewal, but simply a more realistic ability to operate 4 fleets effectively, sure with increased costs, (but not farcical tripling of costs) to be realistic and to be more interesting. After all thats why most of us play.

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../...)Real world take a company like SWISS(.../...)

A point I had missed, probably becasue I always played the EU market or the US market.

When you play a big market like that, you can choose 2 niches, and limit yourself to 3 fleet groups(including the current transition, E.G. I'm preparing the replacement of my CRJs by A148, while I religiously keep my 737-300 until the end of the A148 transition. Once I'll have no more CRJs, I'll think). You are a specialized transporter, in the current gemr, I'm serving the US interior market and the immediate surroundings, and it's my niche, and it works very well.

But yes, when you're in a smaller market, like Swiss, Norway, or God forgive me, Sudan, you cannot afford to specialize. You have to cover every possible line to exist. You need a 50-seater for local routes. You need a 100/150 seater for average-range routes. You need something to cover longer routes. And you need a 4th fleet group for transitions, because you're too small to afford to store brand new planes for two years in the desert.

[Tulip Air CEO]

4th type should be standard in the long game worlds, the real problem of this game is the real free time you have and the talk about seasoned players buying too many planes is not true,the player with the most free time in real and spent it on this game is the 1 who can order most planes and grow faster and so on.
600 planes max outside homebase is like a lock already and maybe can add another lock like in the slots locked airports that if you have for example 10 unscheduled planes you cannot order new planes or deliveries are being postponed.so many ways to keep this game realistic.If a real airliner have an unscheduled plane on the ground,it cost alot a day,also option for here.
Nothing you can do about it,also the new Gulf carriers suddenly can buy alot of planes,so in the real world this also happens when i saw this games advertisement as the real simulation,so have to keep it real.I started with alot of fun,but it is getteng tempered as everygame gett the same problems and looks all the same.For example gw 1 and 2 are from 1960-2030,have like 1 game a 4th type and maybe for example the other have a higher starting capital and like written here before by other players maybe higher lease down payments or like payback to the stockholders,that would be nice as an extra achievement and in points to keep the game around and alive.
now the later types in the game are more for players who start later as if you are an allround carrier then it is nearly impossible to go over indeed.i checked with my 800+ carrier in gw 3 that a 4th type,just add 1 plane goth over 260mln a month equals about 60-70 mln extra cost in a week.somehow just feel to quitte this game as i cannot transit and feels like game locked.
If you buy a new plane you should not wait 10 years before the first delivery enters the game.
Maybe if administration can change this then when we start with 600 carriers we maybe end up more then with the standard 100-200 planes.
if 400 players can make it till the end then they will earn double income from credits then now and also more dynamic in the game.

If you go Bankrupt in 1993 from a game started in 1960,it is hard to start again or maybe if you have planes bought that they can sell them to the leasing companies and gett an leaseback arrangemnets as now you can only sell for dump prices for quick cash or if someone is willing to buy your planes for cash injection.A sell-leaseback construction should be a honest way in this game and also make it more attractive for small demand countries to gett big airplanes in support of an partner carrier.

Somewhere i readed an idea of having a 2nd airliner which maybe can be implanted as a commuter or a charter devision.your airliner can have then 4types over 2 airliners,this way all problems can be solved easy and as realistic aswell.
just 3 for your own,so you can have a large and an very large plane and 1 for transitions while the commutter/charter can have 1 and 1 for transition too,And if affraid that you go over the limit then is like a 5 type max at 1 time so expansion can be tempered and fleet renewels should be planned well in advance.

Why we buy insearance?no plane ever had an problem in this game and the technical shape of a plane which flies is locked to 70% anyway also if a A or B check is expire it should be grounded immediatly and pay an administration fee to the safety board as a way to keep players sharpe,maybe would be intresting for example if a plane have a 60% technical shape to have an engine shut down or a runway excursion.
In real are black lists of carriers and countries but would be alot of work to install so maybe just have some unexpected events with planes with technical problems below the 90% in different degrees depending on the tech state of the plane.

[JumboShrimp]

4th type should be standard in the long game worlds

If you see complaints about the cost of 4 and more fleets, it is nothing in comparison to the number of complaints you would see if there is absolutely no check in growth of airlines, if they can fly whatever types they choose to, order simultaneously from 4+ production lines.

There would also be no niches left for players trying the regional route.  The majors would just scoop up all the demand with the best customized aircraft for each route.

the real problem of this game is the real free time you have and the talk about seasoned players buying too many planes is not true,the player with the most free time in real and spent it on this game is the 1 who can order most planes and grow faster and so on.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at, as far as time playing the game.  It makes a lot of difference when the game world starts, but as the game world progresses, players don't need to stalk the Used Market any more, as more aircraft (percentage-wise) comes as "new" directly from the production lines.

600 planes max outside homebase  is like a lock already

600 is almost like an infinity for most players, most players don't end up using up 600.  And the main reason is fleet commonality and the rate at which you can receive new aircraft.  This limit mostly bites only early on, in long game worlds, when it is only some 200.

and maybe can add another lock like in the slots locked airports that if you have for example 10 unscheduled planes you cannot order new planes or deliveries are being postponed.so many ways to keep this game realistic.If a real airliner have an unscheduled plane on the ground,it cost alot a day,also option for here.

See, you are already introducing more and more artificial restrictions, in order to relax the Fleet Commonality costs.  It turns out that the Fleet Commonality (high cost of going above 3 fleet types) takes care of most, if not all of the things you want to restrict, and does it quite elegantly.

It introduces and reinforces fleet planning, discipline for the player in order to be successful in the game.  And it leaves a plenty of room in the game for many players, instead of having 50 mega carriers, each flying 1200 aircraft of 10 types.

now the later types in the game are more for players who start later as if you are an allround carrier then it is nearly impossible to go over indeed.i checked with my 800+ carrier in gw 3 that a 4th type,just add 1 plane goth over 260mln a month equals about 60-70 mln extra cost in a week.somehow just feel to quitte this game as i cannot transit and feels like game locked.

See, that's a tradeoff.  You can fly 6 types, but have only approx. 300 aircraft, or you can fly 800+, but with only 3 types.

If you buy a new plane you should not wait 10 years before the first delivery enters the game.

Early in the game, the production lines end up with some backlogs, but Sami has relaxed the production lines (they can now produce more aircraft per month) and it accommodates more players.

You just need to watch for opening of the new production lines and have some cash saved up so that you don't end up with 10 year wait.

If you go Bankrupt in 1993 from a game started in 1960,it is hard to start again

There are opportunities as some airlines bankrupt.  You may not necessarily be able to start at LHR or JFK in 1993, but there are plenty of airports around the worlds that are wide open.

Somewhere i readed an idea of having a 2nd airliner which maybe can be implanted as a commuter or a charter devision.your airliner can have then 4types over 2 airliners,this way all problems can be solved easy and as realistic aswell.

You can always consider starting a 2nd airline in a different Game World, if you want to run 2 airlines.

[gazzz0x2z]

+1000 with Jumboshrimp.

Said otherwise : to succeed at the game, you shall be disciplined, able to make long-term plans, but also to seize opportunities. Exactly like a real CEO. Without the fleet limit, even an above-average player like me(20th in current GW3, with 737 & CRJs being replaced by A148) would be exterminated by the superpros, who could finance hordes of RJs to reduce my profit into dust, with their long-range income. With the current system, there is place for different strategies. But you've got to make choices, and to assume them.

Sometimes, things are ironic. When all the big boys collapsed in JFK, I was amongst the numerous who jumped on the ruins to take the place. It worked wonders, I more than tripled my profit from what I had in my 3 first airports. In less than 18 months - after 10 years of game. But, at the same times, it was at odds with my strategic choices. The A148 is an excellent plane when you struggle with cash in medium bases, as it's very cheap to buy/lease. OTOH, when you play a rather big boy, E190s, or even CRJs I was disengaging from, are better. Once you can buy them with hot cash, their lower operating cost is a god-given gift. And the fact that they have bigger models than the A158 would help me a lot, too. But the dices were already launched, I had to go on with the Antonov fleet strategy. It succeeded, I'm now number one in JFK, despite having no plane flying above 2700NM. But the situation is awkward, my fleet choice is clearly suboptimal for this airport, which is now the pearl of my company.

And that's what's fun. You have to make choices. Some are long-term choices, following a deliberate strategy (in my case, have a few 737 classic to finance hordes of cheap RJs to cover medium airports in the USA). Some are instant choices(JFK is free? 10 years after the beginning of the game? Banzaiiiiiiii!!!!!!!). That's why I love the game. You need both a long-term plan, and an adaptation to unforecasted events(like a very tough attack against my initial positions in Detroit). Sid Meier told, at the release of Civilization IV, that a good game, was, above all, made of interesting choices for the player. The fleet group rule is excellent at this level. You have to sacrifice something, so that the rest will thrive. It's an interesting choice. Shall I switch from leased CRJs to owned A148s? Shall I replace my 737-400 by 737-800? Shall I reduce to 2 fleet groups and invest in 777-8X for broadening my offer, but blocking me definitively with my current suboptimal fleet groups? Shall I instead wait for the MRJ to kick ass in the end game, but only in my current playfield? Those are interesting choices to make. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard, to quote the guy who gave his name to the jewel of my company.

[Tulip Air CEO]

Oke Jumbo and gazzox..,some points you are right and and can find myself in,but on the other hand,if you fly for example 190 F27,180 737-200adv and 170 dc-8īs,it is hard to renew a fleet without a normal penalty.or have 170 planes collected before can implant them.
Not all bases are as big as jfk or lhr,so in order to stay in line you need a 4th type for transition at a normal speed and still stay in the footsteps from the big based carriers.
With the 600 limitation rule yu are already there isnīt it?so why can we not defend or play our Head quaters at all levels of demand from regionals to long haul?so 1 base you can defend and if you choose 9 extra bases with 60 planes or 2 bases with 300 planes,still stay the same,isnt it?
Yes the artificial locks are just brain storming.as i play forfun and i like to change plane type too and not just order my final types before 1985 as a game finish in 2030 but have to plan well ahead for the future if you not cover regional,medium long haul because of competiton or to keep market share at homebase then for most bases you will be out of the game before even half way trough the game,isnīt it?

For example,a 3 fleet with over 800 planes a 4th type means end of story as gett 60mln extra costs,which is way to high.2lh planes amonth x170 is how many weeks?that x60 mln a week is?
or for example i am in gw 1 in Dublin,which i have 1 competitor left from the 5 start ups aswell,so we are both basically stuck now for the upcomming 20 years.
I fly namc,727 and dc-8īs to cover routes which i want to fly.
But if i choose only 2 types i couldnīt do what i have done now and be in a smaller phasewith maybe 3 or 4 competitors with a limited market and then you gett the other carriers from abroad flying to Dublin.Or just limit the airliners which can start there operations from gameday 1 to just 2 or 3 so you not gett 1 base with 5 airliners and then other with jsut 1 or even nothing,when i open i cannot see this,only after airliners joined the gw.i cannot check 15x a day to see this changing.
So a 4th typ is neccasary in my opinion if you are in a smaller base other then lhr or jfk but still want to grow  normally too.

There are 4 different gwīs with 2 basically the same,and 1 with only 10 years shorter,so why not open a game world for players who want this so there will be a wider variaty of game world to choose from?

now the game worlds 1,2and 3 started with 500+players gw 2 even with 690 if i remember correctly in 1960,how many players are there now in 1994?and how many will there be in 2010 or at the game end?
Arenīt that Always the same names either?
So i think more change can attrackt more players and keep more players playing this game and not quit of boredom because they are in Bahrain or Romania.if we start with 50 airliners in Jfk or LHR is not fun either.