A good reason for ETOPS; Misuse of frequency feature;

[Dave4468]

Well, I am not saying it is wrong what you do, and it is surely okay, that you use the game mechanics, just there is a point where it comes to an overuseage as an example one could take the anti-terror laws of UK during IRA times, which was just overused, tough it was a good mechanic. This is basically the same, an overuse of a thing that is in basic cleverly thought and senseful.

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry, you are publicly comparing ATRs and narrowbodies flying where you don't want them to a multiple decade terrorist campaign and the laws to stop it.

Admitted, ETOPS is maybe not as much of a solution as I hoped for but for example would prohibit A320/21 or B737NG over the pond thus fix my issue on that.

Well it wont, both the A320/1 and B737NG both have ETOPS180 which will cross the Atlantic.

So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:

Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;

What, so the huge airlines can open more and more bases and push out more and more airlines? In MT5 I've recently had a big airline open at my base but I can take so solace from the fact that I will be able to always have more a/c operating than him. With a suggestion like that someone could get very big at Heathrow, then move to Gatwick with 100+ a/c, Manchester and so on. You would end up with a small number of absolutely massive airlines.

[/quote]

[Jona L.]

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry, you are publicly comparing ATRs and narrowbodies flying where you don't want them to a multiple decade terrorist campaign and the laws to stop it.

Okay, harsh comparison, but I was in time pressure and didn't find any better that soon, though I think it fits. Political Correctness is neither my strength nor do I aim for it, thus I might sound a bit too straight ahead, but I say what I think which, IMHO, is a good thing.
To explain my example more in depth: The law was supposed to help fighting the terrorism in the UK/Northern Ireland, and it would have been at least not the worst option, but it was turned into such due to misuse of the law by the police. Same as frequency rule and small aircraft preference, these were supposed to be helping smaller airlines compete more effectively against big airlines. But if a big airline uses these techniques than it is (in my eyes) a misuse or an use that was not supposed by it's creator. Which IS comparable to the Anti-Terror-Laws of the UK.
(Which doesn't mean that I support Terrorism, the IRA or any such party or group!!!)

Well it wont, both the A320/1 and B737NG both have ETOPS180 which will cross the Atlantic.

Someone earlier said they weren't, anyhow they are as a research showed, thus ETOPS (which I believed so far would not apply for A320family/B737classic/NG) is the wrong strategy to solve the problem. The part of my post you did NOT quote gives a new idea on that though.

What, so the huge airlines can open more and more bases and push out more and more airlines? In MT5 I've recently had a big airline open at my base but I can take so solace from the fact that I will be able to always have more a/c operating than him. With a suggestion like that someone could get very big at Heathrow, then move to Gatwick with 100+ a/c, Manchester and so on. You would end up with a small number of absolutely massive airlines.

Sounds great to me PLUS: it would not only be LGW and MAN, but thanks to EU it would be FRA, CDG, AMS, FCO, MAD, MUC, CPH, ARN, etc.... though some of these airports might bring big airlines up as well, that would be a bit more of competition

ALSO: With the current model, the 4th base (even with 100 a/c) will hardly make any cash, due to the staffing system adding INSANE cost... so it would basically be a good means to let some airlines "overgrow" and commit suicide thereby.

cheers,
Jona L.

[Dave4468]

Okay, harsh comparison, but I was in time pressure and didn't find any better that soon, though I think it fits. Political Correctness is neither my strength nor do I aim for it, thus I might sound a bit too straight ahead, but I say what I think which, IMHO, is a good thing.
To explain my example more in depth: The law was supposed to help fighting the terrorism in the UK/Northern Ireland, and it would have been at least not the worst option, but it was turned into such due to misuse of the law by the police. Same as frequency rule and small aircraft preference, these were supposed to be helping smaller airlines compete more effectively against big airlines. But if a big airline uses these techniques than it is (in my eyes) a misuse or an use that was not supposed by it's creator. Which IS comparable to the Anti-Terror-Laws of the UK.
(Which doesn't mean that I support Terrorism, the IRA or any such party or group!!!)

Yea, still its an atrocious example, PC or not.

Someone earlier said they weren't, anyhow they are as a research showed, thus ETOPS (which I believed so far would not apply for A320family/B737classic/NG) is the wrong strategy to solve the problem. The part of my post you did NOT quote gives a new idea on that though.

Well the bit I quoted said that you thought that ETOPS would stop A320 and B737s crossing the Atlantic, it won't.

Sounds great to me PLUS: it would not only be LGW and MAN, but thanks to EU it would be FRA, CDG, AMS, FCO, MAD, MUC, CPH, ARN, etc.... though some of these airports might bring big airlines up as well, that would be a bit more of competition

It's a ridiculous idea. A game world where a single airline could dominate in LHR, FRA, CDG and AMS would be terrible. The same would be seen in the USA, a big airline could conceivably control JFK, EWR, LAX and ATL. It would be back to the days of "King Without A Crown" or whatever it was called. And for someone who promotes realism can you realistically say that we could see BA or LH as the biggest airline in every big airport of Europe. Of course not, the EU and various monopoly groups would stop it. IIRC BA and IB had enough problems merging.

ALSO: With the current model, the 4th base (even with 100 a/c) will hardly make any cash, due to the staffing system adding INSANE cost... so it would basically be a good means to let some airlines "overgrow" and commit suicide thereby.

But they wont. A player who could afford 100 aircraft at a fourth base wouldn't collapse due to size if they already had at least 100 aircraft at each other base.

[Sanabas]

I appreciate that some people actually come with possible solutions.

Who is this a shot at?

Well, I am not saying it is wrong what you do, and it is surely okay, that you use the game mechanics, just there is a point where it comes to an overuseage as an example one could take the anti-terror laws of UK during IRA times, which was just overused, tough it was a good mechanic. This is basically the same, an overuse of a thing that is in basic cleverly thought and senseful.
My main point is anyhow less that one (in this case you) overuses it but that it works out. It is simply unrealistic that it works, thus my point is: make it impossible to do impossible things here. Even the rise in slot cost doesn't help anymore, as those airlines too soon make enough money to cover this. And since the latest tweak in the LH income (was discussed earlier) a long-haul airline cannot cover these cost any near that fast.

As Dave said, this is a poor choice of example. As I said, I also don't think some of the things I am doing should be viable. What I objected to is the way you categorise anybody doing those things as 'not a serious airline', and imply they're ruining things for serious airlines like yours.

a) I don't play USSR/former USSR states, neither to I play any country east of the German-German border and west of China (with the exception of countries south of the Himalaya (e.g. Dubai; India; etc.)

b) I don't play from airports under class 5 and from lower than 2nd page of whole world listing.

c) I dislike the current DotM

Maybe if you learned to play, you could build a successful airline somewhere outside that narrow range?

They don't miss the point, as you were talking of smaller airlines, which don't need to occupy an airport like LHR or CDG but can surely be happy with TXL, ARN, KUL, SYD, etc. - Stop talking about small airlines, or accept that my point is right.

Your point is wrong (and a step away from realism), as Dave also points out. It's not the fact that a smaller airline 'shouldn't be allowed' to use LHR, or 'should be happy' with a smaller airport. The point is that what you propose will mean those other airports also cease to be viable, and that a big airline opening a base at your hub will no longer just mean you've got some challenging times from the 100 extra planes, but that you're in big trouble as 250 smaller planes can turn up.

Admitted, ETOPS is maybe not as much of a solution as I hoped for but for example would prohibit A320/21 or B737NG over the pond thus fix my issue on that.
I do follow the removal of these techniques, though I must row back on the frequency a bit, as I didn't yet think of these short legs (I normally use EGLL-EGCC only as a gap-filler on my Long Hauls, and don't fly SH from LHR).

As mentioned earlier, it wouldn't fix 'your issue' at all.

So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:

Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;

A really bad idea, for multiple reasons already mentioned.

Reduce frequency bonus in different levels: >500NM 1flt/75PAX; 501-1000NM 1flt/150PAX; 1001-2000NM 1flt/225PAX; 2001-3500NM 1flt/300PAX; >3501NM 1flt/350PAX
With these (yet only basic (thus to be a bit adjusted) limits you would still not make a B763ER unprofitable on a route from LHR to EZE, but don't let it win over a B77W. And on the other side if using a 450 seater on a 300NM route would be beaten 6:1 by someone fly 75 Seaters (e.g. AT75/DHC-8-Q400) and planes like an AT75 could still fly on a 1800NM route (probably even profitably), just it won't win any more than a B762 which would be in the same freq. limit and (as proposed by a/c producers) is more "suitable" (as in "planned to be used for") for these routes.

Superficially a decent idea, but would still mean that the best plane for routes like LHR-CDG, SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, HND-ITM, HND-FUK, HND-CTS, etc would be 100+ 75 seat planes in some cases. Realistic? Irrelevant because you don't fly SH?

It also ignores things like tech stops, aircraft speed, etc. To pick examples from my own routes again, 3 daily F100s flying 2500 NM with a tech stop would split 50-50 with somebody flying 2 daily a320s direct. Which shouldn't happen.

Doesn't add anything to the logistical challenge of organising a schedule, either. All it really does is make bigger planes the best choice for busy LH routes out of LHR.

[Jona L.]

Well the bit I quoted said that you thought that ETOPS would stop A320 and B737s crossing the Atlantic, it won't.

That is why I mentioned that there was more than what you quoted.

It's a ridiculous idea. A game world where a single airline could dominate in LHR, FRA, CDG and AMS would be terrible. The same would be seen in the USA, a big airline could conceivably control JFK, EWR, LAX and ATL. It would be back to the days of "King Without A Crown" or whatever it was called. And for someone who promotes realism can you realistically say that we could see BA or LH as the biggest airline in every big airport of Europe. Of course not, the EU and various monopoly groups would stop it. IIRC BA and IB had enough problems merging.

Okay, the bomb this was planned to be didn't explode as I wished for it to do. Seems like sarcasm is what only few people have heard here... my example just shows how unrealistic the current system is. And as you said: it is ridiculous, that is why I want things to change. (I am not [yet] talking of changes to that system, as in MT#5 the top-20-cap was removed for the first time, and it is uncertain if it will remain open). {I'd love it if LH was the worlds biggest airline though, so that a good airline would be in charge for once }

But they wont. A player who could afford 100 aircraft at a fourth base wouldn't collapse due to size if they already had at least 100 aircraft at each other base.

Why does it happen so often?! And you should know, as you are in WL where this happens extraordinarily often (at least more often if you leave away small airlines at which this didn't hint). Already happened to some of my mates in earlier games, that 70 a/c at a base didn't finance the cost of it, even the first one. This all in all only works when you do it for the sake of expansion, but financially, this is just decreasing your growth rate.

Who is this a shot at?

I won't comment on most of this stuff, but I'd like to point out a potential compromise.

What if Sami added another level of games beyond the "full worlds"?  He could set the difficulty at "Very Hard", and incorporate ETOPS and unlimited bases in these scenarios and these scenarios only.  That way, the more advanced players can play by the real-world rulebook, and the everyone else can still explore game worlds like the ones we have today.

It hinted hereat, as he actually had a constructive idea, which I indeed appreciate.
No shot at anyone!

As I said, I also don't think some of the things I am doing should be viable. What I objected to is the way you categorise anybody doing those things as 'not a serious airline', and imply they're ruining things for serious airlines like yours.

Well, as you say: "don't think some of the things I am doing should be viable" This is a decent portion (40%) of what I talk about: simply they shouldn't be and that should be modeled in.

The way I call them could be discussed for hours and hours, and we'd still be jumping on one spot. It is partly to show my displease and disrespect for 120-seaters on routes like LHR-JFK (talking of current times, where 707 is by far not the largest plane anymore). Anyhow as for calling them non-serious or not shouldn't be subject of this topic, as this is not the
subject we talk about (to remind you: we talk about game mechanisms that should or shouldn't be changed by now).

Maybe if you learned to play, you could build a successful airline somewhere outside that narrow range?

I don't play USSR/former USSR because I hate it (same as I hate AN/TUP/IL/YAK); And I don't start at small airfields, as I aim for multi-billion dollar enterprises, and not for a 20-plane-mini-carrier.
My dislike for DotM is just a personal thing, which has nothing to do with ability to play or not.

Your point is wrong (and a step away from realism), as Dave also points out. It's not the fact that a smaller airline 'shouldn't be allowed' to use LHR, or 'should be happy' with a smaller airport. The point is that what you propose will mean those other airports also cease to be viable, and that a big airline opening a base at your hub will no longer just mean you've got some challenging times from the 100 extra planes, but that you're in big trouble as 250 smaller planes can turn up.

They shouldn't use LHR (at least, I am sure there are also others) for the reason of SLOTS, in current MT#5 someone flies 14x DH8D [Bom. Dash-8-Q400] daily between BRU and LHR, using 98 slots which could be done (and is done by me) with only 8 daily B738/9 using only 56 slots and in the end supplying (slightly) more capacity. This is a problem specially known in LHR, because slots there used to be and will always remain a rare good. And if you wish to operate a small airline, you don't need an airport of that size, because by the time you filled the regio demand you are a big airline and thus missed your goal.

A really bad idea, for multiple reasons already mentioned.

For this same is valid as what I commented on Dave's post.

Superficially a decent idea, but would still mean that the best plane for routes like LHR-CDG, SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, HND-ITM, HND-FUK, HND-CTS, etc would be 100+ 75 seat planes in some cases. Realistic? Irrelevant because you don't fly SH?

It also ignores things like tech stops, aircraft speed, etc. To pick examples from my own routes again, 3 daily F100s flying 2500 NM with a tech stop would split 50-50 with somebody flying 2 daily a320s direct. Which shouldn't happen.

I already said within that, that these were subject to adjustment and most certainly a bit of refinement. Probably it should also be based on the demand on these routes. I will think of something towards that and post it here later. (Probably, if not in feature requests)

Doesn't add anything to the logistical challenge of organising a schedule, either. All it really does is make bigger planes the best choice for busy LH routes out of LHR.

It is supposed to make bigger planes the best choice on LH in general, not only from LHR. From a PAX's perspective they are better as well, due to more service, (usually) more comfort, and -due to heavier weight- lying in the air more softly than an A321 which would easier be thrown left-right-up-down by heavy winds, etc. Also in the bigger planes you have a larger cabin, meaning that you don't have to be a "vertically challenged"-person (trying to be PC this time), or walk with your head down in order not to hit the ceiling.


Jona L.

[Dave4468]

That is why I mentioned that there was more than what you quoted.

What, to make it less obvious you had made a fool of yourself?

Okay, the bomb this was planned to be didn't explode as I wished for it to do. Seems like sarcasm is what only few people have heard here... my example just shows how unrealistic the current system is. And as you said: it is ridiculous, that is why I want things to change. (I am not [yet] talking of changes to that system, as in MT#5 the top-20-cap was removed for the first time, and it is uncertain if it will remain open). {I'd love it if LH was the worlds biggest airline though, so that a good airline would be in charge for once }

Rule of the Internet #307: Sarcasm doesn't work when typed. Don't do it. You say it is ridiculous yet you are the very person advocating it.

Why does it happen so often?! And you should know, as you are in WL where this happens extraordinarily often (at least more often if you leave away small airlines at which this didn't hint).

Cool, I didn't know I joined WorldLink, I doubt WorldLink know I joined Worldlink. But there you go NorgeFly, I'm now in Worldlink.

Already happened to some of my mates in earlier games, that 70 a/c at a base didn't finance the cost of it, even the first one. This all in all only works when you do it for the sake of expansion, but financially, this is just decreasing your growth rate.

You are advocating the ability to base hundreds at aircraft at each base, with the huge profits that can be made in AWS they would be able to support themselves.

They shouldn't use LHR (at least, I am sure there are also others) for the reason of SLOTS, in current MT#5 someone flies 14x DH8D [Bom. Dash-8-Q400] daily between BRU and LHR, using 98 slots which could be done (and is done by me) with only 8 daily B738/9 using only 56 slots and in the end supplying (slightly) more capacity. This is a problem specially known in LHR, because slots there used to be and will always remain a rare good. And if you wish to operate a small airline, you don't need an airport of that size, because by the time you filled the regio demand you are a big airline and thus missed your goal.

Cry me a bloody river. You're a big boy now, I'm pretty sure someone flying some DH8Ds is not going to hurt you. And remember (this may come as a shock to you) LHR is not the only airport in the world. Perhaps for said carrier in BRU the DH8D is far more suitable for them at their base and Heathrow is just a particularly big route that they fly but not worth them adding a second, third or fourth fleet group. Until I got bored I was playing at Bonn and flying F100s to LHR, not for frequency purposes but because they were suitable for Bonn and I wanted to fly LHR. A little more Googling will anger you, I've found evidence of F50s, DH8Ds, ERJs and BAe146s all scheduled to fly into LHR in real life, so its not totally unrealistic.   

...and -due to heavier weight- lying in the air more softly than an A321 which would easier be thrown left-right-up-down by heavy winds...

Interestingly this isn't true, I was talking to a pilot a few days ago who explained, and I'm paraphrasing this, that larger aircraft, due to their larger wings, surfaces and the like are more affected by wind and turbulence than smaller ones.

[alexgv1]

Interestingly this isn't true, I was talking to a pilot a few days ago who explained, and I'm paraphrasing this, that larger aircraft, due to their larger wings, surfaces and the like are more affected by wind and turbulence than smaller ones.

You must remember that larger aircraft (by weight) have larger inertia (resistance to change in motion) hence a wind of the same force would cause a larger disturbance to a smaller aircraft. In fact the larger control surfaces on the large aircraft would also help overcome it. This is good as larger aircraft (by wingspan) do have larger oscillation modes like Dutch Roll so it is correct in that sense. Unfortunately I would not say that a commercial pilot is really a great indisputable source on these matters, for it is beyond the scope of their knowledge (you don't have to be that smart to be a pilot).

[Jona L.]

Cool, I didn't know I joined WorldLink, I doubt WorldLink know I joined Worldlink. But there you go NorgeFly, I'm now in Worldlink.

Whoops, mixed you withe Daveos sorry to both of you, was my bad. But it doesn't change the rest of my point: happens to the more often then to the rest

You are advocating the ability to base hundreds at aircraft at each base, with the huge profits that can be made in AWS they would be able to support themselves.

Well, 70 aircraft was not really enough, if they weren't operating at an average of 1.5M/week each... For 100 it looks like a bit less is needed, but still barely possible to make a base break even, thus you NEED more planes there to keep it running well. (Or adjust the cost, so that it actually stands in a relation*)

Cry me a bloody river. You're a big boy now, I'm pretty sure someone flying some DH8Ds is not going to hurt you. And remember (this may come as a shock to you) LHR is not the only airport in the world. Perhaps for said carrier in BRU the DH8D is far more suitable for them at their base and Heathrow is just a particularly big route that they fly but not worth them adding a second, third or fourth fleet group. Until I got bored I was playing at Bonn and flying F100s to LHR, not for frequency purposes but because they were suitable for Bonn and I wanted to fly LHR. A little more Googling will anger you, I've found evidence of F50s, DH8Ds, ERJs and BAe146s all scheduled to fly into LHR in real life, so its not totally unrealistic.  

Always when I name myself a "big boy" I get banned, so for the record: I wasn't the one giving me the name this time

Well, also from BRU you could at operate B737 as main fleet which would make DH8D obsolete... anyhow, he also operates them out of FRA which suffers less from slot-scarcity, but still is too big for that size of planes. With the earlier slot-model (which was only 3/4 of what we have now by the end of the game) people doing that would have been called "Slot hoggers" (hence why I used the term in my OP).

Again for the record (may it be forgiven as you are no German): The Airport is called "Köln/Bonn" and is actually in Köln (to be exact in Köln-Wahn). Bonn was just added to show it was the airport of the BRD-Capital before fall of Berlin-Wall. If we were super-correct, the airport is actually named: "Köln/Bonn Konrad Adenauer Airport" (named after first German chancellor).
F100 still is a lot larger (105 vs. 65 Y|C seating) than a DH8D, and for Köln/Bonn more suited as that is smaller than BRU as well.

Yeah, that evidence is true, and as well is a shame in general and an infamy of BAA to allow such.
[/quote]

Interestingly this isn't true, I was talking to a pilot a few days ago who explained, and I'm paraphrasing this, that larger aircraft, due to their larger wings, surfaces and the like are more affected by wind and turbulence than smaller ones.

As Alex (who is studying Aeronautics actually) pointed out one needs more force to affect it (because there is more mass to be moved) and it can easier be brought back into calm/normal position.

Cheers,
Jona L.

*= I did a feature request about opening "double bases" a while ago LINK

P.S.:

(you don't have to be that smart to be a pilot).

LOL!!

[tm07x]

So you don't have any further arguments, or why did you stop replying?!

It was going on so well.... now the power is out, I feel the urgency to write a lot at the moment, so give me reasons to do so

talking to me mate? no I simply agree with you. I really had nothing to add....

All I can say, no rules is always the way to go. Punishments for too many types if you don't have enough of each type are good ways of "teaching" them right from wrong.

[Jona L.]

talking to me mate? no I simply agree with you. I really had nothing to add....

All I can say, no rules is always the way to go. Punishments for too many types if you don't have enough of each type are good ways of "teaching" them right from wrong.

Was rather to my friends trying to argue me out, but thanks for your appreciation

[Zombie Slayer]

Just a bit to add to this....I think the cost of bases has been adjusted somewhat. I remember back in ATB, when bases were first introduced, it cost me a huge sum of money in increased staffing. Now (MT5 and DOTM2) the staff hit seems to be far less. In MT5, my second base cost me less than a 5% jump in staffing costs and my fleet commonality hit there (with 72 frames based) is just shy of $1 mil/month. In DOTM2, I have maxed out bases. The fourth base did not seem to cost any more than the first in staffing increases, just the extra management to run the new facility. In fact, due to the relative size of the carrier vs. when the first base opened, my staff costs increased less for the fourth base than the second.

Just an observation in my part....

Don

[Gleipner]

Just staying on subject, and probable been spoken before but if not...

Isn't ETOPS also company based IRL, meaning you have to prove reliable company organisation (maintenance, operations, flight department/procedures and so on) and is not given just because you have an a/c that can fly the distance.

Quote from wikipedia:
"Secondly, an operator who conducts ETOPS flights must satisfy his own country's aviation regulators about his ability to conduct ETOPS flights. This is called ETOPS operational certification and involves compliance with additional special engineering and flight crew procedures on top of the normal engineering and flight procedures. Pilots and engineering staff must be qualified and trained for ETOPS. An airline with extensive experience operating long distance flights may be awarded ETOPS operational approval immediately, others may need to demonstrate ability through a series of ETOPS proving flights."

Like the idea though but might be to much realism for some.

[JumboShrimp]

I really like your ideas.  Some of them are a rifinement of what I have been posting...

So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:

Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;

Definitely.  It protects big airline from competition.  An airline with 300+ aircraft at its HQ can't really be challenged by a challenger with 100 aircraft.  The incumbent already have a slight edge (due to the pax allocation slightly favoring airlines at its HQ), another advantage in that the challenger's costs go up by opening a second base.  On top both of these advantages, limiting the challenger to 100 aircraft tilts the scales completely in favor of inumbent.

Reduce frequency bonus in different levels: >500NM 1flt/75PAX; 501-1000NM 1flt/150PAX; 1001-2000NM 1flt/225PAX; 2001-3500NM 1flt/300PAX; >3501NM 1flt/350PAX
With these (yet only basic (thus to be a bit adjusted) limits you would still not make a B763ER unprofitable on a route from LHR to EZE, but don't let it win over a B77W. And on the other side if using a 450 seater on a 300NM route would be beaten 6:1 by someone fly 75 Seaters (e.g. AT75/DHC-8-Q400) and planes like an AT75 could still fly on a 1800NM route (probably even profitably), just it won't win any more than a B762 which would be in the same freq. limit and (as proposed by a/c producers) is more "suitable" (as in "planned to be used for") for these routes.

That from my side, I hope that the idea finds its friends (and if not the part about the bases, maybe at least the part about the freq-bonus).

cheers and a nice day,
Jona L.

I really like this idea.  I originally thought that just removing frequency bonus over certain distance (~3000nm) would do it.  But your suggestion is much better and goes much farther.

So basically, the airline would still get "credit" for frequency, but up to the point (based appropriateness of aircraft for given distance).

[JumboShrimp]

Superficially a decent idea, but would still mean that the best plane for routes like LHR-CDG, SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, HND-ITM, HND-FUK, HND-CTS, etc would be 100+ 75 seat planes in some cases. Realistic? Irrelevant because you don't fly SH?

It also ignores things like tech stops, aircraft speed, etc. To pick examples from my own routes again, 3 daily F100s flying 2500 NM with a tech stop would split 50-50 with somebody flying 2 daily a320s direct. Which shouldn't happen.

Doesn't add anything to the logistical challenge of organising a schedule, either. All it really does is make bigger planes the best choice for busy LH routes out of LHR.

I think your examples are not really relevant to what Jona is trying to achieve.  Let's take an example:

SYD-MEL, 381nm, 10,000 pax:
Under Jona's system you could get max credit (for frequency) of 10,000 / 75, which is 133.  But there is already a hard AWS limit of 80x / day flights, so 133 max credit for frequency is irrelevant.

Let's look at some more realistic examples:

EWR-FLL (Newark, Fort Lauderdale), 926nm, 4000 pax
Under Jona's system you could get max frequency credit of 4000 / 150 = 26.  That means, if you fly 40x 100 pax e-jet, you don't get credit of full 40, only get credit for 26 of those flights.  If you fly a more appropriate 738 or 320, you pretty much get a full credit.

EWR-LAX, 2127nm, 2700pax.
Max credit you can get is 2700 / 300 = 9.  So you can safely fly 9x / day by A300, 767, A330 and not be blown out of the water.  An operator flying 18x 320 can still do that, but he will get credit for only 9 of them

[JumboShrimp]

Just a bit to add to this....I think the cost of bases has been adjusted somewhat. I remember back in ATB, when bases were first introduced, it cost me a huge sum of money in increased staffing. Now (MT5 and DOTM2) the staff hit seems to be far less. In MT5, my second base cost me less than a 5% jump in staffing costs and my fleet commonality hit there (with 72 frames based) is just shy of $1 mil/month. In DOTM2, I have maxed out bases. The fourth base did not seem to cost any more than the first in staffing increases, just the extra management to run the new facility. In fact, due to the relative size of the carrier vs. when the first base opened, my staff costs increased less for the fourth base than the second.

Just an observation in my part....

Don

I have not opened a 2nd base yet in MT5, but it is a good idea to take a screen shot to know what exactly is going on.  Maybe you did not notice much of a hit due to low wages in China, but what we really need to know is what was the increase in staff requirements (percentage-wise) from opening the base.  IIRC, in MT4, it was around 40% from ground based staff, and no increase to aircraft based staff, resulting in overall cost increase of arount 35% for personnel.

[Sanabas]

I think your examples are not really relevant to what Jona is trying to achieve.

Sure they're relevant. If his primary complaint is that what happens on busy LH routes isn't realistic enough for his taste, seems relevant to point out the related realism issues that it doesn't fix.

Let's take an example:

SYD-MEL, 381nm, 10,000 pax:
Under Jona's system you could get max credit (for frequency) of 10,000 / 75, which is 133.  But there is already a hard AWS limit of 80x / day flights, so 133 max credit for frequency is irrelevant.

Let's look at some more realistic examples:

EWR-FLL (Newark, Fort Lauderdale), 926nm, 4000 pax
Under Jona's system you could get max frequency credit of 4000 / 150 = 26.  That means, if you fly 40x 100 pax e-jet, you don't get credit of full 40, only get credit for 26 of those flights.  If you fly a more appropriate 738 or 320, you pretty much get a full credit.

EWR-LAX, 2127nm, 2700pax.
Max credit you can get is 2700 / 300 = 9.  So you can safely fly 9x / day by A300, 767, A330 and not be blown out of the water.  An operator flying 18x 320 can still do that, but he will get credit for only 9 of them

Still, for any <500 nm route with up to 6000 pax per day, the optimum way to fly will be to flood it with ATRs. For any route of 2000-2750 nm, 3/6/9/12 f100s with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with 2/4/6/8 a320s flying direct. Moscow-Madrid, my 3 daily ATRs with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with my competitors MD-82. For any low demand route, there'll no longer be any benefit from having a morning & evening flight over having one flight daily.



The suggestion is ok for the few things it would help, but it's really a superficial bandaid solution that won't do anything for the underlying problems, and will cause a few problems of its own. I think there's a much more elegant & effective way to do it.

Definitely.  It protects big airline from competition.  An airline with 300+ aircraft at its HQ can't really be challenged by a challenger with 100 aircraft.  The incumbent already have a slight edge (due to the pax allocation slightly favoring airlines at its HQ), another advantage in that the challenger's costs go up by opening a second base.  On top both of these advantages, limiting the challenger to 100 aircraft tilts the scales completely in favor of inumbent.

More importantly, it protects small airlines from being squashed by competition. The benefit of that outweighs the perceived problems caused by lack of ability to have fullblown wars between 2 huge airlines. For those who put realism above all, how many RL examples are there of a very large airline being driven out of its home base by another large airline using it as a major hub?

No plane limits in bases is something to bring out occasionally for scenarios, where players are warned that being small will result in being squashed. I'd be interested to see how it went, I expect it'd be extremely tough to startup 30% through the game. It's not something that should happen in normal gameworlds.

[Zombie Slayer]

I have not opened a 2nd base yet in MT5, but it is a good idea to take a screen shot to know what exactly is going on.  Maybe you did not notice much of a hit due to low wages in China, but what we really need to know is what was the increase in staff requirements (percentage-wise) from opening the base.  IIRC, in MT4, it was around 40% from ground based staff, and no increase to aircraft based staff, resulting in overall cost increase of arount 35% for personnel.

I don't have a screen shot, but my salaries increased about $1.2 million a week and at that point my weekly salaries were around $15 million. My math was a bit off, but that is still less than 10% increase, and my weekly expenses were in the $150 million range at that point, so the increase as a percentage of total expenses was under 1%. Currently, my expenses are about on par with that of my HQ on a per aircraft basis (within about 5%, and with 1/4 the aircraft numbers).

Don

[JumboShrimp]

Sure they're relevant. If his primary complaint is that what happens on busy LH routes isn't realistic enough for his taste, seems relevant to point out the related realism issues that it doesn't fix.

Still, for any <500 nm route with up to 6000 pax per day, the optimum way to fly will be to flood it with ATRs

It has always been.  Jona's solution will not improve that over the rule that Sami already put in place, to limit max number of flights per day (80?) and 15 min minimum spread between flights would limit you anyway to some extend.  I don't think Jona is proposing getting rid of those, so there would be no change from the current system.

For any route of 2000-2750 nm, 3/6/9/12 f100s with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with 2/4/6/8 a320s flying direct.

So it is limiting the power of the frequency.  Isn't that good?  Frequency is really the only competitive tool, which is why it is (ab)used so much.  Other things should amount to more (speed, quality of seating etc).  Right now, it is kind of like the stars in the sky not being visible during the daytime, since sun overwhelms them.  If you could dim the sun, other objects in the sky would become visible.  Same with freqency.  If you dim it somewhat, maybe other variables (that are already in place) might become more relevant.

Moscow-Madrid, my 3 daily ATRs with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with my competitors MD-82.  For any low demand route, there'll no longer be any benefit from having a morning & evening flight over having one flight daily.

The suggestion is ok for the few things it would help, but it's really a superficial bandaid solution that won't do anything for the underlying problems, and will cause a few problems of its own. I think there's a much more elegant & effective way to do it.

The thresholds could be tweaked somewhat.  But you may have a good example there.  What's wrong with MD-82 getting 50% of the market vs. 3 ATRs with tech stops?  Isn't that more realistic than MD-82 getting 25% under the current rule, where frequency is the one variable to rule them all?

More importantly, it protects small airlines from being squashed by competition. The benefit of that outweighs the perceived problems caused by lack of ability to have fullblown wars between 2 huge airlines. For those who put realism above all, how many RL examples are there of a very large airline being driven out of its home base by another large airline using it as a major hub?

No plane limits in bases is something to bring out occasionally for scenarios, where players are warned that being small will result in being squashed. I'd be interested to see how it went, I expect it'd be extremely tough to startup 30% through the game. It's not something that should happen in normal gameworlds.

It is extremely tough to startup 30% through the game as is, since that is the time of the game where you can't get aircraft.

As far as small airlines getting smashed, it is not really 100 aircraft limit that is protecting them.  Small airlines are small because they did not fiture out a way to grow profitably,   A lot of them go out of business on their own, or can be toppled be 10-20 aircraft on their most profitable routes.

On the other hand, you have large airlines destroying themselves by opening a 2nd (3rd, 4th) base, because they miscalculate the cost of opening basis.  Opening a base is a huge money loser (except in markets with dirt cheap labor costs).  Lifting the 100 aircraft limit gives airlines a chance to break even, or possibly make profit on the new base.

As far as a possibility of an airline growing to 2000 aircraft (4x500), that is next to impossible with the aircraft delivery rates what they are.  Maybe with 10 fleets.  But running 4 basis with 10 fleets - the costs would just overwhelm such an airline.

If small airlines are such a huge concern, this rule sentences them to remain small forever.  It denies them possibility to grow huge, to be the number 1 airline in the game.  Suppose you start at a medium sized airport that can support 75 aircraft, and you do that masterfully.  You own all your aircraft, and you are printing money.  Can you become the #1 airline?  No you can't.  Because your next base limits you to 100...  You may never be able to make it to top 20 because of the 100 aircraft limit.

[JumboShrimp]

I don't have a screen shot, but my salaries increased about $1.2 million a week and at that point my weekly salaries were around $15 million. My math was a bit off, but that is still less than 10% increase, and my weekly expenses were in the $150 million range at that point, so the increase as a percentage of total expenses was under 1%. Currently, my expenses are about on par with that of my HQ on a per aircraft basis (within about 5%, and with 1/4 the aircraft numbers).

Don

Hmm...  Interesting.    Maybe the the cost overhead was changed after all in v1.3.  I hope somebody opening a new base can give us the exact figures...

[Sanabas]

It has always been.  Jona's solution will not improve that over the rule that Sami already put in place, to limit max number of flights per day (80?) and 15 min minimum spread between flights would limit you anyway to some extend.  I don't think Jona is proposing getting rid of those, so there would be no change from the current system.

So it is limiting the power of the frequency.  Isn't that good?  Frequency is really the only competitive tool, which is why it is (ab)used so much.  Other things should amount to more (speed, quality of seating etc).  Right now, it is kind of like the stars in the sky not being visible during the daytime, since sun overwhelms them.  If you could dim the sun, other objects in the sky would become visible.  Same with freqency.  If you dim it somewhat, maybe other variables (that are already in place) might become more relevant.

The thresholds could be tweaked somewhat.  But you may have a good example there.  What's wrong with MD-82 getting 50% of the market vs. 3 ATRs with tech stops?  Isn't that more realistic than MD-82 getting 25% under the current rule, where frequency is the one variable to rule them all?

Sure, it's a slight improvement over the current system. But it doesn't do a thing about the underlying problems, it still has plenty of problems of its own, it also seems too complicated for minimal benefit, as the pax assigning algorithm now needs multiple extra steps, to check route length & route demand first to determine optimal plane size, then count the number of planes, then assign pax. It's a bandaid solution, a very slight improvement. I don't see the point of making that sort of effort to program in an incremental bandaid solution, when it'd be much better to spend the effort on a solution that doesn't just dim he sun a little, but gives you a highly-effective set of adjustable sunglasses. It is very possible to design a more flexible system that can apply to all routes, and will still work when we get connecting pax, city based demand, etc.

It is extremely tough to startup 30% through the game as is, since that is the time of the game where you can't get aircraft.

As far as small airlines getting smashed, it is not really 100 aircraft limit that is protecting them.  Small airlines are small because they did not fiture out a way to grow profitably,   A lot of them go out of business on their own, or can be toppled be 10-20 aircraft on their most profitable routes.

On the other hand, you have large airlines destroying themselves by opening a 2nd (3rd, 4th) base, because they miscalculate the cost of opening basis.  Opening a base is a huge money loser (except in markets with dirt cheap labor costs).  Lifting the 100 aircraft limit gives airlines a chance to break even, or possibly make profit on the new base.

As far as a possibility of an airline growing to 2000 aircraft (4x500), that is next to impossible with the aircraft delivery rates what they are.  Maybe with 10 fleets.  But running 4 basis with 10 fleets - the costs would just overwhelm such an airline.

In DOTM, I'm up to 500+ planes in 6 years, despite starting late, in a less than huge airport, (SVO), with 70, 70, 47 planes at my bases, using basically 5 fleets. I reckon 2000 planes is very doable in 10 years with 4 big airports to base in and 10 production lines to use. I also checked fleet commonality when dropping from 7 fleets to 6. The drop in monthly costs for the 6 remaining fleets was negligible, the big saving was the ~5 million/month commonality would cost for my sole remaining DC10. That's something I've checked repeatedly, and it seems that if you can have 20+ aircraft in each fleet, it doesn't matter much how many fleets you have.

Some small airlines are small because they want to be, or because they're new. Your line of argument seems to have a similar feel to Jona's, that if you're not trying to be a multi-billion dollar airline, you're not being serious about the game.

If small airlines are such a huge concern, this rule sentences them to remain small forever.  It denies them possibility to grow huge, to be the number 1 airline in the game.  Suppose you start at a medium sized airport that can support 75 aircraft, and you do that masterfully.  You own all your aircraft, and you are printing money.  Can you become the #1 airline?  No you can't.  Because your next base limits you to 100...  You may never be able to make it to top 20 because of the 100 aircraft limit.

As does this. There's more ways to count '#1 airline' than how huge you can get. Removing restrictions on number of bases, number of planes is one that basically tells anyone starting in a size 4 or 5 airport that the only way to play is to aim to be as huge as possible. Fine for an occasional scenario, really bad idea for general gameplay.