Shouldn't B717 and MD-90 be in the same fleet commonality group?

[JumboShrimp]

What about placing MD-90 and MD-95/Boeing 717 in the MD-80 fleet commonality group?

One thing you have to be aware of is that there is only 1 production line per fleet group (unless that is chaged as well).  So all of these types would be fighting for space on one single production line...

[pascaly]

One thing you have to be aware of is that there is only 1 production line per fleet group (unless that is chaged as well).  So all of these types would be fighting for space on one single production line...

Until Sami introduces AWS South Carolina 

Actually, serious question; will/does the 787 have two production lines or perhaps in increased build rate to compensate if it's just a single line? (in-game obviously...)

[JumboShrimp]

Until Sami introduces AWS South Carolina 

Actually, serious question; will/does the 787 have two production lines or perhaps in increased build rate to compensate if it's just a single line? (in-game obviously...)

Well, there is only one order queue, but there can be several physical production lines feeding it.  Sami just have some hard coded upper limit for how many can be in order queue per month.  There is some flexibility downward, but 787, just like any other order queue has a hard cap, and no matter how many orders are placed, no matter how many years into the future the line is full, the cap does not budge...

[Andre]

One thing you have to be aware of is that there is only 1 production line per fleet group (unless that is chaged as well).  So all of these types would be fighting for space on one single production line...

No, they don't.   Different aircraft types can be put in the same fleet commonality group. There are examples of that already in the game. For example the Viking Air Dash-6 is in the deHavilland Dash-6 group. Production lines and commonality groups are two separate things.

[tm07x]

I agree with Schro that the lines between simulation and real world should be blurred a bit.
I'm sure there are benefits by operating an all Airbus fleet in real life, commonality, crew training etc. But for someone based at a smaller airport with SOME international demand, it would make absolutely no sense in AWS to introduce a new fleet type just to serve those routes. And that doesn't make any sense to me because right now the airlines based at large airports have the ultimate advantage. They can add more fleet types before they can operate 100+ AC of each type and get away with the added commonality cost. Or at least to a certain extent. And the airlines based at smaller airports can't serve their destinations with LH demand because they can't operate more than a few AC capable of flying long distances.

A penalty within each size category would make more sense and make the game more strategic. Sure the 737/A320 families are great airplanes and most players try to get them, but you have those who place orders for BOTH. Because their demand is in the sub 3000nm market where it would make sense to fly two or even three different types in the same category.

So you see smaller companies with 10-20 of each AC because the wait times are so long and they desperately need new AC for growth. If players were forced to pick one type it would make AC such as DC-9/MD or even 1-11s a more viable option just because they are available and a larger fleet could be built faster.

So maybe a system where you are allowed to have 1 type per category would make more sense for the sake of the game?

So you could look at a small airline with a fleet of say:

4 - A330
15 - B737
10 - CRJ
10 - Saab 2000

And if you surpass a total of 50 AC you are considered a "big airline" and would only be allowed to operate 3 types in total. My argument is that it would make slot hogging harder, it would make it possible for a player to specialize in serving the regional market and MAYBE level the playing field a bit.

just my 2 cents

[Mr.HP]

And that doesn't make any sense to me because right now the airlines based at large airports have the ultimate advantage. They can add more fleet types before they can operate 100+ AC of each type and get away with the added commonality cost. Or at least to a certain extent

Yes, they have the demand advantages, and if somehow they've managed to monopoly it, it'll be a cash cow

And they get away with the added commonality cost (if any) because they make large enough money to compensate for the penalty, not because they have more than 100 A/C each type

More A/C per fleet will, of course, keep the commonality cost per frame down. However, the more fleets and A/C they have, the higher penalty they have to take

How much do you pay for commonality with 15 B737, 10 CRJ, and 10 Saab? Probably 100K/piece/month ~ 3.5M?
Now if you add 4 A330, how much it will become? 5M in total, I guess?

For me, when I had ~100 A/C, then moment I introduced 4th fleet, my commonality jumped from 9M to 13M (an increase of 44%)

At 252 A/C, it was 33M vs 123 M (272 % increase)

At the moment, I have 762 A/C, and 85M in commonality cost. It'll jump to 652M with a single Saab added. Yes, no mistake, 670% increase. The more fleets and A/C added after that, the much higher penalty it is

Conclusion: it is the small airline that don't get affected much by commonality penalty, so please live happily with the 3 fleets system

[tm07x]

Yes, they have the demand advantages, and if somehow they've managed to monopoly it, it'll be a cash cow

And they get away with the added commonality cost (if any) because they make large enough money to compensate for the penalty, not because they have more than 100 A/C each type

More A/C per fleet will, of course, keep the commonality cost per frame down. However, the more fleets and A/C they have, the higher penalty they have to take

This is where you and I see it differently. Knowing that you can add more types early on when planning ahead and making a strategy allows the airline to fly very mixed metal to cash in on the most profitable routes. You also get slots.

If the penalty already came at the second type in same size category it would be harder to make money flying both 737 and MD-90.

How much do you pay for commonality with 15 B737, 10 CRJ, and 10 Saab? Probably 100K/piece/month ~ 3.5M?
Now if you add 4 A330, how much it will become? 5M in total, I guess?

For me, when I had ~100 A/C, then moment I introduced 4th fleet, my commonality jumped from 9M to 13M (an increase of 44%)

At 252 A/C, it was 33M vs 123 M (272 % increase)

At the moment, I have 762 A/C, and 85M in commonality cost. It'll jump to 652M with a single Saab added. Yes, no mistake, 670% increase. The more fleets and A/C added after that, the much higher penalty it is

And again, you set out to get as many AC as possible, without the possibility of adding so many new AC fast would cripple your chances of fast dominance.

In reality, when you look at how fast the airlines grow it's hardly very realistic at all. Now I know it's a game and all, but the growth is simply so unrealistic that it somewhat kills the game.

Conclusion: it is the small airline that don't get affected much by commonality penalty, so please live happily with the 3 fleets system

So by your reasoning all players should want the system that allows for your unrealistic growth?

It's bulls*** that the 4th fleet doesn't hurt a small airline. And a small airline would be hard pressed to make enough of a profit where the 4th added wouldn't affect the profits.

I'm also guessing that the 1m extra you pay pr week is a p*** in the ocean compared to what your profits per week.

All I'm saying is that I would want a 300000% cost increase on adding a second fleet in the same size category. It would slow down the growth and make other metal a more viable option.

[mar88]

I gotta agree here with Andre, the differences in design between the MD-80, MD-90, and 717 are less than those of the IL-12 and 14, 707 and 720, DC-8-10 vs DC-8-62 or even the Do-328 and 328 Jet. I would propose the the very least complete commonality between the MD-90 and 717 which is what has prevented me in past games from flying the two, and at least partial commonality (would require new feature) between the MD-80 and 90 series. Considering how the game is already formatted and how other fleet types are addressed, I would say the 80 and 90 both deserve to be in the same fleet group.

On a side note since I cannot get a response from Sami, I would also take this moment and push for complete commonality between the TU-104, 110, and 124 fleets because based on official technical reports their cruise speeds overlap and AWS has speeds of some aircraft towards the maximum estimated cruise speed and not the centre of the cruise speed range which would allow commonality.

[Mr.HP]

OK, I didn't clearly get what you were saying

However, I still want to say that AWS is pretty much balance right now. Mega airline get hurt more if they cross the border, and small airline still get away with quite a few fleets. What else can you ask to penalize mega airline anymore?

If you say we should change to penalize the second fleet of the same size, then does it mean an airline can operate with 4 different class without any penalty? Then, it doesn't really make much difference toward the mega airlines. They are all experience players, and will have another strategy easily. And by having 4 size A/C, not a single routes will be spared from them, and no chance at all to new airline to start at a crowded airport with small A/C at thin ignored routes

[swiftus27]

Please search commonality points in feature request.   If do it but I'm on a cell phone

[tm07x]

OK, I didn't clearly get what you were saying

However, I still want to say that AWS is pretty much balance right now. Mega airline get hurt more if they cross the border, and small airline still get away with quite a few fleets. What else can you ask to penalize mega airline anymore?

If you say we should change to penalize the second fleet of the same size, then does it mean an airline can operate with 4 different class without any penalty? Then, it doesn't really make much difference toward the mega airlines. They are all experience players, and will have another strategy easily. And by having 4 size A/C, not a single routes will be spared from them, and no chance at all to new airline to start at a crowded airport with small A/C at thin ignored routes

I somewhat agree, but if you get penalised to death by adding a second same-class AC then it wouldn't allow you to do dual orders of say 737 and A320. That WOULD slow down the growth. And orders would have to be consolidated towards one AC type. Where other options would be more viable due to delivery dates.

I don't believe navigating around the order process would be as easy as you make it out to be.

In truth, the game rewards those without a job and spend a lot of time playing the game. Like the former F5'ers.

You might get away with a lot of the added fixes and patches if some deeper features were implemented from the get go.
Like the fix for the F5/refresh issue, it was more of a patch than a proper fix. A proper fix would be to allow people to use brokers and order used planes and get offers when the AC came available. To me, that is a fix. The ban + new "call the used market" feature is more of a patch than anything.

Not that I've been playing every single gameworld for the past few years but I've been here for a few years and it's quite disturbing how little the game has changed over the course of years.

Even today, cargo, commonality and the used market are frequent topics on these forums.

To be crass, the game should've been overhauled with the help of a couple of experienced game developers to bring something new to the table.
The best games throughout the history have been games that have enabled poor ones and experienced ones to enjoy em and experience the same level of enjoyment/fun/etc...

I like this game, but the methods have become predictable and once you have figured out how it works you play by the rules of the game-engine rather than human response. A problem that nearly killed ID software and Doom when it was on its peak.

Again, i don't disagree with you entirely.