Staff for Medium a/c is getting ridiculous

[Jona L.]

Hey folks,

I just made some staggering observations about staff for medium a/c. I know that the requirements were reduced to make these aircraft more viable. But this seems to be getting ridiculous.

In GW1 I operate a fleet of 128x F100/70 and 50x ATR72 with just 970 pilots required, yet the 84x B767 I also operate require 1510 pilots.

In GW4 it is a similar story. 239x BAC 1-11 (-475/-500) require just 1390 Pilots, while I need 2270 Pilots for 84x DC-8.


To do the maths for you:

A medium aircraft need 5.5-6 pilots per plane (depending on stage length/utilization), while I need 18 pilots for a very large aircraft (adjusted the DC-8 by 2/3 as they require one more pilot than modern VL a/c).

That makes a 3:1 advantage of medium a/c over VL. I know, they are not quite conparable, due to different flight distances etc. BUT a plane needing 2 pilots needs 2 pilots and not  2/3 of a pilot just because it is smaller (or 6 pilots for being larger). I also know that for very long sectors (8hrs+) most airlines have one or more spare pilots due to rest requirements, however they don't need 3x as much staff.

Now also factoring in, that a pilot for a very large a/c costs 2.2x more than a medium a/c pilot (of course understandably they are more expensive) that advantage grows from 3:1 to a staggering 6.6:1.

The point not being that medium a/c are overpowered, but that some aircraft are just in the wrong category, making them overpowered.

IMO the F100/70 and the BAC1-11 both should be in the "large a/c" group rather than medium. The BAC is insanely much better than a 737 or a 727, or even the same sized Caravelle and DC-9 (all 4 classed as "large a/c"), just by lower staff requirements.
The BAC already is a quite attractive aircraft, but having it sorted as "medium" tips it over to being an absolute killer. In GW4 I have "removed" multiple airlines in my HQ and my base(es), just because of this quite inadequate bonus in staff. I can operate my BAC 1-11 at nearly no cost at all, staff wise, while someone using 737 or 727 has a hard time breaking even at low LFs or in a situation with strong competition.

Same goes for the Fokker 100/70 group. the F100 is about the same size as a B737-200/500/600, so comparable to all 3 B737 generations, which all 3 are classed as large aircraft.


I have operated both fleets before and after the change in staffing requirements, and I must say, both were already easily able to turn profits before, and now both types are basically a cheatcode for unlimited cash and bankrupting the competition.


I'd very much like to hear some other thoughts on a re-classification of the BAC 1-11 and the F100 in AWS from "medium" to "large". Also if sami has any comments on this, I'd be very interested


cheers,
Jona L.

[Jona L.]

P.S.

I am about to switch my 128 Fokkers in GW1 to A319/320. I will report on staff requirement changes after the transition is done.

[Curse]

You are right. As reported before by me the BAC as medium aircraft destroys the AirwaySim Meta Game right now.
My post as copied from https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,53895.0.html :



To bring this up again and to further proof my point:
Just compare the numbers in GameWorld #4 of (huge) airlines using Boeing 727, Boeing 737, DC-9, MD-80 and BAC 1-11.

There is absolutely no reason to use anything else than BAC if you're fine with their range, therefor it's no surprise the other fleetgroups are basically unused.

The solution for this problem is, as already said, very simple: Make BAC 1-11 a large aircraft.

[LemonButt]

The ratio is not 6.6:1.  A very large pilot costs 2.2x more than a medium one, but also operates aircraft 2.2x larger and thus on a per seat basis (which is all that really matters) any advantages are negligible because of the opportunity cost.

The BAC 1-11 has several variants which range from the 200 to the 500 with 70 and 100 seats (119 in HD), respectively.  Likewise for the F70/100 (upto 122 seats in HD).  In GW2 I have 347 CRJ200s that are medium aircraft with 1690 medium pilots which is 4.9 pilots per aircraft (longest route ~800nm).  The CRJ also comes in many variants ranging from the 100/200 to the 1000 which have 52 to 88 seats (104 in HD), respectively.  Similarly, the ERJ 170 to 195 goes from 68 to 104 seats (122 in HD).

So basically what this means is that the BAC 1-11, F70/100, CRJ, and ERJ are essentially the same size aircraft.  The largest variants of each fleet group also have roughly the same MTOW.  If you change the size of one, you should really change the size of all four fleet groups because the BAC 1-11 and F70/100 were the regional jets of their day, much like the CRJ/ERJ today.  Travelers never say "look at that large regional jet" because they are anything but large in the grand scheme of things and most frequent flyers will avoid flying on them if they can because they are small.

Let's assume that we do bump it up to large classification though.  Let's assume you are flying a BAC 1-11 500 with 100 seats and 6 pilots.  In GW2 in the year 2013 in the US (my airline) large pilot salaries are $2500/month more than medium pilots.  My average price is $225, so let's assume you fly the aircraft 3x daily minus 1 flight/week for a B-check and that comes out to 20 routes or 40 flights per week.  That means at $2500 per pilot and having 6 pilots costs you an extra $15000/month, which comes out to $3462 per week ($15k * 12 / 52).  $3462 / 40 flights = $86.55 per flight.  Let's assume you're flying with 75% load factors or selling 75 seats per flight, then this comes to a cost increase of $1.15 per ticket.  With a $225 average ticket price, this means my costs go up 0.5%.  This example is also very conservative, which means that the actual cost increase would likely be less than 0.5% since you'd likely have less than 6 pilots, fly more than 3x/day (on average), etc.

So in short, if the complaint is the BAC 1-11 is blowing other aircraft out of the water because it is a medium aircraft then changing it to a large aircraft would have such a small impact on actual operating costs that it would still be blowing other aircraft out of the water, perhaps even more so since passengers give preference to larger aircraft and making it a large aircraft should (in theory) make it more desirable, not less.  Those airlines you are competing against flying 737/727 are going BK because they can't fill the plane and are paying higher landing/handling fees.  If the demand is 150 pax, you fly a BAC 1-11 and they are flying a 727 then you'll both get 75 pax and you'll fly your BAC profitably with a 75% load factor and they will bleed out with 75 pax, a 50% load factor, and paying nearly double the handling/landing fees.  So the reason they BK'd wasn't because you are flying the BAC, but because they are trying to make the circumstances fit their strategy (i.e. click and deploy airline) versus fitting their strategy to their circumstances.

[Curse]

@ LemonButt

No, because BAC is a 1960s aircraft, making it a large aircraft of that times. Same applies for Constellations and DC-6 that are also large aircraft, while the Vickers VC10 for example is also a large aircraft even it operates longhaul - more like 757 which is way bigger than VC10 but is still a large aircraft, because it comes 20 years later.



Therefor you can't compare BAC, Fokker 100 and CRJ or ERJ. The BAC is clearly a large aircraft of its time while we could discuss if the Fokker 100 should be large, too. I'm mostly opposed to the Fokker 100 as large one.



Again: Take a look at how aircraft are distributed over GameWorld #4 and notice the problem. In Europe there are basically F27, NAMC and BAC airlines. Everything else was mopped up years ago.

Same for the US except West Coast.

According to you and AirwaySim the BAC must have been the most successful aircraft in history of this planet, but it wasn't because it had many flaws - however, those flaws are not designed in AirwaySim while the advantages are designed, making it breaking the Meta-Game.


Again in short:
Right now in this second BAC rules in AirwaySim _without anything that comes near it_ the sky between 0nm and ~1650nm.

[Jona L.]

Admitted, the F100 being a more modern jet is somewhat a medium a/c, but the BAC is just as large as a DC-9 and a SUD Caravelle, both of which are "large aircraft". So at least the BAC is suüpposed to be a large a/c.

[Curse]

To get a bit deeper an add to my last post:
1) The Caravelle, a real life competitor of the BAC, is a large aircraft (what is correct).
2) The DC-9 that was also a competitor AND lacks it's long range variants in AirwaySim (meiru posted data on them and sami validated that as far as I remember) is also a large aircraft.

However, the BAC arrives several years early than DC-9 and Boeing 737/Boeing 727, so it is - together with the Caravelle - the large aircraft shorthaul of its time. And therefor it must be classified as large aircraft.


Edit: And NO, making all those aircraft medium would be the wrong way!



Edit 2: Yes, wikipedia is no absolutely reliable source, however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_1-11
"It was the second short-haul jet airliner to enter service, following the French Sud Aviation Caravelle."
"The One-Eleven made it to market ahead of rivals such as the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, which gave it a temporary edge on the market."

The BAC 1-11 500 also failed on the US market because companies prefered the competitors (!) DC-9 and 737:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_1-11#The_One-Eleven_500.2C_510ED_and_475

There was even a planned type (BAC 1-11 700) with up to 134 seats! It just failed because Rolls-Royce couldn't provide proper engines.



Also, to put it more in place: A true medium aircraft of that time is the Fokker 28. The BAC 1-11 is way bigger than that and still classified the same, making the Fokker 28 a no go.

[LemonButt]

I understand that the size categories are relative to the era and yes the BAC had flaws, including the noisy engines which sami has modeled but not turned on completely yet.  I'm not in GW4 and can't comment on what's going on there, but the numbers are still the numbers and if BAC airlines are killing it, calling the BAC a large aircraft and skimming somewhere between 0 and 0.5% off their profit margin isn't going to change that.

Changing the class from medium to large doesn't change anything except for the pilot type.  Even if pilots were paid based on type rating, the BAC will still be as dominant as it is now because we're not talking about nickels, dimes, or quarters--we're talking about less than a penny on the dollar.  I have no dog in this fight as I don't have a current airline flying the BAC, but the numbers don't lie.

[Curse]

Your math is wrong because your base argument is not valid:

You said:
"The ratio is not 6.6:1.  A very large pilot costs 2.2x more than a medium one, but also operates aircraft 2.2x larger and thus on a per seat basis (which is all that really matters) any advantages are negligible because of the opportunity cost."


That's not true, because if BAC 1-11 would be given the correct "large" size, it would not magically grow in seats by 2.2x. The costs per seat would increase noticably. It's also not about nerfing the BAC 1-11 into something nobody would ever choose, it's to make it more realistic and fit it more into the other existing aircraft types. The BAC has its uses, of course, even as a large aircraft - as it should be.


Your second flaw are the numbers. Large aircraft create more overhead staff, and in Jet Age staff is by far (!) your biggest expenditure, up to 50% in the United States between 1952 to ~1970 when the first fuel spike hits.


I never saw you play a Jet Age. Maybe that's a problem, too, and that's why your year 2012 numbers don't work.


Jona experienced this by actually _using_ BAC and Fokker. He's not running around and making up numbers he found in the garden.

[Jona L.]

And to add, LemonButt:

Your calculation doesn't work out.

You don't only have to pay them more, you also have to have more pilots, and more base staff in all other categories (since sami buffed medium a/c via lower staff requirements). So overall the impact is way larger than just 0.05%, we are talking more in the range of 7.5-10%. (that assumed without detailed calculations) I am currently ~40% through my replacement F100 -> A319/320 in GW 1. As soon as that is complete, I can tell you the actual increase in staff needed (since I replace 1:1).

[LemonButt]

Your math is wrong because your base argument is not valid:

You said:
"The ratio is not 6.6:1.  A very large pilot costs 2.2x more than a medium one, but also operates aircraft 2.2x larger and thus on a per seat basis (which is all that really matters) any advantages are negligible because of the opportunity cost."


That's not true, because if BAC 1-11 would be given the correct "large" size, it would not magically grow in seats by 2.2x. The costs per seat would increase noticably. It's also not about nerfing the BAC 1-11 into something nobody would ever choose, it's to make it more realistic and fit it more into the other existing aircraft types. The BAC has its uses, of course, even as a large aircraft - as it should be.


Your second flaw are the numbers. Large aircraft create more overhead staff, and in Jet Age staff is by far (!) your biggest expenditure, up to 50% in the United States between 1952 to ~1970 when the first fuel spike hits.


I never saw you play a Jet Age. Maybe that's a problem, too, and that's why your year 2012 numbers don't work.


Jona experienced this by actually _using_ BAC and Fokker. He's not running around and making up numbers he found in the garden.

The 6.6 number IS bogus because we're talking about very large aircraft versus medium:

Now also factoring in, that a pilot for a very large a/c costs 2.2x more than a medium a/c pilot (of course understandably they are more expensive) that advantage grows from 3:1 to a staggering 6.6:1.

You can't say there is a 6.6:1 advantage because the very large aircraft has double the seats, thus the reason they earn double the salary.  Moving the BAC from medium to large would not result in pilots being paid 2.2x more because they are not very large pilots.  Even then, you don't pay the bills with percentages or multiples, which is why I ran the actual numbers above.  You should really avoid calling people's arguments "not valid" or "invalid" and I'll leave it at that.

To my knowledge, pilots are determined by aircraft size but all the other overhead is based on MTOW, cabin crew requires, etc.  That is, you don't have more HR people because the rating on an aircraft is medium or large.  If this is not how it works, then the staff calculations should be reconsidered because whether an aircraft with 100 seats is considered very large or small, a 100 seat aircraft should require the same number of staff regardless of arbitrary classifications.

For my 347 medium CRJs I have 81.4 employees per aircraft.  What are the numbers for your airline and with what fleet mix by size?  Based on these numbers (page 3): http://www.airlinefinancials.com/uploads/2013_Network_Annual_Summary2.pdf this puts me in the middle of the US mainline carriers.  Thus, whether an aircraft is classified as large or small, the number of staff for that individual aircraft should not contingent upon an arbitrary size classification and thus should not generate additional overhead costs.

I have played Jet Age before and honestly I was bored to tears.  I am assuming that the ratios are the same, that is in 1960 a large pilot earns the same wage premium on a percentage basis as they would in 2013.  Also, the numbers Jona posted were comparing medium aircraft (100 seat BAC) to very large (200 seat 767) versus medium aircraft to large.  This is like comparing a CRJ to an A380 to justify the CRJ being bumped up to large.  It's apples and oranges.

[LemonButt]

You don't only have to pay them more, you also have to have more pilots.

It is my understanding that pilot headcount is based on stage length.  So if you are flying a 747 in Japan a few hundred miles, you'll have considerably less pilots than if you are flying a 747 intercontinental.

[Curse]

1) A large BAC 1-11 vs. a medium BAC 1-11 has not double seats. A BAC 1-11 also has not half the seats of a DC-9 or a 737 1st generation or a Caravelle - all of them are large aircraft! It is even larger than even the later Constellations are and just 2 seats smaller than the DC-6B, which are both (of course) also large aircraft of their time. Therefor your argument is invalid. Moving BAC from medium to large would result in way (!) higher staff costs but would keep BAC a good aircraft. It would just take away the imba stat and align it more to the other models, like it was in reality.

2) A DC-9-10 needs noticably more staff than a BAC 1-11 500. We tested this in GW#4. There were also some airlines using Caravelle and as far as I know they had to fire overhead staff when switching to BAC.

3) Pilot headcount is based on average length that aircraft flies usually according to sami! I used to fly Constellations and DC-6 on shorthaul domestic as well on techstop routes up to 7300nm and I noticed no difference in staff hiring. I also never noticed I need less staff when I'm based at Atlanta or Dallas/Fort Worth compared to Los Angeles, having significantly shorter legs.

4) Very small and small are in a group as well as large and very large. Between them is a huge gap since an update some month ago.

5) My GW#4 airline with 318 large and 192 very large aircraft needs 136+ staff per aircraft. Early aircraft need more staff (you notice this when dropping from Constellation/DC-6 to Comet for example), that's why staff costs are up to 50% (and of course because fuel is cheap) of your expenses that time.



Fact is: BAC 1-11 must be a large aircraft, despite any possible effects this would have, simply because it IS a large aircraft in the timeframe it was used compared to other aircraft of that time. I already brought several points for this.

The rest is basically irrelevant because they will be calculated automatically then (like medium aircraft also have faster delivery times etc.).



If you don't like Jet Age and if you don't want to address the actual point - BAC 1-11 should be large to fit the other aircraft of that time frame - then, maybe, this discussion should not be something you take part of. This isn't meant as an offense but your comments are (again...) not very helpful to address a problem you obviously don't experience yourself.

[LemonButt]

Well since you said it was fact then it must be.  As the (self-proclaimed) God of AWS I beg your forgiveness for putting together a logical/reasonable counterpoint.  It won't happen again.

[Jona L.]

Well since you said it was fact then it must be.  As the (self-proclaimed) God of AWS I beg your forgiveness for putting together a logical/reasonable counterpoint.  It won't happen again.

We all know this self proclamation doesn't come out of nowhere. He, unlike many other people on this forum, has the skill and the experience to back up his theses.


As promised my results from rescheduling:


After working for 12hrs straight (real time) on rescheduling 128 F100 to A319/320 in GW1 (all but 8 done, need to wait for further deliveries :/), I can report:

Staff has increased from 86.2M/mth to 98.4M/mth, which equals roughly 100k/mth/plane increase. Or about 10% of the weekly profit of one of the F100 fleet. So in fact, the impact is quite sizeable.

Medium pilot requirement went down to just 288 (for the 50x ATR), and large pilots required went from 0 to 1170. That is a 488 increase of pilots ADDITIONAL to the increased cost for each of the large a/c pilots. Staff in all other groups has increased as well, e.g. high level management went up by 8 people (+5%), or Economics and Finance went up by 35 (+4.2%).

The difference thus is pretty big, which makes it an issue to raise the BAC in the size class to large a/c rather than keeping it in the medium group.


With that: over and out. I need to visit a sanatory now, all I see is 7-day-scheduled F100 and A319.....

cheers,
Jona L.

[Curse]

Well since you said it was fact then it must be.  As the (self-proclaimed) God of AWS I beg your forgiveness for putting together a logical/reasonable counterpoint.  It won't happen again.

As long as you can't add actual points why BAC 1-11 should not be a large aircraft like explained in my arguments (the "BAC 1-11, F100, ERJ and CRJ are the same" argument your brought was disproved by me and you accepted it already) this is maybe the best thing for this discussion.

Thanks.



Edit: Thanks Jona for supporting my experience from a while ago, when GameWorld #4 was "new" enough to change to jets, with your work you did today.

[LemonButt]

As long as you can't add actual points why BAC 1-11 should not be a large aircraft like explained in my arguments (the "BAC 1-11, F100, ERJ and CRJ are the same" argument your brought was disproved by me and you accepted it already) this is maybe the best thing for this discussion.

It was not disproved and accepted.  Correlation does not imply causation (post hoc fallacy) and that is your entire argument for.  I said I am aware that size class is dependent on time period, which is one of the reasons why it should stay medium and not large.  The BAC (in AWS) is produced well into the 1980s and even 1990s, so while it is a "1960s aircraft" it is not exclusively a 1960s aircraft.  I do accept that the cost goes up more than I stated, but this being the case the staff calculation should be based on the aircraft versus an arbitrary size category (which I've also already stated).  So let's assume we do make it large--what is the solution then for when the mid-70s come around and into the 1990s?  Change it back to medium?  Make everyone retrain their pilots?  Also, I'm not sure why you keep mentioning "doubling of seats"--you completely misunderstood what I stated because the original example given was a poor one (comparing medium vs very large).

Going back to the thread that was linked and sami's comments on changing the BAC to large:

"But bumping BAC there would mean that a whole heap of others would go there too, and it will not work."

This is effectively the same argument I made with the F100/CRJ/ERJ.  So someone please send sami a message to let him know his argument is invalid and he is wrong (because you declared it as irrefutable fact).

For all your "achievements" in AWS, it's shame you can't use them to buy some class.  Saying things like "your argument is invalid" and your self-righteousness (if you say something is true then it must be) makes you come off as an arrogant passive-aggressive douche bag, which is okay if that's what you are, but when you aren't even open to the idea that you might be wrong (see comments on LHR, for example) and simply posting to proclaim your greatness doesn't add anything to the game (or anything else).  I personally don't care if I'm wrong and it's very possible the "best" solution is to have the BAC be a large aircraft--I'm wrong more than I am "right" (or never right depending on which AWS player you ask lol), but at least I don't have grandiose delusions of my own self-importance throughout the process.

[Curse]

The BAC (in AWS) is produced well into the 1980s and even 1990s, so while it is a "1960s aircraft" it is not exclusively a 1960s aircraft.

AirwaySim is oriented on real data. Otherwise sami must increase pax numbers out of Los Angeles massively because I run the most biggest and most successful airline out of there several times!

The BAC is clearly a large aircraft if you compare it to the competition of that time: Boeing 737, Douglas DC-9 and Sud Aviation Caravelle. All of them are large.


Let us compare it to even more aircraft:
a) Comet is a large aircraft, correctly, while Comet 1-3 can transport less than 80 pax. It was clearly a "large" aircraft of the 50s.
b) Constellation is a large aircraft. It can seat way less pax than the BAC 1-11 500 even in the Starliner version, however, in its time it was clearly a large aircraft.
c) DC-6/DC-6B is the same as the Constellation. A large aircraft of its time.

d) Lockheed Electra, with similar tasks than the BAC 1-11, is a large aircraft - even it can transport more than 20 pax less than the BAC 1-11 500.
e) Tupolev 104 transports noticably less pax than the BAC 1-11 500, but its a large aircraft because it's from nearly a decade ago.

f) Fokker 28. A true medium aircraft of that time! It's noticably smaller than the BAC 1-11 and has less range. In AWS of course nobody uses it because it's worse than BAC 1-11 _in every single category_.
g) NAMC are also true medium aircraft. 64 seats, relatively small range. Perfect for regional service.


If people fly BAC until 2000 then it's their problem. But why do they do this? Because it works! BAC is, also thanks due to the medium status, so efficient, it needs no change for a long time. Taking away the medium status and giving it the more appropriate large status would change that - taking Fokker 28 from beginning or NAMC or simply changing to the medium Fokker 100 in the 80s become alternatives.

So let's assume we do make it large--what is the solution then for when the mid-70s come around and into the 1990s?  Change it back to medium?  Make everyone retrain their pilots?

No, such a solution does not exist. A Constellation doesn't become magically a medium aircraft in 1978 (yes, people are still using it...) and neither 707 nor DC-8 become large aircraft when the DC-10 and L1011 are announced and rule the skies. Also 737 1st generation stay large aircraft even when A320series is announced etc. etc.

And yes, people have to retrain pilots. I retrained thousands of pilots in GW#4 when I switched from Constellation, DC-6B to 707 and DC-8 and then I had to retrain the same guys when I replaced those aircraft with 727. That's how things work.

The BAC is a large aircraft when it is announced and brought into service and it stays with this. If people one time notice there are then medium alternatives, because aircraft generally grow in size, they have to change if they want to profit from the advantages.
People who change from Vickers VC10 to 767 etc. have the same problem from large to very large. That's just how the world rolls.

Going back to the thread that was linked and sami's comments on changing the BAC to large:
This is effectively the same argument I made with the F100/CRJ/ERJ.  So someone please send sami a message to let him know his argument is invalid and he is wrong (because you declared it as irrefutable fact).

I guess my comments here and there make it absolutely clear that sami's decision when he created the game to introduce BAC as medium aircraft was and is wrong. Why it's that way I have explained several times in detail, comparing the BAC to other aircraft of that timeframe and the general development during that time - with AirwaySim numbers as well as real life links.

Sami also based his opinion then on future predicts from my side. Now the time has gone a bit further and, surprise surprise, BAC rule GameWorld#4' skies. Jona killed off all the guys from Madrid and Barcelona with it and his competitor at Palma, the player Monica, was so desperate with her NAMC and her 727 she started to introduce BAC 500 as well.
How many 737 and 727 or DC-9 airlines are based at Chicago? Correct. 0. They all use BAC.

In Europe it's either F27 or BAC.

He also says he had to draw a line: I guess this line was drawn before AirwaySim went life. And it was definately drawn before sami introduced the small/medium aircraft buff.

Now it turned out to people actually playing the game the line was drawn wrong, at least unter current conditions, and it will be even more (!) with the introduction of base sizes that are not implemented in GameWorld#4 (yet).


Edit:
My comments about Heathrow in the other thread also were not wrong. I brought facts (real life routes with less demand than Heathrow has ingame) and sami stated, and that's ok, he won't fix things because City Based Demand is anyway changing things.

About your arrogant douchebag comment: Wisdom and knowledge may look like arrogance and knowitall from below. I'm used to people who are simply wrong my whole life - noticing those people are wrong all over and over while blaming others. The ones who bring actual facts, experience and success into a discussion are the ones I respect and I want to accompany with.
As you may have already figured you're not one of these people.

[LemonButt]

Wisdom and knowledge may look like arrogance and knowitall from below.

So changing your name and proclaiming yourself as the "God of AWS" was done out of wisdom and knowledge and not arrogance?  Color me cynical.  I'm done with this thread.

[Curse]

So changing your name and proclaiming yourself as the "God of AWS" was done out of wisdom and knowledge and not arrogance?  Color me cynical.  I'm done with this thread.

And again you comment on something you neither know the background nor do you understand it.

But thanks again for finally leaving this thread to people who are willing to discuss based on facts and not made up nonsense.