New Plane Orders

[George Bush]

Ok Just saw something that I got really confused about. How if I have had orders lined up from the start (launch customer and all) Would another airline have double the planes already that I do? How are they getting double the deliveries.... Actually might be more than double.

[Matt Elphick]

If they ordered more planes that you then there's may be coming more frequently. Also do you know how many more/less they ordered?

[schro]

Only way to do that is to get someone else to buy the planes new and resell them to you.....

[George Bush]

I ordered 50 followed by 50 they appear to just stack not trickle in to no more than 2 month.. Its been launch from 2000 and its 2003 so at most 72 planes? So how does he have 169 some odd planes.....

[George Bush]

Only way to do that is to get someone else to buy the planes new and resell them to you.....

Must be what he have at least 2 people do it for him. Not to mention all owned aircraft so they sold it within the alliance. I guess I'm just baffled haha

[Zombie Slayer]

346 737NG in 4.2 years in GW1 thanks to the help of alliance mates. As long as there is a 3 type limit and no relief during fleet renewal, it is a necessary evil for any medium/large airline in these 80 year game worlds. In a perfect world, I would have ordered Caravelle, DC-9, 727, MD-80, 737-3/4/5, 737-7/8/9/Max for a short haul progression and, maybe, DC-8, DC-10, 767, 777 much like a real airline, but doing that in AWS is a one way ticket to a spectacular bankruptcy. The only solution is to keep 2 main types flying until you get to your final fleet configuration and then, and only then, add that 3rd type which is exactly what I am doing. Along the way, however, 734 DC-9's were put into service (more than that even since many early models ere replaced even before 737NG deliveries started) which would take -25 years- to replace at standard delivery rates. There is no other way to successfully navigate an 80 year game than to play the plane trading game.....

[Luperco]

How can you replace 734 planes?

It would take 25 years of real time to me :-)

[Zombie Slayer]

How can you replace 734 planes?

It would take 25 years of real time to me :-)

Its a pain in the @$$ to say the least. Average of about 10 planes a day at about 3 minutes per plane = over 50 real days and 25 or more hours of work (more than likely more seeing as some are 7 day scheduled and those take significantly longer to swap!)

[George Bush]

Its a pain in the @$$ to say the least. Average of about 10 planes a day at about 3 minutes per plane = over 50 real days and 25 or more hours of work (more than likely more seeing as some are 7 day scheduled and those take significantly longer to swap!)

So essentially if your a strong player and cant find strong partners to play with then you cant really progress with the current limitations. Really you need to either have more production slots and be able to get more than 2 a month. Even better NERF the 4th fleet penalty big time. So many things in this game are spot on yet the 4th fleet which is meant to help the little guy is really in cases like this harming him.

Id venture to say the 4th fleet penalty hurts the little player more than it does the big players with strong alliances.

[Zombie Slayer]

So essentially if your a strong player and cant find strong partners to play with then you cant really progress with the current limitations. Really you need to either have more production slots and be able to get more than 2 a month. Even better NERF the 4th fleet penalty big time. So many things in this game are spot on yet the 4th fleet which is meant to help the little guy is really in cases like this harming him.

Id venture to say the 4th fleet penalty hurts the little player more than it does the big players with strong alliances.

I couldn't agree more, Ross. There are several well thought out and debated feature requests about fleet commonality in the requests forum, please feel free to add your ideas to them. Relief from the current system will benefit all!

[gazzz0x2z]

The problem if you nerf 4th fleet penalty is that the big boys are gonna crush everyone else.

We need smarter ways to limit their power, like dividend.

[George Bush]

The problem if you nerf 4th fleet penalty is that the big boys are gonna crush everyone else.

We need smarter ways to limit their power, like dividend.

See I just totally disagree they already are since they can push out brand new paid for planes in cash at 3x the rate. Most of the big boys get to a point anyways where I notice they have 4-5 fleets in use still making a billion dollars... Havent figured that one out either.

The fleet commonality hurts the little guy more than the big guy.

[Zombie Slayer]

The problem if you nerf 4th fleet penalty is that the big boys are gonna crush everyone else.

We need smarter ways to limit their power, like dividend.

I am not against the 4th fleet penalty TBH, but there does need to be a way to accommodate fleet renewal. Expanding commonality to like types is one idea (is all DC-9's, from the -10 to the 717, should share one type, fleets that IRL share comminality, such as the 757/767 and A330/40  and A350 should as well), and allowing outgoing types to be marked as being retired as long as the number of frames in the fleet constantly decline's  (using, say, a 6 month moving average) and therefore not counting toward the 3 types are a couple of those ideas. Just relief is needed, not a full removal. If that penalty is removed, a big limiter that keeps the mega huge in check is gone. It serves a purpose, it is just out dated based on today's AWS.

[bdnascar3]

there does need to be a way to accommodate fleet renewal.

too bad you can't limit penalty to just new routes, old routes would be exempt.

[jotagrande]

I think there is something screwy with the production schedules and it bugs me too that mega airlines order lots of popular aircraft whether they intend to use them or not. Yes, buying to lease out is a valid, realistic strategy but it bugs me that production lines get clogged up this way. Also, what determines how production slots get assigned? Certainly not first come first served. I ordered some planes then a few game months later a competitor ordered same thing but he will get his first 2 full years before I get my first even though I ordered more and before him. I realise the strippers I offered to Boeing sales rep were really skanky, but I don't understand why my competitor will get his planes before me and by such a long period of time. Oh well, I'll deal with it and offer better looking 'perks' next time I order planes.

If the 4th fleet penalty is meant to contain mega airlines then why not make the penalty based on fleet number? The larger the fleet the bigger the penalty. It kicks in after reaching a certain number of planes and gets worse the more you have. I thought it was supposed to work like that anyway. But on the other hand why should someone be penalised just because they have a big airline and they want to change to a different fleet?

But really, the only way to contain the mega airlines is to simply put a cap on fleet size. That way if you want to be the top airline it's more about efficient use of the fleet rather than having the most. Besides, how many planes across all airlines can physically be based at any one airport? Can each of the LHR based airlines have 300 planes based there in reality? Not enough parking spaces even taking into account that at any point in time many of those planes will be in the air or at destination airport. Maybe each airport needs a "resident" plane number cap. Say, 500 planes can be based at LHR, whether it's one airline or 10. This can probably be exploited too, however.

I think the real thing to contain mega airlines is to introduce aircraft crashes which greatly affect CI. Aircraft are randomly lost based on historical percentages. Let's say 100 737s were built, 6 crashed so 6% of 737s in AWS will be lost. The mega airlines have a higher likelihood of loosing a plane or two because they have so many of them. They take a big CI hit which will take time and money to recover from.

Random, serious, single airline events are they only way to contain mega airlines. People work their way around any rule change and its hard to implement something that doesn't hurt the little guy more than the intended big guy.

[Cardinal]

If the 4th fleet penalty is meant to contain mega airlines then why not make the penalty based on fleet number? The larger the fleet the bigger the penalty. It kicks in after reaching a certain number of planes and gets worse the more you have. I thought it was supposed to work like that anyway.

It does work this way. No penalty at all for 1-99 planes. 100+ and the penalty kicks in, small at first. It also matters which aircraft sizes you have. If they're all medium, they have lower MX costs so multiplying it doesn't break the bank. 1 medium + 3 large types, you'll have a harder time of it. And if any of them are VLA you'll be paying a visit to the bankruptcy judge pretty quickly, especially as you approach 500 planes.

But on the other hand why should someone be penalised just because they have a big airline and they want to change to a different fleet?

Exactly. Success is punished.

But really, the only way to contain the mega airlines is to simply put a cap on fleet size. [...] Maybe each airport needs a "resident" plane number cap. Say, 500 planes can be based at LHR, whether it's one airline or 10. This can probably be exploited too, however.

The number of planes is effectively capped by the runway capacity at LHR, as represented by the number of takeoff slots. The limited slots also effectively limits competition. It's not possible for three airlines to all fly every route, there's just not enough slots. There is some overlap but there are so many available routes that everyone ends up with different networks.

But each airport has its own set of challenges. ATL, for example, is virtually unlimited in runway capacity. Only the morning rush hours (5-8am) run out of slots. But ATL is, in real life as in AWS, an overwhelmingly domestic airport, approximately a 90%/10% split. Yes, it has international demand but not to as many places as LHR and nowhere near the same number of pax. And the unlimited slots makes ATL ripe for competition. It's possible for three or four airlines to serve every available route (provided there are slots at the destination; see LHR), and still have slots available for yet another startup. Would it be fair to limit both LHR and ATL to the same number of aircraft? ATL has a lot more room but a lot more smaller destinations <100 pax/day, so it has many more RJs based there.

People work their way around any rule change and its hard to implement something that doesn't hurt the little guy more than the intended big guy.

Most of the rule changes designed to rein in the mega airlines end up making it harder for startups.

[George Bush]

Most of the rule changes designed to rein in the mega airlines end up making it harder for startups.

Could not agree more. Im getting better but its a mix of mega airlines and mega alliances. Even if you are very large you cant compete without having the very large friends...

[Maarten Otto]

If everyone is playing the same game then yes... it's killing the new start ups.

If you enter a game which is pretty much crowded already (like I did in MT1) then why on earth would you do the same thing over and over again like flying the big jets out of an over saturated airport like you always do? Find yourself a nice airport from which you can start a regional airline using 17 to 30 seaters. I did and you'll be surprised how fast you can grow using premium prices. When you have a stable financial income you expand to a bigger airport with your niche 30 seaters and force yourself in the market. Yes, slot costs are going to be your pain in the A.

But hey, it works.   Just try it some time and see if you like to try a new approach in playing the game.

[Luperco]

In my opinion the actual rules are OK. They give the right challenge for both small and big airlines.

They lead to an UNREALISTIC world, in term of aircraft per airline,  but is is a game. Isn't it?

The real problem here is the interface. Plane assignment, routes creation and editing,  informations retrieval, ecc,  all require billions of clicks and browsing. That is very time (real life time) demanding. Of course bigger is the airline and higher is the time spent in doing repetitive and boring tasks.

I think that the developers should pay more attention to this aspect before any other thingsthings.

[Scott]

In GW4 the a330/340 line is booked up until 1999 or 14 years after releasing this morning.  I don't want the aircraft personally but I do get frustrated when this happens.  All you have to do is be offline for a day to be completely screwed by missing a release.  The main reason seems to be the ability for some airlines to place orders in excess of 100 (180 in one case) and totally block up the line for years. lets just consider that for a moment, 180 wide body airliners of one type to one operator, that is simply absurd. Unfortunately, the 4/7th fleet penalty does this as does the allocation of production slots.

Can't increased production reflect orders more quickly and can the new slots be available in their position rather then moving up the schedule of existing orders?