Sharks are dropping like flies

[Seattle]

I dont see whats so inprobable about some guys finding a way to do things better than some of the bigger airlines ... im sure some allready do what we do but many dont so im just offering a place for those that dont to learn the tactics of the bigger airlines and improove theyr game and chances of success...

And im beeing secretive about it because otherwise how should we ever hope to fill our ranks? Our system works better and faster the more airlines we have but with all the big competition around we would never grow ... so dont go down all high and mighty on me because when I look at your airline im quite certain you realy dont know what im talking about.

Well, I am not really very active in either Game 1 or 3..... So you cant really judge.


and Dazz81 - "Seattle should learn to zip it once in a while." - Way to go with that negative attitude. I didnt respond in a negative attitude, all I said was that the alliance I am in is doing fine.... I think your confusing me with someother Star alliance member (when it comes to this).... becuase I rarely even talk about beta vs. non-beta players, let alone "flog to death" the idea....

[deepblue501]

I think some of the big airlines declare bankruptcy because the player gets bored or finds it too hard to keep track of so many routes/aircraft (esp. when they reach C or D checks together). 

Also, I think some of the big ones have failed because they over-ordered new planes (I think this happened to Zzz) and I suspect that they arrived when the player hadn't logged on for a while.  Just from looking at the used aircraft market straight after there are many many new aircraft with zero hours flown.  If you have an owned fleet your value is usually good enough to borrow the money to get back on track, however if you don't log on for a week or so you don't get the opportunity to take advantage of it. 

i fully agree with this. Chipping in finally on this subject, I think my airline was the biggest that went bankrupt over the last weeks. THe main reasons are as follows:
- impossibility to keep up with maintenance, and especially schedule it, when you have 400+ a/c (for that matter anything over a 100 makes it very complicated already, i have repeated many times we need advance maintenance scheduling, but it seems it does not have any effect on sami and other devs)
- too many leased planes. This is not a good strategy. It does allow for quick expansion but ultimately leads to insanely high leasing/insurance costs.
- lack of expansion possibilities. If you can't have a second hub and you are not operating out of LHR, HKG or ORD you are doomed. Because you will have to accept low L/F 1st leg routes, even if you start second leg routes from other airports, as the PAX demand is simply not enough to allow you to fly 10+ connections per day to another airport in order to start 2nd legs from there. I have also pointed this out as a huge problem on many ocassions.

i'm not saying it's all AWS' programming fault, definetely not, I also slowly got bored with micromanaging 400+ a/c in a not so user friendly and very time consuming lay out and furthermore i made some tactical mistakes. But, the game still needs a lot of tweaking to avoid these improbable occurances. That said, AWS is a great game and I feel Sami and the devs have done a great job in at least getting their first version online. Now it's time to improve. 

By the way, I started again with Omani in Muscat. Have a look...

[bukatino2000]

i fully agree with this. Chipping in finally on this subject, I think my airline was the biggest that went bankrupt over the last weeks. THe main reasons are as follows:
- impossibility to keep up with maintenance, and especially schedule it, when you have 400+ a/c (for that matter anything over a 100 makes it very complicated already, i have repeated many times we need advance maintenance scheduling, but it seems it does not have any effect on sami and other devs)
- too many leased planes. This is not a good strategy. It does allow for quick expansion but ultimately leads to insanely high leasing/insurance costs.
- lack of expansion possibilities. If you can't have a second hub and you are not operating out of LHR, HKG or ORD you are doomed. Because you will have to accept low L/F 1st leg routes, even if you start second leg routes from other airports, as the PAX demand is simply not enough to allow you to fly 10+ connections per day to another airport in order to start 2nd legs from there. I have also pointed this out as a huge problem on many ocassions.

i'm not saying it's all AWS' programming fault, definetely not, I also slowly got bored with micromanaging 400+ a/c in a not so user friendly and very time consuming lay out and furthermore i made some tactical mistakes. But, the game still needs a lot of tweaking to avoid these improbable occurances. That said, AWS is a great game and I feel Sami and the devs have done a great job in at least getting their first version online. Now it's time to improve. 

By the way, I started again with Omani in Muscat. Have a look...

Hi Deep, I´m in your alliance and I'm sorry for your going bankruptcy.  i think you issue is central at this point. The thing is we must consider if going bunkruptcy is good for the game/players. I think it is good and also necessary within the game rules. Like it is in the real world. It is the result of bad strategy or of external not manageble situations bringing to dead. Again like RL. I personally wish to have a game with a lot of bunkrupts, signal that the game is difficult and ending...[font=Verdana]more fun[/font]. I think this is the wish of many "professional" players; to have a game with a lot of fun. But fun does not come having necessary 400 a/c or billion dollars in my opinion. If you decided that, it was your strategy and your managing. Game do not to provide necessarily a solution for that.  I do not know if the automatization of the game is a good direction. Maybe for some operations it is. Game should offer diversification in business planning areas such as cargo or tourism or business operator or other commercial activity and not only the "growth" as possible business option. Would like to have other player's opinion about that

[deepblue501]

bukatino, i agree with you on that. I'm not complaining about going bankrupt, i'm just pointing out what were the reasons. I think indeed it is realistic that airlines go bankrupt and, although it was quite sad after having built up an emporium in 2 months, i didn't mind that much letting go of sherwood.

all in all i think if there is mismanagement or wrong choices airlines should go bankrupt, but i don't think i made that many wrong choices to go bankrupt. I mean, my L/F was constantly high, my image was high, my a/c were not very old, i kept a tight check on maintenance until the moment where the sheer volume of a/c just became overwhelming.