AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Rule change/clarification for discussion  (Read 7202 times)

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4459
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2017, 02:54:25 AM »
basically, what is prohibited, is to make profit on planes that one bought before, so why shouldnt there be a simple algortihm implemented:

Yet.... that practice is not prohibited, at all.

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #101 on: December 19, 2017, 08:53:52 AM »
Not knowing the ticket price is good,you also not know what seats your competitor uses(HD,standard or premium)
If all is open then you just copy paste,what fun is that?

well, thats called competition i guess. but this game seems to be more about who is online at the right time to get the perfect plane, instead of competing for the passengers. thats kind of the basis of any business, that one knows what product at what price the competition offers.

Yet.... that practice is not prohibited, at all.

well, de jure, it maybe isnt. de facto, it is. because if you buy a plane cheaply from one airline and resell it expensively to another airline, you basically incriminate yourself. in a case i was involved in (mea culpa!), someone got punished for just offering planes for sale that were later resold by another airline and for buying planes that one needs and actually uses. a clear set of rules would help.

Another overly complicated “answer” for a question no one asked.

If it takes more than once sentence to explain then it isn’t worth implementing.

please dont take it personally, but i think that philosophy you have, that its no good if it doesnt fit in one sentence, that sounds like out of "donald trumps rules for life for people with attention deficite disorder" ;) or to quote einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8038

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #102 on: December 19, 2017, 08:58:45 AM »
well, thats called competition i guess. but this game seems to be more about who is online at the right time to get the perfect plane, instead of competing for the passengers. thats kind of the basis of any business, that one knows what product at what price the competition offers.

I think the latest game just started (GW3) got the balance of UM, production lines, slot costs just right (after 2 less then ideal starts, IMO).

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4210
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #103 on: December 19, 2017, 09:46:41 AM »
I think the latest game just started (GW3) got the balance of UM, production lines, slot costs just right (after 2 less then ideal starts, IMO).

Still a lot of BK, the right balance is hard to find. But it's interesting. I'm on the edge of survival right now.

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8038

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #104 on: December 19, 2017, 09:50:09 AM »
I think majority of BKs are players overextending themselves (getting too many aircraft or getting aircraft that is too expensive) with very little cash left.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16931
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #105 on: December 19, 2017, 12:11:36 PM »
well, de jure, it maybe isnt. de facto, it is. because if you buy a plane cheaply from one airline and resell it expensively to another airline, you basically incriminate yourself. in a case i was involved in (mea culpa!), someone got punished for just offering planes for sale that were later resold by another airline and for buying planes that one needs and actually uses. a clear set of rules would help.

All the airlines punished this time were involved from where I have to look at it (= how the aircraft were moved). If you buy a plane and ten years later sell it to an alliance partner and gain a nice profit, it is just fine.

Since I assume we talk about Garuda airline, I see that he was involved just as well in these three sales:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/104920/
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/108861/
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/115443/
I do not know what the original plan was but the fact is that they were rotated very quickly with money benefit through this one airline and the end user (owner) is the one that transferred money help there.


To sum up some scenarios, for the future:

 - Buy used aircraft for $10mil, use it for some years, then sell it to an alliance partner (or whomever) for $20mil - Just fine!

 - Buy new aircraft from factory, and sell it immediately when delivered to you (at whatever the price is) - Fine!

 - Buy one used aircraft from alliance partner and decide not to use it, and scrap it. - Fine, if it's only a single aircraft.

 - Do the same for 20 aircraft in a row - Not fine.

 - Buy an used aircraft from another airline at $10mil, sell it within a year back to the same airline for $20mil - Not fine, if done for many aircraft.

...any other scenarios?

The idea is that you are not penalized or restricted for doing normal transactions, profit or no profit for you, but if you repeat it with the same airlines / same group and create a pattern of transferring money to one airline it will be against the rules. Simple.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 12:15:53 PM by Sami »

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #106 on: December 19, 2017, 12:43:59 PM »
hi sami,
thank you for your posting. just to clarify, since its easier for everyone to adhere to rules if they are clear, so i came up with some other scenarios:

1) buying 19 aircraft from an alliance partner and scrapping them is ok? (20 seems to be a random number... so just checking since there are 18 numbers between 1 and 20)
2) buying 21 aircraft from a non-alliance partner and scrapping them is ok? (since you specifically stated the alliance-membership)
3) leasing 1 to 100 planes for ages at max price and cancelling the lease after min lease period is ok? (sounds like a nice way to loose money to me... just trying to evade taxes  :laugh: )
4) regarding "Buy an used aircraft from another airline at $10mil, sell it within a year back to the same airline for $20mil - Not fine, if done for many aircraft."
   a) how many is "many aircraft"?
   b) it says in the manual that "money transfers" are prohibited between alliance partners, it doesnt say anything about airline outside the alliance. this rule seems now in contrast
       to that rule.
5) buying planes from an airline and leasing them back to that airline at ridiculously low prices is ok?

will try thinking of more ways still ;) thanks in advance for your reply and  the time you invest!
kind regards,
dani

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2017, 12:55:57 PM »
got one more:

6) selling a plane that is in high demand at min price to an airline that is able to resell it at max price on the open market? (either within or outside an alliance? or maybe not 1 but 50 planes?)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 01:06:09 PM by dandan »

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4459

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2017, 03:04:07 PM »
hi sami,
thank you for your posting. just to clarify, since its easier for everyone to adhere to rules if they are clear, so i came up with some other scenarios:

So.... the point of the examples is to demonstrate the spirit of the rules and what they are intended to address. There's significant human judgement that would go into a determination of violation of the current/future rules, which can look different in every situation. The point is not to set a hard limit, but to give a general feel for what is appropriate versus not. I would NOT take 20 as a hard limit either way - 5 or 10 planes could be considered inappropriate depending on the context of it. He had also stated with the rule change that it will be removed from the alliance section and put into the main section of rules as it's intended to apply to all players. Given that, I'll take a stab at responding - sami can correct me if I'm wrong :-).

1. Spirit of rules applies here, see above.
2. Spirit of rules applies and all players affected, see above.
3. While not specifically called out, it's a cash transfer. Though, typically those sorts of arrangements do not save a dying airline thus you won't see them frequently.
4. Spirit of rules and human judgement applies here, see above.
5. Buy/leaseback transactions are permitted, within bounds of minimum/maximum aircraft sale values.
6. Spirit of rules applies here as well, it's a transaction to move cash to another airline....

Offline Fidiasz

  • Members
  • Posts: 117
    • Gruchotki

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2017, 03:33:34 PM »
So.... the point of the examples is to demonstrate the spirit of the rules and what they are intended to address. There's significant human judgement that would go into a determination of violation of the current/future rules, which can look different in every situation. The point is not to set a hard limit, but to give a general feel for what is appropriate versus not. I would NOT take 20 as a hard limit either way - 5 or 10 planes could be considered inappropriate depending on the context of it. He had also stated with the rule change that it will be removed from the alliance section and put into the main section of rules as it's intended to apply to all players. Given that, I'll take a stab at responding - sami can correct me if I'm wrong :-).

1. Spirit of rules applies here, see above.
2. Spirit of rules applies and all players affected, see above.
3. While not specifically called out, it's a cash transfer. Though, typically those sorts of arrangements do not save a dying airline thus you won't see them frequently.
4. Spirit of rules and human judgement applies here, see above.
5. Buy/leaseback transactions are permitted, within bounds of minimum/maximum aircraft sale values.
6. Spirit of rules applies here as well, it's a transaction to move cash to another airline....
If rule, and punishment for breaking it as well, cannot be precise, than this shouldn't be rule at all. It depends way too much on human judgment, mood, spirit and is very unclear.

But, well, I'm not arguing, just thinking out loud.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 03:38:06 PM by Fidiasz »

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4459

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #110 on: December 19, 2017, 03:41:42 PM »
If rule, and punishment for breaking it as well, cannot be precise, than this shouldn't be rule at all. It depends way too much on human judgment, mood, spirit and is very unclear.

But, well, I'm not arguing, just thinking out loud.

But isn't that the point? If you run your airline like a rational business person, then this unprecise rule will never impact you. It's only when you begin to do irrational things (transferring money to other airlines instead of keeping it for yourself) that it becomes a problem....

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #111 on: December 19, 2017, 03:48:07 PM »
So.... the point of the examples is to demonstrate the spirit of the rules and what they are intended to address. There's significant human judgement that would go into a determination of violation of the current/future rules, which can look different in every situation. The point is not to set a hard limit, but to give a general feel for what is appropriate versus not. I would NOT take 20 as a hard limit either way - 5 or 10 planes could be considered inappropriate depending on the context of it. He had also stated with the rule change that it will be removed from the alliance section and put into the main section of rules as it's intended to apply to all players. Given that, I'll take a stab at responding - sami can correct me if I'm wrong :-).

1. Spirit of rules applies here, see above.
2. Spirit of rules applies and all players affected, see above.
3. While not specifically called out, it's a cash transfer. Though, typically those sorts of arrangements do not save a dying airline thus you won't see them frequently.
4. Spirit of rules and human judgement applies here, see above.
5. Buy/leaseback transactions are permitted, within bounds of minimum/maximum aircraft sale values.
6. Spirit of rules applies here as well, it's a transaction to move cash to another airline....

first of all: your are joking, right? i do understand a spirit of christmas (ho-ho-ho), but a "spirit of the rules" is rather ha-ha-ha. ;)
human judgement is a nice thing, certainly, but in the end its about rules that are not creating more doubts than giving answers, and since law should at least in theory bring the same justice to everyone (except you live in sudan or somewhere), there should be a certain precision about them. thats whats called "legal certainty". else i could interpret a "spirit" differently than someone else.

second of all: is there any authority you have regarding the application of rules? i am not a long-time player, so no clue if you are a game admin or just somebody who assumes to interpret the rules at will - because i can do that on my own within the rules set at the manual and we can find very different judgements. would be nice if any known admin could answer these questions; since sami is in the discussion, i would like this clarified by him.

point three: having an answer that contains a "well" and ends with "...." as the last line in your attempt to answer questions really makes the impression that 1) rules are made up on the go and 2) interpreted at will.
basically all you listed is what is called an "elastic-clause" or "ambiguous clause" in jurisprudence - if a jurisdiction is not able to define specific rules within the general set of rules, justice accepts people to interpret them their own way within the interpretability of the existing laws (which would be exactly what you did before if you do not have the authority to set rules - see the second point, or leaving a lot of legal uncertainty - see the first point).


But isn't that the point? If you run your airline like a rational business person, then this unprecise rule will never impact you. It's only when you begin to do irrational things (transferring money to other airlines instead of keeping it for yourself) that it becomes a problem....

a rational business person could say: i invest in an airline in a different country so that i can use profits from that airline later on. for example by reducing competition on the routes between that country and my country. or by getting favourable deals with that company later on. in the end, i would rather interpret it as an investment, not as a gift.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 03:51:46 PM by dandan »

Offline Fidiasz

  • Members
  • Posts: 117
    • Gruchotki
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #112 on: December 19, 2017, 03:53:20 PM »
But isn't that the point? If you run your airline like a rational business person, then this unprecise rule will never impact you. It's only when you begin to do irrational things (transferring money to other airlines instead of keeping it for yourself) that it becomes a problem....
It depends on point of view. Actually transferring funds between airlines within same alliance make sense from business point of view. Helping an allied airline is good for alliance. Ussually, I assume there is nothing wrong in caring about matters of alliance (as it is co-venture of all allied airlines) as well as your own matters.

But, still, this is just my way of seeing business relationships.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4459

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #113 on: December 19, 2017, 04:03:22 PM »
is there any authority you have regarding the application of rules?

Not at all, I just happen to have opinions that I type out from time to time.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #114 on: December 19, 2017, 04:41:10 PM »
Do you people see the cans of worms that was opened here? Better to move on and live and let live.

Offline Dasha

  • Members
  • Posts: 1078

The 4 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #115 on: December 19, 2017, 08:06:36 PM »
I think it's a rather brilliant move to be honest. Maybe not entirely legal but brilliant nonetheless :D

Credit where it's due. :)
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everything

Offline Jake S

  • Members
  • Posts: 313
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #116 on: December 20, 2017, 07:58:04 AM »
I think it's a rather brilliant move to be honest. Maybe not entirely legal but brilliant nonetheless :D

Credit where it's due. :)
All the credit must go to Sami for doing something about it...

"People who invest in aviation are the biggest suckers in the world."

Offline Dasha

  • Members
  • Posts: 1078

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #117 on: December 20, 2017, 09:44:15 AM »
I didn't mean that. Obviously.

If anybody can think of a loophole like that, they deserve some credit for that.

But alas, the world is full of bitter people :)
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everything

Offline Wreck

  • Members
  • Posts: 1328
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #118 on: December 20, 2017, 11:05:06 AM »
Actually there's a whole heap of loopholes, mass leasing to a single airline for example, that are deemed legal but can effectively be used for "legal" money transfer.

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4210

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #119 on: December 20, 2017, 11:20:08 AM »
Actually there's a whole heap of loopholes, mass leasing to a single airline for example, that are deemed legal but can effectively be used for "legal" money transfer.

But also for legit play. In previous GW3, we had a latecomer in alliance, I leased him more than 80(IIRC) E195 at alliance minimum for 15 years. He needed the planes, I ensured him he'd get the planes, but pricing was within normal limits, and he flew them until the end of the game. Of course it's intra-alliance support, as he got easy access to an excellent plane, far easier than an allianceless player that would open his company in 2020. That's help. But that's not money transfer. And even at alliance minimum, it was some welcome additional income to my small regional company.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.