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 8521 times)

Offline Wreck

  • Members
  • Posts: 1340
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #120 on: December 20, 2017, 11:31:49 AM »
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.

It may not be, but it can be. I'm not saying that all mass leases are designed to do this, just that it can be done. Effective money transfer does not need movement of physical cash. By playing with the lease prices you can transfer cash through the income/expenses of the two airlines, and that is considered legal.

Offline Jake S

  • Members
  • Posts: 349
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #121 on: December 20, 2017, 04:37:33 PM »
Indeed, i know a lot of airlines in GW2 would have been bankrupt ages ago if the didn't sell/lease so many planes (we are talking about 300m+ just on aircraft sales/leases every Q)

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

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4501
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #122 on: December 20, 2017, 08:17:13 PM »
Indeed, i know a lot of airlines in GW2 would have been bankrupt ages ago if the didn't sell/lease so many planes (we are talking about 300m+ just on aircraft sales/leases every Q)

My opponent in Poland survived 2 more years thanks to honest 707 trading. Honest, because he used those planes before replacing them, and he made an insane profit on each airframe. When he had none remaining, though, he began to experience problems...

Offline Jake S

  • Members
  • Posts: 349
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #123 on: December 20, 2017, 08:21:17 PM »
My opponent in Poland survived 2 more years thanks to honest 707 trading. Honest, because he used those planes before replacing them, and he made an insane profit on each airframe. When he had none remaining, though, he began to experience problems...
This is just as far back i can go, but this airline has survived on trading alone for the last 6-10 years...

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

Offline Wreck

  • Members
  • Posts: 1340

The 5 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #124 on: December 20, 2017, 10:40:15 PM »
That's not really the point. Plenty of us make money on genuine aircraft sales if market conditions are right (and long may it continue).

There are at least 4 ways (and there must be more) to orchestrate the movement of funds from one airline to another, mostly masquerading as legal. It seems a little silly to put a padlock on a gate when no fences have been put up.

fajartri98

  • Former member

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #125 on: December 21, 2017, 10:26:01 AM »
Hmmm i wonder what happen if i wanna help my fellow alliance member in dire financial situation by trading aircrafts....oh i know.... i'm gonna get 20 CI penalty ! awesome !
at least i can share my pax demand (which is already low enough) to my competitors and they can enjoy extra income ! :)
such easy way to earn money .... ;D






jk.

Offline deovrat

  • Members
  • Posts: 492

The 5 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #126 on: December 21, 2017, 03:48:51 PM »
This is just as far back i can go, but this airline has survived on trading alone for the last 6-10 years...

I see nothing wrong with this either.. many airlines do this, especially the smaller, regional ones when they have fulfilled all their demand and have nowhere to go next.

Buying potentially attractive aircraft with early deliveries and selling it to the market for a profit takes some vision (and some funds) and if it someone enjoys playing the game this way, then more power to them.

Offline Jake S

  • Members
  • Posts: 349

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #127 on: December 21, 2017, 11:20:42 PM »
I see nothing wrong with this either.. many airlines do this, especially the smaller, regional ones when they have fulfilled all their demand and have nowhere to go next.

Buying potentially attractive aircraft with early deliveries and selling it to the market for a profit takes some vision (and some funds) and if it someone enjoys playing the game this way, then more power to them.
The point with my post was that once that screws up on when it comes to ordering planes he is just going to bk, because there is nothing else keeping your airline afloat...

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

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17202
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #128 on: January 13, 2018, 05:10:54 PM »
FYI; been quite busy for the last weeks so no update on this yet.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #129 on: January 14, 2018, 07:01:22 PM »
Good. Frankly this shouldn’t even be up for discussion as the only winner here is the game’s black hole full of money.

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2817

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #130 on: April 13, 2019, 09:16:41 PM »
So... since the questions regarding possible scenarios havent been answered in more than a year... I would like to ask for clarification again - as it seems the rules are being changed on the go again and black letter law is being ignored.

Offline groundbum2

  • Members
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #131 on: April 13, 2019, 09:52:33 PM »
Suggested wording :

*PRIVATE* aircraft sales must only be conducted where buying/selling the aircraft is not the principle reason the aircraft was originally acquired by the seller and where the buyer intends to operate the aircraft for a meaningful period of time. The exception is when a seller has agreed to buy aircraft new from the production line to help another player, and the sale is made at or above the price paid for it.

Public sales have no rules, except there can be no tipping off by the seller or his/her agents of when an attractively priced airframe is placed on the market.

Aircraft sales under no circumstance may be used to as a way to shift assets/money from one airline to another.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 09:54:48 PM by groundbum2 »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #132 on: April 13, 2019, 11:21:57 PM »
I did in fact operate the type for a short time but removed from service after seeing diminishing returns. After the fact, sales in public domain were equally as dismal so the decision to liquidate assets and close the airline was made. I would have made the same deal to any airline that contacted me with an interest in acquisition prior to all assets being divested.

The only “party” that saw detrimental effect from my chosen way of liquidation were the AI brokers. Perhaps this is gray area but insofar at the time was not intended in malicious terms.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 11:25:25 PM by Zobelle »

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2826

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #133 on: April 14, 2019, 03:06:18 AM »
I have no horse in this race, but Europe in GW2 is a bloodbath (seriously, anyone else want to add yet another a convair/vickers into a 200 seat route that now has 2,000 daily seats...and yes someone does  ::) ).  GW2 itself is a challenge as tried and true strategies are useless in this game.  The Dutch guy had a fleet of comet 3s and 707s.  At the end of the day, buying these planes with a major international airline in AWS prior to 2/2019 was a decent strategy. Now we will all think differently for the next games.

If the sales were done in the parameters of the market and game limits, then so be it.  If the player opts to exit and liquidate planes vs taking loans to restructure, then so be it.  I might be off base, but it would be nuts to restart and lease 707s unless you like restarting repeatedly...Dubai, jfk, lhr or otherwise. 

It's one thing to challenge everyone to new challenges, but micro managing the game to this degree is ridiculous. 

The best player ever IMHO was a guy in one of my old, off-the-majors-grid, alliances who based in Lagos Nigeria and ran a small fleet of commuter planes.  He plowed all his money into buying and selling planes starting in the mid 1950s...alliance or free market.  High demand planes, and your alliance discount was the max price if he was in a good mood...often it was a "no" because he could max out the price to the highest bidder.  By the end of game he was buying and selling fleets of 777s and A340s from Nigeria for pete's sake  ( ;) to you mr. PKKO).  If that's your strategy and you can pull it off, then more power to you!

All that to say, if the actions are within the parameters of the game, then get over it! 

Hopefully you got a nice revenue boost when the Dutch guy went bankrupt. And frankly, the Dutch guy that was your competitor f'ed up and went bankrupt so now you should capitalize on it.  If there were shenanigans and he rebased in AMS...then there's probably something there, but If he opens in a new base, then consider it your opportunity to get ahead.

At the end of the day, it's a game with fairly decent rules.  i think (well fairly certain  :-[) I was the guy that triggered the overcapacity rule in the early 2010s after the howls from someone.  Fair enough, Sami is pretty good at arbitrating...in this case the overcapacity rule, with ability to limit seats on planes after I threw my own hissy fit about not being able to fly routes with large planes that could still be profitable...and then the zen balance and life/AWS moves on for the better.

My reaction when the Dutch guy went out was damn, another Comet strategy victim. This seems way overblown...and if he did offload 707s, to get them back for a quick start somewhere else, then I still don't see the issue other then waiting for his next death spiral...seriously, restarting in GW2 with 707 would be punishment enough.

Sorry for the long post / rant but to recap,with no horse in this one,I don't see what the issue is here.

If the anti trust fellow was targeted by the alliance, then Sami should determine appropriate actions to keep the game play fair and prevent bullying.

If the sales in question are in the Alliances limits to buy /sell, or non alliance then that's capitalism folks.  If you go out and exit and liquidate the fleet then so be it.  If the planes are bought low and used against you with a massive 707 invasion into AMS then raise a fuss to SAMI...but if said 707 move on to fly JFK-LHR...well good luck to whoever thinks they can make them work.

About the only thing positive I can say about gw2 so far, is thankfully I didn't get in the 707/D.C.-8 queue as fuel prices, winds, lack of demand and who knows what else there is to complain about are way out of alignment in this GW...but it's still fun enough for now

« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 03:34:39 AM by spiff23 »

Offline spiff23

  • Members
  • Posts: 2826

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussions
« Reply #134 on: April 14, 2019, 04:01:31 AM »
Ps ...I might add that there is a point to making AWS realistic...but that would then include time specific, fully regulated markets up till 1979 in the US and later in EUrope.  This would come with a pre-set limit of seats on routes and government mandated fare structures to ensure everyone shares and makes an awesome profit to advance the jet age.

So far, My verdict for GW2 is not great as it reinforces the RW thanks to the regulation that allowed the actual aviation/airline industry to advance as free-for-all capitalism and we'd all now be flying on convair-2000s  ;)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 04:04:15 AM by spiff23 »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #135 on: April 14, 2019, 06:34:51 AM »
For the record, you’re definitely not kidding about the 707. The low range variants are almost as hard to make viable as the Concorde and winds aloft/endurance ranging (ESAD) just makes things harder.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17202
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #136 on: April 14, 2019, 07:07:50 AM »
There has been no changes to the rule text as the current text is after all good enough, and covering each and every  case there is impossible. The administration has the final say and the cases where something has to be done are always rather obvious....

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2817
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #137 on: April 14, 2019, 07:20:00 AM »
Suggested wording :

*PRIVATE* aircraft sales must only be conducted where buying/selling the aircraft is not the principle reason the aircraft was originally acquired by the seller and where the buyer intends to operate the aircraft for a meaningful period of time. The exception is when a seller has agreed to buy aircraft new from the production line to help another player, and the sale is made at or above the price paid for it.

Public sales have no rules, except there can be no tipping off by the seller or his/her agents of when an attractively priced airframe is placed on the market.

Aircraft sales under no circumstance may be used to as a way to shift assets/money from one airline to another.

well, in that case, i would propose that there should be no private listings and a fixed price per aircraft and the market can take it or leave it. because seriously: an airline selling 50 or 100 planes to another at low prices, privately listed, is nothing else but a transfer of assets. imagine a CEO selling significant assets below market prices to some friends company: 1$-sallery or not, they wouldnt survive a day in their job!

the wording certainly has to be changed, since also in his explanations of a few scenarios he didnt consider most such situations and stayed very vague. but i guess didnt really feel like going the distance to do it and rather preferred to invest time in determining if an A321 at mtow +14.5t and a slight summer breeze headwind takes 3.72 or 3.74 minutes.

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2817
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #138 on: April 14, 2019, 07:24:29 AM »
There has been no changes to the rule text as the current text is after all good enough, and covering each and every  case there is impossible. The administration has the final say and the cases where something has to be done are always rather obvious....

well, of course the master of the world applies law as it feels right to him, but the second rate citizens of the world would be glad to have a clarified legal system that they can adhere to instead of your gutt-feeling in hindsight.

exactly therefore i asked for the clarification of possible cases in december 2017, and which i reminded you at various occasions since - which hasnt been done. please consider clarifying them in the future.

oh, and it is really funny that you say that the text is good enough, while it was actually you that opened the discussion (see first entry in this topic) - your recent post sounds more like stubborness than wisdom ;)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 07:53:21 AM by dandan »

Offline groundbum2

  • Members
  • Posts: 1100

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #139 on: April 14, 2019, 08:34:57 AM »
remind me, this is only a game is it not?

 :D Simon

 

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.